Hydrologic Tests at Characterization Wells R-9i, R-13, R-19, R-22, and R-31

Abstract

Hydrologic information is essential for environmental efforts at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Testing at new characterization wells being drilled to the regional aquifer (''R wells'') to improve the conceptual hydrogeologic model of the Pajarito Plateau is providing such information. Drilling has been by air-rotary casing-advance or open-hole methods. Most wells are completed with multiple screens. After their construction, wells were rigorously developed by wire-brushing, bailing, followed by surging, swabbing, or jetting, and finally by pumping. These methods are effective based on field-parameter measurements and comparison of results of hydrologic testing at well R-31 before and after complete well development. We conducted field tests on various zones of saturation penetrated by the R wells to collect data needed for determining hydraulic properties. This document provides details of the design and execution of testing as well as an analysis of data for five of the new wells: R-9i, R-13, R-19, R-22, and R-31. One well was evaluated by a pumping test (R-13), another was evaluated by both straddle-packer/injection and pumping tests (R-9i), and the rest were evaluated by injection tests alone (R-19, R-22, R-31). Testing was constrained by the regional setting (complex geology and multiple zones of saturation) and well construction (multiscreen completion and the small diameter of the production casing). Packers are required for testing multiscreen wells. The small diameter of the production casing not only precludes the use of a slugger but also limits the capacity of pumps that can be used in testing, especially for the depths involved in the R wells. For example, pumping at a maximum rate of 19 gallons per minute did not significantly stress the regional aquifer at R-13. Although not slug tests, the injection tests are comparable in several ways, and analysis of data by slugtest methods is appropriate. Despite constraints, the results obtained appear valid based on (1) the care taken during test implementation and data analysis, (2) comparison of results for initial and repeated tests obtained by the same analytical method, (3) comparison of results obtained for a given test by different analytical methods, (4) comparison of results with values determined by geophysical logging in the wells and pumping tests of the same geologic units elsewhere on the plateau, and (5) comparison with hydraulic properties commonly reported for similar geologic materials outside the area. Significant contributions of this report are not only the documentation of test design, implementation, and analysis but also a comprehensive table showing the distribution of hydraulic properties for the saturated geologic units tested beneath the Pajarito Plateau. We also offer several recommendations based on testing to date. Placing screens across the water table and geologic contacts as well as employing oversized filter packs hinders testing and should be avoided. In addition, we recommend that future testing include some alternative designs and methods. Multiple methods and routine repeat testing for a given screened interval would permit comparison of results.