ML20137B703
| ML20137B703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/15/1985 |
| From: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Linehan J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-7372, CON-NRC-02-82-044, CON-NRC-2-82-44, REF-WM-10 2670, NUDOCS 8601160047 | |
| Download: ML20137B703 (24) | |
Text
.
gya NOV 151985
~O,. _,,,, g DISTRIBUTION WM File 3101 NMss r/f WMcT r/f RBrowning "8*11 MEMORANDUM FOR:
John Linehan Repository Projects Branch
${fgel Division of Waste Management MWeber & r/f h{
FROM:
Michael F. Weber Geotechnical Branch Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
REVIEWS OF BWIP DOCUMENTS Attached for your information please find reviews of three BWIP documents numbered SD-BWI-TC-23, SD-BWI-DP-059, and SD-BWI-TP-039.
These reviews were completed by Williams and Associates before July 15, 1985, under contract NRC-02-82-044 with technical direction from Mr. Matthew Gordon.
Mr. Gordon and Williams and Associates also decided to postpona reviews of four documents until the significance of these documents to hydrologic site characterization or performance assessment at BWIP becomes apparent.
These documents include RH0-BW-SA-364-P, RH0-BW-SA-366P, RH0-BW-SR-84-1-4QP, and RH0-BW-SA-370P.
Please update the WMRP Projects Administrative Tracking System by completing review commitments for the three documents that were reviewed and by changing due dates for the set of four documents listed above from 85/08/01 to TBD
[To Be Determined].
If you have any questions about these reviews, please contact me at telephone extension x74746.
/s/
Michael F. Weber Geotechnical Branch Division of Waste Management
Enclosures:
As Stated
~
WM Project-N Wh rd I dX57&
oocker no.
W+h PDR V B601160047Bh{DR
--Distributica:
A LPDR # M PDR WMRES E P
B-7372 (Return to WM,623:S7 WMGT k
- WMGT f_FC
___...__________:_____ b _:W_MGT yAME:MWeber:mw
- NColeman
- MFliegel F__..:___________.:____________._________..__.____________.___............._________:.____
ATE:85/11/l)
- 85/11/ /3
- 85/11/f cM70 1
c i
WMGT DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET FE 1:
)
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS 1:
SD-BWI-TC-023 DOCUMENT:
Drilling. and Completion Specifications for Boreholes 3
RRL-29 (Test Well) and RRL-2C (Multi-Level Pie:ometer Nest)
REVIEWER:
Williams and Associates, Inc.
DATE REVIEW COMPLETED:
June 1985
}
B_R,I_qF
SUMMARY
O_F_ DOCUMENT:
E APPROVED:
i' The document reviewed herein constitutes the drilling and completion specifications for boreholes RRL-2B and RRL-2C.
The document discusses the rationale for testing. at the RRL-2 location.
"The general objectives of the multiple-well hydraulic testings at test well RRL-2B are:
4 Facilitation of design of future multiple well hydraulic tests i
planned at other locations on the Hanford site (e.g.,
DC-16.
DC-20, and DC-22 sites).
Identification and classification of hydrogeologic boundaries.
These boundaries may be correlated later to rock inhomogeneities that may influence groundwater flow in the RRL.
Characterization of dissolved substances in groundwater removed from the Grande Rondo Basalt through test well RRL-2B.
a Assessment of areal representativeness of hydraulic values obtained by previous single-well testing'(e.g., RRL-2).
Assessment of the degree.of vertical leakage into the test flow tops through adjacent flow interiors.
.i j
Evaluation of the hydraulic continuity of selected flow tops I
(and flow " bottoms") in the Grande Ronde Basalt in the RRL."
l 1
r,
+c
- ~,
r y
.--er--,
,,_g.
,-w.
--m
2 The report under review also states specific requirements for testing the. units in the Grande Ronde in terms of specific test objectives.
These specific test objectives are:
"1.
Evaluation of hori:ontal' hydraulic conductivity, storativity.
- effective porosity, and longitudinal dispersivity of flow tops.
2.
Evaluation of vertical hydraulic conductivity of flow interiors using parameter variation and analytical techniques.
3.
Collection and chemical analyses of groundwater from selected flow tops."
The report under review also describes the organizational and functional responsibilities inherent with testing at the BWIP site.
A discussion is also presented regarding site preparation, environment, and security measures employed at the site.
Subsurface conditions are described for the proposed site.
This discussion includes both the known and anticipated geologic and hydrogeologic conditions anticipated during the drilling of RRL-2B and RRL-2C.
The essence of the report consists of the borehole specifications for test well RRL-29 and the multi-level piezameter nest for RRL-2C.
Test well RRL-2B will be installed by using multiple stages of
- drilling, casing, and grouting. 'The hole will.be drilled to an approximate depth of 2,800 ft which is above the flow too of the Rocky Coulee flow.
This portion of.the well will be drilled with cable tool and mud rotary drilling rigs.
A casing string-(13.375 inch 0.D.)
will be installed and the annulus grouted with portland cenent.
The borehole will then be deepened through the Rocky Coulee flow top usingia 12.25 inch bit..
Clear-water will be used as the drilling fluid for this portion'- of.the drilling operation.
The flow top will: be tested prior to initiating.
further drilling activities in the hole.
The Rocky Coulee flow top will be. sealed with portland cement.
after testing,- and the borehole will be deepened with a 12.25 inch bit to just above the Cohassett flow too.
The-grouted portion of the borehole will be cased-and grouted.
The borehole then will be deepened through the Cohassett flow tapt the flow top then will be tested.
This sequence of testing, grouting, drilling,-casing, grouting, and drilling will,be continued for the Grande Ronde #5 flow too
l 3
f and the Umtanum flow top.
However, the Umtanum flow too, which l
is the lowermost interval to be tested.
will not be cased or grouted upon completion of testing.
This portion of the borehole wtL1 remain open and available for future testing.
The total 4
depth proposed for the well is 3,755 ft.
The planned final j
diameter of the borehole in the Umtanum flow top will be 5.875 inches.
The-drilling and casing schedule allows for the placement of a large capacity submersible pump to a depth of at least 2.400 ft.
The casing si=e planned for this depth is at least 10 inch I.D.
The final, minimum hole diameter allowed in j
the Umtanum flow top is 3.5 inches.
j The multi-level pie =ometer nest (RRL-2C) will consist of six pie:ometers installed in a single borehole over a depth range of approximately 2.830 ft to 3.350 ft.
Three of the six pie =ometers i
will monitor the Rocky Coulee, Cohansett, and Grande Ronde
- 5
)
flow tops.
The Cohansett flow bottom is coincident'with the Grande Ronde #5 flow top.
The remaining three pie:cmeters. will 1
be completed in the Rockv Coulee. Cohassett and Grande Ronde #5 i
flow interiors.
Each pie:ometer string will be isolated within the specified unit.
High density portland cement will be used to isolate the pie:ometers.
The borehole will be drilled by cable 4
tool and mud rotary to an approximate death of 2,800 ft.
This depth, is just above the flow top of the Rocky Coulee flow. _
A 13.375 inch O.D.
steel casing will be installed from the ground surface to this depth.
The annulus will be grouted with portland cement.
The hole then will be rotary drilled using either water i
or an aerated water rotary system to a
final depth of j
approximately 3,400 ft.
The pie =ometer strings will consist of 1.75 inch I.D.
by 2.06 inch 0.D.
tubing with one or more screened sections placed in the monitoring hori:en.
A multiple gradation filter pack will be used around the screened section.
The screened section will be isolated from adjacent units by a cement seal.
The location of the screens.
cement seals.
and filter packs will be based on interpretation of borehole geophysical i
legs.
These logs include
- caliper, neutron-epithermal neutron.
)
and resistivity.
The screens on the piezometers will-be continuous slot wire wound screen over a perforated pipe base.
Slot si:e will be 40.
The screened sections will be between 2 and 20 ft in length.
A section of the report under review is devoted to the acquisition of data during drilling.
This section describes the types of data that will be obtained during the drilling of boreholes RRL-2B and RRL-2C.-
Fluid gain and loss are included in the list of variables to be monitored This information may be valuable for a qualitative evaluation of hydraulic conductivity.
I The report also describes equipment ' calibration and the i
applicable BWIP procedures 4 the applicable BWIP procedures are j
referenced by Rockwell Hanford document numbers.
The principal i
4 4
4 i
document is RHO-BWI-MA-4.
f A section of the report under review describes the borehole geophysical logging anticipated for these two boreholes.
The i
logs that will be run include natural
- gamma, gamma gamma.
neutron-epithermal-neutron,
- caliper, fluid temperature.
l resistivity. televiewer, spontaneous potential, borehole
- survey, and borehole television.
A cement bond tool (sonic log) will be
{
run after each casing has been cemented to verify the bonding of i
i the-cement' to the casing and formation.
Rockwell notes that additional logs may be obtained where a specific need has been identified and approved.
Equipment _ calibration for the logging
]
. tools is described in the report under review.
Reference to
~
i applicable BWIP procedures is noted.
A section of the report under review is devoted to describing the l
ground water monitoring that will occur during the borehole j
completion activities.
The ground water monitoring activities i
include observing heads and pressures, collecting pumping or discharge rates, and collecting ground water samples.
This information will be used to assess whether the borehole and subsequent pie =ometers are " cleaned-up".
This phrase refers to 1
whether or not the piezameters in the borehole have been developed properly.
Applicable BWIP procedures are described and documents referenced.
Sections of the report under. review also are devoted to <the
{
expected results of the activity. quality assurance, acceptance j
and change control procedures, safety, schedule. and references.
I SIGNIFICANCE TQ NRC WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM:
I j
j This document is important to the Waste Management Program because this document describes the drilling and completion of i
two very important boreholes at the RRL site.
These boreholes, j
RRL-2B and RRL-C.
are important because they'are required for j
the initial large-scale test at the BWIP site.
Inadequate design 3
or implementation of design could seriously affect the outcome of the large-scale test.
It is very important that-the initial 4
I testing be conducted in an appropriate manner in order to measure. over a large area, the hydraulic conductivity of the i
basalt flow toos.
The test also is designed to attempt to measure.the vertical hydraulic conductivity of some flow interiors.
This
- test, if appropriately conducted, will also provide valuable information regarding hydraulic continuitv 4
across the site.
Hydraulic continuity will be demonstrated by i
the areal extent of the cone of depression"as monitored in the numerous observation wells available for the pump test.
This j
forerunner of the large-scale test plans will be used as a
i standard by which subsequent tests will' be ' designed and/or i
i c -
.n
. _,. ~,,.
+ _.. - -
5 modified.
PROBLEMS. DEFICIENCIES CR LIMITOTIONS OF PEPORT:
The subsequent discussion of items of concern are presented in the chronological order in which they appear in the report under review.
The first item of concern appears on page 11 regarding Item 2 under Test Objectives.
This section states that vertical hydraulic conductivity of the flow interiors will be evaluated using
" parameter variation and analytical techniques."
We interpret the phrase
" parameter variation" to mean inverse modeling.
A document prepared by Lu and Yeh (no date) entitled
" Basalt Svstem Characteri:ation:
Inverse Technique" apparently describes the
" parameter variation" technique noted in the document under review.
The Lu and Yeh document describes an inverse technique based on application of the Trescott model.
The Trescott model is a finite difference method for simulation of three-dimensional ground water flow (1975).
The three-dimensional model has the option of accounting for storativity in the confining units which increases the number of nodes and blocks required in the simulation.
The methodology described by Lu and Yeh does not take into account the storativity of the confining units.
Their methodology appears to account only for the contribution of flow through the confining unit and not the storativity of the confining unit.
This limitation could prove to be a serious handicap in the evaluation of the data from the pumo test.
It was noted in the July 1983 workshop that the placement of the pumping well and observation wells for the large-scale test should be based on an evaluation of the probable stress changes which will occur due to the pumping test.
Justification for the placement of test well RRL-29 and the multi-level pie:ometer nest RRL-2C is not included in the report under review.
The locations of the wells are not distant from the existing borehole RRL-2A.
Justification for the well locations should be provided in the document under review or in a companion document.
As noted in the workshop of July
- 1983, the placement of these wells is cri tical to the detection of leakage through the basalt flow interiors.
This justification is not provided.
This omission constitutes a limitation of the design presented in the report under review.
The report under review states that "no pressures beyond hydrostatic are enpected."
This quote appears on page 19 of the report under review.
The review of the long-term (baseline) water level and pressure data from clusters DC-19
-20.
and
-22 refutes this statement.
The data indicate a general potential for upward flow at the Hanford site. especially around the RRL.
This statement should be revised based on data currentiv
6 available.
A comment was prepared by the NRC on the BWIP EA concerning the use of the phrase " effective thickness".
The phrase aopears in Table 2 (pages 20 and 22).
The use of " effective thickness" in this table conflicts with the use of the phrase in the EA.
The phrase in this content appears to be consistent with the definition used prior to the EA.
That i s, the phrase refers to that portion of the borehole which is contributing flow for testing procedures.
" Effective thickness" in the EA refers to the product of effective porosity and.the thickness of the interval in cuestion.
The two uses of the phrase are not compatible.
The section on drilling requirements for borehole RRL-29 begins on page 22.
It is stated that hydrologic testing will begin after the bit and drilling tools have been pulled from the borehole.
This statement is misleading because it implies that there will be no well develcoment procedures employed prior to hydrologic testing.
This implication is contradictory to statements made on page 25.
It is stated on page 25 of the document under review that the borehole and hydrogeologic unit will be initially flushed with Hanford system water until the discharge water 'is essentially free of cuttings.
It is stated further that the clean-up of the borehole will be completed during the step drawdown and/or pumping phases of the large-scale hydraulic stress test.
We believe that the well should be developed properly prior to the initiation of large-scale stress testing.
It is not clear in the document under review that the well will be properly developed.
The same general statement regarding the completion of the borehole with bit and tool removal followed by h.ydrologic testing is presented for each of the flow tops under discussion in the document under review.
The document under review states on page 29 that one or more screened sections may be used in the monitoring hori:en.
The document under review does not state why more than one screen section would be used in a monitoring horizon.
It is possible that multiple screen sections are recuired if the flow too is thicker than the length of a single available screen section.
The document under review states that the pie:ometer strings will consist of several comoonents.
One of these components is a
" seating nipple".
It is not stated whether the seating nipple will be perforated for the pie:ometer completions in the flow teos or the flow interiors.
It was noted in the May 1985 public meeting that the transducers would be seated in an unperforated nipple so that the transducers will monitor water pressures only in a small interval below the nipple.
It is our understanding that the current seating nipples are perforated so that water
-_t
.--_,4-a a,
--,--,---r,.
u._
_2 A
5-
~
7 level measurements can be conducted fnom land surface in I
conjunction with the transducer readings in the vicinity of the seating nipple.
The document under review should state clearly the tvpe of seating nipple that will be used.
It should indicate clear 1v whether these nipples are perforated to allow movement of fluid into the tubing above the transducer.
The Gulick and Buck (1980) reference on page 31 apparently is incorrect.
Checking this reference against the reference list in the back of the document under review indicates that a
second author should have been included.
This second author is Boa.
If this assumotion is incorrect then the proper reference should be included in the reference list.
The multi-pie:ometer borehole will be pumped in ceder to develop the well.
The document under re91ew states that such pumping will continue until the borehol e is "relatively free of particulate matter."
This development procedure deviates from that described for RRL-2B which is the pumping well.
Apparently clean water will not be added to the berehole to facilitate the clean-up.
Standard potable water supply development procedures l
include some kind of jetting or surging action to facilitate.the removal of particulate matter.
The methodology noted in the document under review probably i s adequate for the purposes j
intended especially considering the small diameter of the pie:cmeter tubing.
The document under review on page 35 states that " Preliminary indication of the integrity of the i nstallation" will be based on pressure responses.
It is not clear what the final indication of integrity of the installation will be.
Apparently, the installation will be placed in operation with only a " preliminary indication of the integrity of the installation."
This point should be clarified by stating what the final method of integrity testing will be.
The schedule for LHS testing in RRL-2 is on page 49 of the document under review.
The schedule indicates that only a short period of time in November of fiscal year 1986 is allowed for the pre-test period and the injection test in the Cohassett flow top in borehole RRL-2B.
The time frame is much shorter than that designated for the Rocky Coulee.
Cohassett flow
- bottom, and Umtanum flow teos.
The short period of time designated for testing the Cohassett flow too apparently is based on the icw hydraulic conductivity apparent from testing in borehole RRL-OA.
It should be noted somewhere in the document under review that this short period of testing is based on the supposition that large quantities of water cannot be pumped from the Cohassett flow top in RRL-29.
This restricts the test of the Cohassett flow top to a short term, injection test.
The document under
9 review does not appear to allow for the possibilitv that RRL-CB mav in fact intersect a higher hvdraulic conductivity
- ene that was encountered in RRL-2A.
The ability to pump test the Cohassett flow top would push the schedule for testing back and would approach the coint in time at which the exploratorv shaft penetrates the Grande Rondo Basalt.
This potential' schedule conflict should be addressed with respect to potential test cha.iges for the Cohassett flow top.
SUGGESTED FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITY:
DOE should be notified of the deficiencies noted in the document under review.
REFERENCES CITED:
Lu.
A.H.,
and Yeh.
W.W.G.
no date.
Basalt System Characteri:ation:
Inverse Technique.
Paper prepared under the auspices of Rockwell Hanford Operations.
U WMGT DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET FILE 1:
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS 1:
SD-BWI-TP-039 DOCUMENT:
Integrity Testing Plans for Selected Hanford Site Monitoring Wells REVIEWER:
Williams and Associates. Inc.
DATE PEVIEW COMPLETED:
June 1985 EPIEF
SUMMARY
OF DOCUMENT:
DATE APPROVED:.
The document under review contains descriptions of the. site, geologic
- setting, and hydrologic setting.
These descriptions provide the background for the topic (integrity testing) of the document under review.
This document describes the planned tests and the types of geophysical logs which will-be used on several boreholes located around the Hanford Reservation.
The testing strategv.
expected results of the
- testing, and the possible results of the testing are described for each borehole.
The
~
subject boreholes are-DB-1. DB-0. DB-4 DB-7. DB-9, DB-11. DD-10.
DB-14 O' Brian well. DH-98. Ford well. and Enveart well.
The basic testing strategy outlined for these wells and boreholes will be initiated by running several borehole geophysical logs.
The logs will be evaluated.
A straddle packer system will bo installed in the borehole based on the evaluation of these logs.
The straddle packer will be in'talled so that the casing shoe is s
located between the two packer units.- The next phase of the testing censists of wither evacuating or filling the annulus with water while monitoring-pressure responses in the straddled interval and in the annulus.
It should be noted that the term annulus is used in the report under review (see attached figure) to define that portion of the borehole located between the packer assembly connector tubing and the casing in which the packer is installed.
This distinction should be noted since tho' term annulus usually is used to designate that portion of the borehole located between the wall of the borehole and the outermost string of casing.
This distinction should be kept in mind when reviewing the predicted results of the testing for each borehole.
t
The final testing procedure consists of either evacuating or filling the test interval with water while monitoring the annulus 2nd interval water pressures.
The outlined methodologv is aimed at testing the integrity of the casing shoe and seal at the lower end of the last string of casing.
The investigators hope to observe no pressure changes after evacuating or filling the test interval.
The length of time allowed for monitoring pressures is not addressed. The absence of pressure change, they believe, will indicate that the casing shoe and the bottom of the casing are sealed.
The outlined test strategy ic modified for particular instances involving variations from the basic well configuration.
These modifications are outlined in the report under review.
SIGNIFICANCE TO NRC WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM:
The procedures outlined in the document under review are i.noor t an t to the overall licensing process because these crocedures will help verifv that the wells are suitable for obtaining high quality water level and/or downhole pressure data.
The water level and downhole, pressure dat'a are' required for'the
.neasurement of hvdraulic' gradient and' the direction of ground water flow at the Hanford nito.
High quality data are required for the atte because low hydraulic gradients aoparently e'r i s t.
both in lateral and vertical directions.
FAOBLEMS. DEFICIENCIES OR LIMITATIONS QF REPORT:
S A consistent error occurs in the discussion of "Eupected Results" and "Possible Results" of the testing throughout the document under review.
This consistent error consists of the absence of recognition that the basalts either below the lowermost straddle cact ar or between the straddle packers probably have a
finito hydraulic conductivitv.
In order for the test results to be interoreted tn a unique manner it is necessary that the basalt (interter 9 beneath the lowermost packer be essentially impermeable.
This information must be assumed because the tests will be conducted in this basalt flow (i nteri or7).
This hvdraulic conductivity may or may not be sufficient 1v icw to inhibit the movement of fluid and the transfer of a pressure pulse from the test interval or annulus.
The descriptions of possible and e>rpected results are adequate f or this low hydraulic conductivity case because the investigators are looking for a
- ero pressure change after imposing a stress.
On the other hand, the hydraulic conducti vi tv of the basalts exposed in the borehole mav be high enough that a
pressure pulse and fluid can be trensferred away from the stressed interval.
Leakage of fluid around the packer elements mav not result-in a
concomitant, detectable pressure change in an adjacent " isolated" interval because the fluid may bleed-off into the finite hydraulic conductivity basalt in the interval that is assumed to be
~
1 2
" isolated".
'The above described deficiency in this report can be noted under Item 6
of "Encected Results" on page 14 of the document under review.
This item refers to the integritv testing of borehole DB-1.
This item states that the pressure remains constant in interval P2 (see attached figure) subsequent to stressing the interval monitored by P2.
We wish to point out that a constant pressure is not possible if the basalt has a
finite hydraulic conductivityt some pressure bleed-off into the finite hydraulic conductivity basalt must occur.
However.
the hydraulic conductivity may be so low that the pressure bleed-off from the stress will be minimal over the test period in which case the pressure may appear to be constant when in reality,it is not.
The point that the basalt may have a
finite hydraulic conductivity is not considered adequatelv in the discussion on page 14 under "Pessible Pesults". Item Sa. 64, and 6c.
Item Sa assumes that a pressure change in transducer P2 does not occur 31though a
pressure change does occur in the
,nulus (P3) after t
the annulus is stressed.
The absence of pre sure change' in intervr1 P2 is stated as being indicative of a caring leak.
This conclusion is not warranted because flow could o ur around the packer into the interval P2 without detection by the transducers.
Pressure build-up would not occur in interval P2 because the hydraulic conductivity of the basalts would allow the dissipation of the influx of water without a concomitant, measurable increase in pressure.
This point is especially relevant due to the moderate sensitivity of the transducers to small pressure changes.
The report under review does not describe the amount nf 1
head (nressure) changes which will be induced on the units beino t9ated.
item 6a ipage 14) censiders the stressing of the interval monitcred bv transducer P2.
Item 6a assumes that a constant pressure detected by transducer P1 is indicative of a-good straddle packer seal.
As noted above, fluid could move into the P1 :ene without causing a concomitant pressure change.
The high hydraulic conducti vi ty of the ene could prevent the build-up of pressure at P1.
Item 6c makes the same tacit assumption in the description of another possible result of stressing the interval monitored bv transducer P2.
It is assumed that there is a
pressure change in transducer P2 but not in transducer P1.
Again, it is possible for fluid to move from transducer P2 to transducer P1 without a
measurable pressure increase in transducer Pl.
The high hydraulic conductivity of the basalt at P1 may allow the dissipation of pressure without causing a measurable pressure change at P1.
The previous discussion is appropriate for subsequent discussions
0 4
of testing results in the document under review.
The same basic lack of consideration of all possible test results is consistent.
Some uncertainty exists with respect to the design of equipment in borehole DB-9 (page 21-02).
Figure 7 (page 22) indicates that the stainless steel screen was set in the bottom of the hole without a riser pipe extending up into the casing.
This is not a common well completion practice.
No description is given in the document under revaew with respect to this point.
Figure 7
indicates that the screen is separated from the casing bv a 29-foot gap.
This unusual well completion should be explained in the document under review.
The testing strategy for borehole DB-11 differs from that described for the other boreholes and wells.
It appears that Rockwell does not intend to set a packer and tubing string in this well.
This well has a sidetracked hole which is open to tho annulus between the inner casing and the borehole wall.
The apparent test strategy will.
allow water to flow from the sidetracked hole and interconnected borchole annulus during the enoni tor i ng of the pressure in the interval isolated bv the inner casing.
The second part of the test strategv allows water to flow from the interval below the inner casing during the monitoring of pressure in the borehole annulus that is open ontv to the sidetracked hole.
This procedure will allow Rockwell to determine whether there is an adequate seal at the casing shoe or whether there is an interconnection between units via this sidetracked hole.
Rockwell presents the planned test strategv as a
means of testing the integrity of the casing shoe seal.
The integrity of the casing shoe seal can be verified only if there no corresconding pressure change in the nonstressed :ene.
The is results of the test will be indeterminate as to whether the pressure response in the unstressed interval is due to the shoe seal le aFing or the hydraulic interconnection creatted bv the sidetracked hole.
Sorehole DB-14 has two strings of tubing hanging in the well at this time.
The testing strategy description and subsequent descriptions of expected results and possible results in this document do not correspond with the numerical order of their presentation as practiced in the other descriptions.
This problem of presentation is particularly relevant with respect to the expected results.
The m'epected results are numerically out of order with respect to tha numerical order of the testing strategy.
The description of possible results for the Enveart well (page 25) is not consistent with the numbered items of the testing strategy.
This problem with item numbering is noted in our discussion of the previous borehole.
This problem leads to
t 1
5 difficulty in interpreting the outline of expected resulta of the
-testing.
This problem should be clarified in the document under I,
review.
i SUGGESTED FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITY:
)
i DOE and Rockwell Hanford Operations should clarify the questions raised in our review of this document.
The " Expected Results" of i
testing and the "Possible Results" of testing are not developed
~
adequately in the document under review.
The document should be expanded to present a more comprehensive analysis of the results of the testing.
A cursorv review of the data developed from 1
these tests could lead to a
misinterpretation of the data.
j Erroneous conclusions can result without a complete understanding of the system being tested.
i b
6 f
1 i
i e
h f
i
.l I
t.
i
SD-BWI-TP-039 REV 0
)
n wL p TEsTINTERVAL WATM LEVE.
g l
l PACKER AsegugLy p
cosmecton Tuano W
m y soneHoLa WAu.
N A
wt WATER LEVEL e
l messuneuaAsuneueur comt i
P3 cAsmo sacs smAcota racxan t
6 I
i I
6 l
l o,..on l
I I
I l
I l
i l
somman.orro.
L__
J FIGURE 2.
Typical Configuration of Straddle Packer System as Used for Integrity Testing.
g 1-i i
i j
WMGT DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET
^
j.
F.LE 1:
1 l
ROCKWELL HANFORD OPERATIONS 1:
SD-BWI-DP-059 1
.43
~
DOCUMENT:
Water-Level, Downhole Pressure and Atmospheric Pressure Maasurements from Pie:ometer Clusters DC-19.
y DC-20 and DC-22, December 1 through December 31, 1984 l
REVIEWER:
Williams & Associates, Inc.
I QATE REVIEW COMPLETED:
June 1995 t
j BRIEF
SUMMARY
QE DOCUMENT:
Q&IE APPROVED:
I J
The document reviewed herein is a
data package report' ~that j
includes water level measurements, downhole pressure j
measurements, and atmospheric pressure measurements for the pie:ometer sets at locations DC-19. DC-20, and DC-22.
The data included in the document are for the period December 1
through j
December 31, 1984.
The report discusses limitations associated
(
with the data.
The report'also'inc1'udes inf ormati on' concerning j
the location of the pio ometers and the' elevation and depth of j
the pio:ometers at the cluster sites..
Steel tape water level j
data and downhole pressure data are present4d in tabulated form.
L
?
SIGNIFICANCE IQ fjEG,)J&ETE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM:
4 This dccument is important to.the overall licensing process i
because the information contained therein constitutes a part of j
the baseline data being obtained at the'BWIP site.
This baseline information
.onstitutes the long-term water level data being r
j collec'.ed t*; ystablish ground water flow directions and, gradients j
at the site.
1 l
FROBLEMS. DEFICIENCIES QE LIMITATIONS QE REPCPT:
1-We have calculated the mean values for the depth.to water level.
1 measurements below a
control datum.
.These mean values were
[
calculated for the Mabton'interbed (DC-19D. DC-200. and DC-::D).
the Priest R3pids interflow zone..the Sentinel Gap flow too, the i
4 l
Ginkgo flow top, the Rocky Coulee flow top, the 'Cohassett flow a,
j i
-,++m-.
,-w-
=
2 too.
and the Umtanum flow top (DC-19C. DC-20C. and DC-20C).
We calculated the mean values of daily water levels for the month of record in the appropriate pie:ometers to minimi:e the effects of barometric and earth tide influences on the water levels.
These summari:ed data have been plotted on the attached figures.
Water levels generally are recovering in the Grande Ronds Formation.
Water levels in the Mabten Interbed and the Wanapum Formation basically have stabili:ed although some une:t pl ai ned fluctuations are occurring in the water level data.
The downhole pressure data were not evaluated in our review.
The report under review notes tnat there is a
definite drift associated with data obtained from the downhole pressure transducers.
This drift is being investigated but no conclusions have been reached at this time.
We believe that the depth to water level measurements are the most useful information for current analyses.
SUGGESTED EQLLOW-UP ACTIVITY:
We suggest that subsequent data reports be supplied to Williams' and Associates. Inc.
The data will be evaluated in the same manner as the data in the report under review.
The use of mean values will minimi:e if not eliminate the ef f ects of barometric and earth tide influences on the water level measurements.
The data presented in the attached figures is at a more appropriate scale for ascertaining the long-term water level recovery from drilling activities.
r e
t e
s
227 DEPTH TO WATER BELOW CONTROL DATUM FOR DC-ISC-MEAN MONTHLY VALUES 402 X
X 228 F-401 3 b
m l
E 2
W
[
Il l
c 3
5 o
(N /
m t
y
,t
<C
~/
b
$ 229 l
W f
O 400
~
s l
s I
o Priest Rapids A Sentinel Gap o Ginkgo x Rocky Coulee 4
230 X
a Cohossett 399 e Umtonum i
I f
f f
f f
f f
f J
,J A
S O
N D
J F
M A
1984 1985
s
'b s
. \\ ' '.
\\
r s
3C6FDEPTH TO WATER BELOW CONTROL DATUM FO.i DC-20C-MEAN MONTHLY VALUES l
[
-'405 i
~,
4 1
i s
}
307 -
x 4
404 i
Y
=
W
{
b a
j Qll W
1 W
N 2
H. 308
>I 43 u.
o
(
y i
t g3 3 H
s
~
1>
i Q.
W W
N
s c
c' Priest Rapids J
\\
w s
4 A
a Seminei Goo s
N o hinkgo t~
309 x Rocky Coulee a Cohessett l
e Umtenurn i
402 i
A i
1 e
x l
A l
y i,0 8 1
v%
\\'
it t
t t
t t
t I
f5 1
J A
3 0
N O
J F
M A
4 1984 7
1985 n
s
\\
1 e
t h
,k 3
s k-
2se CEPTM TO WATER BEC,W CONTMCL CATIJM PCR OC 22C-MEAN MCNTMLY VAWE3
-4cs 294 =
i
<0s
- 403 l
\\
m y
k 25
- d 5
i g,
/
-. s 5
=
0 S
M s=
a W
i W 269
- a C
401 S
/= g m
a w names t
a Sennent Gao a
e Sinage
-400
- Nessy Comme a Canomeart e ummumma r
I I
271 =
a l
272 4
J A
S Q 4
0 J
F W
A 1984' l
lMS
MTER I. EVE. G.EVAT1CN. ACCMY CCULEE M.CW TCPi CC.ISC OC.2CC, a CC.22C <
4CS =
s a DC.49 C e DC.20C e OC.22C k
)
4 F
e 403 -
M 3
4
>=&W a
9 E
t l
w
.s
.sw J
W l
[
f w 401 -
3
=d i
Ew E
5 400 -
a 1
I 4
399 -
+
t
=
+
l
+
39g J
J' A S C M. 0 J F M A 1984 h-i 1985 g,
l i
I b
? *s 4
f_
3 1
I
WATEJt LEVEL ELIVATICN CCHASSETT FLCW TCP: OC-19C, OC-20C & CC-12C s DC.is C e DC-30 C
- OC.22 C 404 -
403 -
402 -
1 Eh 5
i:(
h 401
/h
=
w
/
d i
>w a
aw N
- 400.
1 399 -
4 L
398 J J A S O N O J F M A 1944 l
1985 l
. ~
i WATEM LEVEL ELEVATION - UMTANUM FLOW TCP; OC-19C, OC-20C, S DC-22C z OC it C
'~
o QC.2CC e OC 22 C 405 -
404 -
2 d
i 4cs -
zC5 5w a
W>
r 5 4ca
=
<3
/
.ai n,
/
400 J
J A S
0 N O
J F M A l
1984 1985 4
5
MASTON INTERBED l
DEPTH TO WATER BELOW CONTROL DATUM
-20s. FOR DC-190- MEAN MONTHLY VALUES a
E y
4 21 4 I
6 T
N
~
y s
a 42o.5 5 l
w
.J
~
(
I i
DEPTH TO WATER BELOW CONTROL DATUM FOR DC-200- MEAN MONTHLY VALUES P
l 3
4 296 -
un e
a:
2 414 p!,
j W
T w
i 3
i l
o 8
413.5 %
f 5
1 w
w J
?
297 -
i I
DEPTH TO WATER BELOW CONTROL DATUM FOR DC-220-MEAN MONTHLY VALUES i
P a
Em g
i l
2:
4it i
w a
k, t
o M
l 410.5 g w
?'
A
.J w
W C
MO' J
J A
S O
N D
J F
M A
I 1984.
l 1985 f
l
.,