converting a supply well into an asr well: case histories roger dittus pg – united water idaho inc
TRANSCRIPT
Converting a supply wellConverting a supply well
into an ASR well: Case Historiesinto an ASR well: Case Histories
Roger Dittus PG – United Water Idaho IncRoger Dittus PG – United Water Idaho Inc
United Water IdahoUnited Water Idaho Serving Boise areaServing Boise area Several pressure Several pressure
zoneszones 80+ supply wells80+ supply wells Two surface water Two surface water
treatment plantstreatment plants
IdahoIdaho
BoiseBoise
??
????
Fine-grained Sedimentswith sand lenses
?? ??
Adapted from cross section by S. Wood, BSU Geosciences Adapted from cross section by S. Wood, BSU Geosciences C. Petrich
Interbedded sand, silt, clay
Mudstone
Conceptual Cross-Section Conceptual Cross-Section (Regional Scale)(Regional Scale)
Shallow coarse-grained sediments and basalt
VolcanicRocks
4,0004,000
2,0002,000
2,0002,000
4,0004,000
00
Ele
va
tio
n (
feet
)E
lev
ati
on
(fe
et)
WW EEMunicipalMunicipal DomesticDomestic MunicipalMunicipal
ARSENIC > MCLARSENIC > MCL
Uranium > MCLUranium > MCL
Most problematicMost problematic Manganese Manganese && IronIron
Swift wellSwift well
Maple Hill 2 wellMaple Hill 2 well
Market St. wellMarket St. well
Settlers wellSettlers well
United Water United Water ASR projectsASR projectsUnited Water United Water ASR projectsASR projects
AsAs
UU
UU MnMn
Piping TeePiping Tee
10-inch to 10-inch to 4-inch4-inch
Flow MeterFlow Meter
Cla -valveCla -valve
Flow During Flow During InjectionInjection
Well Drilled in 1978Well Drilled in 1978
History of Swift Well: History of Swift Well:
1986 to 1992: increase 1986 to 1992: increase from 0.04 mg/L to 0.53 from 0.04 mg/L to 0.53 mg/Lmg/L
1992 to 1996: 1992 to 1996: increase from 0.53 increase from 0.53 mg/L to 0.94 mg/L mg/L to 0.94 mg/L
1997: tried to drill out 1997: tried to drill out of manganese but of manganese but deeper water deeper water unacceptable unacceptable
United Water Idaho’s first ASR Well
Looking for a Solution:Looking for a Solution:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
elapsed time (min.)wa
ter-
lev
el (
fee
t b
elo
w t
op
of
ca
sin
g) top of casing
150 gpm250 gpm
350 gpm 200 gpm
stable waterlevel after 3 months injection at 200 gpm
standing water level
overflow level
6-inch Private Well in vicinity of Swift well limits injection rate6-inch Private Well in vicinity of Swift well limits injection rate
Swift 1 Mn vs. % recoverySwift 1 Mn vs. % recovery
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.000
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
22
0
24
0
26
0
28
0
30
0
Percentage Recovered
Mn
( m
g/l
)
1999 (13.7 MG), 2000 (32.7 MG), and 2002 (15.2 MG)
1999
Swift 1 Mn vs. % recoverySwift 1 Mn vs. % recovery
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.000
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
22
0
24
0
26
0
28
0
30
0
Percentage Recovered
Mn
( m
g/l
)
1999 (13.7 MG), 2000 (32.7 MG), and 2002 (15.2 MG)
1999
2000
Swift 1 Mn vs. % recoverySwift 1 Mn vs. % recovery
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.000
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
18
0
20
0
22
0
24
0
26
0
28
0
30
0
Percentage Recovered
Mn
( m
g/l
)
1999 (13.7 MG), 2000 (32.7 MG), and 2002 (15.2 MG)
1999
2002
2000
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
306-
Ap
r
7-A
pr
8-A
pr
9-A
pr
10-A
pr
11-A
pr
12-A
pr
13-A
pr
14-A
pr
15-A
pr
16-A
pr
17-A
pr
18-A
pr
19-A
pr
20-A
pr
21-A
pr
22-A
pr
23-A
pr
24-A
pr
25-A
pr
date
wel
lhea
d p
ress
ure
(p
.s.i
.)
flu
sh
ed
flu
sh
ed
flu
sh
ed
Loss of well efficiency during injectionLoss of well efficiency during injection
Swift Well 1
Increase pump capacity
0
20
4060
80
100
120140
160
180
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Inje
cted
/ pum
ped
(MG
)
Injected
Pumped
injected v. recovered injected v. recovered waterwater
Swift wellSwift well
Shallow AquifersShallow Aquifers
Shallow-Intermediate AquifersShallow-Intermediate Aquifers
Deep AquifersDeep Aquifers
(Conceptual Model)C. Petrich
Terrace GravelsTerrace GravelsBoise RiverBoise River
Low TDSLow TDS
Low TDSLow TDS
High TDSHigh TDS
MediumTDSMediumTDS
Vertical Extent of GW-SW InteractionVertical Extent of GW-SW Interaction
Elevated Elevated UraniumUranium
SWSWNENE
Settlers Well:Settlers Well:
Native Water has 42 ug/LNative Water has 42 ug/L
Recharge water source: Recharge water source: deep groundwaterdeep groundwater
Native Water has 40 ug/LNative Water has 40 ug/L
Recharge water source: Recharge water source: groundwater – mix from groundwater – mix from two wellstwo wells
Maple Hill 2 Well:Maple Hill 2 Well:
Used as non-peak season Used as non-peak season supply while treatment supply while treatment system shut down system shut down
Uranium vs. % Recovery
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
% Recovery
Ura
nium
(pp
b)
Maple Hill 2 Pilot Test - (0.74 MG)
Settlers Pilot Test (0.94 MG)
MCL: 30 ppb MCL
pre- ASR native: 42 ppb
Pilot-testing two wells with elevated uraniumPilot-testing two wells with elevated uranium
Uranium vs. % Recovery
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
% Recovery
Ura
nium
(pp
b)
Maple Hill 2 Pilot Test - (0.74 MG)
Settlers Pilot Test (0.94 MG)
MCL: 30 ppb MCL
pre- ASR native: 40 / 42 ppb
Pilot-testing two wells with elevated uraniumPilot-testing two wells with elevated uranium
Uranium vs. % Recovery
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
% Recovery
Ura
niu
m (
pp
b) MCL: 30 ppb MCL
pre- ASR native: 42 ppb
Uranium Uranium trend for trend for pilot testspilot tests
UWID Settlers Well : Uranium vs. % Recovery
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
% Recovery
Ura
niu
m (
pp
b)
Settlers Production Test (43.4 MG)
MCL: 30 ppb MCL
pre- ASR native: 42 ppb
UWID Settlers & Maple Hil 2 Wells : Uranium vs. % Recovery
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
% Recovery
Ura
niu
m (
pp
b)
Maple Hill 2 - Production Test (51 MG)
Settlers Production Test (43.4 MG)
MCL: 30 ppb MCL
pre- ASR native: 42 ppb
250
350
450
550
650
0 20 40 60 80 100 120% recovered
Co
nd
uc
tiv
ity
(u
S/c
m)
0
10
20
30
40
Ura
niu
m (
ug
/L)
Conductivity
Uranium
Recharge WaterRecharge Water
Native WaterNative Water
Maple Hill 2: Estimated Mixing of native Maple Hill 2: Estimated Mixing of native and injected Water and injected Water
51 Million 51 Million GallonsGallons
10% 10% Native Native WaterWater
25% 25% Native Native WaterWater
50% 50% Native Native WaterWater
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% recovered
Dis
so
lve
d O
xy
ge
n (
mg
/L)
0
10
20
30
40
Ura
niu
m (
ug
/L)
Dissolved Oxygen
Uranium
Dissolved Dissolved Oxygen in Oxygen in
Recharge Water Recharge Water = 0.25 mg/L= 0.25 mg/L
Maple Hill 2 well: D.O. in recovered waterMaple Hill 2 well: D.O. in recovered water
Screened Interval and Injection v. Recovery RateScreened Interval and Injection v. Recovery Rate
Maple Hill 2 wellMaple Hill 2 wellSettlers wellSettlers well
47 FT47 FT
92 FT92 FT
200 - 230 200 - 230 GPMGPM
175 - 400 175 - 400 GPMGPM
800 GPM800 GPM
100+ % Recovery100+ % Recovery200- 200- 230 230 GPMGPM
85 % Recovery85 % Recovery
Market Street Well:Market Street Well:
Native Water has Native Water has 13 ug/L arsenic13 ug/L arsenic
primary recharge primary recharge water source has water source has some arsenic some arsenic
Multiple completion Multiple completion intervalsintervals
RECOVERYRECOVERY
500 feet500 feet
900 feet900 feet
11
22
33
44
5566
77
RECHARGERECHARGE
Potential for preferential Potential for preferential recharge in some zonesrecharge in some zones
Pumping rate Pumping rate greater than greater than recharge rate may recharge rate may draw in native water draw in native water with arsenic with arsenic
Arsenic: Market well ASR testing April-May 2007
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
% recovery
As
(ug/
L)First test
Second Test
Third Test
MCL
Injection rate = 270 gpmInjection rate = 270 gpm
Storage Time = 5.9 daysStorage Time = 5.9 days
Recovery Rate = 775 gpmRecovery Rate = 775 gpm
Pre-ASR Pre-ASR Arsenic Arsenic concentrationconcentration
Arsenic: Market well ASR testing April-May 2007
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
% recovery
As
(ug
/L)
First test
Second Test
Third Test
MCL
Arsenic: Market well ASR testing April-May 2007
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
% recovery
As
(ug
/L)
First test
Second Test
Third Test
MCL
Second TestSecond Test
Injection rate = 270 gpmInjection rate = 270 gpm
Storage Time = 4.2 daysStorage Time = 4.2 days
Recovery Rate = 665 gpmRecovery Rate = 665 gpm
Arsenic: Market well ASR testing April-May 2007
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
% recovery
As
(ug
/L)
First test
Second Test
Third Test
MCL
Third TestThird Test
Injection rate = 290 gpmInjection rate = 290 gpm
Storage Time = 5.1 daysStorage Time = 5.1 days
Recovery Rate = 690 gpmRecovery Rate = 690 gpm
Market St. well ASRMarket St. well ASR Pilot testing indicates ASR may be feasiblePilot testing indicates ASR may be feasible
100% recovery may not be possible 100% recovery may not be possible
Distribution system manipulation to improve recharge source Distribution system manipulation to improve recharge source water/ ASR compatility may be worthwhile water/ ASR compatility may be worthwhile
Based on nearby ASR testing: after 1-2 weeks Trihalomethanes Based on nearby ASR testing: after 1-2 weeks Trihalomethanes increase in this aquifer but decrease to original levels after 2 increase in this aquifer but decrease to original levels after 2 months storagemonths storage
Currently storing 15 MG (ten times test volume) for first “production Currently storing 15 MG (ten times test volume) for first “production test” of this welltest” of this well
Summary & ConclusionsSummary & Conclusions Prior to ASR, several United Water Idaho Supply Prior to ASR, several United Water Idaho Supply
wells were unusable due to their water-quality wells were unusable due to their water-quality
Small-scale ASR test results may only give a Small-scale ASR test results may only give a rough approximation of actual operations-scale rough approximation of actual operations-scale ASR results ASR results
ASR at most locations where it has been ASR at most locations where it has been implemented has proved feasible implemented has proved feasible
ASR wells are more trouble than regular supply ASR wells are more trouble than regular supply wellswells
Overall, ASR has been cost-effectiveOverall, ASR has been cost-effective