DRC-2021-005522 - 0901a06880e6d3f1

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-1 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

APPENDIX D

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH STUDY REPORT AND 2021 INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-2 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Phase 1 - Final Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report
and Responses to Round 2 Interrogatories

In response to a letter dated July 29, 2019 (Verbica, 2019), Phase 1 of the Basal Depth Aquifer Study
Plan (EnergySolutions, 2019 and Stantec, 2019) was developed to enhance understand the hydrogeologic
and geologic characteristics of the basal-depth aquifer at the proposed location for the Federal Cell
Facility (Facility). The hydrogeologic conditions of the first 100 feet below the Facility have already been
well characterized since the U.S. Department of Energy VITRO Chemical Company project and original
Envirocare of Utah licensing actions (Bingham Environmental, 1991 and Department of Energy [DOE]
1984a, 1984b). In addition, EnergySolutions’ subsequent licensing and permitting activities have further
characterized the subsurface beneath the Facility. These previous activities, coupled with long-term
monitoring of the shallow, unconfined aquifer, have extensively captured the hydrogeologic conditions in
the first 100 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Based on the understanding of the hydrogeologic conditions in the first 100 feet, DOE and
EnergySolutions expect the conceptual model of the Facility to include similar stratigraphy below that
first 100 feet. EnergySolutions was tasked by the Director of the Utah Division of Waste Management
and Radiation Control (Director) to validate this hydrogeologic conceptual model down to basal depths
(i.e., log the subsurface geology/stratigraphy and characterize the deep aquifer) through the installation
and sampling of a basal depth well. Data collected from Phase 1 of the Study are used to understand the
characteristics of the subsurface hydrogeology at depths exceeding 100 feet bgs (as reported in Stantec
(2020); which was separately submitted to the Director via Rogers (2020) and hereto attached as Exhibit 2
to Appendix D).
EnergySolutions hereby responds to interrogatories received on January 15, 2021 from the Director of the
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (Willoughby, 2021). Supplemental interrogatory
responses prepared by Stantec Consulting Services (Stantec, 2021) are hereto attached as Exhibit 1 to
Appendix D.
• Interrogatory #1
The Division requested information from EnergySolutions about basal aquifers at the
Facility and other hydrogeological information at depth not previously provided. The
Division acknowledges the careful field and laboratory work and the useful information
that EnergySolutions has provided to the Division through this study. However, the Division
has comments and questions regarding some of the information and interpretations of the
data. These questions should be considered in the context of the following list of rules: UAC
R313-25-8(1), UAC R313-35-9(4)(a), UAC R313-25-15(1)(a), UAC R313-25-3(6), UAC R313-
25-24(2) and (7), and UAC R313-25-27(1). Regarding the quoted paragraph above, please
indicate which of the Division Director’s requirements, as outlined in the listed rules and as
specifically requested by the Director and referenced in the study Plan, have already been
met, and which requirements still need to be met, and explain why.

Response Summary: In the letter dated July 29, 2019 (Verbica, 2019), the Director provided a
“… description of the data objectives the Division expects to be met through EnergySolutions’
assessment and characterization of the basal aquifer at the Clive facility.” The Director
emphasized the importance of the study by noting that “… a study of the unconsolidated basal
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-3 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

aquifer system is required as part of the DUPA. In addition, a basal aquifer assessment and
characterization is required by Condition 11.4 of the 11e(2) license [which has been licensed and
in operation for more than 20 years]. It is also a necessary component for evaluation of the
pending LLRW license renewal [which also has been licensed and in operation for more than 20
years].” Rather than to address the Utah Administrative Code rules cited in the Division’s
Request for Information, Phase 1 of EnergySolutions Basal Study Plan (submitted via CD19-
0185, CD19-0224, CD19-0227 and CD20-0004 and approved by the Director on December 10,
2019) was specifically prepared in response to the data quality objectives required in the
Director’s July 29, 2019 letter.

“The Director’s letters include a list of basal-depth groundwater characteristics of
interest to the Division (see Table 1). Even with the uncertainty associated with a Proof
of Process, Phase 1 has been designed to be understand these characteristics of the
basal-depth aquifer.” (Rogers, 2020).

In preparing a Study Plan that addressed the Director’s 2019 requirements and following that Plan
in preparation of the Study Report, EnergySolutions has supplied the information requested. The
latest Request’s new reference to Utah regulatory rules were not identified in the Director’s data
quality objectives nor are they commonly required by other holders of Utah’s Groundwater
Quality Discharge Permits (Eyzaguirre, 2021).

• Interrogatory #2
The Division does not see in the Report the following information requested from
EnergySolutions and found in the Plan (item numbering retained for ease of reference to
the above list):
(1) Depth of bedrock geophysical survey
(3) Top and bottom depth of each aquifer and aquitard (one or more aquifers not
described)
(6) Horizontal gradient(s) (not possible in this phase since all wells had similar x-y
coordinates)
(7) Vertical gradient(s) (the Division has concerns with some calculations made in the
Report)
(8) Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (the Division has concerns about calculations in the
Report)
(11) Groundwater age dating
(12) Distribution coefficients/retardation factors

Please (i) provide an update on plans to obtain this missing information and subsequently
report it to the Division, or (ii) justify the absence of the missing information despite having
indicated previously in the Plan that EnergySolutions would obtain and report this
information.

Response Summary: Stantec’s Report specifically identifies the purpose of the Phase 1 Study as

“Data collected from Phase 1 of the Study are used to understand the characteristics of
the subsurface hydrogeology at depths exceeding 100 feet bgs and inform
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-4 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EnergySolutions and DWMRC if development of subsequent Study phases are
warranted.” (Stantec, 2020; pg 1.1)

In their Report, Stantec concludes contaminant transport downward into basal depths of the
aquifer underlying the Clive Facility is highly unlikely.

“These results indicate limited connectivity between the shallow zones and the deeper
basal aquifer at the Facility. Given the upward component of groundwater flow, vertical
heterogeneity with aquifer zones separated by an aquitard and a semi-confined aquifer
underlain by a thick aquitard, low vertical hydraulic conductivity and observed dryness
of the aquitard zones, and the lack of response in the 30 and 50 foot deep observation
wells during the aquifer test, hydraulic communication from the shallow zones to the
deeper basal aquifer under natural conditions is unlikely.” (Stantec, 2020; pg 4.1)

Even with Stantec’s finding of negligible downward transport communication between upper and
basal-depth aquifers, EnergySolutions restates it’s offer included with Report,

“EnergySolutions welcomes the opportunity to consider through collaboration with the
Director, benefits from further field studies and analysis.” (Rogers, 2020).

• Interrogatory #3
The Division asks the following questions:
3.1 Neptune’s conceptual model (Neptune, 2015b) describes two aquifers existing in the
depth range below 25 ft and above 275 ft bgs: (i) an unconfined aquifer that extends
from the water table down to a total depth of only about 40 to 45 ft bgs, and (ii) a
deeper confined aquifer extending downwards from about 45 ft bgs. The presence of
the confined aquifer also implies a thin aquitard existing directly above it.
Neptune’s conceptual model is also provided in Bingham Environmental (1991).

Stantec (2020b), on the other hand, describes a single, undifferentiated unconfined
aquifer extending from the water table down to a depth of about 275 feet.

For depths down to 275 ft bgs, which conceptual model, if either, appears to be
correct? Please provide justification for your answer.

3.2 Neptune’s conceptual model (Neptune, 2015b) describes a single deep aquifer at
depths beyond 275 ft bgs. Stantec (2020b) describes two aquitards, as well as a leaky
aquifer, in this depth range. Which description is correct?

3.3 Please represent the correct types and locations of all aquifers and aquitards in a
revised Figure 3 for the Report.

Response Summary: Stantec was commissioned to conduct the Phase 1 Study (Rogers, 2019)
that specifically focuses on a selection of the data quality objectives from the Director’s July 29,
2019 letter (Verbica, 2019). EnergySolutions required Stantec’s efforts to focus on observations,
analysis and conclusions related to the new basal-depth well I-1-700 that was constructed in
2019. As such, Stantec was not commissioned to evaluate any analysis conducted by Neptune
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-5 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

nor have they access to any source material on which Neptune based their analysis. In Figure 3
of Report (based on data and analysis from Well I-1-700), Stantec affirms that it accurately
“:…illustrates the aquifer stratification based on the screened intervals and lithology boring.”
The analyses presented by Stantec are from physical observations of the boring, not conceptual
modeling. No further correction or revision is warranted.

• Interrogatory #4
The Division has the following questions:
4.1 Stantec (2020b) indicates that it calculated “mid-points of saturated zone
elevations”, as are found in the last column of Table 3-3, but it is uncertain as to
what that implies relative to the calculations. All the calculations for hydraulic
gradient in Table 3-4 appear to have been done differently, using instead the
freshwater mid-screen interval, corrected for buoyancy. Please clarify what was
done for what purpose and justify why.

4.2 The text refers to mid-points of the saturated zone elevations, whereas Table 3-3
gives the mid-points of the filter pack elevations as well as the mid-points of the
saturated zone elevations, and the calculations in Table 3-4 are based on the mid-
screen elevations. Why? The elevations of the mid-points of the saturated zone, mid-
points of the filter packs, and mid-points of the screen for each well are all different.
So are derivatives of each these quantities.

4.3 Based on the results of calculations shown in Table 3-4, it appears that some part of
each range of what are called the buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients associated
with the shallow aquifer well (I-1-30) indicate downward flow to any of the wells in
what Neptune (2015) has called the deep aquifer (i.e., I-1-50, I-1-100, and I-1-700).
This is because some part of each range has negative values, which, according to the
Stantec (2020b) sign convention, represents downward flow. Is this also how
EnergySolutions interprets this? Please justify your response.

4.4 Looking at Table 3-4, for the well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, how does the sum of
0.041, the freshwater mid-screen gradient, and 0.040, the buoyancy correction,
supposedly equal 0.002? The latter value is said in Stantec (2020b) to be the
buoyancy-corrected mid-screen gradient. Calculations done by the Division indicate
that this value, based on the mid-screen assumption for estimating the gradient,
should be 0.001, not 0.002 (using the Stantec sign convention for the result).

4.5 What is the overall range of vertical gradients calculated for the well pair I-1-30 and
I-1-700, when accounting for well geometry and water level elevations, as indicated
in the last column of Table 3-4? Do the negative values given for some of these data
combinations indicate (according to the Stantec convention) the possibility of
downward flow? Please justify your response.

4.6 What is the overall calculated range of corrected vertical gradients for the well pair
consisting of I-1-50 and I-1-100? Do the negative values given for each of these data
combinations indicate (according to the Stantec convention) downward flow? Please
justify your response.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-6 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

4.7 The specific gravity for groundwater in the shallow aquifer is said in Table 3-3 to be
1.032. This value, based on a single measurement for groundwater in the shallow
aquifer at a single point may not be representative of the entire aquifer. Neptune
(2015), having examined data from many dozens of wells scattered across the Clive
Facility, indicates that, for this facility, The geochemistry of the shallow, unconfined
aquifer consists of very high levels of dissolved solutes as outlined above. . . . with
TDS values ranging from 20 to 70 parts per thousand and specific gravity from 1.02
to 1.06 g/mL (Envirocare 2004, and recent site specific groundwater data acquired
by EnergySolutions).

This range of specific gravity for the shallow-aquifer groundwater, from 1.02 to
1.06, can be compared with the single value for shallow-aquifer groundwater
specific gravity of 1.032 measured in the field recently and used in the Report, which
would be more toward the bottom of the reported Neptune (2015) range.

If a value of 1.060, at the upper end of the reported range, is instead used for
illustrative purposes for groundwater in some areas of the shallow aquifer, then the
groundwater density averaged between the basal aquifer and the shallow aquifer is
equal to 1.054 g/cm3, the value of (ρa-ρf)/ρf is equal to 0.054, and a table using this
higher specific gravity for the shallow-aquifer groundwater, when presented using
the Division’s sign convention of this Interrogatory.

All calculated flow directions here are downward. This is because the sign
associated with qv, or vertical component of flow per unit area, is negative. If flow
had been upward, the sign of qv would have been positive. But, in this case, all the
values of qv are seen to have negative values.

For shallow-aquifer groundwater in this reported specific-gravity range with values
of specific gravity as low as a little more than 1.042, which is a little more than
midway across the range given by Neptune (2015), the value of (ρa-ρf)/ρf is greater
than 0.045. When this is the case, all calculated groundwater flow directions
between these two wells are still downward, regardless of the value of |dhf/dz|
chosen from the range given by Stantec (2020a) in the original Report.
Despite uncertainty about density values and gradients, it is easy to see for the
example above that the term (ρa-ρf)/ρf has a value that is nearly the same absolute
magnitude as dhf/dz, but that it has an opposite sign. Accordingly, to determine flow
direction, even for simple flow examined using an analytical model, it seems vital to
understand both (i) the signs of these two terms and (ii) their values. Please look at
density and specific gravity values found in Neptune (2015) and indicate based on
this much-larger sample what fraction of the calculated flow-direction values would
indicate upward flow, and what fraction would indicate downward flow for each
specific-gravity value in the range for each aquifer.

4.8 There’s illustrative value in using the mathematical or analytical model as Stantec
(2020b) has done, for it shows that, for a hypothetical hydrogeologically
homogeneous system, calculations indicate that flow under certain conditions would
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-7 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

be downward at the site, based on considerations of relative density as well as
freshwater head.

It must be kept in mind, however, that all analytical models like the Post et al.
(2007) model employed in the Basal Aquifer Study assume hydrogeological
homogeneity (e.g., no aquitards between aquifers). Typically, a numerical model, as
opposed to an analytical model, must be run for sites at which much heterogeneity
exists to obtain viable results. Examples are SEAWAT and SUTRA by the USGS.
Please justify, if possible, why it would be valid to do what Stantec (2020b) has done,
i.e., apply an analytical model designed for homogeneous conditions to the
heterogeneous site at Clive, where aquitards are known to exist between aquifers.

4.9 Although Stantec (2020b) says, “vertical hydraulic gradient estimates between I-1-
700 and the rest of the wells were all upward with buoyancy considered,” it is noted
that, for the specific gravity for shallow-aquifer groundwater of 1.032, Table 3-4
shows that that situation was not the case. Table 3-4 shows that for the I-1-30 and I-
1-700 pair, the buoyancy corrected vertical gradient range varies from -0.002 to
0.005. The lower part of this range, i.e., from -0.002 to slightly below zero,
represents downward flow, based on the Stantec (2020b) sign convention. Why is
Stantec not using the values in the negative range? Please justify your answer.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 4 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #5
It appears that a direct hydraulic response had not propagated to Well I-1-50 (screened at a
depth of about 50 ft bgs) by the time that the reverse water-level fluctuation in that well was
noted. Based on the reference to Kim and Parizek (1997) that Stantec offers, it appears that
only an apparent mechanical deformation response in the aquitard and the non-pumped
aquifer at a depth of 50 ft bgs had occurred, yielding the observed reverse water-level
fluctuation. Is this EnergySolutions’ interpretation, or does it offer an alternative possible
interpretation? The reference made by Stantec (2020) to Kim and Parizek (1997) appears to
the Division to be reasonable.

If the direct hydraulic propagation had not reached up to 50 ft bgs by that time, then that
would explain why, by that time, no direct hydraulic response had propagated to the even
more-distant shallow aquifer screened by Well I-1-30 (screened at a depth of about 30 ft
bgs).

Well I-1-30 appears to be separated from Well I-1-50 by an aquitard or semi-confining
layer. It seems logical to assume that an aquitard exists at a depth of about 45 ft bgs
between those two wells, since Neptune (2015) says that, above that depth, there is an
unconfined aquifer, and below that depth, there is a confined aquifer. For the latter to be
confined, there must be an aquitard above it.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-8 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Does a lack of discernible drawdown response in Well I-1-30 throughout the pumping test
show limited hydraulic connection between Well I-1-700 and Well I-1-30 over the duration
of the pumping test or for all time? Please justify your response.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 5 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #6
What is the justification for assuming both in the implementation of the Cooper-Jacob
(1946) method and in the implementation of the Theis (1935) method that the tested aquifer
is 325 feet thick? Substantial evidence in the Report indicates that, instead of a single 325-
foot-thick aquifer, the sediments screened in Well I-1-700 and Well I-1-100 respectively
represent at least two distinct aquifers, each of much smaller saturated thickness, which are
separated by a significantly thick aquitard. Field and laboratory observations and
measurements support this conclusion.

One line of evidence that a substantial aquitard lies between the two aquifers is based on
field data. This apparent aquitard is shown in the Stantec Form to consist of 44.5 feet of
sediments extending from 274.5-319.0 ft bgs. Based on this Soil Boring/Lithology Form, this
apparent aquitard contains many dry zones. The descriptions in the Form note these dry
zones occur specifically at 274.5-277 ft, 286.5-287 ft, 287-297 ft, 297-299 ft, 310-314.5 ft, and
314.5-319 ft bgs. Some of these zones are hard, dense or both. Soil from 289-297 ft bgs, for
example, is said to be "very hard, dense, dry." From 314.5-319 ft bgs, soil is said in the
Form to be "dense and dry." These data suggest that much of this interval (from 274.5-319
ft bgs) is relatively hard and/or dry, indicating that it would tend, on the whole, to act as an
aquitard.

Laboratory hydraulic-conductivity testing confirms this assessment. An “undisturbed
sample. . . representative of aquitard material”, is how a sample sampled from 297.5-298.0
ft bgs is described in the Report. The Report describes this sample as being “reddish-brown
clayey sand.” Table 3-2 of the Report indicates that the vertical component of hydraulic
conductivity (Kv) measured in the lab for this sample is only 2.60 x 10-5 cm/s. That is a
relatively small value, consistent with that of an aquitard.

Experts in the field of well hydraulics indicate that the saturated thickness of a semi-
confined aquifer like the aquifer screened by I-1-700 is simply the thickness of the aquifer
material (located between a confined layer and an aquitard) that is saturated. For example,
Boonstra and Soppe (2017) say,
The saturated thickness is equal to the physical thickness of the aquifer between the
aquicludes above and below it . . . The same is true for the confined parts of a leaky aquifer
bounded by an aquitard and an aquiclude. . . the saturated thickness is a constant.

In other words, the saturated thickness does not include any aquitard or aquiclude
material. The saturated thickness thus does not include material in two separate aquifers,
just in one. Neither does the saturated thickness depend on the height of the potentiometric
surface. The saturated thickness for a semi-confined aquifer is thus a constant.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-9 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

It appears to the Division that, for this site, employing for calculation purposes a saturated
thickness of 36 feet, rather than 325 feet, is the only approach that makes sense. Using a
saturated thickness of 325 feet instead of 36 feet would seemingly render the results of the
analysis conducted by Stantec (2020b) inaccurate by a significant amount. The Division has
previously addressed this. Is there a reason why EnergySolutions would continue to choose
to conduct the analysis using a value of 325 feet? Please justify your answer.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 6 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #7
The Hantush (1960) method specifically requires data from an observation well, rather than
from a pumping well, or a control well, to be employed. ASTM D6028, which describes how
to analyze data using the modified Hantush (1960) method, directs users who would use it to
“construct one or more observation wells or piezometers screened only in the pumped
aquifer at a distance from the control well”. So, data for drawdown must come from one or
more observation wells or piezometers located in the pumped aquifer some distance from
the pumping or control well.

While data obtained from groundwater levels measured in a pumping or control well may
be of interest qualitatively, such data has limited or no quantitative significance in the
Hantush (1960) method. There are several reasons, among which are those described in
ASTM (2017). In a footnote in ASTM (2017), which references Moench (1985), it says, “data
from the pumped well are affected by variations in the pumping rate, effects of well-bore
storage, and the ‘skin’ (a zone around the well hydraulically different from the native
materials because of disturbance and alteration caused by well drilling and construction).”
These factors mean that drawdown data taken from the pumping well cannot be utilized
directly in the Hantush (1960) method to arrive at accurate parameter-estimation results.
Data from external observation wells must be employed. Such data are not employed in the
Stantec (2020b) study.

Additionally, Moench (1985) explains how it is possible during well testing to make an
adaptation in the testing method to reduce the error from well-bore storage effects by up to
five orders of magnitude. Usually, this adaptation involves packing off the screened interval,
injecting water, and monitoring the rise of water levels in the observation wells or
piezometers. Such an adaptation was not used during aquifer testing at Clive.

Other researchers and practitioners likewise discourage attempts to analyze pumping tests
in semi-confined or leaky aquifers using only data from a pumping well. Typically, either
piezometers or observation wells distinct and separate from the pumping well are required.
In addition, such points of measurement are required from not just a single layer, but from
multiple layers. For instance, Kruseman and de Ridder (1992) say, For a proper analysis of
a pumping test in a leaky aquifer, piezometers are required in the leaky confined aquifer, in
the aquitard, and in the upper unconfined aquifer.

Please justify use of the Hantush (1960) method in the Report without utilizing data from an
observation well or a piezometer as is required by the method.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-10 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 7 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #8
Please justify implementation of the Hantush (1960) method of analysis for analyzing
drawdown test data in Well I-1-700 when (i) that method is based on an assumption of
constant head in the non-pumped aquifer, shown through field data to have been violated in
the overlying aquifer during the test, and (ii) the method was employed despite Neuman and
Witherspoon (1969a) warning that Hantush (1960) analysis of aquifer test data assuming
constant head in an unpumped aquifer can “lead to significant errors at large values of
time.”

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 8 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #9
Please justify the lack of use of drawdown data from the aquitard when implementing the
Neuman and Witherspoon (1969b) method.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 9 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #10
Considering the previous discussions about the limitations of the several aquifer-test
analysis methods applied, please justify, in a rigorous way, why the values of any of the
parameters in Table 3-5 should be considered accurate, or even approximate.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 10 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #11
This value for storativity (2.354x10-10) is very far outside the range of values for storativity
(S) reported by others for aquifer materials found in the subsurface. Storativity values for
confined aquifers are said to generally range from 5×10-5 to 5×10-3 (Todd, 1980). Since Well
I-1-100 is said to have been screened across an aquifer, and Bingham Environmental (1981)
and Neptune (2015) identify this aquifer as being confined, its storativity would normally be
assumed to be within the range given by Todd. Moreover, storativity is generally recognized
as not being able to be determined accurately without using data from an observation well
located some distance from the pumping well. Can Stantec justify this low storativity?

Storativity values for various subsurface materials can be calculated from reported specific-
storage values. Specific storage, Ss, is equal to S/b, where b is aquifer thickness. On
rearrangement, S = Ssb. The following is a table for ranges of Ss and S values for types and
thicknesses of aquitard and aquifer materials (with Ss ranges reported by Domenico and
Mifflin, 1965).

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-11 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The specific-storage values can also be found at http://www.aqtesolv.com/aquifer-
tests/aquifer_properties.htm#Storativity. For thicker aquifers, a value listed in one of the
two columns on the right can simply be multiplied by an appropriate factor to determine
the storativity. For example, for an aquifer 50 feet thick, the value in the right-hand column
would be multiplied by five to calculate the storativity range. Or the value in third column
could be multiplied by 50.

The lowest Ss value shown for sedimentary material in Domenico and Mifflin (1965) is 1.5 x
10-5. For layers 1, 10 and 100 feet thick, this lowest Ss value would result in estimated S
values of 1.5 x 10-5, 1.5 x 10-4, and 1.5 x 10-3, respectively. Even the lowest value for S is
about five orders of magnitude greater than the 2.354x10-10 value for S reported in Table 3-
5 of Stantec (2020b).

Since the reported S value of 2.354x10-10 in Stantec (2020b) is five orders of magnitude
lower in value than published values for S for the subsurface materials given above, or less,
the reported Stantec (2020b) storativity value of 2.354x10-10 does not appear reliable.
Besides, it is orders of magnitude smaller than other calculated values listed in the Report
for the same layer. As previously discussed, the assumption in the Report of a saturated
thickness of 325 feet used in developing the analysis is not correct. Moreover, the drawdown
data shown are drawdown data for the upper aquifer, which was separated by a substantial
aquitard from the basal aquifer being pumped. Those conditions are definitely outside of
the assumptions inherent in the Cooper-Jacob model. Please justify presenting such a
remarkably low storativity value, one that was also calculated using the Cooper-Jacob
model for drawdown for a single, pumped aquifer even though two aquifers were involved,
and the measurements were not taken in the pumped aquifer, but in a non-pumped aquifer.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 11 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #12
None of these estimated hydraulic conductivity values appear to be accurate if the
previously identified issues are indicative of actual problems in testing or analysis.
Assuming a saturated thickness of 325 feet if the saturated thickness is only 36 feet, for
example, by itself means that the estimated value of hydraulic conductivity as reported by
Stantec (2020) for the two confined aquifer cases would be too small by about an order of
magnitude since hydraulic conductivity is equal to transmissivity divided by the saturated
thickness. The assumptions required by the analysis for the confined aquifer (e.g., Cooper-
Jacob method assumptions) were not even marginally met during testing. Is this not the
case? Please justify the response.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 12 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #13
Please provide justification for the statement that “groundwater chemistry of I-1-700 is
typical of deep groundwater isolated from recharge.” What set of data is identified in the
Report that indicates that the groundwater in the aquifer screened by I-1-700 is isolated
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-12 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

from, or is typical of groundwater isolated from, recharge? A few sentences that follow the
claim made there depict the aquifer as having a relatively reducing environment. However,
while reducing environments are generally more common at depth, reducing environments
can also be found in many shallow water-bearing zones.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 13 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #14
This statement, which refers to “the observed most permeable zone from 325 to 355 ft bgs,”
seems to contradict the information in Table 3-5 indicating that the most permeable zone is
the one covering a depth range of 90-100 ft bgs. Please provide justification for this
statement.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 14 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #15
Please provide justification for the assessment given above that results of lab tests indicate
hydraulic conductivities for samples being two to three orders of magnitude lower than
aquifer-test calculated values. Data in Tables 3-2 and 3-5 do not seem to support that
assessment. Order-of-magnitude comparisons provided by data in the table values and the
assessment above seem to be off by about an order of magnitude.

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 15 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #16
Please provide justification for this conclusion. As indicated in Interrogatory #4,
uncorrected apparent hydraulic gradients for groundwater that varies in density with
depth, even in the case of hydrogeologically homogeneous systems, do not necessarily
indicate vertical flow direction. Corrections must be applied to heads in these wells to
account for groundwater-density change.

For this site, if one were to assume aquifer homogeneity, once corrections are made in the
flow equations to account for the effects of buoyancy, no evidence is given in the Report
that, in general, groundwater at the Facility does not have a downward component of flow.
Comparisons between buoyancy-corrected values in the basal aquifer and in the shallow
aquifer, for example, show that some combinations of plausible densities and hydraulic
gradients indicate an estimated downward flow component.

Moreover, the analytical equations used for making comparisons in the Report are intended
for, and would only provide reasonably accurate results for, homogeneous systems. The
analytical equations cannot and do not apply to analysis of more complex systems, e.g., ones
in which aquifer components are separated by aquitard components.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-13 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 16 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

• Interrogatory #17
The phase “poor water quality” is subjective. It is the Division’s position that this
groundwater still needs to be protected.

Response Summary: Stantec’s reference to the “poor” quality of groundwater is based on the
measured level of total Dissolved Solids (TDS) that classify the basal-depth groundwater beneath
EnergySolutions’ Clive facility as “Saline Ground Water,” (e.g., non-potable) in accordance with
Utah Administrative Code R317-6-4. The Director has used a similar reference to describe the
groundwater beneath EnergySolutions’ Clive, Utah Facility,

“The expected dose from the groundwater pathway is zero because of the poor
groundwater quality.” (Utah Division of Radiation Control, 2012; pg 93).

Neither EnergySolutions’ nor the Director’s own reference to “poor groundwater quality” imply
anything regarding the importance of groundwater resource protection.

• Interrogatory #18
An apparent hydraulic connection exists between the I-1-700 well, screened at a depth of
325-355 ft bgs, and the overlying aquitard and the aquifer above it. The latter is screened by
Well I-1-100 from 90-100 ft bgs.
Hydraulic connection is demonstrated because drawdown in the basal aquifer causes water-
level drawdown in the upper aquifer (screened from 90-100 ft bgs). A subdued impact is
expected in the upper aquifer due to groundwater head losses as the hydraulic response to
pumping propagates through an intervening aquitard. This drawdown in an unpumped
aquifer indicates that one of the primary assumptions underlying the Hantush (1960)
method is not being met.

There also appears to be a connection between groundwater in the basal aquifer and
groundwater in the aquifer material screened at about 50 feet. This is because groundwater
in Well I-1-50 has been identified as having responded to changes in head occasioned by the
pumping test in the basal aquifer with a transient reverse drawdown effect. That effect may
be due to early deformation of the aquitard and an accompanying temporary increase in
fluid pressure in the upper part of the aquitard, transmitted up to the overlying aquifer, as
described in Kim and Parizek (1997).

A more direct hydraulic response (e.g., drawdown) was not observed in Well I-1-50 during
12 hours of testing. The reason for no response during that time cannot be fully ascertained
based on the data currently provided. It has not been demonstrated yet that the length of
the pumping test was sufficient for an unconfined aquifer separated from the pumped
aquifer by two aquitards and another aquifer.

It takes time for direct hydraulic responses to propagate. This is illustrated for two different
wells, each one screened in a different aquifer, in the graph shown below, copied from
Appendix D of the Report.
Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-14 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

The displacement (i.e., drawdown) experienced by groundwater in the basal aquifer
(screened from 325-355 ft bgs) is shown in blue. This displacement is seen (i) to rapidly
increase in value over the interval between 69 and 90 seconds, and then (ii) to
asymptotically transition to a plateau displacement range of about 24-25 feet.

By contrast, the displacement experienced by groundwater in the more-elevated aquifer
screened at 90-100 ft bgs, which displacement is shown in red, does not begin to plateau
until about 10,000 seconds. The time taken to begin to approximate the plateau value is, for
this upper aquifer, about 100 times as great as the time needed for groundwater levels in the
basal aquifer to reach a plateau-level range. Instead of taking about 1 ½ minutes, as it does
for the basal aquifer, it takes about 2 ¾ hours for the upper aquifer.

While no direct hydraulic response was noted in the very shallow aquifer material above
these two aquifers during the testing period, that lack of a direct hydraulic response may
have simply been due to insufficient time allowed for a direct hydraulic response to
propagate that far upward through additional aquitard material. Considering that it took
about 100 times as great a time for the confined aquifer at 90-100 ft bgs to respond than it
took for the basal aquifer to do so, it might take considerably more time than that for an
overlying unconfined aquifer screened from 25-45 ft bgs and separated from the other
aquifers by an aquitard to respond.

What is the evidence or justification for assuming that there is “limited connectivity
between the shallow zones and the deeper basal aquifer at the Facility?” And what is the
precise meaning of the term “limited” in the statement quoted above? What is the
significance of the hydraulic connection that is shown to exist in the upper aquifer, owing to
the measured drawdown in the groundwater observed in it during the aquifer test?

Response Summary: Stantec’s responses to Interrogatory 18 are hereto attached in Exhibit 1 of
Appendix D.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-15 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

REFERENCES

Bingham Environmental, “Hydrogeologic Report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South Clive, Utah.”
Prepared for Envirocare of Utah, Prepared by Bingham Environmental. October, 1991.

DOE. “Final Environmental Impact Statement of Remedial Actions at the Former Vitro Chemical Site,
South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah.” (DOE/EIS-0099-F) U.S. Department of Energy, UMTRA
Project Office, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July, 1984.

DOE. “Remedial Action Plan and Site Conceptual Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill
Tailings Site at Salt Lake City, Utah.” (UMTRA-DOE-/EA-0141.0000) U.S. Department of Energy,
UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1984.

DOE. “Final Environmental Impact Statement - Remedial Actions at the Former Vitro Chemical
Company Site South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County Utah.” (DOE/EIS-0099-F). U.S. Department of Energy.
July 1984. Vol2. Pg. D-92.

EnergySolutions, 2019. “Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan” letter to Mr. Ty Howard, Director Utah
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control. October 3, 2019.

Personal Communication. Susan Eyzaguirre, Stantec. January 22, 2021.

Rogers, V.C. “Radioactive Material License UT2300249: Revised Phase 1 Basal-Depth
Aquifer Study Report” Letter CD-2020-149 from EnergySolutions to Ty Howard, Utah Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control. October, 2, 2020.

Rogers, V.C. “Radioactive Material Licenses UT2300249 and UT2300478: Phase 1 of the Basal-Depth
Aquifer Study Plan (Revised)” Letter CD19-0227 from EnergySolutions to Ty Howard, Utah Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control. November 12, 2019.

Stantec Consulting Services Inc, 2021. Responses to the Division’s January 15, 2021 Interrogatory.
March 10, 2021.

Stantec, 2020. Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final, Revised, v2, September 30, 2020,
Prepared for and Submitted to EnergySolutions, EnergySolutions, LLC by Stantec Consulting Services,
Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.

Stantec Consulting Services Inc, 2019. Clive Facility Basal (Deep) Aquifer Characterization Work Plan.
October 1, 2019.

Utah Division of Radiation Control. “Utah Division of Radiation Control: EnergySolutions LLRW
Disposal Facility Class A West Amendment Request – Safety Evaluation Report.” Report by URS,
Corporation. Salt Lake City. June 2012.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-16 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

Verbica, D.G. “Basal Aquifer Study” Letter to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions from the Utah Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control. July 29, 2019.

Willoughby, O.H. “Interrogatories for Basal-Depth Aquifer System Study Submitted October 3, 2020.”
Letter from the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of
EnergySolutions. January 15, 2021.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-17 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EXHIBIT 1 TO APPENDIX D

STANTEC RESPONSES TO THE DIVISION’S JANUARY 15, 2021 INTERROGATORY

Responses to Interrogatory

To: Vern C. Rogers, EnergySolutions From: Susan Eyzaguirre, PE, PG, PMP and Walter Weinig, PG, PMP
January 15, 2021 Interrogatory

Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final (as revised, submitted to the Division October 3, 2020)
INTRODUCTION
On March 13, 2020, EnergySolutions submitted to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation
Control (the Division) the Phase I Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report (the Report), prepared by Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec, 2020a). Based on interrogatories provided by the Division on August 11,
2020 EnergySolutions submitted a revised version (Stantec, 2020b) to the Division on October 3, 2020.
Subsequently the Division provided an Interrogatory of the October 3, 2020 revised report on January 15,
2021. Responses to the January 15, 2021 Interrogatory are provided in this memorandum. The
interrogatories are shown in italics, each followed by a written response.
INTERROGATORY #1
Interrogatory. The Division requested information from EnergySolutions about basal aquifers at the Facility
and other hydrogeological information at depth not previously provided. The Division acknowledges the
careful field and laboratory work and the useful information that EnergySolutions has provided to the Division
through this study. However, the Division has comments and questions regarding some of the information and
interpretations of the data. These questions should be considered in the context of the following list of rules:
UAC R313-25-8(1), UAC R313-35-9(4)(a), UAC R313-25-15(1)(a), UAC R313-25-3(6), UAC R313-25-24(2)
and (7), and UAC R313-25-27(1). Regarding the quoted paragraph above, please indicate which of the
Division Director’s requirements, as outlined in the listed rules and as specifically requested by the Director
and referenced in the study Plan, have already been met, and which requirements still need to be met, and
explain why.
Response: Response provided by EnergySolutions.
INTERROGATORY #2
Interrogatory. The Division does not see in the Report the following information requested from
EnergySolutions and found in the Plan (item numbering retained for ease of reference to the above list):
1. Depth of bedrock geophysical survey
2. Geology (sample description, logs, grain-size, porosity, void ratio, bulk density)
3. Top and bottom depth of each aquifer and aquitard (one or more aquifers not described)
4. Screened depths for the aquifer(s)
5. Hydraulic head for the aquifer(s)
6. Horizontal gradient(s) (not possible in this phase since all wells had similar x-y coordinates)
7. Vertical gradient(s) (the Division has concerns with some calculations made in the Report)
8. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (the Division has concerns about calculations in the Report) (
9. Vertical hydraulic conductivity
10. Background groundwater quality of the basal-depth aquifer
March 10, 2021
Page 2 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

11. Groundwater age dating
12. Distribution coefficients/retardation factors
Please (i) provide an update on plans to obtain this missing information and subsequently report it to the
Division, or (ii) justify the absence of the missing information despite having indicated previously in the Plan
that EnergySolutions would obtain and report this information.
Response: Response provided by EnergySolutions.
INTERROGATORY #3
Interrogatory. The Division asks the following questions:
3.1 Neptune’s conceptual model (Neptune, 2015b) describes two aquifers existing in the depth range
below 25 ft and above 275 ft bgs: (i) an unconfined aquifer that extends from the water table down to a total
depth of only about 40 to 45 ft bgs, and (ii) a deeper confined aquifer extending downwards from about 45 ft
bgs. The presence of the confined aquifer also implies a thin aquitard existing directly above it. Neptune’s
conceptual model is also provided in Bingham Environmental (1991).
Stantec (2020b), on the other hand, describes a single, undifferentiated unconfined aquifer extending from the
water table down to a depth of about 275 feet.
For depths down to 275 ft bgs, which conceptual model, if either, appears to be correct? Please provide
justification for your answer.
3.2 Neptune’s conceptual model (Neptune, 2015b) describes a single deep aquifer at depths beyond
275 ft bgs. Stantec (2020b) describes two aquitards, as well as a leaky aquifer, in this depth range. Which
description is correct?
3.3 Please represent the correct types and locations of all aquifers and aquitards in a revised Figure 3 for
the Report.
Response: Response provided by EnergySolutions.
INTERROGATORY #4
Interrogatory. The Division has the following questions:
4.1 Stantec (2020b) indicates that it calculated “mid-points of saturated zone elevations”, as are found in
the last column of Table 3-3, but it is uncertain as to what that implies relative to the calculations. All the
calculations for hydraulic gradient in Table 3-4 appear to have been done differently, using instead the
freshwater mid-screen interval, corrected for buoyancy. Please clarify what was done for what purpose, and
justify why.
Response: The mid-points of saturated zones for each unit are provided for completeness and consistency
with the language of Post et al (2007). Elevations of the middle of the filter pack are generally very close to
mid-screen elevations. Groundwater inflow to a well can occur over the filter-packed zone. The mid-point of
March 10, 2021
Page 3 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

filter pack elevation was used to calculate the vertical hydraulic gradients shown in Table 3-4. The reference
to “midscreen” in the Table 3-4 header was a carryover from the previous version of the table.
4.2 The text refers to mid-points of the saturated zone elevations, whereas Table 3-3 gives the mid-points
of the filter pack elevations as well as the mid-points of the saturated zone elevations, and the calculations in
Table 3-4 are based on the mid-screen elevations. Why? The elevations of the mid-points of the saturated
zone, mid-points of the filter packs, and mid- points of the screen for each well are all different. So are
derivatives of each these quantities.
Response: See response to Interrogatory 4.1 above regarding the different elevations. Calculations in Table 3-4 are based on the mid-point of the filter pack as being most representative of the point associated with the measured groundwater level in the well.
4.3 Based on the results of calculations shown in Table 3-4, it appears that some part of each range of
what are called the buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients associated with the shallow aquifer well (I-1-30)
indicate downward flow to any of the wells in what Neptune (2015) has called the deep aquifer (i.e., I-1-50,
I-1-100, and I-1-700). This is because some part of each range has negative values, which, according to the
Stantec (2020b) sign convention, represents downward flow. Is this also how EnergySolutions interprets this?
Please justify your response.
Response: We have discussed sign conventions and directionality in previous meetings and responses to
interrogatories. The purpose of the Stantec revised report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase
1 program, which is focused on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. It is incorrect to state that the buoyancy-
corrected calculations “indicate downward flow to any of the wells…” For example, buoyancy-corrected
vertical gradients between I-1-50 and I-1-700, and between I-1-100 and I-1-700 indicate an upward vertical
component of gradient for calculations using both mid-point of filter pack and mid-point of saturated zone
elevations.
4.4 Looking at Table 3-4, for the well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, how does the sum of 0.041, the freshwater
mid-screen gradient, and 0.040, the buoyancy correction, supposedly equal 0.002? The latter value is said in
Stantec (2020b) to be the buoyancy-corrected mid-screen gradient. Calculations done by the Division indicate
that this value, based on the mid-screen assumption for estimating the gradient, should be 0.001, not 0.002
(using the Stantec sign convention for the result).
Response: The reported result is the result of rounding and the number of significant digits reported in each
calculation. Carried to three significant figures, the result is 0.00152 which rounds to 0.002 with one significant
digit of precision. The conclusion of an upward vertical gradient is not altered whether a rounded value of
0.001 or 0.002 is evaluated.
4.5 What is the overall range of vertical gradients calculated for the well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, when
accounting for well geometry and water level elevations, as indicated in the last column of Table 3-4? Do the
negative values given for some of these data combinations indicate (according to the Stantec convention) the
possibility of downward flow? Please justify your response.
Response: The overall range of calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients for the well pair I-1-30 and
I-1-700 is -0.002 (downward) to +0.005 (upward) as shown in the last column of Table 3-4. The range is
based on assuming either mid-filter pack elevation or mid-aquifer elevation for the gradient calculation with
the same well pair. Gradient calculations are between two points in an aquifer and are independent of the
March 10, 2021
Page 4 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

nature of the aquifer material itself. The Stantec (2020b) report describes the results of the Phase 1 program.
Evaluations of groundwater flow would require additional assessments that are outside the scope of this
study.
4.6 What is the overall calculated range of corrected vertical gradients for the well pair consisting of
I-1-50 and I-1-100? Do the negative values given for each of these data combinations indicate (according to
the Stantec convention) downward flow? Please justify your response.
Response: The overall range of calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients for the well pair I-1-50 and I-1-100 is -0.009 to -0.001 as shown in the last column of Table 3-4. The direction of the calculated gradients is downward between those two wells at a single point in time. Evaluations of groundwater flow are outside the scope of this study.
4.7 The specific gravity for groundwater in the shallow aquifer is said in Table 3-3 to be 1.032. This value,
based on a single measurement for groundwater in the shallow aquifer at a single point, may not be
representative of the entire aquifer. Neptune (2015), having examined data from many dozens of wells
scattered across the Clive Facility, indicates that, for this facility, the geochemistry of the shallow, unconfined
aquifer consists of very high levels of dissolved solutes as outlined above with TDS values ranging from 20 to
70 parts per thousand and specific gravity from 1.02 to 1.06 g/mL (Envirocare 2004, and recent site specific
groundwater data acquired by EnergySolutions).
This range of specific gravity for the shallow-aquifer groundwater, from 1.02 to 1.06, can be compared with
the single value for shallow-aquifer groundwater specific gravity of 1.032 measured in the field recently and
used in the Report, which would be more toward the bottom of the reported Neptune (2015) range.
If a value of 1.060, at the upper end of the reported range, is instead used for illustrative purposes for
groundwater in some areas of the shallow aquifer, then the groundwater density averaged between the basal
aquifer and the shallow aquifer is equal to 1.054 g/cm3, the value of (ρa-ρf)/ρf is equal to 0.054, and a table
using this higher specific gravity for the shallow- aquifer groundwater, when presented using the Division’s
sign convention of this Interrogatory, is as follows:

dhf/dz (ρa-ρf)/ρf [dhf/dz + ((ρa-ρ f)/ρf)]qv Flow Direction
-0.038 0.016K
0.039 0.015K
0.040 0.014K
0.041 0.013K
0.042 0.012K
0.043 0.011K
March 10, 2021
Page 5 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

-0.044 0.010K
0.045 0.009K

All calculated flow directions here are downward. This is because the sign associated with qv, or vertical
component of flow per unit area, is negative. If flow had been upward, the sign of qv would have been
positive. But, in this case, all the values of qv are seen to have negative values.
For shallow-aquifer groundwater in this reported specific-gravity range with values of specific gravity as low as
a little more than 1.042, which is a little more than midway across the range given by Neptune (2015), the
value of (ρa-ρf)/ρf is greater than 0.045. When this is the case, all calculated groundwater flow directions
between these two wells are still downward, regardless of the value of |dhf/dz | chosen from the range given
by Stantec (2020a) in the original Report.
dhf/dz (ρa-ρf)/ρf [dhf/dz + ((ρa-ρ f)/ρf)]qv Flow Direction
-0.038 -0.007K
0.039 -0.006K
0.040 -0.005K
0.041 -0.004K
0.042 -0.003K
0.043 -0.002K
0.044 -0.001K
0.045
Despite uncertainty about density values and gradients, it is easy to see for the example above that the term
(ρa-ρf)/ρf has a value that is nearly the same absolute magnitude as dhf/dz, but that it has an opposite sign.
Accordingly, to determine flow direction, even for simple flow examined using an analytical model, it seems
vital to understand both (i) the signs of these two terms and (ii) their values. Please look at density and
specific gravity values found in Neptune (2015) and indicate based on this much-larger sample what fraction
of the calculated flow-direction values would indicate upward flow, and what fraction would indicate downward
flow for each specific-gravity value in the range for each aquifer.
Response: As described in the response to Interrogatory 4.3 above, the purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. Using the measured, location-specific density values is more appropriate for interpreting this test than using regional values that are not supported by site-specific measurements.
March 10, 2021
Page 6 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

4.8 There’s illustrative value in using the mathematical or analytical model as Stantec (2020b) has done,
for it shows that, for a hypothetical hydrogeologically homogeneous system, calculations indicate that flow
under certain conditions would be downward at the site, based on considerations of relative density as well as
freshwater head.
It must be kept in mind, however, that all analytical models like the Post et al. (2007) model employed in the
Basal Aquifer Study assume hydrogeological homogeneity (e.g., no aquitards between aquifers). Typically, a
numerical model, as opposed to an analytical model, must be run for sites at which much heterogeneity exists
to obtain viable results. Examples are SEAWAT and SUTRA by the USGS. Please justify, if possible, why it
would be valid to do what Stantec (2020b) has done, i.e., apply an analytical model designed for
homogeneous conditions to the heterogeneous site at Clive, where aquitards are known to exist between
aquifers. Although Stantec (2020b) says, “vertical hydraulic gradient estimates between I-1-700 and the rest
of the wells were all upward with buoyancy considered,” it is noted that, for the specific gravity for shallow-
aquifer groundwater of 1.032, Table 3-4 shows that that situation was not the case. Table 3-4 shows that for
the I-1-30 and I-1-700 pair, the buoyancy corrected vertical gradient range varies from -0.002 to 0.005. The
lower part of this range, i.e., from -0.002 to slightly below zero, represents downward flow, based on the
Stantec (2020b) sign convention. Why is Stantec not using the values in the negative range? Please justify
your answer.
Response: Gradient calculations are between two points in an aquifer and are independent of the nature of the aquifer material itself. Contrary to the reviewer’s assertion, Post et al (2007) does not make an assumption of hydrogeological homogeneity with respect to calculating hydraulic gradient. No assumptions of aquifer homogeneity or heterogeneity are necessary for the results reported in Table 3-4.
The primary purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus
on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. Thus, the gradient relationships between conditions measured at
I-1-700 and deepest of the three shallower wells are most relevant to the interpretation. The screened
intervals of wells I-1-100 and I-1-50 lie between I-1-700 and I-1-30 as shown in Figure 3 of the Report. An
upward gradient is indicated between I-1-700 and I-1-100, and between I-1-700 and I-1-50. The downward
gradient (negative values) calculated between I-1-30 and I-1-700 was not weighted as heavily because the
consistent upward gradients are calculated for wells paired with I-1-700 that lie between I-1-30 and I-1-700.
INTERROGATORY #5
Interrogatory. It appears that a direct hydraulic response had not propagated to Well I-1-50 (screened at a
depth of about 50 ft bgs) by the time that the reverse water-level fluctuation in that well was noted. Based on
the reference to Kim and Parizek (1997) that Stantec offers, it appears that only an apparent mechanical
deformation response in the aquitard and the non-pumped aquifer at a depth of 50 ft bgs had occurred,
yielding the observed reverse water-level fluctuation. Is this EnergySolutions’ interpretation, or does it offer an
alternative possible interpretation? The reference made by Stantec (2020) to Kim and Parizek (1997) appears
to the Division to be reasonable. If the direct hydraulic propagation had not reached up to 50 ft bgs by that
time, then that would explain why, by that time, no direct hydraulic response had propagated to the even
more-distant shallow aquifer screened by Well I-1-30 (screened at a depth of about 30 ft bgs).
Well I-1-30 appears to be separated from Well I-1-50 by an aquitard or semi-confining layer. It seems logical
to assume that an aquitard exists at a depth of about 45 ft bgs between those two wells, since Neptune
March 10, 2021
Page 7 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

(2015) says that, above that depth, there is an unconfined aquifer, and below that depth, there is a confined
aquifer. For the latter to be confined, there must be an aquitard above it.
Does a lack of discernible drawdown response in Well I-1-30 throughout the pumping test show limited
hydraulic connection between Well I-1-700 and Well I-1-30 over the duration of the pumping test or for all
time? Please justify your response.
Response: The purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer, not to re-evaluate the regional work done by others with a focus on the shallower zones. Limited hydraulic connectivity is demonstrated by the lag in response, likely due to the factors cited by the reviewer. These factors may cause the time-related responses observed in the data but are not themselves time dependent. Thus, the interpretation of limited hydraulic connectivity is independent of time although the manifestations of that limited connectivity may vary with time.
INTERROGATORY #6
Background. In Stantec (2020b), Section 3.3.1, Analysis Methods, it says
For the Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions, the aquifer is conceptualized as confined
with infinite areal extent, homogeneous, isotropic and of uniform thickness of 325 feet.
Interrogatory. What is the justification for assuming both in the implementation of the Cooper-Jacob (1946)
method and in the implementation of the Theis (1935) method that the tested aquifer is 325 feet thick?
Substantial evidence in the Report indicates that, instead of a single 325-foot-thick aquifer, the sediments
screened in Well I-1-700 and Well I-1-100 respectively represent at least two distinct aquifers, each of much
smaller saturated thickness, which are separated by a significantly thick aquitard. Field and laboratory
observations and measurements support this conclusion.
One line of evidence that a substantial aquitard lies between the two aquifers is based on field data. This
apparent aquitard is shown in the Stantec Form to consist of 44.5 feet of sediments extending from
274.5-319.0 ft bgs. Based on this Soil Boring/Lithology Form, this apparent aquitard contains many dry zones.
The descriptions in the Form note these dry zones occur specifically at 274.5-277 ft, 286.5-287 ft, 287-297 ft,
297-299 ft, 310-314.5 ft, and 314.5-319 ft bgs. Some of these zones are hard, dense or both. Soil from
289-297 ft bgs, for example, is said to be "very hard, dense, dry." From 314.5-319 ft bgs, soil is said in the
Form to be "dense and dry." These data suggest that much of this interval (from 274.5-319 ft bgs) is relatively
hard and/or dry, indicating that it would tend, on the whole, to act as an aquitard.
Laboratory hydraulic-conductivity testing confirms this assessment. An “undisturbed sample. . . representative
of aquitard material”, is how a sample sampled from 297.5-298.0 ft bgs is described in the Report. The Report
describes this sample as being “reddish-brown clayey sand.” Table 3-2 of the Report indicates that the
vertical component of hydraulic conductivity (Kv) measured in the lab for this sample is only 2.60 x 10-5 cm/s.
That is a relatively small value, consistent with that of an aquitard.
Experts in the field of well hydraulics indicate that the saturated thickness of a semi-confined aquifer like the
aquifer screened by I-1-700 is simply the thickness of the aquifer material (located between a confined layer
and an aquitard) that is saturated. For example, Boonstra and Soppe (2017) say,
March 10, 2021
Page 8 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

The saturated thickness is equal to the physical thickness of the aquifer between the aquicludes
above and below it . . . The same is true for the confined parts of a leaky aquifer bounded by an
aquitard and an aquiclude. . . the saturated thickness is a constant.
In other words, the saturated thickness does not include any aquitard or aquiclude material. The saturated
thickness thus does not include material in two separate aquifers, just in one. Neither does the saturated
thickness depend on the height of the potentiometric surface. The saturated thickness for a semi-confined
aquifer is thus a constant.
It appears to the Division that, for this site, employing for calculation purposes a saturated thickness of
36 feet, rather than 325 feet, is the only approach that makes sense. Using a saturated thickness of 325 feet
instead of 36 feet would seemingly render the results of the analysis conducted by Stantec (2020b) inaccurate
by a significant amount. The Division has previously addressed this. Is there a reason why EnergySolutions
would continue to choose to conduct the analysis using a value of 325 feet? Please justify your answer.
Response: The assumptions inherent in the Cooper-Jacob and Theis methods are included in the Report for
completeness and context. The assumption of an aquifer thickness of 325 feet represents the saturated zone
between the bottom of the basal aquifer and the water table measured in the shallow wells. Assuming the full
325-foot saturated thickness for the purposes of the Cooper-Jacob and Theis calculations allowed the
observed drawdown in well I-1-100 to be incorporated into the analysis. Consistent with good professional
practice, the Report includes a range of analytical methods and results to evaluate the effects of different
assumptions, some of which may be more applicable than others for future tasks.
INTERROGATORY #7
Background. Section 3.3.1, Analysis Methods, presents results from aquifer-test analysis, with some of the
data shown in Appendix D, AQTESOLV Analytical Results (Stantec, 2020b). The first graph in this appendix
shows the results of an analysis based on the Hantush (1960) method, but it is noted from this graph that, in
this analysis, Stantec (2020b) employs drawdown data from a pumping well instead of from an observation
well.
Interrogatory. The Hantush (1960) method specifically requires data from an observation well, rather than
from a pumping well, or a control well, to be employed. ASTM D6028, which describes how to analyze data
using the modified Hantush (1960) method, directs users who would use it to “construct one or more
observation wells or piezometers screened only in the pumped aquifer at a distance from the control well”. So,
data for drawdown must come from one or more observation wells or piezometers located in the pumped
aquifer some distance from the pumping or control well.
While data obtained from groundwater levels measured in a pumping or control well may be of interest
qualitatively, such data has limited or no quantitative significance in the Hantush (1960) method. There are
several reasons, among which are those described in ASTM (2017). In a footnote in ASTM (2017), which
references Moench (1985), it says, “data from the pumped well are affected by variations in the pumping rate,
effects of well-bore storage, and the ‘skin’ (a zone around the well hydraulically different from the native
materials because of disturbance and alteration caused by well drilling and construction).” These factors
mean that drawdown data taken from the pumping well cannot be utilized directly in the Hantush (1960)
method to arrive at accurate parameter-estimation results. Data from external observation wells must be
employed. Such data are not employed in the Stantec (2020b) study.
March 10, 2021
Page 9 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Additionally, Moench (1985) explains how it is possible during well testing to make an adaptation in the testing
method to reduce the error from well-bore storage effects by up to five orders of magnitude. Usually, this
adaptation involves packing off the screened interval, injecting water, and monitoring the rise of water levels
in the observation wells or piezometers. Such an adaptation was not used during aquifer testing at Clive.
Other researchers and practitioners likewise discourage attempts to analyze pumping tests in semi- confined
or leaky aquifers using only data from a pumping well. Typically, either piezometers or observation wells
distinct and separate from the pumping well are required. In addition, such points of measurement are
required from not just a single layer, but from multiple layers. For instance, Kruseman and de Ridder (1992)
say,
For a proper analysis of a pumping test in a leaky aquifer, piezometers are required in the leaky
confined aquifer, in the aquitard, and in the upper unconfined aquifer.
Please justify use of the Hantush (1960) method in the Report without utilizing data from an observation well
or a piezometer as is required by the method.
Response: The 2017 version of ASTM Standard Practice D6028 has been superseded by the 2020 update.
Referencing the current (2020) version, we disagree that ASTM Standard Practice D6028/D6028M
(ASTM D6028) specifically requires the use of data from an observation well or piezometer. As stated clearly
in the Standard (paragraph 1.6), “This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used
in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of the practice may be applicable in all
circumstances.”
It is common practice to use the drawdown in the pumping well as an observation well. The footnote referenced by the reviewer (Note 5, section 8.1.3 of ASTM D6028/6028M) lists factors that can affect drawdown data from the pumped well, which are well understood by practitioners in the field. The note does
not state that the data cannot be used directly in the Hantush (1960) analysis.
All aquifer tests involve approximations to and variations from the idealized conditions described in textbooks
and the assumptions of analytical solutions. A comparison of the quote cited by the reviewer from Kruseman
and de Ridder (1992, page 74) with ASTM D6028 illustrates this well. ASTM D6028 (section 6.3) describes
the construction of observation wells “screened only in the pumped aquifer at a distance from the control
well.” It does not mention the use of observation wells completed in the aquitard above the leaky aquifer. In
fact, the Hantush (1960) method assumes that groundwater levels in the overlying aquifer remain constant. If
the standard of the quote taken from Kruseman and de Ridder (1992) is strictly applied, no test performed
and analyzed using the Hantush (1960) method in conformance with ASTM D6028 would be valid. This is
clearly not the case.
Furthermore, the example of the Dalem pumping test used by Kruseman and de Ridder (1992) as an example
of a leaky-aquifer test itself violates the strict reading of the quote provided by the reviewer. As Kruseman and
de Ridder (1992, page 75) themselves state, “The reader will note that there is no aquifer overlying the
aquitard in Figure 4.1” which illustrates the Dalem test conditions. Thus, there are no piezometers in the
overlying, unconfined aquifer and yet the authors use this example to demonstrate how a leaky-aquifer
pumping test can be conducted and interpreted.
Field tests in practical applications typically vary from textbook examples. Standards of practice allow
professional judgment to be applied to real-world implementation. Use of the Hantush (1960) method to
March 10, 2021
Page 10 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

analyze the I-1-700 aquifer test data was appropriate for the purpose of this study. We believe that the work
described in the Stantec the Report is consistent with the standard of professional practice for work of this
nature, at the location the work was performed, at the time the work was performed.
INTERROGATORY #8
Background. Stantec (2020b) utilizes the Hantush (1960) method, which assumes as one of its primary
assumptions that the head in the overlying, non-pumped aquifer remains constant. See AQTESOLVE
(1998-2020) and ASTM (2017). In other words, drawdown in the non-pumped aquifer must be zero. Yet, data
from the Basal Aquifer Study show that, to the contrary, significant drawdown was observed in groundwater
within the overlying, non-pumped aquifer during the testing period. This is depicted in the second graph found
in Appendix D, AQTESOLV Analytical Results.
Consider also that Neuman and Witherspoon (1969a) show that, when using the Hantush (1960) method, “the
. . . assumption of zero drawdown in the unpumped aquifer can . . . lead to significant errors at large values of
time.”
Interrogatory. Please justify implementation of the Hantush (1960) method of analysis for analyzing
drawdown test data in Well I-1-700 when (i) that method is based on an assumption of constant head in the
non-pumped aquifer, shown through field data to have been violated in the overlying aquifer during the test,
and (ii) the method was employed despite Neuman and Witherspoon (1969a) warning that Hantush (1960)
analysis of aquifer test data assuming constant head in an unpumped aquifer can “lead to significant errors at
large values of time.”
Response: The drawdown in the non-pumped aquifer is a very small fraction of the saturated thickness,
indicating the resulting uncertainty in the analysis is correspondingly small due to this variation between the
idealized solution assumptions and the real-world test results. The tests did not run for a long time, so the
issue of “significant errors at large values of time” is not relevant.
INTERROGATORY #9
Interrogatory. Please justify the lack of use of drawdown data from the aquitard when implementing the
Neuman and Witherspoon (1969b) method.
Response: No data were available from the aquitard in this test configuration. The lack of aquitard data does
not invalidate the test results, but may introduce more uncertainty in the analysis than would occur with the
additional data.
INTERROGATORY #10
Background. Section 3.2.2 of Stantec (2020b) says that
AQTESOLV analytical results for the aquifer test are presented in Appendix D. Estimated hydraulic
parameters from the pumping test analysis (including transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, storativity,
and specific yield) are presented in Table 3-5.
A copy of Table 3-5 is presented below:
March 10, 2021
Page 11 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Interrogatory. Considering the previous discussions about the limitations of the several aquifer-test analysis
methods applied, please justify, in a rigorous way, why the values of any of the parameters in Table 3-5
should be considered accurate, or even approximate.
Response: All aquifer test analyses result in approximations due to limitations of test configuration, data
quality, and assumptions inherent to the solutions. Consistent with standard practice, Stantec evaluated the
data with four different analytical methods that are well accepted and widely used in the industry. The Report
includes all the results along with the assumptions and conceptualizations of the physical system.
The Report presents the following conclusion regarding the results of the aquifer test analyses (Section
3.3.2):
“The leaky-confined conceptual model better represents the field observations than the assumptions
of a single, homogenous aquifer inherent in the Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions.
Therefore, predicted parameters using the leaky-confined solutions (Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-
Witherspoon, 1969) are likely more representative than the other two solutions (Cooper-Jacob, 1946
and Theis, 1935).”
The purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus on well
I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. The methods and results used are appropriate for the purpose of this study and
March 10, 2021
Page 12 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

provide reasonable results consistent with the standard of professional practice for work of this nature, at the
location the work was performed, at the time the work was performed.
INTERROGATORY #11
Background. Table 3-5, referenced in Section 3.2.2 of Stantec (2020b), is presented in Interrogatory #10. It
is noted from this table that the Stantec calculated storativity for the aquifer screened by Well I-1-100
(screened from 90-100 ft bgs) is, based on the Cooper-Jacob analysis for the pumping phase of the test,
2.354x10-10.
Interrogatory. This value for storativity (2.354x10-10) is very far outside the range of values for storativity (S)
reported by others for aquifer materials found in the subsurface. Storativity values for confined aquifers are
said to generally range from 5×10-5 to 5×10-3 (Todd, 1980). Since Well I-1-100 is said to have been screened
across an aquifer, and Bingham Environmental (1981) and Neptune (2015) identify this aquifer as being
confined, its storativity would normally be assumed to be within the range given by Todd. Moreover, storativity
is generally recognized as not being able to be determined accurately without using data from an observation
well located some distance from the pumping well. Can Stantec justify this low storativity? Storativity values
for various subsurface materials can be calculated from reported specific-storage values. Specific storage,
Ss, is equal to S/b, where b is aquifer thickness. On rearrangement, S = Ssb. The following is a table for
ranges of Ss and S values for types and thicknesses of aquitard and aquifer materials (with Ss ranges
reported by Domenico and Mifflin, 1965):
Material Ss (ft-1)S, Aquitard 1.0 ft Thick S, Aquitard 10 ft Thick
Plastic clay -4-6.2×10-3 -4-6.2×10-3 -3-6.2×10-2
clay -4-7.8×10-4 -4-7.8×10-4 -3-7.8×10-3
hard clay -4-3.9×10-4 -4-3.9×10-4 -3-3.9×10-3
sand -4-3.1×10-4 -4-3.1×10-4 -3-3.1×10-3
sand -5-6.2×10-5 -5-6.2×10-5 -4-6.2×10-4
sandy gravel -5-3.1×10-5 -5-3.1×10-5 -4-3.1×10-4
The specific-storage values can also be found at http://www.aqtesolv.com/aquifer-
tests/aquifer_properties.htm#Storativity. For thicker aquifers, a value listed in one of the two columns on the
right can simply be multiplied by an appropriate factor to determine the storativity. For example, for an aquifer
50 feet thick, the value in the right-hand column would be multiplied by five to calculate the storativity range.
Or the value in third column could be multiplied by 50.
The lowest Ss value shown for sedimentary material in Domenico and Mifflin (1965) is 1.5 x 10-5. For layers
1, 10 and 100 feet thick, this lowest Ss value would result in estimated S values of 1.5 x 10-5, 1.5 x 10-4, and
1.5 x 10-3, respectively. Even the lowest value for S is about five orders of magnitude greater than the
2.354x10-10 value for S reported in Table 3-5 of Stantec (2020b).
March 10, 2021
Page 13 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Since the reported S value of 2.354x10-10 in Stantec (2020b) is five orders of magnitude lower in value than
published values for S for the subsurface materials given above, or less, the reported Stantec (2020b)
storativity value of 2.354x10-10 does not appear reliable. Besides, it is orders of magnitude smaller than other
calculated values listed in the Report for the same layer. As previously discussed, the assumption in the
Report of a saturated thickness of 325 feet used in developing the analysis is not correct. Moreover, the
drawdown data shown are drawdown data for the upper aquifer, which was separated by a substantial
aquitard from the basal aquifer being pumped. Those conditions are definitely outside of the assumptions
inherent in the Cooper-Jacob model. Please justify presenting such a remarkably low storativity value, one
that was also calculated using the Cooper-Jacob model for drawdown for a single, pumped aquifer even
though two aquifers were involved, and the measurements were not taken in the pumped aquifer, but in a
non-pumped aquifer.
Response: The Report describes the assumptions and limitations of the aquifer-test analyses that were
performed. Table 3-5 includes all results for completeness and transparency. We agree that the storativity (S)
value calculated using the Cooper-Jacob method lies outside the generally accepted range for the types of
materials described in the Report. The following paragraph in Section 3.2.2 provides Stantec’s conclusion
regarding the applicability of the various analyses that were included: “The leaky-confined conceptual model
better represents the field observations than the assumptions of a single, homogenous aquifer inherent in the
Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions. Therefore, predicted parameters using the leaky-confined
solutions (Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-Witherspoon, 1969) are likely more representative than the other two
solutions (Cooper-Jacob, 1946 and Theis, 1935).”
INTERROGATORY #12
Interrogatory. None of these estimated hydraulic conductivity values appear to be accurate if the previously
identified issues are indicative of actual problems in testing or analysis. Assuming a saturated thickness of
325 feet if the saturated thickness is only 36 feet, for example, by itself means that the estimated value of
hydraulic conductivity as reported by Stantec (2020) for the two confined aquifer cases would be too small by
about an order of magnitude since hydraulic conductivity is equal to transmissivity divided by the saturated
thickness. The assumptions required by the analysis for the confined aquifer (e.g., Cooper-Jacob method
assumptions) were not even marginally met during testing. Is this not the case? Please justify the response.
Response: The following paragraph in Section 3.2.2 provides Stantec’s conclusion regarding the applicability of the various analyses that were presented: “The leaky-confined conceptual model better represents the field observations than the assumptions of a single, homogenous aquifer inherent in the Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions. Therefore, predicted parameters using the leaky-confined solutions (Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-Witherspoon, 1969) are likely more representative than the other two solutions (Cooper-Jacob, 1946 and Theis, 1935).”
INTERROGATORY #13
Interrogatory. Please provide justification for the statement that “groundwater chemistry of I-1-700 is typical
of deep groundwater isolated from recharge.” What set of data is identified in the Report that indicates that
the groundwater in the aquifer screened by I-1-700 is isolated from, or is typical of groundwater isolated from,
recharge? A few sentences that follow the claim made there depict the aquifer as having a relatively reducing
environment. However, while reducing environments are generally more common at depth, reducing
environments can also be found in many shallow water- bearing zones.
March 10, 2021
Page 14 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Response: Reducing environments may be found in some shallow water-bearing zones but are uncommon in
recharge zones where water by definition has recently been in contact with the atmosphere. In addition to the
reducing conditions, high total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations indicate an extended time for
groundwater to dissolve constituents from the aquifer material and a lack of mixing with recently recharged
water that would be naturally low in TDS.
INTERROGATORY #14
Interrogatory. This statement, which refers to “the observed most permeable zone from 325 to 355 ft bgs,”
seems to contradict the information in Table 3-5 indicating that the most permeable zone is the one covering
a depth range of 90-100 ft bgs. Please provide justification for this statement.
Response: The statement in the Summary and Conclusions section accurately summarizes the observations made in the field during drilling and well construction. The purpose of the Phase 1 program was to investigate conditions in the basal aquifer. Well I-1-100 is already screened in the approximate 90-100 ft below ground surface (bgs) depth interval; completing well I-1-700 in the same interval would not achieve the purpose of the investigation. The screened interval for well I-1-700 was selected in the field as the most permeable zone below the deepest existing well based on visual inspection and logging of the extracted core material. The selected screened interval was agreed to by the Division during a meeting on December 9, 2019 after the boring was completed.
The estimated hydraulic conductivity reported in Table 3-5 for the depth interval of 90-100 ft below ground surface (bgs) was calculated using the Cooper-Jacob (1946) method analyzing the drawdown response from well I-1-100. The reviewer has previously noted the assumptions and limitations of the Cooper-Jacob (1946) method. The following paragraph in Section 3.2.2 provides Stantec’s conclusion regarding the applicability of the various analyses that were presented: “The leaky-confined conceptual model better represents the field observations than the assumptions of a single, homogenous aquifer inherent in the Cooper-Jacob (1946) and Theis (1935) solutions. Therefore, predicted parameters using the leaky-confined solutions (Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-Witherspoon, 1969) are likely more representative than the other two solutions (Cooper-Jacob, 1946 and Theis, 1935).”
INTERROGATORY #15
Background. Section 4, Summary and Conclusions, states
Low vertical hydraulic conductivities were measured in undisturbed samples collected from the
identified aquitard zones above and below the I-1-700 screened interval, on the order of 10-5 cm/s in
the upper and 10-6 cm/s in the lower aquitard zones (Table 3-2). These results are two to three
orders of magnitude lower than horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimates of the aquifer test data
analysis.
Interrogatory. Please provide justification for the assessment given above that results of lab tests indicate
hydraulic conductivities for samples being two to three orders of magnitude lower than aquifer-test calculated
values. Data in Tables 3-2 and 3-5 do not seem to support that assessment. Order-of-magnitude comparisons
provided by data in the table values and the assessment above seem to be off by about an order of
magnitude.
March 10, 2021
Page 15 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Response: The ratios range from over an order of magnitude to over two orders of magnitude when
comparing the laboratory vertical hydraulic conductivity results (Table 3-4) with the estimated horizontal
hydraulic conductivity results from I-1-700 (Table 3-5) and three orders of magnitude if the results from well
I-1-100 are included in the evaluation.
INTERROGATORY #16
Background. Section 4, Summary and Conclusions, states
The vertical hydraulic gradient, calculated using fresh water equivalent heads for I-1-700 and three
nested wells, indicates an upward direction of vertical groundwater flow between I-1-700 and the
shallower monitoring wells at this location.
Interrogatory. Please provide justification for this conclusion. As indicated in Interrogatory #4, uncorrected
apparent hydraulic gradients for groundwater that varies in density with depth, even in the case of
hydrogeologically homogeneous systems, do not necessarily indicate vertical flow direction. Corrections must
be applied to heads in these wells to account for groundwater-density change.
For this site, if one were to assume aquifer homogeneity, once corrections are made in the flow equations to
account for the effects of buoyancy, no evidence is given in the Report that, in general, groundwater at the
Facility does not have a downward component of flow. Comparisons between buoyancy-corrected values in
the basal aquifer and in the shallow aquifer, for example, show that some combinations of plausible densities
and hydraulic gradients indicate an estimated downward flow component.
Moreover, the analytical equations used for making comparisons in the Report are intended for, and would
only provide reasonably accurate results for, homogeneous systems. The analytical equations cannot and do
not apply to analysis of more complex systems, e.g., ones in which aquifer components are separated by
aquitard components.
Response: The statement regarding vertical gradients calculated using fresh-water equivalent heads is correct. Buoyancy corrections are discussed elsewhere in the Report. The calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients between well I-1-700 and wells I-1-100 and I-1-50 are upward for the range of assumptions regarding the relative depths of measurement. The direction of the calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradient between well I-1-700 and well I-1-30 using the mid-filter pack elevations is upward. While the calculated, buoyancy-corrected vertical gradient between I-1-700 and I-1-30 could be either upward or downward depending on the assumptions made regarding the relative depth of measurement for hydraulic head between the two wells, an upward gradient is more likely. Taken as a whole, the data and calculations with buoyancy corrections support the conclusion of an upward gradient between I-1-700 and the shallower monitoring wells at that location.
Gradient calculations are made between two points in an aquifer and are independent of the nature of the aquifer material itself. The purpose of the Report is to describe and interpret the results of the Phase 1 program with a focus on well I-1-700 and the basal aquifer. Evaluations of groundwater flow are outside the scope of this study.
March 10, 2021
Page 16 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

INTERROGATORY #17
Interrogatory. The phase “poor water quality” is subjective. It is the Division’s position that this groundwater
still needs to be protected.
Response: Response provided by EnergySolutions.
INTERROGATORY #18
Background. Section 4, Summary and Conclusions, states
These results indicate limited connectivity between the shallow zones and the deeper basal aquifer at
the Facility. Given the upward component of groundwater flow, vertical heterogeneity with aquifer
zones separated by an aquitard and a semi-confined aquifer underlain by a thick aquitard, low vertical
hydraulic conductivity and observed dryness of the aquitard zones, and the lack of response in the
30 and 50 foot deep observation wells during the aquifer test, hydraulic communication from the
shallow zones to the deeper basal aquifer under natural conditions is unlikely.
Interrogatory. An apparent hydraulic connection exists between the I-1-700 well, screened at a depth of
325-355 ft bgs, and the overlying aquitard and the aquifer above it. The latter is screened by Well I- 1-100
from 90-100 ft bgs.
Hydraulic connection is demonstrated because drawdown in the basal aquifer causes water-level drawdown
in the upper aquifer (screened from 90-100 ft bgs). A subdued impact is expected in the upper aquifer due to
groundwater head losses as the hydraulic response to pumping propagates through an intervening aquitard.
This drawdown in an unpumped aquifer indicates that one of the primary assumptions underlying the Hantush
(1960) method is not being met.
There also appears to be a connection between groundwater in the basal aquifer and groundwater in the
aquifer material screened at about 50 feet. This is because groundwater in Well I-1-50 has been identified as
having responded to changes in head occasioned by the pumping test in the basal aquifer with a transient
reverse drawdown effect. That effect may be due to early deformation of the aquitard and an accompanying
temporary increase in fluid pressure in the upper part of the aquitard, transmitted up to the overlying aquifer,
as described in Kim and Parizek (1997).
A more direct hydraulic response (e.g., drawdown) was not observed in Well I-1-50 during 12 hours of testing.
The reason for no response during that time cannot be fully ascertained based on the data currently provided.
It has not been demonstrated yet that the length of the pumping test was sufficient for an unconfined aquifer
separated from the pumped aquifer by two aquitards and another aquifer.
It takes time for direct hydraulic responses to propagate. This is illustrated for two different wells, each one
screened in a different aquifer, in the graph shown below, copied from Appendix D of the Report.
March 10, 2021
Page 17 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

The displacement (i.e., drawdown) experienced by groundwater in the basal aquifer (screened from
325-355 ft bgs) is shown in blue. This displacement is seen (i) to rapidly increase in value over the interval
between 69 and 90 seconds, and then (ii) to asymptotically transition to a plateau displacement range of
about 24-25 feet.
By contrast, the displacement experienced by groundwater in the more-elevated aquifer screened at 90-100 ft
bgs, which displacement is shown in red, does not begin to plateau until about 10,000 seconds. The time
taken to begin to approximate the plateau value is, for this upper aquifer, about 100 times as great as the time
needed for groundwater levels in the basal aquifer to reach a plateau- level range. Instead of taking about 1 ½
minutes, as it does for the basal aquifer, it takes about 2 ¾ hours for the upper aquifer.
While no direct hydraulic response was noted in the very shallow aquifer material above these two aquifers
during the testing period, that lack of a direct hydraulic response may have simply been due to insufficient
time allowed for a direct hydraulic response to propagate that far upward through additional aquitard material.
Considering that it took about 100 times as great a time for the confined aquifer at 90-100 ft bgs to respond
than it took for the basal aquifer to do so, it might take considerably more time than that for an overlying
unconfined aquifer screened from 25-45 ft bgs and separated from the other aquifers by an aquitard to
respond.
What is the evidence or justification for assuming that there is “limited connectivity between the shallow zones
and the deeper basal aquifer at the Facility?” And what is the precise meaning of the term “limited” in the
statement quoted above? What is the significance of the hydraulic connection that is shown to exist in the
upper aquifer, owing to the measured drawdown in the groundwater observed in it during the aquifer test?
Response: As described in the response to Interrogatory # 5 above, limited hydraulic connectivity is demonstrated by the lag in response of drawdown in the shallow wells due to pumping in the deep well, likely
due to the factors cited by the reviewer in that interrogatory. “Limited” means less responsive than would be
expected under idealized conditions, for all the factors cited by the reviewer. The Division’s conceptual model
of dry zones and a heterogeneous aquifer sequence of aquifers and aquitards supports the conclusion of
limited connectivity between the shallow and deep zones at the location of I-1-700.
March 10, 2021
Page 18 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

REFERENCES
ASTM, 2017. D6028 − 17 Standard Test Method (Analytical Procedure) for Determining Hydraulic Properties of a Confined Aquifer Taking into Consideration Storage of Water in Leaky Confining Beds by Modified Hantush Method, ASTM, 9 pp.
ASTM, 2020. D6028/D6028M, Standard Practice for (Analytical Procedure) Determining Hydraulic Properties of a Confined Aquifer Taking into Consideration Storage of Water in Leaky Confining Beds by Modified Hantush Method, ASTM International.
Bingham Environmental (1981) Hydrogeologic Report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South Clive, Utah, prepared for Envirocare of Utah. Salt Lake City, UT, October 9.
Boonstra, H. and Soppe, R. (2017) Well Hydraulics and Aquifer Tests, in, Cushman, J.H. and Tartakovsy, D.M., eds., The Handbook of Groundwater Engineering, Third Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Domenico, P.A. and Mifflin, M.D. (1965) Water from low-permeability sediments and land subsidence, Water Resources Research, v. 1, no. 4, p. 563-576.
Hantush, M.S., 1960. Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 65, no. 11, p. 3713-3725.
Kim, J. and Parizek, R.R., 1997. Numerical simulation of the Noordbergum effect resulting from groundwater pumping in a layered aquifer system, Journal of Hydrology, v. 202, p. 231–243.
Kruseman, G. P., and N. A. de Ridder, 1992. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data, 2nd ed., Publication 47, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Moench, A. F., 1985. Transient flow to a large-diameter well in an aquifer with storative semiconfining layers, Water Resources Research, v. 21, no. 8, p. 1121–1131.
Neptune, 2015. Final Report for the Clive DU PA Model, Clive DU PA, Model v1.4, Prepared for EnergySolutions, LLC by Neptune and Company, Inc., Los Alamos, New Mexico. See also various appendices therein.
Neuman, S.P. and Witherspoon, P.A., 1969a. Applicability of Current Theories of Flow in Leaky Aquifers, Water Resources Research, v. 5, no. 4, p. 817-829.
Neuman, S.P. and P.A. Witherspoon.1969b. Theory of flow in a confined two aquifer system, Water Resources Research, v. 5, no. 4, p. 803-816.
Post, V., Kooi, H. and Simmons, C., 2007. Using hydraulic head measurements in variable-density ground water flow analyses, Groundwater, v. 45, no. 6 p. 664-671.
Stantec, 2020a. Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report, dated March 13, 2020, Prepared for and Submitted to EnergySolutions, LLC by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.
March 10, 2021
Page 19 of 19
Reference: Responses to Interrogatory for EnergySolutions’ Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final

Stantec, 2020b. Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report – Final, Revised, v2, September 30, 2020, Prepared for and Submitted to EnergySolutions, EnergySolutions, LLC by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.

Radioactive Material License Application / Federal Cell Facility

Page D-19 Appendix D April 9, 2021
Revision 0

EXHIBIT 2 TO APPENDIX D

STANTEC’S PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
CLIVE DISPOSAL FACILITY

Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report

Utah 84111

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT

This document entitled Phase 1 Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Report was prepared by Stantec Consulting
Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions). Any reliance on this
document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in
light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec
and EnergySolutions. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the
time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the
document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this
document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be
responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of
decisions made or actions taken based on this document.

Prepared by (signature) Emil Yeager, PG

Reviewed by
(signature)
Walter Weinig, PG, PMP, QP

Approved by
(signature)
Susan Eyzaguirre, PE, PG, PMP

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT

Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1.1
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 1.1
1.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY .................................................................. 1.1
2.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED .............................................................. 2.1
2.1 BOREHOLE DRILLING AND GEOTECHNICAL SOIL SAMPLING ............................... 2.1
2.2 WELL INSTALLATION ................................................................................................. 2.2
2.3 MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 2.3
2.4 AQUIFER TEST AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING .................................................. 2.3
3.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 3.1
3.1 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ................................................................. 3.1
3.2 GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND VERTICAL HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS ..................... 3.1 3.2.1 Density Corrections ..................................................................................... 3.1 3.2.2 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients ........................................................................ 3.2
3.3 AQUIFER TEST RESULTS .......................................................................................... 3.2
3.3.1 Analysis Methods ........................................................................................ 3.2 3.3.2 Analysis Results .......................................................................................... 3.3
3.4 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS ........................................................................ 3.4
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 4.1
5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 5.1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of Stratigraphically Representative Zones
Table 3-1 Geotechnical Test Results for Disturbed Samples
Table 3-2 Geotechnical Test Results for Undisturbed Samples
Table 3-3 Static Water Level Measurements and Elevations
Table 3-4 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients Using Fresh Water Equivalent Heads
Table 3-5 January 2020 I-1-700 Estimated Hydraulic Parameters
Table 3-6 January 2020 I-1-700 Groundwater Sampling Results
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 Location of I-1-700
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Borehole Log, Well Build Diagram, and Field Forms
Appendix B Photographs
Appendix C Geotechnical Report
Appendix D AQTESOLV Analytical Results
Appendix E Groundwater Analytical Laboratory Reports
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
iii
Abbreviations
% percent
AWAL American West Analytical Laboratories
bgs below ground surface
cm/s centimeters per second
CRT constant rate test
DOE Department of Energy
DWMRC Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Facility EnergySolutions Clive Facility
GEL GEL Laboratories LLC
IGES IGES geotechnical lab
K hydraulic conductivity
mg/l milligrams per liter
OD outer diameter
ORP oxidation reduction potential
pCi/l picoCuries per liter
Study Basal-Depth Aquifer Study
TDS total dissolved solids
UAC Utah Administrative Code
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This summary report presents findings for Phase 1 of the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study (Study) conducted at
the EnergySolutions Clive Facility (Facility). Phase 1 of the Study was performed in accordance with the
Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan (EnergySolutions, 2019 and Stantec, 2019), which was designed to
understand the hydrogeologic and geologic characteristics of the basal-depth aquifer at the Facility where
aquifer properties at basal-depths have not been extensively studied.
The hydrogeologic conditions of the first 100 feet below the Facility have already been well characterized
since the State of Utah/Department of Energy VITRO Chemical Company project and original Envirocare
of Utah licensing actions (Bingham Environmental, 1991 and Department of Energy [DOE] 1984a,
1984b). In addition, EnergySolutions’ subsequent licensing and permitting activities have further
characterized the subsurface beneath the Facility. These previous activities, coupled with long-term
monitoring of the shallow, unconfined aquifer, have extensively captured the hydrogeologic conditions in
the first 100 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on the understanding of the hydrogeologic conditions
in the first 100 feet, DOE and EnergySolutions assumed the conceptual model of the Facility includes
similar stratigraphy below that first 100 feet.
EnergySolutions has been tasked by the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
(DWMRC) to validate this hydrogeologic conceptual model down to basal depths (i.e., log the subsurface
geology/stratigraphy and characterize the deep aquifer) through the installation and sampling of a basal
depth well. Data collected from Phase 1 of the Study are used to understand the characteristics of the
subsurface hydrogeology at depths exceeding 100 feet bgs and inform EnergySolutions and DWMRC if
development of subsequent Study phases are warranted. In addition to collection of basal-depth aquifer
characteristic information, Phase 1 of the Study complies with the DWMRC Director’s regulatory
requirements.
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Facility is located near the eastern margin of the Great Salt Lake Desert, approximately 50 miles east
of Wendover, Nevada and 80 miles west of Salt Lake City, Utah (Figure 1). EnergySolutions operates a
low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste disposal facility and has been in operation since 1989. Work
was performed at an uncontaminated background area of the Facility and media (soil and groundwater)
encountered were not contaminated with hazardous or radiological substances.
1.2 GEOLOGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY
The surficial geology beneath the Facility consists of Quaternary Lacustrine (lakebed) deposits of ancient
Lake Bonneville (Stephens, 1974). The upper 40 feet of lacustrine deposits consist of four
hydrostratigraphic units including an upper silty clay/clayey silt (Unit 4), an upper silty sand (Unit 3), a
middle silty clay (Unit 2), and a lower sand/silty sand (Unit 1).
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
1.2
The unsaturated zone beneath the facility includes Unit 4 and portions of Units 3 and 2. The shallow,
unconfined groundwater system includes the saturated portions of Units 3 and 2. The confined aquifer
occurs in Unit 1. Depths to groundwater typically range from 25 to 40 feet bgs beneath the Facility. Cross
sections showing the four hydrostratigraphic units are presented in Figures 6, 9, and 10 of Bingham
(1991).
A new monitoring well was installed beneath the well-characterized 100-foot-deep near-surface material
where similar unconsolidated lake-bed sediments and alluvial valley fill were encountered (refer to
Section 2.1).
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
2.1
2.0 SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
The objective of Phase 1 of the Study was to characterize the basal-depth aquifer. To collect Phase 1
data, a borehole was drilled; a basal-depth monitoring well was installed, developed, and sampled; and
an aquifer test was conducted. DWMRC personnel observed the field data collection activities for the
Study. Details regarding the data collection are discussed below.
2.1 BOREHOLE DRILLING AND GEOTECHNICAL SOIL SAMPLING
Between November 15 and December 5, 2019, one borehole was drilled by Cascade Drilling using the
sonic drilling method. The borehole is located south of the Mixed Waste Cell (Figure 2) and upgradient of
any historical or current disposal activities based on the shallow aquifer flow direction. Because creation
of a detailed stratigraphic log is critical to characterizing the geology and hydrogeology at basal depths,
particularly the stratigraphy below the first 100 feet, the sonic drilling method was selected as this method
extracts a continuous core to the total depth of the boring.
A telescoping or step-down technique was used to advance the boring because the desired borehole
depth scoped in the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan was relatively deep (i.e., between 700 and 800 feet
bgs). Telescoping of the boring reduces friction, allowing the boring to be drilled deeper than if drilled
without telescoping. The boring began with a 9-inch outer diameter (OD) casing drilled from ground
surface to 157 feet bgs, telescoped down to a 8-inch OD casing from 157 feet to 337 feet bgs, and ended
with a 7-inch OD casing from 337 feet to 615 feet bgs (the borehole total depth). The borehole was
terminated at a depth shallower than the intended depth of 800 feet, because the sonic drill bit met refusal
upon encountering a hard breccia layer at 607 to 615 feet bgs, which significantly reduced the drilling
efficiency and risked damage of the drilling equipment.
Because the borehole termination depth was shallower than the scoped depth a meeting was held on
December 9, 2019 with EnergySolutions, DWMRC, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec)1, and
Cascade Drilling to evaluate adjustments to the planned borehole depth and effects on the planned
monitoring well installation (refer to Section 2.2). During the meeting, all parties agreed to: (1) terminate
the borehole at the depth achieved; and (2) screen the well at the deepest water-bearing bearing-zone
encountered (approximately 330 to 350 feet bgs within the fine grained, wet, silty sand stratigraphy). This
meeting was held in accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan.
The collected continuous drill core was visually logged by a Stantec professional geologist licensed in the
state of Utah using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) soil classification procedures and field
descriptions including soil type, color, texture, bedding structures, and moisture content. The geologist
also provided drilling and well installation oversight for the duration of the project. A copy of the borehole
log is provided in Appendix A and photographs of the sonic core are provided in Appendix B-1.

1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. was retained by EnergySolutions to assist in the preparation and execution of Phase 1 of the Study.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
2.2
The geologist identified 12 stratigraphically representative zones along the length of the drill core and
collected one grab soil sample from each zone to measure grain-size distribution analysis (in accordance
with ASTM D6913a). A summary of the representative zones is provided in Table 2-1. The samples were
remitted by the geologist to EnergySolutions personnel for submission to IGES geotechnical lab (IGES).
This analysis is used to determine particle size distribution and provide an indicator of material properties
across the borehole area.
Additionally, the geologist identified depths where four undisturbed soil samples were collected in brass
sleeves using a direct-push method to evaluate subsurface soil characteristics in an off-site laboratory.
Specifically, two undisturbed samples were collected that could be representative of potential aquifer
material (coarse-grained) and two undisturbed samples were collected that could be representative of
potential aquitard (fine-grained) material. The sample depths were selected based on the geologist’s
professional judgement while logging the core utilizing the USCS. The samples were classified in the field
as potential aquifers or potential aquitards. These samples were submitted to a local geotechnical
laboratory (IGES) to measure porosity and bulk density. Additionally, the two undisturbed samples
collected in the potential aquitard material also were submitted to IGES to measure vertical hydraulic
conductivity. Geotechnical analytical results are presented in Section 3.1.
2.2 WELL INSTALLATION
Between December 10 and December 14, 2019, a deep well, designated I-1-700, was installed in the
boring by Cascade Drilling with oversight provided by the Stantec geologist. Stantec recommended well
construction details (i.e., installation depth, screen interval, and construction materials) to
EnergySolutions based on discussions from the December 9, 2019 meeting with DWMRC and in
accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan. EnergySolutions submitted the recommendations in
an email to DWMRC for approval, and DWMRC agreed with the recommended well construction in an
email on December 10, 2019. The agreed upon well construction details were:
• Backfill the 617 feet deep boring with bentonite chips to a depth to accommodate a total well depth of
approximately 350 feet bgs
• Install 0.020 stainless steel screen from 320 to 350 feet bgs, across what appears to be the most
transmissive zone encountered during drilling (refer to borehole log in Appendix A)
• Install 10/20 sand pack around the well screen
• Install 3-inch diameter stainless steel casing
• Install an above-grade surface completion as outlined in the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan
The well was installed to a total depth of 355 feet bgs with a 30-foot screen placed from 325-355 feet bgs.
During well construction the well casing was suspended from the drill rig to 350 feet bgs, as specified in
the bullet list above. However, after well construction was complete and the well casing was un-hooked
from the drill rig the well settled an additional 5 feet, resulting in a total depth of 355 feet bgs. The well
settlement was due to the weight of the stainless-steel casing used to construct the well. The interval from
350 to 355 feet consisted of the same fine grained, wet, silty sand stratigraphy as the proposed screened
interval (320 to 350 feet) and was back-filled with filter pack sand prior to the well build, so the settlement
did not affect the aquifer material screen interval. Once well construction was complete the inside of the
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
2.3
well casing was tagged with a weighted tape measure to verify a total depth at 355 feet bgs. The bottom
of the well felt solid when tagged, indicating minor or no sediment inside the well after construction. The
as-built well construction details include:
• 3-inch diameter stainless steel screen from 355 feet bgs to 325 feet bgs
• 3-inch diameter stainless steel casing from 325 feet bgs to 2.0 feet above ground surface
• 10/20 sand filter pack from 355 feet bgs to 319 feet bgs
• Fine-grained sand from 319 feet bgs to 314 feet bgs
• 3/8-inch bentonite chips from 314 feet bgs to 300 feet bgs
• Annular seal of bentonite grout from 300 feet bgs to 2 feet bgs
• Surface seal of concrete from 2 feet bgs to surface
A well construction diagram for I-1-700 is provided in Appendix A and photographs of well construction
materials and well surface completion are provided in Appendix B-2.
2.3 MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT
Between January 14 and 15, 2020, I-1-700 was developed in accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer
Study Plan by Cascade Drilling with oversight provided by a Stantec field technician. On January 14,
2020, the well was bailed, surged, bailed, and then pumped for 30 minutes at an average flow rate of
12.5 gallons per minute (gpm) using an electrical submersible pump installed to approximately mid-
screen depth. The purge water was pumped directly to a 20,000-gallon capacity frac tank for storage
(refer to photograph 11 in Appendix B-2). Purge water was monitored for water quality parameters pH,
specific conductivity, turbidity, temperature and general appearance.
Development resumed January 15, 2020, with continued pumping of the well for an additional 1.8 hours
at an average flow rate of 15 gpm. Water level measurements were collected during the pumping period
and showed a 21.76-foot drop during the 1.8 hours of pumping. Development was stopped once the
water parameters were stable and the final turbidity reading readings hovered in the low teens (refer to
monitoring well development field forms provided in Appendix A). The purge water toward the end of the
pumping period looked clear with no visible suspended solids. Approximately 2,058 gallons of water were
purged during the two days of well development.
2.4 AQUIFER TEST AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
Between January 15 and 16, 2020, a 12-hour constant rate pumping test (i.e., aquifer test) was conducted
for I-1-700 in accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan, by the Stantec field technician and
professional geologist, with pumping support provided by Cascade Drilling. On January 15, well
development was completed, and the field technician installed pressure transducers in I-1-700 and in
nearby observation wells I-1-100, I-1-50, and I-1-30 (refer to Figure 2). To accommodate the transducer
the dedicated bladder pump in well I-1-30 was removed and placed in a plastic bag to keep the pump
clean and contained. The pump was then delivered to the EnergySolutions security personnel to be
placed in a warehouse storage area until it could be reinstalled after completion of the aquifer test.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK CONDUCTED
2.4
On January 16, 2020 the aquifer test was conducted. The pump in I-1-700 was turned on at 0750,
pumped for 12 hours at an average flow rate of 15.4 gpm, and was shut off at 1950. During the aquifer
test, water levels were recorded in the pumping well and the three nearby observation wells by the
transducers and manually measured by the technician and geologist using electronic water-level
sounders. The transducer in monitoring well I-1-100 stopped working during the aquifer test, therefore;
manually recorded groundwater levels for this well were used in the aquifer test analysis (refer to Section
3.3).
During the 12 hours of pumping approximately 11,088 gallons of water were purged from the well and
pumped directly to a 20,000-gallon capacity frac tank for storage. Aquifer test results are presented in
Section 3.3.
During the aquifer test, EnergySolutions personnel collected groundwater samples and measured field
parameters (i.e. pH, temperature, specific conductivity, oxidation reduction potential [ORP], and dissolved
oxygen) in the discharge from I-1-700 in accordance with the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan. The
samples were collected using a valve installed in the pump discharge line (refer to photograph 11 in
Appendix B-2).
EnergySolutions submitted the non-radiological parameter analyses samples to American West Analytical
Laboratories (AWAL) and the radiological parameters analyses samples to GEL Laboratories LLC (GEL).
At the time of groundwater collection, DWMRC personnel also collected splits of the groundwater
samples for their own use. The groundwater sample field form is provided in Appendix A and sample
results are presented in Section 3.4.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
RESULTS
3.1
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Soil descriptions and laboratory grain-distribution analysis results (in accordance with ASTM D6913a) of
the disturbed grab samples collected from the stratigraphically representative zones are presented in
Table 3-1. Depth intervals where the samples were collected are also presented in Table 3-1. Laboratory
analyses indicate that the discrete samples collected from between 87 and 287 feet generally consist of
sands with smaller fractions of gravels, silts, and/or clays. Samples collected from 337 to 592 feet include
a higher percentage of fines (silt and clay) than those observed between 87 and 287 feet bgs.
Porosity and bulk density analyses were conducted for two undisturbed samples selected to be
representative of aquifer material and the two undisturbed samples representative of aquitard material.
Results are presented in Table 3-2. Porosity results for the aquifer samples are 33.5 percent (%) (I-1-700
247-248.5) and 47.2% (I-1-700 337-338.5). The higher porosity of the lower aquifer sample is likely due to
the higher prevalence of fines (refer Table 3-1). Porosity values for the aquitard samples are 44.3%
(I-1-700 297-298.5) and 49.1% (I-1-700).
Results of the vertical hydraulic conductivity (K) tests conducted on the two undisturbed samples
representative of potential aquitard material were 0.074 and 0.011 feet per day (feet/day) (2.6×10−5 and
3.9×10−6 centimeters per second [cm/s]). The samples were collected from 297.5-298.0 feet bgs and
377.5-378.0 feet bgs, respectively (refer to Table 3-2). The geotechnical laboratory description for both
samples is reddish-brown clayey sand. A copy of the geotechnical laboratory report is provided in
Appendix C.
3.2 GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND VERTICAL HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS
Static groundwater levels were collected prior to the aquifer test on January 16, 2020, 32 days after
I-1-700 was installed. In accordance with EnergySolutions’ Groundwater Quality Discharge permit
UGW450005, groundwater levels were corrected to freshwater equivalents prior to further interpretation
and modeling. Corrected groundwater levels were used to calculate vertical hydraulic gradients (refer to
Section 3.2.2) and model the hydraulic response to the aquifer pumping test (refer to Section 3.3.2).
3.2.1 Density Corrections
Due to the variable salinity of groundwater found beneath the Facility, density corrections were utilized to
calculate fresh water equivalent heads (Post et al., 2007). Fresh water equivalent heads facilitate the
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
RESULTS
3.2
assessment of hydraulic gradients. The corrected densities were calculated utilizing the following
equation: ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐=𝑧𝑧+(𝑝𝑝𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐× 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤)
Where:
hcorr is the fresh water equivalent hydraulic head (feet amsl),
z is the elevation head of the mid-filter pack or mid-point of the saturated zone, whichever is lower (feet
amsl),
puncorr is the uncorrected pressure head above point z (feet), and
SGwell is the specific gravity of the water in the well (unitless).
Measured static water levels and corrected and uncorrected heads are presented in Table 3-3. The
magnitude of the density correction was greatest for I-1-700 because of the high groundwater specific
gravity and long water column inside the well.
3.2.2 Vertical Hydraulic Gradients
Vertical hydraulic gradients between the collocated wells I-1-30, I-1-50, I-1-100, I-1-700 were calculated
after converting saline water levels into fresh water equivalent heads (see Section 3.2).
Vertical gradients were calculated using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
Vertical Gradient Calculator (U.S. EPA, 2020). The calculator provides the mid-filter pack vertical gradient
as well as the range of gradients, which account for well geometry and water level elevations, as
applicable. A summary of gradient magnitudes and directions are provided in Table 3-4. All vertical
gradients were upward immediately prior to the January 16, 2020 pumping test. The I-1-700 well has a
hydraulic head that is higher than all collocated wells.
3.3 AQUIFER TEST RESULTS
3.3.1 Analysis Methods
Aquifer test data were analyzed using the software package AQTESOLV, version 4.0 Professional
(Duffield, 2007). Groundwater level measurements were collected from the transducers as well as
recorded manually by Stantec field personnel at I-1-700 (screened from 325-355 feet bgs), I-1-100
(screened from 90-100 feet bgs), I-1-50 (screened from 40-50 feet bgs), and I-1-30 (screened from
20-30 feet bgs) during the aquifer test.
Well I-1-30 showed no discernable response to the aquifer test, suggesting a limited hydraulic connection
with the pumped aquifer. Well I-1-50 showed a slight reverse water-level fluctuation, which has been
observed in aquifers and aquitards overlying pumped aquifers (Kim and Parizek, 1997).
Typical pumping responses were measured in wells I-1-700 and I-1-100. These two wells were selected
to evaluate best fit hydraulic parameters using four different mathematical solutions including Hantush
(1960), Neuman-Witherspoon (1969), and Cooper-Jacob (1946) for the constant rate test (CRT) pumping
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
RESULTS
3.3
period, and Theis (1935) for the recovery data. The following assumptions were applied for these
methods of analysis (Duffield, 2007):
• The aquifer is confined or leaky confined, infinite areal extent, homogeneous, isotropic and of uniform
thickness of 325 feet.
• For leaky aquifers, aquitards have infinite areal extent; uniform vertical hydraulic conductivity, storage
coefficient, and uniform thickness; and flow in aquitards is vertical.
• For the Hantush method, the pumping and observation wells are partially penetrating, and diameter of
pumping well is very small so that storage in the well can be neglected.
• For the Hantush method, the ratio of vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kv/Kh) was assumed
to be 0.1.
• Flow to the pumping well is unsteady; flow is horizontal and uniform in a vertical section through the
axis of the well.
• Water is released from storage in an aquitard instantaneously with a decline of hydraulic head.
• Displacement is small relative to the saturated thickness of the aquifer.
• For the Neuman-Witherspoon method, aquitards are overlain or underlain by an infinite constant-
head plane source.
During the aquifer test, the transducer in monitoring well I-1-100 stopped working during the pumping
test; therefore, manually recorded groundwater levels were used in the analysis.
3.3.2 Analysis Results
Freshwater density corrections were applied to the measured groundwater levels due to the high and
variable salinity observed locally. At I-1-700, freshwater equivalent drawdown is approximately 0.3 feet
greater than the response in saline water. At I-1-100, the density correction was negligible. The
AQTESOLV analytical results for the aquifer test are presented in Appendix D. Estimated hydraulic
parameters from the pumping test analysis (including transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, storativity, and
specific yield) are presented in Table 3-5.
The maximum measured drawdown from the pumping test was 24.99 feet at I-1-700. The geometric
mean for the estimated horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the basal aquifer is estimated to be
6.01 feet/day based on the results from I-1-100 and I-1-700. The average of the horizontal hydraulic
conductivity estimates using different methods of analysis is 1.26 feet/day for I-1-700, and 28.72 feet/day
for I-1-100 while the average value of storativity was estimated at 1.57×10−3 for I-1-700 and 6.81×10−3 for
I-1-100.
Two of the four analysis methods applied at I-1-700 assumed the basal-depth aquifer is leaky confined
(Hantush, 1960, and Neuman-Witherspoon, 1969). The relatively flat response near the end of pumping
suggests a constant source of water is available, consistent with recharge (leakage) occurring during the
test.
Three analyses were conducted to evaluate the pumping test response at I-1-100. Estimated hydraulic
conductivity for I-1-100 is higher than I-1-700, suggesting the hydraulic conductivity at shallower depths is
greater than the hydraulic conductivity near 325 feet bgs.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
RESULTS
3.4
3.4 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE RESULTS
The groundwater sample from I-1-700 was analyzed for metals, radionuclides, and major ions at an off-
site laboratory, and water quality parameters were measured in the field as provided in Table 3-6. The
major cation is sodium and the major anion is chloride. Total dissolved solids (TDS) at basal depths are
65,400 milligrams per liter (mg/l), as compared to an average of 40,297 mg/l for shallow groundwater
samples collected in 2018. As is the case for the Facility’s shallow groundwater, the basal-depth
groundwater is classified as Class IV – Saline Groundwater, due to the TDS concentration exceeding
10,000 mg/l (Utah Administrative Code R317-6-3, Ground Water Classes).
Total uranium (U) is 17.4 micrograms per liter (µg/l); isotopes U-233/234 and U-238 were detected and
U-235-236 was not detected. Thorium isotopes were not detected. Gross alpha was not detected, though
the analysis did not meet detection limit requirements due to low sample volume; sample volume was
limited due to the analytical procedures (refer to the GEL analytical laboratory report provided in
Appendix E). Gross beta is 495 picoCuries per liter (pCi/l). A copy of the AWAL and GEL groundwater
analytical laboratory reports are provided in Appendix E.
The groundwater chemistry of I-1-700 is typical of deep groundwater isolated from recharge. Redox
conditions are relatively reducing, based on the field ORP (i.e., Eh) measurement (refer to the
groundwater sample field form provided in Appendix A) and the presence of dissolved iron and
ammonia. Detected radiological and non-radiological constituents are naturally occurring.

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In November and December 2019, a deep boring was drilled at the Facility to 617 feet bgs. The core
extracted from the boring was logged and geotechnical soil samples were collected and analyzed. The
boring was backfilled to 355 feet bgs and a 3-inch diameter well (I-1-700, screened across the observed
most permeable zone from 325 to 355 feet bgs) was successfully constructed. Groundwater samples
were collected and analyzed, and an aquifer test was conducted in January 2020.
From data collected during this Study, characteristics of the unconsolidated basal aquifer to 617 feet
beneath the Facility were evaluated and several basal aquifer study data objectives outlined by DWMRC
in their July 29, 2019 letter to EnergySolutions have been met. Visual inspection of the extracted core,
geotechnical analysis results, aquifer test evaluation, and groundwater sampling results indicate the
following:
• The zone of highest permeability (sandy silt) across the 617-foot-deep boring is located at 320 to
355 feet bgs. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimates from January 2020 aquifer tests are
indicative of silt and silty sand material (Table 3-5), which correlate well with the stratigraphic boring
log (Appendix A).
• Aquitard material is located both above and below the highest permeability interval, with the largest
percentage of fine-grained material (up to 76.2%) located at deeper depths (Table 3-1). Much of the
aquitard material was observed to be dense and dry (Appendix A).
• Low vertical hydraulic conductivities were measured in undisturbed samples collected from the
identified aquitard zones above and below the I-1-700 screened interval, on the order of 10-5 cm/s in
the upper and 10-6 cm/s in the lower aquitard zones (Table 3-2). These results are two to three orders
of magnitude lower than horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimates of the aquifer test data analysis.
• The vertical hydraulic gradient, calculated using fresh water equivalent heads for I-1-700 and three
nested wells, indicates an upward direction of vertical groundwater flow at the Facility.
• Poor water quality was measured in the groundwater samples collected from I-1-700 (screened from
325 to 355 feet bgs), notably a TDS concentration of 65,400 mg/l which is above the Utah
Administrative Code 10,000 mg/l threshold for Class IV groundwater (UAC R317-6-3).
These results indicate limited connectivity between the shallow zones and the deeper basal aquifer at the
Facility. Given the upward component of groundwater flow, low vertical hydraulic conductivity and
observed dryness of the aquitard zones, and the lack of response in the 30 and 50 foot deep observation
wells during the aquifer test, hydraulic communication from the shallow zones to the deeper basal aquifer
under natural conditions is unlikely.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
REFERENCES
5.1
5.0 REFERENCES
Bingham Environmental, 1991. Hydrogeologic Report Envirocare Waste Disposal Facility South Clive,
Utah. Prepared for Envirocare of Utah, Prepared by Bingham Environmental. October 1991.
Cooper, H.H. and C.E. Jacob, 1946. A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation constants
and summarizing well field history, Am. Geophys. Union Trans., vol. 27, pp. 526-534.
Department of Energy (DOE), 1984a. "Final Environmental Impact Statement of Remedial Actions at the
Former Vitro Chemical Site, South Salt Lake, Salt Lake County, Utah." (DOE/EIS-0099-F) U.S.
Department of Energy, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, July 1984.
DOE, 1984b. "Remedial Action Plan and Site Conceptual Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium
Mill Tailings Site at Salt Lake City, Utah” (UMTRA-DOE-/EA-0141.0000) U.S. Department of
Energy, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1984.
Duffield, G.M., 2007. AQTESOLV for Windows Version 4.0, HydroSOLVE, Inc., Reton, VA.
EnergySolutions, 2019. “Basal-Depth Aquifer Study Plan” letter to Mr. Ty Howard, Director Utah Division
of Waste Management and Radiation Control. October 3, 2019.
Hantush, M.S, 1960. Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers, Jour. of Geophys. Res., vol. 65, no. 11,
pp. 3713-3725.
Kim J. and R.R. Parizek, 1997. Numerical simulation of the Noordbergum effect resulting from
groundwater pumping in a layered aquifer system. Jour. of Hydrology vol. 202, pp. 231–243.
Neuman, S.P. and P.A. Witherspoon, 1969. Theory of flow in a confined two aquifer system, Water
Resources Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 803-816.
Post, V. H. Kooi, and C. Simmons, 2007. Using Hydraulic Head Measurements in Variable‐Density
Ground Water Flow Analyses. Groundwater, vol. 45, no. 6 pp. 664-671.
Stantec Consulting Services Inc, 2019. Clive Facility Basal (Deep) Aquifer Characterization Work Plan.
October 1, 2019.
Stephens, 1974. Hydrologic Reconnaissance of the Northern Great Salt Lake Desert and summary
hydrologic Reconnaissance of Northwestern Utah. Utah Department of Natural Resources
Technical Publication No. 42, 1974.
Theis, C.V., 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration
of discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Am. Geophys. Union Trans., vol. 16, pp. 519-
524.
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
REFERENCES
5.2
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. EPA On-line Tools for Site Assessment
Calculation, Vertical Gradient Calculator, https://www3.epa.gov/ceampubl/learn2model/part-
two/onsite/vgradient02.html, Accessed February 21, 2020.

FIGURES
U:\233001389\studies_wkplans_reports\Deeper Aquifer Characterization WP\2- Figures\MXD\Fig 1_EnergySol_SiteLoc.mxd
DRAWN BY J. Kester
Date: 9/4/2019
Salt Lake City
Clive FacilityLocation
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
§¨¦80
§¨¦70
EnergySolutions
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION
/
Legend
0 30
Miles
Interstate
CountyBound
Site Boundary
CLIVE FACILITY
0 1
Miles
/
§¨¦80
Reference: ESRI/ArcGIS online basemaps
U:\233001389\studies_wkplans_reports\Deeper Aquifer Characterization WP\2- Figures\MXD\Fig 2_Drilling_Locs_MW_02212020.mxd
DRAWN BY J. Kester
Date: 2/21/2020
(A(A
Mixed WasteFacility
I-1-30I-1-50I-1-100 I-1-700
Legend
0 170
Feet
(A I-1-700
(A Existing Wells
Mixed Waste Facility
Site Boundary /
Reference: ESRI/ArcGIS online world imagery
EnergySolutions
Figure 2
LOCATION OF I -1-700

TABLES
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF STRATIGRAPHICALLY REPRESENTATIVE ZONES
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Zone Generalized Soil Description
Corresponding
Geotechnical
Sample ID
1 0 98.0 light brown silty sand I-1-700 87-89 87.0 89.0
2 98.0 214.5 brown clayey/silty sand with gravel I-1-700 107-109 107.0 109.0
3 214.5 239.0 brown poorly graded sand I-1-700 227-229 227.0 229.0
4 239.0 267.0 brown silty sand with gravel I-1-700 245-255 245.0 255.0
5 267.0 314.5 brown clayey/silty sand I-1-700 282-287 282.0 287
6 314.5 355.0 grey silty sand / sandy silt I-1-700 337-342 337.0 342.0
7 355.0 359.0 brown clayey/silt with gravel I-1-700 356-359 356.0 359.0
8 359.0 515.5 brown silt/clay with sand(a)I-1-700 367-369 (b)367.0 369.0
8 359.0 515.5 brown clay with silt I-1-700 430-432 (c)430.0 432.0
8 359.0 515.5 brown clay with silt I-1-700 505-507 (d)505.0 507.0
9 515.5 534.0 brown silty sand I-1-700 523-525 523.0 525.0
10 534.0 550.0 brown silty clay I-1-700 542-544 542.0 544.0
11 550.0 577.0 light brown clayey/silty sand I-1-700 570-572 570.0 572.0
12 577.0 607.0 dark brown clayey/silty sand I-1-700 590-592 590.0 592.0
Notes
bgs below ground surface
Corresponding
Sample Depth
Interval
(feet bgs)
Zone Depth
Interval
(feet bgs)
TABLE 3-1GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FOR DISTURBED SAMPLESPHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Sample ID Geotechnical Laboratory Soil
Description
Water Content
(%) (1)
Coarse Fraction Water
Content (%) (2)
Split Fraction Water Content
(%) (3)Gravel (%)Sand (%)Fines (%)Comments
I-1-700 87-89 87.0 89.0 light brown silty sand 16.1 ----0.4%69.9%29.7%
I-1-700 107-109 107.0 109.0 brown clayey sand with gravel --8.9 15.7 17.7%70.2%12.1%
I-1-700 227-229 227.0 229.0 brown silty sand --7.9 39.1 0.4%63.5%36.1%
I-1-700 245-255 245.0 255.0 brown silty sand with gravel --10.9 21.1 15.0%68.5%16.5%Results are in nonconformance with Method D6913 because the minimum dry mass was not met.
I-1-700 282-287 282.0 287 brown clayey sand --15.3 28.1 12.8%53.1%34.1%Results are in nonconformance with Method D6913 because the minimum dry mass was not met.
I-1-700 337-342 337.0 342.0 grey sandy silt --5.5 36.2 0.6%44.1%55.4%
I-1-700 356-359 356.0 359.0 brownish grey clayey gravel with sand --6.3 17.4 27.8%24.3%47.9%Results are in nonconformance with Method D6913 because the minimum dry mass was not met.
I-1-700 367-369 367.0 369.0 light brown clayey sand 30.1 ----5.4%47.7%46.9%
I-1-700 430-432 430.0 432.0 brown clayey sand 28.3 ----7.4%43.5%49.1%
I-1-700 505-507 505.0 507.0 brown clay with sand --4.0 22.9 2.4%21.3%76.2%
I-1-700 523-525 523.0 525.0 brown silty sand 27.6 ----0.3%55.1%44.6%
I-1-700 542-544 542.0 544.0 reddish brown sandy clay 25.0 ----0.1%46.1%53.8%
I-1-700 570-572 570.0 572.0 light brown clayey sand --8.7 21.2 10.0%40.7%49.2%Results are in nonconformance with Method D6913 because the minimum dry mass was not met.
I-1-700 590-592 590.0 592.0 dark brown silty sand 31.6 ----0.0%57.5%42.5%
Notes
ft bgs feet below ground surfaceIDidentification%percent--not applicable
Laboratory method used:
Depth Interval (ft bgs)
TABLE 3-2
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FOR UNDISTURBED SAMPLES
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Sample ID Sample Representative
Material
Geotechnical
Description
Water Content
(%)
Dry Unit Weight
(pcf)
Specific
Gravity of
(G20°C)
Total Soil Porosity
(%)
Conductivity
(cm/s) (1)
Vertical Hydraulic
Conductivity
(feet/day) (1)
I-1-700 247-247.5 247.0 247.5 24.7 98.6
I-1-700 247.5-248 247.5 248.0 15.7 115.7
I-1-700 248-248.5 248.0 248.5 20 105.3
I-1-700 297-297.5 297.0 297.5 31.4 89.4
I-1-700 297.5-298 297.5 298.0 33.9 82.8
I-1-700 298-298.5 298.0 298.5 29 86.9
I-1-700 337-337.5 337.0 337.5 25.3 90.1
I-1-700 337.5-338 337.5 338.0 46.9 72.7
I-1-700 338-338.5 338.0 338.5 43.8 73.1
I-1-700 377-377.5 377.0 377.5 33 86.3
I-1-700 377.5-378 377.5 378.0 34.3 85.7
I-1-700 378-378.5 378.0 378.5 39.2 80.8
Notes
%percent
--not analyzed
bgs below ground surface
cm/s centimeters per second
ID identification
pcf pounds per cubic foot
Laboratory methods used:
Water Content and Unit Weight of Soil
Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer
Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials using a Flexible Wall Permeameter
--
7.40E-02
--
1.10E-02aquitard3.90E-06
2.60E-05
--
--
--
--
reddish brown
clayey sand
reddish brown
clayey sand 49.12.631 (2)
33.5
44.3
47.2
Depth Interval
(feet bgs)
2.579
2.499 (2)
2.390
aquifer
aquitard
aquifer
TABLE 3-3
JANUARY 2020 STATIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AND ELEVATIONS
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Well ID Easting
(feet) (1)
Northing
(feet) (1)
Top of
Protective
Casing w/o Lid
(feet amsl)
Water Level Date
& Time
Depth to
Water
(feet)
Saline
Water
Elevation
(feet amsl)
Gravity
Fresh Water
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet amsl)
Mid-Point of
Filter Pack
Elevation
(feet amsl)
Sat Zone
Elevation
(feet amsl)
I-1-30 1,194,196 7,420,901 4279.45 1/16/2020 07:51 28.85 4250.60 1.032 4250.73 4247.79 4253.67
I-1-50 1,194,193 7,420,900 4279.15 1/16/2020 07:53 28.65 4250.50 1.017 4250.78 4233.92 4243.05
I-1-100 1,194,194 7,420,897 4279.33 1/16/2020 07:54 29.17 4250.16 1.018 4251.35 4184.04 4217.2
I-1-700 1,194,218 7,420,924 4280.06 1/16/2020 07:50 31.40 4248.66 1.048 4263.33 3943.16 4087.44
Notes
amsl – above mean sea level
ID - identification
Sat - saturated
TABLE 3-4
VERTICAL HYDRAULIC GRADIENTS USING FRESH WATER EQUIVALENT HEADS
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY
ENERGYSOLUTIONS , CLIVE, UTAH
PAGE 1 of 1
Upper Well Lower Well Midscreen Vertical
Gradient
Vertical Gradient
Ranges
I-1-50 +0.004 +0.002 to +0.023
I-1-100 +0.010 +0.008 to +0.012
I-1-700 +0.041 +0.038 to +0.045
I-1-100 +0.011 +0.009 to +0.016
I-1-700 +0.043 +0.040 to +0.048
I-1-100 I-1-700 +0.050 +0.044 to +0.056
Note
positive (+) = upward gradient, negative (−) = downward gradient
I-1-30
I-1-50
TABLE 3-5
JANUARY 2020 AQUIFER TEST ESTIMATED HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAHPAGE 1 of 1
Well ID Tests Analysis
Method (1)Aquifer
Type
Transmissivity
(ft2/day)
Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Storativity (-)
Average
Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Geometric
Mean
Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
Calculated
Average for
Storativity (-)
Hantush Leaky Confined 1.91x10
Witherspon Confined
1.29x10
Recovery
Confined
Witherspon Confined
2.354x10
Notes:
from 325-355 feet
bgs)
from 90-100 feet
bgs)
6.01
Pumping
Pumping
TABLE 3-6
JANUARY 2020 I-1-700 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING RESULTS
PHASE 1 BASAL DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY ENERGYSOLUTIONS, CLIVE, UTAHPAGE 1 of 1
Calcium 773Iron, Dissolved 0.685Magnesium794Potassium507Sodium23,200
Metals (µg/l)Uranium 17.4
Radionuclides (pCi/L)Result Uncertainty MDA
Water Parameters (mg/l)
Ammonia (as N)0.189
Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)180
Bromide 10.5Carbonate (as CaCO3)<10.0Chloride42,100Nitrate/Nitrite (as N)0.134Sulfate 2,890Total Dissolved Solids 65,400
Additional Water Parameters
Conductivity (µmhos/cm)111,000
Ion Balance percent (%)-5.30
pH@ 25°C 7.04
Field-measured Parameters
pH 6.92Specific Conductivity (µmhos/cm)95,800
Oxygen Reduction Potential (millivolts)-275Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)0.30Specific Gravity (unitless)1.048
Notes:bgs below ground surface°C degrees Celsius
µg/l micrograms per liter
µmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter
mg/l milligrams per liter
pCi/l picocuries per literMDAminimum detectable activityUAnalyte was analyzed for but not detected above the MDAK-40 Potassium 40Th-228 Thorium 228Th-230 Thorium 230
Th-232 Thorium 232
U-233/234 Uranium 233/234
U-235/236 Uranium 235/236
U-238 Uranium 238Ra-226 Radium 226

APPENDICES

PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix A BOREHOLE LOG, WELL BUILD DIAGRAM, AND FIELD FORMS

Appendix A BOREHOLE LOG, WELL BUILD DIAGRAM, AND
FIELD FORMS

WELL DEVELOPMENT RECORD Well Number: 1-1-·100Job No. A)'l,00\ �4 ProjectNrune: �v...,.,-17 So\ •. ,.:l,;,o,,,.r W-t.'-\ ()..>.v.Date(s): 1/IY/ ;z.o�o (_ //tr;/�o'l,o Comments: No�:. r(1)\..u...(Developed by: C. O...S�IX. \) of'·,\\ , � t "5\-o..-.. �'--Measuring Point (MP) of Well: TDC ),JScreened Interval (ft bgs): 2> 2. S - 3 5 5 Starting H 20 Level (BMP):Filter Pack Interval (ft bgs): 3 I C\ ·- 3 5 5 Casing Stickup TOC (ft):Development Method: �o-\\ Sv-�&, 1 f ..... M.g Casing Diameter On ID):Casirur Volume faal):QUALITY ASSURANCE Methods (describe) Clcanin2 Equipment: N�Page:_J._of '/.. b1 f>i.,,,v., P..--rt4..'J' .3 /,9'S i\<t:7Devdopment: I, '5' " ')( l D' 'oc-·�, · 3 ,. ')).-.c:.. r,. llo - A-.>L s, • ....-"-<-3" e �J.'-. �-u!o, p """"',p-Disoosal of Pur1re Water: Co""\-o:,"' tr·, -z::-<-!).. c:::>""-S'itc. Instruments (indicate make, model, id.) Water Level:Thermometer: 5C.."M.t' ll.A �....,_,(._oH Meter: I\ q,�.. Tr>\\ (t;c:ro / :;/.,, 'I (Q q Cf\ q Field Calibration: l /H /2-0Conductivity l'vleter: Se..� o..i. A. loo\.>-{ Field Calibration: 1/1flzoTurbidity Meter: So..-. "'-� ti.louVJ.... Field Calibration:Other: Iv A..Field Calibration:DEVELOPMENT MEASUREMENTS Date/Time\ l"f zo D%5f\\4 "20 \\1..0\IL.f Z.D 1'7.'?:.U111-I 'ti) 1�\0I ill./ ·". m�I 14 J.D li.\1<liJ 11/ 11.v lb\'5I 11-111.0 lli,15 \ 11'-lhD jl,1,1..i IJd/i., .�30, t'i(zo /k�Zi/!'1/1.0 11.?j-5.1 1'-1'/?.o llJ'-lilI 1'1 hD H,'\< I 11.dio 1�50I Nizo 1�55/ '1'1/-i.:, 1 /tii 5i Cumul.Vol.(gal) 2 10---20 ----
It>:> I (.Q5 -2R5-3 '11 ]-i-7 Temp.(C)11.lo'-i13,�'-\---12,11..------11.--':lt\1 .. ,1.DD-12, 9-l\� .t'l -Total Discharge (gal): 51'1-Field EC Color Turbidity( �5/c�) 7 "7'il<t.YD -i�J\. 1010.�
�01t;·1.-�C?. °Kfbl,)V"\ 53J/,2.-------41 '1<'l�. le �i�121. ·3>---------------T�l't>'\,�� iro\.vl\.3(9.<if,13, 79S1�,'l'-i Bro"'"·.5'"�1.1---1'14S'f,o't �\,\. ·.;u� .-��0�3't.�13 �/0� I (i,7. 5---Casing Volumes Purged:Observations/ Comments: ?.,__r-.� \.,.J-r,..-t.v--bctD,....�t., Lut +-,.61�. .;, Abbreviations:ID = inside diameterBMP = below measuring point C = CelsiusBGS = below ground surface gal = gallonsCumul. Vol. = cumulative volume removed ft= feetin= inchesFolcnamc: Well dn-d.dwoe Otherr it '7,"i 5-, • zcP ---1.1..0-----7,o·i.,7.011,oq l.()'8°'-
3,1
(.01.,_-l(,"'--'--'-' Remarks �C>(Z.r - � <» .11/- I to:.�{)i,,r 11.n fi,,:'tk_ ll;tt-u..1 ,.sto.�� S'-'r_.'.y(--,�'"'" $WJ"'j .$'t?f,�t,t.,.,.(_a.,. \', ... u.-t-J... (}11,·,v;-1--1 Drwc; �;.2,-5 1-c.Si .:,:....� A.. .. ,1 ,... j'IA°"f ---�· .... \\-� A� '3'i s I £'-\ �.--L..J.. lv......_p11. 7� 'lPtY\ / D1l.>:: i/-?.�i, '-I.;;;,..._ I JJ rw:.. '-f2.l-f1,,,,i:.ru-.r /lo1.,;' �Q... .\ D TL,>:: /../1, ", L F'L;y.,, l'Z, I t:)TIJ;-'-fl,5'./OT�::. '11,�S 0 rw � 'i&.olorw -'1'o.1s ;:-1,.,,,,, rz-u-
F4'1.v /Z,�1
"({-Oi,,,, /'2,5 S\.....,_ 1,. e,�'.t..- � LAw\.o/JP..c....,,/) D<...v'1 °" 1/1-r(u
t7
i-.-I
)f
;,.,
�f
�I
() Stantec
1.41
1.41
Groundwater Well No. or Sampling Point Sampling Team Members: Date Team Leader
Groundwater Sampling Sheet EnergySoludons CL-EV-PR-004-F3 (Rev 2) Arrival Time
5',0 !lJ'uCt� � Assistant Description of Well Condition. (Note the condition of the well at the time of arrival, whether the well is secure (locked), general condition, note presence of cracks or any evidence oftampenng) r:C} N In good cond111on? '(J N ls the well fully operanonal?
Y N Was the lock secure on arrival?_.,.. #Jk
Y N e sandy or silty materials in the well?
Weather Conditions Wind Direction Speed (est.) Cloud Cover Temperature Q-S::�6 �ve�,L __ 3=--=''----degrees F Yj;idence of tampering or vandalism? Y landing water in or around the well? Precip: Present Recent Rain Snow Other _.:_,M_c:..�.L.--Y racks or breaks in the concrete or casings? , 9 N Has the annual TD been detennined? Y N Has the annual pump/tubing inspection been performed?-Iv fC v {5)1s tl1e well in need of repairs? Y N ls there a marked change in pumping rate?...-rJ k Pre--Sampling Groundwater Field Analysis Results. Temperature: F C Specific Conductivity: µmbos/cm
# Pre-pH Pre-Temp Pre-SC Pre-Eh Pre-Diss 0 Appearance of Groundwater
Cb/( ( t4-.fu3 2 �.qJ_ (4-,<o� 3 6Ad-I �L�t Well Infonnation: for 2-inch well Purge Volwne Fonnula: Depth to well bottom Com): Survey factor for DTW probe: Calculated purge volwne:
qs�� -.1.,� 0,3� �s-,=r -i�(®i � { is-a -�s--t0 .30
v, (gal)= 0.5 gaVft x (Deptbm -Depthm0) Depth to groundwater (Dm0): Adjusted Dm0: Time pump on: /J'+> Time pump off:
c.1-ea"-
Total purge volwne: !" flow rate of purge: --�('---------gallons/minute 2nd flow rate of purge: __ _.[L-________ gallons/minute Analytical laboratories and delivery infonnation: Rad Lab Chem Lab
Collection Order Minimwn VoV Container
--�A}k�'--a. Volatile Organics 3x40mVglass 2 ,J A:, b. Semi-VOCs --�---__ _,)<.._,,.__c. Metals/Inorgs
4 -�>( __ d.@-ss
2x500mVamber glass 500 ml plastic 500 ml plastic
Sampling Team Leader's Initials: -----'&tJA'--'--"-''--=-----
Delivery Time/Date: Delivery Time/Date:
Collection Order Minimum VoV Container
X e. Cations 5 00 ml plastic 6 X f Anions 500 ml plastic x �-0 g. Radiologies pgallons plastic
8 /JR h. Others ( descnbe) a ,_a.-Otbers: ____ ,,,_�tf:::.... ___________ _ Page_±J_
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix B PHOTOGRAPHS

Appendix B PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographic Log
Page 1 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:1
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
0 - 2 ft bgs
Photograph ID:2
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
2 - 4.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 2 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:3
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
4.5 - 7 ft bgs
Photograph ID:4
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
7 - 9.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 3 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:5
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
9.5 - 12 ft bgs
Photograph ID:6
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
12 - 14.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 4 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:7
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
14.5 - 17 ft bgs
Photograph ID:8
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
17 - 19.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 5 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:9
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
19.5 - 22 ft bgs
Photograph ID:10
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
22 - 24.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 6 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:11
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
24.5 - 27 ft bgs
Photograph ID:12
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
27 - 29.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 7 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:13
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
29.5 - 32 ft bgs
Photograph ID:14
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
32 - 34.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 8 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:15
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
34.5 - 37 ft bgs
Photograph ID:16
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
37 - 39.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 9 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:17
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
39.5 - 42 ft bgs
Photograph ID:18
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
42 - 44.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 10 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:19
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
44.5 - 47 ft bgs
Photograph ID:20
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
47 - 49.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 11 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:21
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
49.5 - 52 ft bgs
Photograph ID:22
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
52 - 57 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 12 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:23
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
57 - 59.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:24
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
59.5 - 62 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 13 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:25
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
62 - 64.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:26
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
64.5 - 67 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 14 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:27
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
67 - 69.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:28
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
69.5 - 71 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 15 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:29
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
71 - 77 ft bgs
Photograph ID:30
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
77 - 79.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 16 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:31
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
79.5 - 82 ft bgs
Photograph ID:32
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
82 - 84.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 17 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:33
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
84.5 - 87 ft bgs
Photograph ID:34
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
87 - 89.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 18 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:35
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
89.5 - 92 ft bgs
Photograph ID:36
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
92 - 94.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 19 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:37
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
94.5 - 97 ft bgs
Photograph ID:38
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
97 - 99.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 20 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:39
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
99.5 - 102 ft bgs
Photograph ID:40
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
102 - 104.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 21 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:41
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
104.5 - 107 ft bgs
Photograph ID:42
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
107 - 109.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 22 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:43
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
109 - 112.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:44
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
112 - 114.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 23 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:45
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
114.5 - 117 ft bgs
Photograph ID:46
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
117 - 119.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 24 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:47
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
119.5 - 122 ft bgs
Photograph ID:48
Drilling Date:
11/15/2019
Comments:
122 - 124.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 25 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:49
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
124.5 - 127 ft bgs
Photograph ID:50
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
127 - 129.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 26 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:51
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
129.5 - 132 ft bgs
Photograph ID:52
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
132 - 134.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 27 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:53
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
134.5 - 137 ft bgs
Photograph ID:54
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
137 - 139.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 28 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:55
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
139.5 - 142 ft bgs
Photograph ID:56
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
142 - 144.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 29 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:57
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
144.5 - 147 ft bgs
Photograph ID:58
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
147 - 149.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 30 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:59
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
149.5 - 152 ft bgs
Photograph ID:60
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
152 - 154.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 31 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:61
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
154.5 - 157 ft bgs
Photograph ID:62
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
157 - 159.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 32 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:63
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
159.5 - 162 ft bgs
Photograph ID:64
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
162 - 164.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 33 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:65
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
164.5 - 167 ft bgs
Photograph ID:66
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
167 - 169.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 34 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:67
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
169.5 - 172 ft bgs
Photograph ID:68
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
172 - 174.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 35 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:69
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
174.5 - 177 ft bgs
Photograph ID:70
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
177 - 179.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 36 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:71
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
179.5 - 182 ft bgs; bag
broke, sample fell out
Photograph ID:72
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
182 - 184.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 37 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:73
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
184.5 - 187 ft bgs
Photograph ID:74
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
187 - 189.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 38 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:75
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
189.5 - 192 ft bgs
Photograph ID:76
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
192 - 194.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 39 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:77
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
194.5 - 197 ft bgs
Photograph ID:78
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
197 - 199.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 40 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:79
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
199.5 - 202 ft bgs
Photograph ID:80
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
202 - 204.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 41 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:81
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
204.5 - 207 ft bgs
Photograph ID:82
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
207 - 209.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 42 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:83
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
209.5 - 212 ft bgs
Photograph ID:84
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
212 - 214.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 43 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:85
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
214.5 - 217 ft bgs
Photograph ID:86
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
217 - 219.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 44 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:87
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
219.5 - 222 ft bgs
Photograph ID:88
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
222 - 224.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 45 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:89
Drilling Date:
11/18/2019
Comments:
224.5 - 227 ft bgs
Photograph ID:90
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
227 - 229.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 46 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:91
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
229.5 - 232 ft bgs
Photograph ID:92
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
232 - 234.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 47 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:93
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
234.5 - 237 ft bgs
Photograph ID:94
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
237 - 239.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 48 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:95
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
239.5 - 242 ft bgs
Photograph ID:96
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
242 - 244.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 49 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:97
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
244.5 - 247 ft bgs
Photograph ID:98
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
247 - 249.5 ft bgs - No
Recovery
Photographic Log
Page 50 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:99
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
249.5 - 252 ft bgs
Photograph ID:100
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
252 - 254.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 51 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:101
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
254.5 - 257 ft bgs
Photograph ID:102
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
257 - 259.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 52 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:103
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
259.5 - 262 ft bgs
Photograph ID:104
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
262 - 264.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 53 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:105
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
264.5 - 267 ft bgs
Photograph ID:106
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
267 - 269.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 54 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:107
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
269.5 - 272 ft bgs
Photograph ID:108
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
272 - 274.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 55 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:109
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
274.5 - 277 ft bgs
Photograph ID:110
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
277 - 279.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 56 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:111
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
279.5 - 282 ft bgs
Photograph ID:112
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
282 - 284.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 57 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:113
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
284.5 - 287 ft bgs
Photograph ID:114
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
287 - 289.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 58 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:115
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
289.5 - 292 ft bgs
Photograph ID:116
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
292 - 294.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 59 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:117
Drilling Date:
11/19/2019
Comments:
294.5 - 297 ft bgs
Photograph ID:118
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
297 - 299.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 60 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:119
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
299.5 - 302 ft bgs
Photograph ID:120
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
302 - 304.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 61 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:121
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
304.5 - 307 ft bgs
Photograph ID:122
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
307 - 309.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 62 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:123
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
309.5 - 312 ft bgs
Photograph ID:124
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
312 - 314.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 63 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:125
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
314.5 - 317 ft bgs
Photograph ID:126
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
317 - 319.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 64 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:127
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
319.5 - 322 ft bgs
Photograph ID:128
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
322 - 324.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 65 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:129
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
324.5 - 327 ft bgs
Photograph ID:130
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
327 - 329.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 66 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:131
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
329.5 - 332 ft bgs
Photograph ID:132
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
332 - 334.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 67 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:133
Drilling Date:
11/20/2019
Comments:
334.5 - 337 ft bgs
Photograph ID:134
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
337 - 339.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 68 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:135
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
339.5 - 342 ft bgs
Photograph ID:136
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
342 - 344.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 69 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:137
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
344.5 - 347 ft bgs
Photograph ID:138
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
347 - 349.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 70 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:139
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
349.5 - 352 ft bgs
Photograph ID:140
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
352 - 354.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 71 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:141
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
354.5 - 357 ft bgs
Photograph ID:142
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
357 - 359.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 72 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:143
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
359.5 - 362 ft bgs
Photograph ID:144
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
362 - 364.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 73 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:145
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
364.5 - 367 ft bgs
Photograph ID:146
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
367 - 369.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 74 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:147
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
369.5 - 372 ft bgs
Photograph ID:148
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
372 - 374.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 75 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:149
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
374.5 - 377 ft bgs
Photograph ID:150
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
377 - 379.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 76 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:151
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
379.5 - 382 ft bgs
Photograph ID:152
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
382 - 384.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 77 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:153
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
384.5 - 387 ft bgs
Photograph ID:154
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
387 - 389.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 78 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:155
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
389.5 - 392 ft bgs
Photograph ID:156
Drilling Date:
11/21/2019
Comments:
392 - 394.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 79 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:157
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
394.5 - 397 ft bgs
Photograph ID:158
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
397 - 399.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 80 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:159
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
399.5 - 402 ft bgs
Photograph ID:160
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
402 - 404.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 81 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:161
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
404.5 - 407 ft bgs
Photograph ID:162
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
407 - 409.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 82 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:163
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
409.5 - 212 ft bgs
Photograph ID:164
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
412- 414.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 83 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:165
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
414.5 - 417 ft bgs
Photograph ID:166
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
417 - 419.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 84 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:167
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
419.5 - 422 ft bgs
Photograph ID:168
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
422 - 424.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 85 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:169
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
424.5 - 427 ft bgs
Photograph ID:170
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
427 - 429.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 86 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:171
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
429.5 - 432 ft bgs
Photograph ID:172
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
432 - 434.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 87 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:173
Drilling Date:
11/22/2019
Comments:
434.5 - 437 ft bgs
Photograph ID:174
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
437 - 440 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 88 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:175
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
440 - 442.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:176
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
442.5 - 445 ft bs
Photographic Log
Page 89 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:177
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
445 - 447.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:178
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
447.5 - 450 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 90 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:179
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
450 - 452 ft bgs
Photograph ID:180
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
452 - 454.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 91 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:181
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
454.5 - 457 ft bgs
Photograph ID:182
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
457 - 460 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 92 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:183
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
460 - 462.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:184
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
462.5 - 465 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 93 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:185
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
465 - 467.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:186
Drilling Date:
11/25/2019
Comments:
467.5 - 470 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 94 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:187
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
470 - 472 ft bgs
Photograph ID:188
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
472 - 474.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 95 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:189
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
474.5 - 477 ft bgs
Photograph ID:190
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
477 - 479 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 96 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:191
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
479 - 481.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:192
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
481.5 - 484 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 97 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:193
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
484 - 486.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:194
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
486.5 - 489 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 98 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:195
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
489 - 491.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:196
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
491.5 - 494 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 99 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:197
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
494 - 497 ft bgs
Photograph ID:198
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
497 - 499.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 100 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:199
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
499.5 - 502 ft bgs
Photograph ID:200
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
502 - 504.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 101 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:201
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
504.5 - 507 ft bgs
Photograph ID:202
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
507 - 510 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 102 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:203
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
510 - 512.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:204
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
512.5 - 515 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 103 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:205
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
515 - 517.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:206
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
517.5 - 520 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 104 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:207
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
520 - 522.5 ft bgs
Photograph ID:208
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
522.5 - 525 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 105 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:209
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
525 - 527 ft bgs
Photograph ID:210
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
527 - 529.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 106 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:211
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
529.5 - 532 ft bgs
Photograph ID:212
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
532 - 534.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 107 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:213
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
534.5 - 537 ft bgs
Photograph ID:214
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
537 - 539.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 108 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:215
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
539.5 - 542 ft bgs
Photograph ID:216
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
542 - 544.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 109 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:217
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
544.5 - 547 ft bgs
Photograph ID:218
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
547 - 549.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 110 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:219
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
549.5 - 552 ft bgs
Photograph ID:220
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
552 - 554.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 111 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:221
Drilling Date:
12/2/2019
Comments:
554.5 - 557 ft bgs
Photograph ID:222
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
557 - 559.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 112 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:223
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
559.5 - 562 ft bgs
Photograph ID:224
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
562 - 564.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 113 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:225
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
564.5 - 567 ft bgs
Photograph ID:226
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
567 - 569.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 114 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:227
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
569.5 - 572 ft bgs
Photograph ID:228
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
572 - 574.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 115 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:229
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
574.5 - 577 ft bgs
Photograph ID:230
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
577 - 579.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 116 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:231
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
579.5 - 582 ft bgs
Photograph ID:232
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
582 - 584.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 117 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:233
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
584.5 - 587 ft bgs
Photograph ID:234
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
587 - 589.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 118 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:235
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
589.5 - 592 ft bgs
Photograph ID:236
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
592 - 594.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 119 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:237
Drilling Date:
12/3/2019
Comments:
594.5 - 597 ft bgs
Photograph ID:238
Drilling Date:
12/4/2019
Comments:
597 - 599.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 120 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:239
Drilling Date:
12/4/2019
Comments:
599.5 - 602 ft bgs
Photograph ID:240
Drilling Date:
12/4/2019
Comments:
602 - 604.5 ft bgs
Photographic Log
Page 121 of 121
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:241
Drilling Date:
12/4/2019
Comments:
604.5 - 607 ft bgs
Photograph ID:242
Drilling Date:
12/5/2019
Comments:
607 - 615 ft bgs;
Breccia/Rock flour
Photographic Log
Page 1 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:1
Drilling Date:
11/26/2019
Comments:
Sonic drill rig and support
truck set up on I-1-700.
Core laid down under tarps
covered by snow.
Photograph ID:2
Drilling Date:
1/31/2020
Comments:
End cap placed at bottom
of well screen prior to
lowering down borehole.
Photographic Log
Page 2 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:3
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Stainless steel well screen
specifics.
Photograph ID:4
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Stainless steel well blank
casing specifics.
Photographic Log
Page 3 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:5
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Stainless steel well blank
casing laid out for well build
installation.
Photograph ID:6
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Sand used for filter pack
around screen.
Photographic Log
Page 4 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:7
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Sand used for filter pack
around screen.
Photograph ID:8
Drilling Date:
12/12/2019
Comments:
Bentonite chips used for
bentonite seal.
Photographic Log
Page 5 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:9
Drilling Date:
12/13/2019
Comments:
Grout used for annular
seal.
Photograph ID:10
Drilling Date:
12/13/2019
Comments:
Concrete used for surface
seal.
Photographic Log
Page 6 of 6
Client:EnergySolutions, LLC Project:Basal Aquifer
Characterization Drilling
Site Name:Clive Facility Site Location:I-1-700
Photograph ID:11
Drilling Date:
1/16/2020
Comments:
Surface completion of
I-1-700 (photo taken during
well development set up)
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix C GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY REPORT

Appendix C GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY REPORT

Water Content and Unit Weight of Soil
(In General Accordance with ASTM D7263 Method B and D2216)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project:
No:
Location:
Date:
By:
Boring No.I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700
Sample:
Depth (ft.):247.0-247.5 247.5-248.0 248.0-248.5 297.0-297.5 297.5-298.0 298.0-298.5 337.0-337.5 337.5-338.0
Sample height, H (in)5.402 5.838 5.433 5.939 3.018 5.948 5.124 5.031
Sample diameter, D (in)2.424 2.417 2.398 2.441 2.432 2.432 2.383 2.378
Sample volume, V (ft3) 0.0144 0.0155 0.0142 0.0161 0.0081 0.0160 0.0132 0.0129
Mass rings + wet soil (g)1010.32 1145.56 1021.85 1061.63 1165.19 1015.51 955.73 904.34
Mass rings/tare (g)205.18 204.31 207.97 204.47 757.31 202.42 279.00 278.36
Moist soil, Ws (g) 805.14 941.25 813.88 857.16 407.88 813.09 676.73 625.98
Moist unit wt., m (pcf)123.03 133.87 126.36 117.49 110.83 112.11 112.81 106.73
Wet soil + tare (g)356.47 470.32 385.11 402.79 329.56 362.35 391.51 345.68
Dry soil + tare (g)309.94 423.99 341.49 336.78 278.54 309.66 336.89 274.06
Tare (g)121.93 128.51 123.63 126.68 127.94 127.97 120.75 121.26
24.7 15.7 20.0 31.4 33.9 29.0 25.3 46.9
98.6 115.7 105.3 89.4 82.8 86.9 90.1 72.7
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[MDv1.xlsx]1
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
1/10/2020
Dry Unit Wt., d (pcf)
Sa
m
p
l
e

In
f
o
.
Un
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

I
n
f
o
.
Wa
t
e
r

Co
n
t
e
n
t

Water Content, w (%)
Wa
t
e
r

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

l
e
a
k
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

t
u
b
e

s
a
m
p
l
e
.
BF/EH/KK
Wa
t
e
r

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

l
e
a
k
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

t
u
b
e

s
a
m
p
l
e
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
:
Water Content and Unit Weight of Soil
(In General Accordance with ASTM D7263 Method B and D2216)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project:
No:
Location:
Date:
By:
Boring No.I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700
Sample:
Depth (ft.):338.0-338.5 377.0-377.5 377.5-378.0 378.0-378.5
Sample height, H (in)5.491 2.726 2.929 5.890
Sample diameter, D (in)2.388 2.400 2.404 2.398
Sample volume, V (ft3) 0.0142 0.0071 0.0077 0.0154
Mass rings + wet soil (g)957.82 371.42 1158.90 785.75
Mass rings/tare (g)278.93 0.00 757.31 0.00
Moist soil, Ws (g) 678.89 371.42 401.59 785.75
Moist unit wt., m (pcf)105.16 114.74 115.08 112.53
Wet soil + tare (g)382.09 362.31 314.75 356.51
Dry soil + tare (g)308.47 327.00 262.99 291.27
Tare (g)140.36 219.88 112.21 125.04
43.8 33.0 34.3 39.2
73.1 86.3 85.7 80.8
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[MDv1.xlsx]2
Sa
m
p
l
e

In
f
o
.
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
1/10/2020
BF/EH/KK
Un
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

I
n
f
o
.
Wa
t
e
r

Co
n
t
e
n
t

Water Content, w (%)
Dry Unit Wt., d (pcf)
Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer
(ASTM D854)© IGES 2005, 2020
Project:
No:
Location:
Date:
By:
I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700
247.0-248.5 297.5-298.0 297.0-298.5 337.0-338.5 377.5-378.0 377.0-378.5
Not req. Not req. Not req. Not req. Not req. Not req.
A A A A A A
100 100 100 100 100 100
7 3 8 3 5 5
169.53 170.54 166.67 170.57 168.65 168.65
725.43 714.08 712.18 695.21 710.2 695.25
21.1 20.6 21.1 20.8 20.6 20.8
668.14 669.31 665.36 669.29 667.31 667.29
419.96 484.86 410.46 377.72 400.16 369.23
326.41 410.39 332.29 333.15 330.85 324.16
93.55 74.47 78.17 44.57 69.31 45.07
2.580 2.508 2.493 2.390 2.623 2.634
0.99977 0.99987 0.99977 0.99983 0.99987 0.99983
2.579 2.508 2.493 2.390 2.623 2.633
Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[Gsv1.0.xlsx]1
Mass of tare + dry soil (g)
Mass of tare (g)
Mass of pycnometer (g)
Mass of pycnometer, soil, and water, Mws,t (g)
Temperature, T t (°C)
Mass of pycnometer and water at test temperature, Mpw,t (g)
Reviewed by:___________
Drill hole / Sample:
Sample:
Depth (ft)
Temperature coefficient, K
Specific gravity of soil solids at 20°C, G20°C
Method
Material passing No. 4 sieve, P (%)
Pycnometer No.
Mass of soil, M s (g)
Specific gravity of soil solids at test temperature, G t
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
:
Entered by:___________
Apparent specific gravity of solids retained on No. 4, G1@20°C
Average specific gravity at 20°C, Gavg @20°C
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
1/13/2020
Engineering Classification
BF
In
i
t
i
a
l

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

t
e
s
t

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

o
n
l
y

o
n

t
h
e

m
i
d
d
l
e

d
e
p
t
h

in
t
e
r
v
a
l

s
a
m
p
l
e
.

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e

i
s

2
.
6
3
1
In
i
t
i
a
l

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

t
e
s
t

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

o
n
l
y

o
n

t
h
e

m
i
d
d
l
e

d
e
p
t
h

in
t
e
r
v
a
l

s
a
m
p
l
e
.

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

g
r
a
v
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e

i
s

2
.
4
9
9
Porosity of Soil
© IGES 2007, 2020
Project:
No:
Location:
Date:
By:
Boring No.I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700 I-1-700
Sample:
Depth (ft.):247.0-248.5 297.0-298.5 337.0-338.5 377.0-378.5
Sample height, H (in)16.673 14.905 15.646 11.545
Sample diameter, D (in)2.413 2.435 2.383 2.401
Mass rings + wet soil (g)3177.73 3242.33 2817.89 2316.07
Mass rings/tare (g)617.46 1164.20 836.29 757.31
Moist soil, Ws (g) 2560.27 2078.13 1981.60 1558.76
Moist unit wt., m (pcf)127.9 114.1 108.2 113.6
Wet soil + tare (g)1211.90 1094.70 1119.28 1033.57
Dry soil + tare (g)1075.42 924.98 919.42 881.26
Tare (g)374.07 382.59 382.37 457.13
Water content (%) 19.5 31.3 37.2 35.9
Specific gravity of solids, Gs 2.579 2.499 2.390 2.631
Void ratio, e 0.504 0.796 0.892 0.964
Porosity, n 0.335 0.443 0.472 0.491
33.5 44.3 47.2 49.1
33.4 43.5 47.0 48.1
0.1 0.8 0.2 1.0
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[PORv1.xlsx]1
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
1/13/2020
Sa
m
p
l
e

In
f
o
.
EH/KK/BF
Un
i
t

W
e
i
g
h
t

D
a
t
a
Wa
t
e
r

Co
n
t
e
n
t

Total Soil Porosity, n (%)
Water Porosity, w (%)
Air Porosity, a (%)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 350.61
Dry soil + tare (g):- 319.84
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 128.53
Total sample wt. (g):222.08 191.31 Water content (%): 0.0 16.1
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 0.82 4.75 99.6
o.10 1.68 2 99.1
o.20 2.64 0.85 98.6
o.40 3.70 0.425 98.1
o.60 5.48 0.25 97.1
o.100 21.35 0.15 88.8
o.140 78.00 0.106 59.2
o.200 134.50 0.075 29.7
Gravel %:0.4
Sand %:69.9
Fines %:29.7
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]1
I-1-700

87-89'
Light brown silty sand
BF
EnergySolutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
12/26/2019
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):331.15 414.97
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):314.51 375.50
Moist Dr Tare (g):128.58 124.48
Total sample wt. (g):2562.54 2222.37 Water content (%): 8.9 15.7
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):149.21 136.95
-3/8" Split fraction (g):290.49 251.02
Split fraction: 0.938
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 100.0
3/4" 20.08 19 99.1
3/8" 136.95 9.5 93.8 ←Split
o.4 30.88 4.75 82.3
o.10 85.09 2 62.0
o.20 134.68 0.85 43.5
o.40 166.66 0.425 31.5
o.60 186.16 0.25 24.2
o.100 203.91 0.15 17.6
o.140 211.43 0.106 14.8
o.200 218.62 0.075 12.1
Gravel %:17.7
Sand %:70.2
Fines %:12.1
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]2
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 107-109'
12/26/2019 Brown clayey sand with
gravelBF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):136.68 436.92
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):136.08 349.82
Moist Dr Tare (g):128.50 126.86
Total sample wt. (g):2183.34 1571.47 Water content (%): 7.9 39.1
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):7.01 6.50
-3/8" Split fraction (g):310.06 222.96
Split fraction: 0.996
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 100.0
3/8" 6.50 9.5 99.6 ←Split
o.4 -4.75 99.6
o.10 0.54 2 99.3
o.20 1.26 0.85 99.0
o.40 2.18 0.425 98.6
o.60 6.72 0.25 96.6
o.100 46.27 0.15 78.9
o.140 83.41 0.106 62.3
o.200 142.11 0.075 36.1
Gravel %:0.4
Sand %:63.5
Fines %:36.1
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]3
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 227-229'
12/24/2019 Brown silty sand
BF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):380.30 571.90
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):364.95 494.60
Moist Dr Tare (g):224.10 128.68
Total sample wt. (g):1961.20 1628.46 Water content (%): 10.9 21.1
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):122.19 110.18
-3/8" Split fraction (g):443.22 365.92
Split fraction: 0.932
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 100.0
3/4" 35.88 19 97.8
3/8" 110.18 9.5 93.2 ←Split
o.4 32.42 4.75 85.0
o.10 77.93 2 73.4
o.20 118.12 0.85 63.1
o.40 150.71 0.425 54.8
o.60 183.78 0.25 46.4
o.100 236.50 0.15 33.0
o.140 268.67 0.106 24.8
o.200 301.12 0.075 16.5
Gravel %:15.0
Sand %:68.5
Fines %:16.5
Comments:
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]4
These results are in
nonconformance with
Method D6913 because
the minimum dry mass
was not met.
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 245-255'
12/24/2019 Brown silty sand with gravel
BSS
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):304.94 627.29
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):280.84 516.38
Moist Dr Tare (g):123.56 121.66
Total sample wt. (g):2120.08 1668.44 Water content (%): 15.3 28.1
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):155.00 134.41
-3/8" Split fraction (g):505.63 394.72
Split fraction: 0.919
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 100.0
1" 90.93 25 94.6
3/4" 100.72 19 94.0
3/8" 134.41 9.5 91.9 ←Split
o.4 20.27 4.75 87.2
o.10 46.43 2 81.1
o.20 84.76 0.85 72.2
o.40 112.72 0.425 65.7
o.60 134.66 0.25 60.6
o.100 169.71 0.15 52.4
o.140 205.65 0.106 44.0
o.200 248.25 0.075 34.1
Gravel %:12.8
Sand %:53.1
Fines %:34.1
Comments:
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]5
These results are in
nonconformance with
Method D6913 because
the minimum dry mass
was not met.
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 282-287'
12/24/2019 Brown clayey sand
BSS
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):129.52 559.45
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):129.44 442.95
Moist Dr Tare (g):127.99 121.13
Total sample wt. (g):1669.7 1226.26 Water content (%): 5.5 36.2
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):1.53 1.45
-3/8" Split fraction (g):438.32 321.82
Split fraction: 0.999
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 100.0
3/8" 1.45 9.5 99.9 ←Split
o.4 1.44 4.75 99.4
o.10 4.95 2 98.3
o.20 7.25 0.85 97.6
o.40 11.47 0.425 96.3
o.60 28.85 0.25 90.9
o.100 65.36 0.15 79.6
o.140 99.19 0.106 69.1
o.200 143.39 0.075 55.4
Gravel %:0.6
Sand %:44.1
Fines %:55.4
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]6
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 337-342'
12/24/2019 Grey sandy silt
BSS
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):556.94 471.52
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):531.45 420.55
Moist Dr Tare (g):127.36 127.23
Total sample wt. (g):1812.4 1578.55 Water content (%): 6.3 17.4
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):388.41 365.36
-3/8" Split fraction (g):344.29 293.32
Split fraction: 0.769
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 100.0
1.5" 255.62 37.5 83.8
1" 290.99 25 81.6
3/4" 316.64 19 79.9
3/8" 365.36 9.5 76.9 ←Split
o.4 17.72 4.75 72.2
o.10 39.59 2 66.5
o.20 61.00 0.85 60.9
o.40 75.73 0.425 57.0
o.60 86.62 0.25 54.2
o.100 97.89 0.15 51.2
o.140 104.54 0.106 49.5
o.200 110.43 0.075 47.9
Gravel %:27.8
Sand %:24.3
Fines %:47.9
Comments:
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]7
These results are in
nonconformance with
Method D6913 because
the minimum dry mass
was not met.
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 356-359'
12/27/2019 Brownish grey clayey gravel
with sandBSS
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 363.07
Dry soil + tare (g):- 308.46
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 126.91
Total sample wt. (g):236.16 181.55 Water content (%): 0.0 30.1
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 9.86 4.75 94.6
o.10 26.19 2 85.6
o.20 39.97 0.85 78.0
o.40 51.38 0.425 71.7
o.60 61.30 0.25 66.2
o.100 75.20 0.15 58.6
o.140 84.44 0.106 53.5
o.200 96.38 0.075 46.9
Gravel %:5.4
Sand %:47.7
Fines %:46.9
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]8
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 367-369'
12/26/2019 Light brown clayey sand
BF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 367.31
Dry soil + tare (g):- 313.35
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 122.99
Total sample wt. (g):244.32 190.36 Water content (%): 0.0 28.3
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 14.04 4.75 92.6
o.10 26.54 2 86.1
o.20 38.63 0.85 79.7
o.40 49.41 0.425 74.0
o.60 59.79 0.25 68.6
o.100 73.38 0.15 61.5
o.140 84.09 0.106 55.8
o.200 96.90 0.075 49.1
Gravel %:7.4
Sand %:43.5
Fines %:49.1
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]9
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 430-432'
12/26/2019 Brown clayey sand
BF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):127.31 316.49
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):127.20 281.20
Moist Dr Tare (g):124.46 126.87
Total sample wt. (g):1181.22 961.79 Water content (%): 4.0 22.9
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):2.77 2.66
-3/8" Split fraction (g):189.62 154.33
Split fraction: 0.997
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 100.0
3/8" 2.66 9.5 99.7 ←Split
o.4 3.32 4.75 97.6
o.10 8.91 2 94.0
o.20 15.48 0.85 89.7
o.40 19.62 0.425 87.0
o.60 22.53 0.25 85.2
o.100 26.91 0.15 82.3
o.140 31.07 0.106 79.6
o.200 36.35 0.075 76.2
Gravel %:2.4
Sand %:21.3
Fines %:76.2
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]10
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 505-507'
12/27/2019 Brown clay with sand
JAB
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 345.04
Dry soil + tare (g):- 296.00
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 118.61
Total sample wt. (g):226.43 177.39 Water content (%): 0.0 27.6
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 0.61 4.75 99.7
o.10 3.58 2 98.0
o.20 10.75 0.85 93.9
o.40 18.31 0.425 89.7
o.60 27.36 0.25 84.6
o.100 49.19 0.15 72.3
o.140 73.35 0.106 58.7
o.200 98.28 0.075 44.6
Gravel %:0.3
Sand %:55.1
Fines %:44.6
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]11
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 523-525'
12/27/2019 Brown silty sand
JAB
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 338.74
Dry soil + tare (g):- 299.29
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 141.48
Total sample wt. (g):197.26 157.81 Water content (%): 0.0 25.0
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 100.0
o.4 0.21 4.75 99.9
o.10 3.42 2 97.8
o.20 13.38 0.85 91.5
o.40 22.35 0.425 85.8
o.60 29.88 0.25 81.1
o.100 43.48 0.15 72.4
o.140 57.62 0.106 63.5
o.200 72.89 0.075 53.8
Gravel %:0.1
Sand %:46.1
Fines %:53.8
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]12
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 542-544'
12/27/2019 Reddish brown sandy clay
JAB
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data C.F.(+3/8")S.F.(-3/8")
Split:Yes Moist soil + tare (g):163.59 298.26
Split sieve:3/8"Dry soil + tare (g):160.71 268.46
Moist Dr Tare (g):127.74 128.08
Total sample wt. (g):1060.98 878.51 Water content (%): 8.7 21.2
+3/8" Coarse fraction (g):35.05 32.23
-3/8" Split fraction (g):170.18 140.38
Split fraction: 0.963
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 100.0
1" 29.54 25 96.6
3/4" 29.54 19 96.6
3/8" 32.23 9.5 96.3 ←Split
o.4 9.29 4.75 90.0
o.10 18.87 2 83.4
o.20 27.32 0.85 77.6
o.40 33.38 0.425 73.4
o.60 38.62 0.25 69.8
o.100 48.50 0.15 63.0
o.140 58.70 0.106 56.1
o.200 68.61 0.075 49.2
Gravel %:10.0
Sand %:40.7
Fines %:49.2
Comments:
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]13
These results are in
nonconformance with
Method D6913 because
the minimum dry mass
was not met.
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 570-572'
12/27/2019 Light brown clayey sand
JAB
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis
(ASTM D6913)© IGES 2004, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date: Description:
By:
Water content data
Split:o Moist soil + tare (g):- 375.69
Dry soil + tare (g):- 315.09
Moist Dr Tare (g):- 123.54
Total sample wt. (g):252.15 191.55 Water content (%): 0.0 31.6
0.00 0.00
-0.00
Split fraction: 1.000
Accum. Grain Size Percent
Sieve Wt. Ret. (g) (mm) Finer
6" -150 -
4" -100 -
3" -75 -
1.5" -37.5 -
1" -25 -
3/4" -19 -
3/8" -9.5 -
o.4 -4.75 100.0
o.10 1.22 2 99.4
o.20 3.24 0.85 98.3
o.40 5.21 0.425 97.3
o.60 11.53 0.25 94.0
o.100 40.15 0.15 79.0
o.140 75.82 0.106 60.4
o.200 110.22 0.075 42.5
Gravel %:0.0
Sand %:57.5
Fines %:42.5
Entered by:__________
Reviewed:__________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[GSDv2.xlsm]14
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation 590-592'
12/30/2019 Dark brown silty sand
BF
EnergySolutions I-1-700
3 in No.4 No.2003/4 in No.10 No.40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t

f
i
n
e
r

b
y

w
e
i
g
h
t
Grain size (mm)
Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible
Wall Permeameter, Method C (ASTM D5084)© IGES 2005, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date:Sample Description:
By:Sample Type:
Initial (o) Final (f)
Sample Height, H (in)3.018 2.988
Sample Diameter, D (in)2.432 2.370 Gs 2.508 Determined
Sample Length, L (cm) 7.666 7.590 Cell No.2
Sample Area, A (cm^2) 29.970 28.462 Station No.3
Sample Volume, V (cm^3) 229.74 216.02 Permeant liquid used
Wt. Rings + Wet Soil (g)1165.19 422.20 Total backpressure (psi)30
Wt. Rings (g)757.31 0 Effective horiz. consolidation stress (psi)60
Wet Unit Wt.,m (pcf) 110.8 122.0 Effective vert. consolidation stress (psi)60
Wet Soil + Tare (g)329.56 539.89 Initial (o) Final (f)
Dry Soil + Tare (g)278.54 428.50 B value 0.76 0.94
Tare (g)127.94 139.76 External Burette (cm )6.30 34.20
Weight of solids, Ws (g) 304.67 304.67 Cell Pressure (psi)0.0 90.0
Water Content, w (%) 33.88 38.58 Backpressure bottom (psi)30.0
Dry Unit Wt, d (pcf) 82.8 88.0 Backpressure top (psi)30.0
Void ratio, e 0.89 0.97 System volume coefficient (cm /psi)0.158
Saturation (%) 95.3 100 a System volume change (cm )14.18 `
Net sample volume change (cm )-13.72
Bottom burette ground length, l (cm) 82.25
a Saturation set to 100% for hase calculations Top burette ground length, l (cm) 81.95
b K corrected to 20ºC Burette area, a (cm )0.197
Conversion, reading to cm head (cm/rd) 5.076
Start Date and Time:1/8/20 10:11
Elapsed h1 h2 K Temp isc. Rati Kb
time (sec) (cm) (cm) (cm/sec) (ºC) RT (cm/sec)
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
Comments:
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[KBPFRHv1.xlsx]1
60.0
60.0
29.03
2.7E-05
2.7E-05
2.9E-05
8.40
8.2060.0
1.77
2.15
2.33
2.33
2.50
60.0 2.5E-05
27.15
60.0
29.038.00
60.0
7.81
8.40 35.07
0.92 2.5E-05
0.92
Middle depth interval tube sample of three used for test specimen. The maximum Skempton's B-value of 0.94 was
determined on subsequent B-checks with no increase. It is assumed that the test specimen was saturated.
1/9/2020
EH
Top Burette
(cm3)
Bottom Burette
(cm3)
2.6E-05
Reddish brown clayey sand
Undisturbed
Average Kb (cm/sec)
De-aired tap water
1.96
1.32
1.55
1.77
1.55
8.64 37.46
8.20
1.96 8.00
2.15
Energy Solutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
I-1-700

297.5-298.0'
30.96
35.07 32.94
32.94
7.81
7.62
7.62
7.46
2.7E-05
27.15
25.48 0.92
0.92
0.92 2.6E-05
2.9E-05
2.8E-05
2.8E-05
30.96
0.92 2.7E-05
2.6E-05
Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible
Wall Permeameter, Method C (ASTM D5084)© IGES 2005, 2020
Project: Boring No.:
No: Sample:
Location:Depth:
Date:Sample Description:
By:Sample Type:
Initial (o) Final (f)
Sample Height, H (in)2.929 2.877
Sample Diameter, D (in)2.404 2.296 Gs 2.493 Determined
Sample Length, L (cm) 7.440 7.308 Cell No.1
Sample Area, A (cm^2) 29.284 26.716 Station No.6
Sample Volume, V (cm^3) 217.86 195.24 Permeant liquid used
Wt. Rings + Wet Soil (g)1158.9 404.58 Total backpressure (psi)30
Wt. Rings (g)757.31 0 Effective horiz. consolidation stress (psi)60
Wet Unit Wt.,m (pcf) 115.1 129.4 Effective vert. consolidation stress (psi)60
Wet Soil + Tare (g)314.75 524.72 Initial (o) Final (f)
Dry Soil + Tare (g)262.99 419.81 B value 0.76 0.96
Tare (g)112.21 122.86 External Burette (cm )13.30 49.40
Weight of solids, Ws (g) 298.96 298.96 Cell Pressure (psi)0.0 90.0
Water Content, w (%) 34.33 35.33 Backpressure bottom (psi)30.0
Dry Unit Wt, d (pcf) 85.7 95.6 Backpressure top (psi)30.0
Void ratio, e 0.82 0.88 System volume coefficient (cm /psi)0.150
Saturation (%) 100.0 100 a System volume change (cm )13.48
Net sample volume change (cm )-22.62
Bottom burette ground length, l (cm) 82.05
a Saturation set to 100% for hase calculations Top burette ground length, l (cm) 82
b K corrected to 20ºC Burette area, a (cm )0.197
Conversion, reading to cm head (cm/rd) 5.076
Start Date and Time:1/8/20 10:11
Elapsed h1 h2 K Temp isc. Rati Kb
time (sec) (cm) (cm) (cm/sec) (ºC) RT (cm/sec)
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
Comments:
Entered by:___________
Reviewed:___________Z:\PROJECTS\M03271_Energy_Solutions\001_Basal_Aquifer\[KBPFRHv1.xlsx]2
Middle depth interval tube sample of three used for test specimen.
0.92
0.92
0.92
3.9E-06
377.5-378.0'
Reddish brown clayey sand
Undisturbed
3.9E-06
4.0E-060.92
Average Kb (cm/sec)
De-aired tap water
47.82 46.50
9.37
9.26
49.19
9.60
Bottom Burette
(cm3)
0.59 4.0E-06
180.0
43.91
3.9E-06
4.2E-06
4.2E-06
9.72
9.60180.0
0.45
Energy Solutions
M03271-001
Basal Aquifer Investigation
I-1-700

3.9E-06
9.48
0.59
0.16
0.31
0.45
0.31
Top Burette
(cm3)
9.84
1/9/2020
EH
9.72 47.82
0.92 3.8E-06
0.92180.0
180.0
0.73
0.86
0.86
0.99
180.0
9.26 42.69
180.0
43.919.48
9.370.73
4.2E-06
4.3E-06
4.3E-06
42.69
41.47
45.18 4.3E-06
46.50 45.18
9.15
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix D AQTESOLV ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Appendix D AQTESOLV ANALYTICAL RESULTS

10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5
0.01
0.1
1.
10.
100.
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: C:\...\I-1-700_Hantush_leakyconfined_pump.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 13:14:26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
Aquitard Thickness (b'): 1. ft Aquitard Thickness (b"): 1. ft
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Hantush
T = 45.51 ft2/day S = 1.91E-5
r/B' = 0.1 ß' = 0.1
r/B" = 0.ß" = 1.85
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5
0.01
0.1
1.
10.
100.
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: C:\...\I-1-700_Neuman_leakyconfined_pump.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 13:24:29
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
Aquitard Thickness (b'): 1. ft Aquitard Thickness (b"): 1. ft
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Neuman-Witherspoon
T = 48.08 ft2/day S = 0.004676
r/B = 0.1 ß = 0.1148
T2 = 3065.6 ft2/day S2 = 1.259E-5
10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5
-0.03
5.98
12.
18.
24.
30.
Adjusted Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: \...\I-1-700_CooperJacob_confined_pump.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 12:02:10
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 241.7 ft2/day S = 1.292E-7
1. 10. 100. 1000.
-0.03
2.98
5.98
8.99
12.
15.
Time, t/t'
Re
s
i
d
u
a
l

D
r
a
w
d
o
w
n

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: \...\I-1-700_Theis_confined_recovery.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 11:59:37
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Theis (Recovery)
T = 1298.8 ft2/day S/S' = 4.621
100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6
0.01
0.1
1.
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: C:\...\I-1-700_Hantush_leakyconfined_obs.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 13:10:33
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
Aquitard Thickness (b'): 1. ft Aquitard Thickness (b"): 1. ft
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-100 1194186.5 7420897.9
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Hantush
T = 1213.5 ft2/day S = 0.001335
r/B' = 0.1 ß' = 0.1
r/B" = 0.ß" = 1.85
100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6
0.
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.3
Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: C:\...\I-1-700_Neuman_leakyconfined_obs.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 13:21:35
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
Aquitard Thickness (b'): 1. ft Aquitard Thickness (b"): 1. ft
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-100 1194186.5 7420897.9
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Leaky Solution Method: Neuman-Witherspoon
T = 2492.9 ft2/day S = 0.0191
r/B = 0.1 ß = 0.1148
T2 = 8.64E+9 ft2/day S2 = 1.0E-10
100. 1000. 1.0E+4 1.0E+5 1.0E+6
0.
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.3
Adjusted Time (sec)
Di
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
f
t
)
WELL TEST ANALYSIS
Data Set: \...\I-1-700_CooperJacob_confined_obs.aqt
Date: 02/28/20 Time: 12:01:38
PROJECT INFORMATION
Client: EnergySolns
Project: 233001389
Test Date: 1-16-2020
AQUIFER DATA
Saturated Thickness: 325. ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1
WELL DATA
Pumping Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-700 1194214.7 7420935.3
Observation Wells
Well Name X (ft)Y (ft)
I-1-100 1194186.5 7420897.9
SOLUTION
Aquifer Model: Confined Solution Method: Cooper-Jacob
T = 2.43E+4 ft2/day S = 2.354E-10
PHASE 1 BASAL-DEPTH AQUIFER STUDY REPORT
Appendix E GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS

Appendix E GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
REPORTS

February 12, 2020

Mr. Jared Stark
EnergySolutions, LLC.
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Re: EUI-11 Environmental
Monitoring-Rad Purchase
Order:20-EUI-11
Work Order: 502174 Chain of Custody:65534
SDG: EUI-11350
Dear Mr. Stark:
GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the enclosed analytical results for the
sample(s) we received on January 24, 2020. Our policy is to provide high quality, personalized analytical
services to enable you to meet your analytical needs on time every time.
Test results for NELAP or ISO 17025 accredited tests are verified to meet the requirements of those
standards, with any exceptions noted. The results reported relate only to the items tested and to the sample as
received by the laboratory. These results may not be reproduced except as full reports without approval by the
laboratory. Copies of GEL's accreditations and certifications can be found on our website at www.gel.com.
This original data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GEL's standard operating
procedures. We trust that you will find everything in order and to your satisfaction. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call me at [phone] extension 4453.

Sincerely,

PM_SIGN_HERE
Edith Kent
Project Manager
Enclosures
Table of Contents
Case Narrative....................................................................................3
Chain of Custody and Supporting Documentation.........................6
Laboratory Certifications................................................................10
Metals Analysis.................................................................................12
Case Narrative..........................................................................13
Sample Data Summary............................................................17
Quality Control Summary.......................................................19
Standards...................................................................................31
Raw Data...................................................................................34
Miscellaneous............................................................................56
Radiological Analysis.......................................................................70
Case Narrative..........................................................................71
Sample Data Summary............................................................78
Quality Control Summary.......................................................81
Case Narrative
Page 1 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350

Case Narrative
for
EnergySolutions LLC (693694)
SDG: EUI-11350
Work Order: 502174
February 11, 2020

Laboratory Identification:

GEL Laboratories LLC
2040 Savage Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29407
[phone]
PO
20-EUI-11
Summary
Sample Receipt

The sample arrived at GEL Laboratories LLC, Charleston, South Carolina on January 24, 2020 for analysis.
The samples associated with Chain of Custody 65534 were received at a temperature of 2 degrees C. The
samples were analyzed for Metals and Radiochemistry parameters.

Sample Identification

The laboratory received the following sample:
Laboratory
Identification Sample
Description
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01

Items of Note

There are no items to note.

Page 2 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Case Narrative
Sample analyses were conducted using methodology as outlined in GEL Laboratories, LLC (GEL) Standard
Operating Procedures. Any technical or administrative problems during analysis, data review, and reduction are
contained in the analytical case narratives in the enclosed data package.

PM_SIGN_HERE
Edith Kent
Project Manager
Page 3 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Chain of Custody and
Supporting
Documentation
Page 4 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Page 5 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Page 6 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Page 7 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Laboratory
Certifications
Page 8 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
State Certification
Alaska
Alaska Drinking Water
Arkansas
CLIA
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DoD ELAP/ ISO17025 A2LA
Florida NELAP
Foreign Soils Permit
Georgia
Georgia SDWA
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois NELAP
Indiana
Kansas NELAP
Kentucky SDWA
Kentucky Wastewater
Louisiana Drinking Water
Louisiana NELAP
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Massachusetts PFAS Approv
Michigan
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire NELAP
New Jersey NELAP
New Mexico
New York NELAP
North Carolina
North Carolina SDWA
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania NELAP
Puerto Rico
S. Carolina Radiochem
Sanitation Districts of L
South Carolina Chemistry
Tennessee
Texas NELAP
Utah NELAP
Vermont
Virginia NELAP
Washington
17−018
SC00012
88−0651
42D0904046
2940
SC00012
PH−0169
2567.01
E87156
P330−15−00283, P330−15−00253
SC00012
967
SC00012
SC00012
200029
C−SC−01
E−10332
90129
90129
LA024
03046 (AI33904)
2019020
270
M−SC012
Letter
9976
SC00012
NE−OS−26−13
SC000122020−1
2054
SC002
SC00012
11501
233
45709
R−158
2019−165
68−00485
SC00012
10120002
9255651
10120001
TN 02934
T104704235−19−15
SC000122019−30
VT87156
460202
C780
List of current GEL Certifications as of 11 February 2020
Page 9 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Metals Analysis
Page 10 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Case Narrative
Page 11 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Metals
Technical Case Narrative
EnergySolutions LLC
SDG #: EUI-11350
Work Order #: 502174

Product: Determination of Metals by ICP-MS
Analytical Method: EPA 200.8
Analytical Procedure: GL-MA-E-014 REV# 33
Analytical Batch: 1962589

Preparation Method: EPA 200.2
Preparation Procedure: GL-MA-E-016 REV# 18
Preparation Batch: 1962588

The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204483525 Method Blank (MB)ICP-MS
1204483526 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
1204483529 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01L) Serial Dilution (SD)
1204483527 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01D) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204483528 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01S) Matrix Spike (MS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.

Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and procedures
for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where applicable, with the
following exceptions.

Calibration Information

ICSA/ICSAB Statement
For the ICP-MS analysis, the ICSA solution contains analyte concentrations which are verified trace impurities
indigenous to the purchased standard.

Technical Information

Sample Dilutions
Dilutions may be required for many reasons, including to minimize matrix interferences or to bring over range target
analyte concentrations into the linear calibration range. Per the SOP, sample 502174001 (I-1-700 011720-01) was
diluted due to internal standard recoveries outside the acceptable control limits.
Analyte
502174
001
Uranium 5X
Page 12 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350

Certification Statement

Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Page 13 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
CARE009 EnergySolutions LLC (693694)
Client SDG: EUI-11350 GEL Work Order: 502174
GEL requires all analytical data to be verified by a qualified data reviewer. In addition, all CLP-like deliverables
receive a third level review of the fractional data package.
The following data validator verified the information presented in this data report:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
* A quality control analyte recovery is outside of specified acceptance criteria
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
for
Qualifier Definition Report
Signature:Name:
Date:Title:04 FEB 2020
Edmund Frampton
Team Leader
Review/Validation
Page 14 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample Data Summary
Page 15 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−1−
INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA PACKAGE
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:METHOD TYPE:
SAMPLE ID:CLIENT ID:
CONTRACT:
MATRIX:DATE RECEIVED LEVEL:
CAS No Analyte Result Units C Qual M*
Inst
ID
Analytical
Run
Low
EUI−11350
502174001 I−1−700 011720−01
CARE EUI−11
Water 24−JAN−20
7440−61−1 Uranium 17.4 ug/L 0.335 ICPMS12MS 200131−1
EPA
MDL DF
5
MS EPA 200.8
*Analytical Methods:
Page 16 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Quality Control
Summary
Page 17 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−2a−
Initial and Continuing Calibration Verification
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:
Contract:Lab Code: GEL
EUI−11350
Instrument ID:
Sample ID Analyte Result Units True
Value Units %
Recovery
Acceptance
Window (%R)M*Analysis
Date/Time
Run
Number
ICV01
CCV01
CCV02
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
47.3
47.8
47.3
50
50
50
94.6
95.5
94.6
31−JAN−20 14:03
31−JAN−20 14:11
31−JAN−20 14:24
200131−1
200131−1
200131−1
MS
MS
MS
ICPMS12
CARE EUI−11
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
90.0 − 110.0
90.0 − 110.0
90.0 − 110.0
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 18 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−2b−
CRDL Standard for ICP & ICPMS
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:
Contract:Lab Code: GEL
EUI−11350
Instrument ID:
Sample ID Analyte Result Units True
Value Units %
Recovery
Advisory
Limits (%R)M*Analysis
Date/Time
Run
Number
CRDL01
Uranium .2 .2 100 31−JAN−20 14:06 200131−1MS
ICPMS12
CARE EUI−11
ug/L ug/L 70.0 − 130.0
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 19 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Metals
−3a−
Initial and Continuing Calibration Blank Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No.:
Contract:Lab Code: GELCARE EUI−11
EUI−11350
ICB01
CCB01
CCB02
Uranium
Uranium
Uranium
0.067
0.067
0.067
+/−.2
+/−.2
+/−.2
U
U
U
0.067
0.067
0.067
0.2
0.2
0.2
MS
MS
MS
31−JAN−20 14:04
31−JAN−20 14:13
31−JAN−20 14:25
200131−1
200131−1
200131−1
Sample ID Analyte
Result
ug/L Acceptance Conc
Qual RDL M*Analysis
Date/Time RunMDLMatrix
LIQ
LIQ
LIQ
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 20 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−3b−
PREPARATION BLANK SUMMARY
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
Sample ID Analyte Result
Acceptance
Window
Conc
Qual M*RDL
1204483525
Uranium 0.0670 0.0670 0.200
SDG NO.
Contract:
Matrix:
EUI−11350
CARE EUI−11
U MS+/−0.2
Units
ug/L
MDL
Water
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 21 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−4−
Interference Check Sample
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:
Contract:Lab Code: GEL
EUI−11350
Sample ID Analyte Result Units True
Value Units %
Recovery
Acceptance
Window (%R)
Analysis
Date/Time
Run
Number
ICSA01
ICSAB01
Uranium
Uranium
0.014
19.5 20 97.4
31−JAN−20 14:08
31−JAN−20 14:09
200131−1
200131−1
CARE EUI−11
ug/L
ug/L ug/L 80.0 − 120.0
ICPMS12Instrument:
Page 22 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−5a−
Matrix Spike Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
Analyte Units
Acceptance
Limit
Spiked
Result C Sample
Result C Spike
Added
SDG NO.
Contract:
Matrix:
EUI−11350
CARE EUI−11
WATER
%
Recovery Qual M*
Sample ID:502174001
Level:
Spike ID:
Client ID:
% Solids:
Uranium ug/L 68.3 50.0 102 MS
I−1−700 011720−01S
75−125
1204483528
Low
17.4
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 23 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Metals
−6−
Duplicate Sample Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No.:EUI−11350
Contract: CARE EUI−11
Lab Code: GEL
Matrix:WATER Level:Low
Client ID:I−1−700 011720−01D
Sample ID:502174001 Duplicate ID:1204483527 Percent Solids for Dup:N/A
Analyte Units Acceptance
Limit
Sample
Result C
Duplicate
Result C RPD Qual M*
Uranium ug/L +/−20%17.4 18.4 5.74 MS
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 24 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−7−
Laboratory Control Sample Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
Analyte Units
Acceptance
LimitSample ID Result C
True
Value
SDG NO.
Contract:
EUI−11350
CARE EUI−11
%
Recovery M*
Aqueous LCS Source:Inorganic Ventures Solid LCS Source:
Uranium ug/L
1204483526
49.450.0 98.9 MS85−115
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 25 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−9−
Serial Dilution Sample Summary
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG NO.
Contract:
Matrix:
EUI−11350
CARE EUI−11
LIQUID
%
Difference Qual M*
Sample ID:502174001
Level:
Serial Dilution ID:
Client ID:I−1−700 011720−01L
1204483529
Low
Initial
Value
ug/L
Acceptance
LimitAnalyteCSerial
Value
ug/L
C
Uranium 3.47 3.45 .576 MS
*Analytical Methods:
MS EPA 200.8
Page 26 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−13−
SAMPLE PREPARATION SUMMARY
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG No:Method Type:
Contract:
Sample ID Client ID
Sample
Type Matrix
Prep
Date
Initial
Sample
Size
Percent
Solids
EUI−11350
Lab Code: GEL
Final
Sample
Volume
Batch Number 1962588
1204483525
1204483526
1204483528
1204483527
502174001
MB
LCS
MS
DUP
SAMPLE
W
W
W
W
W
30−JAN−20
30−JAN−20
30−JAN−20
30−JAN−20
30−JAN−20
50
50
50
50
50
mL
mL
mL
mL
mL
50
50
50
50
50
mL
mL
mL
mL
mL
MB for batch 1962588
LCS for batch 1962588
I−1−700 011720−01S
I−1−700 011720−01D
I−1−700 011720−01
MS
CARE EUI−11
Page 27 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
GEL Laboratories LLC
Metals
-14-
Analysis Run Log
EPAPage 1
200131-1
13:58:32
14:00:09
14:01:46
14:03:21
14:04:58
14:06:34
14:08:11
14:09:47
14:11:25
14:13:02
14:14:40
14:16:17
14:17:54
14:19:30
14:21:06
14:22:42
14:24:21
14:25:57
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S0.0
S10
S100
ICV01
ICB01
CRDL01
ICSA01
ICSAB01
CCV01
CCB01
1204483525
1204483526
502174001
1204483527
1204483528
1204483529
CCV02
CCB02
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
25
1
1
D/F
Contract: CARE EUI-11
Run Time
Lab Code : GEL Client Sdg:
Inst Name:
Start Date:End Date:Data File:
Instrument Type:ICPMS12
31-JAN-20 31-JAN-20
MS
EUI-11350
Samp ID
Page 28 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standards
Page 29 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−10−
Instrument Detection Limits
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG NO.EUI−11350
Uranium 0.067 0.2
Contract:CARE EUI−11 Effective Date:16−APR−17Lab Code: GEL
MDL
MDL
ICP/MS Analyte
Wavelength
(nm)
RDL
ug/L
ug/L
LIQUID
Verified on:Instrument(s):
ICPMS12 31−JAN−2020LIQU
Page 30 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
METALS
−12−
Linear Ranges
GEL Laboratories LLC
EPA
SDG NO.EUI−11350
Units
Integration
TimeAnalyte LDR
Uranium 1000 5000 ug/L
Contract:CARE EUI−11 Lab Code: GEL
Instrument IDICPMS12
Effective
Date
01−AUG−17
(msec)
Page 31 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Raw Data
Page 32 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Sample
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:20:30
Page 1
ICPMS #12 Daily Performance
Sample ID: Sample
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:16:26
Sample Description:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\Daily 2.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\default4\Sample.580
Mass Calibration File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\MassCal\default2.tun
Dual Detector Mode: Pulse
Acquisition Date/Time&Time Zone: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:16:26 Eastern Standard Time
Number of Replicates: 5
Summary
Analyte Mass Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean Net Intens. SD Net Intens. RSD
Be 9.0 51713.1 51713.060 1054.533 2.0
Mg 24.0 103587.1 103587.112 2390.861 2.3
Co 58.9 68934.9 68934.880 2393.442 3.5
Rh 102.9 38755.3 38755.303 448.958 1.2
In 114.9 249189.4 249189.398 4499.056 1.8
Pb 208.0 108077.4 108077.418 2570.774 2.4
>Ba 137.9 236465.6 236465.620 4185.334 1.8
 Ba++69.0 2831.0 0.012 0.000 0.6
>Ce 139.9 256536.2 256536.162 6581.448 2.6
 CeO 155.9 4375.8 0.017 0.001 5.9
Bkgd 220.0 0.2 0.200 0.112 55.9
Current Conditions
C Val Description
0.96 Nebulizer Gas Flow STD/KED [NEB]
1.20 Auxiliary Gas Flow
18.00 Plasma Gas Flow
-12.00 Deflector Voltage
1600.00 ICP RF Power
-1525.00 Analog Stage Voltage
800.00 Pulse Stage Voltage
0.00 Quadrupole Rod Offset STD [QRO]
-16.00 Cell Rod Offset STD [CRO]
8.00 Discriminator Threshold
-12.00 Cell Entrance/Exit Voltage STD
0.00 RPa
0.45 RPq
0.96 DRC Mode NEB
-9.00 DRC Mode QRO
-2.00 DRC Mode CRO
-7.00 DRC Mode Cell Entrance/Exit Voltage
0.60 Cell Gas A
200.00 Axial Field Voltage
-16.00 KED Mode CRO
-12.50 KED Mode QRO
-9.00 KED Mode Cell Entrance Voltage
-31.00 KED Mode Cell Exit Voltage
3.00 KED Cell Gas A
0.00 KED RPa
0.25 KED RPq
475.00 KED Mode Axial Field Voltage
Current Autolens Data
Page 33 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Sample
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:20:30
Page 2
Analyte Mass Num of Pts DAC Value Maximum Intensity
Be 9.012 41 -13.5 34020.5
Mg 23.985 41 -14.5 169728.3
In 114.904 41 -11.5 135178.6
Ce 139.905 41 -10.0 87078.6
Pb 207.977 41 -6.5 54993.6
U 238.050 41 -7.0 91767.8
Page 34 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:06:38
Page 1
ICPMS #12 Instrument Tuning Report

Analyte Exact Mass Meas. Mass Mass DAC Res DAC Meas. Pk. Width
Be 9.0 9.0 1640 2060 0.714
Mg 24.0 24.0 4629 2068 0.665
Mg 25.0 25.0 4813 2065 0.675
Mg 26.0 26.0 5026 2065 0.686
Co 58.9 58.9 11597 2062 0.710
Rh 102.9 102.9 20382 2065 0.724
In 114.9 114.9 22774 2064 0.726
Ce 139.9 139.9 27775 2065 0.739
Pb 206.0 206.0 40982 2069 0.698
Pb 207.0 207.0 41195 2070 0.705
Pb 208.0 208.0 41385 2065 0.729
U 238.1 238.0 47395 2065 0.748
Page 35 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Cal Blank
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 13:58:42
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: Cal Blank
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 13:58:32
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\Cal Blank.731
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 952701.526
 U 238 ug/L 29.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 36 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Standard 1
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:00:19
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: Standard 1
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:00:09
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\Standard 1.732
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 896076.707 896076.707
 U 238 10.000 ug/L 0.567 209214.886 0.233
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 37 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: Standard 2
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:01:55
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: Standard 2
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:01:46
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\Standard 2.733
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 925992.276 925992.276
 U 238 100.039 ug/L 1.457 2250794.791 2.431
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 38 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 1
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:03:31
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 1
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:03:21
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 1.734
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 871435.623 871435.623
 U 238 47.291 ug/L 2.312 1001542.868 1.149
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 91.47
 U 238 94.583
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 39 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 2
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:05:08
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 2
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:04:58
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 2.735
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 947985.272 947985.272
 U 238 0.010 ug/L 9.173 248.669 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 99.50
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 40 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 3
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:06:44
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 3
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:06:34
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 3.736
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 835333.195 835333.195
 U 238 0.200 ug/L 1.473 4078.916 0.005
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 87.68
 U 238 99.847
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 41 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 4
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:08:21
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 4
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:08:11
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 4.737
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 724920.967 724920.967
 U 238 0.014 ug/L 9.427 268.003 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 76.09
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 42 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 5
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:09:57
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 5
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:09:47
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 5.738
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 725859.312 725859.312
 U 238 19.481 ug/L 2.217 343591.874 0.473
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 76.19
 U 238 97.406
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 43 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 6
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:11:34
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 6
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:11:25
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 6.739
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 797012.107 797012.107
 U 238 47.751 ug/L 0.415 925001.909 1.161
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 83.66
 U 238 95.502
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 44 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 7
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:13:12
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 7
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:13:02
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 7.740
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 834209.795 834209.795
 U 238 0.006 ug/L 4.338 139.001 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 87.56
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 45 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483525
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:14:50
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483525
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:14:40
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 MB
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|1|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483525.741
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 857726.557 857726.557
 U 238 0.004 ug/L 1.266 101.334 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 90.03
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 46 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483526
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:16:27
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483526
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:16:17
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 LCS
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|1|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483526.742
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 886084.003 886084.003
 U 238 49.439 ug/L 2.530 1064894.867 1.202
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 93.01
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 47 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 502174001
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:18:04
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 502174001
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:17:54
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|5|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\502174001.743
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 576087.730 576087.730
 U 238 3.470 ug/L 1.520 48590.852 0.084
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 60.47
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 48 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483527
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:19:40
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483527
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:19:30
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 DUP
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|5|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483527.744
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 587095.442 587095.442
 U 238 3.675 ug/L 2.225 52438.072 0.089
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 61.62
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 49 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483528
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:21:15
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483528
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:21:06
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 MS
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|5|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483528.745
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 587636.851 587636.851
 U 238 13.655 ug/L 0.474 195041.584 0.332
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 61.68
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 50 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: 1204483529
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:22:52
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: 1204483529
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:22:42
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description: CARE 200.8 SDILT
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID: 1962589|25|baj
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\1204483529.746
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 880726.867 880726.867
 U 238 0.690 ug/L 1.382 14798.330 0.017
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 92.45
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 51 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 6
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:24:31
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 6
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:24:21
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 6.747
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 1014388.816 1014388.816
 U 238 47.309 ug/L 2.227 1166250.605 1.150
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 106.47
 U 238 94.618
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 52 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample ID: QC Std 7
Report Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:26:07
Page 1
ICPMS #12 - Summary Report
Sample ID: QC Std 7
Sample Date/Time: Friday, January 31, 2020 14:25:57
Sample Type: Sample
Sample Description:
Number of Replicates: 3
Batch ID:
Method File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\Method\200.8 u.mth
Dataset File: C:\Users\Public\Documents\PerkinElmer Syngistix\ICPMS\DataSet\200128\QC Std 7.748
Concentration Results
Summary
Analyte Mass Conc. Mean Report Unit Conc. RSD Meas. Intens. Mean Net Intens. Mean
>Lu 175 ug/L 967064.818 967064.818
 U 238 0.006 ug/L 6.177 175.334 0.000
Calibration
Analyte MassCurve Type Correlation Coefficient
Lu 175Linear Thru Zero
U 238Linear Thru Zero 1.0000
QC Calculated Values
Internal Standard SymbolAnalyteMassQC Std % Recovery Int Std % RecoverySpike % RecoveryDilution % DifferenceDuplicate Rel. % Difference
>Lu 175 101.51
 U 238
QC Out of Limits
Measurement TypeAnalyte MassOut of Limits Message
QC Action
QC Action Line: No QC action taken
Page 53 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Miscellaneous
Page 54 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Prep Logbook
Analytical Logbook version 1 11-04-2002 GEL Laboratories LLC
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
50 01/30/20 13:50 50 1 <2
1962588
Initial
Volume
(mL)
Hot Block
Stop Date
(date)
Final
Volume
(mL)
Prep Factor
(mL/mL)
pH CheckSample ID
Batch ID:
1204483525 MB
1204483526 LCS
502174001
1204483529 SDILT (502174001)
1204483527 DUP (502174001)
1204483528 MS (502174001)
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
30-JAN-2020 09:50:58
Sample IdType Serial Number Spike UnitsSpike Amount
ICP-MS spiking soluiton A
ICP-MS spiking solution B
ICP-MS spiking soluiton A
ICP-MS spiking solution B
mL
mL
mL
mL
UI191025-A
UI191025-B
UI191025-A
UI191025-B
1204483526
1204483526
1204483528
1204483528
LCS
LCS
MS
MS
Description
.25
.25
.25
.25
Analyst: Ridge Gleaton
Method:
Lab SOP:GL-MA-E-016 REV# 18
Instrument: Metals Manual Instrument
Comments:
Block Temperature (90-95C): 94 C
Temperature within limits (Y/N)?: y
Thermometer ID: 118840
Hot Block ID: 14
Digestion tube lot #: 1906257
EPA 200.2
Sample Preparation for Total Recoverable Elements by EPA Method 200.2
Reagent/Solvent Lot ID Amount
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
Concentrated Nitric Acid
200120
3011870
Description
.5 mL
1 mL
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Matrix

Prep Date
Page 55 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS CRDL Master Soln #1
ICPMS CRDL Soln #2
ICP-MS spiking soluiton A
Description:
Description:
Description:
Aluminum Arsenic
Barium Beryllium
Boron Cadmium
Calcium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Iron Lead
Lithium Magnesium
Manganese Nickel
Phosphorous Potassium
Selenium Sodium
Strontium Thallium
Thorium Uranium
Vanadium Zinc
Antimony Molybdenum
Silver Tin
Titanium Tungsten
Zirconium
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
50 mg/L 5 mg/L
4 mg/L .5 mg/L
15 mg/L 1 mg/L
200 mg/L 30 mg/L
1 mg/L 2 mg/L
100 mg/L 2 mg/L
10 mg/L 30 mg/L
5 mg/L 2 mg/L
50 mg/L 300 mg/L
5 mg/L 250 mg/L
10 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L .2 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
3 mg/L 1 mg/L
1 mg/L 5 mg/L
10 mg/L 5 mg/L
2 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
250 mL
090014-MC-02
10091735-1
+/- 0.5% IN 2% HNO3
250 mL
160044-11-02
10091735-2
+/- 0.5% IN 2% HNO3
GEL-12A
N2-MEB673694
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
None
ICP-MS CRDL Master #1
ICP-MS CRDL Master #2
ICP-MS SPIKE A
Name:
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
Type:
15-APR-19
15-APR-19
25-OCT-19
Received:
Received:
Received:
15-APR-20
15-APR-20
25-OCT-20
Expires:
Expires:
Expires:
02SI
02SI
Inorganic Ventures
Supplier:
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Edmund Frampton
Employee:
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
15-APR-19
15-APR-19
13-NOV-19
UI190415-09
UI190415-10
UI191025-A
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 56 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICP-MS spiking solution B
ICPMS ICV/CCV Soln B - 20ppm
Description:
Description:
Antimony Hafnium
Molybdenum Tantalum
Tin Titanium
Tungsten Zirconium
Aluminum Arsenic
Barium Beryllium
Bismuth Boron
Cadmium Calcium
Cesium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Iron Lead
Lithium Magnesium
Manganese Nickel
Phosphorous Potassium
Rhenium Rhodium
Selenium Silver
Sodium Strontium
Thallium Thorium
Uranium Uranium-235
Uranium-238 Vanadium
Zinc
Arsenic Barium
Beryllium Boron
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
400 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 20 mg/L
10 mg/L 400 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
400 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 400 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
400 mg/L 400 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
400 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L .072 mg/L
9.928 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 40 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
GEL-12B
N2-MEB673693
250 mL
160054-02-03
10066767-11
2% HNO3 100 cm2
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
ICP-MS SPIKE B
ICP-MS ICV/CCV Master B
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
25-OCT-19
02-NOV-19
Received:
Received:
25-OCT-20
02-NOV-20
Expires:
Expires:
Inorganic Ventures
02SI
Supplier:
Supplier:
Edmund Frampton
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
13-NOV-19
02-NOV-19
UI191025-B
UI191102-07
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 57 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS ICV/CCV SOLN A - 2000ppm
ICPMS Tungsten standard SPIKE - 10mg/L
ICPMS ICV/CCV Soln C - 20ppm
Description:
Description:
Description:
Lead Lithium
Manganese Nickel
Selenium Strontium
Thallium Thorium
Uranium Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum Calcium
Iron Magnesium
Phosphorous Potassium
Sodium
Tungsten
Antimony Molybdenum
Silver Tin
Titanium Tungsten
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L
2020 mg/L 2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L 2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L 2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
10 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
20 mg/L 20 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
250 mL
160055-01-03
10066767-12
2% HNO3 100 cm2
060074-05-01
10070573-10
2% HNO3 + Tr HF
250 mL
ZGEL-107-500
52-274CR
2% HNO3/Tr. Tart Acid/ Tr. HF 100 c
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
None
ICP-MS ICV/CCV Master A
ICPMS Tungsten - 10mg/L S
ICP-MS ICV/CCV Master C
Name:
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
Type:
02-NOV-19
12-NOV-19
04-DEC-19
Received:
Received:
Received:
02-NOV-20
12-NOV-20
30-OCT-20
Expires:
Expires:
Expires:
02SI
O2SI
Spex
Supplier:
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
02-NOV-19
12-NOV-19
04-DEC-19
UI191102-09
UI191112-03
UI191204-08
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 58 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS ICSAB Master B
ICPMS ICSAB Master C
ICP-MS ICSA Master A NEXION
Description:
Description:
Description:
Zirconium
Arsenic Barium
Beryllium Boron
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Lead Lithium
Manganese Nickel
Selenium Strontium
Thallium Thorium
Uranium Vanadium
Zinc
Antimony Silver
Tin Tungsten
Zirconium
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
20 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L 2 mg/L
2 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
250 mL
160033-02-02
10069799-9
+/- 2.0% in 2% HNO3
250 mL
160033-03-02
10069799-10
+/- 2.0% in 2% HNO3 + tr HF
1000 mL
60013-01-01LNexion
10065549-13
5% HNO3 + Tr HF
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
None
ICP-MS ICSAB Master B
ICP-MS ICSAB Master C
ICP-MS ICSA Master A Nex
Name:
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
Type:
18-DEC-19
18-DEC-19
02-NOV-19
Received:
Received:
Received:
18-DEC-20
18-DEC-20
02-NOV-20
Expires:
Expires:
Expires:
02SI
02SI
02SI
Supplier:
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
18-DEC-19
18-DEC-19
02-NOV-19
UI191218-12
UI191218-13
UI3001438-11
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 59 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS Calibration Standard Solution B
ICPMS Calibration Standard Solution A
Description:
Description:
Aluminum Calcium
Carbon Chloride
Iron Magnesium
Molybdenum Phosphorous
Potassium Sodium
Sulfur Titanium
Arsenic Barium
Beryllium Boron
Cadmium Chromium
Cobalt Copper
Lead Lithium
Manganese Nickel
Selenium Silver
Strontium Thallium
Thorium Uranium
Vanadium Zinc
Aluminum Calcium
Iron Magnesium
Phosphorous Potassium
Sodium
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
2000 mg/L 10000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
20 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 20 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 20 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L 1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
250 mL
ZGEL-100-250
8-124AB
ZGEL-102-250
8-126AB
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
ICPMSCalSPIKEB
ICPMSCalSPIKEA
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Source Material
Type:
Type:
03-DEC-19
03-DEC-19
Received:
Received:
30-NOV-20
30-NOV-20
Expires:
Expires:
SPEX
SPEX
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
03-DEC-19
03-DEC-19
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-02
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Page 60 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS Calibration Standard Solution C
ICPMS Calibration Standard (100 ppb)
Description:
Description:
Antimony Molybdenum
Tin Titanium
Zirconium
Analyte
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L 10 mg/L
10 mg/L
Concentration
Parent Material
UI191112-03
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-01
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
Amount :
Catalog Number :
Lot Number :
Amount :
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
250 ml
ZGEL-101-250
8-125AB
50 mL
4025216
3541598
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
Analyte Final Conc.Parent Conc.Aliquot Final Vol.
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
20 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
200 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
Tungsten
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
ICPMSCalSPIKEC
ICPMS Cal Standard 100
Name:
Name:
Source Material
Working
Type:
Type:
03-DEC-19
31-JAN-20
Received:
Received:
30-NOV-20
01-FEB-20
Expires:
Expires:
SPEX
GEL
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
03-DEC-19
31-JAN-20
UMS191203-03
WMS200131-04
Analyte Concentration
Page 61 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS Calibration Standard (10 ppb)Description:
Parent Material
Parent Material
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-02
UMS191203-03
UMS191203-03
UMS191203-03
UMS191203-03
UMS191203-03
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
4025216
3541598
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
Comments:None
Analyte
Analyte
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Aliquot
Aliquot
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10 mg/L
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
200 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
5 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
10000 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
20 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
1000 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sodium
Antimony
Molybdenum
Tin
Titanium
Zirconium
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorous
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Tin
ICPMS Cal Standard 10Name:
WorkingType:
31-JAN-20Received:
01-FEB-20Expires:
GELSupplier:
Paul BoydEmployee:
Serial ID:Open/Reference Date:31-JAN-20WMS200131-04A
Page 62 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS ICVDescription:
Parent Material
Parent Material
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
WMS200131-04
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-07
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191102-09
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
BAL216
3541598
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
Comments:None
Analyte
Analyte
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Aliquot
Aliquot
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
100 ug/l
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
40 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
2020 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
10 ug/l
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
100 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
5050 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
5000 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sodium
Antimony
Molybdenum
Silver
ICPMS ICVName:
WorkingType:
31-JAN-20Received:
01-FEB-20Expires:
GELSupplier:
Paul BoydEmployee:
Serial ID:Open/Reference Date:31-JAN-20WMS200131-05
Page 63 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS CRDLDescription:
Parent Material
Parent Material
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
UI191204-08
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-09
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
BAL216
3820544
2%HNO3/1%HCl - 3032237
Comments:None
Analyte
Analyte
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Aliquot
Aliquot
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
50 mg/L
5 mg/L
4 mg/L
.5 mg/L
15 mg/L
1 mg/L
200 mg/L
30 mg/L
1 mg/L
2 mg/L
100 mg/L
2 mg/L
10 mg/L
30 mg/L
5 mg/L
2 mg/L
50 mg/L
300 mg/L
5 mg/L
250 mg/L
10 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
.2 mg/L
20 mg/L
20 mg/L
3 mg/L
1 mg/L
1 mg/L
5 mg/L
10 mg/L
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
.5 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
1000 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
500 mL
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
50 ug/L
5 ug/L
4 ug/L
.5 ug/L
15 ug/L
1 ug/L
200 ug/L
10 ug/L
1 ug/L
2 ug/L
100 ug/L
2 ug/L
10 ug/L
30 ug/L
5 ug/L
2 ug/L
50 ug/L
300 ug/L
5 ug/L
250 ug/L
10 ug/L
2 ug/L
2 ug/L
.2 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
3 ug/L
1 ug/L
1 ug/L
5 ug/L
10 ug/L
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Zirconium
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphorous
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Antimony
Molybdenum
Silver
Tin
Titanium
ICPMS CRDLName:
WorkingType:
31-JAN-20Received:
01-FEB-20Expires:
GELSupplier:
Paul BoydEmployee:
Serial ID:Open/Reference Date:31-JAN-20WMS200131-06
Page 64 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
ICPMS ICSA NexION
ICPMS ICSAB NexION
Description:
Description:
Parent Material
Parent Material
Parent Material
UI190415-10
UI190415-10
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
Balance Id :
Lot Number :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
Balance Id :
Pipet Id :
Solvent :
BAL216
1064482
3541598
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
BAL216
1758088
2%HNO3/1%HCl -3032237
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
Analyte
Analyte
Analyte
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Final Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Parent Conc.
Aliquot
Aliquot
Aliquot
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
Final Vol.
5 mg/L
2 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
10000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
20 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
20 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
.5 mL
.5 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
500 mL
500 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
5 ug/L
10 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
200000 ug/L
1000000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20.804 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
26.141 ug/L
Tungsten
Zirconium
Aluminum
Calcium
Carbon
Chloride
Iron
Magnesium
Molybdenum
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sodium
Sulfur
Titanium
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
ICPMS ICSA
ICPMS ICSAB
Name:
Name:
Working
Working
Type:
Type:
31-JAN-20
31-JAN-20
Received:
Received:
01-FEB-20
01-FEB-20
Expires:
Expires:
GEL
GEL
Supplier:
Supplier:
Paul Boyd
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
31-JAN-20
31-JAN-20
WMS200131-20
WMS200131-21
Page 65 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
Description:
Description:
Parent Material
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-12
UI191218-13
UI191218-13
UI191218-13
UI191218-13
UI191218-13
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
UI3001438-11
Lot Number :
Lot Number :
2019092697
2019111458
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
Analyte Final Conc.Parent Conc.Aliquot Final Vol.
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
2 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
2000 mg/L
10000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
20 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
1000 mg/L
20 mg/L
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
2.5 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
25 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
250 mL
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
23.162 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
20 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
200000 ug/L
1000000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
100000 ug/L
2000 ug/L
Nickel
Selenium
Strontium
Thallium
Thorium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Antimony
Silver
Tin
Tungsten
Zirconium
Aluminum
Calcium
Carbon
Chloride
Iron
Magnesium
Molybdenum
Phosphorous
Potassium
Sodium
Sulfur
Titanium
I-HCL
I-HCL
Name:
Name:
Reagent/Solvent
Reagent/Solvent
Type:
Type:
17-DEC-19
20-JAN-20
Received:
Received:
17-DEC-21
20-JAN-22
Expires:
Expires:
VWR
VWR
Supplier:
Supplier:
Edmund Frampton
Edmund Frampton
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
30-DEC-19
20-JAN-20
191217
200120
Page 66 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Standard Logbook
Report run on: 04-FEB-20 Page:GEL Laboratories LLC
Concentrated Nitric Acid
Concentrated Nitric Acid
2%HNO3/1%HCl Solution (Type I Water)
Description:
Description:
Description:
Parent Material
191217
3000723
Lot Number :
Lot Number :
Solvent :
0000226537
2019100718
Type I Water
Comments:
Comments:
Comments:
None
None
None
Analyte Final Conc.Parent Conc.Aliquot Final Vol.
36.5-38.0
68.0-70.0%
80 mL
160 mL
8 l
8 l
N/A
N/A
I-HCL
I-HNO3
I-HNO3
I-HNO3
B-2%HNO3/1%HCl-ICPMS
Name:
Name:
Name:
Reagent/Solvent
Reagent/Solvent
Reagent/Solvent
Type:
Type:
Type:
31-OCT-19
26-NOV-19
20-JAN-20
Received:
Received:
Received:
31-OCT-21
26-NOV-21
03-FEB-20
Expires:
Expires:
Expires:
VWR - BDH Chemicals
VWR - BDH Chemicals
GEL
Supplier:
Supplier:
Supplier:
Edmund Frampton
Hannah Hatherly
Paul Boyd
Employee:
Employee:
Employee:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Serial ID:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
Open/Reference Date:
10-DEC-19
20-JAN-20
3000723
3011870
3032237
Page 67 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Radiological Analysis
Page 68 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Case Narrative
Page 69 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Radiochemistry
Technical Case Narrative
EnergySolutions LLC
SDG #: EUI-11350
Work Order #: 502174

Product: Alphaspec Th-228, 230, 232, Liquid
Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, Th-01-RC Modified
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-038 REV# 18
Analytical Batch: 1962978
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204484437 Method Blank (MB)
1204484438 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204484439 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.

Technical Information

Recounts
Samples 1204484438 (I-1-700 011720-01DUP) and 502174001 (I-1-700 011720-01) were given additional
clean-up steps and recounted in order to remove suspected interferences. The recounts are reported.

Product: Alphaspec U-233/234, 235/236, 238, Liquid
Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, U-02-RC Modified
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-011 REV# 27
Analytical Batch: 1962983
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204484441 Method Blank (MB)
1204484442 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204484443 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Page 70 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.

Quality Control (QC) Information

Duplication Criteria between QC Sample and Duplicate Sample
The Sample and the Duplicate, (See Below), did not meet the relative percent difference requirement; however,
they do meet the relative error ratio requirement with the value listed below.
Sample Analyte Value
1204484442 (I-1-700 011720-01DUP)Uranium-233/234 RPD 27.6* (0.00%-20.00%) RER 1.63 (0-3)

Product: Gammaspec, Gamma, K-40
Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-013 REV# 27
Analytical Batch: 1962483
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204483327 Method Blank (MB)
1204483328 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204483329 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

There are no exceptions, anomalies or deviations from the specified methods. All sample data provided in this
report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and procedures for initial calibration,
continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where applicable.

Product: GFPC Ra228, Liquid
Analytical Method: EPA 904.0/SW846 9320 Modified
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-009 REV# 17
Analytical Batch: 1962818
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
Page 71 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
1204484083 Method Blank (MB)
1204484084 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204484085 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

There are no exceptions, anomalies or deviations from the specified methods. All sample data provided in this
report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and procedures for initial calibration,
continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where applicable.

Product: GFPC Gross A/B, Liquid
Analytical Method: EPA 900.0/SW846 9310
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-001 REV# 20
Analytical Batch: 1962821
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204484086 Method Blank (MB)
1204484087 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204484088 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Matrix Spike (MS)
1204484089 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD)
1204484090 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.

Preparation Information

Aliquot Reduced
aliquot volumes were reduced due to the sample matrix.

Quality Control (QC) Information

RDL Met
The blank (See Below) did not meet the detection limit due to keeping the blank volume consistent with the
other sample aliquots.
Sample Analyte Value
1204484086 (MB)ALPHA Result -45.6 < MDA 86.3 > RDL 5 pCi/L
BETA Result -8.1 < MDA 151 > RDL 5 pCi/L
Page 72 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350

Samples (See Below) did not meet the required detection limits due to low sample volume. No more volume
could be used due to not exceeding the maximum net weight limit of the calibration curve. The samples counted
for 500 minutes.
Sample Analyte Value
1204484087 (I-1-700 011720-01DUP)ALPHA Result 142 < MDA 249 > RDL 5 pCi/L
502174001 (I-1-700 011720-01)ALPHA Result 91.5 < MDA 189 > RDL 5 pCi/L

Technical Information

Gross Alpha/Beta Preparation Information
High hygroscopic salt content in evaporated samples can cause the sample mass to fluctuate due to moisture
absorption. To minimize this interference, the salts are converted to oxides by heating the sample under a flame
until a dull red color is obtained. The conversion to oxides stabilizes the sample weight and ensures that proper
alpha/beta efficiencies are assigned for each sample. Volatile radioisotopes of carbon, hydrogen, technetium,
polonium and cesium may be lost during sample heating.

Product: Lucas Cell, Ra226, Liquid
Analytical Method: EPA 903.1 Modified
Analytical Procedure: GL-RAD-A-008 REV# 15
Analytical Batch: 1962720
The following samples were analyzed using the above methods and analytical procedure(s).

GEL Sample ID# Client Sample Identification
502174001 I-1-700 011720-01
1204483826 Method Blank (MB)
1204483827 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
1204483828 502174001(I-1-700 011720-01) Matrix Spike (MS)
1204483829 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

The samples in this SDG were analyzed on an "as received" basis.
Data Summary:

All sample data provided in this report met the acceptance criteria specified in the analytical methods and
procedures for initial calibration, continuing calibration, instrument controls and process controls where
applicable, with the following exceptions.

Quality Control (QC) Information

Duplication Criteria between QC Sample and Duplicate Sample
The Sample and the Duplicate, (See Below), did not meet the relative percent difference requirement; however,
they do meet the relative error ratio requirement with the value listed below.
Sample Analyte Value
1204483827 (I-1-700 011720-01DUP)Radium-226 RPD 41.8* (0.00%-20.00%) RER 2.38 (0-3)
Page 73 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350

Technical Information

Recounts
Sample 1204483826 (MB) was recounted due to a suspected blank false positive. The recount is reported.

Miscellaneous Information

Additional Comments
The matrix spike, 1204483828 (I-1-700 011720-01MS), aliquot was reduced to conserve sample volume.

Certification Statement

Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Page 74 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
CARE009 EnergySolutions LLC (693694)
Client SDG: EUI-11350 GEL Work Order: 502174
GEL requires all analytical data to be verified by a qualified data reviewer. In addition, all CLP-like deliverables
receive a third level review of the fractional data package.
The following data validator verified the information presented in this data report:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
* A quality control analyte recovery is outside of specified acceptance criteria
** Analyte is a Tracer compound
U Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
for
Qualifier Definition Report
Signature:Name:
Date:Title:12 FEB 2020
Heather McCarty
Analyst II
Review/Validation
Page 75 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Sample Data Summary
Page 76 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Certificate of Analysis
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Report Date: February 11, 2020
Parameter Result UnitsQualifier Analyst Date TimeDF Batch MethodRLMDCPF
Rad Alpha Spec Analysis
Rad Gamma Spec Analysis
Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting
Rad Radium-226
1962978
1962983
1962483
1962821
1962818
1962720
0803
1208
1716
1906
0940
1212
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
02/03/20
01/28/20
01/25/20
02/05/20
02/05/20
02/10/20
HAKB
HAKB
RYH1
JXC9
JXK3
MXH8
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
Mr. Jared StarkContact:
EnergySolutions, LLC.Company :
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Address :
EUI-11 Environmental Monitoring-RadProject:
502174001
Water
16-JAN-20 15:14
24-JAN-20
I-1-700 011720-01 CARE EUI-11Project:
CARE009Client ID:
Client
+/-0.366
+/-0.430
+/-0.252
+/-2.09
+/-0.351
+/-1.43
+/-96.3
+/-112
+/-157
+/-1.80
+/-0.559
Sample ID:
Receive Date:
Client Sample ID:
Surrogate/Tracer Recovery
Matrix:
Collect Date:
Collector:
Recovery%Test Acceptable Limits
0.662
0.730
0.501
0.746
0.557
0.451
61.2
189
248
1.78
0.312
1
2
3
4
5
6
U
U
U
U
U
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Uranium-233/234
Uranium-235/236
Uranium-238
Potassium-40
Alpha
Beta
Radium-228
Radium-226
Alphaspec Th-228, 230, 232, Liquid "As Received"
Alphaspec U-233/234, 235/236, 238, Liquid "As Received"
Gammaspec, Gamma, K-40 "As Received"
GFPC Gross A/B, Liquid "As Received"
GFPC Ra228, Liquid "As Received"
Lucas Cell, Ra226, Liquid "As Received"
0.136
0.228
0.0370
13.6
0.153
6.39
478
91.5
495
8.14
2.71
Thorium-229 Tracer
Uranium-232 Tracer
Barium-133 Tracer
Alphaspec Th-228, 230, 232, Liquid "As
Received"
Alphaspec U-233/234, 235/236, 238, Liquid "As
Received"
GFPC Ra228, Liquid "As Received"
59.9
86.9
69.6
(15%-125%)
(15%-125%)
(15%-125%)
The following Analytical Methods were performed:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Method Description
DOE EML HASL-300, Th-01-RC Modified
DOE EML HASL-300, U-02-RC Modified
DOE EML HASL-300
EPA 900.0/SW846 9310
EPA 904.0/SW846 9320 Modified
EPA 903.1 Modified
Analyst Comments
Uncertainty
NominalResult
Page 77 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Certificate of Analysis
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Report Date: February 11, 2020
Parameter Result UnitsQualifier Analyst Date TimeDF Batch MethodRLMDCPF
Mr. Jared StarkContact:
EnergySolutions, LLC.Company :
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Address :
EUI-11 Environmental Monitoring-RadProject:
502174001
I-1-700 011720-01 CARE EUI-11Project:
CARE009Client ID:Sample ID:
Client Sample ID:
Uncertainty
Notes:
Counting Uncertainty is calculated at the 95% confidence level (1.96-sigma).

Lc/LC: Critical Level
PF: Prep Factor
RL: Reporting Limit
SQL: Sample Quantitation Limit
Column headers are defined as follows:
DF: Dilution Factor
DL: Detection Limit
MDA: Minimum Detectable Activity
MDC: Minimum Detectable Concentration
Page 78 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
Quality Control
Summary
Page 79 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Rad Alpha Spec
1962978
1962983
Batch
Batch
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Uranium-233/234
Uranium-235/236
Uranium-238
Parmname
Mr. Jared StarkContact:
EnergySolutions, LLC.
299 South Main Street, Suite 1700
Salt Lake City, Utah
February 11, 2020Report Date:
Units
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Anlst Date Time
HAKB
HAKB
02/03/20 08:03
01/29/20 12:49
01/29/20 12:49
01/28/20 12:08
QC
0.153
0.535
0.0561
21.5
2.44
20.5
0.137
0.313
0.0827
10.3
0.317
5.67
NOM Sample
0.136
0.228
0.0370
13.6
0.153
6.39
Range
N/A
N/A
N/A
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(0%-20%)
N/A
(0%-20%)
Qual
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
QC1204484438 502174001
QC1204484439
QC1204484437
QC1204484442 502174001
N/A
N/A
N/A
27.6
N/A
11.9
REC%
10319.9
DUP
LCS
MB
DUP
502174Workorder:
U
U
U
U
+/-0.366
+/-0.430
+/-0.252
+/-2.09
+/-0.351
+/-1.43
+/-0.354
+/-0.504
+/-0.242
+/-2.30
+/-0.822
+/-2.24
+/-0.409
+/-0.424
+/-0.311
+/-2.14
+/-0.560
+/-1.59
*
RPD%
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Page 1 of 5
Page 80 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Rad Alpha Spec
Rad Gamma Spec
1962983
1962483
Batch
Batch
Uranium-233/234
Uranium-235/236
Uranium-238
Uranium-233/234
Uranium-235/236
Uranium-238
Potassium-40
Americium-241
Cesium-137
Cobalt-60
Potassium-40
Potassium-40
Parmname Units
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Anlst Date Time
HAKB
RYH1
01/28/20 12:08
01/28/20 12:08
01/26/20 06:20
01/26/20 07:18
01/25/20 17:17
QC
26.2
2.09
28.3
0.163
-0.0206
-0.0833
561
1.20E+05
40300
28200
300
4.30
NOM Sample
478
Range
(75%-125%)
(0%-20%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
Qual
U
U
U
U
U
QC1204484443
QC1204484441
QC1204483328 502174001
QC1204483329
QC1204483327
16
REC%
104
110
102
104
27.3
1.09E+05
39600
27000
LCS
MB
DUP
LCS
MB
502174Workorder:
+/-96.3
+/-4.36
+/-1.52
+/-4.55
+/-0.346
+/-0.178
+/-0.158
+/-89.9
+/-4010
+/-858
+/-855
+/-478
+/-47.9
RPD%
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Page 2 of 5
Page 81 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Rad Gas Flow
1962818
1962821
Batch
Batch
Radium-228
Radium-228
Radium-228
Alpha
Beta
Alpha
Beta
Alpha
Beta
Alpha
Beta
Alpha
Beta
Parmname Units
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Anlst Date Time
JXK3
JXC9
02/05/20 09:40
02/05/20 09:40
02/05/20 09:40
02/05/20 19:07
02/05/20 17:10
02/05/20 19:07
02/05/20 17:10
02/05/20 17:10
QC
9.97
57.8
0.186
142
472
11700
48500
-45.6
-8.10
9470
47400
9980
46300
NOM Sample
8.14
91.5
495
91.5
495
91.5
495
Range
(0% - 100%)
(75%-125%)
N/A
(0% - 100%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
(0%-20%)
(0%-20%)
Qual
U
U
U
U
QC1204484084 502174001
QC1204484085
QC1204484083
QC1204484087 502174001
QC1204484090
QC1204484086
QC1204484088 502174001
QC1204484089 502174001
20.2
N/A
4.94
5.21
2.19
REC%
98.1
93.5
108
75.6
104
79.6
102
58.9
12500
45000
12500
45000
12500
45000
DUP
LCS
MB
DUP
LCS
MB
MS
MSD
502174Workorder:
U
U
U
+/-1.80
+/-112
+/-157
+/-112
+/-157
+/-112
+/-157
+/-2.23
+/-3.86
+/-0.658
+/-150
+/-128
+/-1160
+/-1700
+/-37.8
+/-86.6
+/-1820
+/-1760
+/-1880
+/-1730
RPD%
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Page 3 of 5
Page 82 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Rad Ra-226
1962720Batch
Radium-226
Radium-226
Radium-226
Radium-226
Parmname Units
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
Anlst Date Time
MXH8 02/10/20 12:12
02/10/20 12:43
02/10/20 13:44
02/10/20 12:12
QC
4.14
27.9
0.180
130
NOM Sample
2.71
2.71
Range
(0%-20%)
(75%-125%)
(75%-125%)
Qual
U
QC1204483827 502174001
QC1204483829
QC1204483826
QC1204483828 502174001
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
41.8
REC%
103
94.1
27.1
135
DUP
LCS
MB
MS
502174Workorder:
**
<
>
BD
FA
H
J
J
K
L
M
M
N/A
N1
ND
NJ
Q
R
U
UI
Analyte is a Tracer compound
Result is less than value reported
Result is greater than value reported
Results are either below the MDC or tracer recovery is low
Failed analysis.
Analytical holding time was exceeded
See case narrative for an explanation
Value is estimated
Analyte present. Reported value may be biased high. Actual value is expected to be lower.
Analyte present. Reported value may be biased low. Actual value is expected to be higher.
M if above MDC and less than LLD
REMP Result > MDC/CL and < RDL
RPD or %Recovery limits do not apply.
See case narrative
Analyte concentration is not detected above the detection limit
Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
One or more quality control criteria have not been met. Refer to the applicable narrative or DER.
Sample results are rejected
Analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the MDL, MDA, MDC or LOD.
Gamma Spectroscopy--Uncertain identification
+/-0.559
+/-0.559
+/-0.689
+/-1.72
+/-0.167
+/-9.77
*
RPD%
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Notes:
Counting Uncertainty is calculated at the 95% confidence level (1.96-sigma).
Page 4 of 5
Page 83 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350
QC Summary
GEL LABORATORIES LLC
2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - [phone] - www.gel.com
Parmname
Page 5 of 5
Units Anlst Date TimeQCNOMSampleRangeQualREC%
502174Workorder:
UJ
UL
X
Y
^
h
Gamma Spectroscopy--Uncertain identification
Not considered detected. The associated number is the reported concentration, which may be inaccurate due to a low bias.
Consult Case Narrative, Data Summary package, or Project Manager concerning this qualifier
Other specific qualifiers were required to properly define the results. Consult case narrative.
RPD of sample and duplicate evaluated using +/-RL. Concentrations are <5X the RL. Qualifier Not Applicable for Radiochemistry.
Preparation or preservation holding time was exceeded
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike conc. by a factor of 4 or more or %RPD not applicable.
^ The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than
five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control limit of +/- the
RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
* Indicates that a Quality Control parameter was not within specifications.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the
requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
RPD%
Page 84 of 84 SDG: EUI-11350