phase 2, final report, exxon highland tailings basin ... · phase 2 final report exxon, highland...

PHASE 2 FINAL REPORTEXXON, HIGHLAND TAILINGS BASIN

SEEPAGE ANALYSES

Prepared For

Exxon Coal and Minerals CompanyHighland Reclamation Project

Houston, Texas

Prepared By

Water, Waste and Land, Inc.

March, 1988

Water, Waste & Land,.Inc.CONSULTING ENGINEERS &SCIENTISTS

March 18, 1988 WWL #2068

Mr. H. Paul EsteyExxon Coal and Minerals CompanyP. 0. Box 1314Houston, Texas 77251-1314

Dear Paul:

Enclosed are five complete copies of-the Phase 2 Final Report.. Per yourinstructions, we are sending the repo rts ýunbound for you to insert into thebinders which we sent with the Draft :Report: submittal. The' package shouldinclude five each of the following:

1) the Binder Cover Insert,2) the main report, and3) the Appendix.

The report has been updated to include those sections which were not in theDraft Report but,.were sent under separate cover., In addition, we have made thecorrections suggested by you and Jim Pat-on .after your review. This submittalshould complete Phase 2 of the project.

Please contact me if you have questilon-. regardingr this, final report.

Sincerely,

WATER, WASTE AND LAND, INC.

Lyle A. Davis, P.E.Executive Vice President

Enclosures

PHASE 2 FINAL REPORT

EXXON HIGHLAND TAILINGS BASIN SEEPAGE ANALYSES

Prepared for

Exxon Coal and Minerals CompanyHighland Reclamation Project

Houston, Texas

Prepared by

Water, Waste & Land, Inc.Fort Collins, Colorado

March, 1988

Ir

Exxon Highland Tailings Basin Seepage AnalysesWWL #2068 "

Phase 2 Final ReportMarch 18, 1988


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST.OF TABLES • .. "s 0 .... * . 0 .. *0 . oo.**.... .00..0

LIST OF FIGURES..: ......... 0 .....

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........ ... ..... .. .. ..... ..* *.. . ........9...99.... ..... ..

1.0 INTRODUCTION......................1.1 SITE LOCATION................................ ................1.2 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING.........:............ o............. ... ..

2.0 DATA AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION............................ . .......2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA BASE... . . .. ,.. • .. . ...2.2 EPRCO MODEL SUMMARY ..................................

3.0 ANALYSES.,ý.. ................... o.....o...... , ........ 0.....0........ .. ..

3.1 WATER LEVEL ANALYSES .....................3.1.1 Water Levels in the TDSS,. .....................

- 3.1.2 Water Levels in the 50SS.................................

iv

vi

122

8

18

1818

35

39394370

83

87

8889+89

.9498

'3..2 WATER.3.2.13.2.23.2.3

QUALITY ANALYSES .................................. ...........Chemical Constituents of Interest .........................Water Quality of the TDSS ..................................Water Quality of the 50SS ..................... I .*. ........

3.3 STEADY STATE CONCENTRATION IN THE BACKFILL AREAS ...............

3.4 POTENTIAL MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES ............................rn...3.4.1. Grout Curtain. . . . ... 099 9 9 9 999999999999999999999999..999999999.

3.4.2 Slurry Wall......... .. ............ o.............. * *.

3.4o3 lPumpback System..•.... 9 . . .9 0. ... 's 0 9

3.4.4 No-Action..... ....3.4.5 Summary. ........... *

4.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .................. 101

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ... *s .1.03

6.0 REFERENCES .. . . . . .1. . . . . . .* o . . . .o 10'4

Exxon Highland Tailings Basin Seepage Analyses Phase 2 Final RepQrtWWL #2068 ii March 18, 1988


TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued)

Page

APPENDIX.. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .".. .. . 105

ISOCONCENTRATION MAPS

031 TAILINGS BASIN

015 TDSS

112 TDSS MONITORING

114 TDSS MONITORING

117 TDSS MONITORING

120 TDSS MONITORING

125 TDSS:

127 TDSSý

131 TDSS BACKGROUND

132 TDSS BACKGROUND

133 TDSS BACKGROUND

134 TDSS BACKGROUND

147 TOSS

150 TDSS

151'TDSS

172 TDSS

012 SEEP

013 SEEP

014 SEEP

111 5OSS

116 50SS

128 50SS

129 5OSS.

148 50SS

152 5OSS

171 BACKFILL,

170 BACKFILL

Exxon Highland Tailings Basin Seepage AnalysesWWL #2068 iii



LIST OF TABLES

Table

1

2

3

4

5

6

Page

HIGHLAND RECLAMATION PROJECT HYDROLOGIC SAMPLE LOCATIONS ............... 9

PLOTS OF WATER QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF TIME ................ .......... 12

HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES USED IN THE EPRCo SEEPAGE MODEL ................... 16

DATA USED IN TDSS WATER LEVEL ANALYSES................................ 22

NON-CONSERVATIVE CONSTITUENTS ....................... 42

NRC REGULATED CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN TAILINGS BASIN LIQUOR ..... . 44

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

SUMMARY OF

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

PERCENT OF

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY DATA .............................. 46

OF TDSS WELL 015 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS..........

OF TDSS WELL 112 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS ..........



OF TDSS WELL 120 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS..........




TDSS WATER SAMPLES ABOVE NRC STANDARDS....*-**............

OF 50SS SEEP 012 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS..........

OF 50SS SEEP 013 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS ..........

OF 50SS SEEP 014 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS..........

OF 50SS WELL 111 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS ..........

E SLURRY WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ............

57

60

62

64

65

67

68

69

71

78

79

80

82

91

93

21 COMPARITIVI

SANDSTONE AQUIFER PROPERTIES..... .......22 SUMMARY OF TAILINGS DAM

23 WELL SYSTEM.COST ESTIMATE ...................... ..... e ..... o... 95

-AAUiI nlyl~ 1911afuia il InqIs Dd51 n py atCdt:MdI l•Se5 rndse 4 rindl KeportWWL #2068 iv March 18, 1988


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 General Features at the Highland-Site ......................... ,....... 3

2 Generalized Stratigraphic Column, Highland Area ....................... 4

3 Cross-Section A-A' ............. ....... ... 0 .........***. ....... * 6

4 Cross-Section B-B' .......... ........... ..................... ........ 7

5 Intermediate Flow System in the Vicinity of the Highland Mine ......... 14

6 Assumed TDSS Water Level Elevations at Outcrop Locations............... 20

7 April 1982 TDSS Water Surface Map from Field Data ...................... 23

8 July 1985 TDSS Water Surface Map from Field Data ...................... 24

9 April 1987 TDSS Water Surface Map from Field Data .......... .......... 25

10 April 1982 TDSS Water Surface Map from EPRCo Model Data............... 27

11 July 1985 TDSS Water Surface Map from EPRCo Model Data ..... *........... 28

12 April 1987 TDSS Water Surface Map from EPRCo Model Data ............... 29

13 April 1987 TDSS Water Surface Section C-C' from Field Data.......,.... 32

14 April 1987 TDSS Water Surface Section C-C' from EPRCo Model Data ...... 33

15 April 1987 Water Levels in the 50SS ................................... 36

16 Schematics of Wells in Drainage Area East of Tailings Dam ............. 38

17 Locations of TDSS Water Quality Monitoring Wells ...................... 45

18 Chloride&Consentratlon as a Function of Time for Well 015............. 48

19 April 1987 TDSS Chloride Concentration Map from Field Data............. 51

20 Comparison of 1982 Predicted (EPRCo) and Measured (WWL) SeepageFront Locations in the TDSS ............................... ...... 53

21 Comparison of 1987 Predicted (EPRCo) and Measured (WWL) SeepageFront Locations in the TDSS ......................................... ..... 54

22 pH as a Function of Time for Well 015 ............ I ........ ...... ...... 58

23 Seepage Front Location in the 50SS for 1982, 1985, and1987 from Field Data ............................................................ 74

cJAun mlgnidnu Idlaing95 osin )eepage Analyses rnase z Final ReportWWL #2068 v March 18, 1988


LIST OF FIGURES(continued)

Figure Page

24 East-West Cross Section Comparing Predicted and Field SeepageFronts in the 50SS ...... 75

25 Northwest-Southeast Cross Section Comparing Predicted andField Seepage Fronts in the 50SS ...................................... 77

26 Average Depths from the Ground Surface to the TDSH ....... ........... 90

27 pH Versus Pore Volumes of Tailings Solution PassedThrough Tailings Dam Sandstone ......................... ...... . 97

28 Predicted Locations of the Low pH Front......................... " 99

txxon nlgniana iai ings Basin beepage Analyses Phase 2 Final ReportWWL #2068 vi March 18, 1988


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of Phase 2 of the Highland Tailings Basin

Seepage Analyses which Water, Waste and Land, Inc. (WWL) is performing for

Exxon Coal and Minerals Co. (ECMC). The purpose of Phase 2 of the study was to

review the available field data and compare it with model predictions reported

by Exxon Production Research Co. (EPRCo, 1982).

The data review. consisted of preparing plots of water elevation as a

function of time as well as plots of chemical concentration as a function of

time for each of the wells with sufficient available data. These plots were

used to guide development of piezometric surface maps and chemical

isoconcentration maps based on collected field data. Piezometric surface maps

based on EPRCo model output were also prepared for approximately the same time

as the maps based on field data. Comparison of the two sets of piezometric

surface.-maps provided the basis for determining the adequacy of the EPRCo model

with respect to the groundwater flow system. Based on these comparisons it was

concluded that the EPRCo model probably does not adequately model the flow

system especially in the areas to the west of the reclamation lake. However,

.in the vicinity of the tailings basin, the model appears to be reasonable. The

plots of concentration as a function of time and isoconcentration maps were

used to develop locations of the tailings basin seepage front for conservative

ions. These were then compared to the seepage front location as predicted by

the EPRCo model. These comparisons indicate that the EPRCo model does a fairly

good job of predicting the location of the conservative ion seepage front in

the vicinity of the tailings basin. The lack of data for retarded species,

-AAuti ni•yiii•iau i di I ings basLin )eepdge And iyse5 inase Z 1-inal ReportWWL #2068 vii March 18, 1988

except in close proximity to the basin, makes it impossible to evaluate EPRCo's

predictions of the location of the front for such constituents.•

In addition to comparing the field data with EPRCo predictions, the Phase

2 analyses included predictions of the steady state concentrations in the

backfilled mine area to the west of the tailings basin. The predictions were

based on the assumption that water quality in wells completed in the backfill

are representative of how resaturation of the backfill effects background water

quality. It was also assumed that all future inflow to the backfilled mine

area originates beneath the tailings basin. The results of these computations

indicates that the total dissolved solids concentrations in the backfill areas

could exceed about 2,500 mg/l. However, it is deemed likely that the backfill

material will enhance neutralization of any low pH seepage from the tailings

basin. Such neutralization would serve to limit migration of metals and

radionuclides away from the basin.

The last task performed as part of the Phase 2 study was evaluation of

alternatives which may be suitable for mitigating the groundwater situation at

the Highland site. The four alternatives which were briefly evaluated were a

grout curtain, a slurry wall, a pumpback system, and no-action. The evaluation

included estimations of costs required to install and operate each of the

mitigation alternatives. As part of the no-action alternative, the ultimate

location of the low pH front was estimated based on the reported neutralization

capacity of the Tailings Dam Sandstone (EPRCo, 1982) and the estimated volumes

of seepage through the tailings basin. Based on these computations, it is

anticipated that the low pH front will not move a substantial distance from the

impoundment. Due to this observation and the relatively large costs associated

with any of the active mitigation alternatives, the no-action alternative is

recommended.

LAAUII III•IIIIIU IQl I II1Z DUQ III JCCVQ%= Mll _l C r~laa r r l114I KepUr

WWL #2068 1 March 18, 1988


1.0 INTRODUCTION

Water, Waste & Land, Inc. (WWL) has been contracted by Exxon Coal and

Minerals Company (ECMC) to perform an analysis of the ground water at Highland

Uranium Mill Tailings Basin. Phase 1 of the project was completed in October,

1987 and a letter report, which provided an assessment of the available data,

was submitted to ECMC. Phase 2 of the project consisted of comparing the

available data with previous predictions and is addressed in this report.

The Phase 2 portion of the seepage study was divided into a number of

subtasks. The first task undertaken was the conversion of the ECMC chemical

data base into WWL data base format. A general review of the data was

conducted which included checking the data base for accuracy of conversion and

determining the types of data available for each location.

The second task performed was to develop plots of head and chemical data

as functions of time for the tailings basin, wells and seeps at the site.

These plots were used to develop the piezometric surfaces and the

isoconcentration maps for the hydrogeologic units. Piezometric surfaces and

Isoconcentration maps. were constructed from the field data for three separate

times: 1982, 1985, and 1987.

Head data from the EPRCo areal model were used to construct the predicted

piezometric surfaces for the same three years. Comparisons were then made

between the piezometric surfaces predicted by the EPRCo model and the surfaces

constructed from the field data. The predicted locations of seepage fronts

were also compared with the estimated seepage fronts based on field data.

Based on the comparisons between the predicted and field heads and

isoconcentration maps, and analysis of individual wells and seeps a

L^^u=l naylaaiju I Q Iaa1iy Dd5I 3ttpdyt MalbUb rndy 4 rinal KeportWWL #2068 2 March 18, 1988

recommendation as to the necessity of implementing Phase 3 is given. Phase 3

would require the development of alternative predictive methods for evaluation

of seepage from the tailings basin.

1.1 SITE LOCATION

The important features of the Highland site location are shown on Figure

1. The tailings basin was created by damming the north fork of Box Creek.

Mining began in 1972 with the first tailings delivered to the basin. in October

of 1972. In 1984, mining ceased and the mill was decommissioned. Since

decommissioning of the mill, the tailings basin has not been used. At the

present time, there is no ponded water on the surface of the basin and initial

reclamation of the basin has commenced. All of the mined area not immediately

around the reclamation lake has been backfilled and reclaimed. The backfilled

areas lie between the reclamation lake and the tailings basin.

1.2 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING

The local geology at the site can be described as consisting of

interbedded fine-to-coarse grained sandstone, siltstone, and claystone (EPRCo,

1982). The primary hydrogeologic units at the site, in order of increasing

depth are the Fowler Sand, the Tailings Dam Sandstone (TDSS), the Tailings Dam

Shale (TDSH), and the Upper, Middle and Lower Highland Ore Sands (50SS, 40SS

and 30SS, respectively). A generalized stratigraphic column for the Highland

area is shown on Figure 2. The units of importance for this study are the

TDSS, the TDSH, and the ore sands.

The TDSS is the unit of primary interest to this study since it is the

uppermost aquifer likely to be affected by seepage from the tailings basin. As

shown on Figure 1, the TDSS outcrops downstream of the tailings dam. In

4

==

SE LITH1oLOGY DESCRIPTION

U.

, .'' :.r Soil and Weathered Zone

IM

LU

Lu

I.-

4C

I. . ~

~*1 ~

I *' *.I,, *

' .~,

- I -* ' a

'a * *, .~* *

Discontinuous Sandstones and Shales

Sandstone: grain size varies from medium-grainedsand to gravel, most commonly medium to verycoarse-grained sand; beds vary from loose friablesand to well-cemented (carbonate) sandstones.(Does not contain uranium mineralization.)

Siltstone and Claystone (shale): color varies fromolive orange to gray green but generally graygreen; may contain thin interbedded sandstonesand lignite beds.

I-

LU

0SM

_J

2

I--

0

UL

' C - TAILINGS DAM SANDSTONE: same as above/ ,. (Does not contain uranium mineralization in

* -Highland area)

TAILINGS DAM SHALE: generally gray green with thinbeds of sandstone

-o" S •

% ' \ UPPER ORE BODY SANDSTONE: sameasabove.* ,(Ore bearing unit in Highland area.)

Siltstone and Claystone (shale): generally gray green.

, ,~ • MIDDLE ORE BODY SANDSTONE: same as above.J , (Major ore bearing unit in Highland area.)

Siltstone and Claystone (shale): generally gray green;may contain thinbedded sandstone units.

/, I / e

* s , LOWER ORE BODY SANDSTONE: same as above.I , / 1 (Major ore bearing unit in Highland area.)

I. %

Siltstone and Claystone (shale): generally gray green.

7 . t / Sandstone: same as above. (Does not contain economic' ' .amounts of uranium in Highland area.)SI , *#

Siltstone and Claystone (shale): same as above.

Adapted from EPRCo, 1982

Figure 2 [DA TPRE. eb.988

W WATP. WSTE ND LND, NC.Generalized Str .atigraphic Column, Highland .AreaI RET2068Ik J

txxon migniana iai•ings uasin zeepage Anaiyses Phase z Final ReportWWL #2068 5 March 18, 1988

addition, erosion in the channel of Box Creek had exposed the TDSS beneath the

tailings. Cross-section A-A', which parallels the old channel of Box Creek, is

shown on Figure 3 and demonstrates the potential for direct contact of tailings

with the TDSS.

The TDSH, which separates the TDSS and the 50SS, is considered the most

consistent rock stratum encountered at the Highland site (EPRCo, 1982). The

TDSH also outcrops to the east of the dam. Cross-section B-B', which passes

through and parallel to the tailings dam, is shown on Figure 4. As this

section view demonstrates, the TDSS has been completely eroded at this location

and some of the TOSH may have been removed by erosion as well.

The 50SS was one of the units mined during operations at Highland. It was

included in this study for two reasons. First, there is potential that seepage

from the tailings basin may flow vertically through both the TDSS and the TDSH

and into the underlying 50SS. In addition, geologic evidence suggests that

erosion in Box Creek may have removed the TDSH exposing the 50SS to alluvial

materials. Since the TDSS is also exposed to alluvium downstream of the dam,

it is possible that seepage could flow from the TDSS through the alluvium and

into the 50SS. Because alluvium and 50SS are in contact in the area east of

the dam, analyses of flow in this area was considered as part of the 50SS

hydrogeologic unit.

L

wJ wLNW S-E

A A'

.............................

-- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - --

TAILING DAM PROJECTED INTOTA-- - - - - - - - - -M- .LINE OF SECTIONTailings Basin

... E1 11 I .ANI)

7AIING DA AN'

5000*"*......... ............... N

......................... ............ *~---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- "-----"---------i-- -.. .........- -- -- - - - --- --

-- - - - - - -- - - -- -- •- - -_-- ---~~------- -- -- - ------ -- -- ---- -- -- -- ---------

--- -- ------- -- -- -- -- -- ----------------

.r__

- - - - - - - - - -

---------- ON'

0. 600'IhORIZONTAL SCALE I,

FEET

0. 60"VERTICAL SCALE I-

FEET


W • WATER, WASTE AND LAND,INC.I I Figure 3

Cross Section A-A'

DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068II J

7

NORTHB SOUTHB'

TAILINGS DAM CREST ELEVATION 5250

ROJECTED INTO LINE OF SECTION

I

BROWN. SANDY, SILTY SOIL

:--'-- : --':- -. .... .......... ... .....- - --

.- --• •-- -- ".-- ----- - -...i - ...:::-..:.:..... ._. _

• ...........

--.. .-.. ----------------

::-I:- - -- - - - - - -

0 SIXOHORIZONTAL SCALE 500

0 FEET soVERTICAL SCALE L

FEET


*WATER. WASTE AND, LAND. INC.F

Figure 4Cross Section B-B'

DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068I I I

L.AAUII Ill VII I 1U 1Q0.1 1111'3 DQZ1iii JC PQJ P%1aui 1-_ t-~ ir'id KepartWWL #2068 8 March 18, 1988

2.0 DATA AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Ground water monitoring at the Highland site began in 1972, prior to

deposition of tailings in the basin. The initial seepage monitoring network

was significantly expanded and improved during the project, with the current

monitoring program providing water chemistry data from each aquifer. In

addition, water levels have been monitored in most of the wells since 1981.

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA BASE

All of the data and information used in this study were supplied by ECMC.

Most of the data were provided on electronic media in the form of files created

and maintained by ECMC personnel using the ECOTRAC program. Both water quality

and water level data were supplied. A complete list of sample locations is

provided in Table 1. This table provides a convenient cross-reference for

common well names (e.g. TDM VII) and the identification number, ID#, assigned

by the ECOTRAC software (e.g. 112). The units in which wells are completed are

also listed in Table 1.

Upon receipt of the data, printouts were generated and the data was spot

checked for accuracy. Complete details regarding database conversion and

quality assurance are provided in the Appendix. Both water level data and

water quality data were then converted to Lotus 1-2-3 format to allow plotting

the data as a function of time. These plots were used to guide selection of

data to include in this study. Table 1 also lists the sample locations which

were determined to be of significant use to this study. For these wells and

seeps, plots of water level and water quality as functions of time are

presented in the Appendix. Also included in the Appendix is a schematic

representation of the stratigraphy and well completion details. The plots are

arranged by ID# and hydrogeologic unit and are referenced frequently in this

Exxon Highland Tailings Basin Seepage AnalysesWWL #2068 9


TABLE 1

HIGHLAND RECLAMATION PROJECT HYDROLOGIC SAMPLE LOCATIONS

Used in this StudyCommon Sample Hydrogeologic Water Water

IN# Name Type Unit Sampled Levels Quality

060 EnvironmentalLaboratory

102 Mill Pond022 Mill Pond

006 Spring in Section 22

037005068036038039

Fawn ReservoirCreek S.E. of mineEast Stock PondReservoir 2aBuck ReservoirDoe Reservoir

031 Tailings Basin

110 TDM VI

119 TDM XX

128129116111148152

TDMTDMTDMTDMTDMTDM

XXIXXXXXIVI RXXXIIXXXVI

DewaterDewater

Spring

SurfaceSurfaceSurfaceSurfaceSurfaceSurface

Waste

Monitor

Monitor

MonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitor

DewaterDewaterDewater

MonitorMonitor

Monitor

Dewater

Dewater

40 SS and 50 SS

40 SS

505050505050

SSSSSSSSSSSS

XXXXXX

141 DW-46047 DW-18142 DW-47

115 TDM X118 TDM XIX

151 TDM XXXV

Ore SSOre SSOre SS

AlluviumAlluvium

144 DW-35

072 DW-35

Alluvium, TDSS

Alluvium, TDSSand Ore SS

Alluvium, TDSSand Ore SS

X X



TABLE 1

HIGHLAND RECLAMATION PROJECT HYDROLOGIC SAMPLE LOCATIONS(continued)

Used in this StudyCommon Sample Hydrogeologic Water Water

IN# Name Type Unit Sampled Levels Quality

171 TOM XXXVIII170 TOM XXXIIi

126 TOM XXVII

MonitorMonitor

Moni tor

Dewater

BackfillBackfle S

Fowler SS

003 Highland Office

134 RM 4132 RM 2133 RM 3131 RM 1117 TOM XII114 TOM IX112 TOM VII120 TOM XXI125 TOM XXVI172 EM5147 TDM XXXI015 Replacement of TOM D150 TOM XXXIV149 TOM XXXIII127 TOM XXVIII122 TOM XXIII124 TOM XXV

014 Seep below Tailings Dam012 Lower Tailings Dam013 Seep below Tailings Dam

BackgroundBackgroundBackgroundBackgroundMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitorMonitor

SeepSeepSeep

TOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSSTOSS

TOSSTOSSTOSS

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

136 DW-41 Dewater TOSS and Ore SS

002 Fowler-Ranch Well Domestic Unknown001 Vollman Ranchyard Domestic Unknown

-AAUII fl lll l lu a blll y ii• III mJO iIIQIy - ril t r 1lid KCPUUL

WWL #2068 11 March 18, 1988

report. Because of the large amount of data available for analyses, this

approach was deemed preferable to including all of the plots within the body of

the report. The plots are also more convenient for reference. than tables of

values since trends are usually apparent on the plots.

Unexplained large fluctuations in water levels are evident on many of the

plots. Based on discussions with ECMC personnel and evaluations of the water

level data, it was concluded that the most likely cause of these fluctuations

was sampling error. The plots do demonstrate general trends when the large

fluctuations are ignored.

Plots of water quality as a function of time were also prepared for all

wells and chemical constituents when sufficient data were available. Table 2

provides a listing of the water quality plots which were prepared for the

sampling points of interest to this study.

2.2 EPRCO MODEL SUMMARY

The 1982 EPRCo study addressed questions from the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) regarding the amount and direction of seepage from the

tailings basin. The study reported on three main endeavors:

(1) a laboratory program to quantify the chemical interactions betweenthe tailings basin liquor and geologic strata underlying the tailingsbasin.,

(2) a geologic modeling program to describe the structure and lithologyof Highland, and

(3) a solute transport modeling program to predict tailings basin seepageand migration of solutes.

The geologic models of the Highland area used in the EPRCo study were

developed using EPRCo's computer programs for two-and three-dimensional

geologic mapping and modeling. A finite-difference solute transport model

rAAW1./ l #2068 L12• OA I I 111 ' ., L l II I JQV /•llQ lyZWWL #2068 12 riimac r. r I1a 1 I jlp,!L

March 18, 1988

TABLE 2

PLOTS OF WATER QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF TIME

Parameter

ID# Ca Cl Mg pH SO4 TDS Ag As Cd Cr Hg Pb Ra-226 Se

TDSS

015112114117120125127147150151131132133134172

50SS116128129152

X XX XX L X

X: X-X XX• XX XX XX X

X XX XX XX XX

X XX XX XX X

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXX

XXXX

XXXXX

XXXX

X XX XX XX XX XXX

XX

XX XX XX XX

X XXX X

XX

X XX XX X

X

X XX .XX XX XX X

XX

X XX X

XXXX

XXX

X XX

X XX X

XXXXX

XXXXXXX

X

XXXXX

XXXX

XXXXX

East Drainage Area111 X: X X X148 X X X X012 X X X X013 Xý X . X X014 X X X X

X X X XX

X X XX

X X X XX

X X X XX.X

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXX X

Backfill170 X X X X X X X X171 X X X X X X X X

*X indicates a plot was prepared. A blank indicates insufficient datato complete a plot. These plots are included in the appendix to thisreport.

txxon Higniana lailings Basin Seepage Analyses Phase 2 Final ReportWWL #2068 13 March 18, 1988

developed by EPRCo was used to simulate seepage and solute movement through

geologic strata underlying the tailings basin. Three cross-sectional models

and one areal model were constructed. Flow was simulated to predict the

position of the seepage front and the position of each solute front to the year

2000. The cross-sectional modeling was performed to evaluate the vertical

movement of solute from the tailings basin to the underlying sands and to

estimate seepage as a function of time. The cross-sectional models had several

limitations. The models could not follow the curved flow paths between the

tailings basin and the outcrop area in the TDSS. This invalidated flow

calculations east of the tailings basin in that geologic unit. Another stated

limitation was the potential that the TDSH has a lower average permeability

than that used in the cross-sectional models. If this is the case, vertical

seepage through the TDSH would be less than predicted by the model and

additional horizontal movement in the TDSS would result. As a result, the

model would underpredict horizontal solute movement in the TDSS (EPRCo, 1982).

The areal model was used to predict the maximum horizontal movement of solutes

and to overcome the limitations of the cross-sectional models resulting from

the linear flow assumption.

The descriptions of the source-sink terms and boundary conditions used in

the EPRCo areal model were summarized in Section 6.2.4.1 of the EPRCo study

(1982) and are reproduced in the following:

"The initial and boundary conditions for the areal model weredetermined from the intermediate flow system shown in (Figure 5).The model-was initialized to a uniform potential of 5160 feet abovemean sea level. Potential specified source-sink terms were then usedto establishboundary conditions. The western boundary of the modelwas kept at a uniform potential of 5280 feet. This value wasobtained from (Figure 5) by interpolating between the 5266- and 5300-foot equipotential lines to estimate the potential of the north-southtrending equipotential line. Source-sink terms were also locatedalong the Tailings Dam Sand outcrop east of the pond. The potential

00.

o I 2

MILES

* - Reported by Hagmaler (1971)

0 - .Reported by Dames and Moore (1972)

Adapted from EPRCo (1982)

I NVWATER. WASTE AND LAND, INC. I IFigure 5

Intermediate Flow System in the Vicinity of the -Highland MineDATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068

Exxon Highland Tailings Basin Seepage Analyses Phase 2 Final ReportWWL #2068 15 March 18, 1988

of each source-sink term was set to the outcrop elevation of theTailings Dam Sand.

The model was run for 500 days to establish regional flow. Themaximum grid-block pressure change was monitored during this period.Regional flow was considered to be established when the maximumpressure change became negligible.

The north and south boundaries were specified sufficiently farfrom the pond and surface mine to avoid having an effect. on flowpatterns. Since the north and south model boundaries were roughlyparallel. to :the west-east flow lines, they were defined as no-flowboundaries.

The open pits were simulated by defining source-sink terms inall blocks representing the surface mine. The source-sink termsproduced fluid at a constant rate of about one percent of the gridblock's initial water content until the block reached residual watersaturation. The source-sink term would then maintain thatsaturation. The locations of active source-sink terms were adjustedyearly to simulate the progression of the surface mine. To simulatebackfilling, use of the source-sink terms was discontinued and waterreinvaded the block. Backfill properties were used in all blocksrepresenting the surface mine.

It was not necessary to simulate the underground mine in theareal model. Grout was used to seal the Tailings Dam Sand from thevertical shaft, thus preventing the shaft from acting as anatmospheric, boundary condition. The lateral workings were allcompleted below the Tailings Dam Shale, and that unit was assumedimpermeable. It is believed that the underground mine had relativelylittle effect on ground-water flow in the Tailings Dam Sand.

In the areal model it was assumed that all seepage entered theTailings DaamrSand uniformly over the entire pond area. The seepagerate was estimated using the results of the cross-sectional models,as previously described. After surface mine shutdown in December,1983, the seepage rate was allowed to decrease in a manner similar tothat calculated by the cross-sectional models."

Other pertinent aquifer properties used in the EPRCo modeling endeavor are

tabulated in, Table 3. Conclusions reached in the EPRCo report, when the

predicted fronts were compared to the field data from the last quarter of 1982,

were:

(1) The position of the seepage front predicted by the areal model was ingood agreement with monitor well data north and south of the tailingsbasin.

(2) Fluid seeps into the North Fork Box Creek drainage area (along theTDSS outcrop). Solute migration was sometimes underestimated due tothe finite-difference gridding (discretization) of the areal model.

txxon migniana iaiiings uasin beepage Anaiyses Phase 2 Final ReportWWL #2068 16 March 18, 1988

TABLE 3

HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES USED IN THE EPRCo SEEPAGE MODEL

Sands Shales Backfill

HorizontalPermeability (ft/day) 5.5 2.7 X 10- 3 5.5

VerticalPermeability (ft/day) 5.5 2.7 X 10-3 5.5

Porosity (%) 34 10 35

3Grain Density (glcm3) 2.60 2.60 2.60

Bulk Density (g/cm3 ) 1.72 2.34 1.69

Specific Storage (ft-1) 7.3 X 10- 6 2.2 X 10-6 7.5 X 10-6

txxon migniano lailings Basin Seepage Analyses Phase 2 Final ReportWWL #2068 17 March 18, 1988

(3) Tracer concentrations in wells west of the tailings basin indicatedthat the seepage front had travelled about 1300 feet further westthan predicted.

(4) The predicted position of the acidic front was in good agreement withmonitor well data north, east, and west of the tailings basin. Southof the tailings basin, the model appears to slightly overpredictacidic front migration.

cAAUti nigniana iaiiings dmiln jeepage Anldiy5e5 nase Z Final ReportWWL #2068 18 March 18, 1988

3.0 ANALYSES

The analyses performed during this study were divided into the following

four components:

1) water level analyses,

2) water quality analyses,

3) predictions of steady state concentrations in the backfilled minepits, and

4) potential mitigation alternatives.

Each of these components are described in the following sections.

3.1 WATER LEVEL ANALYSES

In order to evaluate the model developed by EPRCo, water levels were

analyzed. Since advective solute movement is proportional to the gradient of

head, comparison of modeled and measured water levels provides a good

indication of the ability of the model to predict future water quality

conditions in the aquifers near the tailings basin. Since the model considered

areal flow only in the TDSS, comparisons of hydraulic head are limited to this

unit. However, trends in water levels in the other units of interest were also

evaluated.

3.1.1 Water Levels in the TDSS

The most comprehensive evaluation of water levels was conducted for the

TDSS since the EPRCo areal model was developed to predict flow and solute

transport for this unit. Piezometric surface maps were prepared for both

modeled and measured conditions for three times for which data are available.

The times for which maps were prepared were selected by evaluating the water

level versus time plots provided by well in the Appendix as described

L^^W~i niVliIQIlu ICLIIIitlyb Dd3] (I ;)t•~ yt: M[ld l~bt rndse z tinal ReportWWL #2068 19 March 18, 1988

previously. Piezometric surface maps were prepared for three times during

which water level trends could be established with confidence: April 1982,

July 1985, and April 1987. Piezometric surfaces based on EPRCo model output

for about the same dates were also developed.

Water levels in the TOSS are currently declining in response to reduction

of the free water contained in the tailings basin. Since seepage is being

reduced, the mound beneath the tailings basin is being dissipated as the

declining water levels indicate. Further decline is anticipated since seepage

will continue to be reduced as the tailings drain.

Certain constraints were present during development of the three TDSS

piezometric surfaces from the field data. Primary among these were the TOSS

outcrop locations. East of the tailings dam the TOSS outcrops along the

drainage area providing a boundary for the piezometric surface. The outcrop

provides the maximum elevation which the piezometric surface can have if it is

assumed that seepage can occur at the TOSS and underlying Tailings Dam Shale

(TDSH) interface. A typical cross-section for the outcrop area east of the dam

is shown on Figure 6a.

A second constraint on development of the piezometric surface is caused by

the mine pits. Two cases are possible for the water surface at the pits. For

the case of pits 4 and 5, the piezometric surface is equivalent to the

elevation of the outcrop locations of the TOSS around the reclamation lake.

For the backfilled pits, it was assumed that the water surface was equivalent

to that schematically shown in cross-section on Figure 6b. Water seeping from

the TOSS aquifer into the backfilled pits is assumed to have a potential, at

the pit boundary, equivalent to the elevation of the TDSS at that point.

The bottom elevation of the TOSS where it is exposed in an outcrop or a

mine pit thus defined the elevation of the TOSS water surface at that location.

20

(a)

(b)

Water. Waste & Land. Inc.

.Figure 6Assumed TDSS Water Level Elevations

at Outcrop Locations

IDate: Feb. 1988

Project: 2068

cAXui mlgniana iaiii.ngs oasiln eepage inaiyses Phase 2 Final ReportWWL #2068 21 March 18, 1988

An approximate mining boundary for pits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 was developed along

with the approximate location of the TDSS outcrop in those pits. The

approximate location of the TDSS outcrop around the-mined areas is shown on

Figure 1. Approximate elevations for the bottom of the TDSS were obtained from

a geologic map showing the elevation of the top of the tailings dam shale

(Humble Oil and Refining Company, 1971) and from a piezometric surface map

(Hydro-Engineering, 1987) showing the outcrop of the TDSS around the

reclamation lake.

Table 4 lists the water level data used to create the three piezometric

surfaces. The table shows the measured water level in a well, the date the

water level measurement was obtained, and the source of the data. The water

level elevations have been rounded to the nearest foot for the piezometric

surface maps. .Figures 7, 8, and 9 depict the piezometric surfaces based on

field data collected in April 1982, July 1985, and April 1987, respectively.

WWL requested water level data predicted from the EPRCo areal computer

modeling of the TDSS from ECMC. As stated by in a letter from Nina Springer to

J. F. Tomach dated October 29, 1987, a number of difficulties were encountered

in obtaining the head data:

1. Original model output was not available for the exact dates requestedin 1982, 1985, and 1987,

2. the original model output included only water pressures rather than

water levels,

3. only hard copies of the output were available, and

4. tapes found containing grid block depths had formatting problems andtruncated data.

As concluded in Ms. Springer's letter, the data provided to WWL should be

WWL #2068 22Fnase z rilndi Keport

March 18, 1988

TABLE 4

DATA USED IN TDSS WATER LEVEL ANALYSES

Water Level, Date and Source

Well # April 1982 July 1985 Apri l 1987

015

112

114

117

120

122

124

125

127

131

132

133

134

147

149

150

151

172

5150.9::

5154.7

5160.4

5170.3

5177.8

5144.6

5156.7

3/15/82

4/14/82

4/14/82

14/14/82

3/26/82

(1)(1)(1)

(1)

(1)

5151.8

5151.8

5157.6

5159.6

5168.8

5142.9

5152.6

7/12/85

7/12/85

7/12/85

7/12/85

7/12/85

7/12/85

7/12/85

(1)(1)(1)(1)

(1)

(1)(1)

3/29/82 (1)

3/29/82 (1)

5141.6

5144.8

5140.8

5149.9

5154.3

5143.1

5130.9

5138.6

5146.2

5,110.8

5080.4

5077.4

5124.3

5129.8

5144.6

5113.9

5112.4

5092.9

4/21/87

4/21/87

4/21/87

4/21/87

4/21/87

6/87

6/87

4/21/87

4/21/87

4/21/87

4/21/87

4/21/87

4/21/87

6/87

6/87

6/87

6/87

6/10/87

(1)

(1)

(2)(2)

(1)(2)

(2)(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)(2)

(2)(2)

(2)

(I)

(1) Highland Ground Water Elevation Data Base.

(2) Hydro-Engineering (1987).


within about 50 days of the requested dates. The accuracy of the predicted

water levels is probably plus or minus 2 to 5 feet (Hagedorn, 1987).

Coordinates of the predicted head data were based on the grid blocks used

in the areal computer model. These coordinates were converted to the state

plane coordinate system, used at the Highland site, by a computer program

developed by WWL. The distribution of the predicted head data was interpolated

to an evenly spaced matrix and contoured using subroutines developed by PLOT88

(a proprietary software package) and maintained by WWL. The contours were

plotted and there appeared to be no obvious anomalies or errors in the data.

The piezometric surfaces developed from the EPRCo model are shown on

Figures 10, 11, and 12. The April 1982 predicted surface ranges from

approximately 5050 feet at the north end of the mine area to 5210 feet at the

tailings basin. Steep gradients exist between the tailings basin and the mined

areas. Steep gradients also exist between the tailings basin and the base of

the tailings dam. The isopotential lines generally are parallel and running

north and south in the northern portion of the considered area.

The July 1985 predicted surface ranges from approximately 5060 feet at the

north end of the mined area to 5200 feet at the tailings basin. Very little

change occurs in the isopotential lines around the periphery of the considered

area as compared to the April 1982 piezometric surface. The greatest change

between the 1982 and 1985 surfaces occurs around the mine area and near the

tailings basin. The groundwater mound beneath the tailings basin shows some

decline when compared to the 1982 mound while the mine area shows a gradual

increase in water level.

The April 1987 predicted surface ranges from approximately 5070 feet at

the center of the mine area to about 5190 feet beneath the tailings basin.

When compared with the 1982 piezometric surface, the effects of the predicted


re-establishment of regional flow become more apparent. A steep gradient

exists southwest of mine pits 3 and 4, indicating that regional flow is

entering the mine area. The gradient around the tailings basin has decreased

when compared to the April 1982 surface.

Comparison of the piezometric surfaces for 1982 and 1985 is limited to the

area around the tailings basin since measured data are available only in close

proximity to the tailings basin for those dates. Comparison of actual and

predicted piezometric surfaces for April 1982 indicates large head differences

exist, with the greatest difference appearing in areas west of the tailings

basin. Predicted ground water head at Well 114 was approximately 5120 feet

while the actual observed head was 5160 feet. The areas to the northeast and

due south of the tailings basin show the best comparison. Well 127 had an

actual head of 5157 feet while the model predicted a head of about 5162 feet.

This is within the stated error tolerance of the model. Well 117, immediately

south of the tailings basin had an actual head of 5170 feet while the model

predicted a head of 5160 feet.

Differences between the surfaces are also evident in the July 1985

piezometric surfaces. Again, the largest differences exist to the west and

southwest of the tailings basin. Well 114 had an observed water level of 5157

feet while the predicted head was approximately 5126 feet. Wells 120 and 117,

to the north and south of the tailings basin, respectively, are quite close in

the observed versus predicted heads. Well 120 had an observed head of 5169

feet while the predicted head was 5160 feet. Both observed and predicted heads

in Well 117 were about 5160 feet. The comparison is fair to the northeast with

the greatest deviation occurring at Well 125 where the predicted-head was 5160

feet while the observed head was 5143 feet.

Exxon Highland Tailings Basin Seepage Analyses Phase•2 Final ReportWWL #2068 31 March 18, 1988

Comparison of the 1987 predicted and actual piezometric surfaces also

reveals substantial differences. Water levels collected at wells to the west

of the mine area allow an expanded comparison of these surfaces. The most

obvious difference between the two surfaces is that the actual heads are lower

than predicted to the west of the mine area. Regional flow back into the mine

area has not occurred to the extent predicted, with large head differences

existing between predicted and actual values. For wells 131, 132, and 133, the

differences are around 60 to 80 feet. While the wells in the western area have

significantly lower water levels than predicted, the wells north of the mine

area (150, 151, and 172) have measured heads which are greater than predicted

by the model. Wells 150 and 151 have measured heads about 25 feet higher than

predicted. Wells to the east of the tailings basin have measured heads which

are about 15 feet lower than predicted by the EPRCo model.

The April 1987 piezometric surface along cross-section C-C' as based on

field data is shown on Figure 13. The location of cross-section C-C', which

runs approximately east to west across the site, is shown on Figures 9 and 12.

The cross-section passes through the two backfill wells (Well 170 and Well 171)

and through the reclamation lake. The piezometric surface s hows the effects of

the groundwater mound beneath the tailings basin to the east of the mine area.

However, the backfilled area has water levels which are significantly below the

TDSS. On the west side of the lake, the effects of the dewatering operation

are evident, with the lake surface lying over 100 feet below the TDSS outcrop.

The April 1987 piezometric surface of the TDSS based on EPRCo model data for

cross-section C-C' is shown on Figure 14. The surface shows. the much higher

head values in the area west of the mine area, due to the predicted early re-

establishment of the regional flow, which is not yet evident in the actual

field data. Figure 14 shows that the influx of regional flow into the backfill

5150 - C.

C

5100 -

5050 -

5000

49•0-

Bottom of TDSS

st Pit Wall I

ralings Dam

Horlz. Scale 1 2000'

-5150

-,5100m

0

5050 >O"0

a

.0

(D

5000 -

4950:-

Mined Area

I I I I I. I I

I W ATER. WASTE AND LAND. INC. I

Figure 13

April 1987 TDSS Water Surface Section C-C' from Field DataUA DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068

I

5200 - - 5200

C

.5 10 U 5150.51 50 ~Tailings Dam510

5100 51.00.0

0

5050.- 5050 >0

ý5000 - -5000

Horiz. •Scale 1"-2000'

4050 I 4950

%V AER. WASTE AND LAND, INC. [April .1987 TDSS Water Sur face Section C-C' from EPRCo Model Data PROJECT: 2068I


areas was predicted to cause water levels to be higher in these areas than the

measured data indicates.

The primary reason for the differences between the measured and predicted

piezometric surfaces appears to be related to the time required for the

reestablishment of the regional flow system. Comparison of the 1987

piezometric .surfaces indicates that the regional flow has not been

reestablished to the extent predicted during the EPRCo study. Possible causes

for the time lag are:

1. The regional gradient was less than initial-ly estimated andsubsequently used in the EPRCo flow model.

2. The dewatering program affected the surrounding aquifers to a greaterextent than initially estimated.

3. The constant head boundaries imposed along the western boundary ofthe modeled area were too close to the mine area causing the model tounderpredict the amount of drawdown which occurred due to dewateringand mining operations.

4. The permeability used in the model for the TDSS, (2000 md), washigher than actually exists in most of the formation, especially tothe west of the mine area.

The initial and boundary conditions for the areal model were determined

from the intermediate flow system, with the model's head initialized at 5160

feet above mean sea level. The western boundary was kept at a constant

potential of 5280 feet. The eastern boundary was a source-sink boundary with

the potential kept equal to a constant equal to the outcrop elevation of the

Tailings Dam Sandstone. The model was then run for 500 days to establish

regional flow.

In thedescription of the boundary conditions, no mention was given in the

EPRCo report as to the effect that the dewatering operation would have. The

open pits were simulated by defining source-sink terms in all the blocks


representing the mine area. The backfilled mine area was simulated by

discontinuing the source-sink terms and allowing water to reinvade the block.

However, prior to mining actually beginning, a cone of •depression probably

existed in the TDSS due to dewatering operations. It does not appear, based

upon the description of the initial and boundary conditions in the EPRCo

report, that the effects of dewatering prior to mining were considered in the

model.

A description of the dewatering wells was given by Dames and Moore (1978).

As described in that report, a total of 17 dewatering wells had been

constructed in the mine area by 1978. The wells were generally pumped at rates

from 15 to 70 gpm. The wells had been screened in nearly all the sandstone

intervals. below the original ground water level. The report also concluded

that, based on the pumping operation, nearly all of the screens were dewatered

during pumping operations. As such, significant amounts of water were removed

from the sandstone aquifers during the dewatering operations. If, as

suspected., the EPRCo model did not consider these dewatering activities, a

large portion of the observed differences between the observed and predicted

piezometric surfaces would be thusly explained.

3.1.2 Water Levels in the 50SS

As listed in Table 1, water levels are available for only six 50SS wells.

The locations of these wells are shown on Figure 15. Water level data are

available beginning in 1982 for wells 111, 116, 128, and 129. Collection of

water level data for wells 148 and 152 was not initiated until 1985. Three of

the 50SS wells - 116, 128, and 129 - are completed near TDSS wells. Water

levels collected in January 1987 for the TDSS and 50SS wells were compared to

estimate the head difference available to cause seepage from the TDSS into the

0 0

Reservoir

#128+5092

NN

N Tailings Basin

Mill Area \#116Nt o.

I.

\. I'..-

I

#170.

•4992

N

#171

$5047

w'#111+±5099#148+5093

#152+5098

$ -- Backfill Well

~" -5OSS Well.

JATER, WASTE AND LAND,INC.

Figure 15April 1987 Water Levels in the 5OSS I DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068 I

w = I

I


5OSS. Well 116, which is completed in the 50SS, and TDSS Well 114 are about 28

feet apart and the water level in the 50SS was about 71 feet lower than the

water level in the TDSS. The water level in TDSS Well 127 was about 57 feet

above the water level in 50SS Well 128 which is approximately 17 feet away.

Similarly, the water level in TDSS Well 120 is nearly 74 feet :higher than in

5OSS Well 129 located about 29 feet away.

Water levels in the 50SS around the tailings basin are also shown on

Figure 15. The water level elevations, measured in April 1987, range from

about 5073 feet to about 5099 feet. While enough control points are not

available to develop a piezometric surface with any confidence, the water

levels indicate that a groundwater divide exists in the vicinity of Wells 111

and 152. This may be indicative of seepage from the tailings basin reaching

the 5OSS in the vicinity of Well 111.

As shown on Figure 1, the area east of the dam is bounded by the TDSS

outcrop along both sides of the north fork of Box Creek. Two wells, 111 and

148, are located in this area. Both Well 111 and Well 148 were completed in

the 50SS, as shown in the well schematics provided on Figure 16. The screened

intervals in both wells are located within the 50SS with bentonite and grout

sealing thewell bores above the screen to the surface. While the water level

data provided on Figure 15 indicates that easterly flow is occurring to the

east of the tailings dam, the water levels in Wells 111 and 148 indicate that

flow may also be occurring in the alluvium in this area.

Also shown on Figure 16 is the schematic of well 110 which is completed in

the 40 sand. The wellbore has been sealed from the overlying alluvial fill and

the 50 sand by bentonite and grout. Well 110 is located approximately 20 feet

from well 111. Only minimal differences in water levels in the 5OSS and the

40SS are indicated by water level data presented on Figure 16.

0

Mi

0

0

0

0l(D


3.2 WATER QUALITY ANALYSES

Evaluation of the EPRCo (1982) seepage model required comparison of the

location of the contaminant front based on field data with that predicted by

the model. Because most of the retarded constituents have not moved very far

from the tailings basin, it was not possible to accurately develop

isoconcentration plots for these chemicals. Therefore, much of the following

discussion pertains to the location of the seepage front which is defined as

the location of the conservative, or non-retarded, front..

Since most of the constituents which are of interest from a regulatory

standpoint are very much effected by acidity of the ground water, some of the

following discussion alludes to the "acid front". It should be recognized that

the seepage front and the acid front are not the same and that the seepage

front will generally move further than the acid front during: the same time

period. The location of the seepage front provides an indication of the total

distance which fluids from the tailings basin have migrated. The. acid front,

on the other hand, provides an indication of the distance which regulated

chemicals may migrate away from the tailings basin.

3.2.1 Chemical Constituents of Interest

The Highland uranium mill used a conventional acid leach-solvent

extraction process to remove uranium from the ore. Consequently the tailings

fluid at Highland was acidic with a pH value of about 2. Concentrations of

many regulated and unregulated chemicals and elements are found in the tailings

basin liquor. Because of the low pH of the tailings f~luid some of these

chemicals are more mobile than others.

EPRCo studied several chemical species in order to identify tracer

elements that could be used to verify their flow modeling results. In their


study, EPRCo considered both conservative and nonconservative (retarded)

species. The following three criteria were used by EPRCo to determine if a

chemical constituent could be classified as a conservative tracer:

(1) Concentrations of the chemical should not be attenuated by chemicalor other reactions as it is transported through porous media,

(2) Concentrations of the constituent should be substantially higher inthe tailings fluid than in groundwater, and

(3) Concentrations of the constituent should not dependent on pH.

Calcium, magnesium and chloride were chosen by EPRCo as meeting these criteria.

In the current study, calcium was eliminated as a conservative tracer because

it appears to be mobilized as fluids move through the geologic materials. This

mobilization was noted during preparation of the isoconcentration maps for

calcium since concentrations in the ground water appear to increase with

distance from the tailings basin. Preparation of isoconcentration maps for

chloride and magnesium indicate that both are suitable for use as a

conservative tracers.

Chloride is often used as a conservative tracer in groundwater studies.

In addition, abundant chloride concentration data for the groundwater at

Highland are available in the database. Therefore, the location of the seepage

front in the aquifers at the Highland site were estimated based on chloride

concentrations. Magnesium concentrations were used to support the conclusions

based on the chloride concentrations.

In the TDSS and the 50SS aquifers the extent of tailings fluid seepage is

determined based on the position of the conservative tracer relative to the

tailings basin. The seepage front is defined as groundwater with chemical

concentrations equal to one-half of the input chemical concentration. Since

concentrations of chloride and magnesium, which were deemed to be conservative


tracers for this study, were increasing in the tailings basin (the input

source) the concentration used to determine front location was an estimated as

the average of all the chloride and magnesium concentrations in the samples

taken from the tailings basin. The average concentration of chloride in the

tailings basin was about 435 mg/l and while for magnesium the average

concentration was about 497 mg/l. Because concentrations of both magnesium and

chloride were increasing in the tailings basin (probably due to evaporation

after tailings deposition was halted), 200 mg/l was chosen to represent the

concentration of the seepage front for these chemicals.

Any chemical species whose concentration changes as it moves through

geologic formations is defined as non-conservative. Chemical and other

reactions often serve to reduce the concentrations of certain constituents

which are normally found in tailings fluids. For example, reactions between

geologic media and the tailings fluid causes the pH to increase. The increase

in pH often tends to cause precipitation of metals thereby leading to

reductions in their concentrations as water moves away from a tailings basin.

Other reactions may also be involved in retarding the movement of chemical

constituents in the tailings seepage. A list of nonconservative tracers

according to the studies performed by EPRCo (1982) is provided in Table 5.

When sufficient data were available, concentrations of these chemicals were

also evaluated to develop estimates of the location of the acid-front.

Recent regulations promulgated by the NRC (1987)• identify certain

chemicals which must be monitored to protect groundwater .in the vicinity of

active tailings basins. These regulations also provide mechanisms for

determining levels of concentrations which are acceptable on a site specific

basis. In general, the limits are based on concentrations measured in

groundwater which has not been affected by seepage, or so-called background


TABLE 5

NON-CONSERVATIVE CONSTITUENTS

EPRCo Retardation FactorTracer Sandstone Shale

Al >0.3 <0.1

As <0.1 <0.1

Cd >0.3 >0.3

Cu 0.1 < R <0.2 <0.1

Fe Total <0.1 <0.1

K <0.1 1.0

Mn >0.3 >0.3

Pb-210 <0.1 <0.1

pH 0.3 0.3

Ra-226 <0.1 <0.1

Se <0.02 <0.02

SO4 >0.3 <0.1

Th-230 <0.1 <0.1

U-238 0.1 0.04

Zn >0.3 >0.3


concentrations. When background data are available, methods for evaluating

compliance with the regulations are also outlined. In the absence of adequate

background data, the regulations also provide maximum permissible

concentrations. for certain chemical species. Table 6 lists the chemicals which

are regulated by the NRC and which sample analyses indicate are present in the

tailings fluids. Also provided in Table 6,is the maximum concentration

observed in all samples collected from the tailings basin as well as the

average concentrations for the regulated chemicals. Plots of chemical

concentrations in the tailings fluids are provided in the Appendix (ID# 031).

The maximum concentration of barium in the tailings basin liquor never exceeded

NRC ground water regulations. Therefore, barium was not included in these

analyses.

3.2.2 Water Quality of the TDSS

As shown in Table 1, water quality data is available from 16 wells

completed in the TDSS. The locations of these wells are shown on Figure 17.

Data from eight of these wells were used to track the seepage from the tailings

basin. The water quality at the remaining seven wells appears to be at

background levels. In 1981, Exxon completed four wells - 131, 132, 133, and

134 - to the west of the mine pits for the purpose of establishing regional

groundwater gradients in the vicinity of the Highland operations area (EPRCo,

1982). Water quality data for samples collected from these wells since late

1984 are summarized in Table 7. The NRC (1978) reported representative

background water quality concentrations for groundwater in the vicinity of the

Highland site based on quarterly samples collected from four wells completed in

the Highland aquifer outside the ore zone during 1976 and :1977. While their

completion intervals do not necessarily include the TDSS, the data from these



TABLE 6

NRC-REGULATED CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS IN TAILINGS BASIN LIQUOR

Tailings FluidsMaximum

Concentration HighestAllowed in Concentration Average

Parameter Ground Water* Found Concentrationmg/l mg/l mg/l

Silver

Arsenic

Barium

Cadmi um

Chromium

Mercury

Radium-226

Selenium

0.2

1.0

.05

.05

0.002

5 pCi/l

.05

0.1 .04

0.7 0.16

0.15 Min. Detectable

0.12 0.090

4.0 3.74

.008 0.002

300 pCi/1 97.1 pCi/1

0.49 0.098

*Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 CFR Part 40 UraniumMill Tailings Regulations; Ground Water ProtectionFederal Register, Vol. 52, No. 219, Friday 11/13/87

TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY DATA(Minimum and Maximum Values Given)

Well Number

TDSS BACKGROUND WELLS, 1984-1987 Data 1976-1977 Data

Parameter 131 132 133 134 3 8 16 17

No (ppm)

Ca (ppm)

S04 (ppm)

CI (ppm)

HCO 3 (ppm)

Hardness (CaC0 3 )(ppm)

TDS (ppm)

pH (Std units)

Ra-226 (pCi/I

Th-230 (pCi/I)

(pCi/l)(pci/I)

U(pClI/i)

77-312

62-96

40-195

412-2349

10.9-12.5

1.1-31

0.1-4.5

8-19

77-127

15-52

314-453

8.0-10.4

0.5-8.4

0.8-1.7

10-22

91-160

14-25

214-1074

7.7-9.4

0.5-1.6

0.5-3.4

72-92

4-40

390-2057

7.3-8.3

0.6-4.7

.0.2-3.7

43-63

89-150

6-10

178-281

142-220

306-430

7.3-8.1

1.57-2.64

0.36-3.52

11 .3-36.3

8-33.8

77-152

26-42

175-282

10-12

124-159

90-142

372-554

7.5-8.2

0.11-1.54

0.41-2.54

1.6-6.1I

0.1-13.

74-106

51-68

140-180

12-14

239-293

.191-203

424-502

7.5-8.0

3.54-4.26

0.27-0.80

36.4-46.5

18.5-70.3

64-83

27-38

58-133

6-12

200-232

109-148

286-349

7.7-8.0

1.04-12.02

0.54-3.26

2.3-47.6

3.7-44.2

C-9

0.6-3.6 0.2-49 Min. Detect. 3.4-101 0.7-3.8 0.30-0.8 0.68-13.88 0.68-4.81


wells - 3, 8, 16 and 17 - are presented in Table 7 for comparison to recent

data collected from the TOSS.

When chemical data were available for a well over a period of time greater

than a few years, trends in the concentration levels of the chemical were often

evident on the plots presented in the Appendix. Several monitoring wells

completed in the TDSS showed increasing chemical concentration levels with

time. In some of these wells, the concentrations reached levels which were

significantly above background levels. Such trends are probably indicative of

the tailings seepage reaching these wells.

The TOSS to the northeast of the tailings basin was the most monitored

unit at Highland, with chemical data available from five wells. Of the wells

in this area, well 015 has the longest record of chemical data'. The data prior

to 1981 was from an original well which was abandoned in 1981 because it

appeared that the wellbore had become silted resulting in sampling problems as

well as difficulty in interpreting sample analyses results. A replacement well

was drilled in 1981 and water quality data from this well has been combined

with the data from the original well so that the plots in the Appendix

represent all data collected at this location.

An enlarged plot of the chloride concentration versus time for Well 015 is

presented on Figure 18 since it provides a fairly complete indication of

changes in groundwater quality since initiation of operations at the site.

Starting in 1974, the plot shows that the chloride concentrations remained near

background levels for several years then increased over a period of about three

years to a level of 200 mg/l. At about this time (August 1981) the replacement

well was brought on line and a slight discontinuity is seen in the data. Data

collected from the new well continued to exhibit a slight increasing trend with

levels reaching concentrations slightly greater than 200 mg/l. The data

EJ

900.000 "

800.000

700.000

600.000

500.000

400.000

300.000 "

200.000 -

100.000 -

0.0002-D0002-Dec-73

Old WellNew Well

0

30 0 0 Od 0 0 11 0 000

0

0 0013EPno (3FE]O

U0

I25-May-79

dd-mmm--yy (1000. days per division)V Detection Limit

14-Nov-84

I TER,WASTE AND LAND,INC IFigure 18

Chloride Concentration as a Function of Time for Well 015DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068

.1

I• = | g


presented on Figure 18 indicate that the leading edge of the seepage plume may

have reached Well 015 as early as January 1979. The seepage front actually

reached the well in mid-1981 based on chloride concentrations in the well

reaching levels of about 200 mg/l.

Based on plots of chloride concentration as a function of time, it is

estimated that the tailings seepage reached wells 112, and 125 in 1985.

Concentrations. of magnesium, sulfates and total dissolved solids generally

support this conclusion. Chloride concentrations have remained at levels

slightly in excess of 200 mg/l in the area of these wells since 1985. Chloride

concentrations in wells 127 and 147 have remained near background levels.

Therefore, the extent of tailings seepage to the northeast of the tailings

basin does not extend as far as Well 127 or Well 147. As described previously,

water levels in wells in this area have been steadily decreasing and the TDSS

in the area of vicinity of Well 147 has been unsaturated since 1986.

Tailings seepage on the western side of the tailings basin was monitored

at Well 114 beginning in 1981. In 1982, two samples having concentrations

greater than 200 mg/l were taken from the Well. Chloride concentrations in

samples from the Well rose steadily to a maximum of 365 mg/l in 1986. Because

data are not available earlier than 1982, the time at which the chloride front

reached this Well is unknown. However, chloride concentrations indicate that

tailings seepage has reached this Well which is probably not surprising given

its close proximity to the tailings basin.

Chloride concentrations at Well 120 on the north side of the tailings

basin have remained around 200 mg/l since 1982, when sampling began. A similar

trend was seen in Well 117 which is on the south side of the tailings basin.

There is no evidence that tailings fluid has migrated for any distance beyond

these Wells.


To facilitate comparison with results of the EPRCo (1982) study,

isoconcentration maps were prepared. Solute concentration values were taken

from the solute concentration versus time plots and were used to develop

isoconcentration maps for chloride, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, TDS and pH at

three times: April 1982, July 1985, and April 1987. The average chemical

concentration value was recorded on a map of the tailings basin area and other

values were filled in by interpolating linearly between the known data points

and isoconcentration lines were sketched. Dashed or broken isoconcentration

lines indicate that data is insufficient to make an accurate estimate. The

isoconcentration map for the 1987 chloride concentrations is presented on

Figure 19 while the remainder of the maps are provided in the Appendix

(Isoconcentration Maps).

As the chloride concentration map indicates, the current location of the

seepage front is well defined to the northeast of the tailings basin as it has

advanced beyond Wells 112 and 125 but has not reached Well 127 or Well 147. On

the west side of the tailings basin,.data indicates that the front has passed

beyond Well 114. However, Well 151 shows no evidence that the seepage front

has reached it. The seepage front appears to be spreading to the north and

south of the tailings basin beyond Wells 120 and 117. However, the extent of

seepage beyond these Wells cannot be accurately determined.

The extent of seepage from the tailing basin into the TDSS was predicted

by the EPRCo Seepage Study in 19.82. In their report, EPRCo provides locations

of the seepage fronts in terms of groundwater velocities at Various times for

conservative, as well as retarded, chemicals. Since chloride is considered to

be a conservative tracer, the isoconcentration plots prepared as part of this

study were compared to EPRCo plots of the location of the unretarded velocity

'I

I I_ _

= =

SW:ATER,WASTE AND LAND,INCJ I

Figure 19 DATE: Feb. 1988April 1987 TDSS Chloride Concentration Map from Field Data PRJET 26

3III m I m


front. It was assumed that the 200 mg/l isoconcentration line represented the

location of the front for the measured data.

Figures 20 and 21 show the seepage fronts predicted by: EPRCo and as

estimated as part of this study for 1982 and 1987, respectively. The 1982

predictions made by EPRCo for unattenuated solute movement are fairly accurate

for seepage from the tailings basin to the north. However, the EPRCo

overestimated movement of the seepage front to the south and underestimated

movement of the seepage front to the west and east. EPRCo came to similar

conclusions in 1982 when their model was compared to two months of data

obtained during the last quarter of 1981.

EPRCo suggested reasons why the model underpredicted seepage front

migration in those directions. To the east, seepage front migration was

underpredicted because the model described the TDSS as discrete blocks which

limited the seepage to two points near the upstream end of North Fork Box

Creek. Actually, the seepage was more spread out along the outcrop (EPRCo,

1982). Two likely reasons were given by EPRCo as to why seepage front

migration was underpredicted to the west of the tailings basin. First,

tailings were discharged in the western part of the basin from 1972 to 1977.

The higher than predicted concentration may be a result of vertical leakage of

liquor to underlying formations near the discharge spigots.' A second possible

cause of the discrepancy is that a high permeability area may exist in the TDSS

which caused increased fluid flow west of the tailings basin.

As shown on Figure 7, the 1982 TDSS water surface based on field data

indicated very steep piezometric gradients to the west of Well 114. Since the

EPRCo model did not predict gradients as steep as those observed, the actual

flow may be greater than predicted in this direction. As noted by EPRCo in

1982, the backfilled mine area intersects the TDSS thereby preventing extensive

877

875

I

873

.409 411 413 415

'WWATER. WASTE AND LAND. INC. IFigure 20

Comparison of 1982 Predicted (EPRCo) and Measured(WWL) Seepage Front Locations in the TDSS

DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068 I1

877

875

873

409 411 413 415

'V WATER. WASTE AND LAND, INC.

Figure 21Comparison of 1987 Predicted (EPRCo) and Measured

(WWL) Seepage Front Locations in the TDSS I DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068 I


fluid migration due to the low permeability of the backfill. Piezometric

gradients were also underestimated to the east of the tailings basin in 1982

which may have caused the seepage front to travel further than predicted.

Similar trends are seen when the 1987 predicted and measured seepage front

locations are compared. Again, EPRCo's predictions appear to be accurate to

the north of the tailings basin but appear to overestimate seepage front

migration to the south and underestimate seepage front migration to the east

and west of the tailings basin. The reasons for the underprediction of seepage

front migration in 1982 probably apply in 1987 as well. Again, seepage front

migration to the west from the tailings basin will be intercepted by the

backfilled mine area. To the east of the tailings basin, all of the wells

completed in the TDSS have shown decreases in water levels since 1985. As

stated earlier, the TDSS at Well 147 is unsaturated. The groundwater mound

probably reached maximum areal extent northeast of the tailings basin in 1985

and has been receding since that time.

While sufficient data were available to allow comparison of modeled and

measured locations of the seepage front based on conservative tracers, not

enough data regarding the retarded chemicals were available to develop similar

comparisons for these parameters. Therefore, the measured concentrations of

chemical species regulated by the NRC were compared to standards as listed in

Table 6. , The maximum allowable concentrations listed in the regulations were

selected for comparison since background data for most of the regulated species

are sparse.

When enough data were available, plots of the concentration of the

regulated species as a function of time were constructed. These plots are

contained in the Appendix as described previously. In general, no trends were


evident from these plots although the standards listed in Table 6 are exceeded

occasionally at some of the wells.

The comparisons with NRC standards for Well 015 are presented in Table 8.

Based on the data available, cadmium and lead concentrations exceeded the

standards only once and twice, respectively. Unfortunately, not enough data

have been collected to confirm this observation and the available data were

collected before replacement of the old Well at this location. For both

metals, the highest values were obtained for the first sample analyzed with

subsequent samples dropping dramatically so that the last sample analyzed was

below the standard. One of the selenium values which exceeded the standards

occurred very early in the life of the project. The second exceedance occurred

prior to replacement of the Well. Because of the large number of selenium data

available, it is not believed that the high values noted are indicative of

retarded species reaching the Well. In reviewing the plot of pH as a function

of time, it appears that the pH varies substantially for samples collected from

the old Well. The highest value recorded is 11.6 while the lowest value

recorded is 4.6. After replacement of the Well, pH values ranged from a low of

6.5 to a high of 8.1. An enlarged plot of pH as a function of time is provided

on Figure 22. While pH data collected just prior to replacement of the Well

appears to be low, the large amount of variation makes it impossible to

determine if the depressed pH is due to seepage from the tailings basin or

simply due to problems with the old Well. It is interesting to note that the

pH drops from a high of 11.6 in March of 1978 to about 4.8 by September of

1979. This is also approximately the same time which the conservative front

reached that Well (see Figure 18). However, it seems unlikely that sufficient

low pH water from the tailings basin could have reached the Well that soon

after arrival of the conservative tracers, particularly given the large drop in


TABLE 8

COMPARISON OF TOSS WELL 015 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS

Number of Number of Percent ofTotal Observations Observations Observations

Chemical Number of Below Above AboveSpecies Observations NRC Standard NRC Standard NRC Standard

Silver 0 No DataArsenic 43 43 0 0Cadmium 3 2 1 33Chromium 3 3 0Mercury 3 3 0Lead 3 1 2 .67Ra-226 109 97 12 .11Selenium 42 40 2 5

12.000-

11.000 -

10.000 -

03Old Well

130]

0]

New Well

03

In

4IL

9.000

8.000 00

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

02-Dec-73

030 E[]

n El03 0

M 0

1] []0E n7 000]O

0]000

0]0

30 030

Lit

00] 0 Ell10 0]

0] on0

00

• I

25-May-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Limit

14-Nov-84

WATER, WASTE AND LAND,INC.

Figure 22

pH as a Function of Time for Well 015

DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068


pH which was observed. Since replacement of the Well, only a few pH

measurements are less than 7. Again, this indicates that the low pH values

encountered near the end of the life of the old well are due to problems with

the Well rather than arrival of the acid-front. As the data in Table 8

indicate, the radium standard was exceeded for approximately 11 percent of the

samples collected from this Well. Careful review. of the plot of Ra-226 as a

function of time in the Appendix indicates that there is no clear trend to

these exceedances. Given the fact that the Highland site is located in a

uranium producing area, it is likely that radium concentrations will exhibit

substantial variation. The data certainly do not suggest arrival of the acid

front since correlation with either the pH or chloride plots is impossible.

Water quality data collected for Well 112 are compared to the NRC

standards in Table 9. Again trends in the lead and cadmium data indicate that

the two exceedances noted for these metals probably are not statistically

significant, and the high values can be dismissed as outliers. As noted, four

exceedances of the selenium standard have been observed. Again no trends are

evident when all of the data are reviewed. The extremely high selenium values

observed since March 1987 are difficult to explain because of the wide

variation in results. New analyses techniques for selenium were instituted by

the laboratory early in 1987. While this may be partially responsible for the

higher selenium concentrations observed at the Well, the lack of trends in the

data make it unlikely that the increased selenium concentrations are due to the

arrival of selenium from the tailings basin. Selenium concentrations for

samples collected since March 1987 have varied between a low of 0.001 mg/l in

April to 0.605 mg/l in May. Because these data do not display the gradual

increase normally associated with groundwater transport, it is deemed more

likely that much of the selenium observed in Well 112 originates from naturally


TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF TDSS WELL 112 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS



Silver 11 11 0 0Arsenic 44 44 0 0Cadmium 14 13 1 7Chromium 14 14 0 0Mercury 14 14 0 0Lead 14 13 1 7Ra-226 26 22 4 15Selenium 45 34 11 .24


occurring deposits. Evidence in the literature suggests that selenium is often

found In conjunction with Uranium deposits. In addition, selenium mobility is

dramatically effected by oxygen availability with redox potential (Eh) having a

greater effect on its mobility than does pH. The water levels in Well 112 have

dropped about 10 feet in the last two years. Under conditions of a falling

water table, oxygen availability is generally not limited and selenium, if it

is present, generally becomes more mobile. As further evidence that the source

of selenium at Well 112 is natural rather than the tailings basin, the initial

sample collected in July 1987 had a selenium concentration of 0.244 mg/l.

Following collection of the initial sample, which was collected using standard

procedures, the Well was pumped for an additional two hours and then sampled

again. In the second sample, the selenium concentration had dropped to 0.068

mg/l. The Ra-226 standard was slightly exceeded four times since initiation of

sampling for this Well. The lack of trends indicate that this may be due to

natural processes rather than seepage from the tailings basin.

Concentrations of regulated species for Well 114 are compared with the

standards in Table 10. As described previously, data collected from this Well

indicates that the conservative seepage front had reached the Well by the time

sampling began in 1982. In addition, the pH of the water in the Well has been

slightly acidic throughout most of the Well's life. In addition, cadmium,

chromium and lead standards are exceeded a relatively large percentage of the

time. The cadmium data indicates that the slightly depressed pH may prevent

cadmium from precipitating, thereby indicating that cadmium from the tailings

basin has reached this well. The chromium data is more difficult to explain,

since the values noted are larger than expected. The fact that selenium

appears to be immobile also makes it difficult to explain the relatively high

cadmium and chromium concentrations since cadmium and selenium should exhibit



TABLE 10



Chemical Number of Below Above I AboveSpecies Observations NRC Standard NRC Standard NRC Standard

Silver 13 13 0 0Arsenic 42 42 0 0Cadmium 14 8 6 43Chromium 14 4 10 71Mercury 14 14 0 0Lead 13 8 5 38Ra-226 24 22 2 8Selenium 41 40 1 2


similar mobility. The two exceedances of the Ra-226 standard occurred early in

the life of the Well and subsequent values have been well below the standard.

Therefore, it is deemed most likely that these exceedances are outliers rather

than due to seepage from the tailings basin.

Comparison of measured data with the NRC standards for Well 117 are

presented in Table 11. As with Well 114, chloride data indicates that the

seepage front had arrived prior to initiation of sampling at this location.

Further, the pH appears to be slightly depressed and the cadmium standard has

been exceeded for a significant number of samples. Unlike Well 114, the

chromium values in Well 117 have never exceed the detection limit which is well

below the standard of 0.05 mg/l. The lead standard is exceeded twice out of

eleven samples but the exceedances appear to be isolated events rather than

part of a trend. The single exceedance of the Ra-226 standard occurred for the

April 1987 sample which is the last data point available. Therefore; it cannot

be concluded that this sample is not part of a trend but comparison with

previous values indicates a substantial increase.

Data collected for Well 120 are compared to the NRC standards in Table 12.

As with the other wells located close to the tailings basin, it appears that

the seepage front reached this Well prior to the initiation of sampling.

Unlike the other wells, however, the pH in this Well is much closer to neutral.

Nonetheless, the data indicate that the cadmium standard has been exceeded for

about one-third of the samples collected from this Well. Given the wide

scatter of these data, it is difficult to dismiss these higher values as

outliers.. Three of the exceedances occurred for the most recent samples, so

additional data will probably be required to determine if an upward trend in

cadmium concentrations is beginning. The two exceedances of the lead standard

also occurred for the most recent samples. Prior to that, all of the lead


Phase 2 Final Report.March 18, 1988

TABLE 11

COMPARISON OF TDSS WELL 117 WATER QUALITY WITH NRCSTANDARDS



SilverArsenicCadmi umChromiumMercuryLeadRa-226Selenium

1344141414132744

13447

1414112644

00700210

00

5000

1540


TABLE 12


Number of Number of Percent ofTotal Observations Observations .. Observations


Silver 13 13 0 0Arsenic 42 42 0 0Cadmium 14 10 4 27Chromium 14 14 0 0Mercury 14 14 0 0Lead 14 12 2 14Ra-226 26 24 2 8Selenium 42 42 0 0


concentrations were below the minimum detectable concentration (note that for

lead the detection limit and the standard are the same, 0.05 mg/l). The

highest value, 0.08 mg/l, occurred for the next to the last sample with the

last sample showing a decline to 0.06 mg/l. At least one of the Ra-226 values

which exceeds the standards is thought to be an outlier since it is

substantially higher than all of the other concentrations noted. As the plot

in the Appendix indicates, no trends are apparent for Ra-226.

The comparisons for Well 125 are presented in Table 13. While it appears

that the seepage front probably reached this Well in 1985, all measurements of

pH have been above 7. The only NRC standards which are exceeded are Ra-226 and

selenium. The selenium exceedance occurred in October 1986 and subsequent

samples exhibited concentrations below the standard. The value for Ra-226

which exceeded the standard was 5.2 pCi/l which is only 0.2 pCi/l above the

standard. Due to the lack of any trends, it is not believed that this is an

indication that regulated species from the tailings basin have reached this

Well.

As stated previously, it is not believed that the. seepage front has

reached Wells 127 and 147 since chloride values are near background levels.

Nonetheless, the concentrations for the regulated species were compared to the

standard in Tables 14 and 15, respectively. There is only one exceedance for

any of the parameters at Well 127; the selenium standard was exceeded for the

sample collected in April 1987. Since it is not believed that the seepage

front has reached this Well, the exceedance is likely due to sampling error or

natural causes. The exceedances of the cadmium and Ra-226 standards at Well

147 occurred for the first sample collected at the Well. Subsequently, the

concentrations dropped below the standard values.


TABLE 13



Chemical Number of Below Above AboveSpecies Observations NRC Standard NRC Standard NRC-Standard

Silver 0 No DataArsenic 22 22 0 0Cadmium 0 No DataChromium 0 No DataMercury. 0 No DataLead 0 No DataRa-226 23 22 1 4.3Selenium 22 21 1 4.5



TABLE 14




SilverArsenicCadmi umChromiumMercuryLeadRa-226Selenium

022

0000

2322

22 0No Data

0No DataNo DataNo DataNo Data

04.5

2321

01

Exxon Highland-Tailings Basin Seepage Analyses Phase 2 Final ReportWWL #2068 69 March 18, 1988

TABLE 15


Number of Number of Percent ofTotal. Observations Observations Observations


Silver 3 3 0Arsenic 10 10 0Cadmium 3 2 1 .33Chromium 3 3 0Mercury 3 3 0Lead 3 3 0Ra-226 10 9 1 .10Selenium 10 10 0 0


The information presented in Tables 8 through 15 is summarized in Table

16. Based on these comparisons, it is possible that the leading edge of the

low pH front has reached wells 112, 114, 117 and 120, which are located very

close to the tailings basin. However, it is highly unlikely that the low pH

front has reached any of the other wells completed in the TDSS.

3.2.3 Water Quality of the 5OSS

The EPRCo Seepage Study predicted that the seepage front first reached the

50SS in 1977. Water quality data for the wells completed in the 50SS were used

for comparison with the EPRCo predictions. As with the TDSS, the first task

consisted of reviewing the water quality data versus time plots for the 50SS

wells. As described previously, water quality in the seeps to the east of the

tailings dam were included in the analyses of the 5OSS water quality since the

alluvium in this area is in contact with the 50SS.

The chloride concentrations at Well 116 appear to be at background levels

(about 20 mg/l). Therefore, it does not appear that the seepage front which is

represented by a chloride concentration of 200 mg/l has reached this Well in

the 5OSS even though evidence indicates the seepage front has reached Well 114

in the TDSS. Well 114 is only about 28 feet from Well 116 so it appears that

the intervening TDSH is preventing significant seepage into the 50SS at this

location.

Well 128 is located to the northeast of the tailings dam approximately

about 57 feet away from TDSS Well 127. Water quality results obtained for Well

128 are difficult to assess since the pH has remained near 11.5 throughout much

of the Well's life. In addition, the chloride concentrations were initially

very high and then decline to a steady value of slightly less than 100 mg/l.

It is possible that the high pH and chloride concentrations in the Well are due



TABLE 16

PERCENT OF TDSS WATER SAMPLES ABOVE NRC STANDARDS

Well Ag As Cd Cr Hg Pb Ra-226 Se

015

112

114

117

120

125

127

147

0

0

0

0

0

0

No Data

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

33

7

43

50

27

No Data

No Data

33

0

0

71

0

0

0

No Data

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

No Data

0

67

7

38

15

14

No Data

No Data

0

11

15

8

4

8

4

0

10

5

24

2

0

0

4

4

0


to contamination during drilling and completion of the Well. In addition, none

of the other constituents (sulfates, TDS, and 'magnesium). indicate that the

seepage front has reached this Well. The fact that it does not appear that the

seepage front has reached Well 127 in the TDSS also lends credence to the

conclusion that the fluids being sampled from Well 128 have not been affected

by seepage from the tailings basin.

Well 129 is completed in the 50SS about 17 feet from Well 120 which is

completed in the TDSS. Trends in the chloride concentrations for this Well

indicate that the seepage front may have reached this Well although the

concentrations are still less than 200 mg/l. Concentrations of other non-

regulated species support this conclusion. As described previously, the

seepage front had reached well 120 in the TDSS by the. time sampling was

initiated.

The water quality data collected for Well 152 is generally indicative of

background concentrations. Chloride concentrations range from about 25 to 45

mg/l, and no clear trends have been established. However, the limited data

which are available show no indication that the seepage front has reached this

Well.

As described previously, 5OSS Well 111 penetrates alluvial material to the

east of the tailings dam. Water levels indicate that flow may be occurring in

the alluvium. Chloride concentrations in this Well have been generally high

since initiation of sampling in 1981; they increased from about 200 mg/l in

1981 to about 260 mg/l at the present time. Considering 200 mg/l as the

location of the seepage front, it would appear that seepage from the tailings

basin has reached this Well. Concentrations of other species support this

finding.


Well 148 is completed in the 50SS to the east of Well 111. This well has

only been sampled since November 1984. Initial samples indicated the chloride

concentration was about 120 mg/l. Recent samples indicate concentrations of

about 200 mg/l which may be due to seepage from the tailings basin. However,

this Well also has pH values which range between 11.5 and 12.5. Again, it can

not be verified if this is due to contamination due to drilling or natural

causes. However, it does cast some doubt on the validity of the conclusion

that the seepage front may have reached this far east in the SOSS.

The quality of water samples collected from the seeps which issue from the

alluvium downstream of the tailings dam were also evaluated as part of the 5OSS

study. Water quality data from three Seeps with ID's 012, 013, and 014 were

available for analyses. In general, the chloride concentrations are high

enough to indicate that the seepage front has reached all three of the Seeps.

The chloride concentrations in Wells 111 and 148 appear to be similar to those

obtained from samples collected from the Seeps. This may be an indication that

the alluvial material which overlies the 50SS provides the pathway for movement

of seepage into the 50SS.

Chloride isoconcentration maps were then constructed for the 50SS for

April 1982, July 1985, and April 1987 using data collected from the monitoring

wells. The estimated location of the seepage front in the 50SS for each of

these times is depicted on Figure 23. This plot was then used to determine the

distance traveled by the seepage front for comparisons with the EPRCo model.

The comparison for the East-West cross section is presented on Figure 24. As

this Figure indicates, the measured and predicted seepage fronts compare

favorably to the east of the dam. The estimated location of the seepage front

based on Figure 23 is substantially further to the west than predicted by the

EPRCo model. A similar comparison is presented for the Northwest-Southeast

879

877

875

8713

871

['ýkWATER. WASTE AND LAND. INC.

Figure 23Seepage Front Location in the 5OSS for 1982, 1985, and

1987 from Field Data I DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068

I

II

STREAM BED PROJECTED5300• INTO SECTION

5200' SURFACE MINE --.-- '- -- - TAILINGS BASIN

500 MIDD LEORE B 0A SAND _ __-----_- -- _ _--------------- :--.-_'_--

oP• - - -e•- - - - -

E- _-_- - -------- ,--.----_.-__ -- -- - - - ---W A-S E A L N a Field S ee p a g e F t in t e - -R C 2

•ooo •- - - - ... ---- •- ----- ------Z

--- ----- - - - - -__-• -•_:_ - _- - _ ---- _----. - ._ __4800- --" - -.. . .. ." " " " '' ". .. " . .--. .- -.. - - 198 19 2 9

•~~ - -"'" -P~ -Mode--

....- -- --- - - -Fiel -D-t-.-

LOER ORSE BODY SAND, -NC -n -il -epg Frnt in -h 50S PRJET -2068 --


cross-section on Figure 25. As this Figure indicates, the predicted seepage

front is substantially behind the location of the seepage front estimated in

this study. It should be noted that this interpretation may be very much

affected by the interpolation procedures used in the preparation of Figure 23.

Again, the limited data available for analyses make it impossible to

determine the location of the low pH front in the SOSS with any confidence.

Therefore, water quality data for the wells and seeps considered as part of the

50SS system were compared to the NRC standards as-done for the TDSS.

The comparison of water quality at Seep 012 with NRC standards is

presented in Table 17. The only parameters which exceed the standards are Ra-

226 and selenium. Neither of the plots of concentration versus time for these

parameters demonstrate trends, so it is concluded that the exceedances probably

are not due to seepage from the tailings basin. The pH versus time plot for

this Seep may indicate some limited decline with time but considerable scatter

is evident in the data making it difficult to determine if the trend is due to

seepage. It should be noted that, with one exception, the pH does not drop

below 6.5.

A similar comparison is presented for Seep 013 in Table 18. Again the

only parameters which exceed NRC standards are Ra-226 and selenium. As at Seep

012, no trends are evident and the most recent concentrations are below the

standard values. Again, considerable variation is noted in the pH versus time

plot and no definite trends can be detected. It is not believed, however, that

the low pH front has reached this seep.

The comparisons for Seep 014 are presented in Table 19. The selenium

standard has been exceeded only three times, the last of which was in March

1982. Since that time, all selenium concentrations have been very low. The

last exceedance of the Ra-226 standard occurred in May 1982, with subsequent

5400 -

5300 "

JiI!J

FILL

5200 -

~~2JFORMATION - - - -- -- - -- -- - -- - -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - _- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TAILINGS DAM SAND5100-

- - - - - - -- - - - - - 1987AýILINGS ýDAM- SýHAL 1982 1987 1982A . . . . .

1987 ý1981987 11982 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SOSS

5000 - - - - - - - - - - MIDDLE ORE BODY SAND-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -

LOWER ORE BODY SAND - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -

4900ý - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

,•J

4800-

4700

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- --------------------

EPRCo Model

Field Data ý

'% K ATER, WASTE AND LAND. INC. I

Figure 25Northwest-Southeast Cross Section Comparing Predicted

and Field Seepage Fronts in the 50SS

I I DATE: Feb. 19 8 8 I| • •

11 PROJECT: 2068I


TABLE 17

COMPARISON OF 50SS SEEP 012 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS

# of % of Total# of Observations Observations

Chemical Total # of Observations Below Above AboveSpecies Observations Detection Limits NRC Standard NRC Standard

Silver 2 2 0 0Arsenic 39 29 0 0Cadmium 5 5 0 0Chromium 4 4 0 0Mercury 5 5 0 0Lead 5 5 0 0Radium-226 118 108 10 8Selenium 38 35 3 8


TABLE 18

.COMPARISON OF 50SS SEEP 013 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS




,Exxon Highland Tailings Basin Seepage Analyses Phase 2 Final ReportWWL #2068 80 March 18, 1988

TABLE 19

COMPARISON OF 505S SEEP 014 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS





measurements being well below the standard value. It is not believed that

these exceedances are a result of seepage from the tailings basin. Once again,

considerable variation in pH values are evident and no trends can be detected.

It should be noted that the pH values range from a low of 6.2 up to about 8.5.

Water quality data from all wells completed in the 50SS were also compared

to the NRC standards. Of the six wells investigated, only Well 111 had any

parameters which exceeded the standards. The comparison for this Well is

presented in Table 20. As the plots in the Appendix demonstrate, both the

arsenic and the selenium standards were exceeded twice at this Well. As can be

seen on the concentration versus time plots for these parameters, the

exceedances occurred for both parameters at the same time and presumably from

the same sample. It is probable, therefore, that these occurrences are due to

sample contamination or other problems, and are not indicative of water quality

in the 5OSS. The last exceedances for these two constituents occurred in

October 1983 with concentrations before and after this date being over an order

of magnitude less than the October 1983 values. There was only one sample

analyzed for lead. Although it exceeded the standard, no conclusions can be

reached regarding whether or not the exceedance was due to tailings seepage.

The pH measurements for this Well are generally less than 7, although the

lowest measurement was 6.3. Since, the pH is somewhat lower than expected,

this may be an additional indication that seepage from the tailings basin has

reached this Well.

To summarize, it is believed that only three 5OSS wells have been reached

by seepage from the tailings basin. These Wells are 111, 129 and 148. Only

Well 129 is not located in the area east of the tailings dam. The indication

of seepage at Wells 111 and 148 is thought to be due to the fact that the 5OSS

is in direct contact with the alluvium. The erosional thinning of the TDSH in


TABLE 20

COMPARISON OF 5OSS WELL 111 WATER QUALITY WITH NRC STANDARDS





the vicinity of the tailings dam could also have an effect on the amount of

seepage which reaches the 50SS. The seepage at Well 129 must be due to seepage

through the TDSH. Another possibility at this location is leakage around the

wellbore. Given the relatively consistent thickness of the TOSS, this

possibility may be the most reasonable since seepage into the 50SS apparently

has not occurred at Well 116. It does not appear that any of the 5OSS wells

can be considered to be out of compliance with NRC regulations at the present

time although the pH in well 111 may exhibit limited depression.

3.3 STEADY STATE CONCENTRATION IN THE BACKFILL AREAS

As part of these analyses, water quality in the backfilled areas of Pits 1

and 2 has been predicted. During operations at Highland, ore was removed from

four open pits numbered 1 through 4. Pits 1 and 2 were backfilled with

overburden material while Pits 3 and 4 have been left open and are being

reclaimed as a lake. Backfilled Pits 1 and 2 are located about 2000 feet

southwest of the tailings basin.

During mining operations the pits were dewatered. Upon completion of

mining, dewatering was discontinued and the pits were backfilled. At this time

groundwater began flowing into the pits with the lower portions of the backfill

becoming saturated. It is anticipated that the water table in the reclaimed

pits will rise at a rate similar to that expected in the reclamation lake.

According to EPRCo (1983), the lake is predicted to reach its maximum depth in

about 100 years. At that time it is believed that the groundwater mound under

the tailings basin will have dissipated and that regional groundwater flow in

the area will be re-established.

Currently, steep water table gradients exist between the tailings basin

and the backfilled pits indicating that a large portion of the tailings fluid


will flow into the backfilled pits. Predictions of groundwater quality in the

backfilled pits were made by assuming that all of the groundwater in the mound

beneath the tailings basin will flow into the backfilled pits where it will be

well mixed with existing pit groundwater. For this analysis, concentrations of

total dissolved solids (TDS) were used as an indication of the quality of

groundwater in the backfill. For estimation purposes, it was assumed that

inflow from the eastern side of the pits would have TDS concentrations equal to

that currently observed in the vicinity of the tailings basin (Wells 112, 114,

and 117). The remaining volume of water required to bring the pit water levels

up to predicted steady-state levels was assumed to have TDS concentrations

equal to that currently observed in the wells completed in the backfilled

areas. Simple mass balance techniques were then used to compute the water

quality in the backfill:

CmVm + CpVpCb=b

in which C represents TDS concentration, V is volume, and the subscripts b, m

and p denote the backfill, the mounded area to the east of the pits, and

current pit, respectively.

The volume of backfill material contained in Pits 1 and 2 was estimated

based on available maps of the mine area during the years which the mine was in

operation. These maps were used to determine pit bottom elevation contours.

It was presumed that the water levels in the backfilled pits would reach the

top of the Tailings Dam Sandstone under steady-state conditions. Approximate

elevations of the top of the Tailings Dam Sandstone were obtained from data

provided in, the EPRCo Seepage Study (1982), the EPRCo Reclamation Lake Study


(1983), and well logs for wells completed in the vicinity. The total volume of

backfill in Pits 1 and 2 below the water table is estimated to be about 1.1

billion cubic feet. According to data provided by the EPRCo Reclamation Lake

Study (1983), the porosity of the backfill material is approximately 35%.

Therefore, at steady-state approximately 385 million cubic feet of pore water

will be stored in the backfill material.

Water quality data collected from the background wells completed in the

Tailings Dam Sandstone was used to estimate TDS concentrations of inflow water

from the west side of the pits. The average TDS concentration in those wells

is about 600 mg/l. It is probable that the TDS concentrations in the

backfilled pits will increase somewhat as water percolates through backfill

materials as infiltration in response to precipitation or lateral inflow from

aquifers. Two wells, 170 (TDM XXXIII) and 171 (TDM XXXVII), have been

completed in the backfilled areas of Pit 2. Water quality and water level data

are available for these wells beginning in February, 1986..: The average TOS

concentration for these wells is about 800 mg/l indicating that backfill water

quality is not significantly degraded relative to background concentrations in

the Tailings Dam Sandstone.

Based on results of the EPRCo Seepage Study (1982), it is estimated that

the total volume of tailings fluid that will seep from the tailings basin is

about 180 million cubic feet. Recent analyses of groundwater samples collected

from the mounded area indicate that the average TDS concentration of the

tailings seepage is about 5000 mg/l. Approximately 205 million cubic feet of

water is required to fill the backfill area to steady-state conditions. The

TDS concentration of the backfill groundwater at the time that recovery is

complete is estimated to be about 2760 mg/l.


The prediction of TDS concentrations of 2760 mg/l in the backfilled pits

represents a worst case scenario (based on the assumptions described above)

which would occur in about 100 years. After this time the groundwater mound

created by the tailings basin will have dissipated and groundwater flow in the

area will approach steady state. Generally, groundwater flows. at background

TDS concentrations (600 mg/l) will enter the backfilled pits from the west side

while poorer quality backfill water will exit to the east. side of the pits.

This flushing action will tend to improve the quality of the backfill pit pore

water until it finally approaches background water quality concentrations. It

is probable, therefore, that the water quality in the backfilled areas will

eventually be indistinguishable from water in the Tailings Dam Sandstone

aquifer. Unfortunately, insufficient data exist to allow prediction of the

length of time necessary for these conditions to occur.

While the above approach is suitable for conservative tracers (TDS,

Chloride, etc.), it cannot be utilized to predict the worst case concentrations

of the less mobile species. However, information supplied in the EPRCo Seepage

Study indicates that the shale materials in the area have a larger buffering

capacity than the sandstones. It is likely, therefore, that the backfill

material, which consists of intermixed shale and sandstone materials, will have

more than sufficient capacity to buffer any low pH fluid that might reach the

pits. This indicates a low probability that metals or radionuclides will

remain mobile in the backfilled areas. Therefore, there is little probability

that seepage from the backfilled areas into the lake will impact lake water

quality with respect to these parameters. It is possible, however, that TDS

concentrations in the lake may be effected by seepage from the backfill areas.

It should be noted that the analyses described in the previous paragraphs

are approximate and are based on several assumptions. Probably the most


important assumption regards the estimated quality of water flowing through the

backfill. If the TDS concentrations are significantly higher than the 800 mg/l

estimated herein, the maximum TDS concentration in the. backfill will be

substantially higher than calculated. Because of the limited data available

regarding the leaching characteristics of the backfill material, the backfill

TDS concentration was estimated from data collected from wells completed in the

backfilled areas. Since these wells have been in place only for a relatively

short period of time and recovery is not complete, additional leaching may

occur leading to higher TDS concentrations. Column leach tests performed for

coal overburden materials and spent oil shale generally indicate that one to

two pore volumes. of water must pass through the spoils before chemical

concentrations begin to decrease. Therefore, it might be prudent to install

additional wells in backfilled areas, particularly those areas which were

backfilled early in the life of the project.

3.4 POTENTIAL MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES

Three seepage control systems for the Highland tailings basin have been

briefly evaluated. The purpose of these seepage control• systems would be to

reduce the migration of contaminants in the TDSS away from the tailings basin.

The three systems analyzed were a grout curtain, a slurry wall and a well

system. In addition, the no-action alternative has been analyzed.

Two of the systems analyzed, the slurry wall and the grout curtain, would

act as physical barriers to the groundwater flow. Both of these systems are

used to rehabilitate dams that have seepage problems and exhibit excessive

uplift pressures on their downstream side. The physical barrier methods are

effective in blocking flows in areas where they are placed but:tend to increase


flows in other geologic units which are not blocked. A pumpback system to

actively remove contaminated water for disposal was also considered.

3.4.1 Grout Curtain

A grout curtain is a series of drilled holes into which a sealing agent or

grout is injected. The grout can be a mixture of cement and water and may

contain lime, clay or asphalt. In recent years chemical grouts have come into

use. The grout curtain is usually created with a single, double or triple line

of holes. A split spacing approach is often used. For example, the initial

grouting may be carried out in holes on 20 feet centers, then in later holes on

10 feet and 5 feet centers if necessary. Piezometric tests are carried out on

secondary and tertiary holes prior to grouting to test the efficiency of holes

already in place (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).

Injecting grout into the pore spaces of the Tailings Dam Sandstone may be

successful only in the high permeability areas. Cement grout may not be

effective because of the comparatively small pore space of the TDSS. The use

of chemical grouts may be necessary thereby introducing the problems of high

cost and potential toxicity.

A grout curtain 100 feet long consisting of two rows of holes, one placed

on 20 feet centers and one placed on 10 feet centers, would contain 17 holes.

Assuming a drilling cost of $5 per foot of hole, drilling costs would be $8,500

per 100 feet length of curtain. Material and labor costs are estimated to

range from $15 - 30 per feet 3 for pressure grouting with cement grout (Means,

1986). Using these cement grout prices and an average depth, and effective

porosity of 100 feet and 0.2, respectively, the TDSS could be grouted for

approximately $120,000 to $225,000 per 100 feet of grout curtain length. The

perimeter of the tailings basin is about 15,000 feet.


3.4.2 Slurry Wall

A slurry wall is a trench which is filled with a low permeability material

such as bentonite Slurry. If a slurry wall was placed around the perimeter of

the tailings basin, it would be about 15,000 feet long. ýTo completely

penetrate the Tailings Dam Sandstone, trench depths would vary from about 30

feet to approximately 180 feet. A map of the tailings basin area showing

average depths from the ground surface, through the TDSS to the top of the

TDSH, is shown on Figure 26. A slurry wall encircling the Highland tailings

basin, penetrating to the TDSH with a width of two feet would require

approximately 60,000 cubic yards of slurry material. Information on several

slurry walls proposed and under construction is listed in Table 21. Based on

this information, a slurry wall at Highland would almost certainly cost in

excess of $25 million.

3.4.3 Pumpback System

The third seepage control system analyzed was groundwater interception

wells. With this system contaminated groundwater would be removed from the

Tailings Dam Sandstone by pumped wells and disposed of through evaporation,

treatment and discharge, deep well injection into an aquifer that contains non-

potable water, or some other method. In these analyses, it was assumed that an

evaporation system would be used to dispose of pumped water.

To effectively design a well system the hydraulic properties of the

aquifer to be pumped must be estimated as accurately as possible. The

important properties are aquifer thickness, hydraulic gradient of the water

table, permeability, and apparent specific yield. Given the heterogeneity and

the large areal extent of the Tailings Dam Sandstone at the Highland Tailings

877

875

C0

873

409 411 413 415

-0

TABLE 21

COMPARITIVE SLURRY WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

--a-------- ....a..a.a..a.a.....a....... ...........aaa....=mamam a....... W a..a.....ma.maaa aa a a m- m a

CostLength Depth Thickness Million

Site Location (feet) (feet) (feet) Material Removed Grout Dollars-------------------------------------------------------------- --- ---------------------------------

Fontenelle Dam Kemmerer, Wyoming 5280 160 2 Dam Embankment 23.9

Navajo Dam Farmington. New Mexico 450 400 3.3 Dam Embankment Concrete 9.2Sandstone

Mud Mountain Dam Kentucky 700 425 2 Dam Embankment 39.515 feet. of volcanicrock

Highland Wyoming 1600 30 2 Sandstone and Shale Bentonite1000 50 Slurry900 75

1200 1003400 1201800 1301000 135800 150800 160500 170

1100 180

*Information on the three dam sites is from ENR, The McGraw-Hill Construction Weekly. November 16, 1987.

H


Basin obtaining accurate estimates of its hydraulic properties would be a

costly and time consuming process. After the hydraulic properties of the

.aquifer havebeen determined, the well spacing, pumping rates and type of well

construction necessary to efficiently remove contaminated water can be

determined.

In order to study the feasibility of an average well system, hydraulic

properties determined from pump tests in the Tailings Dam Sandstone were used

to determine a well spacing. The hydraulic properties for the Tailings Dam

Sandstone presented by Hydro Engineering in July, 1987, and in the EPRCo

Seepage Study were used with methods presented by McWhorter and Sunada (1977)

to determine drawdown, radius of the cone of depression,' pumping times and

pumping rates for the proposed wells. A summary of TDSS aquifer properties is

provided in Table 22. Based on these test results, an average thickness of 35

feet and an apparent specific yield of 0.1 was assumed for all calculations.

Permeabilities ranging from 0.1 to 10 feet/day were used in the analyses.

In areas of low permeability, the relative thinness of the Tailings Dam

Sandstone presents a problem in that a well would be pumped dry before the cone

of depression extended an appreciable distance from the well. With a

permeability of 0.1 feet/day, the calculations indicate that a well pumped at a

rate of 2.5 gpm will become dewatered in less than five days and the cone of

depression will have extended only about 100 feet from the well. In areas of

higher permeability (1 to 10 feet/day), the computations show that the cone of

depression would have a radius in excess of 200 feet.

If the cone of depression of the pumped well is assumed to represent the

"capture zone" of the well, a well spacing of about 400 feet would be necessary

to remove a significant amount of the contaminated water from the TDSS under

stagnant water table conditions. The term "capture zone" is used to describe

TABLE 22

SUMMARY OF TAILINGS DAM SANDSTONE AQUIFER PROPERTIES

Well ID. Name T K b Q t s Type of Source CommentsTransmlsslvity Permeability Thickness Discharge Pumped Drawdown Test(goa/day/feet) (feet/day) (feet) (gpm) (min.) (feet)

-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------

112 VII 3000 8.9 45 7.4 24 2.8 Pump Hydro Partial15-18 2 Eng Penetr-

1987 ation

114 IX 27 0.08 45 1.6 33 22 Pump HydroEng1987

151 XXXV 42 0.08 67 3.2 6 25 Pump Hydro27 0.05 Eng

1987

120 XXI 3.3 12 150 11 Pump EPRCo

117 XII 6.1 12 2500 7.5 Pump EPRCo

112 VII 21.7 8 400 1.2 Pump EPRCo

112 VII 20.3 800 Recovery EPRCoa mm.MMM- a.mamm . =m-aam ma a... a. a am.ammamm a a .a mamma------ a--- a.f mamma wm a.. a==aa=mmammm=- aamma mmaa a m =.m


that portion of the aquifer which actually yields water to the well (Keely,

1984).

The steep hydraulic gradient (0.01 to 0.1 feet/feet) in the area of the

tailings basin is likely to reduce the effective capture zone of a well. Where

a steep gradient is present the capture zone diminishes to a small fraction of

the zone of pressure influence (Keely, 1984). The steep hydraulic gradient in

the vicinity of the tailings basin will probably reduce the well spacing to

less than 200 feet. Such close well spacing may require on the order of 50

wells to control the contaminant plume.

The cost for a well system includes the price of installing 50 wells,

building a 100 acre evaporation pond with a spray evaporation system, piping

the effluent to the pond and disposing of the sludge which remains in the pond.

Total installation cost is about $2-3 million and operating costs are estimated

to be $500 thousand per year. A brief breakdown of cost estimates is given in

Table 23. Assuming 50 wells pumping at 2.5 gpm, it would take approximately

20.5 years to remove the total volume of fluid which is estimated to seep from

the tailings basin. It is likely, however, that only about one-half of the

seepage fluid could be recovered so a more reasonable estimate of pumping time

is about 10 years. It should be noted that this approach Would control the low

pH contaminant plume but would not retrieve all groundwater which has been

affected by conservative species (TOS, Cl, etc.).

3.4.4 No-Action

In groundwater contaminant transport it is recognized that the advance of

many solutes depends strongly upon the acidity of the solution. Most solutes

travel much further in an acidic environment than in a neutral or basic



TABLE 23

WELL SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE 1

CAPITOL COSTSWell System

5" Well InstallationGravel packPumpsPower supply, wiring, etc.Piping

Total Well System Costs

Disposal System3

Pond ConstructionDam ConstructionSpray Evaporation System

Total Disposal System Costs

6,500 ft50 wells50 pumps

10,000 ft

$15$40

$840

$12

$ 97,5002,000

42,00020,000

120,000$ 281,500

$ 645,00015,40050,000

$ 710,400

$ 646,000

645,0007,700

5

cu. yd.cu. yd.acres

$1$2

$10,000

Liner for PondClay Liner (2 ft thick) 323,000 cu. yd. $2

TOTAL CAPITOL COSTS FOR CLAY LINED POND ALTERNATIVE $ 1,637,900

Liner for PondSynthetic Liner 4,356,000 sq. ft. $0.50 $ 2,178,000

$ 3,169,900TOTAL CAPITOL COSTS FOR SYNTHETIC LINED POND ALTERNATIVE

YEARLY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Electric Power 4

LaborMaterials, Repa rs, Etc.Sludge disposal

TOTAL 0 & M COSTS

400,000 Kw-hr

1,500 tons

$0.07

$200

$ 28,00030,000

100,000300,000458,000

NOTES:

1Unit prices quoted were obtained from Means (1986) or were based onexperience.

2 Well system assumed to consist of 50 wells with an average depth of 130 ft.3 One hundred acre evaporation pond four ft deep with a 1,000 ft long dam.

4 Power for 50 one-horsepower pumps at the wells and 2 five-horsepower pumpsfor the distribution system,

5 Sludge deposited by 125 gpm water with TDS concentration of 5,000 ppm disposedin a RCRA facility assumed to be 200 miles from site. (At the present time nosuch facility exists with the closest RCRA facility being Grassy Mountain,Utah which is substantially further than 200 miles from the. site).


environment. The areal extent that the low pH front will travel in the TOSS

has been estimated in this report.

The buffering capacity of the TOSS relative to the acidic tailings

solution was estimated by EPRCo (1982) in their seepage study. EPRCo reported

that the pH of tailings fluid would be reduced from 8.5 to 6 after two pore

volumes of tailings solutions have passed through the TDSS. Results obtained

during the EPRCo Seepage Study are reproduced on Figure 27. The location of

the low pH front was estimated by computing the volume of TDSS required to

neutralize all of the tailings seepage to a pH of 6.

To obtain an estimate of the total amount of tailings fluid that will seep

out of the tailings basin, the amount of seepage that occurred from 1973 to

1987 as estimated with the EPRCo (1982) model was summed with the amount of

tailings fluid contained in the pore space of the tailings in 1987. By the end

of 1987, the standing water in the tailings basin had been removed. It is

estimated that the tailings basin contains approximately 11.3 million tons of

tailings (WWL, 1984). Assuming the tailings were saturated and their porosity

is about 35 percent, the tailings contained a volume of 61 million feet 3 of

fluid at the end of 1987.

According to the EPRCo model (1982), the total seepage from 1973 to 1987

was about 118.5 million feet 3 . Therefore, a total of 180 million feet 3 of low

pH tailings fluid is estimated to seep into the TOSS. Using a porosity of 0.3

and an average thickness of 35 feet for the TOSS, an area of 8.5 million feet 2

has a pore volume of nearly 89 million feet 3 . This area would therefore

neutralize nearly all of the seepage to a pH of about 6.

Because the free water pool has been removed, the rate of seepage will

decrease until all of the drainable tailings fluid has left the tailings basin.

EPRCo (1982) estimated this will occur in 1992. The drainable porosity of the

97

9

8

7

6

pH

5

.4

3

22 4 6 8

Pore Volumes

Adapted from EPRCo (1982)

pH Versus Pore Volumes of Tailings Solution DA T:Fe 18RIATEAD AOLN. Passed Through Tailings Dam Sandstone POET26


tailings is estimated to be 0.2 (WWL, 1984). After the tailings have drained,

seepage will occur at a rate equal to the recharge into the tailings due to

precipitation. According to Dames and Moore, the regional recharge rate in the

vicinity of the tailings basin is about 0.4 in/year. If it is assumed that

this amount of recharge will occur throughout the cover, 5.65 acre feet per

year of fluid will seep from the basin. At this rate the residual tailings

fluid contained in the tailings will be displaced from the tailings basin in

about 106 years.

Based on these computations, the acidic front (defined by a pH of 6) will

have reached its maximum areal extent in the TDSS in about 110 years. The

approximate affected area is shown on Figure 28. This low pH zone may have

high concentrations of metals and radionuclides. Outside of this boundary will

be a neutral pH zone where all of the metals and radionuclide occur at

significantly lower concentrations.

The line on Figure 28 marked "existing fluid" would be the 6 pH front if

only tailings seepage from 1973 to 1987 and tailings fluid contained in the

pore spaces in 1987 is considered. The line marked "200 years" is the extent

of the low pH front if the existing fluid considered above and all of the

naturally occurring recharge for 200 years is assumed to be low pH. The line

marked "1000 years" is the extent of the low pH front if the recharge for 1000

years is considered along with the existing fluid. These latter scenarios are

probably ultra conservative in that there is not sufficient hydrogen in the

tailings to continue to produce acid as water percolates through the tailings.

3.4.5 Summary

None of the active mitigative alternatives studied in this report appear

to be cost effective. Both physical barrier alternatives would be very costly

879

- 878

- 677

876

875

674

873

872

.16871

IWrWATERIWASTE AND LAND,INCJ I

Figure 28Predicted Locations of the Low pH Front

IDATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068I

i


to install in the Tailings Dam Sandstone and may cause increased flow into

other geologic units. This may create even more difficult problems than

currently exist. A well system would be costly to design and implement and

would require operation and maintenance for several years.

In the aquifer below the tailings basin at Highland, geochemical reactions

cause the advance of the low pH front to be retarded. Calculations show that

the low pH front will not spread significantly beyond the boundaries of the

tailings basin. In addition, declining water levels in the vicinity of the

tailings basin and the slow recovery of the backfilled pits and the reclamation

lake to the west of the basin are likely to cause the low pH front to migrate

primarily in a westerly direction. It is anticipated, therefore, that the

effected areas will lie primarily on lands controlled by ECMC. For these

reasons, and the high expense associated with an active mitigative program, the

no-action alternative is recommended for the groundwater situation at the

Highland site.


4.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analyses performed in the previous section, it is concluded

that the EPRCo model does not.model the flow system at the Highland site very

well. It is believed that the lack of comparison is due to neglecting water

pumped from the various aquifers during mine area dewatering operations.

Because the modeled water levels to the west of the mine area are higher than

the measured heads, the model also tends to predict that the backfilled pits

(and the reclamation lake) will fill faster than field data indicates. While

this probably won't have any real effect on seepage from the tailings basin, it

may lengthen the time necessary for re-establishment of regional flow.

Comparisons of measured water quality data with the EPRCo model

predictions indicates reasonably close agreement. However, due to the problems

with the flow portion of the model, this agreement may be fortuitous, and it is

likely that future comparisons will show less agreement. Lack of data

regarding non-conservative tracers make it impossible to develop locations of

the fronts for these tracers. Therefore, it is not possible at this time to

determine the reliability of retardation factors used in the EPRCo model.

Based on data collected in the field, it appears that tailings basin

seepage, as based on the location of the chloride front, has reached the

following Wells in the TDSS: 015, 112, 117, 114, 120, 125 and 127. Of these

wells, it is probable that regulated species from the tailings basin may have

reached wells 114, 117, and 120. It is also possible, although less lOely,

that the low pH front has reached Well 015. It is believed that any

exceedances of NRC standards in Wells 112, 125 and 127 are due to sampling

error or other events unrelated to tailings basin seepage. However, because

Wells 114, 117 and 120 have been designated as compliance wells for evaluation

of compliance with the NRC regulations, it is possible that the NRC could take


action under the current regulations. It is unlikely, however, that regulated

chemicals in the tailings basin will move outside the permit boundary. On the

other hand, it is probable that the non-regulated, conservative tracers will

move off site in the future.

Based on data collected from wells completed in the 50SS, it appears that

tailings basin seepage has reached this unit in the area to the east of the

tailings dam. In addition, there is some evidence that the conservative

tracers have migrated through the TDSH in the vicinity of TDSS Well 120 and

50SS Well 129. It does not appear that the failure to comply with the NRC

standards can be demonstrated in the 50SS, with the possible exception of Well

111.


5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for future work include:

1) Review sample quality assurance/quality control plan. Much of thedata collected in the past is difficult to interpret because ofunexplained variation. This is particularly true of water levelmeasurements. The plan should also include normal QA/QC proceduresfor sample collection (rapid filtering of. samples, properpreservation techniques, collection of split and blank samples,etc.).

2) Continue to collect water quality and water level data from the wellsnear. the tailings basin. It appears that semi-annual sampling isadequate for tracing trends in water quality.

3) Do not implement the Phase 3 study at this time. Even though it isrecognized that the EPRCo model does not do a particularly good jobof modeling the flow system, it is unlikely that a better model couldbe. developed without the collection of additional data.

4) Curtail additional work on Phase 4 of the study. Some potentialmitigation alternatives are evaluated in this report. Untiladditional data is collected, those evaluations probably cannot beimproved.

5) Develop and implement a field investigation program which will allowa better understanding of groundwater conditions at the site. Thisprogram should include provisions to

a) provide more confidence in background water quality conditionsof the TDSS.

b) determine the groundwater flow direction to the north of thetailings basin.

c) better define the location of the acid front includingconcentrations of regulated species in the groundwater (extentand concentration).

d) additional wells in the backfilled areas to refine estimates ofthe long term water quality and its effects on the reclamationlake water quality.


6.0 REFERENCES

Dames and Moore, 1978. "Identification of Future Water Problem, HighlandUranium Mine and Mill, Converse County, Wyoming, for Exxon Company, U.S.A,"Report issued to Exxon Company U.S.A., Job No. 08837-050-06..

Exxon, 1977. "Applicants Response to NRC Questions, Modification to TailingsDam Centerline Design, Amendment to Source Material License, SUA 1139,"Docket No. 40-8102.

Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A., 1979. Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, 604 pp.

Hagedorn, A. R., 1987. "Computer-Readable Water Elevation Data for the HighlandMine," letter to J. D. Patton.

Humble Oil and Refining Company, 1971. "Applicant's Environmental ReportHighland Uranium Mill Converse County, Wyoming," July.

Hydro-Engineering, 1987. "Highland Reclamation Project - Groundwater Level andFlow Analysis," report issued to Exxon Coal and Minerals Co., August.

Keely, J.F., 1984. "Optimizing Pumping Strategies for Contaminant Studies andRemedial Actions," Ground Water, Summer, pp. 63-74.

McWhorter, D.B,. and Sunada, D.K., 1977. Ground-Water Hydrology and Hydraulics,Water Resources Publications, Fort Collins, CO 80522, 290 pp.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1978. "Final Environmental Statementrelated to the Exxon Minerals Company, U.S.A. Highland Uranium SolutionMining Project," NUREG-0489, November.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1987. "Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations;Ground Water Protection, 10 CFR Part 40," Federal Register, vol. 52, No.219, Friday, 11/13/87.

Means, 1986. Means Site Work Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc., Kingston, MA02364-0800.

WWL, 1984. "Final Reclamation Plan for the Highland Uranium Operations TailingsBasin," report issued to Exxon Minerals Company., December.



APPENDIX


031 TAILINGS BASIN

015 TOSS

112 TDSS MONITORING

114 TOSS MONITORING

117 TOSS MONITORING

120 TOSS MONITORING

125 TOSS

127 TDSS

131 TOSS BACKGROUND

132 TDSS BACKGROUND

133 TOSS BACKGROUND

134 TDSS BACKGROUND

147 TOSS

150 TOSS

151 TOSS

172 TOSS

012 SEEP

013 SEEP

014 SEEP

111 50SS

116 50SS

128 50SS

129 50SS

148 50SS

152 50SS

171 BACKFILL

170 BACKFILL

LEGEND I

Well Designation

Calcium Concentration.Measured in mg/I

• = V t

IjWrATER 1WASTE AND LAND,INC.J I I DATE Feb. 1988

PROJECTr: 2068Calcium Concentration, in TDSS Based on April 1982Field Data Ii • I

879

878

877

876

875

874

873LEGEND I

well Designation #125

Calcium Concentration .- 440Measured in mg/I I

872

InrATER,WASTE AND LAND,INC.1 I Calcium Concentration in TDSS Based on July 1985 Field Data I DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068

I

I• i • |

I1 WATER,WASTE AND LAND, INCJ1 IDATE' Feb. 1988

PROJECT: -2068Calcium Concentration in TDSS Based on April 1987 Field Data§ | i

'@

WATEER,WASTE AND LAND, INC. Chloride Concentration in TDSS Based on April 1982 Field Data

DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068 I

4879

878

877

876

875

874

873

872

16871

LEGEND

Well Designation #125I. ,IChloride Concentration o90Measured. in mg/I I

LVWATER,WASTE AND LAND,INC.1 [ Chloride Concentration in TDSS Based on July 1985 Field DataI

DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT. 2068

i

WATERWASTE AND LANDINC. Chloride Concentration in TDSS Based on April 1987 Field Data I DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068 I

879

cz. 878

Hig hland Reservoir

" .15 0 127

N _ __ _ _ __ _ 1*00 877

ZoI

Mill Area -'X\""~w15 v.....47

v1T a i i n g .a s 1 5 +~

Ml W-E Cross Section 04

- - Bottom of TOSS Outcrop

875

% •'--. %.%. /117 . ' •. -- I:Droinoge

N zoo S

'ST

M e r- I Bo o

N I

873

LEEN \,, Embonkmenl.

"0Well Designalion 4 4125 t 41

SANDLNBollomMagnesium Conentratn 0t of TDSS Outcrop

f1A PROJECT: 2068ATRASEADLAND, INC1 Magnesium Concentration in TOSS Based on April 1982 Field ATa ROEC: Feb0188

O@

\ Drainage

VBottom of TDS S Outcrop C

Hig land Reservoir 0

#150 w2

- ._ _. I.I•'--"-- • 100 5A4

Tailings psin a-15 014

Mill Area v114W -EC Cro ss- S-ec-t ion 4-450 800-

B''ottomn of TDSS Outcrop

a-• -• % .--. , . o".-. ll 0 .- ,rainoge

I %.. +35

879

878

877

876

875

874

873

872

NN

It

NN

NS.

5---

I)/!-5

11005-

N'N

4-4--- & Se,-- + + 4- - - 4- h -I---%------LEGEND IWell Designation

Magnesium ConceptrationMeasured in mg/I I

II

0125

- 125

4 I- I

'(1

E

Boll,

mbankmentlJ

om of TOSS Outcrop

N

I.I '~* t~-* I I r-

*134 + 2- - -N

N.---I)

North

m

J WI U m qL .t a a I 4

404 405 406 407 408 409 410 41 I 412 413 4 4 415 4i 8711I6

WrWATERWASTE AND LAND, INC

DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068 JMagnesium Concentration in TDSS Based on July 198.5 Field Data

(0 0

LEGEND I

Well DesignollonIMagnesium Concentroti(Measured in.mg/l

W WATER,WASTE AND LAND,INC. Magnesium Concentration in TDSS Based on April 1987 Field Data

DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068

0

LEGEND I

Well Designation #125i Ip H Concentration 7.7

easured in Standard Units

I VWATERWASTE AND LANDINC. I pH Concentration in TDSS Based on April 1982 Field DataIII DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068 I

• ,, I •

I.

879

78

D

WWATERIWASTE AND LANDINC.1 I DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068

I

,.pH Concentration in TDSS Based on July 1985 Field Data II•.,.•=.•=..=....J | I I

A.

879

J

WWATERWASTE AND LANDINC. I

DATE: Feb. 1988-

PROJECT: 2068

I

pH Concentration in TDSS Based on April 1987 Field Data -j

.0

879

878

877

876

875

874

873

872

I-* --

J'

*rWATERWASTE AND LANDINC.11

IIATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068

II

Sulfate Concentration In TDSS Based on April 1982 Field Data i• • II

S879

878.

877

876

875

874

873

872

LEGEND

Well Designation #125l ISulfate Concentration 150oMeasured in mg/i,. .

4 14 4 5 6871

I W ATERWASTE AND LAND, INC. I I II DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068Sulfate Concentration in TDSS Based on July 1985 Field Dataw i J

I

879

KK

878

877

876

875

7T4

873

872

6

I I

I WWATERWASTE AND LAND, I NC. I I II DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068I

Sulfate Concentration in TDSS Based on April 1987 Field Data I• i | I

0879

878

877

876

875

874

873

872

I- ..---

I

SI'romageNIJ

Well Designation-I

Total Dissolved SolidsMeasured in mgA

4

XV WATERWASTE AND AND1 INC.JIIIV Total Dissolved Solids Concentration in TDSS

Based on April 1982 Field Data J DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068

I

I

879

878

877

f

WFATER,WASTE AND LAND, INC.J I Total Dissolved Solids Concentration in TDSSBased on. July 1985. Field Data. II DATE: Feb. 1988

PROJECT: 2068L

4 ~*@

. 8

I

t-Highland Reservoir

I>-. -~I uISO./•"-. 5o0

878

875

874

873

872

I- ---I%

0kmageN - 0

LEGEND

Well Deslgnailon -

Total Dissolved Solids ConMeasured in mg/l

11409 410

I W ATER,WASTE AND LAND,'NC. II

Total Dissolved Solids Concentration in TDSSBased on April.1987 Field Data- II DATE: Feb. 1988PROJECT: 2068

0

0131 TAILINGS BASIN

I,

Tailings Pond (031) Water Elevations

'-U~

00

>1d

5.250 -

5.240 -

5.230 -

5.220 -

5.210 -

5.200 -

5.190 -

5.180

5.170 -

5.160 -

5.150o

Mar-71

+

n4 -- -- Dry

13n0

I IA ug-76

I I

Feb-82

Time (mmm-yy)0] Estimated

I IAu g-87

We" 031 - AG vs. "imq.

C,

0.1107

0.100

0.090

0.080

0.070 -

0.04.0-

0.030

0.020

0.010

02-0o--73

700.000

700.000

680.000

500.000

540.000

500.000-

480.000

400.000230.000

30.700

300.500

250.00002--0e--78

0.800 --

0.700

0.100

0

0

0 0

1 625-May-79

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days pa' dlvlalon)V cotectron Urmt

Well 031 - AL vs. Time.

14-Nov-64

23-U.av-7914N-8

d~d-mmmn-y (1000 days pmr divislaio)V Oeteatlon Umit

Well 031 - AS vs. yleme

0 O0

0

0.000 ..1- I

02.-0a-732fl-MaY-79t

dd-mm~fnlw (10040 day" per divison)V Cateotlan LJMft

14--Nov-8O4,

E.

2.000 -

1.900

1.800

1.700

1.600

2.4,001.300

1.4,00

1.100

1.000

0.800

0.800

0.•700

0.800 -

0.8,00 -

0.,400 -

0.300 -

Well 031 - 8 vs. nme.

g.z2g02-

qdd-frlmm-yIy (1000 days per dMalon)v caeatioon Umit

Well 031 - BA vs. TIim..0.150

0.140

0.10 -S

0. 120

0.110 -

6A166

a2--oa-73 25-IMay-7

U

dd-mmim-yy (1000 day. Per dtM.Ian)v Detection Umit

14-Nov-64

Well 031 - CA yVa. "rme.1.000

0.300 -

0.800 -

0.700 -

0.600

0.800 --I

C0

0 0 0

Cl0 0 C

0 M

0..300

02-e-073 23-Uoy-72

dd-mrnf--Yy (1000 -lays pop d~vuloei)v CatectJon Limlt

14-fNdo-64

We" 031 - CO Va. "lme.-t

8

0.110 -

0.100

0.070

0.080

1.800

1.700

1.8001 .500

1.400

11.3001.200

1.1001 .CCO

0.900

0.800

0.7000.6000.300

0.400

0..300

0.200

0.100

02-w0oc-73

C3

M

23-M4oy-79

dd-mmnm-yy (1000 dayu per. dMalon)Y Detection Ujmit

14-Nov-,4

Well 031 - CL vs. Trime.

CIa 1a

C3 C in 30c~ C M3 0

23-ay--79 14-Nov--4

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dilvsion)V Deteution eLMt

Well 031 - CO vs. Time.4.000

3.000 -

2.800 --

3`.000 --

a3

C3aC~

I.800 -

1 .000

0.500

a.•n.-a

02-Oac-73 23-May-7

11

4dd-fMMm--W (1000 day= per division.)v Detection Limit

14-NOv-84

Well 031 - CR va. Tlim.8.000 -

7.000

8.000

8.000

4.0O0

3.000

2.000

1.000

0.00002-04.-73

2.100 -

2.000

1.800

1,800 -

1.700

1.800-

1.800

1.4400

1.300

23-4A41)-79 4Nv8

dd--mmm-Yy (1000 d-d. per dMaion)V Oetmatio Limit

Well 031 - CU Vs. Mime.

C3

C3

0

1.00. 02-

1.800

1.400

S.2.00

1,100

1.000

0.00

0.300

0.700

0.800

0.800

02--

-O.c-.73 28-May,-78g 14--No,-84

dd-mmmn--yy (1000 days per dttlsion)V D.t.ction limit

Well 031 -- VaO? v,. TIm6.

a:

a=

a:

oec 73

dd-rmmm--iy (1000 days per dteltfio)v 0.tmatiai Limit

14-Nov-84

Well 0,31 - Ho Van. Time.0.008

0.007

*0.004

0.008

0.00,4

0.003

0.002

0.001

02-.0o073

60.000

V a V6 a

25

-lMoy-79

d~d-MMM-y (¶000 days per dM.Ison)V cotstectn Limit

W.11 031 - K vsn. rime.

14--Nov-84

50.000 -

•40.000 -

30.000 -

20.000 -

10.000

0.000 -

02-0a--73

1.700 -

1.1800

1.300

*1.400

1.300

1.200

1.100

1.000

0.000

0.800

0.700

0.400

0.300

0.400

0.300

0.200-

0.100

0.00002-Oo--73

0 0

00 0

M CS

2.-lWay-7-

dd-mmm-,,y (1000 days per dMaZon)V DetectJon Lmit

Wedl 031 - MG vs. lime.

14--Novr-84

2.a

CP1

03

0 0 0

0 0€0

0 0 3a gO00a

25-kay--79

dd--mmm--yy (1000 d"ys pqw dMv1s.on)V Getoaolon Umit

14-Nov-84

Well 031 - IIN V.. 'Mme...4

.4

.4

.4

.4

~.4

z4

a

.7.000 --

44.800 -

44.800 -

41.400 -

44.3.00 -

48.100

48.900

I*a.4g02--

cld-mmm-yy (1000 days per dMalaei)V C.toction Llmit

Well 031 - UC vs. Ting..I ~flfl

.90o --

0.800 -

0.700 -

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.200

0•.00

0~0~ ~0.100

02-

dd-mmm-YY C1000 days per dMslan)V Collection Umlt

*wlI 031 - NA vin. ura..•1..4,CC33.200

3.000 -2.. 0O0-

2.800 -

2.400 -2.2.00 -

2.000-

1.111001.800

1.400

1.2000

1.000

0.1000.800Q.400

0.200

0.000 -

02-0.C-73

0€C3

0 0

€3

t C3GC=o 0

25-NOy-70

dd-rnnr-1Y (1000o days pme dMstrns)V routetlof Lmimt

14--Nov-846

260.000 -

220.000 -

200.000

160.000

180.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

4.0.000

20.00 0

Weil 031 NH3 vs. TIme.

00~

0.00002-

0z

2.400

2.-200

2.000

1.800

1.800

1.400

1.200

1.000

0.800

0.800

0.400

0.200

0.00002--

Oea-73 28-Iday--tO 14,.-Nov--048

€dd-mmm-yy CI(O0 days per did'lion)V . etecton Jmlt

Well 0.31 - N02 vs. Time.

,12-0ea-73 23--i40y-79

dd-mmm-,yy (I000 days per dMelon)V Detection Umft

Well 031 - N03 vs. Time.

14-Nov-84

Fl0z

5.800

4.000

4.800

4.000

2.800

3.00

2.000

1.0000a-02-De-73

dF-mmm--y (1000 days per dweon)V oet•,dto, Umft

Ua-

~-z.

1.800. "-

Izo

1-2.00

1.1001.3000

0.200

.1100 -

0.700 --

0.6000-

0.-000.800

0.200

0.800

10.500

0.000

0.3000

0.000 -

0.00 --

8.000 --

2.000

11.000

10.0000.2000

7.000

8.•000

4.000

0.000

32.000 7

dd-mnim--,yy (000O days per duivson)V Detection Umit

WeIl 031 - P0210 vs. Time.

op

25-May-79 .14-Nov--04

dd--mmm.-->y (1000 daYs per dMorlon)V Deteotion Umit

Well 031 - PH va. Time./It Fq•n

I

7.000

0.000 --

8.000 --

4.000 -

3.000 -

2-.000

aa a

0 00000 o~ao~

a

i nnn a0I --0a73 I

15-uay-70

dd-m~m--YY (1000 day. VPc division)V Detectionl Lmit

14-Nov-,4

Won 031 - P0210 vs. Time.6.000

0 .000 --

4.000 -

2.000

1.000 -

a0

0.000I -

O2-00C-73

dd-rilmm-yy (1000 cloys po dalvoin)v Detectioni Lmit

Well 031 - R(A22 Yo. Mrme.

14-Now-54

i

480.000

400.000

330.000

300.000

250.000

200.000.

180.000

100.000

50.000 -

C C Ca

C a 2

0.00002--

-t i A I - - 6Dea-73 2,-k4y-a-79 14-Nov-64

dd--mmm--y (1000 dayx per dMalon)V Detectlon UImit

Well 031 - SC vs. Time.aMts/5

0.400 -

0.30O0 --

0.200-

0.100*

C3

3 C 3

C J3

0.O00

061-C.-73

d~d.mmm.-yy (1000 days Per dM.lmi)v Dateatln Lmimt

14--Nov'-'04

Wail 031 - 304 ye. Th1i.

H

17.000 -

16.000 -

18.000 -

14.00013.000

12.000

11.000O10.000

9.000

5.000i7.000

6.000

4,.000 "

3.000

1.000

0

E

0.00002-

-ti0.a--?3 28 -- Mayl--79 14---Nay--64.

da-mmm--yy (1000 day= per diaviion)V Cletwatl-oa Limit

Well 031 - TD0 vu. Tfmo.•Laooo

26.000

24.0002.2.000

10.000

18.000

16.00a

14.000

12.00010.000•

5.000

6.000

4.000-

2.000 -

C2 C30

0C3 0 003 00

0 2 D[

00 00•

0.00002- 0ma--73 2•--a--79 14--NM-84

dd-mmm-yy (100o day per divison)V Catuctlen Limit

Wag 031 - Th"210 vs. 7!m.140.000

13o.o00 -

140.000 -

110.000 -

100.000 -

90.000 ---5 0.000 -

a 7.000

0=

0:

0-

0-0:

0 0 .,

. . . 0 ' ... . •: r• " C

50.000

,40.000

30.000 -j:0.000

10.000

0.000

02-O•c-736

dd-•mmfvv--Yy (1000 days per dMlven)V Detoatlen Limit

i14--Nov--4

we" 031 - UNAT vs. rms..40.600

40,000

20.0.00 -

10.000

012-0.a--73

a= C1=

C 0 00 0 C C2 caC 00a ,

cid-mmnm.-" (1000 days poe dM.aln)V Detection LimIt

1.4--Nav-64

Well 031 - VA vs. 11ma.10.000 --

5.000 -

8.000 -

7=000

8.000

0.000

40000

1.000

2.000

1.000

0.00002,-.a--

73

12.000 --

11.000

10.000

3.000

4.000

7.000

2.000

8.000-

3.000

02--Oa--73

23-hiay-79 4-o-8

dd-mmm-W (1000 days per dM.aon)V 0tastecuo Limit

Woll 031 -ZN vs. 71me..

a

a

pi

dd-mrrnm-y (1000a days p~rd~w aiV catwstimn Limft

1,4-Nov--64

S

115 TDSS

FIGURE C-19

TDM WELL NUMBERois

8-18-81

0 REPLACEMENT

WELL COMPLETION LITHOLOGY

SCREEN INSTALLED AND GRAVEL PACKED 51'TO 56'TOTAL DEPTH IS 56'WELL PUMPS 12 GPMNO FILL

30.0

TOSS

56.0

9 0

B

B

B

0

B

0

I 0

LEGElNO

BACKFILL

ALLUVIAL FILL

GROUT

BENTONITE

SCREENED INTERVAL

GRAVEL

SANDSTONE

SILTSTONE

50.551.0

56.0

S

S

0

0

S IS I

SHALE

FIGURE C-2

TOM WELL NUMBER 0 01,5-

12-6-74


SCREEN VISIBLE 21' TO 51'; OTHER ZONES?TOTAL DEPTH UNKNOWN, REPORTED TO BESO+-tWELL PUMPS -1/2 GPMFILL TO 51'

WELL ABANDONED NOW AND GROUNTED FULL0,z

2!

F

30

TOSS

7.0

TOSHALE

lot

0

a

0

LEGEND

~~BA

m~AL

[x.x GE

eSE

CKFiLL

.LUVIAL FILL

lOUT

'NTONITE

40

S

S

SCREENED INTERVAL

eo+_i

-- 71 ~GRAVEL

SANDSTONE

SILTSTONE

SHALE

C. j A

Well 015 - Elevation vs. lime.

In

4)

0~f

5.152 -

5.151

5.150

5.149

5.148

5.147

5.146

5.145

5.144

5.143

5.142

5.141

5.140 -

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84

dd-mm-yy (1000 days per division)

05/07/90

Weill OtS - CA .l. [im..

'~L2.

d

1.000 -

0.800 "

0.4500 -

0.700

0.400

0.300

0.400

0..300

0.200 --

0.100

aa

a

aa

a aa a a

a00 a a a~ aa a

a a~ g0~ ~00 a0 a

aa

0•00002-I

28-Umy-7914-N.'v-04

dci-inmm-yy (1000 day. per. dlvblon)Vatuctlon 1Jhvat

Well 0118 - CL. yw. Tlmo.

500.000

700.000

600.000

500.000 -

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000 a~ ac a

O=R =C3 MOC0 o

g.ggg02--C

dd-mmm-WY (1000 dwy. per dtel.tn)DaOteation Umit

W04l l 01 - AMO Va. TIMS.4.00.000

300.000

300.000

280.000

,• 2.00.Q00

180.000

100.•000

J

a0

a ao

a a

00 0 0

0 0 a00 0

. D D I= a

-- mO •00

a a r

a aa_ 0I

02.--0 -73211-Uay-79

dd-.-"MM. (1000C OC days pee daelao,)v ca~towen Umft

1 ,*-.Nevr-- e4

Well 015 - Pt- Vs. n1e.12.000

.*. .000-

3.000 --

7.000-

M

CS a

a

a 0

co a

6.000 -

8.000 -

41..aaa02--0.--7

28-11y-v79

odi-Mmmm-W (1000 dy pee dlvu~en)v cotoctio4n limlt

14-Nov-84

Well 015 - 304 ym. lim,2.800 1

2.800

2.400

2.200

2.000

1.800

1.500

1.4.0

1.200*

1.000

0.800

0.800

0.400.-

0.000O.000 -

64000-

5.000

4.000

0.000 -

02-000-73

093a0 a C3a

a00

000

a a~ a~a

0

a a•

I IZ I I23-May-73

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days. ~ d• •le.)v Oet'Uaon Limit

Well 018 - To5 vs. lime.

1,4-,,Nev,-,-4

23-May-711 4-Ncov-44

dd-fMmmb-yy (1000 day. per aMajaoi)v owtoction~ Limt"A

WlI 0 13 - A3 vs. Time.0.012

0.011

0.010

0.009

-r -

0.008

0.007

0.004

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.002

0 0 0

0.g01

02- 0.0-73 25-MAa•y-79 14-iNo--84

dd--nmm-yy (1000 days peo division)Y Detection Umit

Well 013 - CO vs. TIm*.0.015

8

0.014

0.013

0.012

0.011

0.0 10 -

0.00a

0.007

0.006

0.00-

0.004

0.003 -

0.002

02- --73 20--May-7l T14-Nov-814

.dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divislon)V Detectlon Limit

Wol! 015 - P3 vs. Time.0.080

'S.

0.070 -

0.060 -

0.050 -

0.0440

0

0.030

02--os-73 23-May-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V atuatioe• Imit

14--Nov-64

WaU 018 - SC V". TI/Mf.

w~U'

0.040

0.030

0

0.0€00 -.

40.000C: - r-

3o.e.0I --

0 0P

4di-wwivm-yy (1000 day. per divislon)

V Detection UMft

Well 018 - RAk226 vv. Time..

14.-.Nm.-84.

i18.0100-

0.000O --coo0a. ...

r.IQ .

02-a7.3

nns

.C - - .

-. ; 00 0

3 28--May,-79

dd-mmm--y (1000 day. per divfalon)V 0.tuation Llmft

14-Nov-64

112 TDSS MONITORING

.1 ~~*' FIGURE C-I1

TOM WELL NUMBER V1I

10-22-80

WELL COMPLETION

x[71

LITHOLOGY

* Ox

'C

X

41.5

42.0

50.0

75.0

xx

~

o0

0*C

o

0

0a

0C.

CC

CC

0a

0

0

17.0

41.0

90.0

aa

, 0

I4

a

aI

a

a * *

0

TOSS

0

afS

4 4

LEGENO

~ Gi

!r, -7 e

sc

ss1

ýCKFILL

LLUVIAL FILL

ROUT

ENTONITE

REENEO INTERVAL

RAVEL

%NOSTONE

:LTSTONE

SF* '

a .a90.0L

HALE

.

Well 112 - Elevation vs. Time.

-@3

.4- 0

0 -

wi

5.155 --

5.154 -

5.153 -

5.152

5.151 -

5.150 -

5.149

5.148 -

5.147 -

5.146 -

5.145 -

5.144 -

5.143 -

5.142 -

5.141 -

5.140 -12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

Woll 1 12 - AS vs. "1me.0.000 la

0.007

0.006-

0.005

0.003

0.002

0.001M• .25--May--T9 I 5-F1eb-6 2 S4,---Nay---84, 11 -AuS-87- 07-May-90

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dlvlalon)V Detrction Limlt

Well 112 - PH vs. Time.

5

7.000 -

7.700 -

7.600 -

7.500 -

7.400

7.300

7.200

7.100 -

7.000 -

6.900 -6.80006a.OO --6.700 "

6.1500

6.400

6.43Q0

6.-00 - -25-hlay-79

93 M a3

C39Z C=C=

0 a3 C3 0 N3 a3

18--Feb-6B2 14,.- Nav-, 04

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day= per divhlon)V DeteatlOn Umit

11 -Aug -0 7a

07-May-90

Well 112 - SE vs. Time.0.700 -

0.600 -

0.500 -

wn

0.4.00 -

0.300 -

0.200 -

0.100 -

-

0.00 i w -'m ma-m 0 W-0

25-May-79 18-Feb-182 1 -- Nov--4

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days par dMilon)V Detectlon Limit

11 -Aug-67 07-May-90

Well 112 - CA vs. Time.530.000 -

520.000 -3

810.000

800.000

490.000 - 0480.000

470.000

480.000 0 0480.000 []

440.000 0

430.000 - 0

420.000

410.000

400.000 -

390.000 []380.000

370.000 -

350.000

350.000

25-May-79 18i-Feb-82 14-Nov-a4 11-IAug-87 07-Nay-SO

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dilvson)V Detection Umit

Well 112 - CL. vs. Time.240.000 -230.000 - C C220.000 -210.000 0 0 []200.000 - "'190.0001 80.000170.000 03160.000150.000 C C140.000 [ 03130.000 _ C3 []120.000110.000 C100.00090.00080.000

* 70.00060.00080.000

.40.000

:0000 - ] [20.000

25-May-79 18--Feb-a2 14-Nov-84 11 -Aug-87 07-May-90

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days per divislon)V Detection Umit

Well 112- MG vs. Time.220. 000

210.000

200.000 0

190.000 -

180.000 -

170.000 -

160.000 -

120.000 - •

140.000 0

130.000120.000 -[]

110.000 0

100.000

90.000

110.000

80.000

-0.00090.000

25-Mcry-79 la--Feb"--82 14--Nov-a4 11 -- Aug--87 -07 • ay 90

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day. per dislion)V Detection Umit

Well 112 - 504 ve. lime.

0a

2.700 --

2.600 -

2.500 -

2.400 -

2.300 -

2.200 -

2.100 -

2.000

1.900

1.00-

1.700

1.600

1.500

1.400

1.300

1-200-

25-May-79

12.000 -'

11.000

10.000

9.000

7.000 -

7.000 -

axooo -

4.000 -

3.000

2.000'

25-May-79

0.011

0.010

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.00-3 -7

0.002

25--May--79

M0 00 0 0a 0 M0 0

0 0:0( 0

1 8-Feb-82 14-Nov-64

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dision)V Detection Umit

Well 112 - TUS vs. Time.

11 -AAug-87 07-May--0

.C2 3 0 CC

I W-Fei1-82 14-Nov-T4

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Limit

I 1-Aug-87 07-May-90

Well 112 - CO vs. Time.

000 00O

Ii -8eb-82 14-Nov-84

dd-mrnm-yy (1000 days per dilvison)V Detection Umit

11 -Aug-87 07-May-90

Well 112 I- HG vu. Time.0.100

III

C,

-i IP m3 P 7PA P - f;

25-May-79 I -Feb-82 1 4-Nov-64

dd-mmm-yy (1000 darym per division)V Detection Limit

11 -Aug-67 07-May-SO

Well I112 - pa Va. lime.,

CL

0.070 --

0.07" -

0.076 -

0.072 -

0.070

0.066,

0.0168

0.0640.0412

0.056

0.0956

0.054

0.0:2

0.050 -

25-May-79

6.000 -

7.000

6.000

a.000

18-F.mb-82 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm--yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Limit

I 1 -Aug-8707-May--O

Well 112 - RA226 ve. Time.

. 0

2.000

1.000

1.000

0.000 -1-e 25-May-79 1 -Feb-82 14-Nav-04 11 -Augý-87

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divsion)V Detection iUmit

07-May-9O

Well 112 - AG vs. lime.0.100

wV VVVVVV VV

0.020 "

0.019

o.01 a

0.017

0.016

0.014

0.013

0.012

0.011

0.01025-M-•y-79

II I I ,

16-Feb-62 14--Ov--84

dd-mmm--yy (1000 daye per div'slan)V Detection Umit

Well 112 - CR va. Time.

II-Aug-67 07--May -GO

16-Feb--82 14--Nov-64•

dd-mmm-Wy (1000 dWy per dtvlolon)V Doetection Umit

1 -Aug-674

07-May-GO

114 TDSS MONITORING

S/

FIGURE C-12

TOM WELL NUMBER IX

10-27-80WELL C:MPLETION

2.0 0

BF

LITHO LOGY

55.0

98.099.0

105.0

145.0150.0

S0-0

02

,~ %

.%

Coo

C0

o o0

UC

0

C.9

0C C

99.0

144.0

1,75.0

181.0

'- / ~? -

0

S

S

a

a TOSS

* * a* '

* e a

LEGEND

[ a• BACKFILL

SF ALLUVIAL .FILL

xx 'GROUT

BENTONITE

SCREENED INTERVAL

rd GRAVEL

SANOSTONE

SILTSTONE

SHALE

SHALEBF

181.01


'-ac-U

Coi0i3

5.164 -

5.162 -

5.!60

5.158

5.156

5.154

5.152

5.150

5.148

5.146

5.144

5.142

5.140-

5.138

5.136

12/02/73 05/25/79 1/14/84


05/07/90

Weii 114 - AS vy. Time.

z0.

UCdI

.0.028 --

0.0284 "

0.022 -

0.020

0.018 -0.oi6

0.014

0.012

0.0 100.008 "

0.0060.004.-

0.002

0.000

28-May-779

7.100 -

7.000-

6.900

6.800 -

6.700 -

6.8001GS aOO

6.400

6.300

6.2006.100

S.aoo085.900 -

8.800~

2--May-79

0.017 -

0.016

0.013

0.014

0.013

0.01 2

0.01 1

0.010

0.007 "0.008

0.005

0.004 -

0.003 -

0.002 -

0.001 - -

25-lMay=79

I 5-Fob-82 144-Nov-64

dd-mmm-yy (1000 doyu per division)V Detection Limit

11-IAug--87 07-May-90

Well 114 - PH vs. Timu.

0w I

0 C MI C

0 C0 0 0 CX30

I0 =0

i I -- i1 0.Fmb--82 14.-Nov--84.

dd-rmmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detectlon Limit

II1I--Au -- 8s7 07-May-90

Well 114 - 5E vs. Time.

0

-qPEzFPwwqlw E3 Eap I I18-Peb-82 14-Nov-64

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divlison)V Detection Limit

11 -Aug-87 07-May-gO

Well 114 - CA vs. Time.maQ.aQQ

900.000-

700.000 -

600.000 -

300.000-

400.000

300.000

0 - -

0

00

000

00

00

0 o

200.000 1

4Z50.000-

400.000

850.000

300.000

250.000

200.000

180.000

100.000

80.000

18--F'b--62 14--Nov-54

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dlvlulon)V Detection Umit

11 -- Aug-87 07-Ma4y-90

Well 114 - CL vs. Time.

0•

0.000 .[

28-May-79

600.000-

860.000

860.000

040.000

820.000

500.000

480.000 -

460.000-

440.000 -

420.000

400.000

380.000 -

360.000-

340.000 -

320.000 -

300.000 -

280.000 -

260.000

28-May-79

18-Feb-82 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm--yy (1000 days per divislon)V Detection Umit

11 -Au--87 07-May-90

Well 114 - MG vs. Time.

0

C

00

00•0 0

02[2

02

0[

0•

02

C,

18--FI i I

sPb-az2 14--Nov-,54

dd-mmm--yy (1000 doy. per division)V Detecruon Umit

, 1-Aug-87 07-May-90

U3

3.400

3.200

3.000

2.800

2.800

2.400

2.200

2.000

1.300

1.600

1.4400

1.200

1.000

0.000 .

.0.600 -

25-May-79

Wall 114 - 304 vs. Time.

0

18-Feb-82 14-Nov-84 11 -Aug-7

4dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Limlt

07-May-90

Well 1¶14 - TOS vs. Time.

-~l ~0

C

7.000 -

6.000 -

a.000 -

4.000 -

3.000 -

2.000

0

1.000 i

0.021 -

0.020

0.0190.0.18 "o.o1ia0.01 70.016

0.015

0.014

0.013

0.012

0.011

0.010

0.009

0.008

.0.007

0.006

0.00-

0.004 "

0.003

0.002 -

25-Mlay-79

i 8-Feb-82 I -ova4

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Umnit

11 -Aug-7

Well 114. - CO vs. Time.

a

0]

03

18-Ferb--02 14--Nov-04

dd-mmm-y" (1000 days per divieson)V Detection ULmit

11 -Aug-87 0T--Mar--gO

Well 114 - HO vs. Time.0.100

2I-May-79

•.10.10.100

0.090

0.080

0.070

0.040

| T•1 IS Fqb-452 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 dwyu par diIslon)V Cetection Limit

I1 -Aug-87I

07-May--0

Wall 114 - pe YR. Timle.

0.090

16.000

15.000

14.000 -

13.000

12.000

11.000.

10.000

9.000

8.000

7.000

6.000

3.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

11.000

23-I

loy-79 I 8-F7W- l1 1 I- ". I .

b-1112 14-Nov-64

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per. divisin)V Detection Limit

11 --Aug-67 07-May-90

Wait 114 - RA226 vs. Time..I

IQ

0 93 13 CC3

In E3 0 13

M.4y-79 I 8-Fqb-62 I 4-Nov-814

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per d4vlslon)V Detection Uimit

11 -Aug-87 07-May-90.

Well 114 - AG Va. T'ma.0.100

IF 7 VV V '

25-May-79

0.600

0.800

0.400

0.200

0.200

0.100

0.000L

25-Ma.y-79-

| • t Ii 8-Fmb-•2 14-Nov--84

dd-mmm--yy (1000 day. per dMsaon)V DOteatlon Umlt

WillI 114 - CR vs. lIms.

-I1I mA•Jg-S7 07-May--o

r-

I 5-- l~b-8.2 14,-Nov-54,

odd-mmm-yy (1000 day. per divtioon)V Datectlon i.nift

11 -A,,ug--57|

07-May-90

117' TDSS MONITORING

0

i_ 'p 2 0FIGURE C-I5

TOM WELL NUMBER

9-29-80WELL COMPLETION

2.0

LITHOLOGY

F-Tm• A. *

Q

`53.5

99.0

105.0

146.0

150.6

%

~' ,'

1~

d ~0

0

Co ~

C~S. ~~

a

q

a ao

C-J

02

*

4

a4

4

4S

4

0a

93.0 LEG ENO

"A AL

L , GF

CKFILL

.LUVIAL FILL

TOSStOUT

145.0

150.6

BENTOl

SCREEN

GRAVEL

l " ::tSANDS-,

S I LTST

SHALE

N4ITE

lEO INTERVAt

TONE

ONE

I.


.4-00 -

to

5.174 •

5.172 -

5.170

5.168

5.166

5.164

5.162 -

5.160 -

5.158 -

5.156 -

5.154 -

5.152-

5.150

5.148

5.146

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

Well 117 - A3 vs. "mm.0.021 -

0.017 -f0.016

0.015g0.0140.017

0.016

0.0150.014 -'

0.013

0.0120.011

0.010

0.007

0.008

0.0070.006 -

0.004 -

0.0030.002.

0.001

25-May-79

1wv -- 7

dd-Wnmm-yy (1000 days per division)v Detection Limit

11--Alg-8a7 07--May-90

Well 117 - PH v.. Tirme.

za.

7.800

7.500 --

7.400 --

7.00--

7.200 --

7.100

7.000-

6.900 -8.800 -8.700

6.600

6.200

* 25-May-79

0 C3 W a

=00 IC CmC

!I 8-Feb-152 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Lmit

I1I-AuAg-67 07-May--O

Well 117 - 39 vs. Time.E3 rOo.010

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001-I1 -Ve- |.. . . 1. 4-No-84

dd--mmm--yy (1000 days per division)V Detmatlon Umit

SI -Aug -87 07-May-90

Well 117 - CA vy. Time.1.000

0.700

C3 E0.500 -

0.400 0:0

25-M© • 79 I a-Feb-82. 1,4,-Nov--S4 I1I Aug-a7. 07--Ma y90

dci-rnmm--y, (1000 dwy per dNivison)V Detection U~rnit

Well 1 17 -CL. vs. Time.400.000

400.000

300.000 --0C

C3 IP 13 C3 t3 0 C 0

100.00 00

0..00

10.000 - r

600.000 -300.000

380.000 -~

370.000 0

8 O

300.000 0

25--May--79 1 B--eb--82 14--Nov--84 11--Aug,-57 07--May--SO

d33-mmm- (1000 day0 per dvlelon)VF Detetirfon Limit

Wli| 117 - MO ye. Time.4,10.0004,00.000. 0290.000270.000 0270.000 -0

250.000 0240.000 . " 0 0 02210.000 -220.000-210.000 -2 30000019 20.000

2 a 250.000 --270.000 -250.000 -2.50.000 -240.000 -2.30.000 --220.000 -210.000-

2.00.000 --190.000- I I I

25-May-79 18--Fewb-82 14--Nov-54 I 1-Aug-587 07--May,-90

dd--mmm-yy (1000 day. per division)V Detection ULmit

W"ll 117 - 804 y1. lIMe.2.900 -

2.800

2.700

2.5002.4430

2.400 --

2.300 -j2.200--

2.00 -0

1.800 -1.700

1.800 -1.JOO

1.400

2Z-May-70

0

0 00

00 00 ~

0

-. 1I 8--Fmb--2 14--Nov-64,

ddg-mmm-yy (1000 days per dMaloa,)V . eteotlon Limit

11 -- Aug--87-0

07-bAcy-go

Well 117 - TMS vy. Time.6.800

a. 000

5.000

4.000 j

C0

C3 C

'~ -U

Q

8.a00 -

3.000 -

0

0

2.300

2.00025-May-79

0

4 I 1 I.1¶ 8--Flb;-62 14--Nov-846

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day. per divlion)V Owtrctio n Limit

11-Auvjg--6707-May-Go

Well 117 - CO vs. TIme.

a.UJ

0.01a T70.012

-:

0.0110.012 -

0.010 H0.01.0

0,0.00 -

0.00a -

0.008

0.004

0.005 -

0.002

0.00225 -Mc• 79 18-Feb--2 14-Nov-8-4 11--Aug--87 07-6May-90

dd-mmm--y (1000 day. per divislon).V atoatlion Lrnit

Well 117 - HOG v. TI"me.0.100

=.

i Is-

25-May-79

0*078 -'0.078 -

0.074 -

0.072 -j0.070 .o.o0s60.066

0;064 -

0.062

0.060 j-0.088

0.086 -

0.084 -

0.052 -j0.040

0.080 -25-MaCy-79g

I 8-Peb-82 14-Nov-64 1 1 -Aug-87

dd-mmnm-yy (1000 day. per dlyiulon)v Detection Unilt

07-May-90

Well 117 - PS Yo. TIrma.E3

a.+

W -vm -V Q - - 9

18-Feb-82 14-Nov-64

dd--mmrm-yy (1000 days per divilon)7 Detection Umit

11-IAug-87 07-May-90

Well 117 - RA226 vs. TimO.9.000

8.000 -

7.000 -

6.000 -

C4 .0001

,.0o0 -0

2.000"-

1.000 -•

0.000 -

25-May-79

PElC l l , M

El :l3 l[]El E El l[E

18-Feb-82 14-Nov-84

dd--mmm-YY (1000 dyus per divislon)V Detection Umit

1 1 -Aug-87 07-May-GO

Well 117 - AG Vs. T"lin.0.100

m VVV•'YVVVVV VV

25-May-79

0.100 -

0.000 -

25-hMay-79

1I -F~b-82 14--Nov-84

dd-mmm--yy (1000 days per dhlMulon)V Detectlon Limit

Well 117 - CR vyt. TMm..

11 -- Aug-87 07-May-90

1 8-feb-B2 14-Nov-84 I 1I -Aug-87 07-May-GO

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day. per dlvlnlon)V Detection imit

S

120 TDSS MONITORING

/~f '~*~)

FIGURE C- 18TOM WELL NUMEER XXI

10-14-801


33.0

87.588.0

95.0

140.0

14 .0

.14-0.0

8 F

x

x

x

'A

X

xC

x'C

00

00

0a

a0

a0

0 0

0 0

0

a0

Co *~ C

92.0

00-J

02

* *

4

* I

* S

* *

* S

5 4

S

S

* ,

*S

S

LEGENO

*BBA

~~AL

FxGF G

~~ 9E

Sc

TOSS

bCKFILL

.LUVIAL FILL

tOUT

:NTONITE

REENEO INTERVAL

RAVEL

INOSTONE

143.0

150.o

I FI, -17,L F-7.

SILTSTONE

SHALE


C:

ac0

0)

5.180

5.178

5.176

5.174

5.1725.170:

5.168

5.166

5.164

5.162

5.160 -

5.158 -

5.156 -

5.154 -

5.152

5.150 "

5.148 -

5.146

12/02/73i

05/25/79 11/14/84 05/07/90


Well 120 - AS ve. Time.0.006 -

0.004-

0.004 -

0 .003 -

0.002 -0 CC

1--Aug--7 07--May-gO

FE

0.001 -

25-May-79

7.700.

7.800 27.560o

7.400

7.300

7.200

7.100

7.000

6.900

6.00

6.700

6.60025-May-79

0.009

0.000

0.007

0.006

0.009

C3

D D0 C C3

03 =1=

M C3

0

-W, 9 T wVV V, VV-I1a-Feb-SI 14-Nav-84

dd-mmm-y (1000C days per dMwajn)V Dateatlan L~mlt


18-Fub-a2 14-Navw-4

dd-mmm-.yy (1000 dayu per diuvison)V Datectlon Umit

Well 120 - SE vs. Time.

I -Ag--7 07-M•y-90

A,Id

0.0041

0.003 --

0.002

0.001 -2--May-79 18-Feb-62 14-Nov-6-4 11 -Aug-857

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divifon)V osta•tion LUmlt

07-Maqy-9o

Wail 120 - CA Va. Tirm.700.000

6110.000

860.000

640.000

020.000

600.000

880.000

840.*000.

480.000

4450.600

440.000 44-,I0.000

25-May-79

400.000 -

3,0.000 -1

0

0

0

00

0

0

t I

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day per division)v Detection Limit

11 -Auu-187 07-May--0

Well 120.- CL ye. Time.

300.000

250.000 -

-jU

200.000

180.000

100.000-

80.000 -

0.000- -25-May-79

220.000

210.000000

200.0001-

190.000--

180.000 --

170.000-

160.000

180.000

140.000

18-Feb-62 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divlison)V Detection Limit

11 -Aug-87 07-May-90

Well 120 - MG Va. nlme.

o

0

0

130.000 -120.0'00 -

110.000 -100.000 -

25-Mjy-79 1 5-Feb-82 1i-Nov-84

dd-mmm--y (1000 days per dMalon)V Detection Limit

11 --Aug- 87 07-May-9 0

Well 120 - 504 Vy. Tlme.2.100

soIn t

2.000 -

1.900 -

1.700 -

1.500 -

1.400 -

1.300

1.200 -

-S -

0

0 C

a0

93

1.100.--

1.00a :

23--kayr-78i. I i I - I

1 S-Veb-812 1 4-Nov-04

4dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dMalon)v Detection Urnit

II1I -- Aug--87 07-May-90

Well 120 - TDS vs. Time.

T

4.600

4.400

4.200

4.000

3.800 -l3.800 --

3.440 -0

3.200:

2.000 -2.0ao -

2.400 -

2.200 -

2-060 -

2.00025-.ay-7

a ,

a

I-I I I Wel 1 . -I I I I18-Freb-62 14-Nov-84

dd-rnmm-yy (1000 days per divsion)v Detection Limit

11 -Aug--87 07-May-90

Well 120 - CO Va. Time.

8

0.01.

0.012

0.0112

0.010

0.009

0.008

0.007 -

0.008 -]

0.00o -j0.004 -j0.003 - .

0.002

25-Mary-79

a=

.t.

1 8-Feb-82 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dlvllon)V Detection Limit

11--Aug-87 07--k4ay-O

Well 120 - HG Va. Time.0.100

-z

0.000 42,--ay-79

.l~

I 8-Feb-02 14-No--04

Jd-inmmm-yy (I000 day& per dMolon)v Detection Limit

I 1 -Aug-07 07-May-00

Well 120 - ps vs. Time.

0.074

0.072 -0.076 --

0.0740

0.072 --0.070

0.060 --

0.064

0.062 --

0.060 --

0.0 0

0.006 7

0.0054

0.052 -

23-Mdoy-

7 9*~~*T 7~

1 --Feb-02 14-Nov--4

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day. per dMalon)V Deteation Limit

11 -- Aug-07 •07-May--O

Well 120 - RA226 vy. Time.

18.00017.000 --.

16.000 -

15.000 -.14.000

13.000

12.000•11.000:10.000

1.0008.000

7.000

7.000,-

3.000 -4.000

3.000 -i2.000 -

1.000

0.000

23-MGY-79

D 0 C0 0 Do

-I

1 B-Feb-02 14-N,-a04

dd--mmm-yy (1000 day. per dlvilson)V Dete-•ton iUmit

11 -- Aug--7I

07--Ma€-,00

Wai 120 - AG vs. Time.0.100

MP WVVVVVVVV VV

0.000 -i--25-May-79

-0.100

0.000 - -28-Ma --79

I1 i-Frb-82 4-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day. per dMsIcn)V Dat-atlon Umit

Well 120 - CR vs. Time.

-I I -- Aug--87 -I

07-May-90

I M-Pub-82 14-Nov-84 I I -Aug-a7

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divslion)V Detuctlon iUmit

07-May-90

0.

125 TDSS

FIGURE C-24

TOM WELL NUMEER. XXVI8-11.-81


F

20*

TOSS

52.0

0I

a

a I

D

I

a

.9

J

I0

45.045.547.0

52.O

fl

LEGENO

F " AL

xI c 1 GF

.• BE

Sc

s1 GFl' ":-7 S;

l-----']sl

•CKFILL

.LUVIAL FILL

tOUT

NTONITE

REENEO INTERVAL

RAVEL

INOSTONE,

LTSTONE

IALE


VCo

c 0-

0 Co7

5.155 -

5.154 -

5.153 -

5.152.5.151-

5.150

5.149

5.148

5.147

5.146

5.145

5.144

5.143

5.142

5.141

5.140.-

5.139

5.138

5.137

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

2-

WeU 125 - Mil, . 1mIvvm

460.000

:ISO.QOO"

440.000.

2400.000

02. ofta "7" 2S-iday-79 14-Ncv-84

iid-mmmn-yy (1000 doy. per 4maien)v 0.twation Limit

22.0.000210.000

200.000190.000¶ 80.=00170.000

120.000 ..

.110.000100.00090.00080.O00070.00060.00080.000

.40.000

30.000

W.U 125 - CL vu. rlme.

MC

02-.

190.000

dd-mmm--yy (1000 days per dMuIan)v Detection Limit

Well 125 NOh4 vs. Time.

180.000

170.000 -

160.000 -180.000 H140.000 -

120.000 -

110.000. H,*o.0oooH80.Q00 .

ac.QO0•

70.00C -

-4o.QoO•0.00.20 -

02--0e.-73

0

0

0

0

0

k

dd-mmm--yy (1000 days p... dbolsiaan)v Owtootion Limit

I14--Nov•6"

Weall 125. -- p1. •l "'.roWel .000 --

7.800

7.700

.5.00

7.500 cc

8..000-

7.700

7.800 12 c--i°00 0

7.=O C= 0 07.100 a M E7..004

02-O~a, 73 2.8--May--79 14im.Nov--a4

dd-mmm-w (1000 days pwa am.Iemn)'V ptemtion Umft

Well 125 - 504 vv. Time.1.9100

1.800 0Cl

1.700 Q 0

933

C3

1.800O 0 0•

0.900

0 7 A.7 oo 0 010 .0 ..

1.100

1.000 C

0.800

2.0010

0.800.-

02-04.-73 28--Qay-7- 1--Nwv--4

dd--mmm--yy (1000 do"s per dMajon)V oete.tion Limit

Well 125S -- lTO vs. Time.

4.000 0-

* 3.800 -

3.600-"3.4"0]003.100O

00 00

1.BO2.800

1.8,00 I0

"" 01.800o- -- ,0.

' ": dd-nimn•1 (1000 days per d~leai~l-)• S :: ,. V Ditestlon limit

Weis 125 - ^3 '... 7TI...0.010

0.009 -

0.008 -

0.007 -

0.006 -

0.300 -i

0.004

0.00 --

0.002-

0

no an0200 •. -3

dd-Mmmf-,yy (1000 days per divsion)v Detection Limit

1 4-N1-,- 4

Weil 125 - SE vu. Time. -

hJCu

0.01 1

0.010 t

0.009 -0.008

0.007 -1

0.006 1

0.00,4

0.00,.,j

0.002 -

0.00102-O0a-73

C. 0

C2

0 a

9 Ol w

dd-Mm.--Yy (1000 days per dMaI.n)v Detection. Limit

14-Nmv--"4

WeII 125 - RA226 vs. Tim.. 0*t"0 /

i

5.300 "

5.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

•2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500I02-O.c-73 23-&d.1@-7g 4-ay8

Jd-nm...-yy (1000 day. per division)v Detection Limit

127 TDSS

FIGURE C-26TOM WELL NUMBER xxvili

/278-13-81WELL CMPLETION LITHOLOGY

.--- )O

x

x

x

x

F

x

xx

x

FOWLER SS

55.0

a

p

6

6

S

0

LEGENO

7T .071.5710

78.0

se

TOSS

78.0

S'S

S0

SS

a0

S6

S a

~AcIoV~oI

-:'i;'",E

' 0

SS

S

BFBACKFILL

ALLUVIAL FILL

GROUT

BENTONITE

SCREENED INTERVAL

GRAVEL

SANOSTONE6

SILTS.TONE

SHALE


EC

V..

0a-C

5.160 -

5.150

5.140 -

5.130-

5.120 -

5.1.10

5.100 -

1 2/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

Well 127 - Q% vs. 'lmq.200.QQ0

170.000

•. 150.000 --

140.000 --

130.00 --

120.000

00

0 00

0

110.000-'-02-0~a--73

50.000,

40.0004

30.000.

20.000

10.000

9.000

411.000--

80.000

819.000

88.000H

57.O300

8l. 000 -

88.000 -

84.000 --

81.000

.580.000

49.000

44.000

48.000

44.000

,4a.oaao

02--3,w--73

dd-mmm-yy (1000 ~atyu per division)V Detection Limit

1.4-Nov-4

Wa-l 127 - CL. vs. lime..

.dd-rmmm-.yy (1000 day per divisin),V Detection, Urnit

Well 127 - MoG vs. Time.

a

03 00:

03 00 0

r•0

[0

I

28-may-73

dd-fi~mm-"y (¶000 day= por division)Y Detection Limft

14-Nov-&4

WelI 127 - PHt vm. T"ml.11 -500

I

11i.000

10.500-]'10.00

' 7,000 --

Como 00

II. *t Oa30-.-7J G*

23-may-79

d4i-mfmm--YY (1000 aayu par ifM.aln)v DotectJon Limit

114--Nev-64

Wail 127 - 504 vs. 'tIme.

In

860.000 -

860.000

640.000 j-

420.000

400.000

00• €

0 00r

380.00002-

'~£

1.400

1.:co.

1.200

1.100

1.000

0.700

a.m-0

0.700

02--

-t .*lt r23--ay-79 14-Nov-,4

dd-mmm-,,y (1000 do" per dlvioion)V Detection Umft

Well 127 -- vOS s. lima.

0 3 0

00

C3 €100

0

00

[20

I:0

i i t i0

-0ý•-73 23-M o-7

9

dd-mm-yy(1000 dwym pee d1M8Ion)v Datuation LimIt

! .4--Nc•--8-k

Wqel 127 - AS vs. Time.o.0o9 .1* p

U'

.Q70.006 -

0.006

0.004 -

0.00o2

0.002-

0.001 4 - T~-~O~r~ ~TT7~7~V02-0O-a73 2.-AACdy-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 doys per division)V Det.ction L.mit

1 4 fov-64 w

Well 127 - S8f vs. Time. 0o./

en

S

0.024 ,

0.020 -1

0.016 -

0.014

0.012

0.008

.0.006

0.0040.002 - 0

00 €

0.00002-

St--32U•--Moy-79 14--Nov--64

dd-mmnrm--yy (1000 days per division)V OutUction Limit

Well 127 - RA2oS vu. Timo.

iac1.800 -

1.200

1.000

0.600 i0.400

c.-20 4-

020c?

0 0

0 00 0 0

0• r 0

0

€)0

25-hiay-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per d•lMlon)V 0.tectlon Umit

14-Nov-84

131 TDSS BACKGROUND

FIGURE C-29

TOM WELL NUMBER RM-I

8L-3 -81

LI THO LO(3GYWELL COMPLETION

x

x

Y

*.J

LEGEND

SF BACKFILL

ALLUVIAL FILL

GROUT

BENTONITE

SCREENED INTERVAL

Y

x

338.033a.5340.0345.0

GRAVEL334.0TOSS345.0

SANDSTONE

SILTSTONE.

SHALE

9


EI

Co

0

5.145

5.140

5.135

5.130

5.125

5.120

5.115

5.110

5.105

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

Wel 131 - AG vs. Time.0.100

'V 'wVVVYV

02-Dec-7325-M.ay-79

dd-mmm-yjf (1000 dacys per division)V Detection Urnit

1 4'-Nov--84

Well 131 - AS vs. Timo.0.003 1 -0.003 -

0.003-0.003 -0.003 -i

0.002

0.002

0.002 -

0.002

0.002 "0.002

0.002 H0.001 --

0.001

0.0010.001 --

0.00102- Oec-73 25-ticy-79 14-No'- 54

dd-mmrn--Yy (1000 doy. Per division)V Owtoction Limlt

Well 131 - CA vs.Tie340.000320.000-

00.000. -

280.000 -

250.000 -

240.000 -

" 220.000 -

200.000 -

180.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

0

80.000

02-Oec-.73 25-kdoy-79

dd-mmn--yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Urnit

I 4-Nov-84

200.000 -

190.000

180.000

170.000

160.000

150.000

140.000

130.000 -

120.000

110.000.

100.000

90.000 -

80.000

70.000

60.000

40.000

Well 131 - Cy- Va. lme.ý

C3

02--I

0.100

23-M.ay-79 1.4-Pov-0 4

dd-mnmm--yy (1000 dc~ per divison)V Detuation Limit

Well 131 HO14 vs. Time.

A m X 39V19q3

wE

0.00002--Dec--73

14.000

13.o000

11.000 .

10.•000-

7.000-

25-hlay-73

dd-mmm--yy (1000 days per division)V Coteatlon Lmimt

14-Nov-84

C3

6.00-

a.000

4.00002--oo-•73 20--day-/79 14--Nov-8S4

dd-mmm--yy (1000 days per dlvislon)V Deteation Umit

Well 131 - F-H .v. Thy,..

-d

0.

I

12.*'0012.400

12.300

12.200

12.100 -

12.000

11. -00

11.300

11.700

11.600

11.-00

11.400

11.300

11.200

11.100

11.000

10.900

02-0.m-73

3.1003.000 --

2.900 --

2.800 --

2.700 -1

2.500 "

2..00 -2.4-00 -2.300

2.200

2.100

2.000

1.900

1.800

1.700

1.8001 .,00-

1.4.00

1.3001.200

1.100 .02-. c-G73

0.005 -

0.004

0.004

0

I i25--May-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per diision)T Detec1tion - 2m.t

Well 131 -- RA2.25 vs. TIM*.

- rl

25-May-79 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm--y (1000 days per divieson)Y DetwatJon UmIt

0.003

0.002

0.002

0.001 -02-0.--73 2.5-&.day-

79 14--Nov-84

dd-rmmm-yy (1000 days per dMVICIOR)V Detection Umit

W.1l 131 - Pe we. "Mme.0.100

m9.

*0.000-

02,-0.a-7.3 .2S--•.a--79 14--Nov.--84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dMolon)v Detu't~lan Umlt

Well 131 - 504 vs. Time.100.000

90.000

88.000

78S.000.

70.000

8D.O000-

C3

80.000 -

02-D0.-73 25--ay-79 14-Nov-84-

dd-mmm-y.)y (1000 days per divilsin)V Detectlon Umlt

Well 131 - TO• vs. Time.2.400 •

2.300 -

2.200 -2.100 -

2.000 -1.900 -

1.7001.700

1.800

1.3001. oo1.200

1.100

1.6oo0.900

o.aoo-

0.700* 0.800

0.800 - o

0.40002-0.c-73 2.-May-79 1 4-No-8 4

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days per dilvlon)V DetecUon Umit

132 TDSS BACKGROUND

FIGURE C-30TDM WELL NUMBER

8-5-81

RM-2

WELL COMPLETION

IFx-1K

LITHOLOGY

xx

x

vI

x

xx

x

x

00

-J0

ISF

w/77XX-.

SACKFILL

ALLUVIAL FILL

GROUT

SENTONITE

SCREENED INTERVAL

GRAVEL

SANDSTONE

SILTS TONE

LEGEND

228.0228.5230.0235.0

219.0

TOSS

235.0

SHALE

0

Well 132 - Elevation vs. Time.5.086

5.085 - I

5.084 -

in

0C,

i:w

5.083 -

5.082

5.081 -

5.080 -

5.079 -12/02/73

I I"I I

05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

Well 132 - Ac vs. "me.0.100

V *WVVVYV

0.000 -

02-0o--73

0.002 -

0.002-

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.00102- 0.c-73

19.000

17.000

16.000

15.000

14.000

13.000

12.000

11.000

10.000 -

9.000 -

8.O00 -

7.000 -

6.000 t

5.000

4.000 L

02-0ec-73

25-Moay-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divIsion)V Otectlaon Limit

Well 132 - AS vs. Time.

14-Nov-34

25-May-79 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divlvson)V Dotec=Uon Umlt

Well 132 - CA vs. Time.

25-May-79 1 4-Nov-84

dd-mmm-W (1000 days p.e division)V Deteation Umit

Wail 132 - CO vs. Time.0.100

6

a.02--0--73

25-#Aay-70

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Umit

Well 132 - CL vs. 7ini..

14-Nov-84

55.000 -

50.000 -

.45.000 -

..J

40.000 -

=5.000 -

30.000

25.000 -

20.000 J_-

02-0.c-73k

25-May-79

dd-mrnmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Umit

Well 132 - CR vs. Time.

14.-Nov--84

0.100

U

*0.000 i

02-0.c-73 2Z-May-79 14-Nov-84

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detectin U.m.it

Well 132 - X4G vs. Time.6.000 --

5.000

4..00

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.500

0 C3

2.00002- -0--73 25-May-79 14-Nov--4

dd-mmmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detemtlon Umlt

Well 132 - PS vs. TIms.0.100

-E w wVVVVV

C.

0.000 102--Dic--73

10.400 -

10.200

1 0.000

9.aOO

9.800

9.400

9.200

9.000

8.800

8.600

8.400 -

8.200 -

a.000

02-Dea-7

3

23-May-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dMsion)V Detection Ljmlt


14-Nov-84

C3m0

M

M

0

0~ •00

0

I I23-M4ay-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection i.mit

14-Nov-a84

Wail 132 - R.A=G vs. TIr,..

I-

9.000 -

8.000

7.000

6.000 -

5.000 -

4.000 -

3.000

2.000

1.000

0.000 L

02-D0e-73I I

25-May-79

dd--mrm-yy (1000 days per dlvlalon)V Detection limit

Well 132 - SE vs. TIme.

14-Nov-84

L.A

0.005

0.005

0.004

0.004

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.002

0.001 -

02-Dec-7

3 2--May-79 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per. divslion)V Detectlon Limit

Well 132 - $04 vs. TIms.130.000 -

120.000 -

110.000 -

100.000 -

90.000 -

0

00 0

80.000 -

70.000

02-Dec-73 25-May-79

dd-rmmm--yy (1000 days per division)V Detection limit

14-Nov-84

Well 132 - TOS vs. Time.4450.000 -

450.000 - 3

440.000

430.000 0420.000

410.000

400.000

390.000

380.000

370.000

360.000 o360.000 r•

3.40.000330.000

320.000 "

310.000 0300.000290.000

280.000

270.000 .02-0De-73 25-May-70 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divliion)V Detection LJmlt

133, TDSS BACKGROUND

FIGURE. C- 31TDM WELL NUMBER RM-3

7-23-81WELL COMPLETION

xx

X

K

x

x

LITHOLOGY

C,0-J

02

* a

a

X

XLEGEND

AAL

- Sc

IsI

| -- - --; s•

hCKFILL

LLUVIAL FILL

ROUT

ENTONITE

REENED INTERVAL

RAVEL

kNOSTONE

LTS TONE

184.5.185.0188.0

193.0

182.0TOSS193.0

HALE

Well 133 - Elevation vs. lime.

0 "

*0

%-0

0

i:w

5.084 -

5.083 -

5.082 -

5.081 -

5.080 -

5.079

5.078 -

5.077 -

5.07612/02/73

I

ID

I I ' •|

05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

W.ll 1 3 - AG vs. Time.0.100

V wVV~VVV

21.000

O2-0D*=-73

0.100

0.000O2--Doe-

73

22.000 "

21.000

20.000

19.000

16.000

I 6.000*-

15.000

14.000

1.z.000.-

12.000 -

25-May-79

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days per dlvlulan)V Deteatotn .jmlt

Well 133 - AS vs. TIm..

14-Nov-84

25--Moy--9 14-Nov-64

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dlvislon)V Detectlon Umit

Well 133 - CA vs. TTme.

0

11.000 -

10.000

02-D.c-73I I

25--May--79

dd-mmm-y-y CIOO days per dfvlu'on)V otectlrion Umlt

I .- Nov-6.

Well 133 - CO vs. Time.0.100 0

a.

V ~ V VVV~VV0.000[02-0.=-73

25.000 -

24.000

23.000

22.000

21.000

20.000

19.000 -

18a.000

17.000

18.000 J

I a.000

2.5--May--79

dd-irmm-yy (1000 days per dlstAlon)V Detection imit

114.-NV.- 84,

Well 133 - CL. vs. TlIm.

5.

14.00002- Dsc-

73 25-May-79 14-Nov-84

dd-mrmm-yy (1000 day. per divllion)V Detection Lmit

Well 133 - CR vs. 'lime.0.100

Ul

V V, wVVV'VV

nnnn02-Dec-73 25-May-79

dd-mmm--y (1000 days per division)V Detection iUmit

14-Nov-84

Well 133 - NO Va. Timo.0.100

03

v~ -

02-0n--73 25--kay-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V , Datec.]on Lmit

14-Nov-84

0iiak

5.000

5.500

4.500

4.000 i

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

Well 133 - MO vs. TIme.

1.000o2-I£De=-73 25-May-79 14-Nov.-84

dd-mmm-W (1000 days per divislon)V .Detecton iUmit

Well 133 - Pe vs. Mime.0.100

v . v wvvvvW

n-nnn 4 1 1 102--De-73 25-May-79

dd-rnmm-yy (1000 day per dMsloan)V Deteclton imitt

14-Nov-84

Well 133 - PH vs. Time..El3)

2

0~

S

*1

9.400 --

9.300

9.200

9.100

9.000

8.300 -

8.800 -

8.700 -

8.500

8.500

8.400

8.300

8.200

8.1008.000

7.900

7.800*

7.700 -

02-Dea-73

1.600 - -

1.500

1.400 -1

1.300 "

1.200 -

1.100 -

1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600

0.00

02-Dec-73

= ~

25-May-79

dd-mmm--yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Limit

Well 133 - RA225 vs. Time.

14-Nov-84

25-May-79 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dMilon)V Detection Limit

w

0.005

0.004

0.004

0.004

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.002

0.001 '

02-Dec-73 25-May-79 14.--Nov-84

dd-mmm--yy (1000 dary. per division)V Detection Umit

Well 1.33 - 504 va. Time.

0U'

160.000

150.000

140.000

130.000

120.000

110.000

100.000

90.000

02--De-73

1.100

1.000

0.900 -

0.500

0.700C3 0.600 -

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200 t

02-De0c-73

25--ay-79 14-Nov-64

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per diviaion)V Detection Umit

Well 133 - TOS vu. Time.

I,'

0

I25-May-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Umtt

1 4.-Nov-6a4-

134 TDSS BACKGROUND

FIGURE C-3ZTOM WELL NUMBER

7-22-81

RM-4


'K

x030-J

0

0

I

xx

'K'C

I 04

IIL

a

LEGE

[SF x41

* I

I

4 a

a

a-

a

50.0

NO

BACKFILL

ALLUVIAL FILL

GROUT

BENTONITE

SCREENEO INTERVAL

GRAVEL

SANOSTONE

SI LTS TONE

SHALE

TOSS

55.0

a

S p

aa

* ~55.0 M. -777

w


5.128

5.127

01

iwi

5.126

5.125

5.124

5.123

5.122

12/02/73 05/25/79 1 11/14/84


05/07/90

Well 1.4 - AG vs. Tlme.0.100

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day. per dM•Iion)V Detection LJmlt

00 Well 14 - As va. Mme.0.100

02-Dec-73 25-May-79 14ý-Nov-6-*

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days p.r dMalon)V Detection Umit

WoU 134 - CA vs. lrme.92.000 -

61.00090.00089.000

68.000

67.000

66.000$8.000

64.000, "

83.000 -

62..000 -0 l•a2.ooo -61.00080.0003

79.000.78.000

77.000

76.4000

•78..000,,74.00073.000

72.000 Ell

02-Dec-73 25-May--79 14-,Nov--4.

dd-mmm-.yy (1000 days per dMe~aon)V Detea-ion i.mit

Wln 1134 - Co vs. nm..0.007 -~

0.006

0.004 T

0.00z

02-0.e-73

40.000

ZO.000 4

25-My-79

dd-mmm-- (1000 days per dM810,n)V DetoUtlan Umit

Well 14 - CL vs. Time.

S4,-,N~v-a4

8

25.000 -

20.000

15.000 -10.000

5.000

0.000

02-O-a-73

occocýooC 0 ý

I25-May-79

dd-mmm--yW (1000 days pOP divl.,,n)D Osteatatn Limit

Wall 134 - CR vs. Mmel.

14-Nov--4

0.100

02-O.a-73 25-May-79 14-Nov--4

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divlon)V D.tec•Pat• rLmit

WeU 134 - HG Va. TIm".0.100

(3

VVYTVY

0.000 t02-0e--73

27.000 -

26.000 -

2a.000 -

24.0 0

23.000

22.000

21.000

20.000

18.000

18.000

17.000

16.000

15.000

23ýmcvy-7U

qdd-nimm-yy (1000 days per dtvisin)V Vateatlon Limit

Well 134 - )AG v.. TIM*.

14-Nov-384

0

14.00002-

0.100

Oa7323-3k4ay-79 1.Nv8

dd-.mrmm-yy (1000 days per dMiveon)V Oat.#tion LimIt

Well 134 P9 pvs. Time.

~V 7wVVVYYU0.

_0.000

02•D-0-73 23-&4ay 79

dd-mmnm-,yy (1000 day. per divtolon)V Oetaction Limit

1 4-Nov-084

W.95 ¶34 - PH Vs. 71-0..

=a.

S

8.300 -

8.200

8.000

7.900

7.800

7.700

7.600

7.300

7.400

7.300

Coc

7.200•02•- ea? 25.-N4y--T3 14--Nov-64k

dd-mmm-y' (1000 days per dvision)V Detection irmit

Well 134 - IA224 vs. Tim..

•4.3O00-

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.5•:00-

2.000Q

1.500

1.000

0•0=

02-I.~.a-7323-M~ay-79 14-Nov-a4

dd-mrnm-yy (1000 day. per dMiviin)V Detection Lirmit

W.U 134 - SE Va. Tim..

InI

0.007 -

0.006 -

0.005 -

0.004-

0.003 -

0.002-

0.001 -~ .~. '~.

02-00a-73 23-iMay-7

0

dd-mmm--~ (lo000 days per. dmololm)V Detection Limit

14--Nov-64

~E.C0I

4870.000 7

480.000.4-.0.000

'30.000o20.000

510.000

500.000490.000

480.000

470.0004,60.000 -450.000 -

410.000.-

380.000 -300.000 -

870.000 -

0

00

C

0

0

Wall 134 - 304 V.. 7¶n.

360.00002--I

S-2

2.100

2.000

1.900

1.800

1.700

1.600

1.500

1.400

1.300

1.200

1.100

1.000

0.900

0.a50

0.700

0.600

0.00

0.400

0.300

02-

dd-mmm--yy (1000 day. per dMoIon)v Detect~on Limit

WwlI 13.4 -TUS vs. TIme.

0 O3

0Do-73

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days par dMolon)v outection Limit

14-No--84

147 TDSS

9

/ .

/ ~1~'

I,, ~

p..~,,j r-, -,

10. PUMP TEST. Was a puirto test mado? Yes. No A

It So. bV w"Om ,_ _ _, Address,__

Yield: . aIJmrn. with foot drawvown alter houtrs.

Yield*: __al.min. witl toot dnw.own alter h•rL.

11. t..LCWING WELL (Owner is rtesonsiOle tfr control of flowilng wellk.

It well yields artesian flow. yield Is - gaiJmin. suflace Pres3ute i• lbJsQ. inmc. or . feet of water.

The flow is controlled by- valve C cao C ptu C7

Oces well leak around casing? Yes ; I No I

12. LCGOF WELL; Total decth drilled _5t, (l .l.€dia .

ceatm ol oomolteed well 41' feet. Oiameter of weilL..7....7,1....... incnes.

Oegtvi to first water Dearing formation lit _ftLt

0ec•: to -rincizal Waler Dearing formation. Too ... _..1 . --. feet to Bottom . 4.1 !eet.

Grcuted Elevation. if known ,.51~...t7C-03

0

[ P'0t19 e MiguelREMARKS .IFeom "o M. iuie. lr CICmenimq. 5nutOlt. lm4tf jiC1te wlerW ... li"ltalsCO Platoatd

______1 ____ " r1wn P.cli. 5lc.t 1ealrn. 7moflQmeIiI" - locsii

5 IO I Clay - Grey I & Cased I I _

70 } 25 9 1 Aluvial- ,cht Grey 22' - 27' 8enmtnite ,Ncz & Cased I

.5 I -0 I1 Sands:one -. Tan 127' - 43' Sand Pack I Water .3' -401 38' - 43' Screv.,40 I 43 Shale - Gray IPluc ed Belci 43' I .. .._" l,__43_______ nate - ray I I I

iI I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

I I .i I .1 _____________

I __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _

__ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _

j I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I .i_ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ I __'_ _ 2 _ _ _ I _ _

I i _ _ _ _ I .. _ _ _ I _ _ _

QUALITY OF WATEA INFORMATION:

Was a cenemlcal analysis Made? Yes t I No 1X

It so. pleasq inctuce a cocy of trio analysis witn thIS lotto.

If not. do Vqu Consider tihe water as: Cooa ;. Acdeglable X Poor I I UnuS3lo* I t

I

A.


0 X0

5.137 -

5.136 -

5.135

5.134 -

5.133 -

5.132

5.131 -

5.130 -

5.129 '

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

4480.000 --

:a.ooo "

340Q.000 -- •

320.000 -•

2.80.000 -a

2.00.000 "

*1__° -

Weil 1.47 - CA v.. Time.

0l

180.00002-I ~sa7323-hUy-79 14-.Nov-84

Od-mmm"-yy (1000 days per divisin)V catuatian LUmit

Well 147 - CL. vs. limo.15.000

13.000

11.000

8

10.000 -j

8.00002-0.a73

25-May-7-

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days per divison)V cetration L.mit

14-Nov-.4

Wall 147 - MG vs. "Mma.210.000 --

200.000

190.000 -

180.000 -

170.000 -

160.000 -

150.0Q00

0

a

a

a

a

a

S4f*O.OOa

02-00a-73 25-May-79

dd--mm-nwry (1000 cay. par d•vii4on)V 4.otation Limit

1,4--Nov--.4

Wod 147 - PMH -ii Tfr•..7.300 Well0 17

-i

7.730 -

.7.700 -

7.88S0-

7.800 -

7.5a80 -

7.500

7.450

02-0.o-73

2.100

21.000

1.700 -jI.Q

1.800

1.400 -t1.300

1.200

O2-O.a-73

3.700 -

3.800 --3.800 "

3.4,00

3.ZoO3.100

23100 -

2.000

2.700

2.100

2.000

CZ-0Ow-73

I

dd-vnmm--Yy (1000 days Per division)V aetmwtlui mirnt

Wail 147 - 504 vu. T?mm.

I 4..4.4*y.~~4

I C3 0p

215-Mqy--7 14-.Nov -84.

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per davialan)V DoetoJoi ULmtt

Well 147 - 10S vu. TMme.

C2

4 - I I

23-tolay-79

dd-fmmm-Wy (1000 do"w per M4maln)V etost~ma Umet

14.-Nov.--84

Wail 147 - CO "u. Time.0.013

0.012

0.011

0.010

' ~oiooo

0.008

0.008my 100dyspediiinWei 1.47 P5v.-ie

0.100

0.004-

2-.a:-73 25--May--79 14-Nov-64

do--mmem-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Umit

Wail 147 - PS vs. Time.

220100

0..1oo

0.000-02--O.a-73 2"5-May--73l 14•-Nov--84

dd-.mm0-yy (1000 day pay division)V OatatlGon Limit

W.il 14,7 -- RA226 vs. ime..22.000 '[

21.000 "2o•000 --

13.000

18.00017.000

1 O.OO -o

14.00013.00012.000

1.0002.000 -C

1.000 -i6.000

4.-000 0

1.000 000 o

02--O.a:-73 25--Moy.--T 14-Nov--84(

dd--mmm--yy (1000 days per division)V ODtection Uimt

150 TDSS

10. PUMP TEST: Was a guma leest made7 Yes (I No /X

If so. 1y wn•om Acdres__

Yield: •;__alIJmin. wtln _ foot drawdown alter hours.

Yield, ga;Uimnn. with foot drawdOwn alter houts.

11. FLOWING WELL (Owner Is resgonsible for control of flowing will).

Il well yields artesian flow, yield Is - galimin. Surface pressure is - tJs. inCn. or - feet of water.

The flow is controlled bY. valve Ca ca0 a plug a

Ooett well leak around casing? Yes n Non-

12. LOG OF WELL Total deoln dnlled . 45 . __ feel

Oeolf of completed well 740 feel. Oamelef Of weil 7-.2 . inches.

Oeocm to first water bearing formation m.nr . feet.

Oeotn to principal water beanng formation. Too N.n,. feet to sattom feet.

GCound Elevation, it known 7(371

To I aera I lamrrn.Sliul. J Idicate wal er Indicate PvtiIotteaFeet ol1~. Teitur. Solo I a~n . eat tring Farmation C~Asn ILocatlon

30 .1 5 tGrev Silt Backfill 3-195 I_______45 1 90 lGrey Shale I________±_____90 1 100 IClayev Sand-Grey __________

100 1115 Fine Sand Grey J__________115 I140 lGrey Shale ±______140 I175 lGrey Fine Sand _________I_ ____1______

175.4200 JGrey Shale S8entonite Pluo 185-19Ia_______ _______

20 V240 lGrey Clavey Sdnd I Grayel ;ack 190-?40 1_____ 1 200-1402407 245 lGrey Slilt Shale ICuttines Backfill I_______ _______

CUALITY OF WATER INFORM.AnON:

Was a cmtemcal analysis mace? Yes I I No X

It so. ilease include a cooy ot the analysis wiln inis form.

If not. do you consider Ine uSaw as: Good f1 AC~ 12o*q 1.1 Poor ri Unusable I !

z.

/

0


4-0

0

5.125 -"

5.124 -

5.123

5.122

5.121

5.120

5.119

5.118

5.117

5.116

5.115

5.114

5.1132/012/02/73

.05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

Well 150 - CA vs. TIm.

44.000

43.000

,4.:L000 -

41.000 -

40.000 -

3.•9000.

3•8.000

37.000.

34.000

33.QCO

34.000

0.010 - -

0.007 --

0.008 --

0.00'7 j-

*23-#May-79

dd-Yimmryy (1000 4dayu per d~mls")V Detection~ Lmit

Well 150 - CO vs. TIM..

14-Nov-84

0.005 --

0.004 -

0.003 --

0.002 -

0.001 -

0.00002-

p I *1-0a-73 25-May-79 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm--y (1000 days per dvsion)V Detection ULmit

Well 150 - CL vs. TIm*.I ¶ I¶r~fl

8

10.9OO

10.800

10.700

1.0.00

10.300

10.400

10.300

10.200 --

10.100 -j

02-0.a-73 25-MAay-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day. pep divliuon)V Oeteatlon iUmit

I 4-mav~-84

Wel 13s0 - CR V.. Timflef.0.050 -

0.0,40

0.020

0.010

0.000 -

02-064-73i2•--kAalt--711 v- -

dd-mmnm-Wy (I1000 days por division)T Detection Limit

W.iI Iac - Ma vs. Tim..

aK

11.000 -

10.900

10.30010.700lO.GOQ10.400

10.500

10.200

10.200

10.100

10.000

9.7009.8009.700

9.800

9.5009.4009.1009-.200

9.100

3.00002-

*1 I I -b

--7

3 25--May--79 14--Nov--4

dd-mmm--Y (1000 days per dMalon)V Detectlon ULmit

Wall 150 - P5 vs. Time.0.0•0

0.040

0.030 -

r96

0.020 -

0.010 -

O 0000coc-0c-

7

25•-Mary-79

dd-mmm--. (1000 day. p- divlslioni)v Detection. Lmft

14-Nov-84

Well 1 30 - PM vs. Mrn..7.700

z0.

7.600

7.500 -

7.400

7.300

7.200 -

02-Owa-73 23-may-79 14-Nov-04

dd-mmrnr-yy (1000 days pe" divimlan)V O.tactlanJ Limlt

Well 150 - PA226 vs. 71mi..

i

3.000

2.800

2.500-

2.400

2.200

2-000

1.300

1.800

1.400

1.000

0.500

0.800g

0.440002 --

0.100

dd--mmn-yy (1000 days par dvislion)V Detection Limit

Well 180 - 5a Va. Tile.

IS

in

0.00002-Dac-73 25-May-79

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days per dIvislon)V Detlaetin Limit

14-Nov-84

Will 180 - 304 vs. Tlti,..310.000 I

800.000 --

290.000 --

270.000

260.000 -

230.000. j02-0.ad-73

810.000

600.000 -

890.000

880.000

70.00co

810.000

•8O.000

840.000

820.06007

810.000

800.000-

02-0.ea--73

23-May-79

~id-mmm-yy (1000 days por divilon)V catuatian Urni~t

Well 180 - TOS vs. TIM..

14-Nov--,4

23--May-79

dd-mmm--yy (10Q days per dMaflon)V oottloan ULmit

S4..-Nov•-64

151 TDSS

YY.w~ ~/ / >.- , , / ...

~., 1~*'~

10. PUMP TEST: Was a oumo lest maeo? Yes i No iX

It so. by whom __Addres

Yield: galmin. wOtMl __ loot drawdown &Ites hour s.

Yield: _galimin. with fac I|t arawdown alter hours.

11. FLOWING WELL lOwnor is resoonsaiol tar control ol flowing weill.

It well ylelda artu:.d4n Ilow, yield Is - galiJmin. Surtaca gressure is I- tJsi. Inct., or f-at *I water.

The IIow 14 controlled br. valve El Cad a DIuq 1'2

Coss well lela around casIng? Yes I t No I I

12. LOG OF WELL Total death aritled 7 C feet.

Oertgn ot completed well 225 14tL aiamtetr at Weil inCnes

CeQth to liter water beating formation None felt.

Oeoin to :rincigal water oearing formation. Tog one teel to eattomr feel.

Ground Elevation, it known 5276.

From o Mainai EMAAKSFet Pa Tog. "'"l . Coloerlmeniing. shiiuiolt. Irndicate Water indicate pertoraleoFeel Fqee I Trill. tsure. Co:lor Pacxtag. BicId Beating Farmation Casing LCa ibon

_ _ _ __5_ _ ITI _ _ _ __FilM2S 35 18rown Alluvium II

35 I ' 5 l8rcrn Sand It U ,bl. r_ n r._ _ _ ___II

S I. 80 B8rown Shale Pick or Sackfill _ _ _

8 I6 1 85 IHar Grey Sanastone Around Casino _ _._I

85 I 1.0 IGrev Shale lOue t,) .,377 _

130 I 135 IGrev Sandy Shale iHolo •anmor--A P-1

140 I 225 IGrey Clavev Sand iCasing O iarmnem - I "____ _ .4

I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I . , _ _ _ _

_ _ _ 1 .4

I _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4_ I _ _

S I I _ _ _ _ _ _ 1_ _ _ _ _ 4 _ _ _ 1_ _ _

QUALITY OF WATVq INFORMATION:

Was a cnem-cal analysis made? Yes I i No X

It so. pl5ease inct•ue a cocy of trio analysis with this form.

It not. dO you consider the water as: Coca. , Accegataoie I Poor i I Unusaole I I

0


.40

0Co

o

5.140 -

5.135 -

5. 130 -

5.125 -

5.120 -

5.115 -

5.110 -

5.105

5.100.12/02/73

I I I

05/25/79 11/14/84


I

05/07/90

Well 151 - AS vs. Time.0.100

0.000 -

02-0oe-73 25-hlay-79 1 4-Nov-84

dd-mmm--W (1000 days per dMsio,,)V Detection Urnilt

Well 131 -, CA vs. Time.55.000

34.000

51.000 -

56.000 -45.000

40.000

47.000

4,.000

44.000

43.00042.000

41.000

40.000

39.000

28.000

.37.00002-

'p i

.c - 73 25--ay-79 14-Nov-84

: dd-mmm--Iy (1000 days per dMalon)V Detection Umlt

Well 151 - CC vs. Time.0.010

.0.009 --

0.008 -

0.007 -

0.006

0.005a

0.004 1

0.003 -

0.002-

0.001-

02-cea-7323-t#ay-73

dd-mnrmm--YY (1000 days per dMulon)V Detection LimIt

14--No--4

12.000- -"

11.800

1.1.600 -

11.4.00-

11,.200-

11.000 -

10.000.-

10.600

10.4.O0

10."200

9.600

91.4400

3.200

g.3.00*

02--.a--73

0.050 -'

0.0-4-.0

0.030 -

0.020

0.010

Wel 181 - CL. v. Tlme.

25-May-73 4.-Nav.-,4

dd-mmm--yy (1ooo do". per damaon)V Detection Limlt

Well 151 - CR Va. '1Mr..

0.000 7

02-Doe-73S

24-M~ay-73P

dd-mmmrr-"y (1000 days per divisin)V Detection Umftt

14 -Nav--4

WoI 1.51 - JG Va. "1m.e0.001

a

0.001 -

0.001 -

0.001 -

0.001 -

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

n • ["• ["1 ..1

C2-Dm.-73 25-Miay--7

dd--mmm,-1y (1000 days per divsion)V Detectlon Umit

14-Nv-,64

Well 151 - MO vs. Time.13.000

a

12..000-

11.000 -

10.000

9.000

&.000

02--D0-73 2.-May-78

4d--mmm-y (1000 dwy. per dilvsion)V Detea•otn Limit

*I 4.-.ov-64

Well 151 - Pa vs. 7ime.0.0:50

0.04.0

0.030

0.020

0.010,-

m0.

0.000 tO02--0ea-73

7.800 -

7.780 -

7.760 -

7.7440 -

7.720

7.700

7.680

7.660

7.6,40

7.620

7.800

7..80

7.860

7.340

7.320

7.OO

02-0ec-73

28-M4ay-79

edd-mmm--y (1000 days per dlaion)V Detection Lmit


1 4--Nov--84

a28-May--79

dd-mmm-ryy (1000 day. per dMalon)V Detection Limit

114-NoV-84

Well 151 - RA225 vu. Time.1.300

1.200

1.100

1.000

0.900

ir

0.00 -

0-0.10 "73

0.100 -

28-mco,-79 14NV8

dd--mmm-Wk (1000 dc'u per dM.Ion)v Detection Umit

Well 131 -SE Va. TIm..

-E'a

250,000-

2,70.000

2.60.000

2.80.000

2.40.000QO

dd-tyfymm-ff (1000 days per. dMalon)v Detection. Umlt

Wall 151 - 504 vs. Time..

14-Nov-54

25-Licy-73

dd-..,vm,-yy (1000 days per dMuloe,)v Detection Limit

s00.000 --

540.000

670.000

660.000

550.000

914a.000

3a0.000

230.000

810.00a

b00.000

410.000

480.000

-47a.000

440.000

4a0.000440,0Q00, 30-ooo

02,-Deas-73

W.l1 181 - *03 we. ime,.

=

0

25-&iay-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 dayw per. dMuIon)V cakeation Lmft

14-Na--84

172 TDSS

ADIM-Il.t NOTSSTATE U. L*OMING

OFFICE OF TIHE STATE ENGINEER'WELL COMPLETION REPORTS

Exxon Minerils CompanyP.O. Box 3020Casper, Wyoming 82602

I.PermnIt

Depth toTotal StaticTownship Compl et ion .ComDletion Casinq

I1o. Well lame Location & Range Coordinates Depth Water Level Interval Type Sizeof407,534 I Perforated

E-M-5-2 Sec 214 T36of, RW X 87,816 248' 172 173'-231 ICasing 4a•B|{• E H- -2 • Sec . 21 T36 R-72W 1Y 878,816 , .' e _. f.o


Ei

CoVol

0c 0

5.102 -

5.101

5.100

5.099

5.098

5.097

5.096

5.095

5.094

5.093

.5.092 -

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

Will 172 - AS vs. "rMme.0.003 -

0.003 -~

0.002 -j0.002 -~0.002

0.o003 -0.002 -

0.002 -

0.0020.002

0.001

0.002 -i

0.002 10.0010.0010.001

Z9.000 -

0.001 4-1

02--0s=--73

8 •9.000. -

•8.000

87.000 -

88.000

58.00084.000

23.000

82.000

50.000

.4,8.000

02-Cso-73

18.000 -

17.900

17.800

17.700

17.800

17.800

17.AO.O

17.300

17.200

17.100

17.00002-Oea-73

25,--Mbay-79 14--Nov-.4.

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days per divislon)V Detecaion LJmt

Well 172 - CA vs. Tlime.

28I-MAy-79 14-Nov-84

dd-mmrn-YY (1000 days per division)V Oetection Limlt

Well 172 - CL v. lime.

25-May-79

dd-"mmrr--.y (1000 days per d•Iaion)V Deteetion UmIt

14-Nov-84.

WeU 172 - PH vs. Tima.C,7.700 -

7.880 -7.680

7.8460

7.820

7.800

7.580 --

7.5•60 --

7.5407.344

7.520 --

7.500 -7.4•0

7.440 -

7.,4-40

7,420 -1

0

7.400.02- 325-- -79 1 4-Nay--4

dd-mrnm-yy (1000 daym pw divMlon)V Outeotlan LimIt

Well 172 - RA21S VY. Tim..fl.'~6

8.800

8.400

4.800

4.400 -]

4."00 j "4.000i

00.2-002-- -wc-73 2--May-79 14--Nav--84

dd-mmm-Wy (100 day. per dMlo.n)V ceatltln Umlit

WaI 172 - SE vs. Time.-,. r•.0.001

0.001. -

0.001. -

0.001 -

- 0.001 -

, 0.001 -

0010

0.001-

0.001 -

0.001 -

0.001 -H---02-0.c-73

a25-Uay-7S

dd-mmm-yy (1000 day. per dMalan)V cate•-on Umit

S4•-Nlov--84

Well 172 3 !04 vu. "lnme.

200.000.

280.000

270.000 1280.000

280.000 102--.u--8 23-4iaW-79 14-Nov-84.

dd-inmm-yy (1000 dayu peP dMalon)V Dete•tion L'jm1t

Well 172 -- vu5 y. Time.700.000

880.000

6280.000c

580.000

8.40.000

820.000 -aa.cooo.1

480.000

480.000

800.000

440.000 -

4*0.000 --O2--Oeca78 28-Uay •~r-79 14--Ne•-84

dd-mmm-.yy (1000 qiwyu per dMaIon)v Oaetutlen LUmit

012 SEEP

WeIl 012 - CA vs. Tlim.900.000

800.000

700.000 -

600.000

400.000

300.000

2 00.000

100.000

100.000-

4-00.000

480.000

400.000 -

200.000 -

150.000 -

100.000 -

dd-mrnmm-yy (1000 days par dMislonl)V utecutlan Lmlt

Well 012 - CL vs. Tnim.

0 000 0

0 00 0

0000

0

30.000 1~

=Q. ace

200.0O0 -

260.000GQ.QC-240.000

200.000

100.000

a().Qoo

160.000

140.000

02-04M-73

25-&4ay-7

9

dd-mmm-YY (1000 days per dMolon)V o0totlana Limit

Well 012 - MG4 vs. TTi..

-14,•Nov-,,8,4

a

00

20

0

C0

00

0 00 €

€:0€= €]00 r

0:

0:

0 10

-I25-U4.y-

79

ddi-mmm~r-WI (1000 days per dM510.io)Cl0t~atI*' Liit

•14,-Nov--64d

w4011 012 - PH Va. nmye.

CL9.000 -

6.00 --

8.600

8.200

8.000

7.800

7.00 3

7-200 -j7.000

6.000 --.6.000

6.4'00 --6.200 -

8.800 -

8.800002-0.a-?3

0 0 00 C3 aa a =~ a aa a aaaa a aM a aa aa

0

a aaa: a a a•€

a a a

cld-m~nmmyy (1000 day. per divisin)7 Ooec~tfon Limit

1.4-Nvw-84

Well 012 - 504 vs. Tlime.3.200-

3.000

2;DOO

2.8002.,000

*2.400

2.200

. 2.000 a1.800 a

1.800

S1.4,00-

1.200

1.000

0.c00

02-0.--•73 23-.day-79 I 4-Nov-04

dd--mmm--yy (1000 day. per diviason)V Detection Limit

8.500

Z.000

4..00

4..000

2.80o

2.800

K1.000 -

02-Oe•-?3 2.5-U kay--7U 14-.,Nov•-684

dd--mmm-y (1000 days peoe division)V Dutaction Limit

Well 012 - AS v.. Th*'e.

:z

.0.028 --

0.026

0.0246

0.022

0.020 -

0.018 -

0.014

0.014

0.012

0.010 .0.008-

0.006

0.00.4

0.002

0.000-02-Ooc-73 23-My-7214-Nov-84

ddi-mmr"l-YY (1000 dQYS par division)7 Detection LumlI

Well 012 - CO vs. TIme.0.00a *

0.00,..

Q.OOCq--0.004, -

0.004'.-

0.00.4 -

0.00-4

0.0030.003 -

0.003.

0.0030.0010.002

0.002 "

02-"

0.100

0..--73 2.•-- oly•Ti 14ll-Nov--84

dd-#mmm-yy (10O day. per dhivison)V Detection UmIt

Well 012 - CR vs. Tilme.

aVV

4.1

0.00002-04--73 22-moy-7U

Idd-nmr.9-yy (1000 doay Per dilvlisin)V Owtootle" Umit

14-Nov -4

Won 012 - ma Va. TIm*.0.001

EC,z

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

.dd-mmmn-yy (1000 days P-W dMalon)v Detection Umit

W.U 012 - P8 vu. Time.

0..

0.100

0.000

2.5-t.4ay-79

dd-MrMM-w (10300 days pop diviion)v Detection' Lmit

1 4.-Nov--B14

Wail 012 - 3C vs. Time.0.032 -

0.030 -

0.028 -

0.026 -

0.024-

0.022 -

0.020 -

0.018 6

0.018 -

0.014

0.012

0.010

0.006

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.000

02--a.

C

00

000 0

or* T 1w v IwT v .V m 0 w V3 1

-73 23-U-y.7

dd--mwvi-Wy (1000 4w. Pe dm.l.fl)V Detection~ Lmit

1 4--Nav--. 4

Well 01 - AG VI. Time.0.100

45

A

X

0 nnncoca 7

dd-Mmm-1YY (1000 do"t p., dMaIon)v c.tectj.q Limit

14--Novn-0.4

Weil 0 12 - RA224 vs. Tim..

M

12.000 -

I1 .co (

10.000

9.000

7.000 C

IS0O

1.000

4.000

O.000 0

2.000 0

1.000

Q.Q•=0

0.00 -. J -;

0

0 c6R0 a~ CP

0jý P'=0 ~ % %c,

0

00

0

'02

0 COg C00 0C€=

-U------ - _____]

i il

dd-inmm-yy (1000 do". p... dMulen)v Cet~otlon Um"It

I14-Nov--84

013 SEEP

Well 013 - CA. ve. TIM".800.000

700.000 -

600.000 -

0. 0 2

A>400.000 -

4500.000 -

200.000 -

02-Coo-73I

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per d€lsalon)v DOstetlon ULmit

14-Nova-4

WeIl 013 - CL. vs. Ttrre.300.000

280.000

200.000 ilao.000240.000

1440.000

120.000 -

180000 -

160.000

140.000 -

80.00080.000 -1

4.k.000

aa aaaaa

a aa

=

20.ggg02--

"A

240.000

220.000

200.000

1180.000

160.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

00.000

440.000

40.000

20.000

0.00002-

e--73 :25-May-79 14-Nov-84

dd-mrMM-- (1000 day Per dMSaon)V Oetectian Umit

Well 013- MG ve. lime.

0

a

c Sa

-Ca2 "

cc 0I-- a

1 a a

-e--73 20-May-79dd-mmm-r (1000 day.m par dMalo¶)

V Coteat•on Ummt

14--Nov-84

Wea 013 - pm4V. la

-- S

8.400 -

8,.200 02

7.800

7.800

7.400 or

7.200

7.000

4.400

6.200

6.000 ]

200cc

M 0 00

0

0•D••rm 0

D0

-• rl o • 0

0

02- 0.a-73~~ E3~.ay7 I4Nv

dd-mmm-yy (loc0 day= per dMaZen)v 4AtAcilon Umn~t

W.11 013 .- 30-4 vs. TIM..2.€000

2.800 --

2.800

2.400,o

2.200 -~

2.000 C

1.800

1.600

1.400

1.2.00

1.000

0.000

0.800

0.4,00 0

2 0 0 :

00 030 C 0C

C00

02-i 25-Uay-79 14--Nav-84

dd-~mn-yy(1000 days par aMalani)v Dateauie"mi

Well 013 - TOS vs. The..JS.a•

4~i- -

.4.800 -•

4..000

8.000 -

2."00 -

2.000-

1.300 -

1.000 -

C3 0 OCI 0 0%2 0

0000 000

0 000

0 0 00

00

03 0 0

00

0

0•€

K'.Q.•Oc2 -4

Q-.a a-73295-4.iay-.79

dd-mmwm-Wy (1000 day. Par dtaI.En)v 0.tatiaao Lnmt

1A4-Nov-84

WOU 013 - AZ Va. 7ime.0.019 * --

0.017

0.014,

0.011I

0.010 -

0.009

0.008

0.007-

0.006

0.003

0.004k

0.0,3 -

0.001g

0.00102-

-p,• •. g'- --- ---r -- -F 1-"W - -'-pI.o-73 [23-vm ay-79 1.--,Nv-84,

4d~d-mrt ~ (- Co oo d,,y,, pe ,m.-,,)v Owimatlan U.mit

W.11 013 - Sa "e. Tlime.0.04.0

0.03.5

0.030

0.01.0 -

0.0018 - 00

00 C3

Vo wvvvv v v v v v Vc v vYY ~Y00.Q00

02-C0o-73 23-NMay--79

did-mmnm-Wy (1000 4day. Poe delewn)v Detection Limit

1 4-Nov-64

Well 013 - Ftok2I vs. Tlmo.6.000

8.000 -

4.000 -

0 aM a

a 0

0

2.000 -

1.000 -

0

aO Qcc

FE I

a

000 a

0 Vaa 0

0% S

0

0a aa

aa

0

0 5 O00 a

0 00C?

a c

Ca a0s

0.000 .

*02100.-73 2.8-. May..-7,

dd-mmn-,w (1000 day. Pert dMol3.)V C.teatl*" Urmit

1 4-N.-N-64.

014 SEEP

W-1 01,4 - CA "v. 7lm.g90.o00

700.000 --

4100.*000

600.000

300.000 -400.000 -

300.000 -jooQ.oao --

C30

100.000 -¶

0.000

02-D0a-73

[2

C3 C

C0

dd-mmm-y (1000 dwoy. per dMuaon)V Detmactlan Limit

14-Nov--4

350.000 -

.00.000 -200.000

15.0000

0.000

O2-04be-73

W.il 014 - CL v.. Tim..

*- C•

C2 •

ddW-mmm-yy (1000 days per dly. ia)V Oetotelon Limit

1 4--N,,.--a4

320.000

300.000 -

28d.000

260.000 -240.000 --

22.0:000

200.000 --

18O.000

160.000 -

120.000

100.000

110.000 -60.000 -40.00.0 CC0

20.000 -0.0,00 -I----

O2-0.a-73

Well 014 - MGvs. Tim..

C2

C C

C -[ C[0CC mC3 a2 S

'N .~..- -

25-May-79

dd-mmm--W (1000 day per dMalIon)V o0tactlan Limit

I 4-Now-64

8.600

111.000

7.800

7.600

7.400

7.200

7.000

4.300

6.800

6.400

14-No.- 64

dd--imm-yy (1000 do" per divslan)V Datmdofn Limit

Well 014 - 504i vu. Time.

-- S

- -2

2.000'2.aO0

2.600 -

2.400 -•

2•.200

2.000 -

1.300

1.400

1.200 j1.000

0.800

0.800

0.400 ~0.200

0.00002-- 25.-h4

0•My--.7g 14--Novr-84

dd-mmm"-w (1000 do". per dtalon)V owDetoasn Umit

Wel 014 - T= vs. Time.5.000

d~l

A]

7.000 -

8.000

• .00 --

2.000 -

1.000-

00 0r.

-L02coc7a I

2-25-M 4 7

dd-mmm-If (1000 day per divislon)V O•e•etlon Lmit

114--Nov--64

WU 014 - AS vs. Time.

0.010

0.016

0.017

0.012

0.0150.014,

0.0130.012 .

0.011

0.006 -

0.005

0.004 -

0,003 -

0.002-

0.001 - W VV 0V

0.00002-- --7;3 :25-b.4ay-7, 14-Nov--4

dd-mmm--yy (1000 days per dMaiion)V Datectlan Uait

Well 014 - SE Vs. 1lme.

0.080

0.070

0,060 -

0.0•00

0 .0I4. --

0.0Q30 --

0.020 --

0.0 10 --CIO

0.000-

02--Osca-73

0 C

3EF" * 000 Cocaa ~w25-day-7

I114-Noy-1154

dd--nmm-yy (1000 days per dtsaicn)V Detection Urnit

Well 014 - PA=26 vs. Tflins.

8.000

8.000

7.000

6.00 -

4.000 --

2.000 -

2.000 -

0

C3 0 c 0 0

0 cc 0F 0 0

CM 0 13 C 00. 0C 0 0, a0 0

0b 0 0" 0 0 a00M A

9w; ..

1.000 --

0.000 1

02--Osa -73 25-kioay-79

d9d--mmm--W (10C00 daysa per dtvision)V Owtootlan LUmIt

14-Nav-845-

0

111 SOSS

i/1/

FIGURE G-20TDM WELL NUMBER, V1 REPLACEMENT

8-10-81WELL CO#MPLETION LITHOLOGY

20 *

40.0

33.033.5

35.0

LEGEND

- IF BACKFILL

F " ALLUVIAL F

[ ,x I GROUT

SBENTONITE

SCREENED I

GRAVEL

'.-::I SANDSTONE

- " SILTSTONE

- SHALE

ILL

NTERVAL

40.0

0l

(-I 0


5.103 -

4-0

0)

5.102 -

5.101 -

5.100 -

5.099 -

5.098 1

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/,84


05/07/90

Well 111 - CA "e. T'MO.1.000

0s30

0.500

0.1400 .. ,

02-0.a-73 23-M~ay-7

9

dd-mmpm-yy (1000 daye per dMalon)v Datectlon Lrnit

14-Nmv-84

W.11 111 - CL vs. Tfmm.

2

d

a

2130.000

280.000

240.000

220.000

2C0.000 -

1130.000

140.000

1403.000]

120.000 -

1420.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000 -

02-0sa-73

270.000 -

280.000 -

250.000 -j240.000

=10.000

220.000

210.000

200.000 -190.000

1450.000.-

170.000 .160.000

150.000

140.000

130.000

120.000 -

.02-0.a-73

C C C3l aa=

2Z--May-79 14-Nov-84

dd-mmmr"- (1000 days per dMal.n)V gotuation umit

Well 111 -I MG . Time.

g0

aa

a a aa ~a

aa

a

I a2.5--May--.3'

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days paw dmvilon)V Deteotlon Limft

1 4.-Nov--84.

well I I1 - PH4 Val. Time.

71.900 "

L7.00000

6.300

2.°40 0

2J.2,'002-100 -2.0001

1.4901.5001.400

12.20021500

1.1001.700

0.700

1.500

0.700O -40.800

0-200

02-Dea.-73

a.000 --

4.0002.500

2.000

11.300

1.000

0.500 -

02-Oac-73

23-kMay-70

d4-mmnm-WY 01000 d9ay. per dMalon)7 gateatUau Limit

WollI I11 - 30-4 vs. Time.

14--Nv-64

4Md-mmm-Wy (1000 dwa. per~ 4.IarIo)

V Detection Limit

Well 111 - ~TOS v.. Time..

1.4--No--84

SK- ,dd-mmm--YY (1000 days per dMiden)

V Datuation Limit

0.160 -

0.150 -0.14.Q

0.1,30

0.120

0.110

0.100

0.090

0.080

0.070

0.060

0.050

0.040

a.030

0.Q20

0.010

02--Oec-73

0.190

0.180

0.170

0.160

0.150

0.140

0,130

0.120

0.110

0.100

0.090

0.070 -0.050

0.040o.aoo0.030 -

0.020

0.010

0.000 --

WU 111 - AZ vs. lime.

S- Cho nW -- -

25-May-73

da-mmm--y (1000 days Per dMulen). tieoton ULmit

41 4.No"--a.*,

U..

23k-ay-79

dd-mmm.- (1000 day. pop dt'so)V Datleain Lmit

14-Nov-84

Well 111 - AG vw. Tlme.0.100 -7

0.000

02-O-tc-73 25--day-75

dd-mnmm-yy (1600 day. per dVAulorm)v O~teation Limit

14-Nov--4

wOU I SII - FA226 'E. Tlvý..4.000

3.500 -

M.ooa -

2.,500

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000 -

O2-0.u-73

g

0

0 00

00

0 0 00

00 00 00

0

26-14my-79

dd-nmmn-" Ci1000 days pee dmule.,)v D.e~toian Um~t

14-Nov-0.4

9••"

0

116 5OSS

FIGURE C-14

TOM WELL NUMBER

10-29-80

XTI'

WELL COMPLETION

2. ý

LITHOLOGY

BF

140.0

171.5172.0r77.0

207.0

220.0

x 3e

S9.0

144.0

175.0

208.5

220.0

00-L

0z

* *a

I a

*

b

da

aa

aa

ea

Ua

*

aa

LEGE;

F8FI

NO

BACKFILL

ALLUVIAL FILL

GROUT

TOSS

x -

a8 o oa

BF

- -- So5~. 7-

BENTONITE

50

r 7Z

SCREENED INTERVAL

GRAVEL

SANDSTONE

SILTSTONE

SHALE

.


.ii

vc40

c010Co

w -

5.110 -

5.105 -

5.100 -

5.095 -

5.090 -

5.085 -

5.080 -

5.075 -

5.070 -

5.065.12/02/73

5.065 -II

05/25/79 11./14/84


05/07/90

Well 116 - CA vs. TiM..68.000

P't

88.000

82.000

60.000

88.000

88.O000

84.00082.000 -t

4.000

02-004-73

3-0.000

300.000

280.000

260.000

240.000

220.000

200.000

180.000

180.000

140.000

120.000

100.00C

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

a

a aa

a

dci-mmm-yy (1000 Agayu par division)V Deteuatio Lmit

14-Nov-84

Well 116 - CL vs. Tlim.

ia

a

0.000

02-

20.000

19.000

18.000

17.000

18.000

18.000

14.000

13.000

12.000

11.000

10.000

3.000

11.000

7.000

a=-*

0OQ-73 Zm-.4oy-79 14-NOV-84

dd-mmr'"-yy (1000 slays per~ divulan)V Oteotion Limit

Well I1 I- MIS vs. TIM..

Q a

-00o-73 2.5 -- 4,day-73l

sfe...mrm-yy (1000 days par delmaon)V Oste•tian mrit

14-Nov-m84

0 MO

SS00 --

9.000

6.800

8.400 0

4.100

Z.000

2.800 0C3

7.$.800 0 0a

0

1.4-00

1.000

.6800

6.400

0.200 C=CCOM p=CCC

$.3.00

0.000 1

02-0e--73 2.-olay-79 14-Nav-11114

dd-mmm-y-yy (1000 days per dMalon)V Deteatjen Umit

Well 118 - 04S Vu. TIms.

4.000

2.800 0•

2.800 -

2..4.00-

2.000

1,800 -

1.4.00-

1.000

0.800

0.800

0.400

0.O c0 0 3 P " P 0 0 0 0 0

"2-c.a-73 2,--ay- 79 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm.-1 (100 day. per €dM.Iade)V Detaatl on LUmft

Well 118 -- TO:S vus. Time.

4.000 -

002-00 -72.5--day-- 7 30 4.-o -- .

dd I-mm -.y (1000 day= per dMaIon)T Datmation Umit

Well 1 16 - AS va. Tim..0.007

0.00 -

0.006 -

0.004 --

0.003 -

0.002 -

0.001 - w w V VwV 7 TV Vw, V V= T

0.000

02--O--325--May-79~ 14--NOV-84.

d4d-mrmm-yy (1000 days per divison)V Detetion Limit

Well 11 - SE vs. Tim•.

NaW

0.007

0.006

0.0045

0.004

0.003

0.002 -

0.001 - 4P W W ,V ~ V

02-

9;000

9.000

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

0.00002--

i 1l.--73 25-May-7- 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V ODtection Limit

Well I 11 -A228 vs. Time.

0

a 1

OQ.-73 2 --May-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days por dMelon)V ODtectlon Limit

14-Nov-•4

128 5OSS

0

FIGURE C-27

TOM WELL NUMBER

8-12-81

XXiX

WELL CMPLETION

[7-]7LITHOLOGY

F

x

x

"C

x

K

x

x

x

ALLUVIUM

30.0

FOWLER SS

55.0

TOSS

99.0

TO SHALE

131.0

5OSS

.145.0

4 S

* S IS

I

* 44

I *

S &

|

i

5 4

* S

* 44

I

* S

I* 9 0

LEGEND

x

SF-F

BACKFILL

ALLUVIAL FILL

GROUT

BENTONITE

SCREENED INTERVAL

GRAVEL

SANOSTONE

SILTSTONE

--. 50'7 0,'

139.5140.0145.0

SHALE


.0

0 c0-@

Co

5.160 -

5.150

5.140

5.130

5.120

5.110

5.100

5.090

5.080

5.070

5.060

5.050

5.040

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

A

320.000 -

300.000

280.000

250.000

240.000

=20.0.00

200.000

Il60.000

140.000O

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

120.000

00

0

wq41 11=a - C^ vs. T~lme.

0.000ý 02-

414-Mmimmyy (1000 days, per. division)V Detection Limit

Well 123 vsC y. Tim..

800.000 -

200.000

100.000-0 oi

0.000020.0a073

2"-may-79

dd-rmrnm-yy (1000 days per. dMivlSon)V Detection Umit

14 -Nov-84

Well 121 - JAC vs. Time.

80.000~

a aoo

10.000 --

€3 • C3 0

02 •C

O.000 .402. ea-

73

2 c-May-7

9

dd--mm-.-y (1000 days per division)

V 0etectiln UIwit

14-Nov-a4

WOU 126 - PH vs, Time.

I.

12.Zcc

12.000

11.500

11.000

8.000 ~102-000-73 23-Mkay-79 1 4-Nov--4

dd-mm,--yy (1000 days per' divla|n)V Oetection Limit

Well 125 - 504 vy. Tim*.600.000 --

800.000-

`400.000

A9 0.O

200.000 -4

100.000 -

0000 ~00

O.GO0 .4o2-c.aa

73

25-may-791

dd-rnmm-yy (1000 days per' divisin)Detectioan Limit

14-Nov-84

Well 120 - 705 vs. Time.3.200 -

3.000

2.500O

2.600

2.400

2.200 -

1.00-

1.600

1.200

1.000

0.000

0.400

0.200'. 132-0.C-73

03

C9

C= c c c

235-ay-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per diavisio)V Detectlon Umilt

1,4-NQv'--84

Well 12a - AS V .. mw.0.012 -a

S. 0.011

0.010

0.005

0.00-

0.007

0.003

0.004

0.003

a.002

0.001- J ' • -:.T 1TTTT.---u•

02-.oa73 25--ay-7- 14-Nov--4

dd--mr".-yY (1000 dwyv per all'lon)V Detetion .rmit

Well 12 -S E vs. Time.0.020

0.019

0.0180.017

0.01 a

0.014

0.01.3

0.012

0.0110.010

cA

fl 0.00a0.008

0.00 .0.00--

8.000* --

0.0003 -

0.002 -

0 .0010VO MG ~M.P

02-Oa-0*-3 25-May--T 14--Nov*-84

dd-tmr"-W• (1000 day per, diMalon)oatoctjon Umit

Well 128 -- A22 vsi. Tlmo.

7.000

6.000-

4.000 0

3.000

2.000

1.000 0

0.000-0a2-0.a-73 a25-ay- 7

9 14-, , 4

dd-mmm--Yy (1000 days per clwl.lon)• •v Oateatlon Un•tt

129 5OSS

FIGURE C-28

TOM WELL NUMBER

8-20-81

xxx

WELL C:)MPLETION

F7LITHOLOGY

A,

x

92.0

TDSS

143.0

T5 SHALE

173.0

aoSs

193.0

F

44

S

0U

S

* I

0

S &

4

* a

* 4

S

a

a

LEGENO

SF B BACKFILL

F I ALLUVIAL FILL

x' x " GROUT

SBENTONITE

SCREENED INTERVAL

Ff 7-o' GRAVEL

iiiii :. SANOSTONE

-SILTSTONE

SHALE

186.0186.5i8&O193.0

9

@7


~4- 0

0)

5.089 -

5.088 '

5.087 -

5.086 -

5.085 -

5.084 -

5.083 -

5.082 -

5.081 -

5.080 -

5.079 -

5.078 -

5.077 -

5.076 -

5.075 -

5.074 -

5.073 -

5.072

5.071

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

Weal 12o - CA vs. T"ime.

•E200.000 --

100.000 --

50O.000

0

0

000 0

00

000

0

0.000 i1O0-Oeo--73

140.000 - -

130.000 -

120.000

110.000

100.000

90.000

80.000

70.000

60.000

80.000

02-0.Gq-73

I I23-koay-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 dayu per dtvlaion)V Detention Umit

W.ll 129 - CL vs. Tim*.

I I14--Narv-84

2,5-May-7

9 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-YY (1000 days per divlison)V cotection Limit

Well 129 - mo vs. Time.

0

130.000 --

120.000

110.000

100.000

90.000

110.000

70.000

60.000

.80.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0.000 -

02-Ou-73

0

0 00

25--Uwy--79

dd-mm-nyy (1000 days por divl.oi)V Deotetion Lmit

14-..-o4v--8.4

Wel 129 - PH vs. Tlime.12.000

-

a

11.000

17.000

9.000

8.000

7.000

02-0o-q73

1.100 -

1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.100

0.500

0.4400

0.300

0.200

0.100 T02-Oeo--73

2.300 -2.2002.100

2.0001.9001.8001.7001.8001.500

*1.3001 o.2001.100-

-1.000

0.900-0.50011-0.700

0.300

0.4000.3000.2000.100

02-0oe-73

dti-mrmm-yy (1000 days per deivson)~V Detection Limit

1 4-Nov--4

did-mmmr-yy (1000 days per dMalon)V Detection Limit

Wall 129 - TO3 Va. Time.

cc

0

CP

03

25-Nay-7l

dd-emmmn--y (1000 day. per dM•lon)V Detection Limit

14-Nov-84

0.004

•0.004

0.002

0.002

Well 129 - AS vy. TIMM.

0.00102-

Od-mrnmmmyy (1000 day* per d~vflon)S octeation Umit

Well 129 - SE vs. TIms.

0,004

0.00,3

0.002-

0.001 -

0.0000z--Oau-73

4,000 -

3.300

3.000

2.000

1.500

i.000

0.300-02--Oea--73

wo V Vc3VV VwVV V VVVVVVVVVV

i i

25-May-79

4dd-mmmn-" (1000 days per dMalen)V Oetactlon Umit

Wall 129 - RA•'26 yv. MTme.

I14--Nova4

0

I

25-day-7 14-Nov-04

dal-mrwn.--y (1000 day. per dMalon)V otwatlon Umit

148 5OSS

~.A2 / (. 7 /

10. PUMP TMSr Was a pump test mau'? Yes. No X.

It so. by wnom Address

Yiel. _ Qallrtmn. with _ faot drawaown after __ hours.

Yield: _ _galimin. wtl __ .. toot arawidown after __ hours.

11. FLOWING WELL (Owner is resoOnsiljle for ontrol oa flowing well).

It well yields artesian H1ow. yield iS - gal2min. Surface ptessute is - lb /Sq. inch. or feeat o wa:af.

the flow is controlled by* valve CQ cap 0 glug 1`

Coes wel leask around casing? Yes No j

12. LCG OF WS-L'" Total death rilled ...._,..XL!.."Lftet.

Ce an of completed well Nat. eet Oiameter of weail 7/a_.Zinc... es....noees

Cedtn to first water tearing formation ._7.. 7 feet.

Cectn to orinci:al water tearing oreatlion. Tp .In feet to Bottom fd te-aL

Grounc Elevatlon, it known .

II !,i IK IF'i.+ rtO " ,aef-al (Cat'eniong. S.luiol,. tliicafl W"i., Inidicate P-rloraieaFi•,l five Tyogi. Tiiit4. Ctlw ' Pacx.nq. CIC.l S1eaiing Formation CASIn Location

,___ m I•'4, I.+ F ,.I .. r 'n I C"r..s.• & ¢Cs.d O -+

5 I 10 ISi1: Sands•:ce - Fine I I10 I 15 ISic: Sanas.cne - tnaciJn ringn

1r 3 ISilz Sands,,cne Shale Finnes _

25. 1 30 ISit Sanast.,ne Shale Finger; den-Mani =Ze tuq Las _______ _____

30 I 35 ISil: Sanastone I Sand Pack & SC..EW 30'I- 30-45' IScreen 30.'-'0'

35 I 0 ISandstone - Coarse I u _#_ I4L 4 j~dnCS::nre - L.carse Ioafltoflla zai-zen yC

ec I t Ic l IZM(q-tc - C!Me I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

5-1 55 ISancszone - Medium Fine II I

j1 60 ISands:one - Very Coarse IICA I ig; . ra- l Y.1oJ__________ __ _____

65 I 70 ISands::ne Coarse - _r._v / I I

__ _I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _

t I__ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _1 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _I_ _ _ _ _ _ _

i.t_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I __ _ _ __ _ _ _ j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I I _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _

__ _ _I -t__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ I __ _ _ _ _ _I_ _ _ _ _ _ _

I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I

OUALIrY OF WArTE INFORMArION:

WVasa chemical analysis maria? Yes; No X

It 50. :lease inO.uCe a Copy of tie analysis with tis farm.

It not. do you consider the water as: Goosd:: AcceptaOle X: Poor IV -

S


4ý-a

.40

0 -

wi

5.095 -

5.095 -

5.094 -

5.094 -

5.093 -

5.093

5.092 -

5.092 -

5.091 ,

12/02/73

I- I

05/25/79 .11/14/84


05/07/90

We" 148 - C^ ". 'lme.32.0.000310.000

600.000

2ao coo

420.000

450.000

420.000

240.000

430.000

410.000

400.000

d 90.000

'50.000 --

370.000

I.60.000 -370.000 !

140.0002.80.000

240.a000

22•0000I-'210]000 -

d . .-=a

170.000

1-80,000 --

180.000 --

140.000 j1203.000 -j110.000

02--0.,c-73

0

0

25--ay--73 14-Nov-64

dd-rmmm-yy (1000 days per dMaqon)v Dtection UmLit

Woel 148 - CL v1. 7me.

0 2

a

25-May-7. 14,--Nov-54

dd-mmm--y (1000 days per dMiion)W ot.•Ua-- Limi t

Well 14a - LIZ vs. Time...2O.000

12.000 -

16.000 --

17.000 --

16,000

A ~s.ooo -

a

14.000 -

13.000 -

12.0001

11.000

10.000 402-0.c-73

I I"•..•May-.-711

I1.4--Nov-"64

dd-mmm.--y (1000 days per dMaIon)v Detction.Li mit

WoU 1.4a - PH vs. 'lme.

I

12..30O - -

12.400 -

12.200 -

12.100-

12.000

.11 .900

11.800 -

01 27gg02-i

I I I , 3Osa--?3 30•-Mkay--79 14,-,.No=-64

dd--mmm--Yy (1000 dwy. pse daslan)V Oeteation Umlt

Well 148 - 304 v1. Time.1.000

0900 -7

0.000 -

0.800 -

0.400 -t

0.~0e .~-

02-0.a-7~

2.200 -

2.100 -j2.000 -~

23-May-79

Cd--mrm--y (1000 days per dMsalon)V 0.tsstlon Limit

Well 14a - TOS vs. tma.

14*S-Nov--64

1.900

1.800

1.700

1.800 -

1.500

0"2-0.0-73

0

did-mmmt-W (1000 days per dMvfian)V Dat~atlen Limit

14-Nov--84

Wudl 144 - AS vs. lime.0.100

• n .........0.000 .02--06-73 23-Iday-78

dd--mmsn-Yy (1000 da, p.er dMaIon)v Deteuatn Umnit

1.4--Nov,-64t

ww-i. t4a - sa vs. ilme..

_EwIin

0.002 -

0.002

0.002

0.002 -

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001-

0.00102-I

d~-mm-.C,'(100 day. P- dM*l0n)v De~tuotin Umftt

Well 14a - AG vs. Tlime.0.100

aE

* 3w

- ~~0.000 -i--

dd-.,pmm-W (1000O day. pw. dMulao)v DetmaOtln Ujmit

14-NM-064

Z.800 -

3.600-

3.400

3.200

3.000-

2.800-

2.60 --

2.200 -

2-20002.GOO -

1.400-

1.200

1.000

0.800

0.60002--0..e-73

Wuil 148 - ftA226 V.. lime.

0

00

0

00 0

0 0

0

Wd-emwm-Wy (1000 deym per dt*Iasn)v awksamtln Lln~t

14-1dow 64

(lie

152 5OSS

to. PUMP TEST: Was a oumo telst made? Yes X: No f1

If so. by wnom .•d.-n.Ci,•,•,'•.g e . .. 60..

Yield: 0.7 sallin,. wir _ 10._. 8 foolt dravweola after O.ZZ hours.

Yield: _______al~mrni. with -_____ facl drawdown after hours. CA 0 / ri#X

11. FLOWING WEL.L (Owner Is resoonsible fo( Control 09 flowing well).

If well yields artesian flow, yield is . galJmin. Surface gressure is - Ibiza. inch. or - feet of water.

The flow is controlled b4Y valve C2 Ca C plug 173

Does well leax around casing? Yes I I No I I

12. LOG O• WELL: Total deotn drilled . . feet.

Death of comoleted well tfeet Diameter at well 7-7__" inches.

.actr I0 first walter earing formation 160 feeL.

Deotr to gnnclgal water tearinq formation. Too 160 feet to Bottom 235 feet.

Ground Elevation. it known 2

/

REMAAKSFlam Tat Iai',e SA li IIF •effienml? . Sutof. lic¢hjr. W le'' lnOf¢a$e inrtOr'aleeFli Feet TFee. tur'. Color P3cmI'j. etc.l Rn; rff'auon Casing L.CclOn

0 J 70 18rown Sand - Cement 0-3 1 _

70 I 80 IBrwn Shaie__ i IO I 100 lGrey Shale _ I _

100 I 105 IHarc. "7rey Sandstone - I _]US i 120 IGrey Shale I Backfill Cuttinas 3-180 I120 I 1.0 IGre'v Sandy Shale 1 I I140 1 160 IGrey Silty Shale I Bentonite Plub 180-1851 I180 1 2?i IGrev Cleavav Sad IGravel 185-725 I 19_-71;

• I• IZ , _________________________v ________af______ ,!.___________ .1".II OFI WATER INFORMATION

Its.oes nld oyo t ri a ly is w thsfom

I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ U

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _I I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I_ _ _ _

S I ,__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

__ _ __ _I__ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _

O•UAUKf(1= FWAT•. INFO•RMATION: .. ________

W=as a1 chemical analyses made' Yes X• No I ",

If $0. Olease intclude a cooy of tree analtyses with this form.II not. do you consider tile water as: Good '• Acceolalle I I Poor I I Unus=1ale !:


~4-

0

5.115 -

5.114 -

5.113

5.112

5.111

5.110

5.109

5.108

5.107

5.106

5.105

5.104

5.103

5.102

5.101

5.100

5.099

5.098

5.097

5.096

5.0.95 -

12/02/73 05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

210,000 --

100.000

110.000

120.000

110.000

100.000130.000--

110.O000-

11•0.000

100.000

02--0s=-7

3

Wall 152 - CA vs. Time.

a

26-May--79

dd4-,,ifliy (1000c days par dalnon)V 0.tateco,, Limit

14-NOV--&4

Well 132 - CL. vs. Time.

d

A2.000 -

.41.000 -i

.40.000 -Z9.000 Al8.000 -

27.000 j06.000

35.000

34.000

23.000

32.00O

31.000

Z0.000

9.000

218.000

27.000

26.000

2Z.000

0

24.000

02-I 25-May-79 14-Nov-a4

dd--mmm-yy (1000 days per divllon)V 0•.•tua'n Limlt

Well 152 - MG ve. Time.00.000

0

70.000

40.000 -

A50.000 -

30.000 -

10.000 -

10.000 -

a:

I•IEIJ•Saa C00- i

dd-mmm-W (1000O days pow divsionI)V 0.toald.o Limit

14-Nov--4

Wall 152 - PIs WE. Tlime.

I

A

7.900 -

7.1200

7.700

7.800

7.500

7.400

7.300

02--I I I t

Dq.--73 2l --. day-70

14-INov--4

dd-mmm-" (1000 da/y per dMalan)V Dwt.•an ijmlt

WeIl 152 - 504 vs. TIMe.800.000

5"0.000

500.000

400.000

350.000

300.000

.230.000

200.000

04-0..-7O

1.300 -

1.200

1O.o0

0.300

0.700

0.800

02--0--73

A

25-May-70

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dMalon)V toeatlan L•mft

Well 152 - TO7 vs. Time.

14--Nov--84

A:

25-May-711 14No,-84

dd-fYmmm-If (1000 dway Per dMalae)T cotoeat.n LUmft

Well 152 - SC vu. Time.0.008

0.007 -

0.006 -

0.005S

w rn 0.004 -

0.003 -

0.002.

0.001 -

02-.iae•-7,325-4.ialt-7S 44e-6

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days pe divisuio)v Detection Limit

Well 152 - RtA226 vu. TIme.

I

3.20O -

2.800 -

2.4.00 -

2.200 -

2.000 -

I.800 -

1.C00 --

1.400 -

1.200 -

1.000

0.800

0.60002-•oe-73

C3

dd-mmm.-W (1000 day. per division)v Detection Limit

14-Nov-684,

tie

171 BACKFILL

T~ 01-1] ) i/ / ii;- /',' / /ui~

10. PUMP TEST: Was a2 um0otest Made? Yes n No X/

if so. by~wnom Address

Yield: ualJmln. with froot drawdown altey _ hours.

Yield: gallJmln. withy faoa drawdown after - hows.

11. FLCWING WELL (Owner is responsilae tor control of flowing welil.

Itf well yields artesian flow, yield is - gaIJmin. Sutface Pressure is - IbJsq. incn. or - feel of water.

The flow is controlled yr. valve 0 cao Cl plug C

Caes well teak around casing? Yes C Non

J2. LOG OF WELL: Total dtoln dulled . . . feel.

C*eotn la completed well 25- feet. Oiameter af welt 7 7/8" inches.:

COcor, to first water 4earing formation 247 feet.

oegtn to Princioal wter beanng formation. Tog 247 faet to Bottom 2S feet.

GrOund .Vevation. if known SUz0.M' ASL ( Collar 5Z04')

FrmA N To (C #-0 . qa ,nit ncCaewae Iniae efo tc

0 1250 I11ine P!i, 3ackfi11 Steel Sur-Oace 247'-2521

_____ _________________ Casino 01-31 r _______ Well Scr-aI I Mixec I I1I IahIles and Sandscones Iv V r 44V _________

JGravel Pack_ _ _I _ _ __ _ _

_______ I I I ~~entonite Pluc ______

-I jCement________________________ I0,-la __________

QUALI'Y OF WATER INFORMATIOW'

Was a cftemical analysis made? Yes 1` No IX

If 340. ;leas* include a aovy of vW Analysis wilt Iflis form.

If not., do you cons•der tne watr as: Good n Accegtsole A Poar C Unusa0t1e fl


B'

0x00D

w~

5.053 -

5.052 -

5.051 -

5.050 -

5.049 -

5.048 -

5.047 -

5.046 -

5.045 -

5.044 .

5.043 -

5.042 -

5.041 -

5.040 -

5.039 -

5.038 -

5.037 - ..112/02/73 05/25/79 11,/14/84


05/07/90

Well 171 - A3 ye. Tim..0.002

0.002 -

0.002: -

0.002 -

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.0010.001

O2--0ea-7325.-kay-70

dd-mrnm-yy (1000 days per~ divison)V Detection Limit

14-Nov-84

Well 171 - CA vs. Time.53.000 -

94.000 -!

9Q.00090.000 -

91.000

90.00089.000

87.000

86.000

183.000

84.000

83.000

82.000

02-0D.4-7 3

25-May-79 14-Nov-854

idd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Limit

Well 171 - CL. vs. 7ime..33.000 -

32.000

31.000

30.000

28.000

27.000

26.000

25.000

24.000

23.000,-

22.000

21.000

20.000

19.0001.000

17.000

11.000 -

1 .000

02-Oec-7

3I

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V Detection Umilt

14--Nov--04

Well 171 - Pt4 Va. inm..7.800

IA.

7.750

7.700

7.680

7.600

7.a50 -

7.500

7.4450 -

7.400 -02-0.o-73 25-auy -73 14-Nov-a4

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per dMamon)v Dtcatlon Limit

Well 171 - RA226 vs. Time..

7.000 H5.000 -

4.000

3.000 -

2.000 -

00

0I .QQ -4

02-0a--73

dd-mmm-y (1000 days per division)V DOtectlon LJmlt

14-Nov-84.

Well 171 -- 5 vs. Time.

F'El

0.002 --

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.001

02-eoa-73

- .nI-I

25--May-73

dd-mmm--Wy (1000 days per divison)V Detaction Lim•t

14 ?-ov-84

Well 171 - $04 ". TIm..

0IA

4,40.000 - -

4,30.000 -

42.0.000

4.10.000

4*00.000

:590.Q00

580.Q000

570Q.000

360.000

03-- Da7 25-Miay--79 1 ,-Nv-8,4,

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per division)V otw=ton Urmit

Well 171 - 7OS vs. Time.1 .000

0.930 --

0.900 --

0..•0 -

0.800 -

w.

IA0.750 --

0.700 -

0.85002-Dea-73 25-M-y-79

dd-mmm--yy (loco days per divislon)V Cotlection Umit

14.,-Nov-14.

170 BACKFILL

10. -PUMP TEST. Was a ,urno lest made? Yes ;q No (I

If So. by whom Address

Ylet_: CaiJmtn. with toot drawdown alter h lours.

Yield: - galimin. with __ foot drawdown alter __ hours.

11. FLOWING WELL. (Owner is resgonsible for control of flowing well).

It well yields Artesian flow. yield is galjmin. Surface Pressure Is 1bJsq. inCh. or feet of water.

The flow Is Controlled by. vale 0 cab 0 plug (3

Coes well leak around casing? Yes Q No fl

12. LCG OF WSLL- Total death drill•d 0-C0 feet.

Depth of comaleted %waell ISO . feet. Oiameter of wellt 7 7

/8

.1 Inches.

Deat to first water beatinng ormation 1j8 j Feel.

0eorn to orincical water bearing formation. T*oo 1•8.. feet to Bottom 1SO fees.5126.06 ASL (Collar 5120')

Ground ElevatIon. It Icriown __________

/*.

From To alria (Citmeriinq. Snuioit Iendicate Wate Indicate PertorazedFeet FttTye :,aue Color I3~g iteaing Forma"'o Cas31IngLclo

19 mim oi!. R.trI Steel Sur aca 168-IEQ 140-180_______- "ave l v -1s ~ .. 4 M1~IV.1' _______ .. Se*=..'

_____ I __ _____ _____ _____I PVC Casino _ _ _ _ _

12 1In I lrrv car-4 I 0 140________ e________

180 lIw r I ± Gr~vel Pick _______

______ I I ______________________ I 130-!80 I

3 e n t o ni t e P l us_ _ _ _

_________________I t~~ lu I______12_I ___1___0_

I I ______ ____ IIZS120 T__ _ _ __ _

________________ ___________Cement_____

1 1 _ ___ ____ ___ I I __ ___ _ I _a-to_

QUALITY. OF WArER INFPOFMATION:

Was a crtemical analysis made? Yes ti No IX

If So. please include a cocy of Me analysis with this brU.

It not. do you Consider the water as: Good XI Acc0ivole I I pac fr I Unusable 1.


Ci03

E.

4Ja,

c 0

4.994 -

4.993 -

4.992

4.991

4.990

4.989

4.988

4.987

4.986

4.985"

4.98412/02/73

. ..I I

05/25/79 11/14/84


05/07/90

Well 170 - AS vY. rlme.0.100

.e.ooo -~-

02-0.a-73 25--May--79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 days per divmJon)V Detection Urmit

Well 170 - CA vu. Tnm.

1 4--.Nov--84

95.000

9.4.500

94.000

93.00O

93.000

92.500

92.000

.. 1.S00

31.000

dd-rmm--yy (1000 days per divlsion)V Detection Umft

Well 170 - CL Yu. Time.18.100

d

.m S ffl U-O2-- ) -73 28--Uay--79

dd--mmmnt-*yy (1000 days per divilion)V Detection umit

14-Nov-64

Well 170 - PH I. Tilri.1:1

C.

8.500 -

8.400

5.100

,.000 -

7.900

7.800

7.700

7.400

7.300

7.400

7.3000-- o•.-73 2-.doAy-

79 14-Nov-84

dd-mmm-W (1000 dwysp per dMalon)V Dete.'ton Lmlt

Well 170 - RA228 v.. "Mme.11. 0

10.000

9.000

8.000

7.000

8.000 -

3.000 -

4.000

2.0002.000 -

0

01 .

01--I ~ea-7323-M~ay-79 14-Nov-.84

dd-mmrn-Wy (1000 dwyu per dMalati)V Detection Limlt

Well 170 - yE v. Time..a a1•-

0.011

0.010

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.00-

0.008 -

0.004

0.003

0.001 -

01--0e=--7323-l.4y-79

dd.-mmm-W (1000 days per dMelaun)V Date-tlefl Liitt

14-Nov-64

Well 170 - 304 va. Time.430.000

420.000

410.000.-

4•00.000-

36 .0.000

380.000

370.000

300.000

330.000- -

02--0eG-7

3 23-mhay-73 -Nv6

Idd-mmm-yy (1000 day. p~er divisin)v Detection~ Lmit

Well .170 - "OS Yu. Time.7g0.000 •

780.000 -

770.000 -

760.000

750.000

740.000

730.000

720.000

710.000

700.000

600.000

680.0o0

870.000

680.00002-D.o-73 23-M~ay-79

dd-mmm-yy (1000 dgym P~e dMivson)v Detection Limit

14-Nov-84

DATABASE QUALITY ASSURANCE

DATABASE QUALITY ASSURANCE

The purpose of this appendix is to summarize and document the conversion

of the project database from the Exxon Coal and Minerals Co. (ECMC) computer

system to the Water, Waste and Land, Inc., (WWL) computer system. In addition,

the Quality Assurance (QA) activities which were required ýto ensure that the

database had been successfully transferred are described., .Problems in the

conversion process as well as errors in the database are also identified.

FILE CONVERSION

The data from ECMC's computer system was delivered to WWL at the start of

the Highland Seepage Analysis Project (WWL 2068). The data consists of

chemical and water level data from sampling points located in and around the

Highland Uranium Mine. The data was maintained by ECMC using the ECOTRAC

environmental data management system.

The data was transmitted on five 5-1/4 inch diskettes. The first diskette

contained four files, one data file and three reference files used in the

relational environment of the ECOTRAC data management system. These files are

described below:

Type File Name

Ref. PLANT.DBF

Ref. WELL.DBF

Data GROELE.DBF

Data Description

Site/Facility description. Establishes• the plant keyfield (PK) which is used to relate entries in theWELL.DBF, GROELE.DBF, GROSAM.DBF and GRODAT.DBF files.

Physical description of well/sample location at aparticular Site (PK). Establishes the well key field(WK) which is used to relate the GROELE.DBF,GROSAM.DBF and GRODAT.DBF files.

Water level data for wells (WK) at a particular site(PK).

Description of parameters which are chemicallyanalyzed for each well (WK). ý Establishes theparameter field (SK) used to relate the GRODAT.DBFdata file.

Ref GROSAM.DBF

These files are in dBase III format and are directly readable by dBase III and

ECOTRAC. Additionally, these files were converted into LOTUS 1-2-3 worksheet

format using the TRANSLATE utility provided by LOTUS.

The remaining 4 diskettes contained the GRODAT.DBF file which was "backed

up" using ECMC's BACKUP routine. These BACKUP files were RESTORED onto WWL's

mass storage device using the MS-DOS RESTORE utility. The resultant file is a

dBase III file. This file contains the chemical data values for the Highland

Site (PK=3), at each well/sample location (WK) and for every parameter (SK)

analyzed. A total of 16,504 records existed in this data file.

All the files were copied into a single sub-directory to be utilized by

the ECOTRAC software. The ECOTRAC system was re-indexed to establish the key

relationships for the data base. Additionally, a dBase III VIEW file was made

using the same relationships established by ECOTRAC so the dBase III software

could be used to query the database.

DATA INTEGRITY

While querying the database to ensure proper relationships had been

established, it was observed that the GRODAT data file contained SK values as

great as 1429 while the GROSAM reference file contained no SK values higher

than 1221. Since the relationship of the SK value establishes the parameter

name and detection value for a data value in the GRODAT, data, those GRODAT

records with SK values greater than 1221 were inaccessible by the ECOTRAC

software. Therefore, the GROSAM reference file and the GRODAT data files were

further examined for any inconsistences which could compromise the data.

In the GROSAM reference file it was found that four duplicate SK values

existed, numbers 106, 261, 658 and 720. The duplicates of numbers 106, 658 and

720 either contained true duplicate values in their records or partially filled

records and were therefore deleted as these records served no purpose.

However, the first record with an SK of 261 contained the parameter name SI for

Well 11 while the second record with an SK of 261 contained the parameter name

TDS for Well 12. To rectify this contradiction the first record with an SK of

261 was changed so that Its SK is equal to 1222. Accordingly the SK values in

the GRODAT data file with WK equal to 11 and SK equal to 261 were changed to

1222. Additionally a record which contained only a value of zero in the PK

field was deleted from the GROSAM reference file.

In the GRODAT data file there was a single record with WK equal to 47.

The SK value for this record was 5 which corresponded to WK equal to 1 in the

GROSAM reference file. Further, the GROSAM reference file contained SK values

of 1006, 1007, 1008 and 1009 for WK equal to 47. Since only a single record

existed for WK equal to 47 I.n the GRODAT data file and its SK value is

incorrect, the parameter ID Is not known. The SK value was changed to 1008. for

WK equal to 47 in the GRODAT data file. To complete the correction, the record

for SK equal to 1008 in the GROSAM reference file was modified to show that the

parameter ID is unknown. These corrections also made the SK values of 1006,

1007, and 1009 available for reassignment in file GROSAM.

Three records also existed in the GRODAT file with WK equal 46 and SK

equal to 100. However, the GROSAM reference file indicated that an SK of 100

corresponds to a WK of 5. Therefore the record with WK equal to 46 and SK

equal to 100 in the GRODAT data file was changed so that SK was equal to 1006.

The GROSAM reference file record with a SK value of 1006 was modified to

correspond to a WK of 46 and a parameter ID of UNK-1 (unknown).

The GRODAT data file also included one record with WK equal to 46 and SK

equal to 1222, which initially did not exist in the GROSAM reference file.

Since the GROSAM reference file record with an SK of 1222 had previously been

assigned so that its WK was equal 11, the record with SK. equal to 1007 was

modified so that its WK was equal to 46 and the parameter ID was set to UNK-2(unknown). To complete this error correction, the GRODAT data file records

with SK values of 1222 and WK values of 46 in the GRODAT data file were

modified so that SK is equal to 1007.

Three records existed in the GRODAT data file which had SK values equal to

0. Two of the records had WK values equal to 43 and one had a WK value equal

to 49. It was determined that these records were corrected records with

correct values appearing in other records in the database. Therefore, these

records were deleted for GRODAT.

The GRODAT data file was then sorted by WK, SK and S2 (sample date)

fields. Records with an SK greater than 1222 were copied into a separate

database file and then deleted from the GRODAT data file. Because the sample

parameter could not be identified for those GRODAT records with SK values

greater than 1222 it was concluded that they could not be used by the EC.OTRAC

program or in our analyses,. Those records were saved In a separate file,

however, to facilitate re-inserting them in the database if they are identified

at a later date.

The above described corrections resulted in the deletion of 234 records

(1.42 percent) from the GRODAT data file leaving a total of 16,.270 records. It

is likely that the errors occurred during creation of the database. According

to personnel from the company which markets ECO1TRAC many of the rnoted errorscould only occur if dBASE III.were used to develop the GROSAM reference file,They also indicated that this is a common practice since .sevetral weltl-s often

require the same parameter list. In this case, 'It is often muth faster to addonly the first well along with its parameters using ECOTTRAC-. With dBASE InI,

it is then a simple matter to reproduce the records #Ot1 the -first well andmodify only the Well Key (WK) field to correspond to the next well. If care isnot practiced, however, errors can result 1n this process, .While the errorsnoted in the rdatabase probably did not cause any sign-ificant probl-ems with

regard to use of most of the ECOTRAC software capabilities,, -certain 'routinesdid not output all of the data. contained in the database.- These errors also

complicated the preparation of graphs using the LOTUS • 12-3 software. Thecurrent version of the database maintained by WWL is functionally correct with

regard to ECOTRAC requirements and assumptions..

DATA ACCURACY

Since changes were made in the ECOTRAC reference and data files it wasnecessary to ensure that proper relationships were made by the software whenreporting. the data. :. printout of the database was made using the ECOTRAC"Well Data Report" format. Also the original laboratory sheets were prbvidedto WWL by.ECMC for the purpose of this quality assurance data check.

Because the database is quite large it was determined that a spot theck ofthe reported values be made across the database. At a minlmum at least one

reported data value was checked against the laboratory sheet. for each sample

location. Approximately 300 (approximately 2 percent of the data) values werechecked. All reported values that were checked Corresponded with the their

appropriate value on the laboratory sheets. Therefore, it was determined thatthe proper relationships were being maintained awd the reported data wat

accurate. However, during this check it was -also determined that hot all thedata available on the laboratory sheets is inliuded In the ECOTRAt database,The extent of the exclusions was not determineda as it was not the putpose of

the data check. Further, to determine the total extent of data omissions wouldbe a timely and costly enterprise., It is possible that these xl'lusions

resulted from corrections to the database as described PreviOUsly. However,

due to the lack of GROSAM records with Sk values greater than 1222 it Was not

possible to confirm this possibility.

phase 2, final report, exxon highland tailings basin ... · phase 2 final report exxon, highland...

Documents