ML030360314

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Burial Area 1 Groundwater Assessment Report, for Cimarron Corp.S Former Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Facility Crescent, Oklahoma, Volume I of II, Table of Contents - Table 5-2
ML030360314
Person / Time
Site: 07000925
Issue date: 01/31/2003
From:
Cimarron Corp
To:
NRC/FSME
References
-RFPFR
Download: ML030360314 (52)
v • d • e


Text

BURIAL AREA #1 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT REPORT for Cimarron Corporation's Former Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Facility Crescent, Oklahoma January 2003 License Number: SNM-928 Docket Number. 70-0925 Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma VOLUME I of II

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Page 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................

1 2.0 H istorical Inform ation..................................................................................

1 3.0 Regional G eology........................................................................................

3 4.0 Site G eology..................................................................................................

4 5.0 Previous Characterizations of BA#1..........................................................

6 6.0 Current Characterization of BA#1.............................................................

8 6.1 Introduction........................................................................................

8 6.2 Soil Borings.......................................................................................

8 6.3 Soil Sam pling....................................................................................

9 6.4 W ell Installation - Alluvium.............................................................

9 6.5 W ell Installation - Bedrock..............................................................

10 6.6 Groundwater Elevation M easurem ents.............................................

11 6.7 Aquifer Test......................................................................................

11 6.8 Slug Tests..........................................................................................

12 6.9 Groundwater Sam pling.....................................................................

12 7.0 Data Evaluation...........................................................................................

12 7.1 Soil Boring Logs................................................................................

12 7.2 Structure on Top of the Bedrock.......................................................

13 7.3 Potentiom etric Surface......................................................................

13 7.4 Aquifer (Pum ping) Test Results........................................................

14 7.5 Slug Test Results...............................................................................

15 7.6 H ydraulic Conductivity D istribution.................................................

15 7.7 Extent of Uranium-Impacted Groundwater Plume............................

15 7.8 D istribution Coefficient Kd...............................................................

16 7.9 Sieve Analyses and H ydrom eter Tests..............................................

17 7.10 Geotechnical Tests............................................................................

18 8.0 Conclusions...................................................................................................

18 9.0 References.....................................................................................................

20

TABLE OF CONTENTS - con't Attachment

1.

Retardation factor calculations List of Figures Figures

1.

Aerial Image of Cimarron Site

2.

Well and Soil Boring Locations

3.

Existing Wells and 2002 Well and Soil Boring Locations

4.

Cross-Section Locations

5.

Cross Sections A-A', BLB', C-C' & D-D'

6.

Structure of Top of Bedrock

7.

Groundwater Potentiometric Surface

8.

Uranium Plume by KPA

9.

Uranium Plume by Alpha Spec

10.

Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution

11.

Geotechnical Sampling Locations List of Tables Tables

1.

Burial Area #1 Timeline of Activities Related to Disposal, Groundwater Impact and Hydrogeological Assessment

2.

Monitoring Well Inventory for the Cimarron Facility BA#1 Area

3.

Summary of Hydraulic Conductivities Calculated from Slug and Aquifer Test Data

4.

Summary of Uranium Concentrations in Groundwater

5.

Comparison of Hydraulic Conductivities from Sieve Analyses Data versus Slug/Aquifer Test Data

TABLE OF CONTENTS - con't VOLUME H Appendices A.

Soil Boring Logs B.

Monitoring Well Completion Diagrams C.

Soils Data - Total Uranium Concentrations (on-site laboratory)

D.

Aquifer Test Data E.

Slug Test Data F.

Hazen Report - 2000 G.

Hazen Report - 2002 H.

Sieve and Hydrometer Data I.

Standard Testing's Geotechnical Report

BURIAL AREA #1 GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT REPORT for Cimarron Corporation's Former Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Facility Crescent, Oklahoma January 2003 License Number: SNM-928 Docket Number. 70-0925 Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma

Burial Area #1 Groundwater Assessment Report Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma

1. 0 Introduction This report presents the results of a detailed groundwater assessment conducted at the Cimarron Corporation ("Cimarron") facility, a wholly owned subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation. The area of investigation was Burial Area #1 (BA#1),

located in Sub-Areas F and C in the northeastern part of the facility. Fieldwork for the assessment was performed from July through October 2002.

This assessment investigated uranium-impacted groundwater at the Cimarron facility. The assessment objectives included the following (Cimarron Corporation, 2002a):

"* delineate the extent of the plume that exceeds 180 picoCuries/liter (pCiI) total uranium

"* determine the quantity of uranium that would require removal to remediate the groundwater

"* collect hydrogeologic information needed to develop a remedial design 2.0 Historical Information Cimarron Corporation operated the facility in Logan County, Oklahoma from 1966 to 1975 under licenses from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (UNRC"). The principal operation at the facility irnvolved the fabrication of fuel elements from enriched uranium. Cimarron began decommissioning activities in 1976.

This assessment focused on a portion of the site referred to as Burial Area Number 1 (BA#1) located in Sub-Areas F and C (Figure 1). (Compare this area to Burial Ground Number 1 (BG#1), which by definition, is the more localized area within BA#1 specific to the location of the former trenches). The BG#1 trenches were originally constructed in 1965 and were used to bury both radioactive and non-radioactive solid waste in a series of four approximately north-south oriented, parallel trenches. Trenches varied in size, but ranged from roughly 8 to 10 feet in width and approximately 100 to 250 feet in length. BG#1 was closed in-place with a soil cover in 1970. Table 1 depicts a timeline of activities related to the disposal, groundwater impact, and hydrogeological assessments in BA#1.

Soil settlement in the trenches led to an investigation by Cimarron which was initiated in 1984. In February 1985, several monitoring wells were installed in the I

vicinity of BG#1 (i.e., monitoring wells 1314, 1315, 1316 and 1317). Subsequent sampling and analyses of groundwater samples from these four wells yielded elevated concentrations of total uranium. These wells continued to be monitored both during and after the excavation and final closure of the former burial ground.

(All monitoring well and soil boring locations from 1985 to present in BA#1 are shown on Figure 2).

Based on the monitoring well data and the continued settling of the material in the trenches, the decision was made in 1986 to excavate the buried waste material. By 1988, all buried waste materials had been removed. Approximately 65,000 cubic feet of material were shipped off-site to a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility near Beatty, Nevada.

The excavation remained open from 1988 until 1993 in support of the NRC Confirmatory Survey Process. During the time the excavation was open, NRC's contractor (ORISE) conducted an initial confirmatory survey. This survey identified several areas containing elevated levels of uranium contaminated soils which were subsequently excavated and shipped off-site for disposal. In 1991, ORISE conducted a second confirmatory survey and reported to NRC that the area had been decommissioned in accordance with the release criteria (BTP Option #1).

NRC released this area for backfill in late 1992 in License Amendment #9 (letter dated December 30, 1992 from George M. McCann, Chief, Material Licensing Branch to Dr. John Stauter, Cimarron Corporation).

During the period from March through July 1993, the trenches were backfilled with clean soil. Final grading was completed in July 1993.

With submittal of the 1998 Decommissioning Plan Groundwater Evaluation Report (Cimarron Corporation, 1998), the Cimarron facility committed to addressing the elevated uranium concentration found in groundwater. The first phase of this assessment was an investigation into potential sources for the elevated uranium levels in groundwater.

By letter dated March 4, 1999, Cimarron submitted to the NRC the results of a surface magnetometer survey of BG#1 and the immediate area and committed to perform a three pronged intrusive investigation of the former trench area. This study included the drilling of soil borings and the collection of soil and groundwater samples for analyses.

By letter dated January 20, 2000, Cimarron Corporation submitted to the NRC an interim report of. the investigation with information on the hydrology, soil characterization, and groundwater quality in BA#1. This investigation concluded that all discrete sources had been removed from BG#1 and that groundwater contamination in the alluvial material had migrated farther north in Sub-Area F than previously believed. Based upon this information, Cimarron proposed to perform additional groundwater studies and to investigate options for accelerating the clean-up of the groundwater near BA#1.

2

The NRC, by letter dated April 28, 2000, submitted questions to Cimarron pertaining to its interim investigation report. Cimarron Corporation's response to the NRC letter was submitted on June 19, 2000.

Cimarron committed to expanding the investigation to determine the plume size (i.e., 180 pCi/I total uranium plume extent) and to determine the hydraulic characteristics of the alluvium and Garber sandstone units -

information that would be necessary to design an effective remedial action.

The expanded investigation included numerous borings and wells north of BG#1 in both Sub-Areas C and F. A meeting was held at NRC headquarters on May 9, 2001 to discuss Cimarron's preliminary findings from the expanded assessment and to present the remediation strategies under consideration. At this meeting, Cimarron Corporation informed NRC that the plume had migrated into Sub-Area C and committed to expanding the groundwater assessments in Sub-Areas C and F. This expanded assessment was to include more borings and monitoring wells. Also, Cimarron agreed to compile a final investigation report which would include field and analytical data developed during this assessment. This Report fulfills this commitment.

The results of Cimarron's extensive investigation of BA#1 are provided in this Burial Area #1 Groundwater Assessment Report. Figure 3 shows the locations of all soil borings and monitoring wells that were installed during this study. This report is also a precursor to the BA#1 Remediation Plan which is being developed.

3.0 Regional Geology The Cimarron Facility lies in the Central Lowlands portion of the Great Plains physiographic province. The local and regional topography is characterized by low, rolling hills and incised rivers, streams, and floodplains.

A principal geomorphic feature at the site is the Cimarron River floodplain, which is approximately one-half mile in width and trends east-west (Figure 1). The river and floodplain are bordered by a system of low-lying cliffs and bluffs that overlook the river.

The Facility is located in an upland area immediately south of the Cimarron River. The property includes portions of the floodplain and the adjoining cliffs and bluffs. The upland elevation of the former operations area is approximately 980 to 1,005 feet above mean sea level (msl). The elevation of the floodplain is approximately 935 feet (msl), yielding a total relief across the entire site of approximately 70 feet.

Local drainage is toward the Cimarron River and its floodplain. Ground surface elevation in BA#1 ranges from about 935 feet (msl) to 975 feet (msl) -- clearly portions of the BA#1 area lie in the Cimarron River floodplain. Facility personnel 3

have observed on several occasions in the past few years flood waters above an elevation of about 935 feet (msl).

The regional geologic structure is a gentle, west-southwest dipping homocline of Permian bedrock. Sediments forming the bedrock were deposited in shallow marine and non-marine deltaic environments. Permian bedrock in the area includes (from younger to older) the Hennessey Shale Formation (absent immediately beneath the Cimarron site), the Garber Sandstone, and the Wellington Formation. Regional dip of the Permian beds at the surface is about 20 to 40 feet per mile to the west. Quatemary-age alluvial and terrace deposits unconformably overlie the erosional surface of the bedrock.

The Garber Sandstone and underlying Wellington Formation include lenticular sandstones interbedded with shales and mudstones. The combined thickness of the Garber Sandstone and the Wellington Formation is about 800 to 1,000 feet. The water-bearing characteristics of each formation (e.g., hydraulic conductivity and water quality) are similar. Since the two formations are reportedly not readily distinguishable, they often are considered as a single hydrostratigraphic unit, the Garber-Wellington Aquifer (Wood and Burton, 1968).

Quaternary deposits overlying the Garber Sandstone include terrace deposits from earlier river channels and alluvium in the modern river channels. The terrace deposits are located on the northern side of the Cimarron River. The alluvium in the river channel floodplain sediments on the south side are unconformably deposited on the Garber Sandstone (Engineering Enterprises, 1973).

4.0 Site Geology A soil veneer of 1 to 8 feet thick covers most of the "upland" Cimarron Facility. Shallow bedrock at the site consists of sandstones and siltstones of the Garber Formation (Garber Sandstone). The Garber Sandstone is relatively thick; drilling conducted during this recent investigation extended only a few tens of feet into the Garber Sandstone. A deep well drilled in 1969 near the former Uranium Plant encountered the base of the Garber sandstone at approximately 200 feet below ground surface (bgs). The Garber-Wellington Formation directly underlies the entire Cimarron Facility.

Quatemary alluvium in the Cimarron River channel consists of sand, silt, clay, and lenticular gravel beds. In the BA#1 area, the alluvium ranges from 5 to 30 feet thick.

Three Garber Formation sandstone units and two mudstone units have been identified in borings drilled at the site. These sandstones have been informally classified (from shallow to deep) as Sandstone A, Sandstone B, and Sandstone 4

C (in some older site reports they were designated as the 1, 2, and 3 sandstones). The thickness of each sandstone ranges from 20 to 55 feet.

The two predominant mudstones (Mudstone A and Mudstone B) are each approximately 6 to 14 feet thick, and separate Sandstone A from Sandstone B, and Sandstone B from Sandstone C, respectively. The mudstones generally are massive, with some zones of thin laminations in the upper portions. The mudstones are less permeable than the sandstones, and retard the vertical movement of groundwater.

Figure 4 illustrates four lines of cross-sections in the BA#1 area. The cross sections provide a generalized view of the subsurface in several directions and at varying depths. Elements of local stratigraphic and hydrogeologic components are also shown. Four cross-sections (A-A' through D-D') are shown on Figure 5.

Sandstone A is the first sandstone encountered at the Facility. This sandstone consists of up to 25 feet of red-to-tan colored sandstone and silty sandstone on the western half of the plant site, and is up to 10 feet thick in the southernmost portion of the investigation area.

Sandstone A may be either well or poorly cemented, and is locally cross bedded. Water level data collected from site-wide monitoring wells show that the sandstone is fully saturated at the southern boundary (upgradient side) of the site. The saturated thickness decreases to the north where groundwater discharges as base flow into small, northward flowing tributaries to the Cimarron River, and at seeps where the sandstone outcrops along the bluff. In the BA#1 area, Sandstone A appears to thin where the trenches previously existed and is entirely eroded at the northern end of the former trenches.

Mudstone A is a 10-foot thick sequence of mudstone and silty mudstone between Sandstone A and the underlying Sandstone B. Water level data from monitoring wells show that this mudstone unit hydrologically separates the two sandstones.

Sandstone B is the second, or intermediate, water-bearing sandstone encountered at the site. This sandstone, which is similar in lithology to Sandstone A, can be up to 30 feet in thickness across the site. In the subject area, the sandstone is up to 25 feet thick and is the uppermost water-bearing aquifer.

Water level data collected from Sandstone B monitoring wells show that the saturated thickness decreases to the north, where groundwater discharges to both the alluvium of the Cimarron River and to surface seeps in cliffs overlooking the river flood plain. In the BA#1 study area, Sandstone B discharges to the north into the alluvium as shown in Cross-section A-A' (Figure 5).

5

Well yield data collected during a short-term aquifer test and well development work on Sandstone B monitoring well TMW-21 indicates that Sandstone B will not support a sustained pumping rate greater than approximately one to two' gallons per minute.

Mudstone B is a sequence of mudstones ranging in thickness from 6 to 14 feet between Sandstone B and Sandstone C outside of the subject area. Locally, Mudstone B ranges in thickness from 0 to 10 feet. Water level and water quality data from site monitoring wells show that this unit hydraulically separates Sandstone B from Sandstone C.

Sandstone C underlies the Mudstone B confining layer and is a sequence of interlayered sands, sandstones and mudstones at least 100 feet in thickness beneath the entire Cimarron site. The base of the fresh water zone, as defined by the United States Geological Survey (Carr and Marcher, 1977), is found within the shallowest strata of Sandstone C.

Soil borings drilled as part of this investigation did not penetrate any deeper than the upper few feet of Sandstone C.

5.0 Previous Characterizations of BA#1 As previously described, limited groundwater characterization was performed in 1985 with the completion of monitoring wells 1314 (background well), 1315, 1316, and 1317.

Uranium concentrations in groundwater from well 1315, just downgradient from BG#1, increased for a short time following well installation, but then decreased in concentration until about 1990 when an anomalously high concentration was reported.

Since the anomalous spike in 1990, the total uranium concentration rapidly declined to where it has been variable at roughly 1/3 the highest concentration that was observed. Similar peaks (and subsequent declines) in groundwater total uranium concentrations occurred in wells 1316 and 1317 in 1990 and 1991.

In response to continued monitoring further downgradient of BG#1 in the mid 1990's, Cimarron Corporation conducted a magnetometer survey in BG#1 in July 1998. Four small anomalies, which could be interpreted to indicate the presence of metallic materials in the subsurface, were located. The anomalous areas identified during the magnetometer survey were inspected by excavating the areas with a backhoe. None of the miscellaneous debris encountered in the backhoe excavations (wire fencing, concrete rebar, culvert piping and a buried power pole anchor) was contaminated and/or associated with material originally buried as solid waste. The soil sampling and analysis also did not identify any existing potential sources that would add to groundwater contamination. NRC agreed with Cimarron's March 4, 1999 proposal to perform soil sampling, install deeper bedrock borings and conduct groundwater sampling.

6

This early-phase (1999) groundwater characterization effort identified uranium impacted groundwater extending downgradient of the former burial trenches and further north in Sub-Area F. At about the same time that the investigative work was being performed in the BA#1 area, the NRC issued License Amendment No.

15 via an August 20, 1999 letter to Cimarron Corporation which approved a release limit of 180 pCVI total uranium for groundwater.

Based upon the 1999 characterization, additional assessment work was performed in 2000 to investigate the possible migration of uranium into the alluvium of Sub-Area C and into the bedrock of Sub-Area F. Sub-Area C lies approximately 230 feet north of the former trenches and was released from the license in 1996.

Wells were installed in the alluvium as well as in both Sandstone B and Sandstone C. In addition, a "screening" assessment of the floodplain alluvium was performed with the installation of a series of temporary well points using direct push (geoprobe) technology. A total of 57 "one-time" groundwater samples were collected from the geoprobe holes.

During the year 2000 investigation, groundwater was sampled only from the (then) newly installed monitoring wells and from the single-use borings provided by the geoprobe holes. Sample preparation and analytical methodology were not consistent for all sample locations (i.e., some samples were analyzed on-site using beta/gamma as an indicator of uranium concentration, and some were analyzed off-site using several methods to analyze for uranium). This effort, though not sufficient to completely delineate the groundwater plume, confirmed that groundwater exceeding 180 pCVI total uranium extended into Sub-Area C.

Near the end of 2001, Cimarron made the decision to accelerate the clean-up of BA#1. However, Cimarron and their consultants determined that the variability of technique in 1) soil boring (direct push vs augers), 2) well installation (geoprobe vs augers), 3) sample collection (well purging vs grab samples; filtered vs non filtered), and 4) groundwater analytical methods did not provide adequate information for uranium plume delineation. Further, the information available to potential remedial contractors was insufficient to develop a groundwater remediation plan that could attain the objective of reducing groundwater concentrations in the area to less than 180 pCi/I.

Monitoring well installations and soil boring locations from all previous and current field work in the BG#1 area are shown in Figure 2. The wells and borings are color-coded to indicate the year of installation, beginning in 1985 and extending to 2002. In all, over 200 borings have been drilled in the subject area over the last 17 years, with the majority being installed in the last three years.

7

6.0 Current Characterization of BA#1 6.1 Introduction Cimarron personnel submitted a work plan for the most recent phase of groundwater assessment in BA#1 to NRC in April 2002, and revised it in July 2002. The work plan was intended to provide sufficient information to enable Cimarron to:

  • delineate the extent of the plume that exceeds 180 pCiI total uranium
  • determine the quantity of uranium that would require removal to remediate the groundwater
  • collect hydrogeologic information needed to develop a remedial design NRC verbally approved the work plan, with comments, in June 2002, and notified Cimarron that it was acceptable to NRC staff for field work to begin prior to the receipt of written approval.

Field work began in July and was completed in October 2002.

This characterization of BA#1 included:

"* advancing borings into alluvium and bedrock

"* collecting soil samples for radiological and geotechnical analysis

"* installing groundwater monitoring wells

"* collecting groundwater elevation data

"* collecting groundwater samples from newly installed wells for both on-site analysis (Tennelec) and off-site analysis (KPA) to determine if off-set wells were required for complete plume delineation

"* performing slug tests and an aquifer pump test to determine aquifer properties

"* collecting groundwater samples from all wells in BG#1 for off-site alpha spectroscopy analysis

"* collecting soil and groundwater samples for determination of distribution coefficients (Kd).

6.2 Soil Borings In early 2002 (prior to NRC approval of the work plan), eleven soil borings (the "KM" series borings shown in Figure 2) were drilled for the purpose of downhole electric logging (natural gamma and SP). It was anticipated that the e-logs would be useful in correlating drill hole (geologic) data across the BA#1 area. The effort proved to be unreliable with poor-to-little correlation between the electric logs and the geologic logs. Therefore, no additional downhole electric logging efforts were performed for the July through October 2002 field effort.

8

Following NRC approval of the work plan, field work was conducted from July through October 2002. Sixty-four soil borings were drilled in accordance with the approved plan to collect data important to understanding the geology of the BA#1 area. All borings were logged by an experienced geologist.

Fifty-five of the borings were converted to monitoring wells, one was converted to an aquifer pump test well, four were converted to observation wells for the pump test, and four were simply borings drilled (and subsequently abandoned) for the collection of geologic data. Double-cased holes were used to collect geologic data deeper than the base of the alluvium in those areas where alluvium is present.

All collected data were useful for refining geologic cross-sections that had been presented in earlier reports.

All holes that were: drilled as soil borings for the collection of geologic data or for testing the usefulness of downhole electric logging were plugged and abandoned according to procedures outlined in the facility's Sampling and Analysis Plan and in accordance with Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) regulations.

6.3 Soil Sampling Soil samples were collected for a variety of chemical and physical tests. Soils from select borings were collected at one-foot increments from ground surface to total depth for on-site analysis of total uranium.

Other soil samples were collected for laboratory testing to determine a distribution coefficient (Kd). Still other samples were analyzed for grain size distribution and geotechnical properties such as liquid limit and plasticity index.

Field screening of soil cores and drill cuttings was conducted by performing a gamma scan with a Micro R meter. No Micro R readings above the range of background were observed.

6.4 Well Installation - Alluvium A total of 46 new alluvial monitoring wells were installed during the July through October 2002 investigation (Figure 3).

Well installation was performed in accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan. As described in the approved work plan, the actual locations of monitoring wells were determined as new information was developed, adding off-set monitoring well locations as indicated by KPA groundwater analysis.

The soil borings and monitoring wells were drilled with a Failing StrataStar-10 drill rig using 8.75-inch OD augers. Continuous soil samples were collected using five-feet long, split-barrel tubes inside the augers. Recovery was typically good in clays, silts, and while drilling through the unsaturated zone. The non cohesive fine sands encountered in the saturated alluvium yielded poor recovery 9

in spite of several tool modifications. Descriptions of the soils encountered are recorded on the soil boring logs in Appendix A.

Wells were constructed using a 2-inch diameter, schedule 40 PVC riser and 0.010-inch slotted screen with flush threaded screw-coupled joints as discussed in the Sampling and Analysis Plan. Typically, the full saturated thickness of the aquifer was screened.

Well 1317 was plugged and abandoned because of its inability to produce sufficient water during sampling events. The location of the well in the river alluvium should have allowed water production consistent with surrounding monitoring wells. Attempts to rehabilitate the well were of no benefit, so the well was plugged and abandoned, Well TMW-13 was designated the replacement for well 1317.

Table 2 is an inventory of all monitoring wells installed in BA#1, and Figure 2 shows their locations. Well completion information is shown on the monitoring well completion diagrams located in Appendix B.

All new groundwater monitoring wells were developed (via air lift) soon after completion. Each well was developed to remove fines and drill cuttings from the screened interval and to establish hydraulic communication of the well with native sediment.

Development water thought to be impacted was collected for temporary storage. After all wells were developed, a sample of the stored water was collected and analyzed prior to discharge.

The approximate volume of development water produced from each monitoring well was estimated and recorded on the well installation diagram, along with the color, odor and clarity of the water.

Locations, top of casing elevations, and ground surface elevations for all new monitoring wells and soil borings were determined by survey grade Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment.

Both local (site) and state-plane coordinates are shown on all maps, with the exception of the aerial image (Figure 1).

6.5 Well Installation - Bedrock Eleven new Sandstone B monitoring wells and one new Sandstone C monitoring well were installed using the same auger method as the alluvial wells. Monitoring well installation was performed in accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan. Two of the older wells, 1315 and 1316, were plugged and abandoned because it was believed (based on their reported completed depths) that their screen intervals may have been completed across both Sandstone B and a portion of Sandstone C.

Replacement wells 1315R and 1316R were drilled within a few feet of the original locations only through Sandstone B. Figure 2 10

shows the location for all wells and soil borings. Well completion information is contained in Appendix B.

Borings were advanced with hollow stem augers and continuous cores were obtained. Well construction, completion, and development for the new bedrock wells was performed similar to that of the new alluvial wells, except for new Sandstone C well (02W48) which was double-cased to minimize the potential of cross-communication between the various zones. All new bedrock wells were completed in Sandstone B with the exception of 02W48. There are now a total of 21 Sandstone B wells and three Sandstone C wells in BA#1.

Elevations and coordinates for each well are provided in Table 2.

6.6 Groundwater Elevation Measurements Two rounds of groundwater elevation measurements were conducted during the assessment in order to better understand groundwater movement from the BA#1 (bedrock) area northward into the alluvium. As has been observed in the past, groundwater elevations in the alluvium are affected by recharge events and the Cimarron River stage. Sandstone B wells show a more dampened effect from recharge events and minimal affect from the river, and Sandstone C monitoring wells show no apparent change as a result of local precipitation or the river stage.

6.7 Aquifer Test Well 02W56 was installed as the aquifer test well in an unimpacted area just to the west of the uranium plume.

This area was lithologically similar to the impacted alluvial material. Because the groundwater was unimpacted, pumped water from the test was discharged directly onto the ground surface.

The aquifer test well was drilled using a 15.25 inch hollow stem auger, and constructed using a 10-foot long, 6-inch diameter wire wrap Johnson screen.

The screen was constructed of 304 stainless steel with 0.030 inch slots. The well was completed with a screen interval from 9 to 19 feet (bgs) in the alluvial aquifer.

A filter pack consisting of 8x16 (1.29 mm-1.42 mm) silica sand was installed around the well in the interval of 7 to 20 feet bgs. The well screen slot size and fifter pack were selected according to Driscoll (1986).

Five observation wells were monitored during the aquifer test. They were located 16 feet (02W58), 24 feet (02W60), 38 feet (02W59), 49 feet (02W61) and 107 feet (02W22) away from the pumped well (see Figure 3). Observation wells were constructed using a 10-foot long, 2-inch diameter schedule 40 PVC screen with 0.010 inch slots.

The screen interval was approximately 5 to 15 feet bgs.

Observation well soil boring and well completion diagrams are included in Appendices A and B, respectively.

I1

6.8 Slug Tests Slug tests were conducted on wells 02W02, 02W10, 02W11, 02W15, 02W16, 02W17, 02W33, 02W40, 02W42, 02W46, 02W48, 02W51, 02W56, 02W58, 02W59, 02W61, 02W62, TMW-01, TMW-09, TMW-13, TMW-20, and TMW-24.

Slug tests were conducted using a solid steel slug with a few exceptions. The exceptions were the use of PVC bailers to displace static water levels on wells 02W56 (the aquifer test well), 02W10, 02W40, 02W59, and 02W61.

6.9 Groundwater Sampling Monitoring wells installed during this final 2002 assessment were developed and sampled in accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan.

Initially, groundwater samples were analyzed during the drilling program for screening purposes to quickly identify the outline of the uranium plume.

These initial groundwater samples for screening were split between the on-site laboratory and General Engineering Laboratories (GEL). Samples sent to GEL were tested for total uranium via KPA with a 3-day turnaround time.

KPA data was used to determine when off-set well locations were needed.

Alpha spectroscopy analyses were not utilized during this initial effort because field work was predicated on the rapid reporting of analytical results, and alpha spec results could not be generated in the time needed to guide field work.

Following completion of monitoring well installation and review of the initial analytical results, groundwater samples were collected from all existing and newly installed area monitoring wells. This round of groundwater samples was analyzed for total uranium (via alpha spectroscopy) to provide definitive confirmation of the extent of the uranium plume exceeding 180 pCVI.

Site groundwater samples were also collected and shipped to the contract laboratory for the distribution coefficient (Kd) study.

The determination was made to use actual groundwater from the BA#1 area to best represent site conditions for the testing rather than to "create" a test solution in the laboratory.

7.0 Data Evaluation 7.1 Soil Boring Logs Appendix A contains the soil boring logs from all of the holes that were drilled as part of this final assessment.

All borings were logged by an experienced geologist.

12

Consistent with the initial and revised work plans (Cimarron Corporation, 2002a and 2002b), soil samples from select borings were sampled in one foot increments for analysis of total uranium using the soil counter in the on-site laboratory. In addition, composite soil samples that were collected in the upper five feet of saturated material and in the lowermost five feet of saturation above the bedrock for off-site geotechnical tests were also analyzed in the on-site laboratory before shipment off-site. Appendix C contains all of the radiological soils data measured by Cimarron Corporation's on-site laboratory. The data show that none of the soil samples exceeded the BTP Option 1 criteria of 30 pCVg above background.

7.2 Structure on Top of the Bedrock Figure 6 depicts the structure on top of the bedrock and the lithology at the interface of the alluvium and bedrock. The map indicates the bedrock surface generally slopes to the north, with a steep gradient in the area of the buried escarpment and a slightly more gentle decline in elevation of the bedrock surface from that area northward. From the soil boring logs, the decreasing elevation of the bedrock surface corresponds to a thickening of the overlying alluvial material.

With regards to the lithology at the alluvium/bedrock interface, most of the borings in BA#1 indicate the presence of clay (or mudstone) at the base of the alluvium.

However, there are three areas where soil boring logs indicated coarser material (generally sand) underlying the alluvium. Where present, the clay (or mudstone) is generally believed to act as a confining or semi-confining layer, thereby limiting the amount of upward leakage of water from the sandstone units below. In those areas absent of clay, groundwater has a greater potential to discharge upward into the alluvium -- an important consideration in evaluating certain remedial options.

7.3 Potentiometric Surface Figure 7 shows the potentiometric surface of the BA#1 area along with the ground surface topography.

The water level readings that are shown were recorded on November 1, 2002. Readings from this date are considered to be representative of and similar to, other readings which were recorded over the last few months.

Figure 7 clearly shows a comparatively steep groundwater gradient in the bedrock monitoring wells (south of the buried escarpment). The flow deflects to the northwest and the gradient flattens considerably as groundwater discharges from the bedrock into the adjacent alluvium. It is postulated that the deflection may be caused by 1) influence of a former buried stream channel that may have existed in the past that is now filled with alluvial sediment, and 2) the general 13

deflection which occurs as groundwater discharges from a less permeable formation into a more permeable formation. Regardless of which factor has the most influence on the potentiometric surface, it is clear that the further one goes out into the alluvium (northward), the flatter the potentiometric surface becomes.

At a groundwater elevation of 931 feet (msl), the groundwater surface was essentially flat across several acres during early November 2002. The alluvium material, because it is orders of magnitude more permeable than the bedrock (trench) area, is quite capable of accepting the volume of groundwater that discharges into it from the bedrock and easily distributes the head over a wide area creating a flat potentiometric surface.

Monitoring wells 02W03 (alluvial) and TMW18 (Sandstone B) consistently yield anomalously low water level elevations when compared to adjacent monitoring wells. It is speculated that 02W03 may be slower to respond to local recharge events and river stage level because of its proximity to, and influence from the buried escarpment. Also, because of a bedrock "highn in this area, there is only about five feet of saturated (alluvial) thickness. Well TMW18 may be slow to respond because it may not intersect any significant fractures in the bedrock.

Within the BA#1 area, the water level (head) relationships are variable when comparing the alluvial with adjacent bedrock monitoring wells. There are times and locations where the alluvial wells exhibit a higher head (for example, after recharge events), but there are other times and locations where the bedrock wells exhibit a higher water level than adjacent alluvial wells.

7.4 Aquifer (Pumping) Test Results A step drawdown test was conducted on well 02W56 prior to the aquifer test, from which it was determined a pumping rate of 26 gpm would be used for the test. Although 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of constant pumping was planned for the aquifer test followed by an appropriate duration to collect recovery data, the forecast of a significant rainfall event shortened the test to just over 35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br /> of pumping. As it turned out, sufficient pumping and recovery data were collected prior to any rainfall to adequately calculate aquifer properties.

Jacob's semi-log graphical approach was used to analyze the aquifer test data and recovery data (i.e., ratio t/t' vs. residual drawdown). Data evaluation shows a well efficiency of greater than 94%, a well specific capacity of 11.8 gpm/ft, and a hydraulic conductivity of 8.6 x 10-2 cm/sec from distance-drawdown calculations.

Appendix D gives a detailed evaluation of the aquifer test.

14

7.5 Slug Test Results Various methods were used to evaluate the slug test data. Table 3 shows a summary of the estimated hydraulic conductivities in the alluvium, Sandstone B and Sandstone C. Appendix E gives a detailed evaluation of the slug test data.

As shown in the table, monitoring wells completed in the alluvium generally average a hydraulic conductivity of around 10.2 cm/sec, except in those areas of the site which exhibited more silts and clays where 10.4 or 10s5 cm/sec are more common. Sandstone B monitoring wells have hydraulic conductivities in the 104 to 10-6 cm/sec range, and the lone Sandstone C well on which a slug test was

.performed is on the order of 10s cm/sec.

Good agreement was found for the calculated hydraulic conductivity of 02W56 from both the slug test and aquifer (pumping) test data (4.2 x 1 0-2 cm/sec vs. 8.3 x 10.2 cm/sec, respectively).

7.6 Hydraulic Conductivity Distribution Table 3 summarizes the hydraulic conductivities which were calculated in the BA#1 area from slug test and pumping test data for both the alluvium and Sandstone B.

Figure 10 shows the areal distribution of those hydraulic conductivities. For the alluvial material, hydraulic conductivities generally range from 10.2 cm/sec to 10"* cm/sec, with most of the wells being in the 102 cm/sec range. For Sandstone B, calculated hydraulic conductivities are consistently in the range of 10"4 to 10"5 cm/sec. For those wells on which both pumping test and slug tests were done, the results for both tests are less than an order of magnitude apart, representing good correlation between the test results.

Note the correlation between the areal distribution of hydraulic conductivities (Figure 10) with the potentiometric surface map (Figure 7). Clearly, groundwater flow direction is at least significantly influenced by, if not dictated by, zones of higher permeability in the alluvium. Soil boring logs which show those areas of the alluvium with little to no silts and clays empirically correspond to those areas which show the highest hydraulic conductivities. Likewise, those soil boring logs showing significant silts and clays correspond to those areas which show the lowest hydraulic conductivities.

7.7 Extent of Uranium-Impacted Groundwater Plume Figure 8 illustrates the extent of groundwater that exceeds 180 pCi/I total uranium, based on 3-day turn around KPA analyses. This figure shows that at the time the drilling program was finished, the entire plume was surrounded by monitoring wells yielding less than 180 pCi/I by KPA analytical results.

15

After installation was complete and in accordance with the work plan, all BA#1 monitoring wells were sampled and the groundwater was analyzed by alpha spectroscopy. Table 4 summarizes the alpha spectroscopy data from General Engineering Laboratories, Inc. (The raw analytical data from GEL is available on-site for review). Figure 9 illustrates the extent of groundwater that exceeds 180 pCi/I total uranium based on the alpha spectroscopy results.

Note from Table 4 that the initial alpha spectroscopy data point associated with well 02W43 was 190 pCi/I. This value is much higher than the screening (KPA) value of 76 pCi/I obtained immediately following monitoring well installation and also differs significantly from the 124 pCi/i from the subsequent KPA analysis. Re-analysis of this well by subsequent alpha spectroscopy yielded a value of 154 pCi/I -

more consistent with the latter KPA value, and thus the Figure 9 plume map incorporates the 154 pCi/I data point.

Regardless of subtle differences between the KPA plume map versus the alpha spectroscopy plume map, the orientation of the plume is nearly identical (trends to the northwest). This orientation is consistent with groundwater flow direction shown earlier on the potentiometric surface map (Figure 7), and with the distribution of higher permeability material based on the slug tests and soil boring logs.

It is believed that precipitation and run-off water that collected over the five year period 1988 to 1993, when the excavation remained open, significantly contributed to the expansion of the uranium plume downgradient of the BA#1 area. The hydraulic head of the water within the open excavation provided the driving force to mobilize uranium that may have entered the shallow soil environment from the original placement of the solid waste material.

Approximately 70,000 ft2 (1.6 acres) are contained within the 180 pCi/I contour line (alpha spectroscopy data).

The volume of saturated aquifer containing greater than 180 pCi/I total uranium is approximately 39,000 cubic yards, based on a conservative estimate of 15 feet as the average thickness of groundwater that will require remediation. Using an effective porosity of 0.25, the estimated quantity of uranium that is contained within this area is calculated to be 0.008 curies.

7.8 Distribution Coefficient Kd Hazen Research, Inc. conducted batch leaching studies in October 2000 for soils present in the BA#1 area (Appendix F).

The purpose of these tests was to determine the quantity of uranium in the soils that would solubilize without altering the oxidation-state of the uranium. The tests were conducted to assess the potential for groundwater to remove sorbed uranium.

Eight soil samples were collected - six from impacted locations and two from un-impacted areas for 16

control. From this study, it was concluded that neither natural attenuation nor pump-and-treat methods were viable remedial options.

In September 2002, two representative soil samples were collected and sent to Hazen Research, Inc. for establishing distribution ratios (Rd) according to ASTM D4319-93 (American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001). Batch tests were conducted using soil (un-impacted with respect to uranium) and water (concentration of around 4 mg/I total uranium) from the BA#1 area to simulate sorption of the dissolved uranium onto the soil matrix. Distribution ratios, Kd, (ie, distribution coefficients) were then used to estimate a retardation factor for uranium to assess how the migration of the groundwater plume is inhibited. The Kd values were also used to calculate how long it would take to reduce dissolved uranium concentrations to the release limit (i.e., 180 pCi/I) by natural attenuation.

(Hazen Research, Inc's complete report on the distribution ratio is contained in Appendix G).

A Kd of 3 mVg for uranium was estimated from Hazen for the shallow groundwater within the BA#1 area, which yields a retardation factor (rf) of approximately 22 (see Attachment 1). Theoretically, uranium migration in the saturated zone would be roughly 22 times slower than the average groundwater velocity. This does not take into account, however, such factors as the effects of recharge (i.e., rising and falling heads), the change in lithology ("clean" sands versus the presence of silts and clays) across the area, the river stage, the presence/absence of organic material, and many other factors. Attachment 1 gives an estimate as to the number of pore volumes that would be required to flush the BA#1 area in order to reduce the groundwater concentration to below 180 pCi/I total uranium.

7.9 Sieve Analyses and Hydrometer Tests A total of 77 soil samples were submitted to an off-site laboratory for sieve analyses. From this data, hydraulic conductivities were estimated on three of the wells (02W 11, 02W33 and 02W56) using a method described by Alyamani and Sen (1993). Table 5 summarizes the estimated hydraulic conductivity from the sieve analyses and compares it to the values that were calculated from slug and aquifer tests. On average, hydraulic conductivities estimated from grain size distributions tended to be similar to, or slightly lower than those generated by aquifer or slug test data.

Hydrometer tests were conducted for soil samples collected from 02W01, 02W10, 02W20, and 02W28. The summary results for all sieve analyses and hydrometer tests are located in Appendix H.

17

7.10 Geotechnical Tests Three soil samples collected from various well installations during this assessment and designated as Specimen GR-1, GR-2, and GR-3 were analyzed for the following geotechnical properties:

  • liquid limit
  • plasticity index
  • effective stress angle of internal friction effective stress cohesion These tests were run to provide potential remediation contractors geotechnical information that would be needed if excavation of the alluvium is selected as the preferred remedial option. Specimen GR-1 is a composite soil sample collected from various samples from drill holes 02W29, 02W30, and 02W31. Specimen GR-2 is a composite sample collected from various samples from drill holes 02W15, 02W16, and 02W17.

Specimen GR-3 is a composite soil sample collected from various samples from drill holes 02W1, 02W2, and 02W3. Figure 11 shows the locations of the holes from where all of the composites were taken.

Appendix I contains a detailed report of the results of the geotechnical study.

8.0 Conclusions Cimarron Corporation has developed the information required to meet the objectives that were outlined at the beginning of this Burial Area #1 groundwater assessment, and to address outstanding NRC questions and/or concerns.

In addition, sufficient information was gained from this assessment to allow Cimarron to more accurately evaluate remedial options and select a remediation approach.

Following are a list of conclusions as a result of this detailed study. Cimarron Corporation has:

1.

determined the horizontal and vertical extent of uranium in the alluvial and Sandstone B aquifers

2.

determined that none of the soils within the groundwater plume exceed the BTP Option 1 decommissioning criteria of 30 pCi/g above background

3.

determined from analytical data that uranium concentrations in Sandstone C ranged from 6 to 34 pCVI for the locations monitored, which is consistent with background levels of Sandstone C

4.

determined that a clay/mudstone lithologic unit underlies a significant portion of the uranium plume

5.

defined the hydrogeologic setting in which the plume is migrating 18

6.

determined from an aquifer (pumping) test that the hydraulic conductivity of the alluvium is approximately 8.6 x 10.2 cm/sec

7.

determined from slug tests that the hydraulic conductivity of the alluvium ranges from 10.2 cm/sec to 10"5 cm/sec, with most of the alluvial wells being in the 10 2 cm/sec range

8.

determined that the hydraulic conductivity of Sandstone B is in the range of 10-4 to 10"5 cm/sec

9.

determined that the hydraulic conductivity of Sandstone C is in the range of 10"5 cm/sec

10. evaluated all slug test and aquifer test data and determined that all data correlates fairly well (at least to within one order of magnitude or better)
11.

examined sieve analyses data to determine that on average, hydraulic conductivities estimated from grain size distribution tended to be similar to, or slightly lower than those generated by aquifer or slug test data

12. determined that the extent and orientation of the plume in the alluvium correlates well with the hydraulic conductivity data
13. determined that the shallow groundwater shows a steep gradient in the bedrock, and flattens considerably as groundwater discharges into the alluvium
14. determined that within the alluvium, the groundwater surface is essentially flat across several acres, including the area where most of the uranium plume is located
15. determined from laboratory testing that a distribution coefficient factor of around 3 mVg is appropriate for uranium in this hydrogeologic setting, which leads to a calculated retardation factor of around 22
16. determined geotechnical properties that are important in development of a remediation plan With the detailed groundwater assessment phase now complete, Cimarron Corporation anticipates submitting plans to remediate the Burial Area #1 groundwater uranium plume for NRC review and approval in 2003.

19

9.0 References

1. Alyamani, M.S. and Sen, Z., "Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity from Complete Grain-Size Distribution Curves," Ground Water, Vol. 31, No. 4, July August, 1993, pp. 551-555.
2. American Society for Testing and Materials, "Standard Testing Method for Distribution Ratios by the Short-Term Batch Method, Designation: D 4319-93" (reapproved 2001), Philadelphia, PA, 2001.
3.

Bouwer, H. and Rice, R.C., "A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers with Completely or Partially Penetrating Wells", Water Resources Research, 12(3), 423, 1976.

4. Butler, J.J., The Design, Performance and Analysis of Slug Tests, Kansas Geological Survey and /the University of Kansas, Lewis Publishers, New York, New York, 1998.
5. Butler, J.J. and Gamett, E.J., "Simple Procedure for Analysis of Slug Tests in Formations of High Hydraulic Conductivity Using Spreadsheet and Scientific Graphic Software", Kansas Geological Survey Open-file Report. 2000-40, Lawrence, Kansas; 2000.
6. Carr, J.E., and Marcher, M.V., "A Preliminary Appraisal of the Garber Wellington Aquifer Southern Logan and Northern Oklahoma Counties, Oklahoma," USGS Open file Report 77-278, 1977.
7. Cherry, J.A., and Freeze, R.A., Groundwater, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.
8. Cimarron Corporation, "Decommissioning Plan Groundwater Evaluation Report for Cimarron Corporation's Former Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Facility", July 1998.
9.

Cimarron Corporation, "Former Burial Area #1 Groundwater Assessment Workplan", (April) 2002a.

10. Cimarron Corporation, "Former Burial Area #1 Groundwater Assessment Workplan, Revision 1", (July) 2002b.
11.

Driscoll, F.G., Groundwater and Wells, Johnson Filtration, Inc., Minnesota, 1986.

12. Engineering Enterprises, "Hydrological Information in the Vicinity of the Kerr-McGee Facility, Logan County, OK", 1973.

20

13.

Environmental Protection Agency, Design Guidelines for Conventional Pump-and-Treat Systems, EPA/540/S-97/504, September 1997.

14. Fetter, C.W., Contaminant Hydro-ieoloav, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1992, p. 117-119.
15. Letter from Mr. George M. McCann, Chief, Material Licensing Branch, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Dr. John Stauter, Cimarron Corporation, December 30, 1992.
16. Letter from Mr. Jess Larsen, Vice President, Cimarron Corporation, to Mr.

Ken Kalman, Project Manager, Low-Level Waste & Decommissioning Projects Branch, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 4, 1999.

17. Letter from Mr. Jess Larsen, Vice President, Cimarron Corporation, to Mr.

Ken Kalman, Project Manager, Low-Level Waste & Decommissioning Projects Branch, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 20, 2000.

18. Letter from Mr. Larry W. Camper, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Mr. Jess Larsen, Vice President, Cimarron Corporation, April 28, 2000.
19. Letter from Mr. Jess Larsen, Vice President, Cimarron Corporation, to Mr.

Ken Kalman, Project Manager, Low-Level Waste & Decommissioning Projects Branch, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 19, 2000.

20. Wood and Burton, "Groundwater Resources in Cleveland and Oklahoma Counties, Oklahoma: Oklahoma Geological Survey Circular, 71.

Groundwater Evaluation Report", 1968.

21

Attachment #1 Retardation Factor Calculations C)

Retardation Factor Calculations Retardation factors have three practical applications in contaminant transport: 1) using the retardation factor to estimate a contaminant velocity; 2) estimating the dissolved and sorbed fraction of a contaminant in an aquifer; and 3) assessing the effect of sorption on Pump and Treat cleanup times and volume of water to be removed. In this attachment, an illustration of using the retardation factor to assess the volume of water to be removed to test the validity of the use of Pump and-Treat Technology is made.

Soil samples collected from 02W02-FA1563 and 02W08-FA1564 were analyzed for distribution ratios, Rd, per ASTM D 4319 Guidance by Hazen Research, Inc.

(A summary report from Hazen is included in Appendix G of the main report).

The average Rdwas determined to be 3.0 ml/g. Assuming the distribution ratio (Rd) is equal to the distribution coefficient (Kd), a retardation factor rf= 21.64 is calculated using the following equation (Fetter, 1992):

Bd if =1+ Bd Kd

where, rf: retardation factor Bct bulk density of aquifer (e.g., 1.72 g/ml) 0: effective porosity for saturated media (e.g., 0.25)

A Batch Flush Model is used to estimate the number of pore volumes required to reduce the uranium concentrations to the NRC acceptable level of 180 pCVI (Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). The model assumes linear reversible, and instantaneous sorption that may lead to significant underestimation of Pump and-Treat cleanup times.

No. of PVs = -rf x in C,,*,,

Assuming the initial uranium concentration is 5,000 pCi/I, it would take approximately 72 pore volumes (PVs) to reduce the initial uranium concentration to 180 pCi/l.

The following table provides a summary of the number of PVs to be extracted with respect to various initial uranium concentrations:

I

Initial Concentration PVs Estimated Equivalent to million gallons of (Cinitial) (pCi/I) groundwater to be treated (approximate) 5,000 72 144 4,000 67 134 3,000 61 122 2,000 52 104 1,000 37 74 500 22 44 Note that one PV is equivalent to the volume of the treatment zone area multiplied by an effective porosity (i.e., assuming 0.25). The volume of the treatment zone areas is estimated to be 1,050,000 ft3. One PV is 1,050,000 ft3 x 0.25 = 262,500 ft3 or 2.0 millions of gallons of water. If the Pump-and-Treat method is considered in the future, a detailed engineering design with plans and specifications should be prepared. In essence, this calculation shows that hundreds of millions of gallons of uranium-impacted groundwater would require treatment if Pump-and-Treat be solely considered. More efficient and effective remedial technologies should be considered to remediate the uranium-impacted groundwater plume, for source removal or immobilization.

References Environmental Protection Agency, "Design Guidelines for Conventional Pump and-Treat Systems", EPA/540/S-97/504, September 1997.

Fetter, C.W., Contaminant Hydrocqeologv, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1992, p. 117-119.

2

FIGURES

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 1 "AERIAL IMAGE OF S.CIMARRON SITE" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 1 NOTE: Because of this page's large file size, it may be more convenient to copy the file to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the ProgramslAccessories menu.

D-1

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 2 "WELL AND SOIL BORING LOCATIONS BY YEAR" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE

'FIGURE: 2 NOTE: Because of this page's large file size, it may be more convenient to copy the file to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-2

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE,.

THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 3 "EXISTING WELLS AND 2002 WELL AND SOIL BORING LOCATIONS" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 3 NOTE: Because of this page's large fe size, it may be more convenient to copy the Mile to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-3

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 4 "CROSS-SECTION LOCATIONS (SEE FIGURE 5 FOR CROSS SECTIONS)"

WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 4 NOTE: Because of this page's large file size, it may be more convenient to copy the file to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-4

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 5 "CROSS-SECTIONS A=A',B-B',C-C',&D-D' (SEE FIGURE 4 FOR CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS)"

WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 5 NOTE: Because of this page's large fe size, it may be more convenient to copy the file to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-5

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 6 "STRUCTURE OF TOP OF BEDROCK" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 6 NOTE: Because of this page's large fie size, it may be more convenient to copy the fie to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-6

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE:. 7 "GROUNDWATER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE WATER LEVEL DATA AS OF NOV. 1, 2002" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 7 NOTE: Because of this page's large file size, it may be more convenient to copy the fie to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-7

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 8 "URANIUM PLUME BY KPA SAMPLE COLLECTION DATES JULY, AUG, SEPT., 2002" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 8 NOTE: Because of this page's large file size, it may be more convenient to copy the fie to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-8

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 9 "URANIUM PLUME BY ALPHA SPEC SAMPLE COLLECTION DATE AUG. 2002" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 9 NOTE: Because of this page's large file size, it may be more convenient to copy the file to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-9

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 10 "HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY DISTRIBUTION" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 10 NOTE: Because of this page's large file size, it may be more convenient to copy the fie to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-10

THIS PAGE IS AN OVERSIZED DRAWING OR FIGURE, THAT CAN BE VIEWED AT THE RECORD TITLED:

FIGURE: 11 "GEOTECHNICAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS" WITHIN THIS PACKAGE...OR, BY SEARCHING USING THE FIGURE: 11 NOTE: Because of this page's large file size, it may be more convenient to copy the file to a local drive and use the Imaging (Wang) viewer, which can be accessed from the Programs/Accessories menu.

D-11

TABLES

TABLE 1: BURIAL AREA #1 TIMELINE OF ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DISPOSAL, GROUNDWATER IMPACT, AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT DATE DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES 1966 - 1970 Waste placed in trenches. Trenches closed in 1970.

1971 - 1983 1984 Settling Observed in Burial Area #1 1985 Elevated uranium concentrations observed in newly inst. monitor wells 1986-1987 1988 - 1993 Trenches opened for waste removal in 1988. Closed after ORISE confirmatory survey in 1993.

1994-1997 1998 Groundwater decommissioning plan submitted to NRC 1999 Burial trenches characterized 2000 Reconnaissance investigation identifies uranium >180 pCi/l in Subarea C 2001 2002 Comprehensive hydrogeologic and geotechnical characterization of area Note: height of row is approximately proportional to duration of time.

TI-1

C TABLE 2: MONITORING WELL INVENTORY FOR THE CIMARRON FACILITY BA#1 AREA C

GROUND TOC I

SCREENED WELL PLANT PLANT ELEVATION E LEVATIOIN STICKUP TOTAL YEAR INTERVAL NAME EASTING NORTHING NORTHING EASTING (msl)

(msl)

(ft)

DEPTH (ft)

DRILLED ZONE TYPE (ft below grade) STATUS COMMENTS 02W01 2095439.6 322842.9 907 1222 941.5 943.9 2.5 20 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 8to 18 02W02 2095450.6 322881.8 915 1225 938.8 941.6 2.8 20 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 8to 18 02W03 2095372.4 322882.3 917 1202 937.7 940.3 2.6 17 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 15 02W04 20953.0 322903.0 923 1189 936.7 939.3 2.6 18 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6 to 16 02W05 2095318.9 322952.0 936 1186 935.6 938.7 3.1 19 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6 to 16 02W06 2095307.4 323008.0 955 1182 936.2 938.7 2.5 24 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 7 to 21 02W07 2095342.8 323005.6 954 1193 936.4 939.2 2.8 25 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 7 to 21 02W08 2095389.7 323011.4 956 1208 936.9 939.7 2.8 26 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 9to 23 02W09 2095597.6 322764.2 879 1269 946.1 948.7 2.7 25 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 23 02W10 2095579.6 322829.8 899 1264 942.1 944.7 2.6 23 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6 to 21 02W 11 2095439.8 323055.8 969 1222 937.5 940.2 2.7 28 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6 to 26 02W12 2095452.9 323035.9 963 1226 937.6 940.3 2.7 28 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 25 02W13 2095478.1 322982.9 947 1234 937.1 939.6 2.5 26 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 10 to 25 02W14 2095393.7 323056.1 969 1208 937.3 940.0 2.7 29 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6 to 26 02W15 2095283.6 322896.5 921 1174 935.8 938.5 2.7 15 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 13 02W16 2095268.9 322944.4 936 1170 935.5 937.8 2.3 20 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 7 to 17 02W17 2095258.5 323006.6 955 1167 936.4 939.1 2.7 25 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 23 02W18 2095343.5 323094.1 981 1194 936.9 939.3 2.4 29 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6 to 26 02W19 2095327.9 323052.8 969 1198 936.8 939.5 2.7 25 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 22 02W20 2095670.2 322655.9 846 1292 948.4 951.0 2.5 26 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 9 to 23 02W21 2095195.6 323055.2 970 1149 936.8 939.3 2.5 27 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 10 to 25 02W22 2095216.8 322936.8 933 "1154 935.2 937.8 2.6 19 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6to 16 02W23 2095206.4 323007.9 955 1152 935.6 937.9 2.3 25 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 22 02W24 2095260.2 323054.8 969 1167 936.6 939.3 2.8 28 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 25 02W25 2095463.9 322653.3 846 1228 955.1 957.6 2.5 32 2002 SS B 2" PVC 11 to 31 02W26 2095629.1 322716.9 863 1280 949.4 952.0 2.6 28 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 10 to 25 02W27 2095396.9 322825.2 899 1208 942.1 945.1 3.1 22 2002 SS B 2" PVC 10 to 20 02W28 2095535.9 322830.5 900 1251 943.9 946.6 2.7 26 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 11 to 23 02W29 2095551.0 322756.8 877 1256 946.8 949.5 2.7 27 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 11 to 20 02W30 2095469.6 322767.4 880 1230 944.6 946.8 2.2 25 2002 SS B 2" PVC 10 to 23 02W31 2095500.8 322860.4 909 1240 941.0 943.7 2.7 23 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6 to 20 02W32 2095429.3 322964.3 941 1219 937.1 939.8 2.6 24 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6 to 21 02W33 2095250.1 322916.8 927 1164 935.3 937.9 2.6 17 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 15 02W34 2095183.9 323103.9 984 1145 936.0 938.7 2.6 28 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 25 02W35 2095252.1 323155.5 1001 1166 935.8 938.5 2.7 29 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 6 to 26 02W36 2095249.3 323106.8 984 1165 936.3 938.8 2.5 27 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 25 02W37 2095323.8 323156.5 1000 1188 936.4 939.0 2.5 27 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 25 02W38 2095391.3 323099.0 982 1208 936.9 939.5 2.6 26 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 7 to 26 02W39 2095575.1 322735.7 871 1263 947.5 950.3 2.8 25 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 7 to 22 02W40 2095529.6 322661.0 848 1249 952.0 954.7 2.8 32 2002 SS B 2" PVC 15 to 30 02W41 2095578.5 322683.1 854 1263 951.2 953.7 2.5 31 2002 SS B 2" PVC 13 to 28 02W42 2095470.2 322724.9 868 1230 948.9 951.4 2.5 31 2002 SS B 2" PVC 7 to 28 02W43 2095320.9 323206.4 1016 1188 936.5 939.2 2.6 30 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 28 02W44 2095372.9 323155.5 999 1203 936.3 939.2 2.8 29 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 7 to 26 02W45 2095284.7 323197.6 1014 1178 936.8 939.4 2.6 31 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 28 02W46 2095469.4 322907.4 923 1232 938.0 940.6 2.6 22 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 9 to 19 P&A

= Plugged and abandoned

,-I

TABLE 2: MONITORING WELL INVENTO r-OR THE CIMARRON FACILITY BA#1 AREA WELL PLANT PLANT ELI NAME fl: WA7 02W48

&040 II1 4-4-

  • AlORRA I-Il' I

TOC SCREENED N1ELEVATIO STICKUP TOTAL YEAR INTERVAL (frI I nPDr14 iftU flrng I Pfl I

7ANF I

TYPF I (ft helaw andel I STATUS I CUMMN1S W.0 322626.8 837 1246 954.5 956.9 2.5 32 2002 SS B 2'PVC 10 to 30 1.0 323406.5 1075 1219 936.5 939.2 2.7 60 2002 SS C 2" PVC 35 to54 Double Cased

R77 I

R9fl I

12d5 9.5&6 961 _1 2 u2 z r2 V, 02W51 2095473.6 322584.9 856 1230 959.7 962.2 2.5 37 2002 SS B 2' PVC 9 to 34 02W52 2095560.5 322568.9 820 1257 958.2 960.7 2.5 37 2002 SS B 2" PVC 14 to 34 02W53 2095381.5 322827.3 898 1203 941.1 943.9 2.8 23 2002 SS B 2" PVC 5 to 20 02W56 2095110.7 322950.6 959 1122 935.0 935.6 0.6 21 2002 ALLUV 6' SS 9 to 19 02W58 2095110.0 322966.2 944 1122 935.1 937.2 2.1 19 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 15 02W59 2095112.3 322912.6 927 1123 935.0 936.9 1.9 19 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 15 02W60 2095134.5 322952.5 940 1130 935.1 937.1 2.0 19 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 15 02W61 2095159.1 322957.8 942 1137 935.3 937.1 1.8 19 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 15 02W62 2095207.0 323140.0 995 1128 936.0 938.6 2.7 28 2002 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 25 1314 2095467.0 322413.9 773 1228 969.5 972.9 3.4 52 1985 SS B 4" PVC 30 to 45 1315 2095497.2 322756.1 946.9 950.0 3.1 32 1985 SS B 4" PVC 17to 32 P&A 1315R 2095504.1 322756.8 878 1242 946.5 949.3 2.8 27 2002 SS B 2" PVC 10 to 25 1316 2095436.9 322782.1 943.8 946.0 2.2 27 1985 SS B 4' PVC 12 to 27 P&A 1316R 2095438.1 322777.0 884 1221 944.1 946.7 2.6 27 2002 SS B 2' PVC 9 to 25 1317 2095393.0 322944.7 938.1 940.8 2.7 16 1985 ALLUV 4" PVC 2 to 16 P&A 1344 2095779.3 323500.9 935.4 936.9 1.5 25 1997 ALLUV 4" PVC 8 to 23 TMWO1 2095504.8 322697.0 860 1240 951.1 953.4 2.3 29 1999 SS B 2" PVC 11 to 26 TMW02 2095507.0 322598.6 830 1240 957.8 960.8 3.0 33 1999 SS B 2' PVC 15 to 30 TMW03 2095505.6 322828.2 900 1240 943.5 946.0 2.5 15 1999 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 15 P&A TMW04 2095463.8 322925.8 938.4 939.0 0.6 18 1999 ALLUV 2' PVC 9 to 18 P&A TMW05 2095554.5 322882.3 1

942.2 944.0 1.8 27 1999 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 23 TMW06 2095636.8 322794.0 890 1280 947.1 949.4 2.2 20 1999 ALLUV 2' PVC 7 to 17 TMW07 2095509.5 322894.3 920 1241 939.9 942.3 2.4 18 1999 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 15 TMW08 2095536.6 322724.6 867 1251 949.1 951.5 2.4 28 1999 SS B 2" PVC 10 to 25 TMWO9 2095489.3 322825.5 900 1235 944.3 946.4 2.1 22 1999 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 22 TMW10 2095504.9 322844.8 905 1240 942.2 945.0 2.8 20 1999 ALLUV 2" PVC 5 to 20 P&A TMW1 1 2095508.1 322807.0 894 1240 944.9 948.0 3.1 20 1999 ALLUV 2" PVC 10 to 20 P&A TMW12 2095521.9 322830.0 900 1245 943.8 945.0 1.2 23 1999 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 23 P&A TMW13 2095376.0 322955.1 938 1204 937.6 940.3 2.7 21 1999 ALLUV 2" PVC 8 to 18 TMW14 2095581.0 322684.1 952.1 954.6 2.5 27 2000 SS B 2" PVC 12 to 27 P&A TMW15 2095504.9 322650.1 954.2 956.7 2.5 25 2000 SS B 2' PVC 10 to 25 P&A TMW16 2095454.7 322743.2 947.6 950.1 2.5 23 2000 SS B 2" PVC 8 to 23 P&A TMW17 2095497.1 322764.9 880 1239 947.0 949.5 2.5 49 2000 SS C 2' PVC 36 to 46 Double Cased TMW18 2095338.3 322870.6 913 1195 939.0 941.5 2.5 20 2000 SS B 2" PVC 11 to 18 TMW19 2095339.5 322866.6 916 1185 938.8 941.3 2.5 12 2000 ALLUV 2" PVC 5to 10 TMW20 2095611.2 322615.4 834 1273 955.1 957.5 2.4 27 2000 SS B 2" PVC 9 to 24 TMW21 2095436.5 322702.0 862 1223 952.2 954.5 2.2 25 2000 SS B 2" PVC 12 to 22 TMW22 2095574.6 322640.8 954.4 956.7 2.3 22 2000 SS B 2" PVC 7 to 22 P&A TMW23 2095475.5 323056.8 969 1232 938.2 940.5 2.3 40 2000 SS C 2" PVC 30 to 40 Double Cased TMW24 2095436.4 323409.0 1076 1221 937.3 939.7 2.4 29 2000 ALLUV 2' PVC 15 to 25 TMW25 2095623.4 322653.9 846 1276 952.9 955.2 2.4 27 2000 SS B 2" PVC 9 to 24 TMW26 2095462.0 322669.2 1

954.4 957.0 2.6 24 2000 SS B 2" PVC 9 to 24 P&A P&A = Plugged and abandoned C

'7

-I N

N A*'I'III/'J IIl'l*}"l'l, lllil'**

IHf'll*'t'iillLIf"*.

I;A*IFIHf=-

Imel*

2_5 3m 1LI [0 *k3

Table 3: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivities Calculated From Slug and Aquifer Test Data Cimarron Facility Test Location Hydraulic Method Used for Comments Well Conductivity Data Analysis Estimated (cmnsec)

TMW-01 Sandstone B 6.35E-5

  • Bouwer &

"Double Rice straight line" 2.7E-5 0 Hvorslev effect observed as a result of rapid draining of the filter pack TMW-09 Alluvium 6.01E-3 0 Bouwer &

"Double Rice straight line" 1.2E-3 Hvorslev effect observed as a result of rapid draining of the filter pack TMW-13 Alluvium 6.99E-2 0 Bouwer &

Rice 6.2E-2 a Hvorslev TMW-20 Sandstone B 9.97E-4 a

Bouwer &

"Double Rice straight line" 4.1E-4 0 Hvorslev effect observed as a result of rapid draining of the filter pack TMW-24 Alluvium 4.13E-2 Butler and Oscillatory Garnett (2000) response data observed 7.85 ft of water column above the top

  • of well screen and the adjacent formation has a high hydraulic conductivity.

02W2 Alluvium 1.92E-5 Bouwer &

The well is Rice located in a very clayey area. Concave upward curvature observed.

T3-1

Table 3 - con't: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivities Calculated From Slug and Aquifer Test Data Cimarron Facility 02W10 Alluvium 3.36E-4

  • Bouwer &

Concave Rice upward 2.8E-4 Hvorslev curvature observed - the well screened across the water table in the formation with clayey soil (see well 109) 02W1l Alluvium 3.24E-3 0

Bouwer &

Slight Rice concave 4.00E-3 0

Hvorslev upward curvature observed.

1.70E-3 0

Sieve Analysis 02W15 Alluvium 1.09E-2 0

Bouwer &

Rice 1.8E-2 0

Hvorslev 1.0E-2 0

Sieve Analysis 02W16 Alluvium 3.66E-2 0

Bouwer &

Rice 3.90E-2 0

Hvorslev

1. 1E-2 Sieve Analysis 02W17 Alluvium 3.25E-2 Bouwer &

Rice 6.0E-2 Hvorslev 6.OE-3 0

Sieve Analysis 02W22 Alluvium 8.9E-2 Jacob's semi-Aquifer test log time vs data drawdown 02W33 Alluvium 1.3E-2

  • Bouwer &

Rice 1.9E-2 Hvorslev 1.7E-3 Sieve Analysis 02W40 Sandstone B 5.50E-4 0

Cooper-The diagnostic Bredehoeft-plot indicates Papadopulos that the well is located in a possible semi confined zone T3-2

Table 3 - con't: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivities Calculated From Slug and Aquifer Test Data Cimarron Facility Sandstone B Not available

  • Butler and Garnett (2000) 02W46 Alluvium 3.56E-5 Bouwer &

The well is Rice located in a 1.37E-5 0

Hvorslev very clayey area. Concave upward curvature observed.

02W48 Sandstone C 7.85E-5 Hvorslev 02W51 Sandstone B 7.72E-5 Bouwer &

"Double Rice straight line" (AquiferTest effect V.3.5) observed as a 2.39E-5 Hvorslev result of rapid 7.1E-5 Bouwer &

draining of the Rice filter pack T3-3 02W42 Not fitted well-the water table was within the screen 5.27 ft below the top of the well screen. The filter pack may have a certain effect to the oscillatory effect of the response data.

Table 3 - con't: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivities Calculated From Slug and Aquifer Test Data Cimarron Facility Alluvium 4.2E-2 7.1E-2 8.6E-2 8.3E-2 8.3E-2 1.7E-2

"* Bouwer & Rice

"* Hvorslev

"* Distance drawdown

"* Jacob's semi log time vs drawdown

"* Jacob's semi log t/t' vs residual drawdown

"* Sieve Analysis 6-inch well (test well).

Observation wells 02W58,

02W59, 02W60, and 02W61 Alyamani and Sen (1993) 02W58 Alluvium 9.6E-2 0

Jacob's semi log time vs drawdown 8.6E-2 Jacob's semi log t/t' vs residual drawdown 02W59 Alluvium 1.4E-2 Bouwer & Rice 3.3E-2 Hvorslev 9.6E-2 Jacob's semi log time vs drawdown 8.0E-2 Jacob's semi log t/t' vs residual drawdown 02W60 Alluvium 1.1E-1 Jacob's semi log time vs drawdown 8.6E-2 Jacob's semi log t/t' vs residual drawdown 02W61 Alluvium 2.2E-2 a Bouwer & Rice 2.3E-2 0

Hvorslev 1.1E-1 Jacob's semi log time vs drawdown 8.9E-2 9 Jacob's semi log tLt' vs residual drawdown 02W62 Alluvium 2.8E-2 0 Butler and I

_Garnett (2000)

"T3-4 02W56

Table 4: Summary of Uranium Concentrations in Groundwater (alpha spectroscopy - pCVI)

Alpha Spec Alpha Spec Alpha Spec Alpha Spec Result Result Result Result Well (pCi/I)

(pCi/I)

Well (pCiIl)

(pCi/i)

ID (08102)

(10102)

ID (08102)

(10102) 02W1 3531 02W43 190.1 154.6 02W2 139.7 285.9 02W44 43.3 02W3 368.4 02W45 69.5 02W4 3454 02W46 1808.7 1553.7 02W5 1338.1 02W47 266.3 159.1 02W6 738.7 02W48 34.3 02W7 162.3 02W50 4.8 02W8 10 02W51 6

02W9 3

02W52 3.9 02W10 3.4 02W53 151.6 02W1 1 12.6 02W62 62 02W12 30.5 02W13 63.7 70.7 1314 1.7 02W14 45.9 1344 1.7 02W15 9.2 1315R 2175 1945.3 02W16 217.5 1316R 105.4 109.6 02W17 458.7 02W18 119.7 02W19 163.1 TMW-1 967.6 02W20 2.2 TMW-2 2.6 02W21 6.6 TMW-5 0.5 02W22 6.6 TMW-6 2.5 02W23 7.9 TMW-7 28.1 02W24 646.3 TMW-8 2031 02W25 9.5 TMW-9 5039 02W26 12.6 TMW-13 536.6 420.8 02W27 131.5 TMW-17 5.5 02W28 141.3 TMW-18 15.6 02W29 1566 TMW-20 11.5 02W30 382 TMW-21 59 02W31 469.4 TMW-23 12.6 02W32 262.5 166.9 TMW-24 13.8 02W33 3.8 TMW-25 350.3 02W34 5.6 02W35 18.9 02W36 464 02W37 91.4 02W38 25.4 02W39 934.2 02W40 825 02W41 964.1 1014.9 02W42 11.4 NOTE: Results from General Engineering Laboratories, Inc.

(pCi/I approx equal to ugfl)

T4-1

Table 5: Comparison of Hydraulic Conductivities from Sieve Analyses Data versus Slug/Aquifer Test Data T5-1 Test Location Hydraulic Method Used for Comments Well Conductivity Data Analysis Estimated (cm/sec) 02W11 Alluvium 3.24E-3 0 Bouwer &

Slight Rice concave 4.OOE-3 0

Hvorslev upward curvature observed.

1.70E-3 0

Sieve Analysis 02W33 Alluvium 1.3E-2 Bouwer &

Rice 1.9E-2 0

Hvorslev 1.7E-3 0

Sieve Analysis 02W56 Alluvium 4.2E-2 Bouwer &

Rice (AquiferTest V.3.5) 7.1E-2 9

Hvorslev 8.6E-2 Distance drawdown 8.3E-2 0

Jacob's semi log time vs drawdown 8.3E-2 0

Jacob's semi log t/t' vs residual drawdown 1.7E-2 0

Sieve Analysis

Table 5 - con't: Comparison of Hydraulic Conductivities from Sieve Analyses Data versus Slug/Aquifer Test Data T5-2 Test Location Hydraulic Method Used for Comments Well Conductivity Data Analysis Estimated (erm/sec) 02W15 Alluvium 1.09E-2 0

Bouwer &

Rice 1.8E-2 Hvorslev 1.0E-2 Sieve Analysis 02W16 Alluvium 3.66E-2

  • Bouwer &

Rice 3.9E-2 0 Hvorslev 1.1E-2 0

Sieve Analysis 02W17 Alluvium 3.25E-2

  1. Bouwer &

Rice 6.0E-2 0 Hvorslev 6.0E-3 0

Sieve Analysis

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML030360314&oldid=5427148"