SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Frank Dellechai• • Page 3 January 24 , 1989 would be costly, about $70K for each cluster, and that they had to do what was best for the facility and at the same time act prudently with their client's money. They also said that they would have to obtain rights to access private property in both cases. DHS reasoned that putting a cluster of wells in the north and in the south would be good for the facility. These wells would provide good data, would be constructed in the same way the other wells would be constructed, would be constructed by the same contractor, and with the changes in water table levels and in gradient, both seasonally and yearly, it would be best to compare data from the same time period. And if DHS had better/complete data now, DHS could expedite regulatory duties relating to the site. It was agreed that the contractors would give serious consideration to adding the two well clusters to their current proposal, would talk to Kearney officials about this proposal, and get back to DHS with an answer. DHS then asked whether or not there was a cluster of wells proposed for the center of the facility. The contractors responded that one intermediate well, KI-4 , was planned for the center of the facility, and the Deep Production Well (DPW) was in the vicinity. DHS then asked if the contractors could put in one deep well and one shallow well in the vicinity of KI-4 to form a cluster. The contractors said that having a cluster in the center of the facility made good sense, but they would rather move KI-4 over near SMW-5 or TP-1A and add one more deep well than add a shallow and a deep well . This would provide a cluster of wells in the center of the facility. DHS agreed to this request. The topic of conversation turned to screen lengths. The proposed shallow wells (KS series) will have twenty foot screens; the intermediate wells (KI series) will have ten foot screens; and the deep wells (KD series) will have twenty foot or longer screens. DHS took the position that ten foot screens in the deep wells were best. The contractors disagreed. DHS stated strongly that any screen greater than twenty feet in length would be unacceptable. The contractors suggested that after analyzing the proposed exploration borehole data and ascertaining the geology/1 ithology of the area they would be willing to discuss screen length for the deep wells. It was also agreed upon to discuss the proposed method of well construction at a later date. Deep well screen length and method of construction are to be discussed with DHS before construction begins.