What Makes an ASR Project Feasible?
● Injection Water Availability
● Hydrogeolgy
● Geochemical Compatibility
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 – 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
Top Related