Record~> › Los Alamos National Labs › Gene… · Cc: Subject: FW: Response to Comments Revision Ill Well Rehab Report Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:05:31

ERID-095030 1) EMAIL-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REVISION THREE WELL RE... Page 1 of 2

Document,. Discussion ... ,..~ I ?

Return To Library > Record~> ERID-95001 through ERID-95500 > ERID-095030 1) EMAIL-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REVISION THREE WELL REHAB REPORT 2) FINAL REVISION 1, REHABILITATION REPORT FOR REGIONAL WELLS R-20 AND R-16, LANL PROJECT NO. 68402

Created By: File name: Version: Document Type: Description:

Document Details:

Janelle V. Vigil Target-ERID #!.pdf 2.0 RPF Record SUBMITTED BY DEBBIE BRY AN;LWSP. AUTHOR REQUEST THAT THE DISPUTATION COMMENTS BE INCLUDED WITH THE SUBCONTRACTORS REPORT. THE COMMENTS REFLECT POSITIONS TAKEN BY LANL WSP THAT DIFFER FROM KLEINFELDER.

Title:

ERID Number.StartPage:

ERID-095030 1) EMAIL-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REVISION THREE WELL REHAB REPORT 2) FINAL REVISION 1, REHABILITATION REPORT FOR REGIONAL WELLS R-20 AND R-16, LANL PROJECT NO. 68402 ERID-095030

Office of Record: Date Received: Official Use Only: Page Count: Record Type: Document Date: To:(Addressees - Organization) (separate multiple values with semicolons) From:(Senders - Organization) (separate multiple values with semicolons) Other Document Number(s): (separate multiple values with semicolons) TA: separate multiple values vvith semicolons)

ENV-ERSS 03/12/2007 N 6 E-Mail 02/28/2007 MAT JOHANSEN STEVE PEARSON

BARBARA EVERETT

N/A

N/A

PRS Number(s): N/A (separate multiple values with semicolons) Record Box Number:

*Denotes Fields that are mandatory.

To download this Target-ERID #l.pdf <--This link points to this version. file, right mouse

I \11\11 \\II\ IIIII I\\\\ 1111\ 1\1\ \II\ 1464\

click on the file To check-out and/or edit this file. select Edit Document or Check Out

httn·//iclnrm::m~H:rf> bini <mv/R7?'\7?0'\00'\FRrAA/ A li.+OnrumPnt.:.:/?7R017F 1 Rr? 1 RRQRR7 1/1 '\/?()07

Steve Pearson, 12:05 PM 2/28/2007, FW: Response to Comments Revision Ill Well Rehab Report

X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 From: "Steve Pearson" <[email protected]> To: "'Ardyth Simmons"' <[email protected]>,

"'Jean M. Dewart"' <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Response to Comments Revision Ill Well Rehab Report Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:05:31 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcdbZ6KJLPP9uK 1 VRPi2s/cuU1 ok7 AAAvcFg X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075

Ardyth, I think we can agree to disagree and make the appropriate statements in our report.

From: Barbara Everett [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:38 AM To: Mat Johansen; Steve Pearson; <Ardyth Simmons Cc: Hyland B SPK Morrow Subject: Response to Comments Revision III Well Rehab Report

Steve,

Please find attached Kleinfelder's proposed revisions. Let me know if these are acceptable.

Barbara Everett, R.G., P.G. Program Manager Kleinfelder, Inc.

beverett@kleinfelder .com (505) 344-7373, ext 209 office (505) 344-1711 fax

8300 Jefferson NE, Suite B Albuquerque, NM 87113

Printed for Ardyth Simmons <[email protected]> 1

Steve Pearson, 12:05 PM 2/28/2007, FW: Response to Comments Revision Ill Well Rehab Report

liil. J Kleinfelder Revision Ill 2-28-071.doc


Response to Comments dated 02/27/07 from Steve Pearson, LANL re: R-16/R-20 Well Rehabilitation Report.

Page 1 of2

Pearson comment

Section 1.0, para. 4, 41h bullet:

Kleinfelder Revision III:

The screened intervals were swabbed, bailed, and pumped. Additionally, at R-20, the Hydropuls:ID tool was operated in all three screens. The Hydropuls is a tool that uses compressed nitrogen emitted in short bursts to dislodge fine-grained material from the well's filter pack.

Discussion for Rev III: In keeping with the context of this bullet, reference to the jetting has been deleted. It is addressed in 3.2.

Section 3.2 First Phase of Rehabilitation Activities Revision: The first phase of rehabilitation activities consisted of video logging the well interior and conducting initial specific capacity trial tests on the three screens. Next each screen was swabbed, bailed, and pumped. Jetting of the upper screen was attempted, but was unsuccessful; therefore, not attempted on the middle and lower screens. Next the Hydropuls(ll:' tool was operated at each screen, and then swabbed and bailed again. Follow-up specific capacity tests were then conducted.

Kleinfeld proposes to rewrite the first 3 paragraphs Kleinfelder Revision III (3.2.3 Paragraphs 1-3):

Initial redevelopment ofthe tlu·ee screens was conducted between July 9 and July 11, 2006. The three screens were swabbed and bailed. Jetting of the upper screen was attempted, but was unsuccessful due to clogging of the jetting ports. The jetting tool was serviced, but excessive vibration of the pipe string continued with its use. Due to concems for safety and equipment failure, attempts to jet the screens were discontinued. The three screens were then swabbed and bailed again.

On July 12, a Hydropuls<ID tool was used in the well to support redevelopment of the screens. The Hydropuls'R• is a tool that uses compressed nitrogen emitted in short bursts to dislodge fine-grained material from the well's filter pack. The original set up configuration suspended the Hydropuls'v below the submersible pump via Yz-in pressurerated nitrogen supply hose. This configuration would allow the well to be pumped inm1ediately after HydropulsiJ1' operation. On July 12, the Hydropuls® tool was operated in the lower and middle screens with this setup. Each screen was hydropulsed for 13 minutes (min), then pumped for approximately 35 min, then hydropulsed for 8 to 9 min, and finally pumped again. The hydropulsing was deemed to be operative because

Response to Comments dated 02/27/07 from Steve Pearson, LANL re: R-16/R-20 Well Rehabilitation Report.

Page 2 of2 turbidity levels decreased from >1,000 to 13.6 NTUs for the lower screen and from a high of 455 to 55.1 NTUs for the middle screen.

On July 13, the Hydropuls® tool was operated in the upper screen for approximately 12 min, in the same configuration as was used on July 12; turbidity levels decreased from 485 to 23.5 NTUs during the 16 min of follow-up pumping. Excessive nitrogen was observed in the discharge, so the equipment was retrieved from the hole. It was discovered that the HydropulsJf; had separated fi·om the nitrogen supply hose and had been left in the well. The tool and centralizer were fished from the well on July 14, 2006.

On July 15, 2006 equipment setup was reconfigured due to the problems encountered. The Hydropuls® tool was suspended on a sand line without a submersible pump. The Hydropuls\B) tool was operated in the upper and middle screens at R-20. As the crew was lowering the tool into the lower screen, the tool and cable became stuck in the well casing. The Hydropuls® was not operated in the lower screen on July 15. The tool and cable was retrieved on July 16 without incidence. At that point Kleinfelder was directed to discontinue using the Hydropulsr;t and to resume using conventional redevelopment techniques to complete the rehabilitation activities .

.1.3.1 Logging

Kleinfelder Revision III:

On July 23, 2006 LANL personnel ran a second video log in the well to inspect the well screens. The video run was terminated after reaching the middle screen due to very poor visibility. Approximately 500 gallons of clear potable water was introduced into the well in an attempt to improve visibility for another logging attempt the following day. On July 24,2006 a video nm was made to a depth of 1348'; all screens were visible except the bottom portion ofthe lower screen. All screens were observed to be intact and no obvious intrusion ofbentonite was noted at the screen surfaces. The July 24 video is included as a DVD in Appendix A. On July 25, 2006 LANL personnel ran a gamma ray log to supplement the video data recorded the day before.

Discussion to Rev HI: Minor changes made to keep fonnatting consistency within Kleinfelder's report.

Steve Pearson, 10:28 AM 2/28/2007, FW: Revised comments Ill Well Rehabilitation Report

X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 From: "Steve Pearson" <[email protected]> To: "'Ardyth Simmons"' <[email protected]>,

'"Jean M. Dewart"' <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Revised comments Ill Well Rehabilitation Report Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:28:30-0700 X-rvlailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcdbUs7mnYJfDTe1TZyjWbWtm1kLCwACsPOQ X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075

Kleinfelder is still resisting/a110iding the problem that we identified by our comments. From Barbara's e-mail they are still not addressing our concerns.

From: Barbara Everett [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:09 AM To: Steve Pearson Cc: Mat Johansen Subject: Revised comments m Well Rehabilitation Report

Steve:

Matt Johansen and I spoke this morning about the revisions to the report. I indicated that I have some concerns about your revisions II. It is unclear to me what is the goal of these revisions. Kleinfelder feels that it is important to include the turbidity data that shows the affect the Hydropuls tool had on a screen. To eliminate or discount the data in favor of reporting Klan's unsubstantiated opinion of the operation of the tool is inappropriate. Per my discussion with Matt, I will modify the text of the report to describe the configuration of the setup of the tool and pump and expand on the problems encountered, thus the conclusion that it was not necessarily the right tool for these wells. I will forward to you the rev m shortly.

Barbara Everett, R.G., P.G. Program Manager Kleinfelder, Inc.

beverett@kleinfelder .com (505) 344-7373, ext 209 office (505) 344-1711 fax

8300 Jefferson NE, Suite B Albuquerque, NM 87113


Steve Pearson, 10:28 AM 2/28/2007, FW: Revised comments Ill Well Rehabilitation Report


FINALREV.l REHABILITATION REPORT FOR REGIONAL WELLS R-20 AND R-16 LOS ALAIVfOS NATIONAL LABORATORY LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO PROJECT NO. 68402

Prepared for:

The US Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration tlu·ough the US /\.nny Corps of Engineers Sacramento District

Prepared by:

8300 Jefferson NE, Suite B Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113

1\farch 2007

F ""

Rehabilitation Reportfor Regional WellsR-2~ and R-16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Field Responsibilities and Training ........................................................................ 3 1.1. l Health and Safety Training ......................................................................... 3

2.0 SITE PREPi\RATION ........................................................................................................ 3 3.0 R-20 REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES ........................................................................... 3

3.1 Removal ofthe Westbay Sampling System ............................................................ 5 3 .2 First Phase of Rehabilitation Activities .................................................................. 5

3. 2.1 Video Logging ............................................................................................. 5 3.2.2 Initial Specific Capacity Tests .................................................................... 5 3. 2. 3 Rehabilitation Activities .............................................................................. 5 3.2.4 Followup Specific Capacity Tests ............................................................... 6

3.3 Second Phase of Rehabilitation Activities .............................................................. 6 3.3:1 Logging ....................................................................................................... 6 3. 3. 2 Rehabilitation Activities- Upper and Afiddle Screens ............................... 7 3. 3. 3 Specific Capacity Tests ............................................................................... 7

3.4 Third Phase of Rehabilitation Activities ................................................................. 7 3. 4. 1 Lower Screen -Additional Jetting plus 8-hr Specific Capacity Test ......... 7 3. 4. 2 Upper Screen - Short Pumping plus Sampling. .......................................... 8

3.5 Specific Capacity Test Data .................................................................................... 8 3.6 Groundwater Sample Collection ........................................................................... 12 3.7 R-20 Well Status ................................................................................................... J3

4.0 R-16 REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES ......................................................................... 13 4.1 Removal of the Westbay Sampling System .......................................................... 13 4.2 Video Logging ...................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Specific Capacity Tests ......................................................................................... 16

4.3.1 Upper- Screen #2 ..................................................................................... 16 4.3.2 lvfiddle- Screen #3 .................................................................................... 17 4.3.3 Lower- Screen #4 ..................................................................................... 17

4.4 Groundwater Sample Collection ........................................................................... 17 4.5 R-16 Well Status ................................................................................................... 17

5.0 l~VESTIGATION-DERfVED WASTE .......................................................................... 19 6.0 SITE RESTORA TIO~ ..................................................................................................... 19 7.0 SU.l\1Iv1ARY ...................................................................................................................... 19 8.0 REFERENC:ES ................................................................................................................. 20

Kfeinfelder Project No. 68402 ii March2007 Rev. I

_______ Rehabili~(lfion_Rp!!_rtfor Regional Wells R-20 and R-16

Table of Contents (continued)

Figures

1.0-1 Site Location Map 3.0-1 R-20 Well Construction Diagrmn 3.5-1 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Initial Upper Screen Test 3.5-2 Water Quality Parmneters- R-20 Final Upper Screen Test 3.5-3 \Vater Quality Parameters- R-20 Initial Middle Screen Test 3.5-4 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Combined Upper and Middle Screen Tests 3.5-5 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Initial Lower Screen Test 3.5-6 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Initial Lower Screen Test 3.5-7 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Lower Screen Tests 3.5-8 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Final Lower Screen Test 3.7-1 R-20 Well Schematic 4.0-1 R-16 Well Construction Diagram 4.3-1 Water Quality Parameters- R-16 Upper Screen Test 4.3-2 Water Quality Parameters- R-16 Middle Screen Test 4.3-3 \Vater Quality Parameters- R-16 Lower Screen Test 4.5-1 R-16 Well Schematic

Tables

3.5-1 R-20 Specific Capacity Test Data 4.3-1 R-16 Specific Capacity Test Data

Appendices

DVDs ofVideo Logs Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

Water Quality Parmneters Measured During Specific Capacity Tests Westbay Reinstallation Log

Kleil?felder Project No. 68402 iii March2007 Rev. 1

Rehabilitation Reportfor Reg;onal Wells R-20 and R-16

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

bgs BMPs oc DOE DVD ft ft3

gal. gpm hour/hours hp ID m. Kleinfelder LANL 111111

NMED NTUs OD SOPs SSHASP TD }.iS/em WDC

below ground surface Best Management Practices degrees Celsius US Department of Energy digital video disc foot/feet cubic feet gallon/ gallons gallons per minute hr/hrs horsepower inside diameter inch/inches Kleinfelder, Inc. Los Alamos National Laboratory minute/minutes New Mexico Envirmm1ent Department nephelometric turbidity units outside diameter Standard Operating Procedures Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan total depth microSiemens per centimeter WDC Exploration & Wells

K!einfelder Project No. 68402 iv March 2007 Rev. I

Rehabilitation Reportfor Regional Wells R-20 and R-16

l.O INTRODUCTION

This report prest:nts the activities associated with the rehabilitation of regional wells R-20 and R-16 at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The wells were installed in 2002 for the United States Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the LANL "Hydrogeologic Work Plan" (LANL 1998). The United States Army Corps of Engineers contracted Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) to perform this work at the direction of DOE and LL\NL persormel. The activities summarized herein were conducted in accordru1ce with the "Work Plru1 for Rehabilitation of Regional Wells R-16 and R-20, Final," (Kleinfelder 2006a).

R-20 is located in Pajarito Canyon east of Technical Area 18 (Figure 1 .0-1). It was drilled to 1,365 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) with fluid-assisted air rotary and mud rotary techniques, and was completed with three screened intervals in the regional aquifer. The upper, middle and lower screened intervals are 904.6 - 912.2 ft bgs, 1147.1 - 1154.7 ft bgs, and 1328.8 --1336.5 ft bgs, respectively. R-16 was drilled in Canada del Buey (Figure 1.0-1 ), to 1,287 .ft bgs with the same drilling techniques, and was completed with four screened intervals in the regional aquifer. However, the upper screened interval is blocked by drill casing that could not be retracted following well installation, so R-16 bas three functioning screened intervals. The three R-16 screens are referred to as upper, middle and lower and are 863.4- 870.9 ft bgs, 1014.8-1022.4 ft bgs, and 1237.0 1244.6 ft bgs, respectively.

The purpose of the rehabilitation activities described herein was to remove potential residual mud-rotary drilling fluids from the filter pack at the screened intervals of the wells. Per the scope of work, the goal was to redevelop each zone until groundwater chemistry was representative of pre-drilling conditions, based on measured concentrations of major ion and trace element chemistry, total organic carbon, isopropyl alcohol ru1d acetone. HO\vever, the analytical data were not available for tlris report so this evaluation could not be made. The data wili be included in a forthcoming LANL report evaluating the hydrochemistry at R-16 and R-20.

The following rehabilitation activities were performed at each well:

• The Westbay multi-port srunpling systems were removed

• Video logs were run of the well interiors

• Initial specific capacity tests were conducted on each screened interval

• The screened intervals were swabbed, bailed, and pumped. Additionally, at R-20, the Hydropuls® tool \Vas operated in all three screens. The Hydropuls is a tool that uses compressed 1ritrogen emitted in short bursts to dislodge fine-grained material from the well's filter pack.

• Follo-vv·up specific capacity tests \Vere conducted on the lower screened interval and the combined upper and middle zones in R-20. Followup specific capacity tests were not conducted at R-16

• The Westbay sampling system was reinstalled in R-16; two packers were installed in R-20 to isolate the screened intervals.

R-20 well rehabilitation activities are presented in Section 3; R-16 well rehabilitation activities are summarized separately in Section 4.

Kleinfelder Project No. 68402 Page 1 of20 March2007 Rev. I

.. .L~~gg~~-~!....-• " lntlf:lm~ediat~<> mm:"ed ;:one wsl!

$:oR&gicn<J!e.quife;wBII'l

1}"Wm<>rsupplyv!e~

i)8=f<?:::~n'cfl,J'<>ait<er.t.fi<.ation

"1l:O·i1 r.,wt~···s

VICINITY Mt\P

Not to Scale r::=== -- Locking Cover

23 in. borehole 0 to 85.0 fl. ----

18 in. cemented casing 0 ft. to 80 fl.--i.r-1'

Oto 75.2ft. ----)

13.375 in casing 0 ft. to 780ft.------+ (cemented a ft. to 75 ft.; bentonite 75ft. to 785ft.)

"17 in. borehole 85.0 ft. to 785ft.------

767.0 to 788.7 ft. --t-1-'7..,..

788.7 to 893.1 ft.

893. 1 to 895. 2 ft. Upper Screen _________ _.....,.

(904.6 to 912.2 ft.) 895.2 to 926.5 ft.

926.5 to 930.0 ft. 12.25 in. borehole 785.0 ft. to 1365 ft. --------\

930.0 to 11303 ft.-

Lower Screen -----------+C..:.!:= (1328.8 to 1336.5 fl.)

-- 10.75 in. protective casing

Cement

Well casing: 4.5 in. 1.0. 5 in. -0.0., 304 stainless steel with external couplings

Bentonite

Cement

Bentonite

(30170) sand

(20/40) sand

(30170) sand

(20/40) sand

(30170) sand

(20/40) sand

(.'30170) sand

Bentonite

(30170) sand

(20140) sand

(30170) sand Bentonite Slough

TO= 1353.3 ft. All depths feet below ground surface

NOTES: 1) This Figure is from "Characterization Well R-20 Completion Report", June 2003, LA-UR-03-1839.

r .. ;;)

! f

----------------------------~--------------------------------~~~--~~ J FIGURE ~

2) Depths for screens are for actual screen intervals, not joints.

K l E I N f E l D E R R-20 Well Construction Diagram ~ Pajarito Canyon 3 • Q -1 f

'--D-ra~w~n-B~y~:~D~·~T~id-em_a_n _______ ·-~--~~~?~te~:~J~a~n~ua~~~2=0:0:7=~~~-------------L-os __ A_Ia_m_o_s._N_e_w_~_~_ex-ic_o------------~--------J~i" .. Project No.: 68402 Filename: 684Cl2_1 O_Ldwg 3i

-------------··---·--·-·Rehabilitation Reportfor Regional TYells R-20 and R-16

3.1 Removal ofthe Westbay Sampling System

WDC and Westbay persmmel removed the R-20 Westbay sampling system between June 28 and July 2, 2006. They initially removed the transducers and solar panel. Next, they deflated and removed the six Westbay packers, and lastly they removed the piping and sampling ports from the well. After removal, the Westbay system components were steam-cleaned and rinsed with deionized water, dried, and placed in plastic bags. The system was placed into storage at the former Field Support Facility.

3.2 First Phase of Rehabilitation Activities

The first phase of rehabilitation activities consisted of video logging the well interior and conducting initial specific capacity trial tests on the three screens. Next each screen was swabbed, bailed, and pumped. Jetting of the upper screen was attempted, but was unsuccessful; therefore, not attempted on the middle and lower screens. Next the Hydropu1s® tool was operated at each screen, and then swabbed and bailed again. Follow-up specific capacity tests were then conducted.

3.2.1 Video Logging

LANL personnel ran a downhole video log at R-20 on July 3, 2006. A copy of the video log is included on a DVD in Appendix A

3.2.2 Initial Specific Capacity Tests

Brief initial specific capacity tests \Vere perfom1ed on the three screened intervals at R-20 from July 6 through 8, 2006. A 6-hr test was run on the upper screen, and 3-hr tests were perfom1ed on the middle and lower screens. The specific capacities from these brief tests were 0.01, 0.01 and 0.09 gallons per minute per foot (gpmlft) for the upper, middle and lower screens, respectively.

Data from the specific capacity tests are summarized in Table 3.5-1, follovving the descriptions of all rehabilitation activities. Figures sho\ving the water quality parameters measured during the tests are grouped by screen and presented in Figures 3.5-1 through 3.5-8.

3.2.3 Rehabilitation Activities

Initial redevelopment of the three screens was conducted betYveen July 9 and July 11, 2006. The three screens were s\vabbed and bailed. Jetting of the upper screen was attempted, but was unsuccessful due to clogging of the jetting pmis. The jetting tool was serviced, but excessive vibration of the pipe string continued with its use. Due to concems for safety and equipment failure, attempts to jet the screens were discontinued. The three screens were then s\vabbed and bailed again.

On July 12, a Hydropuls® tool \Vas used in the well to support redevelopment of the screens. The Hydropuls® is a tool that uses compressed nitrogen emitted in short bursts to dislodge finegrained m~terial from the well's filter pack. The original set up configuration suspended the Hydropulsa9 below the submersible pump via Yz-in pressure-rated nitrogen supply hose. This configuration would allow the well to be pumped immediately after Hydropuls® operation. On July 12, the Hydropuls® tool \Vas operated in the lmver and middle screens with this setup. Each screen was hydropulsed for 13 minutes (min), then pumped for approximately 35 min, then

K!eirifelder Project No. 68402 Page 5 of20 March2D07 Rev. J

Rehab if itation Wells R-20 and R-16

hydropulsed for 8 to 9 min, and finally pumped again. The hydropulsing was deemed to be operative because turbidity levels decreased from> 1,000 to 13.6 NTUs for the lmver screen and from a high of 455 to 55.1 NTUs for the middle screen.

On July 13, the Hydropuls@ tool was operated in the upper screen for approximately 12 min, in the same configuration as \Vas used on July 12; turbidity levels decreased from 485 to 23.5 NTUs during the 16 min of follow-up pumping. Excessive nitrogen was observed in the discharge, so the equipment was retrieved from the hole. It \Vas discovered that the Hydropuls@ had separated from the nitrogen supply hose and had been !eft in the well. The tool and centralizer were fished from the well on July 14, 2006.

On July 15, 2006 equipment setup was reconfigured due to the problems encountered. The Hydropuls@ tool was suspended on a sand line without a submersible pump. The Hydropuls® tool was operated in the upper and middle screens at R-20. As the crew was lowering the tool into the lo\ver screen, the tool and cable became stuck in the well casing. The Hydropuls® was not operated in the lower screen on July 15. The tool and cable was retrieved on July 16 without incidence. At that point Kleinfelder was directed to discontinue using the Hydropuls® and to resume using conventional redevelopment teclmiques to complete the rehabilitation activities.

On July 17 and 18, 2006, each screen was swabbed for 15 min, then bailed, then swabbed again for 15 min, fo 11 owed by a final round of bailing.

3.2.4 Followup Specific Capacity Tests

After the first phase of rehabilitation activities was completed, a 1 0.5-hr specific capacity test was conducted on the lower screened interval on July 21, 2006. The measured specific capacity for the lower screened interval was 0.02 gpm/ft.

Specific capacity tests were attempted on the upper and middle screens, but could not be con1pleted because the zones could not sustain the pumping required for the tests. Data from the lower screen specific capacity test are summarized in Table 3.5-1. Figures showing the water quality parameters measured during pumping are grouped by screen and presented in Section 3.5.

3.3 Second Phase of Rehabilitation Activities

Because pumping could not be sustained from the upper and middle screens when the folloYvup specific capacity tests were attempted, video and gamma logging and additional well rehabilitation activities were unde1iaken on these zones. Specific capacity tests were then run on each screened interval.

3.3.1 Logging

On July 23, 2006 LANL persom1el ran a second video log in the well to inspect the well screens. The video run \Vas tenninated after reaching the middle screen due to very poor visibility. Approximately 500 gallons of clear potable water was introduced into the well in an attempt to improve visibility for another logging attempt the following day. On July 24, 2006 a video run was made to a depth of 1348 ft; all screens were visible except the bottom portion of the lower screen. All screens were observed to be intact and no obvious intrusion of bentonite was noted at

Kleinfelder Projec:l No. 68402 Page 6 of20 Jl1arch 2007 Rev. 1

____________ J?_eJzabj!{tqtjonJ!-eportfor Regional FVells R·20 and R-16

the screen surfaces. The July 24 video is included as a DVD in Appendix A. On July 25, 2006 LANL personnel ran a gamma ray log to supplement the video data recorded the day before.

3.3.2 Rehabilitation Activities- Upper and 11iiddle Screens

DOE and LANL project personnel decided to conduct additional rehabilitation activities on the combined upper and middle screens at R-20 in an attempt to increase water production. The field crew alternately injected water into the well casing and then bailed water to below the starting static vvater level, creating a gentle surging effect on the filter packs in the upper and middle screens.

A bridge plug was installed below the middle screened interval on August 7, 2006. On August 8 through 11 and on the 17th, water was alternately injected into the well and then bailed out. This approach was repeated for eighteen cycles over the 5-day period.

On August 21, 2006 it was discovered that the bridge plug had slipped doV\mward inside the well casing. Attempts to reseat it were unsuccessful and a pump and packer assembly was then installed above the lower screen. On August 25, the crew altemately injected water into and pumped \Vater from the well to create a surging efiect across the upper and middle screens.

3.3.3 Specific Capacity Tests

On August 26 and 27, 2006, two approximately 11-hr specific capacity tests were perforn1ed on the combined upper and middle screened intervals at R-20. The specific capacity measured on August 27 for the combined screened intervals \Vas 0.02 gpm/ft.

On August 28, 2006, after the packer had been raised to isolate the upper screen, it was alternately pumped and allowed to recover for three rounds. It was pumped tor 1.8 hours (hrs), allowed to recover for 0. 75 hr, pumped again for 1.3 hrs, allowed to recover for 1 hr and finally pumped again for 1.3 hrs, at which point the packer was deflated. The specific capacity for the upper zone measured from these brief tests was 0.02 gpm/ft.

On August 30 and 31, 2006, 12-hr and an 8-hr specific capacity tests were conducted on the lower screened interval. The resultant specific capacities were 0.07 and 0.06 gpm/ft, respectively. Data from all specific capacity tests are summarized in Table 3.5-1. Figures showing the water quality parameters measured during pumping are grouped by screen and presented in Section 3.5.

3.4 Third Phase of Rehabilitation Activities

In October 2006, the lmver screen was briefly jetted again and the sump was bailed prior to a final 8-hr specific capacity test Additionally, the upper screen was isolated, briefly pumped and groundwater san1ples were collected.

3.4.1 Lower Screen -Additional Jetting plus 8-hr Specific Capacity Test

On October 11, 2006, the lo\ver screen was jetted intermittently for a total of approximately 3 hrs; the sump was bailed in between jetting. Approximately 20 gallons (gal.) of water were removed by bailing. On October 13, 2006, an 8-hr pump test resulted in a measured specific

Klehifelder Project No. 68402 Page 7 of20 March 2007 Rev. 1

Rehabilitation Report for Regional Wells R-20 and R-16

capacity of 0.06 gpm/ft for the lo\ver screened interval. Groundwater samples vvere collected at the end of sampling.

3.4.2 Upper Screen - Short Pumping plus Sampling

On October 15, 2006 the upper screen was isolated and pwnped for 30 min. LANL and New Mexico Environment Departmeni (NMED) persmmel collected samples during pumping. The specific capacity measured during this event was 0.009 gpmlft for the upper zone.

3.5 Specific Capacity Test Data

Table 3.5-1 presents a summary of the specific capacity test data from the three screened zones at R-20. The water quality parameters pH, temperature, specific conductance and turbidity were measured periodically during pumping and are shovm in Figures 3.5-1 through 3.5-8 and tabulated in Appendix B.

Table 3.5-1 R-20 Specific Capacity Test Data --.-------,------,---------,------.--------~--------~------~----------~

SCREEN I DATE DURA- TOTAL PUMP- DRAW SPECIFIC PHASE COMMENTS TION VOLUME ING DOWN CAPACITY

! (lm) WITH- RATE (ft) (gpm/ft) DR~WN {gpm)

(gal.)

U er 7/6/06 6 296.5 0.8 76 0.01 Initial test Three short tests /

3 ~ (1.3 to 1.8 hrs) 264.2 I

0·7

--' 0

·02 after second~

2

Upper 8/28/06 4.4

I rehab. hase r-------~------+------+---------~----~--------~---------T--~3---T--~P~r~io~r-to~

Upper 10/15/06 0" 19.2 o.6 I 66 i I i ·--- -------- -3.0t Middle I 7/8/08 3 557.2 248

I ····-·--···· -·····----·····-·-·- --------

I I Upper+

Middle 8/27/06 11 1,071.4 1.7 73.2

I I

~ower 7/7/06 3 2,716.8 16.1 170

Lower 7/21/06 10.5 6,383.3 9.5 474 ··---

I

!

Lower 8/30/06 12 1,734.6 2.4 35.7

·-·- --·-----·--------"·---

I I I

Lower 8/31/06 8 1,164.5 2.4 37.2 l__j I

~- I i

~ower 10/13/06 8 I 3,836.0 7.9 I 131

Kleirife!der Project No.68402 Page 8 of20

0.009

I 0.01 1

I 2

0.02 I

0.09 I l I

I 1

! 0.02 I I

I I 2

0.07 l

2 0.06

0.06 I 3

i

-i I

I

collecting water ~mn2les

Initial test Following

second rehab. phase

Initial test Following first rehab. phase Following

second rehab. phase

Following second rehab.

phase Following third

rehab.

.'vfarch 2007 Rev. 1

I

I

I

Rehabilitathm Report for Regional Wells R-20 and R-16

Water Quality Parameters for Upper Screen Tests

Water Withdrawn (Gal.)

Figure 3.5-1 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Initial Upper Screen Test, .July 6, 2006 (Note: Parameters were recorded after the calculated drop pipe water volume

was discharged.)

80 ,------------------------------------------------~- 150 70 .. ~~

~ ~ :~ ~- =----:~:-·:l-1-·--·1-. ; __ -_. ____ .. \_\\\~---~---:·_-_--- .. ········~----~--~~----- ......... ____ --~-~ .. -----~~~~-~-----= ~ ;: 40 _______ :_*'· __ ljf-¥.-·---l+--1\i*--+<'--0+-------·--*----------¥

~~ I \ E :.0 30 +-------+------1:------

~ ~ +-----,·r-~~~~~~~~~~~--=~·~========~---:r.· 1- 20 ... ------.... 0. 10 +----------m;;M!---=tF=ttl,.,.---.f;~----~-

Q) (.) c::

100 ~ .g~ c:: i3 o-ot.g_ u~

50 E (.)

~ (/)

0 +-------,------,-------,-----...-----....,-------+- 0

0 50 100 150 200 250


1-n- pH -+-Turbidity (NW;) ~-:r~;;;r;rc)---:-- sc (tJStcm) 1 L-~--·------···-··---~--···-·····--····-··-····-·-·--·---------~-·---·

~----·--------------------

300

Figure 3.5-2 \Vater Quality Parameters- R-20 Final Upper Screen Test, August 28,2006 (Note: Parameters from three short-duration pumping tests were combined in this graph.)

K!einfelder Project lila. 68402 Page 9 of20 March 2007 Rev. 7


Water Quality Parameters for t!te 1Uiddle Screen Test

----- ----·····- - -·····---··---···· ·----·--·--- -----------~


Figure 3.5-3 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Initial Middle Screen Test, July 8, 2006

Wata Quality Parameters for the Combined Upper and Middle Screen Tests

70~1---------------------------------------------~- 150

0 500 1 000 1500 2000

Water Withdrawn (Gal.) j

________ l=:-m--_-_--_-~_P_H -=!=_!_u_r~lL<~?::~J._-Ar- Temp ("_C) ~ SC (!JSicmd ------~_1 Figure 3.5-4 \Vater Quality Parameters- R-20 Combined Upper and Middle Screen Tests,

August 26 and 27, 2006

(Note: Two long-duration tests are plotted together. The turbidity peak in the middle of the chart represents the start of the second test. The tm·bidity peaks at approximately 1,800 gal. occurred after the valve was opened to increase the flow rate; field notes indicate the turbidity increased before the calculated arrival time of water from the middle screen and was due to rust in the pump drop pipe.)

Klei11felder Project No.68402 Page 10 of20 Jl1arch 2007 Rev. 1

Rehabilitation Reportfor Regional TVells R-20 and R-16

Water Quality Parameters for the Lower Screen Tests

100

u~ 80 0 II) ~::')

~ 1- 60 :JZ ~ ~

~~ 40 0..\:l

E :0 0 ..... 1- :J

20 _I-:t: 0.

----·-···~ \ t"-

I \ j \

! ."""- ~ ~ "" ... "" ..

200

<l> 0

150 t: J:l 0 ::::~

1:l E 100 c: u

0-(,)(/')

::!. u ~ 0:::

50 '(3 <l> 0. (/)

0 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Water Withdrawn {Gal.)

I~- pH--+- Turbidity (NTUs) --k-- Temp (•C) -;.<- SC (IJS/cm) I --------- -----

Figure 3.5-5 \Vater Quality Parameters- R-20 Initial Lower Screen Test, Ju!y 7, 2006

60~------------------------------------------------~

0 500 1 000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000


Figure 3.5-6 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Initial Lower Screen Test, July 21, 2006

Kleinfelder Project l·lo.68402 Page 11 of20 March2007 Rev. 1

Rehabilitation Report for Regional TV ells R-20 and__f!:.:_!.!!_

~--------------------------------------------~- i50

~~~~~~~_.~~~~~~~~~~·-0

500 iOOO 1500 2000 2500 3000


-!%:-pH -+--Turbidity (NTU) -.k- Temp CC) ~ SC (JJS/cm)

.Figure 3.5-7 Water Quality Parameters- R-20 Lower Screen Tests, August 30 and 31,2006 (Note: Two long-duration tests are plotted together.)

3.6 Groundwater Sample Collection

LANL and NMED field personnel collected groundwater samples for laboratory analysis during the pumping activities. The analyiieal results will be presented in a separate LANL report.

50-·r-------------------------------------------------~- 100

0

0 1000 1500 2000 2500


3000 3500

i . ·--·····--;--:-- ···-·---···-------·--- --------;~ [ ~~-p~ :+-Turbidity (NTUs) ___._Temp (°C) ~SC (~Stem) J -------------

l 4000

I ··-···--·----_j

Figure 3.5-8 \Vater Quality Parameters- R-20 Final Lower Screen Test, October 13, 2006

Kleinfelder Project No.68402 Page 12 of20 March2007 Rev. 1

Rehabilitation Reportfor Regional Wells R-20 and R-1 6

3.7 R-20 Well Status

Following the well rehabilitation tasks, Kleinfelder installed packers above and below the middle screened interval to isolate the three water-bearing zones as shm;vn in Figure 3. 7 -l. LANL is currently monitoring the packer inflation pressure and evaluating chemical data. They will prepare a comprehensive rehabilitation report with recommendations for R-20.

4.0 R-16 REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES

Figure 4.0-1 shows the \Yell construction details for regional well R-16. Rehabilitation activities at R-16 consisted of removing the Westbay sampling system, video logging the well interior (conducted by LANL), conducting initial specific capacity tests on the three screened intervals, monitoring water quality parameters during the tests, and collecting groundwater samples for geochemical analyses (performed by LANL).

The Kleinfelder Work Plan also specified that the screens would be redeveloped by swabbing/bailing, jetting and/or pumping after the specific capacity tests \Vere conducted. However, at the direction of DOE this phase of work was not performed because the water quality parameters measured during the specific capacity tests had stabilized and the turbidity levels were less than 1 nephelometric turbidity unit.

4.1 Removal of the Westbay Sampling System

WDC and Westbay pers01mel removed the R -16 Westbay sampling system between July 31 and August 6, 2006. They initially removed the three transducers and solar pm1el. Next, they deflated and removed the ten Westbay packers, and lastly they removed the piping and sm11pling ports from the well. After removal, the Westbay system components were steam-cleaned, rinsed with deionized water, dried, and placed in plastic bags. The system was then placed into storage at the former Field Support Facility.

Kleinfe!der Project No.68402 Page 13 of20 A1arch 2007 Rev. 1

Not to Scale

13.375 in. casing 0 ft. to 780ft. ----r (cemented 0 ft. to 75ft.; bentonite 75 ft. to 785 ft.)

Upper Screen -----t-''!,1,1-o! (904.6 to 912.2 ft.)

Top of Packer 1135.6 ft

Middle Screen ------+-"(1147.1 to 1154.7 ft.)

Top of Packer 1163.5 ft

Lower Screen -----~'\:==1 (1328.8 to 1336.5 ft.)

Well casing: 4.5 in. f.D. 5 in. -0.0, 304 stainless steel with external couplings

NOTE: This Figure is modified from ''Characterization Well R-20 Completion Report'', June 2003, LA-UR-03-1839.

All depths feet below ground surface

R-20 Well Schematic -November 2006 Pajarito Canyon

Los Alamos, New Mexico

FiGURE

3.7-1

Not to Scale F===i -- Locking Cover

22 in. borehole 0 to 15.0 ft.----

Oto75.0ft. -----

7.5.0 to 631.6 ft. ------IIA-

11.75 in. casing 0 ft. to 729 ft. (cemented 0 ft. to 130ft.; slough 130 ft. to 728ft.)

16 in. borehole 15.0 fT. to 728ft. -------

inactive Screen Blocked by Drill Casing

631.610 634.5 ft.

634.5 to 653.4 ft.

(641. 0 to 648.6 ft.) 663.4 to 654_ 7 ft.

10.625 in. borehole 1728 ft. to 1287 ft. ---------1 654.7 to 851.4 ft. 851.4 to 852.1 fl.

851.2 to 877.5 ft. Upper Screen(# 2) ---------~~ (863.4 to 870.9 ft.) 877.5 to 882.5 ft.

Middle Screen(# 3) ----------~·E::::.::f (1014.8 to 1022.4 ft.) 1006.7 to 1028.5

1028.5to 1203.7

-- 10.75 in. protective casing

Cement Pad (5 ft x 10ft x 12 in.)

18 in. -0.0. surface casing to 20ft (reamed in to 20ft.)

Cement

Well casing: 4.5 in. !.D. 5/n. -O.D., 304 stainless steel with external couplings

Bentonite

(30170) sand

(20140) sand

(30170) sand

Bentonite

(30170) sand

(20/40) sand

(30/70) sand

Bentonite

(30/70) sand

(20140) sand

Bentonite

(30/70) sand

(20/40) sand

Slough

TD = 1276.7 ft. All depths feet below ground surface

NOTES: 1) This Figure is from "Characterization Well R-16 Completion Report", June 2003, LA·UR·03-1841.

2) Depths for screens are for actual screen intervals, not joints.

$

i ~ J.

i _______ K __ l __ E_I_N __ f __ E_l __ D __ E_R ________ ~---------R--1-6_W_e_I_IC_o_n_s-tr-uc_t_io_n_D_ia-g-ra-m---------r~F

4I~Gu~R~QE---

1~1

Canada del Buey • • ~

Drawn By: D. Tidenr.on Dote: January 2007 Los Alamos, New Mexico I. ~P~ro~je~c~t~N~o~.=-6~8~4~0~2---------~rt~tle~n~a~m~e~:~6~8~4~02~-~0~9~-~1~.d~w~g~~-----------------------------------------------~-----------J~


4.2 Video Logging

LANL personnel ran downhole video and gamma logs on August 6, 2006. The video log is included on a DVD in Appendix A.

4.3 Specific Capacity Tests

Three 12-hr constant rate specific capacity tests were conducted on the three R-16 screened intervals. The top screened interval (screen 1) is blocked by drili casing. The functioning screened intervals are called Cpper - Screen 2, Middle - Screen 3 and Lower - Screen 4. A 10 horsepower Grundfos pump was used for each of the specific capacity tests.

43.1 Upper- Screen #2

On August 11, 2006, a packer was installed to isolate the upper screened interval and a 12-hr constant rate test was conducted. The data for this specific capacity test, along with the other constant rate tests conducted at R-16, are presented in Table 4.3-1.

The water quality parameters were measured periodically during the pump test and are sho .. wn in Figure 4.3-1 and tabulated in Appendix B. The parameters stabilized rapidly during the specific capacity testing indicating that redevelopment goals were met by pumping.

Table 4.3-1 R-16 Specific Capacity Test Data

------,-------DATE SCREEN WATER PUMPING DRAWDOWN SPECIFIC CAP A CITY

REMOVED (gal.) RATE(gpm) (ft) (gpm/ft)

81!1/06 Upper- if2 I 12,926.4 18.0 I 212 I I I

--------1- --··-·--·--••-·n

8/10/06 Middle- #3 I 9.,785.5 13.6 271

8/9106 Lmver- #4 4,368.3 6.0 278

-----

40~-------..--------------------------------------------------~

35 f'>i~~~~~~;~------~~-;-~·-·····-~·-···-·e:;·······-~---···---~---**--~--~-~~~~~~~~

E <n 30 +-------::! je 25 i~ a; 3- 20 o.::; ffi :e 15 +----f- :;!

t f-1 0 tm:iiimiiiiiiiiii=iifii=1iiiii-==iim=iiiii=iR-iii=iii:tiR-iiiiiHit

l 0~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000

Water Withdrawn (gal.)

0

0.08

0.05

0.02

! i

.J

Figure 4.3-1 Water Quality Parameters- R-16 Upper Screen Test, August 11, 2006 Kleinfi;lder Project No.68402 Page 16 of20 March 2007

Rev. J


4.3.2 1"1iddle - Screen #3

On August 10, 2006, packers were installed to isolate the middle screened interval and a 12-hr constant rate test \Vas conducted. The test data are summarized in Table 4.3-1. The water quality parameters pH, temperature, specific conductance and turbidity were measured periodically during the pump test and are shown in Figure 4.3-2, and tabulated in Appendix B. Water quality parameters rapidly stabilized during specific capacity testing, indicating that well redevelopment goals were met by pumping during the specific capacity test.

70

60

~ Ci) 50 'Q;'::> :s !z 40 ... -~ >.

~~ 30 E:O {!!. 3 20

• 1-:r: 0.. 10

0

I 200

~ .......

~ ~~ ·~ . -~ .. -~= ~~

't .. 0

0 1 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000


pH-+- Turbidity (NTUs) .......,_

Figure 4.3~2 Water Quality Parameters- R-16 Middle Screen Test, August 10,2006

4.3.3 Lower- Screen #4

A 12-hr constant rate specific capacity test was conducted on the lower screened interval on August 9, 2006. The summary test data are presented in Table 4.3-1. The water quality parameters pH, temperature, specific conductance and turbidity were measured periodically during the lower screen pumping tests; data for the three consecutive pump tests are shown in Figure 4.3-3 and tabulated in Appendix B. \Vater quality parameters rapidly stabilized during specific capacity testing, indicating that redevelopment goals were met by pumping during the specific capacity tests.

4.4 Groundwater Sample Collection

LANL field personnel collected groundYvater samples for laboratory analysis during the pumping activities. The data will be included in a separate LANL report.

4.5 R-16 \Veil Status

Follovving the well rehabilitation tasks, DOE directed WDC and Westbay personnel to reinstall the Westbay sampling system in R-16. A schematic of the sampling system installation is shovvn in Figure 4.5-1.

Kleinfelder Project No.68402 Page 17 of20 Jifarch 2007 Rev. 1

Not to Scale

Inactive Screen ----.....-nl-.-8/ocked by Drill Casing

(641.0 to 648.6 ft.)

Packer 852 ft

Upper Screen (# 2) ------+.-;... (863.4 to 870.9 ft.)

Packer 881ft

Packer 1004 ft

Middle Screen (# 3) -----~ (1014.8 to 1022.4 ft.)

Packer 1033 ft

Packer 1224 ft

Lower Screen (# 4) ------;,.;., (1237.0 to 1244.6 ft.)

Cement Pad (5 ft x 10ft x 12 in.)

18 in. -O.D. surface casing to 20 ft (reamed in to 20ft.)

Portland Cement

1-4'1---- Well casing: 4.5 in. J.D. 5 in. -O.D., 304 stainless steel w;th external couplings

All depths feet below ground surface

NOTE: This Figure is modified from "Characterization Well R-16 Cotnpletion Report", June 2003, LA-UR-03-1841.

NOTE: This schematic shows only the packers around the screened intervals. For the complete Westbay Reinstallation Log, see Appendix C.

KLEINFELDER R-16 Well Schematic- November 2006 Canada del Buey

Los Alamos, New Mexico


40 .-~--------------------------------------------~- 200 35 _____ _,1~------------·--------- ----------

- 8 E fil 30 ·>&:~==~~=~*"'~.~,~~~~~E*-?iS*--*""E---*--~+ 150 I§ Ql ::l 'I . A. (.)

:; ~ 25 t--l'--:::;i;~;:=;;;;;;;.jj~~~""**""""-: ... ~ ..... ~-~~~-lira--'11_r---t. -· -5 'E ~ ~ 20 k'~- ---------------------------------- - - --- 100 § ~ ~ ~ 15 ----------- --------- ---------- ~ 3 ;- ~ 1 o ii~=~\=:::rz:=~fjj, =~-r&--~-::-:£:-:f&-S::--{JH]!---£R~---t,;.~~---f1ll------E!i====-r1 so ·~ c. 5 I ------------· .................... ------------------ IJ'J

0+----~~~~~~~~-4~~~~~=+,~-·~~~~~~~~==~~~0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500


(±iH --+- T~rt;idiiY"(N-TUs) -;6:- Temp r<?t -v:- sc (~S/cm) I -----------------"

Figure 4.3-3 Water Quality Parameters- R-16 Lower Screen Test, August 9~ 2006

5.0 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE

Water generated during R-20 and R-16 well rehabilitation efforts is stored at each site in frac tanks. Kleinfelder field personnel have collected samples to characterize the groundwater stored in the tanks. Following receipt of the analytical data and discharge approval from the NMED, R-16 and R-20 water will be applied to the land surface using sprinkler systems in accordance with the tenns and conditions of the Notice oflntent dated August 2, 2001.

Other investigation-derived wastes generated during the project, such as contact wastes, were stored and handled in accordance with the Waste Characterization Strategy contained in Appendix A ofthe rehabilitation Work Plan (Kleinfelder 2006a).

6.0 SITE RESTOR~\ TION

After the R-16 and R-20 groundw·ater has been properly disposed, tleld equipment, as well as Bl\i1Ps used during rehabilitation activities, will be removed from the site. Frac tanks \Vill be drained and taken ofi site. Kleinfelder-owned locks will be removed from the wellhead and access road gate and replaced with LANL-m:vned locks.

7.0 SUMMARY

Per the scope of work, the goal of the rehabilitation activities was to redevelop each zone until groundwater chemistry was representative of pre-drilling conditions, based on measured concentrations of major ion and trace element chemistry, total organic carbon, isopropyl alcohol and acetone. However, the analytical data were not available for this report, and will be included in a forthcoming LANL report evaluating the hydrochemistry at R-16 and R-20.

Kleinfelder Project lv'o. 68402 Page 19 of20 A/arch 2007 Rev. I


The follovving well rehabilitation activities were conducted at R-20 and R-16:

• The Westbay multi-port sampling systems were removed

• Video Jogs were run of the well interiors

• Initial specific capacity tests vvere conducted on the screened intervals

• The screened intervals were swabbed, bailed, jetted, and pumped; additionally, at R-20, the screens were cleaned with a Hydropuls® tool that used compressed nitrogen emitted in short bursts

• Followup specific capacity tests were conducted on the lower screened interval and the combined upper and middle zones in R-20

o The Westbay sampling system was reinstalled in R-16. Two packers were installed in R-20 to isolate the tlu·ee screened intervals.

DOE directed the following modifications during well rehabilitation activities:

• FolloVvlJp specific capacity tests were not conducted at R-16 because the water quality parameters had stabilized and the turbidity measurements were low

• The Westbay sampling system was not re-installed at R-20 as planned; LANL IS

currently evaluating options which will be presented in a followllp report

8.0 REFERENCES

Klein:felder. Inc. 2006a. "\Vork Plan for Rehabilitation ofRegional Wells R-16 and R-20, Final," June 2006.

Kleinfelder, Inc. 2006b. "Final Site-Specitic Health and Safety Plan, Rehabilitation of Regional Characterization Wells R-16 and R-20," June 2006.

Kleinfelder, Inc. 2006c. "Contractor Quality Management Program for Sandia Canyon Wells & Characterization Coreholes Program, Revision 0," August 4, 2006.

LANL 1998. "Hydrogeologic Work Plan," ER1998-59599, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

LANL 2000a. "Characterization WeB R-16 Completion Report," LA-UR-03-1841, Los Alamos, New Mexico, June 2003.

LAl"\JL 2000b. ''Characterization Well R-20 Completion Report," LA-UR-03-1839, Los Alamos, New Mexico, June 2003.

LANL 2000c. "Environmental Restoration Project Standard Operating Procedure for Handing, Packaging, and Transporting Field Samples," ER-SOP-1.03, Revision 2, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

LANL 2001. "Environmental Restoration Project Standard Operating Procedure for Sample Containers and Preservation," ER-SOP-1.02, Revision 1, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

LANL 2002. "Environmental Restoration Project Standard Operating Procedure for San1ple Control and Field Documentation," ER-SOP-1.04, Revision 5, Los Alamos, Nevv Mexico.

Kleinfelder Project No.68402 Page 20 of20 March2007 Rev. 1

Documents

Record~> › Los Alamos National Labs › Gene… · Cc: Subject: FW: Response to Comments Revision Ill Well Rehab Report Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:05:31