Kennewick ASR Feasibility Assessment

May 2017

Prepared by: Lizzi Haas, L.G.

What Makes an ASR Project Feasible?

● Injection Water Availability

● Hydrogeolgy

● Geochemical Compatibility

Hydrogeology - Site Overview

Hydrogeology – Target Aquifer ● Transmissivity Saddle Mountains = 3,500-

19,500 gpd/ft Wanapum =10,000-385,000

gpd/ft

● Wanapum Yield Estimates 200-1,200 gpm

● Wanapum confined by the Mabton Interbed

● Target ASR – Wanapum Formation

Hydrogeology – Well Drilling/Installation

Hydrogeology – Production Zone ● 980 ft to 1,173 ft

● Wanapum (Roza/Frenchman Springs)

Priest Rapids Member (800-980)

Roza Member (980-1,090)

Frenchman Springs Member (1,090-??)

Cum

ulative Flow Estim

ates (airlift-gpm

)

800 – 1,000

200 – 500

2,000+

50 – 100

Hydrogeology – Aquifer Testing ● Step Rate Test 550,000 gpd/ft

● Constant Rate Test 950 gpm for 35 hours SC = 68 gpm/ft 617,000 gpd/ft

6

Eden and Hazel - Step 1

20.0

16.0

12.0

8.0

4.0

0.0

0 701 1402 2103 2804 3505

Draw

down

(ft)

H (gal/min * log(sec))

A

X Observed Drawdown Optimized Regression

p

20.0

16.0

12.0

8.0

4.0

0.0

100 101 102 103 104 105

Dra

wdo

wn

(ft)

Time (min)

A

Cooper - Jacob AnalysisT = (264•Q)/∆sQ = 950 gpm

∆s = 0.06 feetT = (264•950)/0.06 = 570,000 gpd/ft

Hydrogeology – Injection Projected Well Performance

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Spec

ific

Capa

city

(gpm

/ft)

Elapsed Time (min)

Predicted Specific Capacityat 1,600 gpm = 46 gpm/ft

Projected Specific Capacity38 gpm/ft after 350,000 min

(6 months) of recharge

Projected Buildup 1,600 gpm/(38 gpm/ft) = 42 feet

Specific Capacity - June 2011 Constant-Rate Test

Hydrogeology – Recovery Projected Well Performance

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

10 100 1000 10000 100000

Spec

ific

Capa

city

(gpm

/ft)

Elapsed Time (min)

Predicted Specific Capacityat 2,100 gpm = 39 gpm/ft

Projected Specific Capacity31 gpm/ft after 175,000 min

(4 months) of recovery

Projected Drawdown 2,100 gpm/(31 gpm/ft) = 67 feet

Specific Capacity - June 2011 Constant-Rate Test

Geochemical Compatibility ● Regulatory Compliance 173-200 WAC

(Groundwater Standards) 246-290 (Primary and

Secondary Drinking Water Standards (MCL/SMCL)

● Well Performance ● Recovered Water Quality

Geochemical Compatibility – Bulk Mineraology

● MAJOR MINERAL PHASES Plagioclase 38 - 49 wt.% Augite 28 – 36 wt.% Montmorillonite (clay) 0 – 25 wt.%

● MINOR PHASES Pyrite 0 – 3 wt.% Magnetite 0 – 5 wt.% Hematite 0 – 7 wt.% Ilmenite 0 – 2 wt.% Calcite / dolomite 0 – 1 wt.%

Geochemical Compatibility – Water Characterization Na

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3

SO4

Na

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3

SO4

Cl

HCO3

SO4

Na

Ca

Mg

Cl

HCO3

SO4

Na

Ca

Mg

ASR RC 4

RC 5 Columbia River

Geochemical Compatibility – Water Characterization ● Groundwater and source water are below regulatory limits

(exception – arsenic values are greater than the WAC 173-200-040 groundwater criteria)

● Circumneutral pH – groundwater and recharge water ● Groundwater is reduced ● Sulfide Oxidation - potential for changes groundwater/recovered

water quality Molybdenum appears to be the only element that would likely be released due to

sulfide dissolution

● Redox conditions in aquifer - conducive to degradation of THMs ● Clay Reactivity - potential for changes groundwater and

recovered water quality or impacts to well performance ● Native Groundwater is Warm ~82º F

AKART ● All known, available and reasonable methods of

prevention, control and treatment ● DBP’s – Arsenic ● RO = Most reliable and effective ($7.4 MD) ● Requested OPI from Ecology Low risk of impacts to background/recovered WQ Costs associated with treatment Public/Environmental/Economic benefits

13

Is the Project Feasible? ● Source Water Availability Yes – Through the City’s Columbia River Water

Treatment Plant and Ranney Collector Wells

● Hydrogeology 6 Months Injection – 42 feet of buildup at 1,600 gpm 4 Months Recovery – 67 feet of drawdown at 2,100 gpm

● Geochemical Compatibility Surface and Groundwater meet MCLs/SMCLs Potential for sulfate oxidation – molybdenum could

potentially mobilize High Native Groundwater Temperature = Thermal

Storage Zone

Questions? 15