Preliminary hydrologic data for wells tested in Nash Draw, near the proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant site, southeastern New Mexico

Abstract

The three water-bearing zones tested were the Magenta Dolomite Member of the Rustler Formation, Culebra Dolomite Member of the Rustler Formation, and the Rustler Formation-Salado Formation contact zone. Inflatable packers were used in a variety of test configurations. Tests conducted include bailing, recovery after perforation, shut in, slug, flow, and pressure pulse. Water-pressure response in the tested zone was monitored by a pressure-transducer system. Hydrologic testing was facilitated by using specially modified inflatable packers. These packers were inflated by filling the tubing with water. They were configured in three basic ways: Open-Casing Tests Open-casing tests included recovery from bailing and recovery after perforation. When recovery from bailing indicated a formation transmissivity greater than 1 foot squared per day, the yield was confirmed by using an opencasing slug-injection or slug-displacement test. The test wells were bailed to help develop the well, to remove foreign water used in testing, and to stress the well for a subsequent test. After bailing, very large or very small formation transmissivity sometimes precluded collection of recovery data. Bailing tests that did not have any recovery data are included in this report because the amount of fluid removed from a well may be significant for some purposes. Detailed discussion of bailing procedures and data collection is presented by Easier (1983, p. 15).

Analysis of hydraulic tests of the Culebra and Magenta Dolomites and Dewey Lake Redbeds conducted at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site

“…The observation-well responses could also be interpreted equally well 6.9 WIPP-27 Slug Tests using either single-or double-porosity mod- Richey (1987) reported data from six slug els. Transmissivities interpreted from the tests performed in the Culebra at Tests #2 and #6 were selected as having the best quality data, and were analyzed using GTFM.…”

“…The fourth test was aborted due to an instrument malfunction. Test descriptions and data are provided by Richey (1987). The two successful slugwithdrawal tests, #2 and #6, were judged to have the best-quality data and were selected for analysis.…”

“…Five slug tests were performed by the USGS in WIPP-28 under a Field Operation Plan by Statler (1980 Richey (1987). The first slug-withdrawal test, #3, was judged to have the best-quality data and was selected for analysis.…”