ML043550398
| ML043550398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/30/2004 |
| From: | CH2M Hill |
| To: | Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co, NRC/FSME |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2005-0203 | |
| Download: ML043550398 (250) | |
Text
Appendix 4 2004 Offsite Analytical Data Laboratory Packages
%ENGIA,,
s4S, itGENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 0 a Member of THE GEL GROUP, INC.
' Meeting Today's Needs with a Vision for Tomorrow September 10, 2004 Mr. Dave Keefer CYAPCo Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 RE: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Work Order: 120208 SDG: MSR#04-2742
Dear Mr. Keefer:
General Engineering Laboratories, LLC (GEL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the following analytical results for the sample(s) we received on August 27, 2004. Our policy is to provide high quality, personalized analytical services to enable you to meet your analytical needs on time every time.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GEL's standard operating procedures. We trust that you will find everything in order and to your satisfaction. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (843) 556-8171, ext. 4243.
Sincerely, Cheryl Jones Project Manager Purchase Order: 002337 Enclosures RO. Box 30712
- Charleston, SC 29417 - 2040 Savage Road (29407)
Phone (843) 556-8171
- Fax (843) 766-1178
- www.gel.com
CONNECTICUT YANKEE RE: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 W~ork Order: 120208 SDG: MSR# 04-2742 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5
Table of Contents Case Narrative ............................................................ 1 Chain of Custody ............................. a............................ 4 Cooler Receipt Checklist ............. . ................................ 8 Inorganic Analysis . ........................................... ... .. 12 Radiological Analysis .............................................. 20 Sample Data Summary .............................................. 35 Quality Control Data .............................................. 45
. CASE
, NARRATIVE 1
CASE NARRATIVE For CONNECTICUT YANKEEE RE: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Work Order: 120208 SDG: MSR# 04-2742 September 10, 2004 Laboratorv Identification:
General Engineering Laboratories, LLC Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 30712 Charleston, South Carolina 29417 Express Mail Deliverv and Shipping Address:
2040 Savage Road Charleston, South Carolina 29407 Telephone Number:
(843) 556-8171 Summarv:
Sample receipt The groundwater samples for SDG# MSR# 04-2742 arrived at General Engineering Laboratories, LLC, (GEL) in Charleston, South Carolina on August 27, 2004. All sample containers arrived without any visible signs of tampering or breakage. The chain of custody contained the proper documentation and signatures.
The laboratory prepared the following samples:
Sample ID Client Sample ID 120208001 S 153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S 103-108-2,3,4,5
Items of Note:
There are no items to note.
Case Narrative:
Sample analyses were conducted using methodology as outlined in General Engineering Laboratories (GEL) Standard Operating Procedures. Any technical or administrative problems during analysis, data review, and reduction are listed below by analytical parameter.
Analytical Request:
Three groundwater samples were analyzed for ALL.
Internal Chain of Custody:
Custody was maintained for all of these samples.
Data Package:
The enclosed data package contains the following sections: Case Narrative, Chain of Custody, Cooler Receipt Checklist, Laboratory Certifications, and all Analytical Fractions.
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the SOW, both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed above. Release of the data contained in this hard copy data package has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or a designee, as verified by the following signature.
Cheryl Jones Project Manager
4 Heai( ysics Procedure ( GPP-GGGR-R5104-003-Attaclhment B-C( . Major Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Chain of Custody Form No. 2004-00175 362 Injun Hollow Road, East Hampton, CT 06424 860-267-2556 1 IDY O R
sCC o ___ __
Project Name: Haddam Neck Decommissioning Analyses Requested = LabUseOnly Contact Name & Phone: Mia Sp Container David Keefer __860-267-2556 (X3085) Mei
_ ___ _____ ___ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ Code Sample Type Container Size-Analytical Lab (Name, City, State): Code &Type Code .
General Engineering Lab (GEL), 2040 Savage Rd, Charleston, SC 29407, 843.556.8171 (Sarah Kozlik)
Priority:E 145 D.E130 D. 0 14 D.E] 7 D.
Other: *- ' :
Sample Designation Date Time Comment, Preservation Lab Sample ID S153-176-2,3,4,5 08/13/04 15:00 WG G 4-LP(3) X 20-mi Nitric (4L 3ea.),
. (1)
.___ _.;;_1-LP None (1-L lea.)
Sape S__pe V ,ia.: ,,e'na Con e.
NOTES: PO #: 002337 MSR # 04-2742 L LUP QA [ Radwaste QA 3 Non QA Samples Shipped Via: Internal Container 3 Fed Ex Temp.: -Deg.C' Sample should be analyzed for'ALL suite of analyses to typical groundwater program MDC's. El Hand Custody Sealed?
- 1) Relipjuished By: Date/Time 2) Receioed~v /// Date/Time Custody Seal Intact?
ocro p t 6(-t710(f 0 Other
- 3) Relinquished By Date/Time 4) Received By Date/Time B; o: Ladin Bill of LRding B e 6 Ra
- 5) Relinquished By Datefrime 6) Received By Date/Time %1)1( q1
HealC ysics Procedure
{ GPP-GGGR-R5104-003-Attaclment B-C4 ' Major Connctict YakeeChain of Custody Form Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company No. 2004-00176
. 362 Injun Hollow Road, East Hampton, CT 06424 860-267-2556 Project Name: Haddam Neck Decommissioning Analyses Requested Lab Use Only Contact Name & Phone:
David Keefer 860-267-2556 (x3085) Mdi Code Sample Type Container Size- Is aii; 7i.,!
Analytical Lab (Name, City, State): Code &Type Code . **: %*4 General Engineering Lab (GEL), 2040 Savage Rd, '
Charleston, SC 29407, 843.556.8171 (Sarah Kozlik) b.. '
Priority: 045 D. El 30 D. 0 14D. E 7 D. .
Other __ _ __ _ _
Sample Designation Date Time - Comment, Preservation .; Lab Sampe D:
4-LP (3) 20 ml Nitric (4L 3ea.) ,
S152-157-2,3,4,5 .06/10/04 10:40 WG G X
_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1-LP (1)
I__ __ _ None (I -L lIea.) _ _ _ _ _ _
.- _ _ g... ..:
NOTES: PO#~: 002337 MSR #:04-2742 E] LTP QA. E Radwaste QA Z Non QA Samples Shipped Via: Interna'l Con't-ain-e-r 0Fed Ex Tm e Sample should be analyzed for ALL suite of analyses to typical groundwater program MDC's. O1 Hand Custody Sealed?'
- 1) . , ;Y O -NOS 1 l 2) Received By Date/Tim Other_ Custody Seal Intact?
- 3) Relinquished By Pate/,Time 4)Receisedv3y y Date/Time ______S___4___ OR YO NO Aqt1 Da //$cY'q roZ / gjZ 7 /o7
/713 IBillofLading .
- 5) Relinquished By Date/Time 6) Received By Date/Time
Heal( ysics Procedure
( GPP-GGGR-R5104-003-Attachment B-C( Major Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Chain of Custody Form No. 2004-00174 362 Injun Hollow Road, East Hampton, Cl 06424 860-267-2556 Project Name: Haddam Neck Decommissioning Analyses Requested -LabUseOnly - . ;
Con& hoac e:Media N me Sample Container David Keefer 860-267-2556 (x3085) Code Type Size- ....-
Analytical Lab (Name, City, State): Code &Type Code General Engineering Lab (GEL), 2040 Savage Rd.,
Charleston, SC 29407, 843.556.8171 (Sarah Kozlik) : .
Priority: E 45 D. E30 D. E 14 D.E3 7 D.
Other: , ....
Sample Designation Date Time - Comment, Preservation Lab Sample ID S103-108-2,3,4,5 07/01/04 10:05 WG G 4-LP (3) 2 N (4L 3eaa),
-LP (I)
I___ None (I -L lea.)
NOTES: P0O#: 002337 MSR 4: 04-2742 E] LTP QA El Radwaste QA [D Non QA Samples Shipped Via: Inteinal Container
_0 Fed Ex Temp.,..'D'g' El UPS Sample should be analyzed for ALL suite of analyses to typical groundwater program MDC's. E] Hand Custody Sealed?
1)TElS Date/Time Nn Other Custody Seal Intact?
3)Relinquished By Date/Time 4) Received By Date/Time C usto - d ILa l !NtEl Bill of Lading : .
5)Relinquish-ed By Date/Time 6)Received By Datefrime:... 5)S Rel nO qushe By m6) Re B . :
i COOLER I- RECEIPT CH ECKLI ST II.
I 8
Connecticut Yankee Statement of Work for Analytical Lab Services .Cy-ISC-sow-00 I Figure 1. Sample Check-in List Gin_ o _ _. -.-
Date/Time Received: 7 lZ°7 - if(
1I %
SDG#:
- Work Order Number: . 2 0) 4 Shipping Container ID: Chain of Custody Zoo 0t~6o 1 7 L
- 1. Custody Seals on shipping container intact? Yes ['r*No [3
- 2. Custody Seals dated and signed? Yes [ViNo1]
- 3. Chain-of-Custody record present?
- 4. Cooler temperature ( .
- 5. Vermniculite/packing materials is:
- 6. Number of samples in shipping container: X
- 7. Sample holding times exceeded? Yes [1 No
- 8. Samples have:.
- ipe hazard labels
.Vlcustody seals V propriate sample labels
- 9. Samples an, in good condition . _;__eaking
- broken have air bubbles
- 10. Were any anomalies identified in sample receipt? Yes [No f
- 11. Description of anomalies (include sample numbers):
Sample Custodian/Laboratory:
- Date: ________
Telephoned to: On By q
Connecticut Yankee Statement of Work for Analytical Lab Services CY-ISC-sOw-o0l Figure 1. Sample Check-in List "fr - /,, 0 _. If-Date/Time Received: y 1 7,.7 ( ' 6C (2/3 SDG#: 5 &t-V7 1;.
Work Order Number:
Shipping Container ID:: Chain of Custody
- 1. Custody Seals on shipping container intact? Yes [4ho [I
- 2. Custody Seals dated and signed? Yes [44No [ ]
- 3. Chain-of-Custody record present? Yes [<1No [1 0.0 e
- 4. Cooler temperature
- 5. Vermiculite/packing materials is: Wet [ ] Dry [T
- 6. Number of samples in shipping container:
- 7. Sample holding times exceeded? Yes [ ] No [u
- 8. Samples have:
Ltape _hazard labels
_ dy seals +/-ppS' ate sample labels
- 9. Samples are:
ood condition leaking broken have air bubbles
. 10. Were any anomalies identified in sample receipt? Yes [ '] No ['I-
- 11. Description of anomalies (include sample numbers): _
- . . . Pi
. ~ H~ a ~ C' -C-q>sr Sample Custodian/Laboratory: -, -, Date.
Telephoned to: . . . ..7
- _ _ OQ By.
Connecticut Yankee Statement of Work for Analytical Lab Services CY-ISC-SOW-001
.i Figure 1. Sample Check-in List
-i i- - '
Date/Time Received: (t7 {Of 29f('
SDG#: LW j OCAV23'Z Work Order Number: tZ- 2O 8 Shipping Container ID:: Chain of Custody # 2e7o>9- 0t(7&
- 1. Custody Seals on shipping container intact Yes VKNo [ ]
- 2. Custody Seals dated and signed? Yes MNo [ ]
- 3. Chain-of-Custody record present? Yes M No I ]
- 4. Cooler temperature 0.
- 5. Vermiculite/packing'materials is: Wet [ ] Dry [q-`
- 6. Number of samples in shipping container. 9
- 7. Sample holding times exceeded? Yes [ ] No [-I'
- 8. Samples have:
____ H .azardlabels Bctody seals . appropriate sample labels
- 9. Samples are:
lelin good condition _ leaking broken have air bubbles
- 10. Were any anomalies identified in sample receipt? Yes [ No
- 11. Description of anomalies (include sample numbers):
t2-~d) W O ° C l Sample Custodian/Laboratory: ' . _ Date: __ __/
_7 _
Telephoned to: On *
- By
i UNORGANIC ANALYSIS 12
Metals Fractional Narrative Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. (YANK)
SDG MSR#04-2742 Method/Analvsis Information Analytical Batch: 363906 Prep Batch: 363905 Standard Operating Procedures: GL-MA-E-014 REV# 9, GL-MA-E-006 REV# 9 Analytical Method: SW846 6020 Prep Method: SW846 3005A Sample Analysis Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5 1200698170 Method Blank (MB) 1200698171 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200698174 120208001 (S153-176-2.3,4,5L) Serial Dilution (SD) 1200698172 120208001(S153-176-2,3,4,5D) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200698173 120208001 (S153-176-2,3,4,SS) Matrix Spike (MS)
PreparationtAnalytical Method Verification The SOP stated above has been prepared based on technical research and testing conducted by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC and with guidance from the regulatory documents listed in this 'Method/Analysis Information" section.
System Confieuration The ICP-MS analysis was performed on a Perkin Elmer ICP-MS ELAN 9000. The instrument is equipped with a cross-flow nebulizer, quadrupole mass spectrometer, and dual mode electron multiplier detector. Internal standards of scandium, germanium, indium, and tantalum were utilized to cover the mass spectrum. Operating conditions are set at 1400W power and combined argon pressures of 360+1-7 kPa for the plasma and auxiliary gases, and 0.85 IUniin carrier gas flow, and an initial lens voltage of 5.2.
. .I 13
Calibration Information Instrument Calibration All initial calibration requirements have been met for this sample delivery group (SDG).
CRDL Requirements All CRDL standard(s) met the referenced advisory control limits.
ICSAIICSAB statement All interference check samples (ICSA and ICSAB) associated with this SDG met the established acceptance criteria.
Continuing Calibration Blank (CCB) Requirements All continuing calibration blanks (CCB) bracketing this batch met the established acceptance criteria.
Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) Requirements All continuing calibration verifications (CCV) bracketing this SDG met the acceptance criteria.
Ouality Control (OC) Information Method Blank (MB) Statement The MB analyzed with this SDG met the acceptance criteria.
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Recovery The LCS spike recoveries met the acceptance limits.
Quality Control (QC) Sample Statement Sample 120208001 (S153-176-2,3,4 and 5) was selected as the quality control (QC) sample for this SDG.
Matrix Spike (MS) Recovery Statement The percent recoveries (%R) obtained from the MS analyses are evaluated when the sample concentration is less than four times (4X) the spike concentration added. All applicable elements met the acceptance criteria.
Duplicate Relative Percent Difference (RPD) Statement The RPD obtained from the designated sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated based on acceptance criteria of 20%
when the sample is 5X the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control of +/-RL is used to evaluate the DUP results. All applicable analytes met these requirements.
Serial Dilution % Difference Statement The SDILT failed for B. All-ICP-MS.
The serial dilution is used to assess matrix suppression or enhancement. Raw element concentrations 25x the IDL for CVAA. SOX the IDL for ICP and 10OX the IDL for ICP-MS analyses are applicable for serial dilution assessment All applicable analytes did not meet the established criteria of less than 10% difference (%D). All-ICP-MS.
Technical Information Holding Time Specifications GEL assigns holding times based on the associated methodology, which assigns the date and time from sample collection of sample receipt Those holding times expressed in hours are calculated in the AlphaLIMS system. Those holding times expressed as days expire at midnight on the day of expiration. All samples in this SDG met the specified holding time.
Preparation/Analytical Method Verification All procedures were performed as stated in the SOP.
14
Sample Dilutions Dilutions are performed to minimize matrix interferences resulting from elevated mineral element concentrations present in soil samples and/or to bring over range target analyte concentrations into the linear calibration range of the instrument The samples in this SDG did not require dilutions.
Preparation Information The samples in this SDG were prepared exactly according to the cited SOP.
Miscellaneous Inrornmation Nonconformance Documentation Nonconformance reports (NCRs) are generated to document procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. A NCR was not required for this SDG.
Additional Comments Additional comments were not required for this SDG.
Certification Statement Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Review Validation:
GEL requires all analytical data to be verified by a qualified data validator. In addition, all data designated for CLP or CLP-like packaging will receive a third level validation upon completion of the data package.
The following data validator verified the information presented in this case narrative:
2 Review v 024 LA-t Date: _________
15
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com.
Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 ReportDate: Septczmberl4,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of I Client Sample ID: S153-176-2,3.4.5 Proiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 120208001 Client ID: YANK001 Matrix: Ground Water Collect Date: 13-AUG-04 15:00 Receive Date: 27-AUG-04 Collector Cliipn Parameter Qualifier I tesult DL RL Units DF AnalystDate rTme Batch Mcthod Metals Analysis-ICP-NIS 3005/6020 Boron-AllSlND,MlX Boron 189 0.540 ' 16.0 ugfL 1 BAJ 09112/04 1820 363906 1 The followingPr~epMethods were performed _ . .
Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch V846 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP CQHI 09108104 2109 363905 The followingvAnalytlcal Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Comments I SW846 300516020 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovey.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instnrnent calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an "as received" basis.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Zviewa by /
16 II
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddan Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Rcport Date: Septembcr 14,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO 002337 Page I of 1 Client Sample ID: S152-157-2.3.4,5 Proiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 120208002 Client ID: YANKOOI Matrix: Ground Water Collect Date: 10-JUN-04 10:40 Receive Date: 27-AUG-04
- Collector: rlipnt Parameter Qualifier p Result DL RL Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Method MetalsArnalysis-ICP-mS 300516020 Boron-A LSTNDbMIX Boron 214 0.540 16.0 uZIL I BAJ 09/12/04 1841 363906 1 The following Prep Methods were performed .
Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch
'zW846 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP CQHI 09108/04 2109 363905 fhe followrinAnalytical Methods were performed
- Method Descripffon Analyst Comments I SW846 3005/6020 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B CTarget analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding tine exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
-cviewed-by 17
I GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com
. Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Repon Date: Septembcr i4, 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Projecd Quarterly Groundwater rO# 002337 Page I of I Client Sample ID: S103-108-2,3.4.5 Proiec= YANK00304 Sample ID: 120208003 Client ID: YANK001 Matrix. Ground Water Collect Date: 01-JUL-04 10:05 Receive Date: 27-AUG.04 Collector _ .
Client -
Parameter Qualifier IResult DL RL Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Method Metals Analysis-ICP-MS 3005/6020 Bowvn-AU.STNDMIX Boron 45.2 0.540 16.0 ug/L 1 BAY 09/12/04 1846 363906 1 The following Prep Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch 5WS45 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP CQHI 09/08/04 2109 363905 Ate followingAnalytieal Mcthods were performed Method Descrlption Analyst Comments I SW846 3005/6020 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag forresults below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
I Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit .
UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met al of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Review by 18
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - (843) 5568171 - WYM.gl.com QC Summary ReDort Date: September 14,2004 Client: CYAPCo Page I of I Iladdam Neck Plant 362 Injun Holow Road East Hampton, Connecticut ContacLt Mr.DaveKeefer Workorder: 120208 Parmnme NOM Sample Oual QC _ Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time Metats Analysis - ICPMS Batch 36390C QC12M0698172 120208001 DUP Boron 189 199 u&/L 5 (0'-20%) BAJ 09112/04 18.25 QC1200698171 LCS Boron 100 112 ug/L 112 (80%-120%) 09112104 18:15 QC120069S170 MB Boron U ND ug/L 09112/04 18:10 QCl20069SI73 12020S001 NIS Boron 100 189 312 . uglL 123 (75%-125%) 09/12/04 18:31 QC1200698174 120203001 SDILT Boron 189 51.2 ug/L 35A 09/12104 1S36 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as wels as the associated blanL BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
U- Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narratlve, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike cone, by a factor of 4 or more.
A The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than five times'(5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than5X the RL t control limit of+/-
the RL is nsed to evaluate the DUP esult.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Wheri'the analytical method has been pertformed under NELAP cctficafion, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
19
RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS 20
Radiochemistry Case Narrative Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. (YANK)
SDG MSR#04-2742 AMethod/Analvsis Information Product: Am241,Cm, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, Am-05-RC Modified Analytical Batch Number. 361741 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5 1200692804 Method Blank (MB) 1200692807 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200692805 120208001(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200692806 120208001(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-01I REV# 13.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Ouality Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208001 (S153-176-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis 21
None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Manual Integration No manual integrations were performed on data in this batch.
Oualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: Alphaspec Pu, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-I l-RC Modified Analytical Batch Number: 361744 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S 103-108-2,3,4,5 1200692814 Method Blank (MB) 1200692817 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200692815 120208001(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200692816 120208001(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-011 REV# 13.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information :
Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208001 (S 153-176-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
22
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prepfRe-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Manual Integration No manual integrations were performed on data in this batch.
qualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: Liquid Scint Pu241, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-i I-RC Modified Analytical Batch Number. 361746 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5 1200692820 Method Blank (MB) 1200692823 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200692821 120208001(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200692822 120208001(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GIRAD-A-035 REV# 5.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
23
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208001 (513-176-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Manual Integration No manual integrations were performed on data in this batch.
qualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: Gammaspec, Gamma,Liquid-ALLGAM2,STNDMIX,PENNLF Analytical Method: EPA 901.1 Analytical Batch Number: 362473 Sample ID Client It 120208001 S153-17('-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-15, 7-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-101 1-2,3,4,5 1200694603 Method]3lank (MB) 1200694606 Laborato ry Control Sample (LCS) 1200694604 1202080' D1(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200694605 1202080' Dl(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-013 REV# 10.
Calibration Information:
24
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (0() Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208001 (S153-176-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-preplRe-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
qualifier information Qualifier Reason l Analyte l Sample UI Data rejected due to low abundance. Bismuth-214 1200694604 Lead-212 1200694604 UData rejected due to no valid peak. Led-214 .1200694604 Thorium-230 1200694604 Method/Analvsis Information Product: Gross A/B, liquid-ALL,STNDMIXPENNLF Analytical Method: EPA 900.0 Analytical Batch Number 361900 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 25
120208002 S 152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5 1200693212 Method Blank (MB) 1200693216 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200693213 120208002(S152-157-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200693214 120208002(S152-157-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS) 1200693215 120208002(S152-157-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-001 REV# 8.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (O0 Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208002 (S152-157-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis Samples 1200693213 (S152-157-2,3,4,5), 120208002 (SI52-157-2,3,4 and 5) were recounted due to high relative percent difference/relative error ratio.
Chemical Recoveries All chemical recoveries meet the required acceptance limits for this sample set.
Gross Alpha/Beta Preparation Information High hygroscopic salt content in evaporated samples can cause the sample mass to fluctuate due to moisture absorption. To minimize this interference, the salts are converted to oxides by heating the sample under a flame until a dull red color is obtained. The conversion to oxides stabilizes the sample weight and ensures that proper alpha/beta efficiencies are assigned for each sample. Volatile radioisotopes of carbon, hydrogen, technetium, polonium and cesium may be lost during sample heating.
26
Miscellaneous Inrormation:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Additional Comments The alpha relative percent difference failed high. However, when a relative error ratio is calculated, it falls inside 1.0 with a value of .5930.
Oualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: GFPC, Sr9O, liquid-ALL,MIX Analytical Method: EPA 905.0 Modified Analytical Batch Number: 361520 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5 1200692415 Method Blank (MB) 1200692418 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200692416 120208001(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200692417 120208001 (S153-176-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-004 REV# 8.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208001 (S153-176-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
27
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Chemical Recoveries All chemical recoveries meet the required acceptance limits for this sample set.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Ounlifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Mlethod/Analvsis Information Product: Liquid Scint Tc99, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, Tc-02-RC Modified Analytical Batch Number 361583 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5 1200692487 Method Blank (MB) 1200692490 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200692488 120208003(S103-108-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200692489 120208003(S103-108-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-005 REV# 11.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
28
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208003 (S 103-108-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis Sample 120208003 (S103-108-2,3,4 and 5) was recounted due to a negative result greater than three times the error.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
qualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analysis Information Product: Liquid Scint Fe55, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE RESL Fe-1, Modified Analytical Batch Number: 361838 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5 1200693073 Method Blank (MB) 1200693076 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200693074 120208003(S103-108-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200693075 120208003(S103-108-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-040 REV# 2.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
29
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Ouality Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208003 (S103-108-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Qualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required Method/Analvsis Information Product: Liquid Scint Ni63, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE RESL Ni-I, Modified Analytical Batch Num ber. 361840 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S 153-176-2,3,4,5
- 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5 1200693077 Method Blank (MB) 1200693080 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200693078 120208003(S103-108-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200693079 120208003(S103-108-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering
' >o 30
Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-022 REV# 6.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Ouality Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208003 (S103-108-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Oualifier Information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analysis Information Product: LSC, Tritium Dist, Liquid-ALL,STNDMIXPENN Analytical Method: EPA 906.0 Modified Analytical Batch Number 361585 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S103-108-2,3,4,5 31
1200692491 Method Blank (MB) 1200692494 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200692492 119484006(18541-006) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200692493 119484006(18541-006) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-002 REV# 9.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 119484006 (18541-006).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.-
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Qualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: Liquid Scint C14, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: EPA EERF C-01 Modified 32
Analytical Batch Number 361546 Sample ID Client ID 120208001 S153-176-2,3,4,5 120208002 S 152-157-2,3,4,5 120208003 S 103-108-2,3,4,5 1200692447 Method Blank (MB) 1200692450 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200692448 120208001 (SI 53-176-2,3,4,5) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200692449 120208001(S153-176-2,3,4,5) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-003 REV# 7.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 120208001 (SI153-176-2,3,4 and 5).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
.33
Oualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Certification Statement Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Review Validation:
GEL requires all analytical data to be verified by a qualified data validator. In addition, all data designated for CLP or CLP-like packaging will receive a third level validation upon completion of the data package.
The following data validator verified the information presented in this case narrative:
Reviewer:
34
SAM PLE- DATA
SUMMARY
35
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171'- www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddamn Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 *Report Date: September 10 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of 3 Client Sample ID: S153-176-2.3A.5 Proiect: YANK00304 Samplc ED: 120208001 ClientlD: YANK001 Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 13-AUG-04 Receive Date: 27-AUG-04 Collector. Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time BatchbMtd.
Rad Alpha Spec Analysis AlphospecjPu, Liquid-ALL Plutonium-238 U -0.051 +1-0.0779 0.117 41-0.0781 0319 pCI/L JASI 09103104 0833 361744 1 Plutonium-239/240 U -0.0597 +/-0.0736 0.100 +/-0.0737 0.284 Poill Am241,Cm, Liquid-ALL Americium-241 U . -0.0132 +4-0.068 0.0835 +/-0.068 0.248 pCi/L JASI 09103/04 0833 361741 2 Curium-242 U 0.00 +/-0.0642 0.00 +/-0.0642 0.0887. pCz/L
'urium-243f244 U 0.00359 +1-0.113 0.118 +/-0.113 0.317 pCiJL kVquid Scint Pu241, Liquid-ALL Plutonium-241 U 1.08 +/-7A2 6.20 +/-7.42 12.8 pCY/L JASI 09/05/04 0615 361746 3 Rad Gamma Spec Analysis Gammaspec4 Gamma.Liquid-ALL GAM2.STNDMJXPENNLF Amnericlum-241 U 3.25 +1-8.84 6.72 +1-8.66 13.8 pCYL AKB 09)2104 2102 362473 4 Cesium-134 U -0.0124 +4-135 1.12 +/-1.33 2.39 pCi/L Cesium-137 U 1.67 +1-133 1.20 +/-1.30 2.55 pCa/L.-
Cobal-60 U 0.0755 +1-132 1.10 +/-1.29 2.42 pCl/L Europium-152 U 3.25 +1-3.91 3.36 +1-3.84 7.00 pCVL Europium-154 U 40.977 4.-3.82 3.09 +4-3.74 6.75 Europium-155 U -137 +1-534 . 432 +/-5.24 8.88 pCi/L Manganese-54 U 0.117 +1-137 1.13 +1-1.34 2.41 pCi/L Niobium-94 U -0.957 +/-1.18 0.922 +1-1.16 1.97 pai/L Silver-108m U -0355 +/-134 1.07 +J-131 2.25 Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting GFPC,Sr90, liquId-LL.MJX ~pCi/L Strontium-90 U 0.36 6 +/40312 0.252 +/-0329 0.518 HOBl 0903/04 2308 3615205 GrossA/. Iiquid-AMLSNDMIXPENNLF Alpha 129 +1-7.61 0.607 4/-12.0 1.53 pCV/L. LCWI09101/04 1358 361900 6 Beta 35.0 +1-3.24 1.53 +/-350 ' 3.22 pCV/L Rad Lquld Scintillaton Analysts LSC Tritium Di. Liquid-AIl.STNDNM XPENN Tritium 8170 */-381 167 +/-403 333 pCVIL LAGI 08/3004 2313 361585 7 LiquidScint C14, Liquid-ALL' Carbon-14 U 439 +/-31.6 26.4 4/-31.6 54.2 pal'l LAGI 09/01/04 2000 361546 8 LiquidScnt FeS5, Liquid-ALL Lron-55 U -19.8 +/-13.0 :9.17 41-13.0 185 pCitL JLBI 09/M40 0456 361838 9 Liquid Scint Ni63. Liquid-ALL 36
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certiricate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connccticut 06424 Report Date: September 10,2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 2 of 3 Client Sample ID: S153-176-2.3.45 Proiect: YANK00304 Sample ID: 120208001 Client ID: YANKT00I Vol. Recv.:
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU iMDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad liquid Sclntiliation Analysis LiquidScint Ni63, Liquid-ALL Nickel-63 U 102 +/-7A0 5.91 +1-7.40 12.2 pCi/L JLB I 09/03/04 1956 361840 10 LiquidScint Tc99W Liquid-ALL Technetium-99 U -2.14 +1-4.6i 3.94 +1-4.62 8.09 pCi/L DAJI 09/06/04 1637 361583 11 The following Analytical Methods were performed Method DescriptIon DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-ll-RC Modified DOE EML HASL-300, Am-05-RC Modified DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-l I-RC Modified 4 EPA 901.1 5 EPA 905.0 Modified 6 EPA 900.0 7 EPA 906.0 Modified
.8 EPA EERF C-01 Modified 9 DOE RESLFe-l,lModified 10 DOE RESL Ni-I. Modified 11 DOE EML HASL-300, Tc-02-RC Modified Surrogate/Tracer recovery Test Recovery%. Acceptable Limits Plutonium-242 Aiphaspec Pu. liquid-ALL 99 (15%-125%)
Americium-243 Am241,Cm. Liquid-ALL 90 (25%-125%)
Carrier/Tracer Recovery liquid Scint Pu241, Liquid-ALL 99 Carriertlracer Recovery GFPC, Sr9O, liquid-ALMI 80 Carrier/Tracer Recovery liquid Scint FeS, Liquid-ALL 78 CarrierJTracer Recovery liquid Scint Ni63, Liquid-ALL 8S Carrier/Tracer Recovery liquid Scint Tc99, Liquid-ALL
- 102 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer retovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
37
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charileston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gelcom Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: September 10. 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 3 of 3 Client Sample ID: S153-176-2.3,4.5 Proiect: YANK00304 Sample ID: 120208001 Client ID: .YANKOOI VWlU av.
vPiU. D l TBv..
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limiL UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC tandard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Reviewed by 38
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: September 10,2004 ContactL Mr. Dave Kceefer Project Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of 3 Client Sample ID: S 152-157-2.3.4.5 Project YANK00304 Samnple ID: 120208002 Cli nt iD: YANKOOI Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Rec'v.:
Collect Date: 10-JUN-04 Receive Date: 27-AUG-04 Collector. eIn:-
Parameter Qualifer Result Uncertainly LC TPU MIDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad Alpha Spec Analysis Alphaspec Pu. Liquid-ALL Plutonium-238 U 0.0489 *+/-0.134 0.112 +/-0.134
- 0.324 pCi/L JASI 09/03/04 0833 3617441 Plutonium-239/240 U 0.0755 +/-0.130 0.0844 +1-0.131 0.269 pCi/L Am241,Cm, Liquid-ALL rAmericium-241 U 0.089 +t-0.122 0.0569 +/10.123 0.210 pCi/L JASI 09/03/04 0833 361741 2 Curium-242 U 0.0386 +1-0.102 0.0579 +1-0.102 0.253 pci/L Curium-243/244 U -0.0328 +/-0.044 0.115 +/-0.0945 0.326 pCiJL
- 'iddScintPu241, Liquid-ALL tonium-241 U 8.81 +/-7.67 6.18 +t-7.70 12.7 pCiJL JASI 09/05104 0646 361746 3 d'Gamma Spec Analysis Gammaspec, GammaLiquid-AlLGAM2,S7JD,M]XPE4NNJF Americium-241 U -0.847 +1-9.18 6.55 +1-8.99 13.6 pCi/L AKB 09102104 2103 362473 4 Cesium-134 U -0.98 - +1-1.58 1.18 +1-1.55 2.56 pC/LL Cesium-137 U -0.375 +1-139 1.10 +1-136 236 Cobal-60 U 1.45 +1-155 1.37 +t-1.52 2.98 Europium-152 U -2.54 +1-3.86 2.90 +t-3.78 6.11 pCi/L Europium-154 U -1.16 +1-3.61 2.81 +1-3.54 6.28 pci'L Europium-155 .U -1.78 +1/4.66 3.88 +1-4.57. 8.02 Manganese-54 U -0.196 +t-1.60 126 +/-1.57 2.71 Niobium-94 U *0.469 +1-129 1.01 +1-1.26 2.15 POi/L Silver-108m U 0.586 +1-130 1.11 +/-127 234 PCI/L Rad Gas flow Proportional Counting GFPC Sr9O, (iquid-ALLMIX Strontiurn-90 U -0.161- +1 0.279 0.238 +t-04283 OA90 *pCi/L HOBI 09/03/04 2356 361520 5 Gross A/B, liquid-AL4S=NDMD1,PZVNLJX Alpha 26A 41-4.80 0.815 . +1-5.17 2.23 pCiL LCWI 09/01/04 1825 361900 6 Beta 21A +1-3.69 *2.13 +1-3.77 4.58 pCilL.
Rad Uquid Scdntillation Analysis LSC Tritium Dit, Liquid-ALLS DMELPENN Tritium 2430 41-253 156 +/-256 312 IAGI 08131/04 0015 361585 7 pCIUL LiquidScint C14, Liquid-ALL Carbon-14 U 45A +1-36.2 . 29.3 +1-37.4 60.0 LAGI 09/O1104 2032 361546 8 pC/IL Liquid Scint Fe5S, Liquid-ALL Iron-55 U -16.9 +1-13.5 9.48 +1-135 19.2 pCi/L llBI 09/D4/04 0700 361838 9 Liquid SchtN63, Liquid-ALL 39
GENEAL EGINERIN LABRATRIES LL GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.geL.com I
Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: September 10, 2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 2 of 3 Client Sample ID: S152-157-2.3.4.5 Proiect: YANK00304 Sample ID: 120208002 Client ID: YANK00I Vol. Recv.:
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad Liquid ScinUllation Analysis LiquidScin Ni63, Liquid-ALL Nickel-63 U 2.56 +1-7A8 6.20 +1-7.48 12.8 pC/L' JLBI 09/03/04 2027 361840 10 Liquid Scinr Tc99, Liquid-ALL Technetium-99 U -2.42 +1-4.65 3.97 +/-4.65 8.17 pcflL DAII 09/0A604 1709 361583 11 The following Analytical Methods were performed Method Description DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-lI-RC Modified DOE EML HASL-300, Am-05-RC Modified DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-I I-RC Modified 4 EPA 901.1 S EPA 905.0 Modified 6 EPA 900.0 7 EPA 906.0 Modified 8 EPA EERF C-01 Modified 9 DOE RESL Fe-I, Modified 10 DOE RESL Ni-i, Modified 11 DOE EML HASL-300, Tc-02-RC Modified Surropatearracer recovery Test Recovery% Acceptable Limits Plutonium-242 Alphaspec Pu, Liquid-ALL 87 (15%-125%)
Americium-243 Amn24InC, Liquid-ALL 96 (25%.125%)
CarrieaTracer Recovery Liquid ScintPu24l, Liquid-ALL 99 .
Carrier/Tracer Recovery GFPC, Sr9O, liquid-ALLMIX 78 Carrier/Tracer Recovery Liquid Scint FcS5, Liquid-ALL so Carrier/Tracer Recovery LIquid Scint Ni63, Liquid-ALL 83 CarrieriTracer Recovery liquid Scint TO9%Liquid-ALL 101 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as tihe associated bladt BD Flag for results blow the MDC or a flag for low tracerrecovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
40
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 ReportDate: September 10,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 3 of 3 Client Sample ID: *S152-157-23.4.5 Project: YANK00304 Sample ID: 120208002 Client ID: YANKOOI Vol. Recv.:
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU NIDA Units DF AnalystDate 7lme. Batch Mtd.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
U! Uncertain identification forgamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary packagc or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an "as received' basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC
,ndard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Reviewed by 41
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: September 10, 2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of 3 Client Sample ID: S103-108-23.4.5 Proiect: YANK003u4 Sample ID: 120208003 Client ID: YANK001 Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 01-JUL-04 Reccive Date: 27-AUG-04 rnflentor Client
Rad Alpha Spec Analysis Alphasjec P4 Liquid-ALL Plutonium-238 U 0.00864 +1-0.0655 0.0609 +1-0.0655 0.205 pCioL JASI 09/03/04 0833 361744 1 Plutonium-239/240 U 0.0234 ./-0.0621 0.0351 +/-0.0622 0.154 pCUL Am241.Cm, liquid-ALL Americium-241 U 0.00942 +1-0.0714 0.0664 +/-0.0714 0.224 pCVL JASI 09/03/04 0833 361741 2 Curium-242 U 0.00 +/-0.0867 0.00 +/-0.0867 0.120 pCVL Curium-243/244 U 0.033S 41-0.0663 0.00 +/-0.0665 0.0917 pCVL JquidScint Pu241, liquid-ALL
\ .PIutonium-241 U 1.49 +/-8.11 6.76 +/-8.11 13.9 pCUL JASI 09/05/04 0718 361746 3 Rad Gamma Spec Analysis Gammaspec GamanuLiquid-ALI.GAM2,STNDM)XPENN LF Americium-241 U 3.70 +/-7.09 6.14 +/-6.94 12.7 pCVL AKB 09/02/04 2108 362473 4 Cesium-134 U 1.15 +/-1139 1.21 +/-1.36 2.60 pCUL Cesium-137 U 0.792 +/-1.38 1.17 +/-1.35 2.49 *pCVL Cobalt-60 U 0.314 +1-1.41 1.18 +/-1.38 2.59 *pCilL Europium-152 U 2.56 +1-4.30 2.97 +14.21 6.25 pCUL Europium-154 U -0.771 +1-3.97 3.16 +/-3.89 .6.96 pCi/L Europium-lS5 U -1.7 +14.96 4.07 +1-4.86 8.40 *pCitL Manganese-54 U -1.14 +1-1.28 0.987 +/-1.26 2.15 pCI/L Niobium-94 U 1.13 +1-1.18 1.03 +1-1.15 2.19 pCiLL Silver-108m . U -0.57 +/-L28 1.03 +1-1.25 2.18 pCUL Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting GFPC,Sr9O, 1iqufd-ALLMLX Strontium-90 . U -0.00757 * +/-0.332 0.279 +1-0332 0.574 pCilL pCi/L HOBI 09/04/04 0004 361520 5 GrossA/B, iquid-AL[STND.MDXPENPJLF PCYL Alpha 11.9 +/-2.36 0.692 +1-2.61 1.68 pCilL LCW1 09/01/04 1358 361900 6 Beta 12.4 +/-2.20 IA6 +/-230 3.09 Rad Liquid Scintillation Analysis
- LSC Tridum Di, Liquid-ALL.STNDMIXPENN Tritium 1290 +1-240 169 +1-241 338 pCi/L LAGI 08131104 0118 3615857 liquidScht C4, liquid-ALL Carbon-14 U -0.434 */-31.1 26.1 +1-31.1 53.5 pCiL LAGI 09/01/04 2104 361546 8 LiquidScht Fe55, Liquid-AUL Iron-55 U -123 41-13.6 951 +1-13.6 19.2 pCi/L JLBI 09/04/04 0904 361838 9 LiquidSci: Mi63, liquid-ALL 42
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Datc. September10, 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO 002337 Page 2 of 3 Client Sample ID: S103-108-23.4.5 Proiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 120208003 Client ID: YANK0i Vol. Recv.:
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time BatchMtd.
Rad Liquid Sdntlllatlon Analysis LiquidScint Ni63, Liquid-ALL Nickel-63 U 1.91 +1-7.45 6.20 +/-7.45 12.8 pCi/L JLB I 09/03/04 2059 36184010 Liquid Scint Tc99, Liquid-ALL Technetium-99 U -6.04 +1-450 3.95 +1450 8.13 pCi/L DAII 09/08/04 1015 361583 11 The following Analytical Methods were performed Method Description DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-l I-RC Modified DOE EML HASL-300, Am-05-RC Modified DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-l I-RC Modified 4 EPA 901.1 5 EPA 905.0 Modified 6 EPA 900.0 7 EPA 906.0 Modified 8 EPA EERF C-01 Modified 9 DOE RESL Fe~.l, Modified 10 DOE RESLNi-I. Modified 11 DOE EML HASL-300, Tc-02-RC Modified Surrogate/Tracer recovery Test Recovery% Acceptable Limits Plutonium-242 Alphaspec Pu, Liquid-ALL 90 (15%-125%).
Americium-243 Arn241,Cmr, Liquid-ALL 88 (25%-125%)
Carrierfdracer Recovery Liquid Scint Pu241, liquid-ALL 91 Carrier/Tracer Recovery GFPC, Sr90, liquid-ALL>IIX 62 CarrierdTraccr Recovery Liquid Scint Fe55, Liquid-ALL 80 CarrierJTracer Recovery Liquid ScintNi63, Liquid-ALL 81 Cdrrierfrracer Recovery Liquid Scint Tc99, Liquid-ALL i01 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H 'Analytical holding time exceeded.
43
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407.- (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company : CYAPCo Address: Haddamn Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road
'East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: September 1O. 2004.-
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quaxterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 3 of 3 Client Sample ID: S103-108-2.3.4.5 Poect: YANK003O4 Sample ID: 120208003 Clit ID: YANK001 Vol. KcGy.:.
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty Le TPU MDA. units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting timit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
1.1 Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data siummary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
Whs data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC s~tandard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Reviewed by 44
QUALITY CONTROL DATA 45
i GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary ReDort Date: September 10, 2004 Client: CYAPCo Page I or 8 Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Workorder: 120208 Parmname NONM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range Anist Date Time Rad Alpha Spec Batch 361741 QC1200692805 120'08001 DUP Amnericium-241 U -0.0132 U 0.0551 pCi/L N/A (0% - 100%) JASI 09/02/04 14:32 Uncert: +/-0.068 +1-0.109 TPU: +1-0.068 +1-0.109 Curium-242 U 0.00 U -0.016 pCi/L NIA (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +/-0.0642 +1-0.0691 TPU: +/-0.0642 +1-0.0692 Curium-243/244 U 0.00359 U -0.0135 pCrL N/A (0%- 100%O)
Uncert: +1-0.113 +/-0.0697 TPU: +/-0.113 +/-0.0697 QC1200692807 LCS Americium-241 13.4 13.8 pCirL 103 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +1-1.25 TPU: +/-2.06
- n-242 U -0.0143 pCi/L K> Uncert: +1-0.0615
+1-0.0616 TPU:
Curium-2431244 17.1 16.0 pCiIL 94 Uncert: +1-1.35 TPU: +1-2.32 QC1200692804 MB Americium-241 U 0.0231 pCrL 09/02/04 14:32 Uncert: +/-0.0613 TPU: +1-0.0614 Curium-242 U 0.00 pCi/L Uncert: +/-0.0603 TPU: +/-0.0603 Curium-2431244 U 0.0158 pCiL Uncert +/-0.063 TPU: +1-0.063 QC1200692806 120208001 MS Ameuicium-241 13.4 U -0.0132 12.9 pCiaL 96 (75%-125%) 09/02/04 14:32 Uncert: +1-0.068 +/-1.19 TPU +1-0.068 +1-1.93 Curium-242 U 0.00 U Q0.0628 pColl Uncert: +/-0.0642 +1-0.087 TPU +/10.0642 +/-0.0874 Curium-243/244 17.2 U 0.00359 14.8 pCi/L Uncet +1-0.113 +/-1.28 TPU +1-0.113 +/-2.15 Batch 361744 QC1200692S15 120208001 DUP PI--nium-238 U -0.051 U 0.0215 pCi/L N/A (0% -100%) lASI 09/03/04 08:33 46
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary NVorkorder: 120208 Page 2 of 8 Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time Rad Alpha Spec Batch 361744 Uncert +/-0.0779 +/-0.057 TPU: +/-0.078 1 +1-0.057 Plutonium-239/240 U -0.0597 U 0.0215 pCi/L N/A (0%-100%0)
Uncert: +/-0.0736 +/-0.057 TPU: +/-0.0737 +1-0.057 QC1200692817 LCS Plutonium-238 U -0.0327 pCi/L (75%-125%) 09/03/04 08:33 Uncert +1-0.151 TPU: +1-0.151 Plutonium-239/240 12.0 13.9 pCVL 116 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +/-1.44 TPU: +1-2.23 QC1200692814 MB Plutonium-238 U -0.0239 pCi/L Uncert: +/-0.0271 TPU: +/-0.0272 Plutonium-239/240 U 0.0173 pCi/L Uncertl +/-0.0688 TPU: +/-0.0689 C1200692816 120208001 MS
<>nium-238 U -0.051 U 0.0736 pCi/L (75%-125%) 09/03/04 08:33 Uncert: +/-0.0779 +/-0.107 TPU: +/-0.0781 +/-0.107 Plutonium-2391240 12.0 U -0.0597 12.7 pCi/L 106 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +/-0.0736 +/-1.13 TPU: +/-0.0737 +/-1.63 Batch 361746 QC1200692821 120208001 DUP Plutonium-241 U 1.08 U 2.86 pCi/L 0 (0% - 100%) JASI 09/05/04 08:21 Uncert +/-7.42 +/-8.33 TPU: +/-7A2 +1-8.33 QC1200692823 LS Plutonium-241 176 146 pCiL 83 (75%-125%) 09/05/04 09:24 Uncert: +/-11.9 TPU: +/-17.3 QC1200692820 MB Plutonium-241 U . -6.01 pCi/L 09/05/04 07:49 Uncert: * +/-8.10 TPU: +/-8.12 QC1200692822 120208001 MS Plutonium-241 176 U 1.08 182 pCi/L 102 09/05/04 08:53 Uncert: +/-7A2 +/-14.1 TPU: +1-7A2 +1-22.9 Rad Gamma Spec Batch 362473 QC1200694604 120208001 DUP Americium-241 U 3.25 U -0.986 pCi/L N/A AKB 09/03/04 15:04 Uncert. +/-8.84 +/-1113
+/-11.0 47
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder: 120208 Page 3 of 8 Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time Rad Gamma Spec Batch 362473 TPU: +1-8.66 Cesium-134 U -0.0124 U 0.112 pCi/L N/A (0% - 100%)
Uncert +/-1.35 +1-2.01 TPU: +1-1.33 41-1.97 Cesium-137- U 1.67 U 2.01 pCi/L 18 (0% - 100%)
Uncert: +/-1.33 +/-2.09 TPU: +1-1.30 +/-2.04 Cobalt-60 U 0.0755 U 2.69 pCi/L 189 (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +/-1.32 +1-3.74 TPU +1-1.29 +/-3.67 Europium-152 U 3.25 U -1.92 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +t-3.91 +1-5.68 TPU +/-3.84 +1-5.57 Europium-154 U -0.977 U -2.14 pCi/L N/A (0% - 100%)
Uncert: +1-3.82 +1-5.47 TPU +/-3.74 +1-536 Europium-155 U -1.37 U -1.89 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +/-5.34 +/-7.72 TPU +1-5.24 +/-7.57 anese-54 U 0.117 U -1.71 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +1-1.37 +/-2.24 TPU +1-1.34 +/-2.20 Niobium-94 U -0.957 U OA06 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +1-1.18 +1-1.77 TPU +/-1.16 +1-1.74 Silver-108m U -0.355 U 0.976 pCi/L N/A (0% - 100%)
Uncert: +/-134 +1-1.91 TPU +/-1.31 +/-1.87 QC1200694606 LCS Americium-241 1170 1150 pCi/L 99 (75%-125%) 09/03/04 15:05 Uncert: +/-179 TPU: +/-175 Cesium-134 U 3.82 pCiL Uncert: +/-10.7 TPU: +1-10.5 Cesium-137 460 456 pCi/L *99 (75%-125%)
Unccrt +/-32.7 TPU: +/-32.0 Cobalt-60 696 685 pCi/L 98 (75%-125%)
Uncert +/47.7 TPU: +1-46.8 U 12.1 pCi/L Europium-152 Uncert: +1-27.9
- TPU: +1-27.4 Europium-154 U 5.25 pCi/L Uncert +1-22.2 TPU: +/-21.8 Europium-155 U -7.15 pCi/L 48
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder. 120208 Page 4 of 8 Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range Anlst Date Timi D Rad Gamma Spec Batch 362473 Uncert: +1-38.6 TPU: +1-37.8 Manganese-54 U -5.29 pCiL Uncert: +/-10.7 TPU: +/-10.5 Niobium-94 U -0.811 pCiIL Uncert: +1-8.97 TPU: +1-8.79 Silver-108m U 4.00 pCilL Uncert +/-9.17 TPU: +/-8.99 QC1200694603 MB Americium-241 U 0.973 pCiIL 09/02/04 21:13 Uncert: +1-2.06 TPU: +/-2.0 1 Cesium-134 U 1.92 pCi/L Uncert +1-1.78 TPU: +/-1.75 Cesium-137 U 0.192 pCVL Uncert: +/-1.64 TPU: +1-1.60 Cobalt-60 U 0.0944 pCiIL Uncert +/-1.79 TPU: +/-1.76 Europium-152 U 2.90 pCiL Uncert: +/-3.66 TPU: +/-3.59 Europium-154 U -0.0192 pCiIL Uncert: +14.56 TPU: +/4.47 Europium-lSS U -0.801 pCiIL Uncert +1-3.36 TPU: +1-3.29 Manganese-54 U 0.835 pCibL Uncert: +/-1.42 TPU: +/-1.39 Niobiun-94 U 0.702 pCi/L Uncert: +/-1.63 TPU: +/-1.59 Silver-108m U -1.27 pCiIL Uncert +/-1.38 TPU: +/-1.36 QC1200694605 120208001 MS Americium-241 9360 U 3.25 9660 pCi/L 103 09/02/04 21:11 Uncert: :+1-8.84 +1-1080 TPU 1+-8.66 +/-30300 Cesium-134 U -0.0124 U 29.4 pCi/L
. Uncert: +/-1.35 +1-69.2 TPU +/-1.33 +/-1 14 49
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder: 120208 Page S of 8 Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range Anlst Date Time Rad Gamma Spec Batch 362473 Cesium-137 3680 U 1.67 3840 pCa/L 104 Uncert: +1-133 +1-453 TPU: +/-1.30 +/-12000 Cobalt-60 5610 u 0.0755 5920 pci/L 106 Uncert: +/-132 +/423 TPU: +1-1.29 +1-18600 Europium-152 U 3.25 U -70.1 pCi/L Uncert: +/-3.91 +/-147 TPU: +/-3.84 +/-263 Europium-154 U -0.977 U 169 pCilL Uncert +1-3.82 +/-147 TPU: +1-3.74 +/-549 Europium-155 U -137 U -21.5 pCi/L Uncert: +1-5.34 +/-177 TPU: +1-5.24 +/-186 Manganese-54 U 0.117 U -16.6 pCi/L Uncert: +/-137 +/-615 TPU: +/-1.34 +1-79.7 Niobium-94 U -0.957 U 19.0 pCi/L Uncert: +/-1.18 +/-55.8 TPU: +1-1.16 +/-80.8 Silver-108m U -0355 U 1.03 pCi/L Uncert: +/-134 +1-543 TPU: +/-131 +/-533 Rad Gas Flow Batch 361520 QC1200692416 120208001 DUP Strontium-90 U 0.368 U 0.781 pCi/L 0 (0% - 100%) HOB I 09/04/04 00:04 Uncert: +/-0.312 +/-0562 TPU: +/-0329 +/-0.703 QC1200692418 LWS Strontium-90 36.6 343 pCi/L 94 (75%-125%) 09/07/04 10:14 Uncert +1-1.77 TPU: . +/-9.76 QC1200692415 WB Strontium-90 U 0.0585 pCi/L 09/04/04 00:04 Uncert: +1-0.274 TPU: +1-0.275 QC1200692417 12020S001 MS Strontium-90 73.2 U 0368 675 pCi/L 92 (75%-125%)
- Uncert +/-0312 +/-1.94 TPU: +/-0329 * +/-24.6 Batch 361900 QC1200693213 120203002 DUP Alpha
- 26A 33.1 pCi/L 22* (0% - 20%) .CW1 09/01/04 18:25 Uncert: +1-4.80 +/-553 TPU: +1-5.17 +/-6.07 21A 23.2 pCi/L 8 (0% - 20%)
50
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder 120208 Page 6 nf 8 Parnname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time R( (,asd rlow Batch 361900 Uncert: +/-3.69 +/-3.74 TPU: +/-3.77 +/-3.85 QC1200693216 LCS Alpha 71.9 73.1 pCi/L 102 (75%-125%) 09101/04 13:59 Uncert +1-5.16 TPU: +/-10.1 Beta 244 246 pCi/L 101 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +/-7.30 TPU: +/-28.0 QC1200693212 MB Alpha U 0.843 pCi/L 09/01/04 13:58 Uncert +/-0.757 TPU: +/-0.760 Beta U 2.55 pCi/L Uncert: +1-IA6 TPU: +/-1.46 QC1200693214 120208002 MS Alpha 71.9 26.4 100 pCi/L 102 (75%-125%) 09/01/04 13:59 Uncert +/4.80 +l-6.35 TPU: +/-5.17 +/-10.9 245 21.4 265 pCi/L 100 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +l-3.69 +/-7.73 TPU: +l-3.77 +1-17.6 QC1200693215 120208002 MSD Alpha 71.9 26.4 101 pCi/L I* 104 (75%-125%)
Uncert +/-4.80 +/-6.41 TPU: +/-5.17 +/-17.3 245 21.4 282 pCi/L 6* 106 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +/-3.69 +1-7.95 TPU: +/-3.77 +/-40.8 Rad Liquid Sdntillation Batch 361546 QC1200692448 120208001 DUP Carbon-14 U 4.39 U . 175 pCi/L 0 (0% - 100%) LAGI 09/01/04 22:09 Uncert: +/-31.6 +l-32.8 TPU: +/-31.6 +l-32.9 QC1200692450 LCS Carbon-14 1310 1320 PCz/L 101 (75%-125%) 09/01/04 23:14 Uncert: +/-592 TPU: +/-270 QC1200692447 MB Carbon-14 U -14.8 pCi/L 09/01/04 21:37 Uncert: +1-31.4 TPU: +/-315 QC1200692449 120208001 MS Carbon-14 1310 U 4.39 1310 pCfLL 100 (75%-125%) 09/01/04 22:42 Uncert +/-31.6 +1-58.6
-TPU: +/-31.6 +/-268 1583 51
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder: 120208 Page 7 of 8 Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time Rad Liquid Scintillation Batch 361583 QC1200692488 120208003 DUP Technetium-99 U -6.04 U -5.77 pCi/L N/A * (0% - 100%) DAJ1 09106104 18:45 Uncert: +/-4.50 +1-4.52 TPU: +/-4.50 +1-4.52 QC1200692490 LCS Technetium-99 470 496 pCi/L 106 (75%-125%) 09/06104 19:49 Uncert: +1-13.6 TPU: +/-175 QC1200692487 MB Technetium-99 U -3.83 pCi/L 09106/04 18:13 Uncert: +1-4.58 TPU: +1-458 QC1200692489 120208003 NIS Technetium-99 470 U -6.04 485 pCiIL 103 (75%-125%) 09/06104 19:17 Uncert: +1-4.50 +/-13.3 TPU: +/-4.50 +/-172 Batch 361585 QC1200692492 119484006 DUP Tritium U -137 U -52.3 pCi/L N/A (0% - 100%) LAGI 08/31/04 03:23 Uncert: +/-193 +/-203 TPU: +/-193 +/-203 QC1200692494 LCS Tritium 3220 2610 pCi/L 81 (75%-125%) 08/31/04 05.28 Uncert: +1-274 TPU: +/-277 QC1200692491 MB Tritium U -137 pCilL 08/31/04 02:20 Uncert: +/-201 TPU: +/-201 QC1200692493 119484006 MS Tritium 3230 U -137 3000 pCi/L 93 (75%-125%) 08/31/04 04:25 Uncert: +/-193 +1-283 TPU: +/-193 +1-287 Batch 361838 QC1200693074 120208003 DUP Iron-55 U -12.3 U -9.2 pCilL N/A (0% - 100%) JLB 1 09104/04 13:12 Uncert: +1-13.6 +1-13.0 TPU: +/-13.6 +/-13.0 QC1200693076 LCS Iron-55 287 291 pCi/L 101* (0%-%) 09/04/04 17.20 Uncert +/-213 TPU: +1-24.6 QC1200693073 MB
- Iron-55 U . -17.9 pCilL 09/04/04 11:08 Uncert: +1-13.4 TPU: +1-13A QC1200693075 120208003 MAS Iron-55 300 U -12.3 287 pCi/L 96* (0%-%) 09/04/04 15:16 Uncert +/-13.6 +1-15.2 K>S 52
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder: 120208 Page 8 of 8 Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range Anlst Date Time Rad Liquid Scintillation Batch 361838 TPU: +/-13.6 +/-19.1 Batch 361840 QC1200693078 120208003 DUP Nickel-63 U 1.91 U -2.43 pCi/L N/A (0%0- 100%) JLBI 09/03/04 22:03 Uncert: +1-7.45 +/-7.28 TPU: +/-7A5 +/-7.28 QC1200693080 LCS Nickel-63 342 325 pCi/L 95 (75%-125%) 09/03/04 23:07 Uncert: +1-15.1 TPU: +/-16.4 QC1200693077 MB Nickel-63 U -2.16 pCi/L 09/03/04 21:31 Uncert: +/-7.32 TPU: +1-732 QC1200693079 120208003 MS Nickel-63 343 U 1.91 353 pCi/L 103 (75%-125%) 09/03/04 22:35 Uncert: +/-7.45 +1-15.7 TPM: +1-7A5 +1-17.1 wle Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
Ul Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike conc. by a factor of 4 or more.
- Indicates analyte is a surrogate compound.
^ The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptence criteria when the sample is greater than five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control limit of +/- the RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
.53
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 0 a Member of THE GEL GROUP, INC.
0 Meeting Today's Needs with a Vision for Tomorrow June 25, 2004 Mr. Dave Keefer CYAPCo Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 RE: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Work Order: 113759 SDG: MSR#04-1662
Dear Mr. Keefer:
General Engineering Laboratories, LLC (GEL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the following analytical results for the sample(s) we received on May 27, 2004. Our policy is to provide high quality, personalized analytical services to enable you to meet your analytical needs on time every time.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GEL's standard operating
< procedures. We trust that you will find everything in order and to your satisfaction. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (843) 556-8171, ext. 4475.
Sincerely, Purchase Order: 002337 Chain of Custody: 2004-00086, 2004-00087 and 2004-00088 Enclosures P.O. Box 30712
- Charleston, SC 29417
- 2040 Savage Road (29407)
Phone (843) 556-8171
- Fax (843) 766-1178 - www.gel.com
CONNECTICUT YANKEE RE: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Work Order: 113759 SDG: MSR#04-1662 113759001 317-322-2 113759011 178-183-4 113759002 178-183-2 113759012 317-322-4 113759003 S-2 113759013 S-14 113759004 S-7 113759014 S-4 113759005 S-12 113759015 S-9 113759006 178-183-3 113759016 178-183-5 113759007 317-322-3 1137590.17 317-322-5 113759008 S-13 113759018 S-15 113759009 S-3 113759019 S-5 113759010 S-8 113759020 S-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS Case Narrative ................... 1 Chain of Custody .................. 4 Cooler Receipt Checklist ................... 8 Inorganic Analysis .................. 11 Radiological Analysis .................. 22 Sample Data Summary .................. 38 Quality Control Data ............. 69
CASE NARRATIVE
-I/
- age LiOf -1l --
CASE NARRATIVE For CONNECTICUT YANKEE RE: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Work Order: 113759 SDG: MSR#04-1662 June 25, 2004 Laboratorv Identification:
General Engineering Laboratories, LLC Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 30712 Charleston, South Carolina 29417 Express Mail Delivery and Shipping Address:
2040 Savage Road Charleston, South Carolina 29407 Telephone Number:
(843) 556-8171 Summarv:
Sample receipt The samples for the Quarterly Groundwater Project for work order 113759 arrived at General Engineering Laboratories, LLC, (GEL) in Charleston, South Carolina May 27, 2004 for environmental analysis. All sample containers arrived without any visible signs of tampening or breakage. The chain of custody contained the proper documentation and signatures.
The laboratory received the following groundwater samples:
113759001 317-322-2 113759011 178-1834 113759002 178-183-2 113759012 317-3224 113759003 S-2 113759013 S-14 113759004 S-7 113759014 S-4 113759005 S-12 113759015 S-9 113759006 178-183-3 113759016 178-183-5 113759007 317-322-3 113759017 317-322-5 113759008 S-13 113759018 S-15 113759009 S-3 113759019 S-5 113759010 S-8 113759020 S-10 GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC
- a Member of THE GEL GROUP, INC.
P.O. Box 30712
- Charleston, SC 29417
- 2040 Savage Road (29407)
Phone (843) 556-8171
- Fax (843) 766-1178
- www.gel.com tL
Items of Note:
There are no items to note.
Case Narrative:
Sample analyses were conducted using methodology as outlined in General Engineering Laboratories (GEL) Standard Operating Procedures. Any technical or administrative problems during analysis, data review, and reduction are listed below by analytical parameter.
Analytical Request:
Five groundwater samples were analyzed for Tritium and H-3. Five samples were analyzed for Gross A/B and y-isotopic. Five samples were analyzed for a-isotopic, Pu-241, Fe-55, Ni-63, and Tc-99. Five samples were analyzed for Sr-90 and Boron.
Internal Chain of Custody:
Custody was maintained for all of these samples.
Data Package:
The enclosed data package contains the following sections: Case Narrative, Chain of Custody, Cooler Receipt Checklist, Laboratory Certifications, and Radiochemistry.
I certify that this data package is in compliance with the SOW, both technically and for completeness, for other than the conditions detailed above. Release of the data contained in this hard copy data package has been authorized by the Laboratory Manager or a designee, as verified by the following signature.
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC a Member of THE GEL GROUP, INC.
RO. Box 30712
- Charleston, SC 29417
- 2040 Savage Road (29407)
Phone (843) 556-8171
- Fax (843) 766-1178
- www.gel.com 13
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Healtd sics Procedure C GPP-GGGR-R5 104-003-Attachment B-CY( Major Connecticut Yankee Atomic PoWer Company Chain of Custody Form No. 2004-00088 362 Injun Hollow Road, East Hatnpton, CT 06424 860-267-2556 ProjectName: HaddamNeckDecommissioning Analyses Requested UserOnly-;;; Lab.
=
Contact Name & Phone: -T r_
3, Dave Keefer 860-267-2556 (x3085) Ceda Sampee Contai ..C . .
_ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Code Type Size- N Analytical Lab (Name, City, State): Code &Type . -
General Engineering Lab (GEL), 2040 Savage Rd, >
- Ode ( r 0 Charleston, SC 29407, 843.556.8171 (Sarh Kozlik) Co.
- Priority: El 45 D.E 30 D. 14 D. 7 D. .h ;. k Other: __2;__.
Sample Designation J Date Time Comment, Preservation Lab Sample ID.
> 317-322-2 04/23/04 .11:29 WG G 1LP X = None __-i:_.__:_____
6 178-183-2 05/19/04 08:50 WG G ILP X None ______________:
178-183-3 05/19/04 08:50 WG G 4LP X 20 ml Nitric __'_i'""'
I~ 178-1834 05/19/04 08:50 WG G 4LP X 20 mL Nitric _______________
_ _ __178-183-5 05/19/04 08:50 WG G 4LP X '20 ml. Nitric ;; _____.
_ _ _ . __S-2 03/09/04 15:15 WG G 1LP X _ None -________
__S-7 103/10/04 09:11 WG G 1LP X _ : . None oS-12 103/15/04 16:06 WG G ILP X .-- ____ None :._:____._
I t ;.z-
+
NOTES: PO#: 002337 MSR#: 04-1662 01 LTP QA E Radwaste QA 3 Non QA Samples Shipped Via: IJntern'al Cdtaidr ED Fed Ex :Teiiq.': &jdeg. C.
El UPS
- a-isotopic to include Pu & Am/Cm. 0 Hand Custody SealW?
- 1) Relinquished By. DateTime 2) leceived B. Date/ime Custody Seal intact?
ae cam7S9 M j, <af i7-
< El. Oth er ,,r-;-.
- 3) Relinquished By Date/Time 4) Received By Date/Time BilofLaingff___,_
Bill of LadingBB
- 5) Relinquished By Date/Time 6) Received By Date/Time
Healtlk- sics Procedure C. GPP-GGGR-R5104-003-Attachment B-CYQ Major Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Chain of Custody Form No. 2004-00086 362 Injun Hollow Road, East Hampton, CT 06424 860-267-2556 Project Name: Haddam Neck Decommissioning Analyses Requested = i.a*-U z . ., ..
- Contact Dave Name Keefer & Phone: (x3085) 860-267-2556 Media Sample Container ._ 2 .- OR r.
Analytical Lab (Name, City, State): Code Type Code Size-
&Type o.
0 T:
General Engineering Lab (GEL), 2040 Savage Rd, Code S . ,
Charleston, SC 29407, 843.556.8171 (Sarah Kozlik) - . ...
-~ 0.
Priority: 45 D. 30 D.LI 14 D.LI7 D. .
Other: 1D _ 7D.S._
Sample Designation Date . Time I - _ Comment, Preservation Lab Sam ple ID
^ ' 317-322-3 04/23/04 11:48 WGO:, G 4LP . .X . 20 ml. Nitric
- 317-322-4 04/23/04 11:58 WG. G 4LP . X 20 ml. Nitric ,
317-322-5 04/23/04 11:38 WG G 4LP X . _. _20 ml. Nitric D S-13 03/15/04 16:26 WG G 4LP X 20 ml. Nitric S-14 03/15/04 16:31 Wo G 4LP X 20 ml. Nitric ____ .,-;______
S-1s 03/15/04 16:35 WG G 4LP . - X - 20 ml. Nitric -
NOTES: PO#: 002337 MSR#: 04-1662 LTP U QA 5 Radwaste QA EINoh QA Samples Shipped Via: . Intenal ontainer,.
. Fed Ex Ternp.Degg C El UPS
- a-isotopic to include Pu & Am/Cm. 5 Hand CustodSaled?
6
- 1) Relinqished By: Date/Time 2)e Date/Time Custody Seal lnfact?
s/79/ l9tli - ,-.2/ /4)Z 5 Other
- 3) Relinquished By Date/Time 4) Received By Date/Time ___D.:--..:__O:
Bill of Lading #
- 5) Relinquished By Date/Time 6) Received By Date/Time
Healt( ics Procedure C GPP-GGGR-R5 104-003-Attachment B-CY( vlajor Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Chain of Custody Form No. 2004-00087 362 Injun Hollow Road, East Hampton, CT 06424 860-267-2556 Project Name: Haddam Neck Decommissioning Analyses Requested LabUse Onl.; I..,; -
Contact Name & Phone:
Dave Keefer 860-267-2556 (t3085) Media Samle-. Contair * .
__ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Cod e Type Size- . 0 ,~
- Analytical Lab (Name, City, State): Code &T-e
- 0 r.
General Engineering Lab (GEL), 2040 Savage Rd, o.'
Charleston, SC 29407, 843.556.8171 (Sarah Kozlik) .. o Z. g :-7...
Priority:E 45 D.E 30 D. 14 D. F] 7 D. .O. .:
Other: Designation2 DT en, /LI Sample Designation DaejTime Comment, Preservation Ia apeI S-3 03/09/04 15:17 WG G 4LP X 20 ml. Nitric : -: ."'..:-'i, ".,-! " t , ,, -
S-4 03/09/04 15:21 WG G _ 4LP X _____ _20- ;:ml..__Nitric S-5 03/09/04 15:23 WG G 4LP X 20 ml. Nitric ______________
S-8 03/10/04 09:49 WG G - 4LP X 20 ml. Nitric ____.-.-_:-_-;_
DI' S-9 03/10/04 09:56 WG G 4LP - X _ . 20 ml. Nitric _____.-_________
,C) S-10 03/10/04 09:54 WG G 4LP X 20 ml. Nitric __________.__;_
Z'-, :,--
'.'r, I:.-,-':-: " -'.
, ;" " .. t..".
I In t!-; .t _ I;; ;
NOTES: PO#: 002337 MSR#: 04-1662 EI LTP QA El Radwaste QA 3 Non QA Samples Shipped Via: ,jinternial Co'ntaitn'er 3 Fed Ex -Ternmp.. Deg C.
- a.-isotopic to include Pu & Am/Cm. .EJ Hand . Custody Se'aed?
I) Relinqtished By: DateTime 2) Received By Date/Time .Custody Seal Intact?
vSt.s)a S/S /ot , L IJi4/ i 7-6)4 J/:a El Other
- 3) Relinquished By . Date/Time 4) Received By Date/Time _ _ __ _ V'j NO Bill of Lading #
- 5) Relinquished By Date/Time 6) Received By Date/Time , .
COOLER RECEI PT CHECKLIST
. !. - ' ? .. . ., .
Connecticut Yankee Statement of Work for Analytical Lab Services CY-ISC-SOW-001 Figure 1. Sample Check-in List Date/Time Received: 6;57 7) "-I ,(), i<r SDG#: kA - I ( U Work OrderNumber. \
Shipping Container ID:LJI 714, Chain of Custody # , p/4odaL, dAd
- 1. Custody Seals on shipping container intact? Yes [4-No [
- 2. Custody Seals dated and signed? Yes [4-N [
- 3. Chain-of-Custody record present? Yes [A~o [ i
- 4. Cooler temperature 02 C _ 2H. { 15 &
- 5. Vermiculite/packing materials is: Wet [1 Dry
- 6. Number of samples in shipping-container. 2a
- 7. Sample holding times exceeded? Yes D [No[]
- 8. Samples have:
tape hazard labels
{7custody seals appropriate sample labels
- 9. Samples are:
t/n good condition leaking broken _____have air bubbles
- 10. Were any anomalies identified in sample receipt? Yes No No[
I. Description of anomalies (include sample numbers):
Sample Custodian/Laboratory: Y ,41 JtAf // Date: .57-64 / A A2 Telephoned to: On By
...Page 9 of 77
SAMPLE RECEIPT & RE VIEW FORM PM me on S pe Receipt Criteria l E c . Conmuents/Qualifiers (Required for Non-Confor-ing Items) 1Shipping co iners received intact Cie Applicabl se alsbroken dawaged container leaking container otber(describe) and sealed? \I.?ll_._._.
Samples requiring CO ice bags blue ice dry ice none other(describe) 2 preservation within (4+1-X?
_ Record preservation method. _
. Chain of custody documents 3.
included with shipment?!
Sample containers intact and Circle Applicable: seals broken damaged container leaking container other (describe)
_sealed? -
Samples requiring chemical IIDS. containers affected and obseved pH:
preservation at proper pHi?
_ VOA vials free of headspaceSpllDs containers affected Undefined as.< 6mm bubble)?
Samples received within holding _lds and tests affecteld:
7 time?'
Sample ID's on COC match ID's o Saml IDs and containers affected\
8bottles?
Date & time on COC nmtch date & Sample lUs affected:
_ time on bottles?
Number of containers received Sampl lDs affected:
1 match number indicated on COM?
11 COC form is properly signed in relinquished/received sections?
12 Air Bill & Tracking Vs i~Wos
_a . . . ' , -
1=i
. mu. __
O Page 10 of 77
K)
INORGANIC K) ANALYSIS K>.
Page 11 of 77
Metals Fractional Narrative Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. (YANK)
SDG MSR#04-1662 Method/Analysis Information Analytical Batch: 337363 Prep Batch: 337362 Standard Operating Procedures: GL-MA-E-014 REV# 8, GL-MA-E-006 REV# 9 Analytical Method: SW846 6020 Prep Method: SW846 3005A Sample Analysis Sample ID Client ID 113759016 178-183-5 113759017 317-322-5 113759018 S 113759019 S-5 113759020 S-10 1200634917 Method Blank (MB) ICP-MS 1200634918 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200634921 113889001(LeachateL) Serial Dilution (SD) 1200634919 113889001(LeachateD) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200634920 113889001(LeachateS) Matrix Spike (MS)
Preparation/Analytical Method Verification The SOP stated above has been prepared based on technical research and testing conducted by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC. and with guidance from the regulatory documents listed in this 'Method/Analysis Information" section.
System Configuration The ICP-MS analysis was performed on a Perkin Elmer Elan 6100E inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS). The instrument is equipped with a cross-flow Page 12 of 77
nebulizer, quadrupole mass spectrometer, and dual mode electron multiplier detector.
Internal standards of scandium, germanium, indium, and tantalum were utilized to cover the mass spectrum. Operating conditions are set at 1400W power and combined argon pressures of 3607 kPa for the plasma and auxiliary gases, and 0.85 Urnin carrier gas flow, and an initial lens voltage of 5.2.
Calibration Information Instrument Calibration All initial calibration requirements have been met for this SDG.
CRDL Requirements All CRDL standard(s) met the referenced advisory control limits.
ICSAIICSAB statement All interference check samples (ICSA and ICSAB) associated with this SDG met the established acceptance criteria.
Continuing Calibration Blank (CCB) Requirements All continuing calibration blanks (CCB) bracketing this batch met the established acceptance criteria.
Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) Requirements All continuing calibration verifications (CCV) bracketing this SDG met the acceptance criteria.
Quality Control (OC) Information Method Blank (MB)jStatement The MB analyzed with this SDG met the acceptance criteria.
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Recovery The LCS spike recoveries met the acceptance limits.
Quality Control (QC) Sample Statement The following sample was selected as the quality control (QC) sample for this batch:
113889001 (Leachate).
Matrix Spike (MS) Recovery Statement The percent recoveries (%R) obtained from the MS analyses are evaluated when the sample concentration is less than four times (4X) the spike concentration added. All applicable elements met the acceptance criteria Duplicate Relative Percent Difference (RPD) Statement The relative percent difference (RPD) obtained from the designated sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated based'on acceptance criteria of 20% when the sample is >5X the Page 13 of 77
contract required detection limit (RL). In cases were either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the contract required detection limit (RL), a control of RL is used to evaluate the DUP results. All applicable analytes met these requirements.
Serial Dilution % Difference Statement The serial dilution is used to assess matrix suppression or enhancement. Raw element concentrations 25x the IDL for CVAA, 50X the IDL for ICP and I OOX the IDL for ICP-MS analyses are applicable for serial dilution assessment. All applicable analytes met the established criteria of less than 10% difference (%D).
Technical Information Holding Time Specifications GEL assigns holding times based on the associated methodology, which assigns the date and time from sample collection of sample receipt. Those holding times expressed in hours are calculated in the AlphaLIMS system. Those holding times expressed as days expire at midnight on the day of expiration. All samples in this SDG met the specified holding time.
Preparation/Analytical Method Verification All procedures were performed as stated in the SOP.
Sample Dilutions Dilutions are performed to minimize matrix interferences resulting from elevated mineral element concentrations present in soil samples and/or to bring over range target analyte concentrations into the linear calibration range of the instrument. The samples in this SDG did not require dilutions.
Preparation Information The samples in this SDG were prepared exactly according to the cited SOP.
Miscellaneous Information Nonconformance Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. No NCR was generated with this SDG.
Additional Comments Additional comments were not required for this SDG.
Certification Statement Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Page 14 of 77
Review Validation GEL requires all analytical data to be verified by a qualified data validator. In addition, all data designated for CLP or CLP-like packaging will receive a third level validation upon completion of the data package.
The following data validator verified the information presented in this case narrative:
Reviewer: - - Date: (,IV l.A Page 15 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC
-GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: June 21,2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer
--Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of I Client Sample ID: 178-183-5 Proiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759016 Client ID: YANK001 Matrix: Ground Water Collect Date: 19-MAY-04 OS:50 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector. Client Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL
- Units - DF AnalystDate Time Batch Method
~LVACW
\4-...L. A -
nu a j
. T eld'fl-~~
i*c LYZO 3005/6020 Boron-All TNtD ,MJX Boron 215 0.540 16.0 ug/L I PRB 06/04/04 1736 337363 I The following Prep Methods were perforned Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch t6 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP ARGI 06104104 0800 337362 heitollowing Analytical Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Comments I SW84W 3005/6020 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summnary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP crtification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard uiless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
I C-.,4l. I.
Reviewed by Page 16 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 lnjun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: June 21,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page. 1 of I Client Sample ID: 317-322-5 Proiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759017 Client ID: YANK001 Matrix: Ground Water Collect Date: 23-APR-04 11:38 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector. Client Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Method Metals Analysis-4CP-MS 3005/6020 Boron-AlSNDMIX Boron 338 0.540 16.0 ug/L I PRB 06104104 1742 337363 i The following Prep Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch
` 46 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP ARGI 06104/04 0800 337362 Kritollowing Analytical Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Comments 1 SW846 3005/6020 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limi.L U3 Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineeing Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Reviewed by Page 17 of 77
GENERAL ENGiNEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 ReportDate: Junc2l,2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer P
Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of I Client Sample ID: S-15 Proiect: YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759018 Client ID: YANK001 Matrix: Ground Water Collect Date: 15-MAR-04 16:35 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector Crient Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Method Metals Analysls-ICP.MS.
3005/6020 Boron-ALLMSTNDMZX Boron J 12.9 0.540 16.0 ug/L I PRB 06/04/04 1747 337363 1 The following Prep Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch
,v'46 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP. ARGI 06104/D4 0800 337362
~dfollowing Analytical Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Comments 1 SW846 3005/6020 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limiL U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Reviewed by Page 18 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo.
Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: June21,2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 1 of I Client Sample ID: S-5 Proiect: YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759019 Client ID: YANK00I Matrix: Ground Water Collect Date: 09-MAR-04 15:23 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 to:_--
Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Method Metals Analysis-ICP-MS 3005/6020 Boron-AIA5TNDhMIX Boron J 5A2 0540 16.0 ug/L I PRB 06/04/04 1752 337363 1 The roUowing Prep Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Date Tine Prep Batch v "46 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP ARGI 06/04/04 0800 337362 Kufollowing Analytical Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Comments I SW846 3005/6020 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrumcnt calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection lirnit.
UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineerinig Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Reviewed by Page 19 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: . CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 ReportDate: June 21,2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of I Client Sample ID: S-io Proiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759020 Client ID: YANK001 Matrix: Ground Water Collect Date: 10-MAR-04 09:54 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector. rlue-t Parameter Qualifier Result DL RL Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Method Metals Analysis-ICP-MNS 3005/6020 Boron-AL.STNDMUX Boron 1 2.34 0540 16.0 ug/L I PRB 06/04t04 1758 337363 1 The following Prep Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch
'46 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP ARGI 06/04/04 0800 337362 ze following Analytical Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Comments I SW846 3005/6020 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentradon of the target analyte exceeds the instrumentcalibradon range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limi.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection linit.
Ul Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an "as received" basis.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the Certificate of Analysis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Reviewed by Page 20 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston, SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Revort Date: June 21, 2004 Client: CYAPCo Page 1 of 1 lladdam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer WVorkorder. 113759 Parmname NOM Sample Qua] QC Units RPD% REC% Range Anist Date Time Metals Analysis - ICPMS Batch .337363 QC1200634919 113889001 DUP Boron 9660 10000 ughL 4 (0%-20%) BAJ 06/07/04 1638 QC1200634918 LCS Boron 100 112 ugIL 112 (80%-120%) PRB 06/04/04 17:31
- QC1200634917 MB Boron U ND ug/L 06/04/04 17:26 QC1200634920 113SS9001 MS Boron 100 9660 9860 ug/L NMA (75%-125%) BAY 06107/04 16:41 QC1200634921 113889001 SDILT Boron 19A ug&L .109 06/07/04 16:44 Notes:
"e Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
\ 'B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
UI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike conc. by a factor of 4 or more.
A The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RL, a control limit of +-
the RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed underNELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
Page 21 of 77.
RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Page 22 of 77
Radiochemistry Case Narrative Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co. (YANK)
SDG MSR#04-1662 Method/Analysis Information Product: Am241,Cm, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, Am-05-RC Modified Analytical Batch Number: 341329 Sample ID . CClient ID 113759011 178-183-4 113759012 3 17-322-4 113759013 S -14 113759014 S'4
.113759015 SS-9 1200644403 .: 4ethod Blank (MB) 1200644406. L.aboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200644404 113759011(178-1834) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200644405 113759011(178-1834) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-01 1 REV# 13.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Ounlity Control (OC) Information:.
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 113759011 (178-183-4).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Page 23 of 77.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Manual Integration No manual integrations were performed on data in this batch.
oualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: Alphaspec Pu, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-I I-RC Modified Analytical Batch Number 341332 Sample ID Client ID 113759011 178-183-4 113759012 317-322-4 113759013 S-14 113759014 S-4 113759015 S-9 1200644411 Method Blank (MB) 1200644414 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200644412 113759011(178-183-4) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200644413 113759011(178-183-4) Matrix Spike (MS),
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-01 1 REV# 13.
Calibration Inforination:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC Page 24 of 77
The following sample was used for QC: 113759011 (178-183-4).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-preplRe-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Manual Integration No manual integrations were performed on data in this batch.
Qualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: Gammaspec, Gamma,Llquid-ALL,GAN12,STNDMIX,PENN,LF Analytical Method: EPA 901.1 Analytical Batch Number. 337182 Sample ID Client ID 113759006 178-1E 83-3 113759007 317-32!2-3 113759008 S-13 113759009 S-3 113759010 S-8 1200634477 Metho d Blank (MB) 1200634480 Labor,itory Control Sample (LCS) 1200634478 11375'9006(178-183-3) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200634479 11375'9006(178-183-3) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-013 REV# 10.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Page 25 of 77
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 113759006 (178-183-3).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
,Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Qualifier information Qualifier Reason Analyte Sample Data rejected due to low abundance. Cesium-137 113759008 Method/Analysis Information Product: GFPC, Sr90, liquid-ALL,MIX Analytical Method: EPA 905.0 Modified Analytical Batch Number 340973 Sample ID Client ID 113759016 178-183-5 113759017 317-322-5 113759018 S-15 113759019 S-5 113759020 S-10 1200643662 Method Blank (MB) 1200643665 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200643663 113759018(S-15) Sample Duplicate (DUP)
Page 26 of 77
1200643664 113759018(S-15) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-004 REV# 8.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 113759018 (S-15).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were perf6rmed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis Sample 113759016 (178-183-5) was recounted to verify sample result. Second count being reported.
Chemical Recoveries All chemical recoveries meet the required acceptance limits for this sample set.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Oualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: Liquid Scint Tc99, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method. DOE EML HASL-300, Tc-02-RC Modified Page 27 of 77
Analytical Batch Number: 340926 Sample ID Client ID 113759011 178-1834 113759012 317-322-4 113759013 S-14 113759014 S-4 113759015 S-9 1200643522 Method Blank (MB) 1200643525 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200644474 113759011(178-183-4) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200644475 113759011(178-183-4) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GLRAD-A-005 REV# 11.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 113759011 (178-183-4).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prepfRe-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced Page 28 of 77
SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Additional Comments Samples 113759011 (178-183-4), 113759012(317-322-4), 113759013 (S-14), 113759014(S-4), 113759015 (S-9),
1200643522 (MB), 1200643525 (LCS), 1200644474 (178-183-4) and 1200644475 (178-183-4) were preserved with nitric prior to analysis.
Oualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analysis Information Product: Liquid Scint Fe55, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE RESL Fe-i, Modified Analytical Batch Number: 340950 Sample ID Client ID 113759011 178-183-4 113759012 317-322-4 113759013 S-14 113759014 S-4 113759015 S-9 1200643608 Method Blank (MB) 1200643611 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200643609 113759015(S-9) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200643610 113759015(S-9) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance ivith GL-RAD-A-040 REV# 2.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 113759015 (S-9).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Page 29 of 77
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for-this SDG.
Additional Comments Absolute value of the sample results for samples 113759012 (317-322-4), 113759014 (S-4) and 1200643609 (S-9) is greater than 3* I sigma tpu due to crosstalk factor and large concentration of Fe-59 tracer. Sample spectrums verifies there is no Fe-55 in the samples, however the results may be biased low due to the crosstalk from tracer.
Qualifier Information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analysis Information Product: Liquid Scint Ni63, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE RESL Ni-I, Modified Analytical Batch Number 340951 Sample ID Client ID 113759011 178-183-4 113759012 317-322-4 113759013 S-14 113759014 S-4 113759015 S-9 1200643612 Method Blank (MB) 1200643615 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200643613. 113759015(S-9) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200643614 113759015(S-9) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-022 REV# 6.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry Page 30 of 77
All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Ouality Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 113759015 (S-9).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Qualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: LSC, Tritium Dist, Liquid-ALLSTND,NIIX,PENN Analytical Method: EPA 906.0 Modified Analytical Batch Number: 340954 Sample ID Client-ID 113759001 317-322-2 113759002 178-183-2 113759003 S-2 113759004 S-7 113759005 S-12 1200643624 Method Blank (MB) 1200643627 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200643625 113759005(S-12) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200643626 ; 113759005(S-12) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-002 REV# 9.
Page 31 of 77
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Ouality Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 113759005 (S-12).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prepfRe-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis..
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
Oualifier Information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: Liquid Scint C14, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: EPA EERF C-01 Modified Analytical Batch Number. 341392
'Sample ID . Client ID 113759001 317-322-2 113759002 178-183-2 113759003 S-2 113759004 S-7.
113759005 S-12 K> 1200644561 Method Blank (MB)
Page 32 of 77
1200644564 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200644562 113960002(FBI 17D) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200644563 113960002(FBI 17D) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-003 REV# 7.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Ouality Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 113960002 (FBI 17D).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-preplRe-analysis None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
pualifier Information Manual qualifiers were not required..
Method/Analvsis Information Product: G.
Cross A/B, liquid-ALLSTND,MIXPENNLF Analytical Method: EPA 900.0 Analytical Batch Number: 341271 Page 33 of 77
Sample ID Client ID 113759006 178-183-3 113759007 317-322-3 113759008 S-13 113759009 S-3 113759010 S-8 1200644273 Method Blank (MB) 1200644277 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200644274 113759009(S-3) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200644275 113759009(S-3) Matrix Spike (MS) 1200644276 113759009(S-3) Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-001 REV# 8.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met.
Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC: 113759009 (S-3).
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis.
None of the samples in this sample set required reprep or reanalysis.
Chemical Recoveries All chemical recoveries meet the required acceptance limits for this sample set.
Gross Alpha/Beta Preparation Information Page 34 of 77
High hygroscopic salt content in evaporated samples can cause the sample mass to fluctuate due to moisture absorption. To minimize this interference, the salts are converted to oxides by heating the sample under a flame until a dull red color is obtained. The conversion to oxides stabilizes the sample weight and ensures that proper alphalbeta efficiencies are assigned for each sample. Volatile radioisotopes of carbon, hydrogen, technetium, polonium and cesium may be lost during sample heating.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. An NCR was not generated for this SDG.
qualifier information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Method/Analvsis Information Product: Liquid Scint Pu241, Liquid-ALL Analytical Method: DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-i I-RC Modified Analytical Batch Number 344849 Sample ID Client ID 113759011 178-183-4 113759012 317-322-4 113759013 S-14 113759014 S-4 J113759015 S-9 1200652998 Method Blank (MB) 1200653001 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 1200652999 113759013(S-14) Sample Duplicate (DUP) 1200653000 113759013(S-14) Matrix Spike (MS)
SOP Reference Procedure for preparation, analysis and reporting of analytical data are controlled by General Engineering Laboratories, LLC as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The data discussed in this narrative has been analyzed in accordance with GL-RAD-A-035 REV# 5.
Calibration Information:
Calibration Information All initial and continuing calibration requirements have been met Standards Information Standard solution(s) for these analyses are NIST traceable and used before the expiration date(s).
- Sample Geometry All counting sources were prepared in the same geometry as the calibration standards.
Oualitv Control (OC) Information:
Blank Information The blank volume is representative of the sample volume in this batch.
Designated QC The following sample was used for QC:. 113759013 (S-14).
Page 35 of 77
QC Information All of the QC samples met the required acceptance limits.
Technical Information:
Holding Time All sample procedures for this sample set were performed within the required holding time.
Preparation Information All preparation criteria have been met for these analyses.
Sample Re-prep/Re-analysis Samples were reprepped due to low/high carrier/tracer yield.
Samples were reprepped due to low/high recovery.
Miscellaneous Information:
NCR Documentation Nonconformance reports are generated to document any procedural anomalies that may deviate from referenced SOP or contractual documents. The following NCR was generated for this SDG:
NCR 123785 was generated due to RDL less than MDA. 1. Samples 113759011 and 113759015 did not meet the client required detection limit. The samples were prepared three times due to matrix problems encounted during analytical preparation. The final preparation did not meet the required detection limit due to limited remaining sample volumes.
Manual Integration Manual intergration of alpha spectroscopy spectra 1200652998 (MB) was performed to fully separate counts in Regions of Interest which would have been biased.
Oualifier Information Manual qualifiers were not required.
Certification Statement Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless otherwise noted in the analytical case narrative.
Review Validation:
GEL requires all analytical data to be verified by a qualified data validator. In addition, all data designated for CLP or CLP-like packaging will receive a third level validation upon completion of the data package.
The following data validator verified the Information presented in this case narrative:
Reviewer:
Page 36 of 77
neral Engineering Laboratories NCR Report No.: 123785
( p GEL-XXX Revision No.:
Be.06102 COMPANY - WIDE NONCONFORMANCE REPORT Mo.Day Yr. Division: Type:
01-JUL04 Radiochemistry Process Instrument Type: Quality Criteria: Client Code:
LSC Specifications YANK Test I Method: Matrix Type: Patch ID: Sample Numbers:
DOE EML HASL-300, Pu- I -RC Uquid 344849 See Below
-Modified I Potentially affected work order(s)(SDG): 1 13759(MSR#04-1662)
Application Issues:
RDL less than MDA Specification and Requirements NRG Disposition:
Nonconformance
Description:
- 1. Samples 113759011 and 113759015 did not meet the client required 1. Reporting results.
detection limit. The samples were prepared three times due to matrix problems encounted during analytical preparation. The final preparation did not meet the required detection limit due to limited remaining sample volumes.
Originator's Name: Data Validator/Group Leader Melanie Aycock 01-JUL-04 Scott Baskett 01-JUL-04 Quality Review: Corrective Action:
Nrector: Corrective Action ID and Complete Date:..
Page 1 Page 37 of 77
SAMPLE DATA
SUMMARY
Page.38 of 77
ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: HaddamNeckcPlant 362 Injun Hollow Road C East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1.2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer.
Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 1 of I Client Sample ID: 317-322-2 Proiect.D YAN4K00304 Sample ID: 113759001 ClientcID: yAK001 Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 23-APR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector.. Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC ITU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time BatchMtd.
Rad Liquid Scdntillatlon AnaysIs LSC, Tritum Dint Liquid A4 , NDUMEPENN Trltium 496 +/.137 i0 +4-137 210 pCi/L JLBI 06/1804 1752 340954 1 Uquld Scnt C14 Liquid-ALL
'Jarbo-14 U -38.5 +1-49.4 52.3 .e51.7 107 pCi/L MWX 06/19/04 1504 3413922 1
ITe following Analytical Metbods were performed Method Description EPA 906.0 Modified EPA EERF C-0 Modified Notes:
The Qualifies in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyie was detected in the sample as well as the assocated blank.
ED Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibaion range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimaed value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
.1 Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but ot detected above the detection limit.
UT Unccrtain identification forgammaspectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see ca narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or prcservadon holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
Ibis data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Reviewed by Page 39 of 77
ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SO 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neckc Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road
. East Hampton. Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1, 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefcr Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of I Client Sample ID: 178-183-2 Project: YANK-0304 Sample ID: 113759002 Client &D: YANICOOI Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 19-MAY-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector: Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU - MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad Liquid Scintillation Analysis LSC Trftm Dist Lquid-AII.STVD. ,PFVNN Tritium 6060 +1-231 108 +1-250 216 pCi'L lLBI 0618104 1956 340954 1 LiquidScL' C14, Lquid-ALL Carbon-14 U -11.2 1-50.8 52.7 .1-51.0 108 pCVIL MWX 06/19/04 1536 341392 2 1
Thc following Analytical Methods were performed Method Description I EPA 906.0 Modified 2 EPA EERF C-0l Modified Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Hlag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of th target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range; H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target mnayte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
UI Uncertain identification for ganmna spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarab KoZlk.
Reviewed by Page 40 of 77
LLC LABORATORIES, GENERAL ENGINEERING GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556 8171 - wwi.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam NcckPlant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1,2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project Quarterly Groundwater POM 002337 Page I of 1 Client Sample ID: S-2 Proiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759003 Cent &D: YANKO°I Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 09-MAR.04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04
'1;rnt
%,U.L L . .L Parameter Qualifier RResult Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Thme Batch Mtd.
Rad Liquid Sdntlflatloa Analysis ZSC Tritum DiAj Liquid-A NLS7DMlXPENN Tritium 329 41-130 103 +1-130 206 pCi/L lLBs 06/18104 2200 340954 1 LiquidScint C14, Liquid-ALL Carbon-14 U 18.3 +1-54.5 55.3 +1-55.0 113 pCitL MWX 06/19/04 1608 341392 2 I
The following Analytialz Methods were performed Method Description 1 EPA 906.0 Modified 2 EPA EERF C-01 Modified Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the DC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limil U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection lisnit.
Ul Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific quaifier-please see case namtive, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an as received' basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedur Please direct any questions to your Prject Manager, Sarah Kozilk.
Reviewed by Page 41 of 77
LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Ncdk Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1, 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave IKeefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PON 002337 Page I of I Client Sample ID: S-7 Project YANK00304 Samp1e ID: 113759004 Client ID: YANK001 Matrix:
- Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 10-MAR-04 Receive Date:
- 27-MAY Crallowtnr M-ert Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad liquid Scintillation Analysis LSCt Tritum Dist. Uguid-AMLUTNAXPENVN Tritium 338 +1-137 108 +/-137 216 pCYL JLBI 06019/04 0003 340954 1 LJquid Sct C14, Liquid-AU.
Carbon-14 U 15.9 +1-50.8 51.6 +1-51.2 106 pCiJL MWX 06/19/04 1640 341392 2 1 ..
Tbe following A oalyta Methods were performed Method Description I EPA 906.0 Modified 2 EPA EERF C-0l Modified Notes:
Ihe Qualifiers in this rePOrt are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for tesults below the MDC or a flag for lows tracer recoy.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instnnment calibradon range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less t5an the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
II .Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narraive, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC
.standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sah Kozlik.
Reviewed by Page 42 of 77.
EGINERIN GENEALLABRATRIES LL GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gol.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1, 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project Quarterly GroundwatcrPO# 002337 Page I of 1 Client Sample ID: S-12 CProect: YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759005 lient ID: YANKOOI Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 15-MAR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector: Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad lUquid Scintillation Analysis LSC Tritium Dim Liuid-AULSTNDMX.PE&N Tritium 325 +1-140 111 +t-140 222 , pCi/L JLBI 06/19/04 0207 340954 1 Liquid Scint C14. Liquid-ALL Carbon-14 U 4.24 +1.50.7 52.4 Wt-50.8 107 pCi/L MWX 06/19/04 1712 341392 2 1
7be following Analytical Methods were perfonned Method Description I EPA 906.0 Modified EPA EERF C-01 Modified Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
D Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracr recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
I Indicates an estimated value. The result was grater than the detectdon limit. but less than the reporting limit U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
U[ Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as reccived- basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozilk.
Reviewed by Page 43 of 77
LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING K-> GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 ReportDate: July 1, 2004 Contacte Mr. Dave Keefer Project Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 1 of 2 Client Sample ID: 178-183-3 PMoiect: YANK00304 Samele ID: 113759006 CVl.ntRID: YANKOOI Matrix: Ground Water Collect Date: 19-MAY-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04
~V-%VL~. %IUcnt Parameter Qualifler Result Uncertainty LC TPU Ml)A Units DF AnalystDate Time Batcb Mtd.
Rad Gamna Spec Analysis Gammaypec. GammaUquid-AIL4GAMZSTND.MjXPEIL F Americium-241 U -632 +1-10,5 8.00 +1-103 16.6 pCI/L SRB 06/10/04 2243 337182 1 Cesium-134 U -1.38 +/-134 0.961 +/-131 2.10 PCI/L
>Cesilum137 U -0.0136 +1-126 1.04 +1-1.24 2.23 Cobalt-60 U -1.4 +1-139 0.995 +/-1.36 2.23 pCIIL Europium-152 U 2.61 +/-438 3.21 +l4.30 6.74 PCi/L Europiurn-154 U -3.17 +1-3.51 2.53 ./-3.44 5.70 Europlun-1S5 U -425 +/-4.96 4.09 ./4.86 8.46 Manganese-54 U -0.766 +1-127 0.968 4-125 2.10 pCi/L Niobium-94 U -0.136 +t-1.14 0.924 41.11 1.98 pci/L Sllver-lOSm U 0.168 +1-120 1.03 +1-1.18 2.18 Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting Gross-rA liquidASTIMX PEN LF Alpha 12.9 ./-2.07 0.389 +1-2.27 I.Q0 pCi/L AM'I 06a25/04 0802 3412712 Bcta 9.25 41-1.92 1.46 +1-19S 3.04 pCI/L The following Analytical Methods were performed Method Descriptnon I EPA 901.1 2 EPA 900.0 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
'B Target analYte was detected in the sample as well as the associated bla BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low mcer recovery.
E Concentration of the target anslyte exceeds the instrument caibration range.
H Analytical bolding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less han the reporting liniit.
U Indicates die target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detoction limit.
tI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specfic qualifer-please see case narratve, data sumunmary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceoded.
The above sample Is reported on an 'as received' basis.
Page 44 of 77
LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING K> GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam NeckPlant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Repon Date: July 1,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Qumerly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: 178-183-3 Cloiect6 YANC00304 Sample ID: 113759006 C YANK00I Vol. Recv.:
.~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Parameter QuaHler Result Uncertainty LC WU MDA Units DF AnalystDate 7-Itne Batch Mtd.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with GeneralEngineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
.KC Reviewed by Page 45 of 77
GEEA ENIERN AOAOIS L GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES; LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road
- East Hampton. Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1, 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Kceefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of 2 Client Sample ID: 317-322-3 piect YANKO03O4 Sample ID: 113759007 Clnt ID: YANKOOI Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.
CoUect Date: 23-APR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector. Clint Parameter Qualifier Result Uncerlainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Balch Mtd.
Rad Gamma Spec Analysis Gammospec. GammaLquid-AL. AMS1NDMlX PENN.LF Arnericium-241 U '.-.83 +-12.2 851 +J ll9 17.5 pCIIL SRB 06/10W04 2244 337182 1 Cesiumn-134 U -0.581 +1-1.84 1.46 41-110 3.12 K-, obaWt60 Earopium-152 U
U U
-0.148
-0.0272 0.18S
+1-1.45
+1-1.41
+/4.94 1.19 1.16 3.99
+1-1.42
+1-138
+14.84 2.54 2.58 8.29 pCUL Europtum-M5 U -0.429 +1-4A8 3.70 ./-439 8.06 pCziL Europium-155 U 555 +t-6.91 5.90 +/477 12.1 Mangancse-54 U -0.572 +1-1.54 1.21 +1-1.51 2.60 PCL'L Nliobium-94 U 0.643 +1.139 1.18 +/-136 251 pcV/L Silver-108m U -0.935 +1-1.66 1.26 +1-1.62 2.65 Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting pCi/L Gross AM, 1quid.AL-STNDMXPEWNLF Alpha U t9 0 +/-1.50 1.06 +/-1.50 235 ATHI 06/25104 1536 3412712 Bcta U l.I 8 +1-2.09 1.72 +1-2.09 3.53 pQIL The following Analytical Methods were performed Method Dscription EPA 901.1 2 EPA 900.0 Notes:
T'e Qualifiers in tNs report ame deflned as follows:
- B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tra cr recovery.
E Coticentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greate than the detection limit, but less thai the reporting limit U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detectdon limit Ul Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please we case narative dama summary packaje or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or presenration holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an "as received" basis.
Page 46 of 77
GENEAL EGINERIN LABRATRIES LL K> GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 5588171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1,2004 Conauct Mr. Dave Keefer Project Quaterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: 317-322-3 Project: YANK003D4 Sample ID: 113759007 Client 1D: YANICOO1 Vol. Recv.:
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalytDate Vime Batch Mtd.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Q.Reviewed by Page 47 of 77
GENERAL-----EN----NEER----N-----A--ORA------IE---------
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Kecfcr Proje= Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002331 Page I of 2 Client Sample ID: S-13 Proiect: YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759008 Client ID: YANK001 Matnix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 13-MAR-04' Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MEDA units DF AvalystDate Thme Batch Mtd Rad Gamma Spec Analysis Gammaspec, Gamma.Uqtud-AL4GAM2,SThKD,MIXPENN,VLF Amnecium-241 U -8.94 4r-9.08 6.28 +I-S.90 12.9 pCi/L SRB 06/10104 2250 337182 1 ceslum-134 U 0.245 +1-2.11 1.79 .g-2.07 3.82 pCY/L Cesium-137 U 0.00 +1-327 2.86 +1-3.21 5.92 pCVL Ul Cobalt-60 U 0.995 .1.2.22 1.68' +t-2.18 3.65 pa/lL Europlum-152 U 3.88 +14.24 4.44 +-W4.16 9.24 pcV/L Europlum-lS4 U 1.28 .14.97 4.18 41+4.87 9.17 pCYL Europium-1SS U -7.0 +1-6.78 5.24 +/-6.64 10.8 POi/
Manganese-54 U 0.632 +1-1.81 1.56 .4-1.78 337 PCWL Niobium-94 U 0.707 .1-1.76 IA5 +t-1.73 3.08 pCY'L Slver-1OSm U -1.28 +1.78 139. 41-.174 2.92 pCV/L -
Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting Gros: AM, Iquid-AULST7DM)ZPFNNLF Alpha U -0.136 +I-0.653 0.723 4-10.653 1.68 pCi L ATHI 06/2St4 1338 341271 2 Beta U 0.356 +1-1.68 1.76 +t-1.68 3.67 pCiY The following AnaElytic Methods were performed Method Description 2 EPA 901.1 2 EPA 900.0 Notes:
Ihc Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the assocated blank.
.BD Flag for raults below the MDC or aflag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentratioa of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
i indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
U1 . Uncertain identification for gamma spctroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-pleas see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or prservation holding tine exceeded.
Page 48 of 77
LIC LABORATORIES, GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC K> GENERAL ENGINEERING Charleston SC 29407- (843) 558-8171 - www.gel.com 2040 Savage Road Certificate of AnalIS Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant Report Date: July 1, 2004 362 Ijun Hollow Road East Hampton. Connecticut 06424 Page 2 of 2
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 S.13 miec ,YANK00304 ol Reit: YANK001 Client Sample ID: 113759008 Sample 1D:
DF AnalystDate Time Batch htd.
TPU MDA Units Result Uncertainty LC Parameter Quatler on an 'as received' basis. Laboratorim LLC The above sample is reported in accordance with Gener Engineering prepared and reviewed Sarah Kozilik This data report has been Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, I
standard operating procedures.
- i { -ef'0tB (- N-"Q Reviewed by j
Page 49 of 77
G E INR ABRI-K>~ GENERAL ENGINEERsING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo
- Addrmss: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Datc: July 1,2004 C6nzacr Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly GroundwaterPO# 002337 Page I of 2 Client Sample ID: S-3 Proiect: YANK00304 Saxnplc ID: 113759009 CliCetRID: YANKOOl Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 09-MAR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04
-Colletor 1-Www Clien
-a"Wl Parameter Qualiier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate MIme Batch Mtd.
Rad Gamma Spec Analysis Gammawpec. G maid-quld-AULGAM2,5ND,MJXPENNLF Americlum-241 U 0.942 +I-10A 8.79 +/-10.2 182 pCi/L SRB 06/10104 2251 337182 1 Cesiam-134 U -0.291 +1MA6 1.15 +1-IA3 2.48 pCi/L Y) Cesium-137 U 0.594 +1-1.36 1.15 .1-1.33 2.43 PCVL Cobalt-60 U 1.54 +1-1.59 1.43 +1-1.56 3.09 Europium-152 U 1.74 +/-3.73 3.22 .1-3.65 6.74 pCi/L Europium-1S4 U 0.243 +1-3.14 2.62 +/-3.08 5.85 pci/L Eumopium-lSS U 1.64 +1-5.29 4A3 +-5.19 9.13 Manganese-S4 U 0.077 .1-1.41 1.14 +1-139 2.46 Niobium-94 U -0.383 .1-1.20 0.949 W-1.18 2.03 PCVL Silver-108m U 0250 +/-1.23 1.04 .1-1.20 2.19 Rad Gas Fnow Proportional Counting Gross AIX liquid-AU7ND.MIUPEN.LF Alpha U 0.0983 +1-0.385 0.339 4/-0385 0.861 ATHI 0612504 0802 3412712 Beta U -1.71 +1lA8 1.64 +.-M.48 3.39 pCi/L The followlng Analytical Methods were performed Method Description 1 EPA 901.1 2 EPA 900.0 Notes:
The Qlflrs eIr this repor are ddined as fOsOW3:
B Target analyte was detect in the sample as well as dhe associated blaniL BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recoveay.
E Concentration of the arget analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. e result was greater thao the detection limit, but less thtan the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detecion liiiL U1 Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summazy package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or presevation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
Page 50 of 77
LABORATORiES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407- (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 lqjun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1,2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 * .Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: S-3 Projec YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759009 CentD: YANKO01 Vol. Recv.:
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPV MDA Unlts DF AnalystDate 'Tme Batch Mtd.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance widt General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Pleasc direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlfk.
Reviewed by Page S1 of 77
LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PON 002337 Page I of 2 Client Sample ID: S-8 YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759010 Client ID: YANKOOl Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Racv.:
Collect Date: 10-MAR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU- MDA Units DF AnalystDate Tlme Batch Mt.
Rad Gamma Spec Analysis Gammaspe4 Gama.quid-A4 GAAM2,S7DMgClX.PEWLF Amcricium-241 U -3.8 +1-936 6.5S 41-9.18 13.6 pClL
- SRB 0611CV04 2252 3371821
.Cium-134 . U -0.12 +1-152 120 41-1.49 2.60 pci/L
'N Cesium-137 U -0.22 +I-lAO 1.12 +1-137 2.40 p~ilL Cobalt-60 U 0.410 +1-137 1.16 +1-135 2.57 pUlL Europium-152 U 3.23 +1-4.01 3.33 +1-3.93 697 Europlum-1S4 U 1.03 +1-4.02 338 +W-3.94 7A2 Europlum-lSS U -0.249 +1.4.73 3.99 +4-.64 8.25 pCV/L
.pCl Manganese-54 U 1.04 +1-1.71 1.44 +/-1.67 3.07 pcilL Niobium-94 U 0.164 +-1.33 1.08 +1-130 230 Silver-108m U -0.514 +11.27 1.03 +1-124 2.18 Rid Gas Flow Proportional Countng Gross AB, 1dd-AL4STNDAflXPENNLF Alpha U 0.26S +1-0.462 0388 +/-.462 0.951 pCi/L ATHI 06125104 0801 3412712 Beta U 0.643 +1-1.09 1.08 +1.1.09 2.27 pCiIL The following AnlytI Methods were perforned Method Description
. I EPA 901.1 2 EPA 900.0 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report re defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected In the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a fag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument caibradion range H Analytical holding time exceeded.
1 Indicates an estimated value. lhe result was greater dtan the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
Ul . Uncertain identification for gainma spectroscopy.
X. Lab-spefic qualifiar-please see case uarradve data summary packae or contact your project manager for detals.
' h. Sample preparation or preservation holding me exceed.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
Page 52 of 77
LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, K-> GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LlC 2040 Savage Road Chareston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1, 2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer ProJect Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 2 of 2 Client Samplc ID: S-S Proiec_: YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759010 Cli.et IL): YANKOOI Vol. Recv.:
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF Anlystate Time BatchMtd.
Tflhis data report has been prepared and rcwqewed in accordance with Genaral Engineering L~aboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manage, Sauah Kozilk.
Rei by gzcu-2 k V Reviewed by Page 53 of 77
LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Aialysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1.2004 CDntact Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 1 of 2 Client Sample ID: 178-183-4 Proiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759011 Client ID: YANKOOI Matnx: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 19-MAY-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector. Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC ITU MDA Units DF AnalystDate TIme Batch Mtd.
Rad Alpha Spec Analysts Alphapec Px Liquid-ALL Plutonium-238 U -0.0844 +1-0.0585 0.142 +1-0.0591 0.402 pCVL BJB I 06/20/04 1300 34i332 1 Plutonium-239f240 U 0.0246 +1-0.132 0.123 +/-0.132 0.364 pCi/L K> At241,Cm. Liquid-ALL AJinc cium-241 U -0.0118 +140.0991 0.06 +1-0.0992 0.245 pCUL BIBI 06121/04 1153 3413292 Curium-242 U 0.00 +.-0.1I1 0.00 +/-0.l11 0.154 pCi/L Curium-2431244 U 0.00 +t-0.0966 0.00 4-0.0966 0.134 pCUL Liquid Sdnf Pu24, Liquid-ALL Plutontum-241 U -2.43 +1-16.6 14.0 +/-16.6 28.7 pCi/L BIBl 06t30/04 0934 344849 3 Rad Liquid Scintillation Analysis Llquid Scint FeSS, Liquid-ALL Iron-55 U -113 +1-11.8 4.41 +1-11.8 9.12 JLBI 06120/04 2314 340950 6 Liquid Scrn Ni63. Liquid-ALL pCUL Nickel-63 U O.090S +/-5.48 4.60 l/-5.48 9.47 pCi/L ILBI 06120t04 0720 340951 7 LquidSScit Tc99, Liquid-ALL Technedum-99 U -3.36 +1-4.12 355 +14.15 7.30 pC11L DAlI 06121/04 0125 340926 8 The following Analytical Methods were performed Meth*d Dcdnbinn I DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-I I-RC Modified 2 DOE EML HASL300. Amn-05-RC Modified 3 DOE EML ASL-300. Pu-I I-RC Modified 4 DOE EML HASL-30QPu-I -RC Modified S DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-l I-RC Modified 6 DOE RESL Fe-I, Modified 7 DOE RESLNi-l, Modified 8 DOE EML HASL-300, Tc-02-RC Modified SurrogaptefraerreoVe7 Stsl R eMo % Acceptble Limits
, Plutoniun2.42 - Alphaspec Pu, Liquid-ALL 92 (15%-12S%)
Americi=m-243 Am241,CnLiquid-AmLL 25 (25%-125%)
Curled~rcerRecovety LiquId ScntPu24i, Liquid-ALL .. 78 Carrizeer Recovery Iquid Scint ESS, IUquid-ALL 83 Page 54 of 77
LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, K> GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LL C 2040 Savage Road Chameston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Ncck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1, 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project. Qulrterly Goundwater PO# 002337 Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: 178-183-4 pilect. YANIC00304 Sample ID: 113759011 et ID: YANKOOI Vol. Recv.:
-- -- - - Result - - ___ - - - -__ -
Parameter - Qualifier Uncertainty LC TPU MDA. Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
CarnierfTracer Recovery Liquid Scint Ni63, Liquid-ALL 82 Carcier/rracer Recovery Liquid Scint Tc99. Liquid-ALL 101 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
1 Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
UlI Uncertain identificadion for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding timeexceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed In accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlilc.
Reviewed by Page 55 of 77
ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556.8171 - www.gel.corn Certificate of Aialysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road
..East Hapton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1.2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of 2 Client Sample ID: 317-3224 roiect: YANK00304 Sarnmle ID: 113759012 Vl D: YANKOOI Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 23-APR.04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector. Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad AlpbaSpecAnalysts Alphaspec Pu, Liquid-ALL Plutoniurn-238 U 0.00173 +/-0.0938 0.09S4 +t-0.093B 0314 pCi11L BJBI 06=A004 1300 341332 1 Plutoniuin-2391240 U -0.0414 +/-0.0406 0.0983 +t0.0408 0313 pCIL' Am241.Cn. Lqwid-ALL Americium-241 U -0.00807 +J-0.0897 0.103 +l-0.0897 0315 pCUL .JBJl 06U21)04 1153 3413292 Curium-242 U 0.027 +1.0.107 0.0837 +f10.108 0.30S pCi/L Curium-243n244 U -0.00973 4+10.08 17 0.0462 1.0-.0818 0202 pCi/L Liquid Scvin Pu241. liquid-ALL Plutonium-241 U 892 +t-8.24 6.71 41-8.8 13.7 pCi L 'BJB1 06130/04 1036 344S49 3 Rad Liquid Scintillation Analysis LiquidScint Fe,5. Liquid-ALL Iron-55 U -23.1 +1-12.5 5.05 +/-12.6 10.4 pCi/L JLBI 06/2104 0017 3409506 Liquid Scint Ni63. Liquid-ALL Nlckel-63 U 0.674 +-6.12 5.12 +/-6.12 10.5 pC/L JlBI 0620/04 0751 340951 7 Llquid &int Tc99. Liquid-ALL Technctiumn-99 U -1.15 +1-4.16 3.53 +t-4.17 725 pCilL DM1 06r2104 0157 340926 8 The following Analytical Methods were performed Medod : Descriptlon I DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-I I-RC Modified 2 DOE EML IASWL300.Am-05-RC Modifled 3 DOE EM4L HASL-300. Pu-I 1-RC Modified 4 D.DOE EML HASIA30, Pu-I 1-RC Modified
- 5. DOE EML HASL-300, Pu.l I-RC Modified 6 DOE RBSLFe-1, Modilied 7 DOERESLNI-l.Modiflid 8 DOE EML HASL-300, Tc4.2-RC Modified Surroptflracer recoey Test Recoieq% Acceptable Llimts Plutonium-242 Alpbaspe Pu, Liquid-ALL 98 (15S%-125%)
Amerlcium-243 Am241,Cm. Liquld-ALL 94 (25%-125%)
Carierrracer Recovery. Liquid ScintPu24l, U1uld-ALL - 85 Carrierfrtacer Recovery Uquid Seint PS5S, Liquid-ALL 73
- Page 56 of 77
LLC GENERAL ENGINEERiNG LABORATORIES, GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407- (843) 556 8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analys Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1, 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: 317-322-4 Projec. YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759012 Client Iv: YANKOOI Vol. Recv.:
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Carrier/TracetrRecovery Liquid Scint Ni63, Liquid-ALL 73 CarrieriTracer Recovery Liquid Scint Tc99, Liquid-ALL 103 Notes:.
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blanic l> BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrment calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
i Uncertain idendfication for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data sununary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received" basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Proect Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
/qa((WNth S (
Reviewed by Page 57 of 77
LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING GENERAL ENGINEERING 'LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Addrss: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1, 2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quartrly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of 2 Client Sample ID. S-14 Proieo: YANK00304 Sample' D: 113759013 ClIentI: YANKOOI Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 15-MAR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector. Client Parameter QualiMkir Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate linme Batcb Mtd.
Rad Alpha Spec Analysis Alphaspec Pi; Liquid-ALL Plutonium-238 U 0.0128 +10.0967 0.0899 +/-0.0967 0.303 pCilL BlBI 06/20/M 1300 341332 1 Plutonium-239/240 U -0.0218 +t-0.0302 0.0733 +J-0.0303 0.270 pCiL
'm241.C, Liquid-ALL
<.cAmercium-241 U -0.012 +/-0.0783 0.061 +/-0.0784 0.224 pCVL BJBiI06/21/04 1153 341329 2 Curium-242 U 0.00 +/-0.113 0.00 +/-0.113 0.156 pCi/L Curium-2431244 U 0.00 +"4.0749 0.00 +/-0.0749 0.104 pCiL' LiquidSc3 Pu241, Lquid-ALL Plutonium-241 U 4.72 +1-.34 6.89 +/-8.35 14.1 pCi/L BJB1 DOO304 1137 344849 3 Rad Liquid Sdrztilation Analysis Liquid SciraFeSS, Liquid-ALL Irro-55 U -7.76 +1-12.6 4.81 +/-12.6 9.94 pci/L JLBI 06J21104 0119 3409506 Liquid Sci NWi63, Liquid-ALL Nickel-63 U 4.80 +/-6351 532 +1-6.51 11.0 pCimL JLBI 06a2 40823 3409517 Liquid SciW Tc99, Liquid-ALL Technetdum-99 U -132 +14.21 3.57 +1-422 7.34 pCiL DA1I 06J21114 0230 340926 8 The following Analytical Metbods were perfonned Idethod Description I DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-l I-RC Modified 2 . DOE EML MASL-300, Am-0-SRC Modified 3 DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-I -RC Modified 4 DOE EML HASL-300. Pu-1 I-RC Modified S DOE EML HASL-300, Pu-I I-RC Modified 6 DOE RESL Fc-l,Modifled 7 DOE RESLNI-1, Modfied 8 DOE EML HASL-300, Tc-0-RC Modified Surrogate/rearer recovery Teit Recoviry% Acceptable Livits A 5UI U,")Aj A-A x 0.i 0- iLS122YAM wuALuumrjn4 zaericlum-243 Am241,Cm.Liquid-ALL (25%-125%)
Cirrierfrracer Recovery Liquid Scint Pu241. Liquid-ALL 75 Carrier/rac Recovery Liquid Scint cPSS, Liquld-ALL 79 Page 58 of 77
ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gellcom Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 ReportDate: July 1,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project Quartedly Groundwater PON 002337 Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: S-14 Priect YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759013 Client ID: YANKOOI Vol. Recv.:
Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Tome Batch Mtd.
CanierfTracer Recovery Liquid Scint Ni63, Liquid-ALL 68 Carrier/lracer Recovery Liquid ScintTc99, Liquid-ALL 101 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report ame defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blaink.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentation of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
I Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limiL U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed fori but not detected above the detection limit.
UT Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlilc Reviewed by Page 59 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Addres: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun HoDow Road East Hampton. Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave ICeefer Projcv Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page. I of 2 Client Sample ID: S-4 Proiect: YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759014 ClientID: YANKOOI Matrx: Ground Water Vol. Recv_
Collect Date: 09-MAR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uacertalaty LC_.
TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad Alpha Spec Analysis AlphaspecP&. Liquid-AU Plutonium-238 U 0.0351 +1-0.154 0.143 +1-0.154 0.399 pCi/L BJBI 06/204 1300 341332 1 Plutonium-2391240 U -0.03 +10.034 0.0823 +/-0.0341 0.278 pCiaL Am241,n4 Lquid-ALL t>/Amercum-241 U 0.0748 -*-0.148 0.106 +/-0.148 0.324 pCVL BJBI 06/21/04 1153 341329 2 Curium-242 U -0.0156 +/-0.131 0.0739 +/-0.131 0.323 pCi/L Curium-243/244 U -0.0101 +4/0.0S46 0.0478 +1-0.0847 0209 pCVL LUquddSnSc PO24O Liquid-ALL Plutonium-241 U 1.27 +1-8.27 6.91 .- 827 14.1 pCi/L BJBl 06t30/104 1239 344849 3 Rad Liquid Scintllation Analysis LIquidScFt6e5, Luid-ALL lron-55 U -29.6 +1-11.6 4.75 +1-11.7 9.81 pCi/L JLBI 06r21104 0222 340950 6 Liquid ScintN3. Liquid-ALL Nickel-63 U 0.580 +1-6.20 5.19 1-6210 10.7 pCi/Q JUIl 06/2W04 0854 340951 7 Liquid S6t Tc99, Liuid-ALL Technedum-99 U -3.11 +1-4.19 3.60 +/4.21 7AO pCi/L DAYI 06121/04 0302 340926 8 The followag AEay1cal Methods were performed Method Desciption I DOEEML HASL300, Pu-11-RC Modified 2 DOE EML HASL-300, Am-0S-RC Modified 3 DOE EMh HASI..300 Pu-I I-RC Modified 4 DOEEMLHASL-300,Pu-1I-RCModified*
5 DOE EML HASI300, Pu-1 I-RC Modified 6 DOE RESL Pe-l, Modified 7 DOE RESL NiIlModified 8 DOE EMLHASL4300. Tc-02-RC Modified SurropterTracer recoyery Test ReceryrJ% Acceptablelmats
. Plutonium-242 Alph aspec Pu, Liquid-ALL 85 (lS%-125%)
J Ameticium-243 A=2 41.Cm. Llquid-ALL 91 (25%-125%)
CArrierfrracerRecovery Uqu id Sciat Pu241. quid-ALL 84 CarrieavTmcer Recovesy Uqulid Scint'pSS, iUquid-ALL 75 Page 60 of 77
ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL K> GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 5564171 - www.gel.com Certifiicate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 ReportDate: July1,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwatcr PO# 002337 Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: S-4 PrTiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759014 Client 1D: YANKOO1 Vol. Rucv.
Parf neter QualiWer Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF A ealyst ate lime Batch Mtd.
Carrier/Tracet Recovery Liquid Scint Ni63, Liquid-ALL 70 Carrer/Tracer Recovery Liquid Scint Tc99, Liquid-ALL 101 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed forbut not detected above the detection limit.
Ul Uncertain identification for gama spectroscopy..
X Labspecific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Koalik.
Reviewed by Page 61 of 77
K-' GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Fload Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - wmw.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Ncek Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of 2 Client Sample ID: S-9 Proiec:
Sanple ED: 113759015 Client W: YANK00304 YANKCOO Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 10-MAR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Colleacor: Client Parameter Quallfer Resut Uncertahity LC TPU MDA units DF AnalystDate Time Bat3Ch Mtd.
Rad Alpha Spec Analysis Alplwspec Pu, Liquid-ALL Plutonium-238 U 0.0723 +1-0.166 0.129 +1-0.166 0.384 pCi/L BJBI 06120t04 1300 341332 1 Plutonium-239/240 U 0.00185 +1-0.101 0.105 +t-0.101 0.336 pCl/L Am241,Cnm Liquid-ALL Amexicium-241 U 0.0635 40.119 0.0673 +t-0.119 0.248 pCi/L BJBI 06/21/04 1153 341329 2 Curium-242 U 0.0337 +1-0.134 0.105 +t-0.134 0.385 Curium-243/244 U 0.032 4/.0.085 0.0481 +/-0.0851 0.210 KUWL Liquid Scint Pu241. LiquidALL Plutonium-241 U 6.10 +/-16.7 13.9 +/-16.7 28.4 pCi/L BJBI 060/04 1340 344849 3 Rad uquid Scintlation Analysis I Liquid Scint FS5S. Liquid-ALL Iron-55 U -17.7 +1-12.8 4.87 +-12.8 10.1 pCi/L JLBI 06/21/04 0324 340950 6 I Liquid ScU JJ1Y63, Liquid-ALL
~lickel-63 U 1.50 +t-6.36 530 ./.6.37 10.9 pCUL JLBI 06/2G(04 0926 340951 7 I
l Liquid Scnt Tc99, Liquid-ALL Tchbnctium-99 U -1.93 +1-4.07 3.47 +/-4.08 7.12 pCVL DASI 06/21/04 0334 340926 8 I I.
2 The following Analytical Methods were performed Method Description DOE EM.LHASL-300. Pu-1 -RC Modified DOE EML AStL-300, Am-05-RC Modifled 3 DOE EML HASi-300. Pu-I I-RC Modified sI 4 DOE EML 1ASL-300. Pu-I I-RC Modified l 5 6
DOE EML HASL300. Pu4l -RC Modified DOE RESLIFe-t. Modified ll 7 DOE RESL Ni.1, Modified 8 DOE EML WAL300. Tc-02-RC Modified Surroptctfracer recovery Test RecevryC% Acceptable Limits Plutonium-242 Alpir ispec Pu Liquid-ALL 88 (1j%.125%)
.J Amercium-243 AmZ 41,Cm, Liquid-ALL 93 (25%-125%)
I Carierfrracer Recovery Uqui d Scint Pu241, liquid-ALL 83 I Csderfrcer d Recovery Liqu; dScit S, quid-ALL 80 Page 62 of 77
K-> GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 656-8171 - ww.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Iladdam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1.2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project Quarterly Groundwater P0# 002337 Page 2 of 2 Client Sample ID: S-9 Proiect:D YANK00304 Sample ID: Sa mpl ID:1137I113759015 9015V YClet ol. Recv.: YANK0 Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TrU MDA Unlts DF AnalystDate Time BatchMtd.
Cartier/Tracer Recovery Liquid Scint Ni63. LUquid-ALL 70 CartierfTracer Recovery Liquid Scint Tc99, liquid-ALL 104 Notes:
The Qualifiers in this report are dcefined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blant Q> BD }lag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
.E Concentraton of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analyticalholdingtiuneexceeded.
1 Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limitL UI Uncertain Identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X pab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratorics.'LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik.
Reviewed by Page 63 of 77
LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407- (843) 556-8171 - vww.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Corpany: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road EastHampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1.2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Project Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of I Client Sample ID: 178-183-5 . -Proiec YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759016 Client ID): YANKOOt Matrix: Ground Water VoL Recv.:
Collect Date: 19-MAY-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collcctor. Client Parameter - Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting GFPCSr, hquid-All.MIX Strontiumn-90 U 0.209 +1-0.418 0.439 +1-0.421 0.949 pCi/L HOBI 06J22/04 0923 340973 1 A-'Ybe following Prep Methods were performed _
Method Description Analyst Date llme Prep Batch SWB463005A 1CP-MS 3005 PREP . ARGI 06/04)04 0800 337362 The following Analytkal Methods were performed Method Descrption 1 EPA 905.0 Modified Surrogatelracer recovery Test Recovery5 Aceeptable Limits Carrierfrracer Recovtry GFPC. Sr90, liquid-ALMlX 90 Notes:
TMe Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target unalyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracerrecovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical bolding titne exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated valuec The result was greater than the detecdon limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above tfe detetion limit.
UT Uncertain Identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservadon holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
Tbis data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with Gcneral Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah ICoOil 4-i Th9io Q edQ Reviewed by Page 64 of 77
LABOFIATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGiNEERING GENERAL ENGINEERPING LABORATORIES., LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 . (843) 556.8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Aialysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1.2004 Contact Mr. Dave Keefer Projec: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of -1 Client Sample ID: 317-322-S PrOjeCt: YANKOO304 Sample ID: 113759017 Client ID: YANKOOI Matrix: Ground Water Vol. RecY.:
Collect Date: 23-APR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector; Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty -
LC ITU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting GFPC S&0, liqud-AL4MI Strondurn-90 U 0.507 +/10.510 0.500 +-0.525 1.06 ,pCi1L HOBI 06/17/04 2146 3409731 Tue toowI gPep Methods were performed _ ___
Method . Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch SWB46 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP ARGI W04/04 0800 337362 The followlng Analytical Methods were performcd Method Description I EPA 905.0 Modified Surrogtefl'acer recovery Test Recorcry% Acceptable Lmits Carrier/Tmer w . Recoverr
_, GFPC. Sr9O. liouid-ALLMIX 92 Notes:
lhe Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD };lg forresults below the MDC or a flag for low tracer rcovry.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range..
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
I Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
Ul Uncertain Identification for gamma spectrosoopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservatidon holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an as received' basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlk.
Reviewed by Page 65 of 77
LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL ENGINEERING GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 555-8171 - www.gel~com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 ReportDate: Julyl,2004 Contacc Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PO# 002337 Page I of I Client Sample ID: S-1S Proiect YANKY3004 Sample ID: 113759018 Cl.cnt ID: YANK001 Matnx: Ground Water Vol. Recy.:
Collect Date: 15-MAR.04 Receive Date: 27.MAY.04 Collector: Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batc MtW.
Rid Gas Flow Proportional Counting GFPC,Sr90, liquid4Al.MIX Strontium-90 U 0.289 +1-0.506 0.512 +1-0511 1.08 pCi(L HOBI 06/17/04 2146 340973 1 The tollowing Prep Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Date Tlme Prep Batch SW846 3005A ICF-MS 300S PREP ARGI 06/0 4 0800 337362 The following Analyticl Methods were performed Mfethod Description I IEPA 905.0 Modified Surrogatefrracer recovery Test Recovery% Acceptable Limits Carrijefrracer Recovery GFPC. Sr90, liquid-All.MI 84 Notes:
The Qulifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target mnalyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blanL BD Flag for results below th MDC or a iag for low traccr recoycry.
. E. Concentration of tihtarget analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range, H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting lixnk.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detectdon limiL Ul Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
- h Sample preparation or preservation holding fie exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 0as received' basis.
. This data report has been prepired and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions toIy Project Manager. Satah Koalik.
Reviewed by Page 66 of 77
ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC GENERAL GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Analysis Company: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hanpton, Connecticut 06424 Report Date: July 1, 2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater PM 002337 Page .. of I Client Sample ID. S-5 . Proiect YANK00304 Sample ID: 1 13759019 Cli.nt 1D: YANKOOl Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
CollectDate: 09-MAR.04 .
Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector Client Parameter Qualilier Result Uncertainty LC TPU MDA Units DF AnalystDate -ime Batch Mtd.
Rad Gas Flow Proportional Counting GFPC, S,90. liquid-ALMWIX Stwontiu-90 U 0.0754 +1.0.480 0515 4/-0.481 1.11 pCVL HOBI 0618/04 1207 340973 1 I The following Prep Methods were performed Method Description Analyst Date Time Prep Batch SW846 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP ARGI 06/04/04 0800 337362 Tbe fobowing Analtical Methods wFre pertonmed Method Description I EPA 905.0 Modified Surregate/raeer recovery Test Recovery% Acceptable lImits Cauierfracer Recovery GFPC Sr90,1 quid-ALLMIX 8S Notes:
TMe Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detcoted in the sample as weU as the associated blank.
BD llag for results below the MDC or a flag for low taer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibradon range.
H Analytical holding tine exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The tesult was greater tian the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte. was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
Ul Uncertain identification for gamma spectoscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case nariative, data sumnmay packagi or contact your project manager for details.
h . Simple prmparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC.
standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozilk.
Reviewed by Page 67 of 77
GEEA ENIERN LAOAOIS L K-I GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com Certificate of Anal yss Corpany: CYAPCo Address: Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton. Connecticut 06424 Report Date: "July 1,2004
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Project: Quarterly Groundwater POO 002337 Page 1 of I Client Sample ID: S-10 Proiect. YANK00304 Sample ID: 113759020 Client 11: YANKOOI Matrix: Ground Water Vol. Recv.:
Collect Date: 10-MAR-04 Receive Date: 27-MAY-04 Collector: Client Parameter Qualifier Result Uncertainty LC TPU. MDA Units DF AnalystDate Time Batch Mtd.
Rad Gas FloTw Proportional Counting GFPC, Sr90. liquid-ALLMIX Strontium-90 U 0.573 ./-0.631 0.619 +1.0.655 1.33 pCi/L HOBI 06/1S/04 1207 3409131 The toflowing Prep Methods were pedrmed Method Description Analpt Date Time Pnrep Batch SW846 3005A ICP-MS 3005 PREP ARGI 0604/04 0800 337362 Ibe following Analytkal Methods were performed Method Description 1 EPA 905.0 Modified SurrogatdTracer recovery Test Recoyeey% Acceptable mlfts Carrierfracer Recovery GFPC, Sr9O, liquid-ALLJMX 73 Notes:
The Qualifiers Inthis report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank BD Flag forresults below the MDC or a flag for low traceriecovezy.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibion range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
I Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater tan th detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limit.
UlI Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, dita summary packge or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
The above sample is reported on an 'as received' basis.
This data report has been prepared and reviewed in accordance with General Engineering Laboratories, LLC standard operating procedures. Please direct any questions to your Project Manager, Sarah Kozlik 2 ge 4 Reviewed by Page 68 of 77
I QUALITY CONTROL DATA Page 69 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Rewort Date: July 1, 2004 CUent: CYAPCo Page 1 of 8 Haddam Neck Plant 362 Injun Hollow Road East Hampton, Connecticut
Contact:
Mr. Dave Keefer Workorder: 113759 Parmname NO1I Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time Rid Alpha Spec
- Batch 341329 QC1200644404 113759011 DUP Amnericium-241 U -0.0118 U 0.00356 pCilL N/A (0% - 100%) BJB I 06/21/04 11:53 Uncert: +/-0.0991 +/-0.137 TPU: +/-0.0992 +/-0.137 Curium-242 U 0.00 U -0.0247 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +1-0.111 +/-0.0342 TPU: +/-.I I I +/-0.0343 Curium-243/244 U 0.00 U -0.0536 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +/-0.0966 +/-0.047 TPU: +/-0.0966 +1-0.0476 QC1200644406 Americium-241 17.9 16.4 pCi/L 92 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +/-1.52 TPU: +/-2.63 Crm-242 U 0.00 pCi/L Uncert: *+/-0.0732 TPU: +1-0.0732 Curium-2431244 23.1 23.8 pCi/L 103 Uncert: +1-1.83 TPU: +/-3.62 QC1200644403 MB Americium-241 U -0.0088 pCi/L Uncert: +/-0.0979 TPU: +/-0.0979 Curium-242 U -0.0215 pCi/L Unceni +1-0.0298 TPU: +/-0.030 Curium-2431244 U 0.0458 pCi/L Uncert: +/-0.129
- TPU +/-0.129 QC1200644405 113759011 MS Americium-241 17.9 U -0.0118 15.7 pCi/L 88 (75%-125%)
Uncet +/-0.0991 +1-1.54 TPU: +/4.0992 +1-2.60 Curium-242 U 0.00 U 0.0448 pCi/L Uncert * +/-0.111 +/-0.0879 TPU +/-0.111 +/-0.0881 Curium-243J244 23.1 U. 0.00 22.4 pCi/L 97 Uncenr. +/-0.0966 +/-1.83 TPU: +/-0.0966 +t-3A9 Batch 341332 .
')C1200644412 113759011 DUP ium-238 U -0.0844 U -0.0392 pCi/L N/A (0% - 100%) BIB I 06/20/04 13.00 Page 70 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC.
2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder: 113759 Page 2 of 8 Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time Rad Alpha spec Batch 341332 Uncert: +/-0.0585 +/-0.0888 TPU: +1-0.0591 +/-0.0888 Plutonium-239/240 U 0.0246 U 0.0424 pCi/L 53 (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +/40.132 +/-0.119 TPU: +/-0.132 +/-0.120 QC1200644414 LCS Plutonium-238 U -0.0187 pCi/L (75%-125%)
Uncert: +/-0.0966 TPU: +/-0.0966 Plutonium-239/240 15.9 16.0 pCilL 101 - (75%-125%)
Uncert: +/-1.62 TPU: +1-2.26 QC1200644411 MB Plutonium-238 U -0.0342 pCi/L Uncert: +/-0.117 TPU: +/40.117 Plutonium-239/240 U -0.0603 PCVL Uncert: +/-0.0528 TPU: +/-0.0532
" 1200644413 113759011 MS Pluonium-238 u -0.0844 U 0.00397 pCi/L C75%-125%)
Uncert: +/-0.0585 +/-0.152 TPU: +/-0.0591 +/-0.152 Plutonium-239/240 15.9 U 0.0246 17.6 pCilL III (75%-125%)
Uncert: . +/-0.132 +/-1.83 TPU: +/-0.132 +/-2.59 Batch 344849 QC1200652999 113759013 DUP Plutonium-241 U 4.72 U 4.29 pCilL 10 (0% -100%) BlB 1 06130104 15:44 Uncert: +1-834 +1-7.26 TPU: +1-835 +1-7.27 QC1200653001 LCS Plutonium-241 177 172 pCi/L 97 (75%-125%) 06/30/04 17:46 Uncert: +/-11.6 TPU: +/-18.7 QC1200652998 NIB Plutonium-241 U 0.814 pCi/L 06/30/04 14:42 Uncert: +1-7.32 TPU: +/-732 QC1200653000 113759013 MS Plutonium-241 180 U 4.72 156 pCilL 84 (75%-125%) .06/30/04 16:45 Uncert: +/-834 +/-10.2 TPU: +/-835 +/-16.7 Rad Gamma Spec Batch 337182 QC120063447S 113759006 DUP Americium-241 .U .- 632 U 0.705 pCi/L N/A (0% -100%) SRB 06113/04 13:09 Uncert: +/-10.5 +1-6.88.
+/-6.75 Page 71 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder: 113759 PnD- 'I -r Q Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range Anlst Date Time Rad Gamma Spec Batch 337182 TPU +1-10.3 Cesium-134 U -1.38 U 0.873 pCi/L N/A (0% - 100%)
Uncert: +/-1.34 +/-1.29 TPU :+/-1.31 +/-1.27 Cesium-137 U -0.0136 U 0.800 pCi/L N/A (0% - 100%)
- . Uncert: +1-1.26 +1-1.07 TPLU +/-1.24 +/-1.04 Cobalt-60 U -1A U 125 pCi/L N/A Uncert +/-139 +/-1.51 TPU +1-136 +1-1A8 Europium-152 U 2.61 U 0.638 pCi/L 121 (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +1-438 +1-3.33 TPU +/-430 +1-3.26 Europium-154 U -3.17 U 2.24 pCi/L N/A Uncart: +1-3.51 +/-2.91 TPU +1-3.44 +1-2.86 Europium-155 U -4.25 U 1.76 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +1-4.96 +/-4.12 TPU +/-4.86 +/4.03
.anese-54 U -0.766 U -0.153 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Uncert: +/-127 +/-1.01 TPU +1-1.25 +/-0.989 Niobium-94 U -0.136 U -0.416 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Uncert :+1- 1.14 +/-0.917 TPU +/-0.899 Silver-108m U 0.168 U 0.464 pCi/L 94 (0% - 100%)
Uncert: +/-1.20 +/-1.09 TPU +/-1.18 +/-1.07 QC1200634480 LCS Americium-241 1170 1210 pCitL 103 (75%-125%) 06/14/04 09:01 Uncert: +1-188 TPU: +1-185 Cesium-134 . U 0.938 pCi/L Uncert: +/-10.9 TPU: +/-10.6 Cesium-137 462 485 pCi/L 105 (75%-125%)
Uncat +1-45.6 TPU:* +1-44.7
-Cobalt-60 718 743 pCilL 103 - (75%-125%)
Uncert: +1-64.4 TPU: +/-63.1 Europium-152 U 2.11 pCi/L Uncert: +1-26.6 TPU: +/-26.0 Europium-154 U -0.82 pCVL' Uncert: +1-243 TPU: - +1-23.8 T ;um-155 U 4.56 pCinL Page 72 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary NWorkorder: 113759 Page 4 or 8 Parmnname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REM% Range Anist Date Time Rad Gamma Spec Batch 337182 Uncert: +143.2 TPU: +1-42.3 Man.-anese-54 U -10 pCiIL Ulncert: +1-1023 TPUJ: +/-10.1 Niobium-94 U. -3.86 pcilL Uncert: +1-10.2 TPUJ: +1-10.0 Silver-108m U -6.59 pCi/L Uncert: +1-8.78 TPUJ: +1-8.60
- QC1200634477 MB Americium-24I U -0.A09 pcV/L 06 10/04 22:52 Uncert: +/-2.15 TPU: +/-2.10 Cesifm- 134 U -0.996 pCiIL Uncert: +/-1.72 tPU: +/-1.68
-'x-137 U -0.352 p~ilL Uncert: 41- 1.75 TPU: +/-1.72 Cobalt-60 U -0.115 p~ilL Uncert: +1-1.94 TPU: 41- 1.90 Europiumn-152 U 2.24 pCiIL Uncert: +/4.24 TPU: +/4.16 Europium-154 U 1.90 pCiIL Uncert: +/4.85 TPU: +/4.75 Europium-155 U 1.17 pcilL Uncert: +1-3.31 TPLJU: +1-3.24 Manganese-54 U 0.230 p~ilL Uncert. 41-1.55 TPU: +1-1.52 Niobium-94 U -0.846 pCiIL Uncert: +/-1.49 TPU: +/-1.46 Silver-108m U 0.358 pcilL Uncert: *41-1.41 TPU: +1-1.39
- QC1200634479 113759006 MS Americium-241 9370 U -6.32 10400 p~ilL III 06/14/04 09:00 Uncert: 41-10.5 +1-1620 TPU: 41-1023 41-32600 Cesium-134 U -1.38 U -51.7 pcilL Uncert: +1-1.34 41- 16 1 TPU: +/-I1II +/-227 Page 73 of 77
LLC LABORATORIES, GENERAL ENGINEERING GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary WVorktirder: 113759 rg Qo
. . __ ._._,rage a ox a Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time Rad Gamma Spec Batch 337182 Cesium-137 3700 U -0.0136 3810 pCi/L 103 Uncert +/-1.26 +/-516 TPU: +/-1.24 +/-12000 Cobalt-60 5790 U -1.4 6450 pCilL 112 Uncert: +/-1.39 +/-778 TPU: +/-136 +/-20200 Europium-152 U 2.61 U 26.0 pCi/L Uncert: +1438 +1-346 TPU: +1-4/30 +/-348 Europium-154 U -3.17 U -153 pCi/L Uncert: +/-3.51 +/-327
- TPU +1-3.44 +/-577 Europium-155 U -4.25 U 183 pCilL Uncert: +14.96 +/413 TPU +1/4.86 +1-702 Manganese-54 U -0.766 U 39.7 pCilL Uncert: +/-1.27 +/-152 TPU +/-1.25 +/-194
.um-94 U -0.136 U -436 pCilL Uncert: +/-1.14 +/-128 TPU +/-1.11 +/-126 Silver-108m U 0.168 U -66.6 pi/L Uncert: +/-1.20 +/-132 TPU +/-1.18 +1-246 Rad Gas Flow Batch 340973 QC1200643663 113759018 DUP Strontium-90 U 0.289 U 0.112 pCi/L 89 (0% - 100%) HOBI 06/18/0413:40 Uncert +/-0.506 +/-0.515 TPU: +1-0.511 +1-0.516 QC1200643665 LUS Strontium-90 45.9 48.2 pCi/L 105 (75%-125%)
Uncert +/-2.50 TPU: +1-14.2 QC1200643662 MB Strontium-90 U 0.670 pi/L Uncert: +/-0.618 TPU: +/-0.646 QC1200643664 113759018 MS Strontium-90 92.4 U 0.289 89.7 pO/L 97 (75%-125%)
. Uncert +/-0.506 +14-54 TPU: +/-0.511 +/-24.0 Batch 341271 QC1200644274 113759009 DUP Alpha U 0.0983 U 0.122 pCi/L 0 (0% -100%) ATHI 06125/0408:01 Uncert: +1-0385 +/-0595 TPU: +/-0385 +/-0.596 U -1.71 U -0.581 pCi/L N/A (0%- 100%)
Page 74 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder: 113759 Page 6of 8 Parmname NONM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time Rad Gas Flow Batch 341271 Uncert +/-1.48 +/-1.08 TPU: +1-1.48 .+/-1.09 QC1200644277. LCS Alpha 69.8 64.6 pCL/L 93 (75%-125%) 06/25/04 07:47 Uncert: +1-6.86 TPU: +1-19.7 Beta 245 229 PCVL 94 (75%-12S%)
Uncert: +/-10.4 TPU: +/-25.0 QC1200644273 MB Alpha U -0.111 pCi/L 06125/04 08:01 Uncert: +/-0.339 TPU: +1-0339 Beta 2.55 pCi/L Uncert: .+/-1.15 TPU: +1-1.16 QC1200644275 113759009 MS Alpha 69.8 U 0.0983 68.9 pCi/L 99 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +1-0.385 +1/4.23 TPU: +/-0.385 +1-9.26 247 U -1.71 252 pCilL *102 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +I-IA8 +1-6.54 TPU: +/-IA8 +1-285 QC1200644276 113759009 MSD Alpha. 69.8 U 0.0983 70.9 pCiIL 3* 101 (75%-125%) 06/25/04 07:47 Uncert: +/-0.385 +1-7.00 TPU: +/-0.385 +/-9551 247 U -1.71 255 pCi/L 1* 104 (75%-125%)
Uncert: +/-I.48 +/-10.7 TPU: +/-1.48 +1-15.3 Rad Uquid Sdntillation Batch 340926 QC1200644474 113759011 DUP Technetium-99 u -3.36 U -1.44 pCi/L, N/A (0% -100%) DAI 06121/04 04:38 Uncert +/-4.12 +1-4.15 TPU: +1-4.15 +1-4.16 QC1200643525 LCS Technetium-99 392 392. pCi/L 100 (75%-125%) 0612/04 05:42 Uncert *-IIA.4 TPU: +.1-61.2 QC1200643522 NB Technetium-99 U -1.03 pCi/I. 06121/04 04:06
- Uncert: +1-4.30
. TPU: .1-4.30 QC1200644475 113759011 MS Technetium-99
- 392. U -3.36 416 pCi/I. 106 (75%-125%) 06121104 05:10 Uncert +1-4.12 +1-11.6 TPU: +14.15 +1-64.8 1 , 340950 Page 75 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.com QC Summary Workorder. 113759 Page 7 of 8 Parmname NOM SdmnIe OuDI OC Units RPD% REC% Ranee Anist Date Time Rad Liquid Scintillation Batch 340950 QC1200643609 113759015 DUP Iron-55 U .-17.7 U -27.2 pCi/L N/A (0% - 100%) JLB I 06/21/04 05:30 Uncert: +/-12.8 +/-11.9 TPU: +1-12.8 +/-12.0 QC1200643611 LCS Iron-55 55.1 51.7 pCiiL 94 * (0%-%) 06121/04 07:35 Uncert: +/-11.9 TPU: +/-12.1 QC1200643608 MB.
Iron-55 U -14 pCilL 06/21/04 04:27 Uncert: +/-11.2 TPU +/-11.2 QC1200643610 113759015 NIS Iron-55 59.0 U -17.7 45.4 *pCiIL 77* (0%-%) 06/21/04 06:32 Uncert: +/-12.8 +/-13.5 TPU +/-12.8 +/-13.6 Batch 340951 QC1200643613 113759015 DUP
-el-63
-' U 1.50 U 3.48 pCVL 0 (0% - 100%) JLB I 06/20/04 10:28 Uncert: +1-6.36 +1-6.43 TPU +1-6.37 +1-6.43 QC1200643615 LCS Nickel-63 249 214 pCilL 86 (75%-125%) 0620/04 11:31 Uncert: +1-9.99 TPU +J-10.8 QC1200643612 -MB Nickel-63 U -0.198 pCi/L 06120/04 09:57 Uncert: +/-5.11 TPU +1-5.11 QC1200643614 113759015 MS Nickel-63 250 U 1.50 203 pCi/L 81 (75%-125%) 06/20/04 11:00 Uncert: +1-6.36 +/-9.37 TPU +1-6.37 +/-10.2 Batch 340954 QC1200643625 113759005 DUP Tritium 325 323 pCi/L I (0%- 100%) JLBI 06/19/04 06:14 Uncert: +/-140 +1-138 TPU +/-140 +/-138 QC1200643627 LCS Tridium 3240 3110 pCi/L 96 (75%-125%) 06/19/04 08:46 Uncert +/-258 TPU +1-263 QC1200643624 MB Tritium -8.7 pCV/L 06/19/04 04:11 Uncert: +/-117 TPU +/-117 QC1200643626 113759005. MIS
- Tritinm 3280 325 .3440 pCi/L 95 (75%-125%) 06/19/04 07:46 Uncert: +/-140 +1-223 K>
Page 76 of 77
GENERAL ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, LLC 2040 Savage Road Charleston SC 29407 - (843) 556-8171 - www.gel.corn QC Summary Workorder 113759 . Page 8 of 8 Parmname NOM Sample Qual QC Units RPD% REC% Range AnIst Date Time Rad Liquid Scintillation Batch 340954 TPU: +/-140 +/-230 Batch 341392 QC1200644562 113960002 DUP Carbon-14 41.8 42.1 pCi/L I (0% - 100%) MWX 06/19/04 20:24 Uncert: +1-5.25 +/-5.18 TPU: +/-5.42 +/-5.35 QC1200644564 LCS Carbon-14 202 213 pCi/L 105 (75%-125%) 06/19/04 21:28 Uncert: +/-8.66 TPU: +1-I .0 QC1200644561 MB Carbon-14 U 125 pCi/L 06119/04 19:52 Uncert: +/-3.97 TPU: +1-3.97 QC1200644563 113960002 MTS Carbon-14 202 41.8 255 pCkL 106 (75%-125%) 0619/04 20:56 Uncert: +/-5.25 +/-9.29 TPU: +/-5.42 +/-12.3 The Qualifiers in this report are defined as follows:
B Target analyte was detected in the sample as well as the associated blank.
BD Flag for results below the MDC or a flag for low tracer recovery.
E Concentration of the target analyte exceeds the instrument calibration range.
H Analytical holding time exceeded.
J Indicates an estimated value. The result was greater than the detection limit, but less than the reporting limit.
U Indicates the target analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the detection limitL Ul Uncertain identification for gamma spectroscopy.
X Lab-specific qualifier-please see case narrative, data summary package or contact your project manager for details.
h Sample preparation or preservation holding time exceeded.
N/A indicates that spike recovery limits do not apply when sample concentration exceeds spike conc. by a factor of 4 or more.
- Indicates analyte is a surrogate compound.
A The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) obtained from the sample duplicate (DUP) is evaluated against the acceptance criteria when the sample is greater than five times (5X) the contract required detection limit (RL). In cases where either the sample or duplicate value is less than 5X the RLI a control limit of +/- the RL is used to evaluate the DUP result.
For PS, PSD, and SDILT results, the values listed are the measured amounts, not final concentrations.
Where the analytical method has been performed under NELAP certification, the analysis has met all of the requirements of the NELAC standard unless qualified on the QC Summary.
Page 77 of 77
Appendix 5 COLOG Borehole Geophysics Report, Hydrophysical Sampling Data Quality Assessment
Data Quality Assessment of Hydrophysical Sampling Results Collected in Summer of 2004 CH2M HILL has performed a data quality assessment (DQA) of the results of borehole sampling conducted during hydrophysicalTW' logging at the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCo) Haddam Neck Plant (HNP). Discrete point samples were collected using a downhole sampling device just above each identified water-producing zone identified by the fluid electrical conductivity profiles and temperature changes recorded by the hydrophysicalTM logging technique. The fluid samples were procured just above each identified flow zone to insure complete mixing of the inflowing formation waters fluid moving up to the pump placed inside the surface casing in order to obtain a sample representative of each discrete depth point.
The purpose of collecting and analyzing discrete point samples at the HNP was to provide screening of the bedrock interval for the vertical distribution of tritium, confirm the analytical results and overall characterization of the boreholes obtained from previous packer testing, and determine potential screen intervals for water quality monitoring.
The DQA was performed as outlined below. The data set generated from the borehole sampling was evaluated against criteria for measurement precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability to determine data validity and usability. The following summarizes the results of the DQA.
Summary of Data Collection Activities Fluid replacement and fluid-column conductivity logging, or hydrophysical T rm logging, involves electrical conductivity logging of the fluid column over time after the borehole fluid has been diluted or replaced with de-ionized water. Periodic electrical conductivity logs show formation fluids and possible contamination reentering the borehole as a function of the hydraulic conductivity of the surrounding rocks. Hydrophysical logging is used to determine flow magnitude and direction under both ambient and pumping conditions to identify hydraulically conductive intervals to within one wvellbore diameter. The data can be analyzed with a multi-parameter, finite difference model to produce hydraulic conductivity measurements that compare well with hydraulic conductivity values calculated from packer tests (Keys, 1997). The hydrophysicalTM logs were used to measure the magnitude and direction of flow, identify possible fluid entry and exit points in the boreholes to complete the bedrock characterization effort, providing confirmation or alternative interpretations of flow conditions measured by the heat-pulse flowmeter surveys and indications of water-bearing fractures by the conventional geophysical logs. Other specific applications of hydrophysicalTM logging for this characterization effort included assessment of possible fracture interconnection within and between boreholes, providing flow measurements to calculate the hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity of specific fractures or intervals, and targeting discrete point sample locations. Discrete point samples are procured via a
downhole sampling device just above each identified water-producing zone identified by flow logging. These fluid samples collected provide an indication of the presence and vertical extent of substances of concern in a borehole.
During the second phase of the geophysical logging program at the HNP, data were collected to confirm the location of water-bearing fractures, refine the understanding of the flow regime in the boreholes, assess fracture interconnection, generate hydraulic conductivity values for specific fractures and intervals, and collect discrete point samples to screen the bedrock interval for the vertical distribution of tritium. The optical camera logging was completed in each borehole prior to the hydrophysical loggingTm to confirm the location and apparent aperture of possible fracture features. Hydrophysical logging'mwas conducted to provide an overall assessment of hydrogeologic conditions and refine previous interpretations of groundwater flow at the facility. The hydrophysical loggingT't technique was conducted in three sequential logging steps:
(1) ambient logging runs prior to de-ionized (DI) emplacement, (2) logging runs immediately after DI water was emplaced in the borehole, and (3) logging runs conducted after DI water was emplaced during low-rate pumping.
The ambient water quality logs are conducted to provide baseline values for undisturbed borehole fluid conditions prior to testing. Multiple logging runs were conducted during each step to provide repeatable profiles of the fluid electrical conductivity and temperature changes in the borehole caused by electrically contrasting water being drawn into the borehole by pumping or native formation pressures.
Based on the water-producing zones identified by the fluid electrical conductivity profiles and temperature changes recorded, discrete point sample locations were then selected to confirm the vertical distribution of tritium in the bedrock interval at the Industrial Area of the HNP. The CYAPCo laboratory at the HNP analyzed these samples. COLOG then calculated interval specific pore water tritium concentrations using a mass-balance equation with the HNP laboratory results and interval specific flow rates from the hydraulically conductiver interval directly below the sample collection depth. These analytical results comprise the hydrophysical sampling conducted during the summer of 2004 and are the focus of this DQA.
The computer programs FLOWCALC and/or BORE II (COLOG, 2004) were utilized to evaluate the inflow quantities of the formation water for each specific inflow location.
FLOWCALC is used to estimate the interval-specific flow rates for the production test results based on "hand-picked" values of fluid electrical conductivity and depth. The values are determined from the "Pumping" and "Pumping during DI Injection logs." Numerical modeling of the reported data is performed using code BORE II. These methods accurately reflect the flow quantities for the identified water bearing intervals (COLOG, 2004).
For interval-specific permeability estimations, COLOG utilizes Hvorslev's 1951 porosity equation in conjunction with the hydrophysicalTM logging results. Several assumptions are made for estimating the permeability of secondary porosity. First, the type of production test COLOG performs in the field may significantly affect the accuracy of the transmissivity estimation. The permeability equation is relatively sensitive to overall observed drawdown.
For a high yield borehole, drawdown will usually stabilize ahd an accurate observed drawdown can be estimated. However, for a low yield borehole, drawdown usually does not stabilize but instead, water level continues to drop until it reaches the pump inlet and the test is complete. In this case COLOG utilizes the maximum observed drawdown. The inaccuracy arises in the fact that overall observed drawdown does not stabilize and therefore is more an arbitrary value dependent on the placement of the pump downhole.
Secondly, in an environment where flow originates from secondary porosity the length of thickness of the fracture network producing water. This assumption of a fracture network producing water versus a porous media is not how the permeability equation was designed to be used. In lieu of a more appropriate equation unknown to COLOG at this time, COLOG utilizes Hvorslev's 1951 porosity equation based on its sensitivity to interval-specific flow which can be measured accurately, drawdown which can be measured accurately in the case of a high yield borehole and its insensitivity to effective radius. The insensitivity to effective radius is critical when an observation well is not available to measure drawdown at a known distance from the subject borehole (COLOG, 2004).
Summary of Data Collected The borehole samples collected were analyzed for tritium by using liquid scintillation counting (the recommended counting method). Two different preparation methods were used: distillation and resin adsorption separation. Of the samples collected, 20 percent were analyzed by the distillation method, 80 percent by the resin adsorption separation method, and four samples were analyzed by both distillation and resin adsorbtion.
Discrete point sampling was conducted at depth in borehole 118A during development pumping at a time-averaged pumping rate of 4.81 gpm after production testing was completed. Eight at-depth samples and one wellhead sample were collected. Samples collected from 40.28, 53.4, 67.5 feet bgs contained the highest concentrations of tritium, while samples collected from 72,108, and 124.7 feet bgs detected tritium at lower concentrations. The HNP laboratory results and the pore water contaminant concentrations derived by COLOG using a mass balance equation are presented in Table 3-1. Discrete point sampling was conducted at depth in borehole 119 during development pumping at a time-averaged rate of 1.41 gpm after production testing was completed. Eight at-depth samples and one wellhead sample were collected. Samples collected from 44, 70, and 82 feet bgs contained the highest concentrations of tritium, while lower values were detected from samples collected from 143,156, 298, and 453.5 feet bgs. The derived pore water contaminant concentrations were significantly elevated compared to the HNP laboratory for the 156, 298, and 453.5 feet bgs samples as noted in Table 3-2. It was determined the lower concentrations reported by the HNP laboratory at 298 and 453.5 feet bgs are more representative of site conditions. The rationale for this assessment of representative analytical results for the lower depths is discussed in detail in provided in the Results of Data Quality Assessment section below.
Discrete point samples were collected at depth in borehole 120 during development pumping at a time-averaged rate of 1.80 gpm after production testing was completed. Seven at-depth samples and one wellhead sample were collected. The sample collected from 77
feet bgs contained the highest concentrations of tritium with much lower levels detected at 85.3 and 99.7 feet bgs (See Table 3-3).
Discrete point samples were collected at depth in borehole 121A during development pumping at a time-averaged rate of 6.75 gpm after production testing was completed. Eight at-depth samples were collected. In summary, samples collected from depths 163 and 173 feet bgs detected tritium at elevated t concentrations. All other samples analyzed were non-detect as shown in Table 3-4.
Results of Data Quality Assessment The Phase II Hydrogeologic Characterization Work Plan (Malcom-Pirnie, 2002) data quality objectives specify goals of "determining the cause, location, nature and condition of release areas and their associated SOCs" and "determining the degree and extent of the resulting plumes". Even though the samples were collected for screening purposes, the data were assessed for precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability. The individual assessment parameters are discussed in the following subsections.
Precision Precision is the measurement of the repeatability of a measurement or measurement technique. Precision is evaluated through analysis of multiple duplicate samples. The following types of duplicate samples are typically assessed:
- Field duplicate, or split, samples that are collected in the field and submitted to the laboratory as blind samples (i.e., not identifiable to the laboratory as duplicates); and
- Laboratory duplicate, or replicate, samples that are prepared by the laboratory and analyzed by the laboratory to assess internal method precision.
Since the objective of the discrete point sample collection was to screen the bedrock interval for tritium, duplicate and/or field samples were not collected for tritium analysis during the hydrophysicalTM sampling. As part of regularly-scheduled groundwater monitoring activities in future bedrock wells, field and laboratory duplicates will be collected, to assess measurement precision.
Accuracy Accuracy is typically assessed through analysis of known standards and through the analysis of blanks and/or matrix spike samples. No blank and/or matrix spike information was provided by the onsite laboratory to assess accuracy. Measurement calibration is performed in accordance with laboratory procedures.
Representativeness Representativeness refers to the degree to which a data set is actually a sample of a population. In this case representativeness refers to the degree to which the information presented by the data set can be extrapolated to describe the overall site.
Discrete point sample collection during hydrophysical logging is intended to collect samples from specific transmissive intervals in the geologic formation. In zones where the formation
is sufficiently productive to allow complete development of the borehole, consistent with the protocols employed by COLOG, samples of borehole water at identified intervals are considered to be representative of formation water from the identified zones. In some zones, the production of water from the formation under the test conditions is insufficient to fully develop the water within the borehole. In this case, the sample of water collected from the borehole corresponding to that zone is not considered to be representative of formation water. This situation was encountered in the following depth intervals in borehole 119 during hydrophysical testing at HNP (See Table 3-2):
- 254-ft bgs (interval 253- to 254.5-ft bgs),
- 298-ft bgs (interval 297.2- to 299.3-ft bgs), and
- 453.5-ft bgs (interval 456.4- to 456.7-ft bgs).
COLOG uses an arithmetic dilution algorithm to derive an estimated concentration of constituents of interest for zones that are not fully developed. The actual representativeness of these samples, and the concentrations derived from laboratory measurements of those samples is not quantifiable and the derived tritium values should not be compared to other measurements. These values should not be used to represent the formation water quality at those intervals and should rather be used only as indication of the presence or absence of tritium in the borehole at those elevations.
This uncertainty regarding representativeness of samples from zones that did not develop fully is generally confined to zones at substantial depth in the bedrock formation. Those zones exhibiting a low degree of development during hydrophysical testing may be exhibiting other features such as temporary storage of small quantities of borehole water in discontinuous, or "blind" fractures into which tritium-bearing borehole water was forced due to previous placement of the flexible borehole liners. The resulting inability to quantitatively assess the presence or absence of tritium in these poorly developed zones demonstrates the need to establish monitoring capability in those zones to confirm conditions.
In another instance, the pore water tritium concentration calculated from an interval is significantly less than the laboratory analytical results because of a low specific interval flow detected at that depth. The sample procured at 144 feet bgs in BH-121A detected 6,250 pCi/L of tritium by the HNP laboratory, while the resulting pore water tritium estimation using the Mass-Balance equation was "No Detect" (ND) as shown in Table 3-4. This ND calculation is derived because the sample just below 144 feet procured at 163 feet contained 7,230 pCi/L of tritium with 6.47 gpm (aggregate flow below 163 feet) of flow associated with this sample, which comprises approximately 94 percent of the flow measured in the borehole. The sample procured at 144 feet had only an additional 0.18 gpm of flow associated with it. The difference in observed concentrations between the sample at 163 feet and 144 feet, as far as estimations made using the Mass-Balance equation are concerned, is solely the result of the introduction of a certain concentration of tritium into the borehole at 0.18 gpm. The water coming into the borehole must be relatively low in tritium compared to the borehole fluids and steady-state conditions are present at and below this depth, resulting in the ND value for the corresponding water-bearing flow feature. In this case, the
ND pore water tritium concentration is considered representative of the groundwater at depth interval 160.4-160.5.Completeness Completeness refers to the ability of the data set to encompass the entirety of the target systenri. The data should be sufficient to answer the questions that prompted the data collection in the first place. As stated above, the data collected as part of this characterization effort met the hydrophysical/geophysical logging program objectives of screening the bedrock interval for vertical distribution of tritium, providing necessary information to refine the hydrogeologic conceptual site model, assist with the design of the bedrock groundwater monitoring network, and calibrate the upcoming numerical groundwater modeling for the facility.
Eight discrete point samples were collected in each borehole as planned: seven samples collected from water-producing intervals and one wellhead sample per borehole. Valid analytical results from the HNP onsite laboratory were obtained for each sample collected.
Comparability Comparability refers to the degree to which a data set, or single datum can be compared to another measurement for the purposes of assessing change over time or space. Collected samples were analyzed for tritium by using liquid scintillation counting (the recommended counting method) using two different preparation methods: distillation and resin adsorption separation. Twenty percent of the samples were analyzed by the distillation method, 80 percent by the resin adsorption separation method, and four samples were analyzed by both methods. To assess comparabilty, relative percent difference was calculated for each sample for which both preparation methods were used. If the two sample preparation methods are indeed comparable, then the results should compare well when evaluated as duplicate analyses of the same sample.
Seven laboratory duplicates were identified in the data set provided for this sampling campaign. The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for the laboratory duplicates are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of Distilled and Resin Results 1 Borehole Sample depth Distilled Resin Result RPD (ft bgs) Result (Pci/L) (N)
(Pc V/L) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
118 109 3,390 3,390 0%
120 76.6 1,810 1,730 4.5%
120 85.3 1,310 1,390 3%
121A 326.3 <1,290 <1,250 _
121A 463.7 <1,290 <1,270 Notes:
- = RPD could not be calculated because the actual value unknown. The result was reported as "less than" a certain number.
RPD was calculated as:
RPD = IS1-S21 x 100 (Sl+S2)/2
Where: RPD = Relative Percent Difference reported as a %
S1 = First measurement S2 = Second measurement IS1-S21 = Absolute value of the difference between the two measurements (Sl+S2)/2 = Average of the two measurements The calculated RPD for the two zones indicates that the two methods of analyzing tritium are comparable.
Upon review, the discrete point sample analytical results generated by the CYAPCo HNP laboratory were generally similar to but lower than the pore water contaminant concentrations estimated by COLOG using the mass balance equation. Both sets of concentrations were generally lower than the 2003 and the 2004 packer sampling results. A direct comparison of the discrete point sample results and both rounds of packer sampling results, however, is difficult for some intervals because some packer samples came from 23-ft intervals and some intervals were not sampled by packers because of insufficient seal developed in the borehole; discrete point samples were collected without these limitations.
However, the results from both sampling methodologies are similar, especially between the 2004 packer sampling results in borehole 121A and the discrete point sample results obtained from the same borehole. With the exception of results for the two lower depths sampled in borehole 119, the pore water tritium concentrations estimated by COLOG using the mass-balance equation could be considered representative of the bedrock intervals sampled. Because the flow zones sampled in borehole 119 were not fully developed and the sample dilution corrections made by COLOG for these depths are as described above, the HNP laboratory results for 298 and 453,5feet bgs in this borehole are determined to be more representative of actual concentrations from these discrete bedrock intervals than those derived by COLOG's methodology.
DQA Summary The primary goal of re-sampling boreholes 118A, 119, 120 and 121A was to further characterize the tritium plume at depth and determine potential depth intervals for the bedrock groundwater quality monitoring network.
The data set generated from the 2004 hydrophysicalTM sampling was evaluated against criteria for measurement precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability to determine data validity and usability. Several observations were made concerning the representativeness of pore water tritium concentrations calculated using the mass-balance equation versus the laboratory analytical results in certain flow conditions:
- Discrete point samples collected and analyzed from zones that did not fully develop under the hydrophysicalTM testing conditions should not be considered representative for assessment of the presence, absence, or relative concentration of tritium.
- Discrete point samples collected from low flow zones directly above high flow zones may not yield analytical results representative of those intervals.
The following data deficiencies were noted by the DQA:
- No field duplicate samples were collected to measure precision.
- No blank and/or matrix spike information was provided by the onsite laboratory to assess accuracy (e.g., blanks, spikes, and standards).
The data collected as part of this characterization effort met the hydrophysical/geophysical logging program objectives and provided necessary information to refine the hydrogeologic conceptual site model, assist with the design of the bedrock groundwater monitoring network, and calibrate the upcoming numerical groundwater modeling for the facility.
HydroPhysicalP Logging Results CYAPCO Haddam Neck, Connecticut Prepared for CH2M Hill November 8, 2004 Prepared by COLOG Division of Layne Christensen Company 17301 W. Colfax Avenue Suite 265, Golden, Colorado 80401 Phone: (303) 279-0171 Fax: (303) 278-0135 Prepared By: Reviewed By:
Greg D. Bauer Michael J. Culig Asst. General Manager/Senior Hydrogeologist General Manager
Table of Contents HydroPhysicalTM Logging Results CYAPCO; Haddam Neck, Connecticut I. Executive Summary II. Introduction III. Methodology A. HydroPhysical Tm Logging (HpLT )
BH-118A Logaing Results 1.0 IlydroPhysicalm Logging 1.1 Ambient Fluid Electrical Conductivity and Temperature Log 1.2 Ambient Flow Characterization 1.3 Flow Characterization During 5 GPM Production Test 1.4 Downhole Sampling 1.5 Estimation of Interval-Specific Transmissivity 2.0 Data Summary Figures - BH-118A BH-1 18A: I Ambient Temperature and Fluid Electrical Conductivity BH-1 I 8A:2 Summary of HydroPhysicalTM' Logs During Ambient Flow Characterization BH-I 18A:3 Pumping and Drawdown Data During 5 GPM Production Test BH-I 18A:4A Summary of HydroPhysicaI' T Logs During 5 GPM Production Test BH-1 18A:4B Summary of HydroPhysicalTm Logs During 5 GPM Production Test: 0 - 250 Feet Tables - BH-1 18A Table BH-1 I8A:I Summary of HydroPhysicalT " Logging Results with Hydraulic Conductivity and Transmissivity Estimations
BH-119 Logging Results 1.0 HydroPhysicalm Logging 1.1 Ambient Fluid Electrical Conductivity and Temperature Log 1.2 Ambient Flow Characterization 1.3 Flow Characterization During 1.4 GPM Production Test 1.4 Downhole Sampling 1.5 Estimation of Interval-Specific Transmissivity 2.0 Data Summary Figures - BH-1 19 BH-I 19:1 Ambient Temperature and Fluid Electrical Conductivity BH-1 19:2 Summary of HydroPhysical Tm ' Logs During Ambient Flow Characterization BH-1 19:3 Pumping and Drawdown Data During I GPM Production Test BH-1 19:4 Summary of HydroPhysicalt "' Logs During I GPM Production Test Tables - BH-1 19 Table BH-1 19:1 Summary of HydroPhysicalT mLogging Results with Hydraulic Conductivity and Transmissivity Estimations BH-120 Logging Results 1.0 HydroPhysicalm Logging 1.1 Ambient Fluid Electrical Conductivity and Temperature Log 1.2 Ambient Flow Characterization 1.3 Flow Characterization During 1.9 GPM Production Test 1.4 Downhole Sampling 1.5 Estimation of Interval-Specific Transmissivity 2.0 Data Summary Figures - BH-120 BH-120:1 Ambient Temperature and Fluid Electrical Conductivity BH-120:2 Summary of HydroPhysicalTm Logs During Ambient Flow Characterization BH-120:3
- Pumping and Drawdown Data During 2 GPM Production Test BH-120:4A Summary of HydroPhysical t n' Logs During 2 GPM Production Test BH-120:4B Summary of HydroPhysicalP Logs During 2 GPM Production Test: 0 - 250 Feet
Tables - BH-120 Table BH-120:1 Summary of HydroPhysicalT 1' Logging Results with Hydraulic Conductivity and Transmissivity Estimations BH-121A Logging Results 1.0 HydroPhysicalTP Logging 1.1 Ambient Fluid Electrical Conductivity and Temperature Log 1.2 Ambient Flow Characterization 1.3 Flow Characterization During 7 GPM Production Test 1.4 Downhole Sampling 1.5 Estimation of Interval-Specific Transmissivity 2.0 Data Summary Figures-BH-121A BH-121A:1 Ambient Temperature and Fluid Electrical Conductivity BH-121A:2 Summary of HydroPhysical t l' Logs During Ambient Flow Characterization BH-121A:3 Pumping and Drawdown Data During 7 GPM Production Test BH-121A:4 Summary of HydroPhysical TM Logs During 7 GPM Production Test Tables - BH-121A Table BH-121A:1 Summary of HydroPhysicalT'I Logging Results with Hydraulic Conductivity and Transmissivity Estimations Appendices Appendix A Sta.ndard Operating Procedures for HydroPhysical TM' Logging Appendix B BCIRE II Modeling Software Appendix C Lir nitations
List of Acronyms gpm - gallons per minute FEC - Fluid Electrical Conductivity ft - feet min. - minute cm - centimeters s - second US - micro Seimens IHpL T 1' - HydroPhysicalTm Logging DI - De-ionized, e.g., DI water ftbgs - feet below ground surface TD - total depth CYAPCO - Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company
HydroPhysicalP Logging Results CYAPCO; Haddam Neck, Connecticut I. Executive Summary The results of the HydroPhysicalT^' logging performed in four boreholes at the CYAPCO identified repeatable fracture and flow patterns in throughout each of the four boreholes.
Ambient horizontal flow was identified in each of the four boreholes while no vertical flow in the bores under ambient conditions was identified. The ambient horizontal flow rates identified on site ranged from 0.0002 to 0.012 gpm. Under pumping conditions each borehole exhibited a similar flow pattern consisting of the dominant water-bearing fractures or features originating in the upper portions of the wellbore - no deeper than 167 feet in three of the four boreholes. In all four boreholes little to no flow was identified below 243 feet. Under pumping conditions the lower portions of the boreholes proved to be of little to no water-bearing capacity. Interval specific transmissivity estimates of the dominant flow features ranged from 0.488 to 30.7 square feet per day. Interval specific transmissivity and FEC estimates are observed to not differ significantly among dominant water-bearing features suggesting an inter-connected network of fractures and features comprising the dominant flow features in these four boreholes.
In three of the four boreholes, the highest concentrations of tritium are observed between the intervals of 45.9 to 88.8 feet.
Please refer to the well tables in each section for each borehole for a complete summary of the HydroPhysicalT^' logging results. All depths reported herein are referenced to ground surface.
II. Introduction In accordance with COLOG's proposal dated July 13, 2004, COLOG has applied HydroPhysicalTlt (HpLTNI logging methods along with downhole sampling and downhole video to characterize the formation waters of four boreholes at the CYAPCO in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. The objectives of the investigation were to:
- 1) Evaluate temperature and fluid electrical conductivity under pre-testing conditions.
- 2) Identify and characterize water-bearing fractures and features intersecting the borehole.
- 3) Characterize and quantify flow in the borehole under both non-stressed (ambient) and stressed (pumping) conditions.
- 4) Evaluate the vertical distribution of flow and interval-specific permeability for all identified water-producing fractures or intervals.
- 5) Evaluate the vertical distribution of tritium utilizing downhole sampling.
The four bores hydrophysically logged are: BBH-1 18A, BH-1 19, BH-120 and BH-121A. The boreholes ranged in total depth from 552 to 621 feet. All open boreholes were approximately 6.1 inches in diameter and all had 6-inch surface steel casing installed to bedrock ranging in depth from 17.8 to 98.4 feet. The wellbores were tested under both non-stressed, or ambient, conditions and stressed, or pumping, conditions to fully evaluate the water-bearing intervals intersecting the borehole.
COLOG's logging of the four boreholes was performed over the period of July 19 through August 5, 2004.
Methodology A. HydroPhysical TM Logging (HpLTM)
The HydroPhysicalT^I logging technique involves pumping the borehole and then pumping while injecting into the borehole with deionized water (DI). During this process, profiles of the changes in fluid electrical conductivity of the fluid column are recorded. These changes occur when electrically contrasting formation water is drawn back into the borehole by pumping or by native formation pressures (for ambient flow characterization). A downhole wireline HydroPhysicalTM tool, which simultaneously measures fluid electrical conductivity (FEC) and temperature is employed to log the physical/chemical changes of the emplaced fluid.
The computer programs FLOWCALC and/or BORE II (Hale and Tsang, 1988 and (Daughtery and Tsang, 2000) can be utilized to evaluate the inflow quantities of the formation water for each specific inflow location. FLOWCALC is used to estimate the interval-specific flow rates for the production test results based on "hand-picked" values of FEC and depth. The values are determined from the "Pumping" and "Pumping During DI Injection logs". Numerical modeling of the reported data is performed using code BORE 11. These methods accurately reflect the flow quantities for the identified water bearing intervals.
In addition to conducting HydroPhysicalTN1 logging for identification of the hydraulically conductive intervals and quantification of the interval specific flow rates, additional logging runs are also typically performed. Prior to emplacement of DI, ambient fluid electrical conductivity and temperature (FEC/T) logs are acquired to assess the ambient fluid conditions within the borehole. During these runs, no pumping or DI emplacement is performed, and precautions are taken to preserve the existing ambient geohydrological and geochemical regime. These ambient water quality logs are performed to provide baseline values for the undisturbed borehole fluid conditions prior to testing.
For interval-specific permeability estimations, COLOG utilizes Hvorslev's 1951 porosity equation in conjunction with the HpLTNI results. Several assumptions are made for estimating the permeability of secondary porosity. First, the type of production test COLOG performs in the field may significantly affect the accuracy of the transmissivity estimation. The permeability equation is relatively sensitive to overall observed drawdown. For a high yield borehole, drawdown will usually stabilize and an accurate observed drawdown can be estimated. However, for a low yield borehole, drawdown usually does not stabilize but instead, water level continues to drop until it reaches the pump inlet and the test is complete. In this case COLOG utilizes the maximum observed drawdown. The inaccuracy arises in the fact that overall observed drawdown does not stabilize and therefore is more an arbitrary value dependent on the placement of the pump downhole. Secondly, in an environment where flow originates from secondary porosity the length of the interval is derived from the either the thickness of the fracture down to 0.1 feet or the thickness of the fracture network producing water. This assumption of a fracture network producing water versus a porous media is not how the permeability equation was designed to be used. In lieu of a more appropriate equation unknown to COLOG at this time, COLOG utilizes Hvorslev's 1951 porosity equation based on its sensitivity to interval-specific flow which can be measured accurately, drawdown which can be measured accurately in the case of a high yield borehole and its insensitivity to effective radius. The insensitivity to effective radius is critical when an observation well is not available to measure drawdown at a known distance from the subject borehole.
How to Interpret IlydroPhysicalTm Logs Figure HpL: I below is an example data set. The data represents HpLT`I logs acquired immediately after deionized (Dl) water emplacement for ambient flow evaluation. For ambient flow evaluation the wellbore fluids are first replaced with DI water (termed "emplacement"), then a series of fluid electrical conductivity (FEC) logs are acquired over a period of a time to monitor ground water entering the wellbore under natural pressures and migrating either vertically or horizontally through the wellbore. The borehole fluids are replaced with Dl water without disturbing the ambient free-water level by injecting DI water at the bottom of the borehole and extracting borehole water at exactly the same rate at the free-water surface. However, at the beginning of the DI water emplacement, a slightly depressed free-water level (approximately one tenth of a foot below ambient free water-level) is achieved and maintained throughout the test.
This procedure is implemented to ensure that little to no Dl water is able to enter the surrounding formation during DI water emplacement. By acquiring FEC logs during the emplacement of DI water and by continuously measuring water level with a downhole pressure transducer the emplacement can be properly monitored and controlled to minimize the disturbance of the recorded ambient water. After the borehole fluids are replaced with DI water, the injection and extraction pumps are turned off and in most cases the downhole plumbing is removed from the borehole. A check valve is installed in the pump standpipe to ensure water in the standpipe does not drain back into the borehole. While the plumbing is removed from the borehole Dl water is injected from the top of the borehole to maintain ambient water level. Often a baseline FEC log is acquired during the final stages of the emplacement of DI wvater to provide baseline conditions just before the ceasing of pumping. Figure HpL:I illustrates ambient flow entering the borehole at depths of 150.0 to 152.7, 138.8 to 139.0, 132.7 to 133.4, 122.3 to 123.1 and 118.0 to 118.1 feet. The location of these intervals is illustrated by the sharp increases or "spikes" in FEC. The increase in FEC over time at these four intervals is characteristic of ambient inflow. The upward vertical trend in this inflow is also apparent from the FEC logs. For example, the dominant inflowing zone at 138.8 to 139.0 feet illustrates a major growth in FEC above the inflow "spike",
and little growth below the "spike." The zone at 118.0 to 118.1 feet is the termination of all inflow into the well. The sum of the four inflow zones make up the outflow of this zone, and this value, along with the value of the four inflow zones is computed using code BORE 11.
COLOG uses three types of tests to identify the water-bearing intervals in a borehole under stressed conditions. In the lowest yield environment (less than 0.7 gpm) a slug test approach is utilized. In a relatively low-yield borehole environment, 1-2 gpm, a pump after emplacement (PAE) test is conducted, and in a relatively medium to high-yield environment a pump and inject (PNI) test is conducted. The decision on the type of test to perform on a specific borehole is made in the field based on the ability of the borehole to recover to ambient free-water level when a disturbance in water level is introduced into the well, i.e. inserting tools and/or pluming into the well.
In a low-yield borehole environment a slug or PAE test is utilized to identify the water-bearing intervals under stressed conditions. These tests are similar in protocol and involve first a replacement of borehole fluids with DI water in a manner 'identical to that of the emplacement during an ambient flow evaluation. Often a baseline FEC log is acquired during the final stages of the emplacement of DI water to provide baseline conditions just before the ceasing of injection pumping. Following the cessation of injection pumping, the extraction pump is left used to either pull an instantaneous slug (slug test) or is used to pump at a relatively steady low rate of flow in the borehole (approximately 1-2 gpm). During this time numerous FEC logs are acquired over time. The location of water-bearing intervals is apparent by the sharp increases or "spikes" in
FEC over time. The rate at which these intervals inflow is calculated using BORE II and is based on the rate of increase of mass (area under the curve using the FEC log as the curve). Flow direction is easily determined by tracking the center of mass of the area under the curve. In most cases, if pumping is being conducted flow is traveling up the borehole towards the pump which is situated inside casing.
Figure HpL:2 is an example data set. The data represents IHlpLTmf logs acquired during a PNI test.
The set of FEC logs on the right of this figure (FEC1303, FEC1310, FEC1320, and FEC1329) illustrate the condition of the borehole during development pumping. In the case of this example, the wellbore was stressed at a rate of approximately 10 gpm until a relatively steady-state condition was achieved in the borehole. A steady-state condition is apparent when the FEC logs begin to repeat as they do in figure HPL:2. Repeatable FEC logs indicate that the hydrochemistry of the water inflowing to the borehole is not changing over time (steady-state) and that the flow rates of all inflow zones is also not changing over time. Additionally, the drawdown is monitored continuously to observe a "slowing down" in the rate of increase of drawdown. When drawdown (water level) is stable, the inflow rates of the various inflow zones are assumed to be steady. By contrast, if DI water injection is begun in the early stages of pumping when drawdown is still increasing, i.e. wvater level is dropping rapidly, the inflow rates of the various inflow zones would increase with time as less wellbore storage is used to maintain a particular pumping rate. The remaining FEC logs (FEC1435, FEC1450, FEC1503, and FEC1516) illustrate the conditions in the borehole during pumping and injection procedures. Fluid was extracted from the borehole at a rate of approximately twelve gpm while DI water was simultaneously injected at the bottom of the borehole at a rate of approximately two gpm, until a relatively steady-state condition existed in the well. Water-bearing intervals in the borehole are identified by changes or "steps" in FEC throughout the FEC logs. The flow rate of these intervals is computed using BORE II and/or Flowcalc software. Every location that the FEC increases in these logs is a zone of inflow.
Similarly, where the logs decrease in FEC indicates a zone of inflow with water lower in FEC than the water in the borehole. A zone exhibiting a decrease in FEC on the injection logs should also decrease at the same depth on the development (pre-DI wvater injection) logs. Please refer to Appendix B for a complete discussion of the BORE II modeling software.
Sensitivity of Transmissivitv to Effective Radius An estimation of transmissivity (t) has be made for all identified water-bearing intervals using an equation after Hvorslev (1951) assuming steady-state radial flow in an unconfined aquifer:
T =YL= qi In 2nAhw krev) where K is the hydraulic conductivity, q; is the interval specific inflow rate calculated using HpLT1 results (or "Delta Flow" from the table which equals "Interval-Specific Flow Rate During Pumping Conditions" minus "Ambient Flow Rate" if any), rw is the borehole radius, r, is the effective pumping radius, Ahw is the observed maximum drawdown and L is the thickness of the zone through which flow occurs. For this example, the data is taken from a test borehole in fractured limestone in Birmingham, Alabama is used. The thickness, or length of the interval is calculated using a combination of both the HpLTNI data and the OBI optical data. L can usually be estimated with a high degree of confidence based on both of those data sets. Qj, or Delta Flow, can also be estimated accurately using code BORE 11 (see appendix B) for the HpLTrI data sets.
Ah, is estimated with a high degree of confidence using Cologs' downhole pressure transducer and a laptop to record water-level data every 10 seconds. Additionally, the borehole radius is confirmed quite readily from the caliper data. For this example, rw equals 0.25 feet, re of 50, 100 and 300 feet are used and the observed maximum drawdown was estimated at 11.64 feet. By applying L and qj from the HpLT^' results under the two pressure conditions, the interval specific transmissivity can be calculated for each identified water-producing interval.
Colog utilizes Hvorslevs' 1951 equation when an observation -well a known distance away with measurable drawdown is not available. Essentially, Hvorslevs' 1951 equation is similar to the prevalent Theis equation minus the observation well drawdown information. In replace of the observation well drawdown data Hvorslevs' equation uses an assumed "effective radius" divided by the borehole radius. One benefit to using Hvorslevs' 1951 equation when observation well data is unavailable is the insensitivity of the equation to the assumed effective radius as this is the only "unknown" variable in the equation. All other variables are known or calculated with a high degree of confidence. Only the effective radius is unproven, or unsupported, but its value can be estimated with some degree of accuracy.
The following example will illustrate the insensitivity of Hvorslevs' 1951 equation in relation to the assumed effective radius of an aquifer. The greatest magnitude of change in this example between r. of 50 feet and r, of 300 feet is 73 feet2 /day transmissivity.
Interval Length Qu - Borehole Transmissivity Transmissivity Transmissivity (feet) of Delta Radius Using re of Using r, of Using re of Interval Flow (feet) 50 Feet 100 Feet 300 Feet (feet) _orgPm) 122.4-123.7 1.3 15.400 0.25 2.15 x E 2 2.43 x V2 2.88 x E02 127.2- 127.3 0.1 0.645 0.25 9.00 x Et 1.02 x EI' 1.20 x El I 139.4 - 139.7 0.3 0.497 0.25 6.87 x E° 7.76 x E ° 9.19 x 185.2 - 185.6 0.4 0.058 0.25 8.09 x1E ' 9.15 x E4 ' 1.08 x E I
B. Downholc Fluid Sampling COLOG utilizes a 1.5-inch diameter downhole discrete-point fluid sampler manufactured by MLS. After flow zones have been identified by flow logging (HydroPhysicsTM, Heat Pulse or Spinner Flow Meter tests) discrete-point sampling is conducted at selected intervals. The samples are procured just above each identified producing zone to insure complete mixing of the inflowing formation waters fluid moving up the fluid column towards the pump (pump is typically placed inside blank casing). The samples are procured by sending the closed, sealed sampler down to a given depth. By sending a specific voltage down the wireline the sampler ports open up and expose a I or 2 liter barrel to the wellbore fluids. Once the sample barrel is filled, the ports are closed and the sealed sample barrel is brought to the surface for decanting.
Between each procured sample, the sampler tool is thoroughly cleaned with a solution of deionized water and Alconox or Liquinox soap and rinsed with deionized water. The disassembled sampler is then left to air dry or swab-dried before being reassembled.
Using the results from laboratory analysis of each sample procured in the field, the pore water or actual contaminant concentration may be estimated for each sampled inflow point using the mass-balance equation where:
c = qiCi actual IEqi CO Contaminant concentration of procured sample at a given depth as reported by laboratory analysis.
q = Interval specific inflow rate for each hydraulically conductive interval beneath the sample locaf ion as determined by code BORE.
C; actual = Estimated actual contaminant concentration associated with the sampled interval(s).
The accuracy of the results obtained using the Mass-Balance equation is affected by the inputs into the equation and their variability. For example, "error bars" or a range of estimations from the laboratory analysis of the samples or qi estimations would be magnified in their magnitude as a result of the Mass-Balance equation.
IV4 P ,Wreline Connects Here Electronics Layne ChristensenlCOLOG Section
.34.5 in. Downhole Discrete-Point Fluid Sampler
- 1. Lower sampler to specific depth In Intake to
- welilibre
- SampleBarreLj
- 2. Open sample barrel intake
_f- electronically
- 3. Close sample barrel Intake when flled
- 4. Bring sampler to the surface for a depth-specific sample of the Sample Barrel wellbore fluids.
66.4 in. (I Liter) 74.0 in. (2 Liter)
IVH Pit-Cock f Assanetly (with Protecttve Cap)
BH-118A Logging Results 1.0 HydroPhysicalTm Logging 1.1 Ambient Fluid Electrical Conductivity and Temperature Log: BH-118A At 1043 hours0.0121 days <br />0.29 hours <br />0.00172 weeks <br />3.968615e-4 months <br /> on August 2, 2004, after a calibration check of the fluid electrical conductivity (FEC) and temperature logging tool, the fluid column was logged for FEC and temperature profiles with COLOG's 1.5-inch diameter HpLTmI tool. These logs were performed prior to the installation of any pumping equipment. Please refer to Figure BH-118A:1. The ambient FEC/temperature profiles indicate inflections at approximately 63 feet. These inflections in temperature and FEC correspond well with an identified interval of ambient horizontal flow. The ambient temperature log recorded a gradual increase in temperature with depth to approximately 100 feet, below which occurs a gradual decrease in temperature. The ambient FEC log exhibits a similar trend. An increase in FEC to a depth of approximately 77 feet is observed, below this depth a gradual decrease in FEC is observed. Near the bottom of the ambient FEC log, an increase in FEC is observed. This inflection does not correspond with any interval of flow identified during testing and is most likely the result of sediment or fill in the bottom of the borehole.
1.2 Ambient Flow Characterization: BH-118A On August 2, 2004, an ambient flow characterization was conducted in boring 1311-1 18A. For ambient flow assessment, the fluid column in the borehole was replaced with de-ionized water (DI) and the boring left in an undisturbed state to allow any natural flow to occur. The pump was removed from the boring to insure that water in the pump standpipe would not drain back into the boring. Prior to this period and throughout all HpL'1 1 testing, water levels and flow rates were monitored and recorded digitally every second. Ambient flow evaluation is reported for the period after the water surface returned to near pre-DI water emplacement levels. A series of FEC and temperature logs were then conducted over the duration of testing to identify changes in the fluid column associated with ambient flow. Ambient flow characterization is conducted to evaluate the presence of both vertical and horizontal ambient flow.
On August 2,2004, at 1410 hours0.0163 days <br />0.392 hours <br />0.00233 weeks <br />5.36505e-4 months <br /> (t=0 minutes, elapsed time of test), dilution of the fluid column was complete. Minimal to no DI water was lost to the formation due to the slightly depressed head maintained during DI water emplacement procedures. During the 18.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> following the emplacement of DI water, multiple logs were conducted. Of these logs, 5 are presented in Figure BH- I 8A:2. The designation of each logging with the FEC tool is indicated in the figure legend by the time of logging (e.g., log FEC1412 was begun at 1412 hours0.0163 days <br />0.392 hours <br />0.00233 weeks <br />5.37266e-4 months <br /> versus a subsequent logging at FEC1448). The progressing of curves to the right in this figure represents changes in FEC over the total logging period. The last four digits of each log ID corresponds to the time at which that particular log was started. Only logs acquired during logging in the downward direction are presented as the design of the FEC/temperature probe allows for the most accurate data to be collected in the downward direction. The logs acquired in the upward logging direction are not representative of downhole conditions and are therefore omitted. These logs illustrate changes at several intervals throughout the upper portion of the borehole. These changes in the FEC profiles with respect to time are associated with ambient horizontal flow occurring within these intervals.
Page I
Formation water migration-caused by horizontal flow within the fluid column is indicated by the increase in FEC over time in Figure BH-1 18A:2 for the intervals at 45.9 to 46.1, 63.9 to 65.0, 113.9 to 114.5, 127.8 to 128.0 and 219.8 to 219.9 feet. Numeric modeling of the reported field
- data for these intervals suggests horizontal flow is occurring at rates of 0.0008, 0.002, 0.002, 0.003, and 0.001 gpm, respectively. These flow rates are based on the rate of increase of mass at these intervals. Correcting for convergence of flow at the wellbore and factoring the length of the interval, these flow rates equate to a Darcy velocity, or specific discharge of groundwater in the aquifer of 0.61, 0.28, 0.50, 2.27 and 1.51 ft/day, respectively. Please refer to Table BH-1 18A:1 and
SUMMARY
- I for a complete summary of the HydroPhysicalT^' logging results. Please refer to Appendix B for a discussion of the methodology and code used to calculate these values. The ambient depth to water at the time of testing was 19.42 ftbgs.
1.3 Flow Characterization During 5 GPM Production Test: BiI-118A Low-rate pumping of wellbore fluids after DI water emplacement was conducted at one pumping rate to establish the inflow locations and evaluate the interval-specific inflow rates. For DI water emplacement, DI water is injected at the bottom of the wellbore while simultaneous extraction pumping is conducted near water surface at the same rate. Water levels and flow rates are monitored and recorded digitally continuously to ensure minimal to no DI water is lost to the formation. This is achieved by maintaining water level at or below the recorded ambient level.
After DI water emplacement is complete low-rate pumping is conducted to stress the aquifer(s) and draw groundwater into the wellbore where it is contrasted by the DI water in the wellbore.
Continuous FEC profiling over time yields the depth and rate of influx of groundwater during pumping. These procedures were conducted at a time-averaged pumping rate of 4.81 gpm.
On August 3, 2004 at 0821 hours0.0095 days <br />0.228 hours <br />0.00136 weeks <br />3.123905e-4 months <br /> (t = 0 minutes elapsed time of testing), pumping was initiated at approximately 5 gpm. Prior to initiating pumping, the ambient depth to water was recorded at 19.31 ftbgs. Time dependent depth to water, pumping totals and flow rate information were recorded and are presented in Figure BH-1 18A:3. Low-rate pumping was maintained at a time-averaged rate of 4.81 gpm until 1746 hours0.0202 days <br />0.485 hours <br />0.00289 weeks <br />6.64353e-4 months <br /> (t = 565 minutes, elapsed time of testing). During this period drawdown was observed to stabilize at approximately 4.8 feet. A maximum drawdown of 4.81 feet was observed. During the period of testing, multiple loggings were conducted. Of these logs, thirteen FEC traces are presented in Figures BH-1 18A:4A and 4B. These logs clearly illustrate specific intervals of dramatic increase in FEC with respect to time. The depth at which the peak value for a given interval occurs is indicative of a water-bearing interval. The data presented in Figures BH-1 18A:4A and 4B suggests the presence of 13 hydraulically conductive intervals, with the dominant water-bearing interval at 29.8 to 30.2 feet. Numerical modeling of the reported field data was performed using code BOREII (Hale and Tsang, 1988, Tsang et.al.
1990, Daughtery and Tsang, 2000). This modeling was performed to estimate the rate of inflow and FEC for each identified hydraulically conductive interval during pumping. The results of the modeling and analysis are presented in Table BH-1 18A:1. In summary, the interval 29.8 to 30.2 feet dominated inflow producing 3.81 gpm, or 79.2 percent of the total inflow during production testing. Please refer to Table BH-1 18A:1 for a complete listing of the depths of water-bearing zones and their interval-specific inflow rates during testing.
At the conclusion of the test, the extraction pump inlet was lowered to approximately 110 feet below ground surface per the request of CH2M Hill. The extraction rate was increased to approximately 30 gpm (max rate) in order to induce more drawdown and evaluate the presence, or lack of, any water-bearing intervals in the lower portion of the wellbore under increased stressed conditions. This increase in extraction rate identified one additional minor flow interval Page 2
at approximately 430 feet. The estimated flow rate of this interval is approximately less than 0.05 gpm, or less than 0.2 percent of the total extraction rate during the increased development pumping.
1.4 Downhole Sampling Eight downhole samples and one wellhead sample were procured from wellbore BH-I 18A on August 3, 2004. Downhole samples were procured from depths of 25.5, 40.3, 53.4, 67.5, 72, 97, 109 and 124.7 feet. The wellhead sample was taken from the discharge outlet of the downhole pump. The downhole pump was set at 28 feet. Downhole sampling was conducted during development pumping at a time-averaged rate of 4.89 gpm after production testing was completed. The laboratory analyses of the procured samples are incorporated with the hydrophysical flow data to obtain actual, or "pore" water, contaminant concentrations for each sampled interval using the mass-balance equation. In summary, the highest concentrations of contaminants were found in the samples taken from 40 and 68 feet. The actual contaminant concentrations of these samples are 13911 and 13,046 pCi/L. Please refer to Table BH-1 18A:2 for a complete listing of sample locations and actual contaminant concentrations. The sample taken at 26 feet did not correspond with any interval of identified flow, therefore, this sample has not been included in Table BH-I 18A:2 The sample locations were identified by on-site interpretation of the FEC/Temperature logs acquired during pumping. Between procurement of samples, the downhole sampler was cleaned with an alconox and DI water solution and rinsed with DI water.
1.5 Estimation of Interval Specific Transmissivity: BII-118A An estimation of transmissivity (T) can be made using an equation after Hvorslev (1951) assuming steady-state radial flow in an unconfined aquifer:
T=KL= qi In(Le) 27TAhw XrwvJ where K is the hydraulic conductivity, qi is the interval specific inflow rate calculated by HpLTNI results, r, is the borehole radius (0.25 fi), r, is the effective pumping radius, Ahab is the observed maximum drawdown (4.81 feet) and L is the thickness of the zone through which flow occurs.
For our calculations, COLOG used r, of 100 feet (assumed). By applying L and qi from the HpLTrI results under the two pressure conditions, the interval specific hydraulic conductivity can be calculated for each identified water producing interval. The calculations made at each identified interval are presented in Table BH-I 18A:1. In summary, the interval at 29.8 to 30.2 feet registered the highest transmissivity at 145 feet2/day.
2.0 Data Summary Processing and interpretation of the HydroPhysicalTM logs in BH-l 18A suggest the presence of 13 producing intervals for this borehole. Numerical modeling of the reported HydroPhysicalT1i field data was performed to estimate the rate of inflow for each identified hydraulically conductive borehole interval during DI injection procedures. The results of these analyses are presented in Page 3
Table BH- 18A:1. These identified producing intervals correlate we'll with water-bearing zones identified during ambient testing. In summary, the interval 29.8 to 30.2 feet dominated inflow during the production test, producing 3.81 gpm, or 79.2 percent of the total flow during the production test.
During ambient testing, boring BH-1 18A exhibited a horizontal flow regime. Five water-bearing zones were identified under ambient conditions exhibiting horizontal flow. No vertical pressure gradient was observed under ambient conditions. The five water-bearing zones at 45.9 to 46.1, 63.9 to 65.0, 113.9 to 114.5, 127.8 to 128.0 and 219.8 to 219.5 feet contributed water to the borehole at estimated flow rates of 0.0008, 0.002, 0.002, 0.003, and 0.001 gpm, respectively.
Correcting for convergence of flow at the wellbore and factoring the length of the interval, these flow rates equate to a Darcy velocity, or specific discharge of groundwater in the aquifer of 0.61, 0.28, 0.50, 2.27 and. 1.51 ft/day, respectively.
The ambient fluid temperature log (Figure BH-1 18A:1) acquired on August 2, 2004 indicates an increase in temperature with depth to approximately 100 feet. Below this depth, the log indicates a decrease in temperature with depth. The ambient FEC profile indicates an increase in fluid conductivity with depth to approximately 77 feet. Below this depth, the log indicates a decrease in.FEC with depth. Both the temperature and FEC log exhibit inflections at approximately 63 feet. This depth corresponds well with an ambient horizontal flow location. The FEC log indicates an increase in FEC near the bottom of the well. As no flow is identified at this depth under ambient or pumping conditions, this inflection is most likely the result of sediment or fill in the bottom of the borehole.
Interval-specific FEC did not differ significantly with the sole exception of the uppermost flow zone at 29.8 - 30.2 feet registering 857 pS/cm.
The 13 interval-specific estimated transmissivities in BH-1 18A ranged from 0.076 to 145 square feet per day with the interval of 29.8 to 30.2 feet registering the highest transmissivity. The 13 interval-specific transmissivity estimates differ significantly with respect to each other, howeveri for the intervals producing the appreciable amounts of flow during testing (the major flow zones) the interval-specific transmissivity estimates do not differ significantly.
Downhole sampling was conducted in wellbore BH-118A during development pumping at a time-averaged rate of 4.89 gpm after production testing was completed. Eight downhole samples and one wellhead sample were procured from wellbore BH-1 18A. The samples procured from 40 and 68 feet contained the highest levels of contaminant concentration.
Fracture inter-connectiveness in the immediate vicinity of a wellbore can be inferred by the similarity, or lack there of, of parameters such as interval-specific transmissivity estimates and interval-specific FEC, along with the presence of pressure differentials within the borehole.
Similar transmissivity and FEC estimates would suggest an inter-connected network of fractures or aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. Although a pressure differential present in the wellbore would suggest the driving force for vertical communication is present, in a vertically inter-connected network of fractures the aquifer pressures tend to equilibrate.
The data acquired in BH-1 18A exhibited similar interval-specific transmissivity and similar FEC estimates among the dominant water-bearing zones suggesting an inter-connected network of fractures near the surface. No vertical gradient is observed in the wellbore suggesting the dominant water-bearing intervals are inter-connected thereby negating any pressure differentials.
Page 4
The data suggest the fractures intersecting the wellbore may be inter-connected in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. Please see Tables BH-I 18A:1 and
SUMMARY
- 1 for a summary that includes the locations, flow rates and hydraulic conductivity estimates assessed by COLOG.
Page 5
FIGURE BH-118A:1. AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND FLUID ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; CH2M HILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-1 18A.
Temperature (0C) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 50
-75
-100 125 150
-175
-200 225 - 225 250- 250 275 - 275 a; 300- 300 325 - 325 350- 350 375 - 375 400- 400 425 - 425 450- 450 475 - 475 500- 500 525 - 525 550- 550 575 - 575
-600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Fluid Electrical Conductivity (gS/cm) 11 8aabll.dg4 C- t
FIGURE BR-1 18A:2
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING AMBIENT FLOW CHARACTERIZATION; CH2M HILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-1 18A.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . I -
.14 ........................................................................................................................................................
~) Bottom of casing -25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-150
-175 -
200 FEC logs acquired immediately following DI -225 water emplacement for Ambient Flow -250 Characterization. The logs indicate ambient horizontal flow occurs at several intervals in -275 Ck. the borehole, most notably at 63.9 - 65.0 and
-300 a 113.9 - 114.5 and 127.8 - 128.0 feet.
Numerical modeling indicates horizontal flow -325 occured at these intervals at 0.002, 0.002 and 0.003 gpm, respectively. The last log, -350 FECO75 1, was acquired the following 375 morning after the wellbore sat undisturbed overnight. -400
- FEC1412 -425
-450 FEC1448 I
-475 FEC1538
-500 FEC1654 -525 I
-550
- FECO751
-575 1 I I 20 I I I 3I T lI 40 6 I r 7 1 . I . . . .
.I-IOU V InA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Fluid Electrical Conductivity (pS/crn) 118a-ai.dg4 (flZ
WURE BH-1 118A:3. PUMPING AND DRAWDOWN DAT URING LOW-RATE PRODUCTION TEST AT 5 GPM; 0 CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-118A.
-1.0 0n
_s
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 Elapsed Time (mins) t = 0 at 0821 Hours on August 3, 2004 118a-pdd.dg4 023
fiGURE BH-118A:4A.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING LOW-RATE PUMPING AT 5 GPM; CH2M HILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH- 1 18A.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 lI I I . I I I lI I I I . I . I I I . . I II I 1 V
v- - . . .
.. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. Bottom of casing 25- -25 50- -50 75- -75 100 FEC logs acquired after DI water emplacement during low-rate -100 pumping at -5 gpm. The logs indicate the dominant flow zone is 125 -125 the interval 29.8 - 30.2 feet, producing 3.81 gpm during low-rate 150- pumping, or 79% of the total inflow. FEC logging under stressed -150 conditions indicates no measurable flow present below 238.6 feet 175 under these pumping conditions. During stress testing the pump -175 was set at 28 ftbgs.
200 -200 225 -225 I
250 -250
- 275 -275
` 300 -300 4) 325 -325 350 -350 3757 -375
- FECO840 FEC1135 4007 -400
- FECO901 - FEC1205 4257 -425
- FECO913 - FEC1309 4507 450 475- - FECO930 - FEC1332 475 500- FECO950 - FEC1420 500 525- FEC1029 525
- FEC1450 550 550
- FECI 109 O 575 575 AF jI IU1-. . I . . I . . I vvv . . . . . .. AlII
, I , ', ', I ' ' ' '
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Fluid Electrical Conductivity (gS/cm) 118a-pae.dg4 C
FIGURE BH-I 18A:4B.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING LOW-RATE PUMPING AT 5 GPM - 0 TO 250 FEET; CH2M HILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-1 18A.
W=; 125 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Fluid Electrical Conductivity (pS/cm) 1 18apae2.dg4 Cow1
C C C TABLE BH-118A:1.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICALTM LOGGING RESULTS WITH HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY AND TRANSMISSIVITY ESTIMATIONS; CH2MHILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-I1 8A.
Project and Borehole Name CYAPCO: 13H-1 18A AWL Prior to Pumping (ftbgs) 19.31 Diameter of Borehole (ft) 0.51 Observed Drawdown (11) 4.81 Effective Radius (ft) 100 Darcy Interval Velocity in Specific Interval Specific Aquif&T2 Flow Rate Interval Specific Interval Specific HNP Pore water Top of Thickness Ambient (Specific During Delta Hydraulic Fluid Electrical Sample Onsite Lab Concentration of Interval Bottom of ofInterval Flowl Discharge) Pumping Flow3 Delta Flow Conductivity4 Transmissivity Conductivity Depth Result Tritium Interval No. I(f) Interval (f) (f) (gm) (ft/dav) (ppm) I pm) (ftl3min.) (ft/dav) (ft2/day) (microS/cm) (feet) (pCi/L) (pCi/L) 1 29.8 30.2 0.4 0.000 NA 3.81 3.810 0.509 3.63E+02 1.45E+02 857 28 1850 ND 2 45.9 46.1 0.2 0.001 0.61 0.185 0.184 0.025 3.51E+01 7.01E+00 398 40 8550 13911 3 63.9 65.0 1.1 0.002 0.28 0.238 0.236 0.032 8.17E+00 8.99E+00 382 53.4 7330 9818 4 68.3 68.4 0.1 0.000 NA 0.132 0.132 0.018 5.03E+01 5.03E+00 303 67.5 6300 13046 5 73.9 74.0 0.1 0.000 NA 0.211 0.211 0.028 8.03E+01 8.03E+00 252 72 4290 5939 6 101.8 101.9 0.1 0.000 NA 0.048 0.048 0.006 1.83E+01 1.83E+00 185 97 2790 ND 7 113.9 114.5 0.6 0.002 0.50 0.053 0.051 0.007 3.24E+00 1.94E+00 183 109 3390 5466 8 127.8 128.0 0.2 0.003 2.27 0.106 0.103 0.014 1.96E+01 3.92E+00 166 124.7 2550 2550 9 161.7 161.8 0.1 0.000 NA 0.008 0.008 0.001 3.05E+00 3.05E-01 126 NS NS NS 10 187.2 187.3 0.1 0.000 NA 0.005 0.005 0.001 1.90E+00 1.90E0-O 118 NS NS NS 11 206.0 206.1 0.1 I 0.000 NA 0.004 0.004 0.001 1.52E+00 1.52E-01 113 NS NS NS 12 219.8 219.9 0.1 0.001 1.51 0.003 0.002 0.000 7.62E-01 7.62E-02 Ill NS NS NS 13 238.5 238.6 0.1 0.000 NA 0.005 0.005 0.001 1.90E+00 L.90E-01 107 NS NS NS 1All ambient flow identified for this borehole is horizontal ambient flow.
2 Darcy Velocity is calculated using the observed volumetric flow rate, the cross-sectional area of the flow interval in the borehole and a borehole convergence factor of 2.5 (Drost, 1968). The Darcy Velocity is only applicable to ambient horizontal flow.
3 Delta Flow is the difference between Interval-Specific Flow Rate (during pumping) and Ambient Flow Rate.
'Hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity estimates are based on single well drawdown data, a porus-medium equivilent model and Hvorslev's 1951 porosity equation.
AWL - Ambient Water Level NA - Not Applicable ND - No Detect/Below Detection Limit for that SampleNot Applicable NS Not Sampled I1 8AREVA.XLS
BH-119 Logg-ing!Results 1.0 HydroPliysicafm Logging 1.1 Ambient Fluid Electrical Conductivity and Temperature Log: BH-119 At 1049 hours0.0121 days <br />0.291 hours <br />0.00173 weeks <br />3.991445e-4 months <br /> on July 22, 2004, after a calibration check of the fluid electrical conductivity (FEC) and temperature logging tool, the fluid column was logged for FEC and temperature profiles with COLOG's 1.5-inch diameter HpLr tool. These logs were performed prior to the installation of any pumping equipment. Please refer to Figure BH-119:1. The ambient FEC/temperature profiles indicate inflections at approximately 47 feet. These inflections in temperature and FEC correspond well with an identified interval of ambient horizontal flow. The ambient temperature log recorded a gradual increase in temperature with depth to approximately 88 feet, below this depth the log indicates a gradual decrease in temperature to approximately 300 feet. Below this depth the log indicates a gradual increase in temperature with depth. The ambient FEC log is relatively featureless below the inflection at approximately 47 feet.
1.2 Ambient Flow Characterization: BI-1 19 On July 22, 2004, an ambient flow characterization was conducted in boring Bl-l 19. For ambient flow assessment, the fluid column in the borehole was replaced with de-ionized water (DI) and the boring left in an undisturbed state to allow any natural flow to occur. The pump was removed from the boring to insure that water in the pump standpipe would not drain back into the boring. Prior to this period and throughout all HpLTN' testing, water levels and flow rates were monitored and recorded digitally every ten seconds. Ambient flow evaluation is reported for the period after the 'water surface returned to near pre-DI water emplacement levels. A series of FEC and temperature logs were then conducted over the duration of testing to identify changes in the fluid column associated with ambient flow. Ambient flow characterization is conducted to evaluate the presence of both vertical and horizontal ambient flow.
On July 22, 2004, at 1502 hours0.0174 days <br />0.417 hours <br />0.00248 weeks <br />5.71511e-4 months <br /> (t=O minutes, elapsed time of test), dilution of the fluid column was complete. Minimal to no DI water was lost to the formation due to the slightly depressed head maintained during DI water emplacement procedures. During the 17.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> following the emplacement of DI water, multiple logs were conducted. Of these logs, 3 are presented in Figure BH-l 19:2. The designation of each logging with the FEC tool is indicated in the figure legend by the time of logging (e.g., FEC1521 versus a subsequent logging at FEC1622), thus the progressing of curves to the right in this figure represents changes in FEC over the total logging period. The last four digits of each log ID corresponds to the time at which that particular log was started. Only logs acquired during logging in the downward direction are presented as the design of the FEC/temperature probe allows for the most accurate data to be collected in the downward direction. The logs acquired in the upward logging direction are not representative of downbole conditions and are therefore omitted. These logs illustrate changes in FEC at several intervals throughout the upper portion of the borehole. These changes in the FEC profiles with respect to time are associated with ambient horizontal flow occurring within these intervals.
Formation water migration caused by horizontal flow within the fluid column is indicated by the increase in FEC over time in Figure BH-1 19:2 for the intervals at 47.3 to 47.4, 85.2 to 88.8, 160.0 to 160.3, 253.0 - 254.5 and 262.2 to 263.8 feet. Numeric modeling of the reported field data for Page 1
these intervals suggests horizontal flow is occurring at rates of 0.003, 0.001, 0.001, 0.0002, and 0.0002 gpm, respectively. These flow rates are based on the rate of increase of mass at these intervals. Correcting for convergence of flow at the wellbore and factoring the length of the interval, these flow rates equate to a Darcy velocity, or specific discharge of groundwater in the aquifer 4.54, 0.04, 0.50, 0.02 and 0.02 ft/day, respectively. Please refer to Table BH-I 19:1 and
SUMMARY
- I for a complete summary of the HydroPhysicalT1i logging results. Please refer to Appendix B for a discussion of the methodology and code used to calculate these values. The ambient depth to water at the time of testing was 18.91 flbgs.
1.3 Flow Characterization During 1.4 GPM Production Test: BH-119 Low-rate pumping of wellbore fluids after DI water emplacement was conducted at one pumping rate to establish the inflow locations and evaluate the interval-specific inflow rates. Low-rate pumping at a given rate after DI water emplacement is conducted when the subject wellbore cannot sustain more than approximately 2-3 gpm yield. For DI water emplacement, DI water is injected at the bottom of the wellbore while simultaneous extraction pumping is conducted near water surface at the same rate. Water levels and flow rates are monitored and recorded digitally continuously to ensure minimal to no DI water is lost to the formation. This is achieved by maintaining water level at or below the recorded ambient level. After DI water emplacement is complete low-rate pumping is conducted to stress the aquifer(s) and draw groundwater into the wellbore where it is contrasted by the DI water in the wellbore. Continuous FEC profiling over time yields the depth and rate of influx of groundwater during pumping. These procedures were conducted at a time-averaged pumping rate of 1.40 gpm.
On July 23, 2004 at 0925 hours0.0107 days <br />0.257 hours <br />0.00153 weeks <br />3.519625e-4 months <br /> (t = 0 minutes elapsed time of testing), pumping was initiated at approximately 1.4 gpm. Prior to initiating pumping, the ambient depth to water was recorded at 18.28 ftbgs. Time dependent depth to water, totals and flow rate information were recorded and are presented in Figure BH-119:3. Low-rate pumping was maintained at a time-averaged rate of 1.40 gpm until 1521 hours0.0176 days <br />0.423 hours <br />0.00251 weeks <br />5.787405e-4 months <br /> (t = 356 minutes, elapsed time of testing). During this period drawdown was observed to stabilize at approximately 20 feet. In the case of a low-yield well such as BH-I 19, drawdown may. take some time to reach equilibrium. While drawdown is stabilizing, wellbore storage contributes to the total extraction rate. The volume of borehole fluid that is removed from the well during extraction pumping is calculated and incorporated in the numerical modeling of the field data. Wellbore storage contributed 0.044 gpm during the late-time testing. A maximum drawdown of 20.75. feet was observed. During the period of testing, multiple loggings were conducted. Of these logs eight FEC traces are presented in Figure BH-119:4. These logs clearly illustrate specific intervals of dramatic increase in FEC with respect to time. The depth at which the peak value for a given interval occurs is indicative of a water-bearing interval. The data presented in Figure BH-119:4 suggests the presence of 18 hydraulically conductive intervals, with the dominant water-bearing interval at 85.2 to 88.8 feet.
Numerical modeling of the reported field data was performed using code BOREII (Hale and Tsang, 1988, Tsang et.al. 1990, Daughtery and Tsang, 2000). This modeling was performed to estimate the rate of inflow and FEC for each identified hydraulically conductive interval during the pumping. The results of the modeling and analysis are presented in Table BH-1 19:1. In summary, the interval of 85.2 to 88.8 feet dominated inflow producing 0.438 gpm, or 32.4 percent of the total inflow during production testing. Please refer to Table BH-119:1 for a complete listing of the depths of water-bearing zones and their interval-specific inflow rate during testing.
Page 2
1.4 Downholc Sampling Eight downhole samples and one wellhead sample were procured from wellbore BH-1 19 on July 26, 2004. Downhole samples were procured from depths of 44, 70, 82, 143, 156, 254, 298 and 454 feet. Downhole sampling was conducted during development pumping at a time-averaged rate of 1.41 gpm after production testing was completed. The laboratory analyses of the procured samples are incorporated with the hydrophysical flow data to obtain actual, or "pore" water, contaminant concentrations for each sampled interval using the mass-balance equation.
Wellbore BH-I 19 exhibited relatively minor flow rates in the lower portion of the wellbore.
Complete development of flow intervals exhibiting such small flow rates may take days. For this reason, samples collected at 254, 298 and 454 feet do not represent fully developed flow intervals. A ratio of borehole fluid dilution at the time of sampling was calculated by comparing FEC of the developing interval at the time of testing (sampling) and actual the FEC of the interval estimated through numerical modeling or observed in the ambient FEC log. This ratio was applied to the laboratory results to estimate actual contamination levels of the lowermost three sampled intervals. These intervals had not completely developed; therefore, the mixing of these lowermost intervals may be better estimated using laboratory concentrations. As opposed to the standard procedure of sampling above a developed producing zone, these zones were sampled with the sampler intake ports at precisely the depth of the interval due to their lack of development. These samples, along with the subsequent estimation of the dilution factor, may not be representative of actual contaminant concentrations. Because these intervals are not well developed and the mixing of the water in the borehole at these intervals can not be determined, the HNP laboratory results should be considered likely more representative estimates of tritium concentrations at these depths.
In summary the intervals 47.3 to 47.4, 74.4 to 74.5 and 85.2 to 88.8 feet registered the highest pore water concentrations of tritium at 9,148, 18,346 and 10,107 pCiIL, respectively. Please refer to Table BH-1 19:2 for a listing of sample depths and actual contamination concentrations.
The sample locations were identified by on-site interpretation of the FEC/Temperature logs acquired during pumping. Between procurement of samples, the downhole sampler was cleaned with an alconox and DI water solution and rinsed with DI water.
1.5 Estimation of Interval Specific Transmissivity: BH- 19 An estimation of transmissivity (1') can be made using an equation after Hvorslev (1951) assuming steady-state radial flow in an unconfined aquifer:
T=KL= qi n(Le 2zAhw krwl where K is the hydraulic conductivity, qj is the interval specific inflow rate calculated by HpLT' results, r, is the borehole radius (0.25 f1), r, is the effective pumping radius, Ahw, is the observed maximum drawdown (20.75 feet) and L is the thickness of the zone through which flow occurs.
For our calculations, COLOG used r, of 100 feet (assumed). By applying L and qj from the HpLTm results under the two pressure conditions, the interval specific hydraulic conductivity can be calculated for each identified water producing interval. These calculations were made at each Page 3
identified interval and are presented in Table BH-119:1. In summary, the interval 85.2 to 88.8 feet registered the highest transmissivity at 3.86 feee/day.
2.0 Data Summary Processing and interpretation of the HydroPhysicalT^' logs in BH-l 19 suggest the presence of 18 producing intervals for this borehole. Numerical modeling of the reported HydroPhysicalT1I field data was performed using the computer program BOREII. These analyses were performed to estimate the rate of inflow for each identified hydraulically conductive borehole interval during Di injection procedures. The results of these analyses are presented in Table BH-l 19:1. These identified producing intervals correlate well with water-bearing zones identified during ambient testing. In summary, the interval 85.2 to 88.8 feet dominated inflow during the production test, producing 0.438 gpm, or 32.4 percent of the total flow during the production test.
During ambient testing, boring BH-1 19 exhibited a horizontal flow regime. Five water-bearing zones were identified under ambient conditions exhibiting horizontal flow. No vertical pressure gradient was observed under ambient conditions. The five water-bearing zones at 47.3 to 47.4, 85.2 to 88.8, 160.0 to 160.3, 241.2 to 241.4 and 262.2 to 263.8 feet contributed water to the borehole at estimated flow rates of 0.003, 0.001, 0.001, 0.0002, and 0.0002 gpm, respectively.
Correcting for convergence of flow at the wellbore and factoring the length of the interval, these flow rates equate to a Darcy velocity, or specific discharge of groundwater in the aquifer of 4.54, 0.04, 0.50, 0.02 and 0.02 ft/day, respectively.
The ambient fluid temperature log (Figure BH-119:1) acquired on July 22, 2004 indicates an increase in temperature with depth to approximately 88 feet. Below this depth the log indicates a decrease in temperature with depth to approximately 300 feet. Below this depth the temperature log indicates an increase in temperature with depth. Both the temperature and FEC log exhibit inflections at approximately 47 feet. This depth corresponds well with an ambient horizontal flow location. The ambient FEC profile is relatively featureless with the exception of the infection at approximately 47 feet.
The 18 interval-sp~ecific estimated transmissivities in BH-I 19 ranged from 0.003 to 3.86 square feet per day with the interval of 85.2 to 88.8 feet registering the highest transmissivity. The 18 interval-specific transmissivity estimates differ significantly with respect to each other, however, regarding just the dominant water producing zones interval-specific transmissivity did not differ significantly.
Downhole sampling was conducted in wellbore BH-1 19 on July 26, 2004 at a time-averaged rate of 1.41 gpm after production testing was completed. Eight downhole samples and one wellhead sample were procured from wellbore BH-1 19. The samples procured from 44 and 82 feet contained the highest levels of contaminant concentration.
Fracture inter-connectiveness in the immediate vicinity of a wellbore can be inferred by the similarity, or lack there of, of parameters such as interval-specific transmissivity estimates and interval-specific FEC, along with the presence of pressure differentials within the borehole.
Similar transmissivity and FEC estimates would suggest an inter-connected network of fractures or aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. Although a pressure differential present in the wellbore would suggest the driving force for vertical communication is present, in a vertically inter-connected network of fractures the aquifer pressures tend to equilibrate.
Page 4
The data acquired in BH-119 exhibited similar interval-specific transmissivity estimates among dominant water producing intervals and similar FEC estimates. No vertical gradient is observed in the wellbore. The data suggest the fractures intersecting the wellbore may be inter-connected in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. Please see Tables BH-l 19:1 and
SUMMARY
- l for a summary which includes the locations, flow rates and hydraulic conductivity estimates assessed by COLOG.
Page 5
FIGURE BH-119:1. AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND FLUID ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; CH2M HILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-1 19.
Temperature (0C) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I11 12 I.3
-0 25' -25 Bottom of casing 50 -50 75 -75 100 -100 125 125 Temperature FEC 150 150 175 175 200- 200 225- 225 250-: 250 275- 275 4t 300 - 300 325- 325 350-c 350 375 375 400 - 400 425- 425 450- 450 4
75c 475 500-: 500 525 -
525 550- 550 575 575 600: -600 I I j 1 I r T j I I1
- 11 I
-625 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 14300 Fluid Electrical Conductivity (jiS/cm) 119.-abi~dg4 c27C/
FIGURE BH-119:2
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING AMBIENT FLOW CHARACTERIZATION; CH2M HILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-1 19.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 if n . . . . . . . . . l l . . . I
.0 25- -25
............................................................................................................................................... Bottom of casing 50 -
.-50 75 - -75 100- -100 FEC logs acquired immediately following DI water 125-emplacement for Ambient Flow Characterization. The - 125 150 logs indicate ambient horizontal flow occurs at five
-150 intervals in the borehole, most notably at 47.3 - 47.4 175 feet -just below the base of casing. Numerical modeling -175 200- indicates horizontal flow occured at this interval at
-200 0.003 gpm. The last log, FEC0810, was acquired the 225- following morning after the wellbore sat undisturbed -225 overnight.
250- -250 275 -275
- 300- -300 325 -325 350 -350 375 -375 4007 -400 425 425 450 450
- FEC1521 475 475 500- 500
- FEC 1622 525 525 5507 550 575 - FECO810 575 600 a-W 6van - ,
I 2
30 I . .
I. . . . ,I . , . ,.
7 8
600 625 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10C Fluid Electrical Conductivity (gS/crn) l119-afe.dg4 Cl'p
SURE BH-1 19:3. PUMPING AND DRAWDOWN DATA *JNGLOW-RATE PRODUCTION TEST AT 1 GPM; CH20 HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-1 19.
500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . I I . I . . . . . . 4 5.0
-0.0 U Extraction Total (gals) 400-X Drawdown (feet) Referenced to AWL of 18.28 ftbgs
-5.0 Welibore Storage Contribution 300-
=0.044 gpm
-10.0 0
-15.0 200-Extraction Rate During Low-Rate Production Test = 1.40 gpm
-20.0 100-
-25.0 IrIIlIIIIIi I- . . ' ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .1AA I -.
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 Elapsed Time (mins) t = 0 at 0925 Hours on July 23, 2004 119-p dd.dg4
FIGURE BH-119:4.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING LOW-RATE PUMPING AT 1 GPM; CH2M HILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-119.
0 50 100 150 20C 0
25- 25 50- -
Bottom of casing 75 9 100 *100 I 125- 125 -
150 150 -
175 175 200 -200 225 -225 FEC logs acquired after DI water emplacement during low-rate 250 pumping at -1 gpm. The logs indicate the intervals 85.2 - 88.8, -250 147.8 - 148.9 and 160.0 - 160.3 feet dominate flow during stress 275 -275 testing, producing 0.528, 0.251 and 0.317 gpm, respectively, or a combined 78% of the total flow. FEC logging under stressed -300 conditions indicates no measurable flow present below 481.1 feet under these pumping conditions. During stress testing the pump -325 was set at 40 ftbgs.
-350 375 -375
-400
- FEC0926 - FEC1T41 425
- FEC0954 FEC1253 450 475
- FEC1023 - FEC1356 500 525
- FEC1057 - FEC1502
-550
-575
-600
-625 0 50 100 150 20(
Fluid Electrical Conductivity (1S/lcn) 119-pae.dg J4 c,7
- 9
C c C TABLE B1-119:1.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICALTM LOGGING RESULTS WTHYDRAULIC CONDUCT YAND TRANSMISSIVITY ESTIMATIONS; CH2HLL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-1 19.
Project and Borehole Name CYAPCO BH-119 AWL Prior to Pumping (ftbgs) 18.28 Diameter of Borehole (R) 0.51 Obsesved Drawdown (ft) 20.75 Effective Radius (ft) 100 Darcy Interval Velocity in Specific HNP Interval Specific 2
Aquifer Flow Rate Interval Specific Interval Specific Onsite Pore water Top of Thickness Ambient (Specific During Delta Hydraulic Fluid Electrical Sample Lab Concentration of Interval Bottom of ofInterval Flow' Discharge) Pumping Flow' Delta Flow Conductivity4 Transmissivity Conductivity Depth Result Tritium Interval No. (fl) Interval (ft) (fl) (gpm) (flday) (gprn) (gpm) (t'/min.) (ftday) (fWtIday) (microStcm) (feet) (pCitL) (pCilL) i47.3 47.4 0.1 0.003 4.54 0.158 0.155 0.021 I.37E+0 I 1.37E+00 201 44 7550 9148 2 74.4 74.5 0.1 0.000 NA 0.169 0.169 0.023 1.49E+01 1.49E+00 185 70 7340 18346 3 85.2 88.8 3.6 0.001 0.04 0.438 0.437 0.058 1.07E+00 3.86E+00 183 82 5540 10107 4 147.8 148.9 1.1 0.000 NA 0.251 0.251 0.034 2.01E+00 2.22E+00 151 143 2180 3085 5 160.0 160.3 0.3 0.001 0.50 0.273 0.272 0.036 8.00+00 2.40E+00 168 156 1520 1604 6 178.4 184.0 5.6 0.000 NA 0.008 0.008 0.001 1.26E-02 7.06E-02 167 NS NS NS 7 236.0 236.1 0.1 0.000 NA 0.002 0.002 0.000 1.77E-01 1.77E-02 166 NS NS NS 8 241.2 241.4 0.2 0.000 NA 0.003 0.003 0.000 1.32E-01 2.65E-02 167 NS NS NS 9 253.0 254.5 1.5 0.0002 0.02 0.013 0.013 0.002 7.53E-02 1.13E-01 167 254 <1110 <1110 10 262.2 263.8 1.6 0.0002 0.02 0.004 0.004 0.001 2.101-02 3.35E-.02 168 NS NS NS 11 288.1 288.3 0.2 0.000 NA 0.002 0.002 0.000 8.83E-02 1.77E-02 169 NS NS NS 12 297.2 299.3 2.1 0.000 NA 0.015 0.015 0.002 6.31 E-02 1.32E-01 169 298 1170 6744 13 318.7 321.5 2.8 0.000 NA 0.002 0.002 0.000 6.3 1E-03 1.77E-02 169 _ NS NS NS 14 384.2 385.5 1.3 0.000 NA 0.001 0.001 0.000 6.79E-03 8.83E-03 170 NS NS NS 15 426.7 430.9 4.2 0.000 NA 0.003 0.003 0.000 6.3 1E-03 2.65E-02 171 NS NS NS 16 446.5 452.8 6.3 0.000 NA 0.0003 0.000 0.000 4.20E-04 2.65E-03 171 NS NS NS 17 456.4 456.7 0.3 0.000 NA 0.012 0.012 0.002 3.53E-01 1.06E-01 172 453.5 1570 10801 I8 472.0 481.1 9.1 0.000 NA 0.004 0.004 0.001 3.88E-03 3.53E-02 173 NS NS NS
'Al ambient flow identified for this borehole is horizontal ambient flow.
2Darcy Velocity is calculated using the observed volumetric flow rate, the cross-sectional area of the flow interval in the borehole and a borehole convergence factor of 2.5 (Drost, 1968). The Darcy Velocity is only applicable to ambient horizontal flow.
'Delta Flow is the difference between Interval-Specific Flow Rate (during pumping) and Ambient Flow Rate.
'Hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity estimates are based on single well drawdown data, a porus-medium equivilent model and Hvorslev's 1951 porosity equation.
SThe samples at 298 and 453 had a dilution factor applied to them to derive the actual contaminant concentration.
AWL - Ambient Water Level NA - Not Applicable ND -No Detect/Below Detection Limit for that SampleNot Applicable NS -Not Sampled 119-REVA.XLS
BH-120 Logging Results 1.0 HydroPhysicalT( Logging 1.1 Ambient Fluid Electrical Conductivity and Temperature Log: BH-120 At 1059 hours0.0123 days <br />0.294 hours <br />0.00175 weeks <br />4.029495e-4 months <br /> on August 4, 2004, after a calibration check of the fluid electrical conductivity (FEC) and temperature logging tool, the fluid column was logged for FEC and temperature profiles with COLOG's 1.5-inch diameter HpLTb' tool. These logs were performed prior to the installation of any pumping equipment. Please refer to Figure BH-120:1. The ambient FEC profile indicates an inflection at approximately 142 feet. This inflection in FEC corresponds well with an identified interval of ambient horizontal flow. The remainder of the FEC log was relatively featureless. The ambient temperature log recorded a gradual decrease in temperature with depth to approximately 313 feet, below this depth the log indicates a gradual increase in temperature to approximately wellbore TD (550.9 ft).
1.2 Ambient Flow Characterization: BH-120 On August 4, 2004, an ambient flow characterization was conducted in boring BH-120. For ambient flow assessment, the fluid column in the borehole was replaced with de-ionized water (DI) and the boring left in an undisturbed state to allow any natural flow to occur. The pump was removed from the boring to insure that water in the pump standpipe would not drain back into the boring. Prior to this period and throughout all HpLTNI testing, water levels and flow rates were monitored and recorded digitally every ten seconds. Ambient flow evaluation is reported for the period after the water surface returned to near pre-DI water emplacement levels. A series of FEC and temperature logs were then conducted over the duration of testing to identify changes in the fluid column associated with ambient flow. Ambient flow characterization is conducted to evaluate the presence of both vertical and horizontal ambient flow.
On August 4, 2004, at 1427 hours0.0165 days <br />0.396 hours <br />0.00236 weeks <br />5.429735e-4 months <br /> (t=0 minutes, elapsed time of test), dilution of the fluid column was complete. Minimal to no DI water was lost to the formation due to the slightly depressed head maintained during DI water emplacement procedures. During the 17.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> following the emplacement of DI water, multiple logs were conducted. Of these logs, 4 are presented in Figure BH-120:2. The designation of each logging with the FEC tool is indicated in the figure legend by the time of logging (e.g., FEC1443 versus a subsequent logging at FEC1558), thus the progressing of curves to the right in this figure represents changes in FEC over the total logging period. The last four digits of each log ID corresponds to the time at which that particular log was started. Only logs acquired during logging in the downward direction are presented as the design of the FEC/temperature probe allows for the most accurate data to be collected in the downward direction. The logs acquired in the upward logging direction are not representative of downhole conditions and are therefore omitted. These logs illustrate changes at several intervals throughout the upper portion of the borehole. These changes in the FEC profiles with respect to time are associated with ambient horizontal flow occurring within these intervals.
Formation water migration caused by horizontal flow within the fluid column is indicated by the increase in FEC over time in Figure BH-120:2 for the intervals at 105.6 to 106.0, 153.2 to 153.3 and 211.0 to 211.3 feet. Numeric modeling of the reported field data for these intervals suggests horizontal flow is occurring at rates of 0.004, 0.008 and 0.002 gpm, respectively. These flow Page 1
rates are based on the rate of increase of mass at these intervals. Correcting for convergence of flow at the wellbore and factoring the length of the interval, these flow rates equate to a Darcy velocity, or specific discharge of groundwater in the aquifer 1.51, 12.1 and 1.01 ft/day, respectively. Please refer to Table BH-120:1 and
SUMMARY
- 1 for a complete summary of the HydroPhysicalT"I logging results. Please refer to Appendix B for a discussion of the methodology and code used to calculate these values. The ambient depth to water at the time of testing was 18.23 flbgs.
1.3 Flow Characterization During 1.9 GPM Production Test: BII-120 Low-rate pumping of wellbore fluids after DI water emplacement was conducted at one pumping rate to establish the inflow locations and evaluate the interval-specific inflow rates. Low-rate pumping at a given rate after DI water emplacement is conducted when the subject wellbore cannot sustain more than approximately 2-3 gpm yield. For DI water emplacement, DI water is injected at the bottom of the wellbore while simultaneous extraction pumping is conducted near water surface at the same rate. Water levels and flow rates are monitored and recorded digitally continuously to ensure minimal to no DI water is lost to the formation. This is achieved by maintaining water level at or below the recorded ambient level. After DI water emplacement is complete low-rate pumping is conducted to stress the aquifer(s) and draw groundwater into the wellbore where it is contrasted by the DI water in the wellbore. Continuous FEC profiling over time yields the depth and rate of influx of groundwater during pumping. These procedures were conducted at a time-averaged pumping rate of 1.85 gpm.
On August 5, 2004 at 0826 hours0.00956 days <br />0.229 hours <br />0.00137 weeks <br />3.14293e-4 months <br /> (t=0 minutes elapsed time of testing), pumping was initiated at approximately 1.9 gpm. Prior to initiating pumping, the ambient depth to water was recorded at 17.96 flbgs. Time dependent depth to water, totals and flow rate information were recorded and are presented in Figure BH-120:3. Low-rate pumping was maintained at a time-averaged rate of 1.85 gpm until 1612 hours0.0187 days <br />0.448 hours <br />0.00267 weeks <br />6.13366e-4 months <br /> (t = 466 minutes, elapsed time of testing). During this period drawdown was observed to stabilize at approximately 16.9 feet. In the case of a low-yield well such as BH-120, drawdown may take some time to reach equilibrium. While drawdown is stabilizing, wellbore storage contributes to the total extraction rate. The volume of borehole fluid that is removed from the well during extraction pumping is calculated and included in the numerical modeling of the field data. A maximum drawdown of 16.90 feet was observed.
During the period of testing, multiple loggings were conducted. Of these logs twelve FEC traces are presented in Figure 13H-120:4. These logs clearly illustrate specific intervals of dramatic increase in FEC with respect to time. The depth at which the peak value for a given interval occurs is indicative of a water-bearing interval. The data presented in Figure BH-120:4 suggests the presence of11 hydraulically conductive intervals, with the dominant water-bearing interval at 105.6 to 106.0 feet. Numerical modeling of the reported field data was performed using code BORETI (Hale and Tsang, 1988, Tsang et.al. 1990, Daughtery and Tsang, 2000). This modeling was performed to estimate the rate of inflow and FEC for each identified hydraulically conductive interval during the pumping. The results of the modeling and analysis are presented in TableBH-120:1. In summary, the interval of 105.6 to 106.0 feet dominated inflow producing 0.778 gpm, or 41 percent of the total inflow during production testing. Please refer to Table BH-120:1 for a complete listing of the depths of water-bearing zones and their interval-specific inflow rate during testing.
1.4 Downhole Sampling Page 2
Seven downhole samples and one wellhead sample were procured from wellbore BH-120 on August 5, 2004. Downhole samples were procured from depths 77, 85, 100, 124, 136, 208 and 231 feet. The wellhead sample was taken from the discharge outlet of the downhole pump. The downhole pump was set at 35 feet. Dowvnhole sampling was conducted during development pumping at a time-averaged rate of 1.80 gpm after production testing was completed. The laboratory analyses of the procured samples are incorporated with the hydrophysical flow data to obtain actual, or "pore" water, contaminant concentrations for each sampled interval using the mass-balance equation. In summary, the interval 83.5 to 83.6 registered the highest concentration of tritium at 15,413 pCi/L. Please refer to Table BH-120:2 for a complete listing of sample locations and actual contaminant concentrations. The sample taken at 35 feet (wellhead) did not correspond with any interval of identified flow, therefore, this sample has not been included in Table BH-120:2 The sample locations were identified by on-site interpretation of the FEC/Temperature logs acquired during pumping. Between procurement of samples, the downhole sampler was cleaned with an alconox and DI water solution and rinsed with DI water.
1.5 Estimation of Interval Specific Transmissivity: BH-120 An estimation of transmissivity (1) can be made using an equation after Hvorslev (1951) assuming steady-state radial flow in an unconfined aquifer:
T=KL= qi In (re\
where K is the hydraulic conductivity, qi is the interval specific inflow rate calculated by HpLT^'
results, r. is the borehole radius (0.25 ft), r. is the effective pumping radius , Ah,, is the observed maximum drawdown (16.90 feet) and L is the thickness of the zone through which flow occurs.
For our calculations, COLOG used r. of 100 feet (assumed). By applying L and qi from the HpLTm results under the two pressure conditions, the interval specific hydraulic conductivity can be calculated for each identified water producing interval. These calculations were made at each identified interval and are presented in Table BH-120:1. In summary, the interval 105.6 to 106.0 feet registered the highest transmissivity at 8.39 feee/day.
2.0 Data Summarv Processing and interpretation of the HydroPhysicalTht logs in BH-1 20 suggest the presence of 11 producing intervals for this borehole. Numerical modeling of the reported HydroPhysicalTm field data was performed using the computer program BOREII. These analyses were performed to estimate the rate of inflow for each identified hydraulically conductive borehole interval during DI injection procedures. The results of these analyses are presented in Table BH-120:1. These identified producing intervals correlate well with water-bearing zones identified during ambient testing. In summary, the interval 105.6 to 106.0 feet dominated inflow during the production test, producing 0.778 gpm, or 41 percent of the total flow during the production test.
During ambient testing, boring BH-120 exhibited a horizontal flow regime. Four water-bearing zones were identified under ambient conditions exhibiting horizontal flow. No vertical pressure Page 3
gradient was observed under ambient conditions. The four water-bearing zones at 105.6 to 106.0, 153.2 to 153.3 and 211.0 to 211.3 feet contributed water to the borehole at estimated flow rates of 0.004, 0.008 and 0.002 gpm, respectively. Correcting for convergence of flow at the wellbore and factoring the length of the interval, these flow rates equate to a Darcy velocity, or specific discharge of groundwater in the aquifer of aquifer 1.51, 12.1 and 1.01 ftl/day, respectively.
The ambient fluid temperature log (Figure BH-120:1) acquired on August 4, 2004 indicates a decrease in temperature with depth to approximately 313 feet. Below this depth the log indicates an increase in temperature with depth to TD (550.9 ft). The ambient FEC profile exhibits an inflection at approximately 142 feet. This depth corresponds well with an identified ambient horizontal flow location. The ambient FEC profile is relatively featureless with the exception of the infection at approximately 142 feet.
The 11 interval-specific estimated transmissivities in BH-120 ranged from 0.043 to 8.93 square feet per day with the interval of 105.6 to 106.0 feet registering the highest transmissivity. Among dominant water producing intervals the interval-specific transmissivity estimates do not differ significantly with respect to each other.
Downhole sampling was conducted in wellbore BH-120 during development pumping at a time-averaged rate of 1.80 gpm after production testing was completed. Seven downhole samples and one wellhead sample were procured from wellbore BH-120. The sample procured from 77 feet contained the highest levels of contaminant concentration.
Fracture inter-connectiveness in the immediate vicinity of a wellbore can be inferred by the similarity, or lack there of, of parameters such as interval-specific transmissivity estimates and interval-specific FEC, along with the presence of pressure differentials within the borehole.
Similar transmissivity and FEC estimates would suggest an inter-connected network of fractures or aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. Although a pressure differential present in the wellbore would suggest the driving force for vertical communication is present, in a vertically inter-connected network of fractures the aquifer pressures tend to equilibrate.
The data acquired in BH-120 exhibited similar interval-specific transmissivity estimates among dominant water producing intervals and somewhat similar FEC estimates suggesting an inter-connected network of fractures in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. No vertical gradient is observed in the wellbore. The data suggest the fractures intersecting the wellbore may be vertically interconnected in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. Please see Tables BH-120:1 and
SUMMARY
- 1 for a summary which includes the locations, flow rates and hydraulic conductivity estimates assessed by COLOG.
Page 4
FIGURE BH-120:1. AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND FLUID ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-120.
Temperature (0C) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-0 25 -
Bottom of. casing 25 50- -50 75 - -75 100- 100 -
125 - 125 150- 150 FEC 175- 175 200- 200 225 - 225 250- 250
'275 - 275 -
300- 300 325 325 350 350 375. -375 -
400 400 425 425 450 450 475 -475 500 500 525 525 -
-550 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Fluid Electrical Conductivil.y(pS/cm) 120-abi.dg4 CWbo
FIGURE BH-120:2
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING AMBIENT FLOW CHARACTERIZATION; CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-120.
. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 25 -25 50- Bottom of casing 50 75 75 100- 100 125- 1-25 FEC logs acquired immediately following DI water 150 emplacement for Ambient Flow Characterization. The -150 logs indicate ambient horizontal flow occurs at three 175 intervals inthe boreholeat 105.6- 106.0, 153.2- 153.3 175 200 and 211.0 - 211.3 feet. Numerical modeling indicates 200 horizontal flow occured at these intervals at 0.004, 0.008 225 and 0.002 gpm, respectively. The last log, FEC0745, 225 was acquired the following morning after the wellbore 250. sat undisturbed overnight. 250 275 275 300 -300 325 -
325 350 350 375 375
- .FEC1443 400 400 425 FEC1558
- 425 450 450 475 - FEC1645 475 500 500
- FECO745 525
-525
_0550 ^ rIEWl^IlEi550 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Fluid Electrical Conductivity (,uS/cm) 120-afk.dg4
OURE BH-120:3. PUMPING AND DRAWDOWN DATA DING LOW-RATE PRODUCTION TEST AT 2 GPM; CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-120.
CA 0
C)
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 Elapsed Time (mins) t = 0 at 0826 Hours on August 5, 2004 120-pdd.dg4
FIGURE BH-120:4A.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING LOW-RATE PUMPING AT 2 GPM; CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-120.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 I
I I ~ . . . I II . . . . . . . . . . t- E I I)
_Z3 A _ ................................
s5 -50 75 -
-75 100 100 ONO=0a _da 125 125 150 150 175 175 200- 200 ima - FEC0826 225 _ 225
- FEC0846 250- 250 i 275- FECO904 0
275 300- - FEC0927 300 FEC logs acquired after DI water emplacement during 325-low-rate pumping at -2 gpm. The logs indicate FEC0948 325 eleven producing flow zones under pumping 350- 350 conditions - all above 243 feet. No flow is identified FEC 1009 375-under these pumping conditions below 243 feet. The 375 intervals 92.8 - 93.6 and 105.6 - 106.0 feet produced - FEC1030 400- 0.554 and 0.778 gpm, respectively, or a combined 400 71.2 percent of the total inflow. Note: numerical FEC1 120 425- modeling of the FEC logs indicates an approximate -425 doubling in FEC in the uppermost two intervals of - FEC1136 450- 83.5 - 83.6 and 92.8 - 93.6 feet (-420 compared to 450
-223 uS/cm). FEC logging under stressed conditions FEC1249 475-indicates no measurable flow present below 243.2 -475 feet under these pumping conditions. During stress 500- - FEC1302 testing, the pump was set at 37 ftbgs. 500 S 525- FEC1539 525 11 JJV
~-I.-,-- -
-550 0 50 10C 150 200 250 300 Fluid Electrical Conductivity (US/cm) 120-pae.dg4
FIGURE BH-120:4B.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING LOW-RATE PUMPING AT 2 GPM - 0 TO 250 FEET; CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-120.
110-W 120-a 130- 130 140-140 150-150 160 160 170 170 180 180 190 190 200 200 210 210 220 220 230 230
. 240 240 250
-250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Fluid Electrical Conductivity (IS/cm) 120-pae2.dg4
c C C TABLE BH-120:1.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICALTM LOGGING RESULTS WITH HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY AND TRANSMISSIVITY ESTIMATIONS; CH2MHILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-120.
Project and Borehole Name CYAPCO: BH-120 AWL Prior to Pumping (11bgs) 17.96 Diameter of Borehole (fl) 0.51 Observed Drawdown (fi) 16.90 Effective Radius (fR) 100 Darcy Interval Velocity in Specific Interval Specific Aquifer2 Flow Rate Interval Specific Interval Specific HNP Pore water Top of Thickness Ambient (Specific During Delta Hydraulic Fluid Electrical Sample Onsite Lab Concentration of Interval Bottom of of Interval Flow1 Discharge) Pumping Flow Delta Flow Conductivity 4 Transmissivity Conductivity Depth Result Tritium 2 (pCiYL)
Interval No. (R) Interval (1) ()( IpM) (ft/day) (gvm)(ipm) (Ortnin.) (fl/day) (fW /dav) (microS/cm) (feet) (pCi/L)
. 83.5 83.6 0.1 0.000 NA 0.045 0.045 0.00602 4.88E+00 4.88E-01 421 76.6 1730 15413 2 92.8 93.6 0.8 0.000 NA 0.554 0.554 0.07406 7.51E+00 6.00E+00 414 85.3 1390 1458 3 105.6 106.0 0.4 0.004 1.51 0.778 0.774 0.10348 2.1 OE+OI 8.39E+00 223 99.7 1360 1459 4 130.1 130.4 0.3 0.000 NA 0.079 0.079 0.01056 2.85E+00 8.56E-01 172 124.8 <1200 <1200 5 142.4 142.9 0.5 0.000 NA 0.264 0.264 0.03529 5.72E+00 2.86E+00 184 6 153.2 153.3 0.1 0.008 12.1 0.026 0.018 0.00241 1.95E+00 1.95E-01 175 136.2 <1200 <1200 7 171.1 171.2 0.1 0.000 NA 0.008 0.008 0.00107 8.67E-01 8.67E-02 176 8 211.0 211.3 0.3 0.002 1.01 0.074 0.072 0.00963 2.60E+00 7.80E-01 297 208 <833 <833 9 228.9 232.8 3.9 0.000 NA 0.016 0.016 0.00214 4.45E-02 1.73E-01 180 230.8 <1200 <1200 10 238.1 238.2 0.1 0.000 NA 0.008 0.008 0.00107 8.67E-01 8.67E-02 179 NS NS NS II 242.3 243.2 0.9 0.000 NA 0.004 0.004 0.00053 _ 4.82E-02 I 4.34E.02 181 NS NS NS XAll ambient flow identified for this borehole is horizontal ambient flow.
2 Darcy Velocity is calculated using the observed volumetric flow rate, the cross-sectional area of the flow interval in the borehole and a borehole convergence factor of 2.5 (Drost, 1968). The Darcy Velocity is only applicable to ambient horizontal flow.
3Delta Flow is the difference between Interval-Specific Flow Rate (during pumping) and Ambient Flow Rate.
4 Hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity estimates are based on single well drawdown data, a porus-medium equivilent model and Hvorslev's 1951 porosity equation.
AWL - Ambient Water Level NA = Not Applicable ND - No Detect/Below Detection Limit for that Sample NS - Not Sampled 120-REVA.XLS
BH-121A Logging Results 1.0 HydroPhysicapA Logging 1.1 Ambient Fluid Electrical Conductivity and Temperaturc Log: BH-121A At 0817 hours0.00946 days <br />0.227 hours <br />0.00135 weeks <br />3.108685e-4 months <br /> on July 28, 2004, after a calibration check of the fluid electrical conductivity (FEC) and temperature logging tool, the fluid column was logged for FEC and temperature profiles with COLOG's 1.5-inch diameter HpLT tool. These logs were performed prior to the installation of any pumping equipment. Please refer to Figure BH-121A:I. The ambient FEC profile indicates notable inflections at approximately 98, 126, 160, 277, 217 and 455 feet. The inflection in FEC at approximately 98 feet corresponds with the base of casing. The inflection in FEC at approximately 277 feet corresponds relatively well with an interval of identified ambient horizontal flow. The inflection at approximately 455 feet corresponds relatively well with a water bearing zone identified during development pumping. The FEC log indicated a general increase in FEC with depth. The ambient temperature log recorded notable inflections at approximately 98, 277 and 405 feet. The infection at approximately 98 feet corresponds relatively well with the base of casing. The inflection at approximately 277 feet corresponds relatively well with an interval of identified ambient horizontal flow. The temperature log indicates a general decrease in temperature with depth to approximately 277 feet. Below this depth the temperature log indicates a general increase in temperature with depth, with the exception of the infection at approximately 405 feet.
1.2 Ambient Flow Characterization: BH-121A On July 28, 2004, an ambient flow characterization was conducted in boring BH-121A. For ambient flow assessment, the fluid column in the borehole was replaced with de-ionized water (DI) and the boring left in an undisturbed state to allow any natural flow to occur. The pump was removed from the boring to insure that water in the pump standpipe would not drain back into the boring. Prior to this period and throughout all HpLT ^' testing, water levels and flow rates were monitored and recorded digitally every ten seconds. Ambient flow evaluation is reported for the period after the water surface returned to near pre-DI water emplacement levels. A series of FEC and temperature logs were then conducted over the duration of testing to identify changes in the fluid column associated with ambient flow. Ambient flow characterization is conducted to evaluate the presence of both vertical and horizontal ambient flow.
On July 28, 2004, at 1733 hours0.0201 days <br />0.481 hours <br />0.00287 weeks <br />6.594065e-4 months <br /> (t=0 minutes, elapsed time of test), dilution of the fluid column was complete. Minimal to no DI water was lost to the formation due to the slightly depressed head maintained during DI water emplacement procedures. During the 15.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> following the emplacement of DI water, multiple logs were conducted. Of these logs, 5 are presented in Figure BH-121A:2. The designation of each logging with the FEC tool is indicated in the figure legend by the time of logging (e.g., FEC1736 versus a subsequent logging at FEC1803), thus the progressing of curves to the right in this figure represents changes in FEC over the total logging period. The last four digits of each log ID corresponds to the time at which that particular log was started. Only logs acquired during logging in the downward direction are presented as the design of the FEC/temperature probe allows for the most accurate data to be collected in the downward direction. The logs acquired in the upward logging direction are not representative of downhole conditions and are therefore omitted. These logs illustrate changes at several intervals Page I
throughout the upper portion of the borehole. These changes in the FEC profiles with respect to time are associated with ambient horizontal flow occurring within these intervals.
Formation water migration caused by-horizontal flow within the fluid column is indicated by the increase in FEC over time in Figure BH-121A:2 for the intervals at 165.9 to 166.8,278.0 to 278.8 and 460.7 to 465.1 feet. Numeric modeling of the reported field data for these intervals suggests that horizontal flow is occurring at rates of 0.012, 0.0008 and 0.0004 gpm, respectively. These flow rates are based on the rate of increase of mass at these intervals. Correcting for convergence of flow at the wellbore and factoring the length of the interval, these flow rates equate to a Darcy velocity, or specific discharge of groundwater in the aquifer 2.02, 0.15 and 0.01 ft/day, respectively. Please refer to Table BH-121A:l and
SUMMARY
- l for a complete summary of the HydroPhysicalT1i logging results. Please refer to Appendix B for a discussion of the methodology and code used to calculate these values. The ambient depth to water at the time of testing was 17.19 ftbgs.
1.3 Flow Characterization During 7 GPM Production Test: BII-121A Low-rate pumping of wellbore fluids after Dl water emplacement was conducted at one pumping rate to establish the inflow locations and evaluate the interval-specific inflow rates. Water levels and flow rates are monitored and recorded digitally continuously to ensure minimal to no DI water is lost to the formation. This is achieved by maintaining water level at or below the recorded ambient level. After DI water emplacement is complete low-rate pumping is conducted to stress the aquifer(s) and draw groundwater into the wellbore where it is contrasted by the DI water in the wellbore. Continuous FEC profiling over time yields the depth and rate of influx of groundwater during pumping. These procedures were conducted at a time-averaged pumping rate of 6.69 gpm.
On July 29, 2004 at 1047 hours0.0121 days <br />0.291 hours <br />0.00173 weeks <br />3.983835e-4 months <br /> (t = 0 minutes elapsed time of testing), pumping was initiated at approximately 7 gpm. Before initiating pumping, the ambient depth to water was recorded at 17.35 ftbgs. Time dependent depth to water, totals and flow rate information were recorded and are presented in Figure BH-121A:3. Low-rate pumping was maintained at a time-averaged rate of 6.69 gpm until 1557 hours0.018 days <br />0.433 hours <br />0.00257 weeks <br />5.924385e-4 months <br /> (t = 310 minutes, elapsed time of testing). During this period drawdown was observed to stabilize at approximately 37 feet. During development pumping drawdown may take some time to reach equilibrium. While drawdown is stabilizing, wellbore storage contributes to the total extraction rate. The volume of borehole fluid that is removed from the well during extraction pumping is calculated and included in the numerical modeling of the field data. A maximum drawdown of 37.3 feet was observed. During the period of testing, multiple loggings were conducted. Of these logs eight FEC traces are presented in Figure BH-121A:4. These logs clearly illustrate specific intervals of dramatic increase in FEC with respect to time. The depth at which the peak value for a given interval occurs is indicative of a water-bearing interval. The data presented in Figure BH-121A:4 suggests the presence of 13 hydraulically conductive intervals, with the dominant water-bearing interval at 165.9 to 166.8 feet. Numerical modeling of the reported field data was performed using code BOREII (Hale and Tsang, 1988, Tsang et.al. 1990, Daughtery and Tsang, 2000). This modeling was performed to estimate the rate of inflow and FEC for each identified hydraulically conductive interval during the pumping. The results of the modeling and analysis are presented in Table BH-121A:l. In summary, the interval of 165.9 to 166.8 feet dominated inflow producing 6.26 gpm, or 93.6 percent of the total inflow during production testing. Please refer to Table BH-121A:1 for a complete listing of the depths of water-bearing zones and their interval-specific inflow rate during testing.
Page 2
1.4 Downhole Sampling Eight downhole samples were procured from wellbore BH-121A.on July 30, 2004. Downhole samples were procured from depths 83, 144, 163, 173, 279, 309, 326 and 464 feet. Downhole sampling was conducted while wellbore BH-121A was being developed at a time-averaged rate of 6.75 gpm. The laboratory analyses of the procured saniples. are incorporated with the hydrophysical flow data to obtain actual, or "pore" water, contaminant concentrations for each sampled interval using the mass-balance equation. In summary, the intervals 165.9 to 166.8 and 177.6 to 177.7 feet registered the highest concentrations of tritium at 7,322 and 8,645 pCi/L, respectively. It is worth noting that the sample procured at 144 feet registering 6,250 pCi/L tritium and the resulting pore water tritium estimation using the Mass-Balance equation of "No Detect" (ND). This is because the sample just below 144 feet procured at 163 feet contained 7,230 pCi/L of tritium with 6.47 gpm (aggregate flow below 163 feet) of flow associated with this sample, which comprises approximately 94 percent of the flow measured in the borehole. The sample procured at 144 feet had only an additional 0.18 gpm of flow associated with it. In other words, the difference in observed concentrations between the sample at 163 feet and 144 feet, as far as estimations made using the Mass-Balance equation are concerned, is solely the result of the introduction of a certain concentration of tritium into the borehole at 0.18 gpm, meaning the water coming into the borehole must be relatively low in tritium compared to the borehole fluids and steady-state conditions are present at and below this depth, hence the ND. Please refer to Table BH-121A:2 for a complete listing of sample locations and actual contaminant concentrations. The sample taken at 83 feet did not correspond with any interval of identified flow, therefore, this sample has not been included in Table BH-121A:2 The sample locations were identified by on-site interpretation of the FEC/Temperature logs acquired during pumping. Between procurement of samples, the downhole sampler was cleaned with an alconox and DI water solution and rinsed with DI water.
1.5 Estimation of Interval Specific Transmissivity: B11-121A An estimation of transmissivity (T) can be made using an equation after Hvorslev (1951) assuming steady-state radial flow in an unconfined aquifer:
T= L= /re T =L =2irAhw inrk v) where K is the hydraulic conductivity, qi is the interval specific inflow rate calculated by HpLT'l results, r, is the borehole radius (0.25 fi), r. is the effective pumping radius, Ahb is the observed maximum drawdown (37.3 feet) and L is the thickness of the zone through which flow occurs.
For our calculations, COLOG used r, of 100 feet (assumed). By applying L and qi from the HpLTNI results under the two pressure conditions, the interval specific hydraulic conductivity can be calculated for each identified water producing interval. These calculations were made at each identified interval and are presented in Table BH-121A:1. In summary, the interval 165.9 to 166.8 feet registered the highest transmissivity at 30.7 feee/day.
2.0 Data Summary Page 3
Processing and interpretation of the HydroPhysicalT^' logs in BH-121A suggest the presence of 13 producing intervals for this borehole. Numerical modeling of the reported HydroPhysicalTM field data was performed using the computer program BOREII. These analyses were performed to estimate the rate of inflow for each identified hydraulically conductive borehole interval during DI injection procedures. The results of these analyses are presented in Table BH-121A:1. These identified producing intervals correlate well with water-bearing zones identified during ambient testing. In summary, the interval 165.9 to 166.8 feet dominated inflow during the production test, producing 6.26 gpm, or 93.6 percent of the total flow during the production test.
During ambient testing, boring BH-121A exhibited a horizontal flow regime. Three water-bearing zones were identified under ambient conditions exhibiting horizontal flow. No vertical pressure gradient was observed under ambient conditions. The three water-bearing zones at 165.9 to 166.8, 278.0 to 278.8 and 467.9 to 469.5 feet contributed water to the borehole at estimated flow rates of 0.012, 0.0008 and 0.0004 gpm, respectively. Correcting for convergence of flow at the wellbore and factoring the length of the interval, these flow rates equate to a Darcy velocity, or specific discharge of groundwater in the 2.02, 0.15 and 0.01 ft/day, respectively.
The ambient fluid temperature log (Figure BH-121A:l) acquired on July 28, 2004 indicates a general decrease in temperature with depth to approximately 277 feet. At approximately 277 feet there is an inflection in temperature that corresponds well with an identified horizontal flow interval. Below this depth the log indicates a general increase in temperature with depth. The ambient FEC profile exhibits a general increase in FEC with depth. Numerous inflections can be observed in the log. The infection in FEC at approximately 277 feet corresponds well with an interval of identified horizontal ambient flow.
The 13 interval-specific estimated transmissivities in BH-121A ranged from 0.004 to 30.7 square feet per day with the interval of 165.9 to 166.8 feet registering the highest transmissivity. The 13 interval-specific transmissivity estimates do not differ significantly with respect to each other with the sole exception of the dominant producing zone at 165.9 to 166.8 feet.
Downhole sampling was conducted in wellbore BH-121A during development pumping at a time-averaged rate of 6.75 gpm after production testing was completed. Eight downhole samples were procured from wellbore BH-121A. In summary, the intervals 165.9 to 166.8 and 177.6 to 177.7 feet registered the highest concentrations of tritium at 7,322 and 8,645 pCi/L, respectively.
Fracture inter-connectiveness in the immediate vicinity of a wellbore can be inferred by the similarity, or lack there of, of parameters such as interval-specific transmissivity estimates and interval-specific FEC, along with the presence of pressure differentials within the borehole.
Similar transmissivity and FEC estimates would suggest an inter-connected network of fractures or aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. Although a pressure differential present in the wellbore would suggest the driving force for vertical communication is present, in a vertically inter-connected network of fractures the aquifer pressures tend to equilibrate.
The data acquired in BH-121A exhibited similar interval-specific transmissivity and similar FEC estimates suggesting an inter-connected network of fractures in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. No vertical gradient is observed in the wellbore. The data suggest the fractures intersecting the wellbore may be inter-connected in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore.
Please see Tables BH-121A:1 and
SUMMARY
- 1 for a summary which includes the locations, flow rates and hydraulic conductivity estimates assessed by COLOG.
Page 4
FIGURE BH-121A:1. AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND FLUID ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-121A.
Temperature (0 C) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 150-175 -
200-225 250 275 300 A; 325 0) 0 350 375-400 425 450 475 500 525 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 C6 Fluid Electrical Conductivity (JiS/cm) 121aabfl.dg4
FIGURE BH-121A:2
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING AMBIENT FLOW CHARACTERIZATION; CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-121A.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
, I . . . I . . I Ifl - I . I. . I I .
Mu 75 - -R -75 Bottom of casing 100- 100 125- -125
-I.
150- -1I JV1 175 _ -175 200- -200 T
225 -225 250 FEC logs acquired immediately following DI 250 water emplacement for Ambient Flow 275 Characterization. The logs indicate ambient -275 horizontal flow occurs at three intervals in
_6300 the borehole:165.9 - 166.8, 278.0 - 278.8 and -300 460.7 - 465.1 feet. Numerical modeling a 325 -325 indicates horizontal flow occured at these intervals at 0.012, 0.0008 and 0.0004 gpm, 350 -350 respectively.
375 -375 400 -400 425 -425
- FEC1736 450 -450 I - FEC1803 475 - -475 500- - FEC1914 -500 525 -
-525
- FEC2002 550- -550 FEC2042 575 -575
. 600- I I.I , ,, ,I 10, .I II I, II . .,.. , .... .,,,,,,.. . ~.. . I .l -600 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 C t bl, Fluid Electrical Conductivity (6S/crn) 121a-ait.dg4
IRE BH-121A:3. PUMPING AND DRAWDOWN DATA ZING LOW-RATE PRODUCTION TEST AT 7 GPM; CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-121A.
6000
-0.0 B Extraction Total (gals)
I Drawdown (feet) Referenced to AWL of 17.35 ftbgs 5.0
-10.0
-15.0 0
0 -20.0
-25.0
-30.0 Extraction Rate During Low-Rate Production Test = 6.69 gpm
-35.0 01ppw-I
-40.0
'r7 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I . .4 5 .0
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 2225 250 275 300 325 Calf Elapsed Time (mins) t = 0 at 1047 Hours on July 29, 2004 12 lA-pdd.dg4
FIGURE BH-121A:4A.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICAL LOGS DURING LOW-RATE PUMPING AT 7 GPM; CH2M HILL; CYAPCO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-121A.
0 50 100 150 200 175 200 225 FEC logs acquired after DI water emplacement during low-rate 225 -
pumping at -7 gpm. The logs indicate the dominant flow zone is 250- the interval 165.9 - 166.8 feet, producing 6.26 gpm during low-rate -250 pumping, or 93.6% of the total inflow. During stress testing the 275 pump was set at 80 ftbgs. -275 0300- -300
'.325- '325 a
350- -350
- FEC1048 - FEC1243 -375
-400
- FEC1116 FEC1324
-425
-450
- FECI140 - FEC1427
-475 500 .
FEC1206 - FEC1537 525
-550 9
-575 0 50 100 150 200 C%%)
Fluid Electrical Conductivity QIS/cm) 121apael .dg4
C. C C TABLE BH-121A:1.
SUMMARY
OF HYDROPHYSICALTM LOGGING RESULTS WITH HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY AND TRANSMISSIVITY ESTIMATIONS; CH2MHILL; CYACO; HADDAM NECK, CT; WELLBORE: BH-121A.
Project and Borehole Name . CYAPCO: BH-121A AWL Prior to Pumping (ftbgs) 17.35 Diameter of Borehole (ft) 0.51 Observed Drawdown (ft) . 37.33 Effective Radius (It) 100 Darcy Interval Velocity in Specific Interval Specific Aquifer 2 Flow Rate Interval Specific Interval Specific IINP Pore Water Top of Thickness Ambient (Specific During Delta Hydraulic Fluid Electrical Sample Onsite Lab Concentration of Interval Bottom of of Interval Flow' Discharge) Pumping Flow' Delta Flow Conductivity 4 Transmissivity Conductivity Depth Result Tritium Interval No. (Rt Interval (01 (ft) ftpr (ft/day) pn) (pm) (tRinin.) f(t/&Y) (f 2 /day) (microS/cm) (re) (pCi/L) (W/L)
I 160.4 160.5 0.1 0.000 NA 0.180 0.180 0.02406 8.83E+00 8.83E-01 194 144 6250 ND 2 165.9 166.8 0.9 0.012 2.02 6.26 6.248 0.83529 3.41 E+01 3.07E+01 194 163 7230 7322 2 177.6 177.7 0.1 0.0000 NA 0.090 0.090 0.01203 4.42E+00 4.42E-01 194 173 4460 8645 3 278.0 278.8 0.8 0.0008 0.15 0.029 0.028 0.00377 1.732-01 1.38E-01 203 278.5 <1260 <1260 4 308.4 309.0 0.6 0.000 NA 0.032 0.032 0.00428 2.622-01 1.57E-01 221 309 <1270 <1270 5 326.1 328.5 2.4 0.000 NA 0.037 0.037 0.00495 7.56E-02 1.82E-01 188 326.3 <1250 NS 6 446.8 449.1 2.3 0.000 NA 0.001 0.001 0.00013 2.13E-03 4.91 E-03 238 NS NS NS 7 454.2 456.4 2.2 0.000 NA 0.001 0.001 0.00013 2.23E-03 4.91 E-03 256 NS NS NS 8 J 460.7 465.1 4.4 0.0004 0.01 0.008 0.008 0.00102 8.47E-03 3.732-02 256 463.7 <1270 <1270 9 467.9 469.5 1.6 0.000 NA 0.003 0.003 0.00040 9.20E-03 1.47E-02 257 NS NS NS 10 483.1 483.2 0.1 0.000 NA 0.003 0.003 0.00040 1.47E-01 1.47E-02 269 NS NS NS 1 491.7 491.8 0.1 0.000 NA 0.002 0.002 0.00027 9.81 E-02 9.81 E-03 274 NS NS NS 12 506.0 506.1 0.1 0.000 NA 0.0009 0.001 0.00012 4.422-02 4.42E-03 285 NS NS NS 13 515.1 515.2 0.1 0.000 NA 0.0008 0.001 0.00011 3.93E-02 3.93E-03 291 NS NS NS
'All ambient flow identified for this borehole is horizontal ambient flow.
2Darcy Velocity is calculated using the observed volurnetric flow rate, the cross-sectional area of the flow interval in the borehole and a borehole convergence factor of 2.5 (Drost, 1968). The Darcy Velocity is only applicable to ambient horizontal flow.
'Delta Flow is the difference between Interval-Specific Flow Rate (during pumping) and Ambient Flow Rate.
4
'Hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity estimates are based on single well drawdown data, a porus-medium equivilent model and Hvorslev's 1951 porosity equatio AWL - Ambient water Level NA - Not Applicable ND - No Detect/Below Detection Limit for that Sample NS Not Sampled 121AREVA.XLS
APPENDIX A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR HYDROPHYSICAL LOGGING
Standard Operating Procedures HydroPhysicalPm Logging for Aquifer Characterization By COLOG Division of Layne Christensen Co.
0 2004, COLOG
Standard Operating Procedures HydroPhysicalTm Logging for Aquifer Characterization
- 1. Purpose Application of the HydroPhysicalTM (HpL m) logging method to analyze and determine:
- The location of hydraulically conductive intervals within a wellbore
- The interval specific rate of inflow during well production, in conjunction with the drawdown data, can be used to estimate interval specific hydraulic conductivity or transmissivity
. Ambient (non-pumping) flow conditions (inflow and outflow rates, and locations)
The hydrochemistry (fluid electrical conductivity (FEC) and temperature) of the associated formation waters In addition, when downhole, discrete point fluid sampling is coupled with the HydroPhysicalTm Logging technique, analysis of the actual contaminant concentrations associated with each identified conductive interval is accomplished for any aqueous phase contaminant.
- 2. Equipment and Materials This SOP specifically applies to application of the technique using COLOG's I-ydroPhysicalTm Logging Truck 16, which has been specially configured to handle those field conditions associated with small diameter, low-moderate yield wells The maximum capability of the van is to a total depth of 700 ft and 350 ft total drawdown (maximum depth to water) . In the event of high yield wells, the wireline capability of any COLOG truck can be used to accompany fluid management equipment.
- HydroPhysical T M logging truck field equipment includes:
- Fluid management system
- Back Pressure Regulator or orifices
- Rubber hose (0.75-inch i.d.) for injection
- Submersible Pump
- Evacuation Line
- Storage tanks (as required) with inlet/outlet valves
- Surface Pump
- Fluid management manifold/Monitoring Panel
- Data Acquisition System (for recording volumes, flow rates, time)
- Wireline System
- Wireline winch unit
- Depth encoder
© 2004, COLOG
- Water level indicator
- Computer System
- HydroPhysicalIT Logging tool
- Downhole Fluid Sampler
- Dcionizing Units
- Deionized water (prepared with wellbore fluids or transported on-site)
- Standard Reference Solutions - Electrical conductivity reference solutions (set of 3 solutions).
- 3. Procedures 1.) Review well construction details and complete general well information sheet.
The HydroPhysicalT^' logging technique involves dilution of the wellbore fluids with DI water and profiling of the wellbore dynamics using a lHydroPhysicalTM logging tool.
Significant aberrations or reductions in the borehole diameter should be identified as the downhole equipment can become lodged in the borehole. Additionally, application of the technique requires certain wellbore conditions:
- In open bedrock boreholes, casing must be installed through the overburden and grouted at the rock/alluvium interface to inhibit water leakage into the borehole from the saturated alluvium. For cased boreholes, the well should be fully cased and gravel packed with single or multiple screened intervals;
- The diameter of the borehole must be approximately 4 inches or greater for application with the slim-tool (1.5-inch o.d.). Two inch i.d. boreholes may be tested using the slug test approach described in Section 5.
- For newly drilled wells, cuttings and drill fluids must be removed from the affected fractures by standard well development procedures.
2.) Review and record additional wellbore construction/site details and fill out the general well information form which includes the following information:
- Ambient depth-to-water
- Depth of casing
- Total depth of well
- Lithology (if available)
Estimated well yield and any available drawdown data
- Type and concentration of contamination 3.) Prepare the deionized (DI) water. Consult with DI water tank firm for assistance if necessary. If DI water has not been transported to the site, surface or groundwater may be used if it is of suitable quality Generally source water containing less than 1000 micro Siemens per centimeter (piSfcm) and less then 200 ppb VOCs will not significantly affect the deionizing units, but this should be confirmed with DI water firm. If the groundwater from the well under construction cannot be used for DI water generation, then DI water must be transported to the site and containerized at the wellhead.
X 2004, COLOG
Depending on the amount of HydroPhysicalTM testing to be performed (ambient and/or during production) the typical volume of DI water required for each borehole is approximately three times the volume of the standing column of formation water in the wellbore per type of HlydroPhysicalTM characterization.
If preparation takes place on site, pump the source water through a pre-filter, to the deionizing units, and into the storage tanks.
Monitor the FEC of the DI water in-line to verify homogeneity; the target value is 5 to 25 pIS/cm.
4.) Calibrate the HydroPhysicalTMt logging tool using standard solutions prepared and certified by a qualified chemical supply manufacturer. Fill out tool calibration form following the steps defined in the software program, "tools" under the directory, calibration. Also use a separate field temperature / FEC / p1I meter to support calibration data. Record the results of the tool calibrations, specifically noting any problems on the tool calibration form. Also record the certification number of the standard solutions.
5.) Set datum on the depth encoder with the FEC sensor on the tool as 0 depth at the top of casing. If inadequate space is available at the wellhead, measure 10 feet from the FEC sensor up the cable (using measuring tape) and reference with a wrap of electrical tape. Lower the tool down the hole to the point where the tape equals the elevation at the top of the casing and reference that as 10 feet depth on the depth encoder.
6.) Place the top of the tool approximately 3 feet below the free-water surface to allow it to achieve thermal equilibrium. Monitor the temperature output until thermal stabilization is observed at approximately + .02 'C.
7.) After thermal stabilization of the logging tool is observed, log the ambient conditions of the wellbore (temperature and FEC). Fill out the water quality log form.
During the logging run, the data are plotted in real time in log format on the computer screen and, the data string is simultaneously recorded on the hard drive.
Log the ambient fluid conditions in both directions (i.e. record down and up). The ideal logging speed is 5 feet per minute (fpm). For deeper wells the logging speed can be adjusted higher, but the fpm should not exceed 20.
At completion of the ambient log, place the tool approximately 10 feet below the free water surface. The tool will remain there during equipment set up as long as borehole conditions permit. Establish and record ambient depth to water using top of protective casing as datum.
8.) Attach back pressure regulator or orifice, if used, and weighted boot, to end of emplacement line and secure. Insure that the injection line is of adequate length to reach the bottom of the wellbore.
© 2004, COLOG
9.) Lower the flexible emplacement line to the bottom of the well allowing one foot of clearance from the well bottom to the outlet of the injection line.
10.) Lower tool about 10 feet below the water surface. The tool will be stationed beneath the submersible pump during non-logging times.
11.) Lower submersible pump in the well to a depth just above the logging tool.
Record approximate depth of the pump location.
12.) Record all initial readings of gauges at elapsed time 0.0 minutes. Fill out well testing data form.
13.) Mark hoses with a round of electrical tape for reference. In addition, establish datum for tool depth to the nearest foot and mark on wire with wrap of tape. Reset datum on optical encoder for this depth.
14.) When ambient flow characterization is to be conducted, it should be done now, before disturbing the aquifer (i.e. by pumping). Fill out ambient flow characterization (AFC) form. Skip to Section 17 for procedures.
15.) After AFC, if performed, conduct a controlled, short term well production test (pump test) to characterize the overall hydraulics of the wellbore (drawdown at given pumping rate provides total well transmissivity or yield) and to make an initial assessment of formation water hydrochemistry. Begin pumping at a total extraction flow rate appropriate for wellbore under investigation (see Section 4 Special Notes). During this period, record elapsed time of pumping, depth to water, total gallons extracted, and extraction flow rate at approximately one minute intervals.
During extraction, log the fluid column continuously until at least three wellbore volumes have been extracted from the wellbore, or a stabilized 'water level elevation is obtained.
Review fluid logging results to verify that, true formation water is present within the affected borehole interval and that the vertical distribution of water quality parameters within this interval is stable.
16.) Review data obtained during the pumping test to determine DI water emplacement and pumping/logging procedures. Extraction procedures for detection and characterization of hydraulically conductive intervals and the formation water hydrochemistry are determined based on the pumping test information. The emplacement, testing and pumping procedures will differ depending upon well yield and determined lengths of intervals of interest. In wellbore situations where intervals of interest are small (less than 30 feet) and hydraulic characteristics observed during borehole advancement and preliminary hydraulic testing indicate hydraulically conductive intervals with extremely low flow rates (i.e. <0.10 gpm/foot of drawdown), a slug testing procedure can be employed. In wellbore cases where the preliminary C 2004, COLOG
hydraulic testing indicates low to moderate total yield (i.e. 0.10 < Q < 4 gpm/foot of drawdown), constant low flow rate pumping after DI water emplacement procedures can be employed. In wellbore situations where intervals of interest are large, and high total yield (i.e. > 4 gpm/foot of drawdown) is observed, constant pumping during DI water injection procedures will be employed.
17.) When the fluid column is to be replaced with DI water, (vertical flow characterization, slug testing, logging during pumping after DI water emplacement) the following emplacement procedures akply:
Pump the DI water to the bottom of the wellbore using the surface pump and the injection riser. Simultaneously use the submersible pump to maintain a stable, elevated total head by extracting groundwater from near the free-water surface. When groundwater from the subject well is used for DI water generation, generate DI water from the extracted formation water and re-circulated to the well bottom' via the solid riser.
Use the water level meter to observe the elevated total head during emplacement. If borehole conditions permit (i.e. the absence of constricted borehole intervals), the logging tool is used to monitor the advancement of the fluid up the borehole as it displaces the standing formation water. Draw the logging tool up the wellbore in successive increments as the DI water is emplaced. Monitor the electrical conductivity of the fluid expelled from the evacuation pump during emplacement procedures. When FEC values are representative of the DI water, or sufficiently diluted formation water, terminate emplacement procedures.
Emplacement is complete when DI water, or sufficiently diluted formation water, is observed from the evacuation pump or when logging tool stationed near the pump indicates DI water or sufficiently diluted formation water.
Upon completion, turn off the evacuation pump. Then turn off the injection line.
18.) Record volumes of extracted and injected fluids on the well testing data form.
Calculate the volume of DI water lost to the formation.
19.) Take initial background HydroPhysicalm log, or begin continuous logging depending upon extraction method ( i.e. slug vs. continuous).
20.) Pumping and testing procedures vary depending. upon wellbore hydraulics and construction detail.
21.) Continuous logging is conducted until stabilized and consistent diluted FEC logs are observed. If inflow characterization at a second pumping rate is desired, increase extraction rate and assure the proper DI water injection rate. Perform continuous logging until stabilized and consistent FEC logs are observed and all diluted formation water is re-saturated with formation water.
0 2004, COLOG
22.) After stabilized and consistent FEC traces are observed, terminate DI water injection. Reduce the total extraction flow rate to the net formation rate and conduct continuous logging. Conduct logging until stable and consistent FEC values are observed.
23.) Conduct depth specific sampling at this time.
24.) At the conclusion of the above procedures, assess the wellbore fluid conditions and compare them with those ob'served during the original pumping (Step 14).
25.) Turn all pumps off. First remove the extraction pump from the borehole. During removal, thoroughly clean the evacuation line (2-inch o.d.) with a brush and alconox and rinse DI water. Also clean the outside of the pump. Place the pump in a drum of DI water and flush DI water through the system.
Remove the tool. Clean the wireline for the tool in a similar manner during its withdrawal from the borehole.
Remove the injection line from the well. Follow the same procedures when cleaning the injection line as for the evacuation line.
Store the pumps and logging tools properly for transport.
Place cover on well and lock (if available).
- 4. Special Notes On-site pre-treatment of groundwater using activated carbon, can be conducted prior to DI water generation, if there is a contaminated groundwater source. In addition, on-site treatment can also be considered to handle extracted fluids that would require containerization and treatment prior to disposal.
The rate(s) of pumping are determined by drawdown information previously obtained or at rate(s) appropriate for the wellbore diameter and saturated interval thickness. The appropriate extraction rate is a function of length of saturated interval, borehole diameter, and previous well yield knowledge. The appropriate pumping procedures to be employed are also dictated by the length of the exposed rock interval. In general, the extraction flow rate should be sufficient to induce adequate inflow from the producing intervals.
The concern is that the extraction flow rate does not cause extreme drawdown within the well i.e. lowering the free water surface to within the interval of investigation.
- 5. Discussion LOW YIELD: Extraction Slug Test After DI water Emplacement 02004, COLOG
In wells with very low total flow capability (i.e. < 0.10 gpm/foot of drawdown), perform a slug test in accordance with procedures developed by Hvorslev (1951). Rapidly extract a small volume of water from near the free water surface using the extraction riser and pump. A drop in piezometric head of about 2 feet should be adequate for the initial test.
Record the rise in the free *vater surface with time and develop a conventional time-lag plot.
When the free water surface has recovered to a satisfactory elevation, log the wellbore fluid conditions. Repeat the procedures described above with successive increases in the drop of piezometric head (or volume extracted). Let the wellbore recover and record the rise in the free water surface. Repeat logging of the wellbore fluid after the free water surface has recovered to a satisfactory elevation. The number of slug tests performed is determined in the field after review of previous logging results.
MODERATE YIELD: Time Series HydroPhysicalm" Logging During Continuous Pumping After DI water Emplacement In the case of moderate yield wells (i.e. 0.10 < Y < 4 gpm/foot of drawdown), maintain a constant flow rate from the evacuation pump and record the total volume of groundwater evacuated from the wellbore. Employ a continuous reading pressure transducer (or equivalent device) to monitor the depressed total head during pumping, along with the associated pumping rate.
Hold the flow rate from the evacuation pump constant at a rate determined for the specific borehole. Drawdown of the free water surface produced during pumping should not overlap any identified water producing interval. Conduct hydrophysical logging continuously. The time interval is a function of flow rate and is specific to each well.
The number of logging runs and the length of time required to conduct all loggings is a function of the particular hydraulic conditions. Logging and pumping is continued until the fluid column is re-saturated with formation water (i.e. all DI water is removed from the borehole).
HIGH YIELD: Time Series Wellbore Fluid Logging During Continuous Pumping and Simultaneous DI Water Injection When wells exhibit high yield (> 4 gpm/foot of drawdown), as determined by a review of the interval of interest, the borehole diameter and the results obtained from previous information and preliminary hydraulic testing, the appropriateness of time series fluid logging during continuous pumping and simultaneous DI water injection is determined.
In this case, maintain a constant flow rate from the evacuation pump and record this rate and the associated drawdown. During this period, conduct hydrophysical logging until reasonably similar HydroPhysicalTm logs are observed and stabilized drawdown is achieved. After reasonably similar downhole fluid conditions .are observed and simultaneous with extraction pumping, inject DI water at the bottom of the well at a constant rate of 10 to 20% of that employed for extraction. Increase the total rate of 0 2004, COLOG
extraction to maintain total formation production reasonably similar to that prior to DI water injection (i.e. increase the total extraction by amount equal to the DI water injection rate).
Periodically record the total volume and flow rate of well fluids evacuated and the total volume and flow rate of DI water injected. Use a continuous reading pressure transducer or similar device to monitor the depressed total head during pumping. Record the depressed total head (piezometric surface) periodically, with the associated pumping and injection data.
The evacuation and DI water injection flow rates are held constant at a rate determined for the specific wellbore. Drawdown of the free water surface during pumping must not overlap any identified water producing intervals. HydroPhysicalTm Logging is conducted continuously. The number of logging runs and the length of time required to conduct all loggings is a function of the particular hydraulic conditions exhibited by the well under investigation.
1 2004, COLOG
APPENDIX B BORE II MODELING SOFTWARE
LBNL-46833 BORE II - A Code to Compute Dynamic Wellbore Electrical Conductivity Logs with Multiple Inflow/Outflow Points Including the Effects of Horizontal Flow across the Well Christine Doughty and Chin-Fu Tsang Earth Sciences Division E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, California 94720 (cadoughtvyiUbl.gov or cftsang(ilbl.gov)
September 2000 This work was supported by the Laboratory Technology Research Program (SC-32) within the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, under DOE/LBNL contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.
(c) 1993-2000 The Regents of the University of California (through E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory),
subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Energy. Portions of BORE 11 were developed by COLOG, 17301 W.
Colfax, Suite 265, Golden, Colorado 80401; (303) 279-0171.
NOTICE OF U.S. GOVERNMENT RIGHTS. The Software was developed under funding from the U.S.
Department of Energy and the U.S. Government consequently retains certain rights as follows: the U.S. Government has been granted for itself and others acting on its behalf a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license in the Software to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and perform publicly and display publicly. Beginning five (5) years after the date permission to assert copyright is obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy, and subject to any subsequent five (5)year renewals, the U.S. Government is granted for itself and others acting on its behalf a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license in the Software to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, perform publicly and display publicly, and to permit others to do so.
Abstract Dynamic wellbore electrical conductivity logs provide a valuable means to determine the flow characteristics of fractures intersecting a wellbore, in order to study the hydrologic behavior of fractured rocks. To expedite the analysis of log data, a computer program called BORE II has been developed that considers multiple inflow or outflow points along the wellbore, including the case of horizontal flow across the wellbore. BORE II calculates the evolution of fluid electrical conductivity (FEC) profiles in a wellbore or wellbore section, which may be pumped at a low rate, and compares model results to log data in a variety of ways. FEC variations may arise from inflow under natural-state conditions or due to tracer injected in a neighboring well (interference tests). BORE II has an interactive, graphical user interface and runs on a personal computer under the Windows operating system. BORE 11 is a modification and extension of an older code called BORE, which considered inflow points only and did not provide an interactive comparison to field data. In this report, we describe BORE 1I capabilities, provide a detailed user's guide, and show a series of example applications.
1
- 1. Introduction The variation of formation permeability surrounding a wellbore is usefutl information not only for identifying hydraulically conducting fractures or other high-conductivity features intercepted by the well, but also for quantifying the heterogeneity of the medium. These are essential data in the evaluation of in-situ flow and transport characteristics at a given site.
Methods to evaluate permeability values along the depth of a well include the packer method, in which constant pressure, constant flow, or pulse tests are conducted in packed-off intervals in a wellbore, and various downhole flow meters. The packer method has the disadvantage that it is very time consuming and costly, and the vertical resolution is limited by the interval between the two packers that can be set in the well. Flow meter methods such as spinners and heat pulse flow meters generally allow better vertical resolution than the packer method, but they are not as accurate in determining permeability, because they mostly measure the wellbore fluid velocity, which is very sensitive-to variations in the wellbore radius.
In 1990, Tsang et al. (1990) proposed a method using logs of fluid electric conductivity (FEC) at successive times under constant-pumping conditions to obtain inflow from the formation into the well as a function of depth in the well. In this method, the wellbore is first filled by de-ionized water or water of a constant salinity (i.e., ion concentration) distinct from that of the formation water. This is usually done by passing the de-ionized water down a tube to the bottom of the wellbore at a given rate while simultaneously pumping at the top of the well at the same rate. After this is done, the well is pumped at a constant flow rate, which can be adjusted to optimize wellbore flow conditions. An electric resistivity probe is lowered into the wellbore to scan FEC as a function of depth along the wellbore. This is what is called fluid conductivity logging. A series of five or six such logs are obtained at time intervals over a one-or two-day period. At the depth levels where water enters the wellbore, the conductivity log displays peaks, which grow with time and become skewed in the direction of water flow. By analyzing these logs, it is possible to obtain the permeability and salinity of each hydrologic layer transmitting water. The method has been very successful, being much more accurate than flow meters and much more efficient (much cheaper) than packer tests (Tsang et al. 1990),
particularly in low permeability formations. A typical I 000-m section in a deep hole can be tested in two or three days at a spatial resolution of -0.10 m all along the length of the wellbore 2
section. The method is now being widely used in Europe and the U.S. (Marschall and Vomvoris, 1995; Pedler et al., 1992; Bauer and LoCoco, 1996), both under natural-state flow conditions and while tracer is injected in a neighboring well (i.e., interference tests).
Along with the method, a code was developed called BORE (Hale and Tsang, 1988),
which performed the forvard calculation to produce wellborc FEC profiles given different inflow positions, rates, and concentrations. The code has been well used over the last decade.
However, it appears now that there is a need to revise the code to make it more suitable for current computer environments and to add new capabilities. Thus, the code has been updated to run under current operating systems, provide interactive modification of model parameters, and produce graphical comparisons between model and field data. More importantly, the revised code allows the possible inclusion of both flows into and out of the well at various depths, a feature that has been observed in real field conditions when different layers penetrated by the well have different hydraulic heads. Furthermore, the new code allows the calculation of the case with equal inflow and outflow at the same depth level, which is effectively the special case of horizontal flow across the wellbore. Drost (1968) proposed a measurement of solute dilution in the wellbore to evaluate ambient horizontal flow velocity in the formation and it has become a well-accepted method. The new code provides the opportunity to analyze such cases and to identify the depth interval of horizontal flow to within -0.1 m as well as to estimate the flow rate. Moreover, one can analyze the combination of horizontal flow across the wellbore and vertical diffusion or dispersion along the length of the wellbore, which is not possible with Drost's solution.
The report is organized as follows. In Section 2, the basic capabilities of the revised code, called BORE II, are described, and the key parameters associated with BORE II are defined. Details of the mathematical background and numerical approach are described in Appendix 1, which is adapted from Hale and Tsang (1988). A user's guide is presented in Section 3, which includes a description of BORE II's interactive user interface, required input items, and options available when running BORE II. Four example applications are given in Section 4 to conclude the report.
We are still open to further improvements of BORE II; any suggestions and comments are invited and should be addressed to the authors.
3
- 2. BORE II Capabilities BORE II calculates FEC as a function of space and time in a wellbore containing multiple feed points given the pumping rate of the well, the inflow or outflow rate of each feed point, its location and starting time, and, for inflow points, its ion concentration. A simple polynomial correlation between ion concentration, C, and FEC is assumed. Ion transport occurs by advection and diffusion along the wellbore, with instantaneous mixing of feed-point fluid throughout the wellbore cross-section. These assumptions allow use of a one-dimensional model. BORE 1I divides the wellbore section under study into equal height cells and solves the advection/diffusion equation using the finite difference method. Further details of the mathematical and numerical approach are given in Appendix 1.
Inflow and Outflows Feed Points The original BORE code (Hale and Tsang, 1988) considered inflow points only, so flow through the wellbore was upward at all depths. BORE 11 allows both inflow and outflow points, so flow in the wellbore can be upward, downward, or horizontal at different depths and flow at either end of the wellbore section being studied can be into or out of the wellbore section or be zero. By convention, upward flow in the wellbore is positive and flow into the wellbore is positive.
Steady and Varying FluidFlow The original BORE code considered steady fluid flow, so feed points had constant flow rates. They also had constant concentrations, but delayed starting times for feed-point concentration to enter the wellbore were allowed. BORE II permits both steady and varying fluid flow. For the steady-flow case, the user specifies flow rate, concentration, and concentration start time for each feed point, but for outflow points (those with negative flow rates) the concentration and concentration start time are not used. Variable flow rate or concentration can be specified for feed points by interpolating from a table of time, flow rate, and concentration. If a table includes both positive and negative flow rates (i.e., a feed point alternates between inflow and outflow), the concentration for the positive flow rate is used when interpolating between positive and negative flow rates.
4
ConcentrationBoundary Conditions If the flow at the top of the wellbore section under study is into the wellbore, the initial concentration for the uppermost cell in the wellbore is used as the inflow concentration.
Analogously, if flow at the bottom of the wellbore section is a flow up from greater depths, the initial concentration for the lowermost cell in the wellbore is used as the inflow concentration.
Furthermore, for inflow points with a concentration start time greater than zero, the initial concentration of the wellbore is used as the inflow concentration for times less than concentration start time.
HorizontalFlowt' The special case of horizontal flow through the wellbore, as described by Drost (1968),
can also be considered, by locating an inflow point and an outflow point with equal magnitude flow rates at the same depth. The flow rates may be specified as either (1) the Darcy velocity through the aquifer or (2) the volumetric flow rate into/out of the wellbore. BORE II multiplies Darcy velocity by the cross-sectional area of the feed point (wellbore diameter times cell height) and Drost's ah convergence factor to convert it to a volumetric flow rate. The value of ah can range from I (no convergence) to 4 (maximum possible convergence, which occurs for the case of a thick, highly-permeable wvell screen). Drost suggested that for a uniform aquifer with no well screen, ah = 2, and that for typical applicationsa good choice for ah is 2.5. Horizontal flow feed points may have time-varying flow rates, but for Darcy-velocity calculations to make sense, the inflow and outflow rates must be equal and opposite at any time. Thus, if a feed point location changes from a horizontal flow point to a non-horizontal flow point with time, volumetric flow rates must be specified rather than Darcy velocities.
5
BORE I Parameters The key parametersassociateds'ith BORE II are defined below.
Parameter 1/0 units* Description C g/L Ion concentration in the wellbore; converted to FEC using FEC = -y+ PC+ aC2 , where a, 13, and y are user-specified constants (default values are provided in the code, see Section 3)
C, g/L Ion concentration of ith feed point Co g/L Initial ion concentration in wellbore' Do m2 /s Diffusion coefficient (may include dispersive effects as well molecular diffusion) d w cm Wellbore diameter (assumed constant)
FEC PS/cm Fluid electrical conductivity q L/min Fluid flow rate in wellbore (upward flow is positive) dL/min Fluid flow rate of ith feed point; positive for inflow and negative for outflow qw L/min Fluid flow rate in wellbore at xma,^X specified by the user qo L/min Fluid flow% rate in wellbore at Xmin (or any depth of interest), calculated internally Tor TEMP 'C Temperature (assumed constant) hr Time tmhr Maximum simulation time tot hr Concentration start time of ith feed point Vd n/day Darcy velocity through aquifer for horizontal flow (qi = Vd ah AX dw) x m Depth (positive, increases down the wellbore)
Xmin, xma m Top and bottom, respectively, of wellbore interval being studied Ax m Cell height for wellbore discretization ah Drost (1968) convergence factor for horizontal flow
- 110 units are chosen for convenience; all quantities are converted to SI units before BORE 11 calculations.
6
- 3. BORE II User's Guide OperatingSystem BORE II may be run under Windows 95, 98, or 2000 by double-clicking the executable icon (BOREII.EXE) in Windows Explorer, by double-clicking on a desktop shortcut key to BOREII.EXE, or by typing BOREII in the Run command in the Start Menu or in a DOS-prompt window. BORE II will not run in stand-alone DOS or in the DOS-mode of Windows. BORE II was compiled using Microsoft Fortran PowerStationTm Version 4.0, but this software is not necessary to run the program.
BORE II GraphicalOutput The primary user interface with BORE II is interactive, with the user responding to on-screen prompts to modify model parameters and choose options (described below) for the real-time graphical display of model results and data. The basic BORE II output screen consists of three windows.
- The borehole profile window shows FEC profiles as a function of depth and time.
Simulation time t is shown in the upper left corner. Fluid flow rate at a user-specified depth in the wellbore, qo, is shown in the middle of the top line (the depth at which qo is calculated is set by option P). The depth of a C-t plot is also shown.
- The inflow parameters window shows the feed-point characteristics for the model that can be modified with option M (location, flow rate, and concentration). Often there are more feed points than can be displayed at once on the screen. BORE II starts out showing the first few (deepest) feed points, then shows the feed points in the neighborhood of any point that is being modified.
- The dialog window allows the user to select options (described below) when running BORE 11.
On computers with small screens, it may be desirable to run BORE II in full-screen mode, so that the entire BORE II screen can be seen at once without scrolling. Full-screen mode is entered by pressing Alt-VF (or on some computers by pressing Alt-Enter). Pressing Esc (or 7
Alt-Enter) terminates full-screen mode. There are three potential problems associated with the use of full-screen mode.
(1) The status line describing what BORE II is doing (e.g., running, waiting for input) is not visible.
(2) Drawing an x-t plot (options X, S, D, F, and 1), which creates a new window, may be very slow and the graphics quality poor.
(3) On some computers, text is difficult to read after closing the x-t plot window.
To address the latter two problems, one may terminate full-screen mode before using options X, S, D, F, and 1. The new window will be small, but after drawing is complete it may be expanded by pressing Alt-Vy to enter full-screen mode. Full-screen mode should be terminated before the new window is closed to avoid the final problem.
To print an image of the screen, press Alt-PrintScreen to copy the screen image into the clipboard. Then open a program such as Microsoft Paint and paste in the image. It can be manipulated, saved in a variety of graphics formats, or printed from Paint. The image can also be pasted directly into another Windows application such as MS Word.
Input/Output File Overviews Running BORE II requires one or two external files: a file with an initial set of model input parameters (mandatory, known as the input file) and a file with observed data (optional, known as the data file). These files are plain ASCII text, and must reside in the same folder as the BORE II executable. The input file contains model parameters such as the depth interval being studied, feed point characteristics, problem simulation time, and C-to-FEC conversion factors. The data file contains observed values of FEC and temperature, and optionally contains other fluid properties such as pH. Detailed instructions for preparing an input file and a data file are given below.
BORE II always creates a temporary file, called BOREII.TMP (see options C and R), and optionally creates a new input file (see option V), which is useful if model parameters have been changed during the BORE II run.
8
Line-by-line Instructionsfor Input File After starting BORE 11, the user is prompted to choose the input file from the list of files residing in the folder-where the BORE II executable is. Input file names with more than 8 characters before a period or blanks vill appear in the list of files in an abbreviated form. File names can be at most 20 characters long.
A sample input file is provided that can be modified as needed using a text editor such as Notepad or a word processor such as MS Word. If a word processor is used to create or modify an input file, be sure that the file is saved as plain ASCII text.
The input file is designed to be self-documenting, with header lines preceding data lines.
These header lines must be present, but BORE II does not use the text on them. Data entries are read in free format, with individual entries on a given line separated by blanks, tabs, or commas.
This means that entries cannot be left blank, even if they are not being used (e.g., concentration for an outflow point). Unused entries may be set to zero or any convenient value. Comments may be added on data lines, after the requisite number of entries. In the sample input file, comments begin with an exclamation point.
Item Computer Unit Description Variables
- 1. TITLE A description of the problem, 80 characters maximum 2 headerforwellbore geometry
- 2. RXMIN m Top of study area, xmin RXMAX m Bottom of study area, xmlx RDIAM cm Wellbore diameter, d,,
3 headerforflowvparameters
- 3. RQW L/min Flow into (positive) or out of (negative) the bottom of the study area, qw HALPHA - Factor to account for convergence of horizontal flow lines toward the wellbore, alh (Drost, 1968)
Range: 1.0 - 4.0; default value: 2.5 Only used for horizontal flow 9
4 headerforfeedpoints
- 4. IINFN Number of feed points (maximum 180)
IQFLAG - Variable flow-rate flag - a 3 digit integer used to identify feed points with variable flow (suggested value 999) 5 headerforconstant-flow-ratefeedpoints
- 5. Repeat RINFX m l Location of feed point, xi
- IINFN times For horizontal flow put two feed points at the same location, with equal magnitude, opposite sign flow rates RINFQ L/rnin Constant inflow rate (positive) or outflow rate (m/day if (negative) of feed point, q, IINFV=1) For a variable flow rate, set RINFQ = IIIJJ, where III
= IQFLAG, and JJ is a two digit integer giving the number of times in the variable-flow-rate table, which follows in 5a For horizontal flow, vd replaces q, if IINFV = I RINFC g/L Constant feed point concentration, Ci - only used for
'inflow points For a variable concentration, set RLNFQ II[JJ, where III = IQFLAG, and JJ is a two digit integer giving the number of times in the variable-flow-rate table, which follows in 5a RINFT hr Start time for constant feed point concentration, to; -
only used for inflow points Feed point concentration is Co of cell containing feed point fort < toi IINFV Horizontal flow Darcy-velocity flag (must be zero for non-horizontal flow case):
= 0: RINFQ is flow rate qj into/out of the wellbore in L/min
= 1: RINFQ is +/-Darcy velocity vd through the aquifer in m/day 10
Sa headerforvariable-flow-ratetable (only when RINFQ = IQFLAGJJ) 5a. Repeat JJ RINFQT hr Time tj (set 1i = 0, set tjj> tmaX) times when RINFQQ L/min Volumetric flow rate qj at time tj IQFLAGJJ nday i For horizontal flow, vd replaces qj if IINFV = I RINFCC g/L Concentration Cj at tj 6 headerformisc. parameters
- 6. TMAX hr Maximum simulation time, t...
DPYMAX jIS/cm Maximum FEC for plots K mj/_s Diffusion coefficient, Do 7 headerfor C-to-FECconversion
- 7. RGAMMA pS/cm Conversion from C in g/L to FEC in pS/cm:
RBETA [PS/cm]/ FEC = y + PC + aC2
_IgLU]
RALPHA [pS/cm]/ Default values (for 20°C): y = 0, ,B= 1870, a = 40 2
[gIL] Sety=OP=I, a I.e-8forFEC=C 8 headerfor initialconditions
- 8. ICOFLAG Initial concentration flag:
= 0: CO = 0, no further input for item 8
< 0: read uniform non-zero Co in 8a
> 0: read ICOFLAG (x,Co(x)) pairs in 8b to describe variable initial concentration 8a headerfor uniform initialconditions (only vhen ICOFLAG < 0) 8a. when RCO 1 Uniform non-zero Co ICOFLAG<O 8b headerfor non-uniform initialconditions (only when ICOFLAG > 0) 8b. repeat RX m xvalue*
ICOFLAG RCI/ O times when RCO g/L Co~x)
ICOFLAG>O 9 headerfordatafile name
- 9. CFDATA - Name of data file, 20 characters maximum; 'NONE' if there is no data file
- seee Annendix 1.. Section A I.5 fnr additional information on locatinor feed nointq and rnerifvinc, non-uniform initial conditions II
Sample Input File An input file illustrating many of these options is shown below. Text or numbers following an exclamation point (!) are comments, and are not used by BORE 11.
TITLE: Sample Input File with flow from below, horizontal flow, variable flow XMIN(m) XMAX(m) DIAM(cm)
.0000 60.00 7.600 QW(L/min) HALPHA !QW=flow from below; HALPHA=hor. flow constriction 0.50 0. !default value of HALPHA will be used
- FEEDPTS VARIABLE FLOWRATEIDENTIFIER 4 999 DEPTH(m) Q (L/min) C(g/L) TO(hr) Q/V FLAG
- 25. +1. 6.0 .0000 1 !lst 2 feed pts-hor. flow
- 25. -1. 6.0 .0000 1 !C & TO not used (outflow)
- 30. 99905. 6.0 .0000 0 !C & TO not used (table)
T(hr) Q(L/min) C(g/L) !#entries is two digits after 999
.0000 .0000 6. !first time in table is zero
.3000 .2800E-0l 5.
.5000 .3200 4.
1.000 .4600 3.
1.500 .4600 2. !last time in table is > tmax
- 35. .5 4.0 .2000 0 !final feed pt TMAX (hr) FECMAX DIFFUSIONCOEF.(m2/s) 1.000 5000. .7500E-09 RGAMMA RBETA RALPHA !FEC = RGAMMA + C*RBETA + C*C*RALPHA
- 0. 0. 0. !default values will be used ICOFLAG !If 0, CO=0; If <0, read one CO; If >0,read ICOFLAG (X,CO) pairs 1
X(m) CO(g/L) !#entries is ICOFLAG
- 60. 2. !Concentration associated with Qw DATAFILE !'NONE' if there is no data file NONE The first two feed points represent constant horizontal flow, and since the QNV flag (IINFV) is one, flow rate is given as Darcy velocity through the aquifer in m/day. The third feed point has variable flow rate and concentration, with a five-entry table specifying the variation with time. The fourth feed point is an inflow point with constant flow rate and concentration and a non-zero concentration start time.
Note that the flow from below, qw, is positive (into the wellbore section), so the corresponding concentration is specified as the initial condition of the lowermost cell in the wellbore (at x = Xmi) by using ICOFLAG = 1. If ICOFLAG = 0, the concentration associated with qu would be zero, and if ICOFLAG = -1, the concentration associated with qu. would be the uniform non-zero initial concentration in the wellbore.
12
When BORE II writes an input file (option V), it changes several things to the file form shown above. Comments found in the original input file are not reproduced, but two comments are added. First, the cell height and the equation used to calculate it are shown on the line with Xmin, xmaE, and dw. Second, if feed points represent horizontal flow, then the flag IINVF is set to 0, flow rate is given in L/min, and the corresponding Darcy velocity through the aquifer in m/day is added as a comment. Finally, if ICOFLAG > 0, BORE II sets ICOFLAG to the number of wellbore cells, and explicitly shows every (x, Co(x)) pair. This option is useful for identifying the x values of various cells, which may expedite assignment of feed point locations or initial conditions. Part of the input file created by BORE II for the above sample is shown below.
TITLE: Sample Input File with flow from below, horizontal flow, variable flow XMIN(m) XMAX(m) DIAM(cm) !DX(m) = MAX(IXMIN - XMAXI/180, DIAM/100)
.0000 60.00 7.600 ! .3333 QW(L/min) HALPHA !QW=flow from below; RALPHA=hor. flow constriction
.5000 2.500
- FEED PTS VARIABLE FLOWRATEIDENTIFIER 4- 999 _
DEPTH(m) Q(L/min) C(g/L) TO(hr) Q/VFLAG !Vd(m/day) 35.00 .5000 4.000 .2000 0 30.00 99905. 6.000 .0000 0 T(hr) Q(L/min) C(g/L) !#entries is two digits after 999
.0000 .0000 6.000
.3000 .2800E-0l 5.000
.5000 .3200 4.000 1.000 .4600 3.000 1.500 .4600 2.000 25.00 .4398E-01 6.000 .0000 0 ! 1.000 25.00 -.4398E-01 6.000 .0000 0 !-1.000 TMAX(hr) FECMAX DIFFUSIONCOEF.(m2/s) 1.000 5000. .7500E-09 RGAMMA RBETA RALPHA !FEC = RGAMMA + C*RBETA + C*C*RALPHA
.0000 1870. -40.00 ICOFLAG !If 0, CO=0; If <0, read one CO; If >0,read ICOFLAG (X,CO) pairs 179 X(m) CO(g/L) !#entries is ICOFLAG 59.83 2.000 59.50 .0000 59.17 .0000 58.83 .0000
-.(169 entries with CO=0 not shown)...
2.167 .0000 1.833 .0000 1.500 .0000 1.167 .0000
.8333 .0000
.5000 .0000 DATAFILE ['NONE' if there is no data file NONE 13
Line by Line InstructionsforDataFile The data file is read in the fixed format shown below. If data are available in a different format, an auxiliary program should be used to convert it to this form (a simple preprocessor called PREBORE, described in Appendix 2, converts the data file format used by BORE to the new format shown below). Note that because a fixed format is used, blank entries are allowed; they are interpreted as zero.
Lines 1-8 are header lines, not used by BORE II.
Each line of the remainder of the file contains:
Variable x FEC TEMP DAT3 DAT4 DAT5 HR MIN SEC Units m PiS/cm °C _ _
Format F10.3 7F10.3 F10.3 EIO.3 EIO.3 E10.3 13 12 12 Columns 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 62-64 66-67 169-70 The entries DAT3, DAT4, and DAT5 represent optional data types that may be collected with certain logging tools, such as pH and dissolved oxygen (see options A and Y for ways to display this data). Note that there is one blank column before each of the HR, MIN, and SEC entries, to make the data file more readable. The first time entry corresponds to t = 0 for the model.
BORE II Options The following options are available on the BORE II main menu. Either uppercase or lowercase letters may be used, and should be followed by pressing ENTER.
C - (C)-x plot - Displays FEC versus depth for data and/or model continuously in time (an animation); stores [x (in), t (sec), data FEC (pS/cm), model FEC (piS/cm)] in file BOREII.TMP for later use by option R or post-processing.
T - c-(T) plot - Displays FEC versus time for data and model for a chosen depth.
R - d/m cu(R)ve - Displays FEC versus depth plots for data and model at a series of times (snapshots of the option C display); uses results of most recent option C, read from BOREII.TMP. Does not work if there is no data file or if there are only data at one depth in data file.
N - i(N)flow-c - Displays inflow FEC for a chosen feed point as a function of time.
14
A - p(A)ram display - Displays all data profiles (FEC, TEMP, DAT3, DAT4, DAT5) simultaneously, using user-specified plot limits (selections 3-6). For selection 1, all points are connected on one continuous curve; for selection 2, points that are beyond depth or time limits start new curve segments.
X - (X)-t plot - Displays a color-coded plot of model FEC versus depth and time in a new window, then repeats the plot in the borehole profile window.
S - tool (S)tudy x-t plot - Same as X, but limits display to what would be obtained with a tool whose parameters (number of probes, gap between probes, and tool velocity) are specified by the user.
D - (D)ata x-t - Displays a color-coded plot of data traces versus depth and time in a new window, then repeats the plot in the borehole profile window (data type specified by option Y, default is FEC).
F - (F)ill data x-t - Same as D, except that data traces are interpolated to fill the x-t plane.
I - dim d(I)ff x-t - Displays a color-coded plot of the difference between model and data FEC versus depth and time in a new window, then repeats the plot in the borehole profile window.
User selects whether to show data traces (mode 1) or filled data (mode 2).
M - (M)odify inp- Opens interactive session for modifying location, flow rate, and concentration of feed points, or adding new feed points. User is prompted to enter feed point number and given the chance to modify or maintain current parameters. To add a new feed point, specify a feed point number greater than that for any existing feed point. If horizontal flow is implemented using option M, flow rate must be specified as volumetric flow rate through the wellbore in L/min.
P - (P)lot adjust - Sets new values of parameter minimum and maximum; tmlX; difference range for option I; and depth for which wellbore flow rate qo is displayed in borehole profile window (default depth is xmin).
G - (G)rid - Sets grid spacing for new window showing x-t plots.
Y - data t(Y)pe - Chooses data type (FEC, TEMP, DAT3, DAT4, DAT5) to display in options C, T, D, and F. Model results always show FEC, so option C and T plots, which show both model and data, must be read carefully. Note that options R and I are not affected by the choice of data type, but always compare model and data FEC.
Z - print - Displays instructions for printing a screen image.
V - sa(V)e - Creates a new input file with current model parameters. User is prompted for new file name.
Q - (Q)uit - Terminates BORE II program.
15
- 4. Example Applications Five example applications are presented to illustrate the capabilities of BORE I.
Although BORE 1I simulates the forward problem (it produces wellbore FEC profiles given different inflow positions, rates, and concentrations), it is most commonly used in an inverse mode, in which inflow positions, rates and concentrations are varied by trial and error until the model matches observed values of wellbore FEC profiles. Initial guesses for the trial and error process may be obtained using direct integral methods (Tsang and Hale, 1989; Tsang et al.,
1990) or other means (see example 2 below). Example applications 3, 4, and 5 demonstrate such comparisons to real data provided to us as typical field data sets by G. Bauer (private communication, 2000). The results of these example applications do not necessarily provide physically realistic flow rates and inflow concentrations, because they employ the artificial equality FEC = C. Furthermore, rough matches to real data, as are obtained here, can often be obtained equally well with a variety of different parameters (i.e., the solution of the inverse problem is non-unique). The input files for the example applications are shown in Appendix 3.
Problem Data File Input File Features 1 Up flow up.num.dbt upnum.inp Advection and dilution, (numerically diffusion/dispersion minor simulated) 2 Horizontal horan.dbt horan.inp Dilution only, no advection or flow (analytical diffusion/dispersion solution) One pair inflow/outflow points 3 Horizontal hor_real.dbt horreal.inp Dilution and diffusion/dispersion flow (real data) Multiple pairs inflow/outflow points Initial time added to data 4 Down flow downc.dbt down c.inp Advection, dilution, and.
(real data) diffusion/dispersion Variable inflow concentration 5 Combination combic.dbt comb_ic.inp Advection, dilution, and flow (real data) diffusion/dispersion Non-uniform initial conditions 16
- 1. Up Flow -Numerically SimulatedData Perhaps the most common application of BORE 11 is to the case of up flow - when one pumps from the top of the wellbore section, and fluid enters the wellbore at one or more feed points. Figure I shows C versus x for several times for a typical up flow case (obtained with BORE II option R). Each feed point has the same inflow rate and the same concentration, and there is also up flow from below. At early times, the feed points show up as individual FEC peaks, but as time passes, the deeper peaks merge with those above them, creating a step-like structure. The data set for this example is not real, but the results of a numerical simulation using the flow and transport simulator TOUGH2 (Pruess, 1987; 1991; 1995; 1998). TOUGH2 has been verified and validated against analytical solutions, other numerical models, and laboratory and field data. The TOUGH2 simulation uses a one-dimensional model with the same cell spacing as BORE II and constant mass sources located at the BORE 11 feed points. Thus, BORE II and TOUGH2 are solving the same problems, and comparing the results for wellbore FEC profiles verifies that the BORE II calculations are done correctly.
- 2. HorizontalFlowv -Analytical Solution andNimerically Simulated Data For horizontal flow in the absence of diffusion/dispersion along the wellbore, an analytical solution for the concentration observed in the wellbore as a function of time, C(t), is given by (Drost, 1968):
C(t)= C; -[C; - C(O)]exl tvdah), (1) where Ci is the formation (inflow) concentration, t is time (s), vd is the Darcy velocity through the aquifer (mis), ah is the aquifer-to-wellbore convergence factor, and rw is the wellbore radius (m). Figure 2 shows the analytical solution and the BORE II results for this problem, obtained using option T. The agreement is excellent. Note that for small values of vd, if C(O) = 0, the analytical solution becomes approximately C(t) =Ci IIl- expl (-2tVdat, Ctt1-Žah11 C.2trla.
- da>JJ (2) 71r,,7rr,,7tir" 17
Thus, any combination of C, and vd whose product is a constant gives the same value of C. This condition corresponds to the early-time straight-line portion of Figure 2. The analytical solution may be implemented in a spreadsheet to expedite the choice of BORE 11 parameters, by examining the solution for various values of vd and Ci. Note that care must be taken to use a consistent set of units for t, vd, and rw in Equations (I) and (2). For example, when time is in seconds, BORE 11 input parameters vd in m/day and r,. in cm must be converted to m/s and m, respectively.
Figure 2 also shows the evolution of concentration at and near a horizontal flow layer when diffusion/dispersion along the wellbore is significant (Do = l m2 /s). For this case, the analytical solution is not applicable, but BORE 11 results compare very well to numerically simulated data obtained using TOUG1H2. When dispersion is significant, use of the Drost solution generally results in an underestimation of C, and an overestimation of vd. These errors do not arise when using BORE II, since diffusion/dispersion can be explicitly included.
- 3. HorizontalFlow,- Real Data As indicated in Figure 2, the addition of diffusion or dispersion modifies the depth-FEC profile arising from a thin layer of horizontal flow, by widening the base of the FEC peak. A thick layer of horizontal flow produces a distinct signature, with an FEC response that has a wide peak as well as a wide base. To model a thick layer of horizontal flow, one may use several adjacent inflow/outflow point pairs in the model. Figure 3 compares model and data profiles (G.
Bauer, private communication, 2000) of C versus x for several times, using option R. Seven pairs of inflow/outflow points are used, assigned to seven adjacent cells. By multiplying the number of inflow/outflow pairs by cell thickness, one may estimate the thickness of the layer of horizontal flow, in this case 2.3 m. See Appendix 1, Section Al .5, for additional information about assigning feed points to specific cells.
For this particular data set, the earliest observations show a variable FEC profile. One possible way to address this is to specify a non-uniform initial concentration distribution in the wellbore. An alternative approach (used here) is to add a dummy entry to the data file, specifying a time prior to the first real data time, at which the FCE distribution in the wellbore is assumed to be uniform. In general, it is not possible to determine when, if ever, the FEC distribution in the wellbore is uniform, but the approach can work quite well, as shown in Figure 18
4, which shows C versus t at the center of the horizontal flow zone (option T). The data zero time taken from the header of the data file, where the date and time of the logging run are specified.
- 4. Dovn Flow -Real Data Figure 5 compares model and data profiles (G. Bauer, private communication, 2000) of C versus x for several times (option R) for a case with primarily down flow. A uniform non-zero initial concentration is used (ICOFLAG < 0) to approximate the low, slightly variable initial concentration. Two shallow inflow points have variable concentrations that increase in time, which suggests that de-ionized water penetrated into the fractures when it was introduced into the wellbore to establish low-concentration initial conditions for logging. A low-concentration feed point at x = 158.5 m creates up flow above it, but the remainder of the wellbore section shows down flow.
- 5. CombinationFlowv -Real Data Figure 6 compares model and data profiles (G. Bauer, private communication, 2000) of C versus x for several times (option R) for a case with combination flow. A non-uniform initial condition has been used, which is extracted from the data file using the preprocessor PREBORE (see Appendix 2). Note that there are more entries in the initial condition specification (232) than there are cells in the model (179). Thus, some cells are assigned more than one initial condition. For cells where this occurs, only the final initial condition assigned is used. See Appendix 1, Section A 1.5, for additional information on specifying non-uniform conditions.
Figure 7 showvs the same information as Figure 6, but plotted in a different way, with the difference between data and model FEC plotted as an x-t plot (option I). The blue and orange diagonal features indicate that the largest discrepancy betveen model and data gradually deepens with time.
19
Acknowledgements We thank K. Karasaki and B. Freifeld for carefully reviewing this report. Cooperation with G.
Bauer of Colog, Inc. in making available sample data sets and general discussions is greatly appreciated. We also acknowledge the work of Frank Hale on the original BORE code, from which the new BORE 1I code has been developed. This work was supported by the Laboratory Technology Research Program (SC-32) within the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, under DOE/LBNL contract DE-AC03-761F00098.
References Bauer, G.D. and J.J. LoCoco, Hydrogeophysics determines aquifer characteristics, International Ground Water Technology, Vol. 2, No. 7, pp. 12-16, 1996.
Drost, W., D. Klotz, A. Koch, H. Moser, F. Neumaier, and W. Rauert, Point dilution methods of investigating ground water flow by means of radioisotopes, Water Resources Res., Vol.
4,No. 1,pp. 125-146, 1968.
Hale, F.V. and C.-F. Tsang, A code to compute borehole conductivity profiles from multiple feed points, Rep. LBL-24928, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif., 1988.
Marschall, P. and S. Vomvoris, Grimsel Test Site: Developments in hydrotesting, fluid logging and combined salt/heat tracer experiments in the BK Site (Phase III), Tech. Rep. 93-47, National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste (NAGRA), Wettingen, Switzerland, 1995.
Pedler, W.H., C.L. Head, and L.L. Williams, Hydrophysical logging: A new wellbore technology for hydrogeologic and contaminant characterization of aquifers, National Outdoor Action Conference, National Ground Water Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1992.
Pruess, K., TOUGH user's guide, Rep. LBL-20700, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1987.
Pruess, K., TOUGH2 - A general-purpose numerical simulator for multiphase fluid and heat flow, Rep. LBL-29400, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1991.
Pruess, K.(Ed.), Proceedings of the TOUGH workshop '95, Rep. LBL-3 7200, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1995.
20
Pruess, K.(Ed.), Proceedings of the TOUGH workshop '98, Rep. LBNL-41995, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1998.
Schlumberger, Ltd., Log interpretation charts, New York, 1984.
Shedlovsky, T. and L. Shedlovsky, Conductometry, in Physicalmethods of chemistry, PartIIA:
Electrochemicalmethods, edited by A. Weissberger and B.W. Rossiter, pp. 164-171, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1971.
Tsang, C.-F. and F. V. Hale, A direct integral method for the analysis of borehole fluid conductivity logs to determine fracture inflow parameters, Proceedings of the National Water Well Conference on New Field Techniques for Quantifying the Physical and Chemical Properties of Heterogeneous Aquifers, Dallas, Texas, March 20-23, 1989, Rep.
LBL-27930, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 1989.
Tsang, C.-F., P. Hufschmeid, and F.V. Hale, Determination of fracture inflow parameters with a borehole fluid conductivity logging method, water Resources Res., Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.
561-578, 1990.
21
Appendix 1: Mathematical Background and Numerical Approach The principal equation governing wellbore FEC variation is the equation for the transport of mass (or ion concentration) in the wellbore. However, additional consideration must be given to the determination of FEC as a function of ion concentration and the temperature dependence of FEC.
Al..1 FECas a Function of Concentration The relationship between ion concentration and FEC is reviewed, for example, by Shedlovsky and Shedlovsky (1971), who give graphs and tables relating these two quantities.
Hale and Tsang (1988) made a sample fit for the case of NaCI solution at low concentrations and obtained FEC = 1,870 C- 40 C2, (A.1) where C is ion concentration in kg/r 3 (= gIL) and FEC is in SS/cm at 20'C. The expression is accurate for a range of C up to st 6 kg/i 3 and FEC up to 11,000 gS/cm. The quadratic term can be dropped if one is interested only in values of C up to 4 kg/i 3 and FEC up to 7,000 ptS/cm, in which case the error will be less than 10%.
Fracture fluids typically contain a variety of ions, the most common being Na+, Ca2+,
Mg2+, Cl;, So02 , and HCO3 -. If a hydrochemical analysis has been completed, various methods are available for computing an equivalent NaCI concentration for other ions. Schlumberger (1984) presents charts of multiplicative factors that convert various solutes to equivalent NaCI concentrations with respect to their effect on electric conductivity.
A1.2 Temperature Dependence ofFEC BORE II calculations are made assuming a uniform temperature throughout the wellbore.
Actual wellbore temperatures generally vary with depth, so temperature corrections must be applied to field FEC data to permit direct comparison with model output.
The effect of temperature Ton FEC can be estimated using the following equation (Schlumberger, 1984) 22
FEC(200 C) - +S(T 20°C)' (A.2) where S = 0.024.
Generally, temperature increases with depth below the land surface. If full temperature logs are available, these data can be used to correct the corresponding FEC values. However, if no complete logs are available, a simplifying assumption may be made that the temperature variation in the wellbore is linear and can be modeled by:
T= Ax +B (A.3) where A and B are parameters determined by fitting any available temperature versus depth data.
If the fit is unsatisfactory, other relationships with higher order terms must be used.
AJ.3 GoverningEquation The differential equation for mass or solute transport in a wellbore is:
la(D aX a (~ac
((Cv)+S= a~(A.4) 8a, ~ A4 where x is depth, t is time, and C is ion concentration. The first term is the diffusion term, with Do the diffusion/dispersion coefficient in m2 /s, the second term is the advective term, with v the fluid velocity in m/s, and S is the source term in kg/m3 s. This one-dimensional partial differential equation is solved numerically using the finite difference method, with upstream weighting used in the advective term. The following initial and boundary conditions are specified:
C(x,0) = Co(x), (A.5)
C(xmin,t) = Co(xmin) for flow into the wellbore from above, C(xm,,t) = Co(xmax) for flow into the wellbore from below, Do = 0 for x <xin and x > xm.
The first condition allows for the specification of initial ion concentrations in the wellbore. The second and third conditions allow for advective flow of ions into the wellbore interval from above and below. The final condition indicates that diffusion and dispersion do not take place across the boundaries of the wellbore interval. In general, advection will be the dominant 23
process at the boundaries. If diffusion or dispersion is dominant for a particular problem, the boundaries should be extended in order to prevent improper trapping of electrolyte.
A1.4 Discretizationin Time Time stepping is explicit, with the time step At determined by stability constraints for advection At < dx, (A.6) 8q maux
. 9.
and diffusion At < -X 2 (A.7) 4D 0 '
where qmax (m3 Is) is the maximum fluid flow rate anywhere in the wellbore. BORE II starts its calculation at t = 0. The first time in the data file is also identified with t = 0. If it is apparent that model and data times are not synchronized, then one may insert an additional line into the data file after the header lines, with an earlier time than the first real data time, in order to reset the data zero time. On the inserted line, FEC, x, and other data entries may be left blank or copied from the first real data line.
Al.5 Discrefizationin Space The wellbore interval between xmi. and xmax is uniformly divided into N cells and it is assumed that the wellbore has uniform diameter, d. Cell height Ax is determined as the larger of (Xmax - Xm.n)/l 80 and d4. Position values indicate depth in the wellbore and thus x is zero at the surface and increases downward. The cell index increases upward, with cells I and N located at the bottom and top, respectively, of the wellbore interval. In general, the ith node (the center of the ith cell) is located at xi =xma. - (i-I/2)Ax, (A.8) with the ith cell extending from x. - (i - I)Ax to x. - iAx.
BORE II assigns feed points and initial concentrations to cell i if the location of the feed point or Co(x) value lies within the boundaries of the ith cell. If multiple feed points are assigned
-to the same cell, they will all be accounted for, but if multiple initial conditions are assigned to the same cell, only the final one assigned will be used. By definition, the lower boundary of cell 24
I is at xma,, but due to round-off errors, the upper boundary of cell Nmay not be atxmin. Hence, it is often useful to know the x coordinates of each node. These are displayed in the input file written by BORE II (option V) when ICOFLAG > 0. Thus, if the user sets ICOFLAG = 1, inputs one (x, Co(x)) pair, and uses option V, then a new input file will be created with ICOFLAG = N and a complete list of the x coordinates for all nodes, with Co = 0 for all cells except the one identified in the original input file. Alternatively, if the initial conditions are taken from the data file with PREBORE (or taken from any source that is independent of the nodal coordinates), then using option V will create an input file that shows the actual initial conditions assigned to each cell.
The list of nodal x coordinates may be useful when modeling a thick fracture zone or aquifer, in order to place one feed point in each cell over a given depth range. Similarly, when using ICOFLAG > 0 to specify non-uniform initial concentrations, one must assign a Co value to each cell in the interval of interest in order to obtain a continuous C profile, because no interpolation is done between scattered initial concentrations. Finally, knowing the coordinate of the top cell in the model is useful for assigning the initial concentration that serves as the boundary condition for inflow into the wellbore interval from above. For inflow from below, either x = xl or x xma. may be used.
A].6 Calculation ofFlowv Rates Feed point flow rates may be constant in time, in which case a steady-state flow field is assumed in the wellbore, or variable, with feed point flow rates determined by linear interpolation between tabulated values. Although feed point flow rate may vary, true transient wvellbore flow including fluid compressibility effects is not considered. Rather, the wellbore fluid flow field is assumed to change instantly from one steady-state flow field to another. In other words, the flow rate out of cell i is always the sum of the flow rates from all feed point locations within the boundaries of cell i plus the flow rate out of cell i-I.
25
Appendix 2: The Preprocessor PREBORE PREBORE is a simple Fortran program that does preprocessing for BORE H. It runs under either Windows or DOS. PREBORE converts the old BORE data file format into the new BOREII data file format. Depth is converted from feet to meters, and other data columns are realigned. PREBORE can also create a file with (xCo) pairs to be added to the BORE II input file as initial conditions (this option requires that x values steadily increase or steadily decrease in each profile).
If data file conversion is being done, the user is prompted to enter the old and new data file names.
If a file with initial conditions is being created, the user is prompted for the following information: the name of the BOREII data file; a name for the initial condition file; which profile in the data file to use; the direction of logging (downward assumes x values increase in the data file, upward assumes they decrease, and both assumes the profiles alternately increase and decrease in x); and the conversion factors (y, A,a) between FEC and C (default values 0, 1870, -40). In addition to creating an ASCII text file with (xCo) pairs, which may be added to the BOREII input file using a text editor or word processor, PREBORE prints out the number of pairs on the screen, which should be used for ICOFLAG. Note that ICOFLAG may be greater than the number of cells in the model (usually about 180), but that in this case not all the Co values will be used (see Appendix 1, Section A1.5).
Data file conversion and initial condition creation can be done in the same PREBORE run. In this case the user must specify both old and new data file names in addition to the parameters describing the creation of initial conditions.
26
Appendix 3: Input Files for Example Applications A2. I Example Application 1 - Up Flowv - upjnumn.inp TITLE: up flow with flow from below, compare to synthetic data XMIN (m) XMAX(m) DIAM(cm) !DX(m) = MAX(IXMIN - XMAXI/180, DIAM/100)
.0000 180.0 14.00 ! 1.000 QW (L/min) HALPHA !QW=flow from below; HALPHA=hor. flow constriction
.7500 2.500
- FEED PTS VARIABLE FLOWRATEIDENTIFIER 3 999 DEPTH(m) Q (L/min) C(g/L) TO (hr) Q/VFLAG !Vd Cm/day) 160.5 .7500 100. 0 .0000 0 130.5 .7500 100. 0 .0000 0 50.50 .7500 100.0 .0000 0 TMAX(hr) FECMAX DIFFUSIONCOEF.(m2/s) 24.00 100.0 .7500E-09 RGAMMA RBETA RALPHA !FEC = RGAMMA + C*RBETA + C*C*RALPHA
.0000 1.000 .1OOOE-07 ICOFLAG !If 0, CO=0; ; If <0, read one CO; If >0,read ICOFLAG (X,CO) pairs 0
DATAFILE !'NONE' if there is no data file up num.dbt A2.2 Example Application 2 - HorizontalFlouv Analytical Solution - horan.inp TITLE: Horizontal Flow - Compare to Analytical Solution XMIN m) XMAX(m) DIAM(cm) 0.000 50.000 7.600 QW (L/min) HALPHA
- 0. 2.850000
- FEEDPTS VARIABLEFLOWRATEIDENTIFIER 2 999 DEPTH(m) Vdem/d) C(g/L) TO(hr) Q/VFLAG 25.0000 1. 1000. .0000 1 25.0000 -1. 1000. .0000 1 TMAX(hr) FECMAX DIFFUSIONCOEF.(m2/s) 3.0000 1000. l.e-10 RGAMMA RBETA RALPHA 0.000000 1.000000 l.e-08 ICOFLAG 0
DATA FILE hor an.dbt The input file for the case with significant dispersion is identical, except that the diffusion coefficient is increased from 10.1 m2/s to 10 m2 /s.
27
A2.3 Example Application 3 - HorizontalFlow - horreaLinp TITLE: Horizontal Flow Example XMIN (m) XMAX(m) DIAM(cm) !DX(m) = MAX(IXMIN - XMAXI/180, DIAM/100)
.0000 60.00 7.600 ! .3333 QW(L/min) HALPHA !QW=flow from below; HALPHA=hor. flow constriction
.0000 2.500 iFEEDPTS VARIABLEFLOWRATEIDENTIFIER 14 999 DEPTH(m) Q (L/min) C(g/L) TO (hr) Q/VFLAG !Vd(m/d) 26.73 .5295E-02 730.0 .0000 07 ! .1204 26.73 -. 5295E-02 .0000 .0000 0 !-.1204 26.39 .5295E-02 730.0 .0000 0 ! .1204 26.39 -. 5295E-02 .0000 .0000 0 !-.1204 26.06 .5295E-02 730.0 .0000 0 ! .1204 26.06 -;5295E-02 .0000 .0000 0 !-.1204.
25.73 .5295E-02 730.0 .0000 0 ! .1204 25.73 -. 5295E-02 .0000 .0000 0* !-.1204 25.39 .5295E-02 730.0 .0000 0 ! .1204 25.39 -. 5295E-02 .0000 .0000 0 !-.1204 25.06 .5295E-02 730.0 .0000 0 ! .1204 25.06 -. 5295E-02 .0000 .0000 0 !-.1204 24.73 .5295E-02 730.0 .0000 0 ! .1204 24.73 -. 5295E-02 .0000 .0000 0 !-.1204 TMAX(hr) FECMAX DIFFUSION _ COEF.(m2/s) 4.000 400.0 .7500E-04 RGAMMA RBETA RALPHA !FEC = RGAMMA + C*RBETA + C*C*RALPHA
.0000 1.000 .1000E-07 ICOFLAG !If 0, CO=0; If <0, read one CO; If >0,read ICOFLAG (X,CO) pairs 0
DATAFILE !'NONE' if there is no data file hor real.dbt 28.
A2.4 Example Application 4- Dowvn Flow - down c.inp TITLE: downflow, variable source conc., uniform non-zero initial conc.
XMIN (m) XMAX(m) DIAM(cm) !DX(m) = MAX(IXMIN - XMAXI/180, DIAM/100) 140.0 240.0 7.600 ! .5556 QW (L/min) HALPHA !QW=flow from below; HALPHA=hor. flow constriction
.0000 2.850
- FEED PTS VARIABLEFLOWRATEIDENTIFIER 12 999 DEPTH(m) Q (L/min) C(g/L) TO (hr) Q/VFLAG .Vd(m/day) 239.0 -. 7000 .0000 .4000 0 212.0 -1.000 .0000 .4000 0 187.0 .7500 1800. .4000 0 183.0 .1900 1900. .4000 0 181.0 .1200 1900. .4000 0 178.0 .50OOE-01 1900. .4000 0 176.0 .4000E-0l 1900. .4000 0 174.0 .3000E-01 1900. .4000 0 171.0 .1000E-01 1900. .4000 0 164.4 99905. 1900. .4000 0 T(hr) Q(L/mirI) C(g/L) !#entries is two digits after 999
.0000 .4400 80.00
.4000 .44 00 100.0 1.200 .4400 1100.
1.900 .4400 1650.
4.500 .4400 1950.
162.0 99904. 1800. .0000 0 T(hr) Q(L/min) C(g/L) !#entries is two digits after 999
.0000 .6000E-01 80.00
.4000 .6000E-01 200.0 1.900 .6000E-01 1650.
4.500 .6000E-01 1950.
158.5 .1000 80.00 .0000 0 TMAX(hr) FECMAX DIFFUSIONCOEF.(m2/s) 4.400 1700. .1000E-02 RGAMMA RBETA RALPHA !FEC = RGAMMA + C*RBETA + C*C*RALPHA
.0000 1.000 .1000E-07 ICOFLAG !If 0, CO=0; If <0, read one CO; If >0,read ICOFLAG (X,CO) pairs
-1 CO (g/L) !Uniform, non-zero CO 80.00 DATAFILE !'NONE' if there is no data file downc.dbt 29
A2.5 Example Application 5 - CombinationFlow - combic.inp TITLE: Combination flow example. non-uniform initial concentration XMIN m) XMAX(m) DIAM(cm) !DX(m) = MAX(IXMIN - XMAXI/180, DIAM/100)
.00000 50.000 7.6000 ! .2778 QW (L/min) HALPHA !QW=flow from below; HALPHA=hor. flow constriction
.00000 2.8500
- FEEDPTS VARIABLE FLOWRATEIDENTIFIER 12 999 DEPTH(mm) Q(L/min) C(g/L) TO (hr) Q/VFLAG !Vd(m/day) 45.000 -.13000 .00000 .00000 0 33.300 .11000 800.00 .15000 0 33.300 -. 31000 .00000 .00000 .0 27.500 -1.0500 .00000 .00000 0 25.700 .30000 810.00 .15000 0 25.400 .30000 810.00 .15000 0 25.140 .30000 810.00 .15000 0 24.900 .30000 810.00 .15000 0 23.500 .12000 800.00 .15000 0 21.500 .40000E-01 800.00 .15000 0
.14.000 .15OO0E-Ol 750.00 .15000 0 12.200 .10000E-01 750.00 .15000 0 TMAX(hr) FECMAX DIFFUSION COEF.(m2/s) 1.0000 1000.0 .50000E-0 RGAMMA RBETA RALPHA !FEC = RGAMMA + C*RBETA + C*C*RALPHA
.00000 1.0000 .10000E-C ICOFLAG !If 0, CO=0; If <0, read one CO; If >O,read ICOFLAG (X,CO) pairs 232 X(m) CO(g/L) !#entries is ICOFLAG 1.524 2 1.615 2 1.707 3 1.829 3 1.951 3 2.073 3 2.225 3 2.377 3 2.53 3 2.713 3 2.865 3 3.018 3 3.353 589 3.536 597 3.719 588 3.871 583 4.054 584
...(208 entri es not shown)...
43.282 2 43.8 2 43.983 2 44.166 1 44.318 1 44.501 1 44.684 1 DATAFILE 'NONE' if there is no data file comb ic.dbt 30
Figure 1. Concentration (=FEC) versus depth at a series of times for example application I - up flow. Data are numerically simulated using the TOUGH2 code. Figure is a BORE II screen-print after running option R.
31 c W1
1 e Athorizontalnowlayer, f
0 0 Dr analytical Ost - no d dis X .6 o O It1- no RE To - with
~~B TCOJGH2 oTOUGH2 ]
° o0.4 0:0.2 wn:3 00 0I Time (hours) aplcto 2 flow. When for example - horizontal of the time only Occurrs at the depth (I 968),
cetration versus increase a Figfure 2.diRelatieon egligibly the concentration the analycaIliSltion tven by Drost sis line shows layer. The solid horizontal flow Equation (tcI).ltinasg 32
400 Time (hrs)
- . 1.6 2.2 3.0 300 3 wJ200 . .... . .. ...... 4.
LL ./ . l \ '
,'- \ \ '.4 100 _..,,\
22 24 26 28 30 Depth (m)
Figure 3. Concentration ( FEC) versus depth at a series of times for example application 3 - a thick layer of horizontal flow. Dashed lines represent field data, solid lines represent BORE II results. Diffusion/dispersion is significant.
33
400 300 _...... .......... ........................
0 E
U-100
- Data with zero time added
- Original data BORE II 0!I I I I II . ,,,.,,,,.,,, .
1 2 3 4 Time (hours)
Figure 4. Concentration (= FEC) versus time at the center of the horizontal flow zone of example application 3, illustrating the addition of a data zero time.
34
F igure 5. Concentration (= FEC) versus depth at a series of times for example application 4 -
down flow. Figure is a BORE II screen-print after running option R.
35 CcO
Figure 6. Concentration (= FEC) versus depth at a series of times for example application 5 -
combination flow. Figure is a BORE 11 screen-print after option R.
36
FEC -150 & =150 C OBIN a INP CH_~N 0
D e
p t
h m
50 nouX5 L l O Figure 7. FEC difference between model and data as a function of depth and time (an x-t plot) for example application 5 - combination flow. Figure is a BORE [I screen-print after option 1, mode 2.
37 ccit
APPENDIX C LIMITATIONS
LIMITATIONS COLOG's logging was performed in accordance with generally accepted industry practices.
COLOG has observed that degree of care and skill generally exercised by others under similar circumstances and conditions. Interpretations of logs or interpretations of test or other data, and any recommendation or hydrogeologic description based upon such interpretations, are opinions based upon inferences from measurements, empirical relationships and assumptions. These inferences and assumptions require engineering judgment, and therefore, are not scientific certainties. As such, other professional engineers or analysts may differ as to their interpretation.
Accordingly, COLOG cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or completeness of any such interpretation, recommendation or hydrogeologic description.
All technical data, evaluations, analysis, reports, and other work products are instruments of COLOG's professional services intended for one-time use on this project. Any reuse of work product by Client for other than the purpose for which they were originally intended will be at Client's sole risk and without liability to COLOG. COLOG makes no warranties, either express or implied. Under no circumstances shall COLOG or its employees be liable for consequential damages.