ML21076A473
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:ENSR section discusses one of the methods using one set of input values. Though not a rigorous calibration target, it is important to be mindful of the water budget, or flow-through volumes for the models. Therefore, the estimate of flow-through rate presented here is intended to provide a general, again not rigorous, frame of reference by which to evaluate the calibration. One estimate of the steady-state flow rate through each model domain was made by multiplying an estimate of rainfall recharge by the total drainage area to arrive at an annual recharge rate. This recharge volume represents the water that enters the groundwater system over the entire watershed - not just the model domain and/or immediate site vicinity. However, this entire volume will pass through the model domain on its way to the regional discharge boundary - The Cimarron River. During the calibration process, the model boundary conditions were adjusted in consideration of this calculated annual flow-through rate. Note that in making this estimate, it is assumed that the surface water divides as represented from the topographic contours coincide with groundwater divides. For the BA #1 area, the total drainage area upgradient and including the model domain is approximately 2.1 square miles. Based on an annual recharge rate of 2.4 in/yr over the BA #1 watershed, the total flow through rate for the BA #1 model domain was estimated to be approximately 32,000 ft 3/day. For the WA area, the total upgradient drainage area and model domain is 0.32 mi 2 resulting in an estimated total flow through rate of the WA model domain of approximately 5,000 ft 3/day. During the calibration process, adjustments of hydrogeologic characteristics and boundary conditions were made in light of these estimates of flow. Comparing these estimates with the calibrated results provides one way to evaluate calibration. 4.1.3 Plume Migration In addition to accurately reproducing water levels and volumetric flow rate through the groundwater system, a pathline analysis was conducted to demonstrate an accurate representation of groundwater movement in the system. This was especially important for BA #1 area where there is ample water quality data by which to infer flow paths. In the case of the BA #1 site, the current distribution of the U plume was compared to predicted particle pathlines developed from particles initiated in the original U source area. By demonstrating that particles seeded in the source area would effectively follow the path of a measured plume, the pathline simulation can illustrate the accuracy of the model in representing flow directions and groundwater gradients. For the BA #1 area, the MODPATH model was used to predict the fate of particles seeded at the approximate location of the initial U source. The results of the steady-state MODFLOW model were used as the groundwater flow driver for the MODPATH simulation and the predicted paths of the particles were compared with the plume map for U at the BA #1 area. For the simpler WA model, a pathline comparison was not required. 4.2 Calibration Parameters For both of these models there are strong boundary conditions. These are the general head boundary at the upgradient (south) edge of each of the models to simulate water entering the model domain from the sandstones, the general head boundary along the bottom of the models to simulate flow up from the sandstone into overlying soils, and the river where groundwater discharges. Flow and elevations in the model are dominated by the flow entering the model through the general head boundaries and flow leaving the model through the river. When models are so strongly influenced by these boundary conditions, calibrated solutions can result from a variety of non-unique combinations of boundaries and hydraulic conductivities. Early in the calibration process, adjustments to hydraulic conductivity, recharge rate, and river conductance were made to simulate groundwater elevations similar to measured groundwater elevations. Once these initial adjustments were made, calibration focused on adjusting the head and conductance of the general head boundaries. Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report 4-2 October 2006
ENSR The general head boundary uses two variables to control the transfer of water across a model boundary including a water level (head) and a conductance term. The assigned groundwater elevation indicates the pressure head along the boundary. This is essentially the starting point for predicted heads along the boundary and adjacent water levels in the model are either higher or lower depending on boundary conditions and the additions or losses of water elsewhere within the model domain. The rate at which water enters the model through the general head boundary is controlled by the conductance term. A high conductance indicates a relatively limitless supply of water to the aquifer when the water table downgradient of the boundary is stressed and a low conductance indicates a limited supply of water to the aquifer. Limiting the conductance is of particular importance if only a portion of the total aquifer is included within the model domain and it is unrealistic to assume that the upgradient supply of water is limitless. Each groundwater model was re-run several times with successive adjustment to the calibration parameters (general head boundaries) until the models were satisfactorily calibrated. 4.3 Calibration Results In the following sections the results of each model's calibration is discussed with respect to the calibration targets discussed in Section 4.1. 4.3.1 BA #1 In the calibration process, hydraulic conductivity, recharge, and river elevation and conductance were adjusted; the final calibration values are summarized in Table 3. The other adjusted parameters were the elevation and the conductance of the general head boundaries both at the back edge and on the bottom of the model. Table 3 also includes the calibrated values for these inputs. Through successive adjustment of the general head boundary parameters, the mean absolute error (MAE) between the measured and predicted water levels was calculated to be 1.2 feet. This value is much less than the 2.6 feet which is 10% of the total water table relief at the site; this indicates an acceptable model calibration. Additional adjustments to the shape and orientation of the underlying general head boundary were made to simulate flow paths (using MODPATH) consistent with that which is inferred from the concentrations downgradient of the burial area. Finally, adjustments to the general head boundary were also made to simulate an approximate flow-through volume consistent with what is expected based on the drainage area size and recharge rate. The following are calibration results that indicate transfer rates of groundwater through the BA #1 model domain. Calibrated transfer rate of water from the model domain to the Cimarron River is 19,100 ft3/day. Calibrated inflow rate from upgradient sandstone/mudstone units to the model domain is 16,900 ft 3/day. Recharge rate to the aquifer is 1,200 ft 3/day. The difference between the total inflow (18,100 ft3/day) and the total outflow (19,100 ft3/day) equals ~1,000 ft 3/day, which represents less than a 5% error in the water balance and is considered acceptable. Figure 13 summarizes the calibration results showing the measured versus predictefd groundwater elevations, the static simulated groundwater contours and a comparison of the particle pathlines originating from the burial area with the plume map as drawn from concentrations measured in August 2004. In the calibration process, targets with the best data (i.e., water level, flow path) are given preference over targets with less data (i.e., flow through rates). Thus, a good match of water levels, flow paths, and gradients is achieved, but justifiably at the expense, somewhat, of the flow-through match. The total calibrated flow through value above is less than the calculated flow-through rate based on drainage area and recharge presented in Section 4.1.2. One of Arcadis' bioremediation design objectives is to estimate flux (dissolved oxygen) through the plume. Based on the calibrated flow-through rates, ZoneBudget (Harbaugh, 1990) was used in conjunction with the Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report 4-3 October 2006
ENSR MODFLOW output to calculate the flux through the plume areas only. The 2004 plume area for the BA #1 area is depicted on Figure 4-11 (CSM, Rev.1, ENSR, 2006); the plume was assumed to extend to the bottom of model Layer 7, which coincides with the lowest elevation where concentrations over 180 pCi/L were detected in August 2004. The flux was estimated at 19 gpm. 4.3.2 WA area In the calibration process, hydraulic conductivity, recharge, and river elevation and conductance were adjusted and the final calibration values are summarized in Table 4. The other adjusted parameter was the elevation and the conductance of the general head boundaries both at the back edge and on the bottom of the model. Table 4 also includes the calibrated values for these inputs. Conceptually the interaction of the sandstones with the alluvial materials should be very similar regardless of model area. That is, the conductance of Sandstone B and Sandstone C should be the same for the BA #1 model and for the WA model. Because the BA #1 model is so much more complicated, it was calibrated first and then the calibrated conductance values were applied to the WA model. In effect, calibration of the WA model relied almost exclusively on changing the elevations assigned to the general head boundaries. Through successive adjustment of the general head boundary elevation the average absolute error between the measured and predicted water levels was determined to be 0.31 feet. This value is more than the target of 0.14 feet, which is 10% of the total water table relief at the site. When the gradient is very flat as it is in this case measured groundwater elevation differences over short distances can be very difficult to simulate, especially when spatial variations in hydraulic conductivity are not considered. Furthermore, because the calibration data set is averaged over several rounds of data, seasonal differences may be more apparent. The flow paths generated based on the MODFLOW head field and the MODPATH model indicates that groundwater flow paths are generally from the south to the north, consistent with the conceptual model and with the inferred flow paths based on U concentrations from August 2004. The following are calibration results that indicate transfer rates of groundwater through the WA area model domain. Calibrated transfer rate of water from the aquifer to the Cimarron River is 57,000 ft3/day. Calibrated inflow rate from upgradient sandstone/mudstone units to the model domain is 54,300 ft3/day. Recharge rate to the aquifer is 2,600 ft 3/day. The difference between the total inflow (56,900 ft3/day) and the total outflow (57,000 ft3/day) equals ~100 ft 3/day, which represents less than a 1 % error and is considered acceptable. Figure 14 summarizes the calibration results showing the measured versus predicted groundwater elevations and the static simulated groundwater contours. In the calibration process, targets with the best data (i.e., water level, flow path) are given preference over targets with less data (i.e., flow through rates). Thus, a good match of water levels, flow paths, and gradients is achieved, but justifiably at the expense, somewhat, of the flow through match. The total flow through value presented above is more than the flow-through rate calculated based on drainage area and recharge presented in Section 4.1.3. One of Arcadis's bioremediation design objectives is to estimate flux (dissolved oxygen) through the plume. Based on the calibrated flow-through rates, ZoneBudget (Harbaugh, 1990) was used in conjunction with the MODFLOW output to calculate the flux through the plume areas only. For the WA model the total U distribution was assumed to be an area that extends from near the base of the escarpment northward toward the Cjmarron River, apparently originating where the western pipeline entered the alluvium north of the former Sanitary Lagoons. Uranium concentrations that exceeded 180 pCi/L in August 2004 are presented in Figure 4-15, CSM-Rev 01, ENSR, 2006). This impacted area extended only to the bottom of model Layer 1 since Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report 4-4 October 2006
ENSR there were no concentrations of U detected in the sandstone (i.e., Layer 2). The flux for this plume area was 31 gpm. 4.3.3 Discussion In addition to evaluating the calibration of the model from the standpoint of quantitative targets, another way to evaluate the model is how well it aligns with the conceptual model. Because there is often aquifer test data (i.e., slug tests, pumping tests), comparison of calibrated and measured hydraulic conductivities is a good way to evaluate how well the model corresponds with the conceptual model. Table 1 summarizes the measured hydraulic conductivities and Tables 3 and 4 summarize the calibrated hydraulic conductivities. Tables 3 and 4 also summarize the calibrated inputs for the river, recharge, and general head boundaries. There are no measured hydraulic conductivity data for Fill, Silt, Clay, and Sandstone A For Alluvium, the measured hydraulic conductivity values range from about 20 to more than 275 ft/day. Pumping tests generally provide a better estimate of aquifer hydraulic conductivity than slug tests. Focusing on just pumping test results, the hydraulic conductivity ranges from about 120 to about 275 ft/day. The calibrated value, 235 ft/day, is consistent with this range. Slug test data was also available from four wells screened in Sandstone B. The hydraulic conductivity results ranged from approximately 0.1 to 2 ft/day. The calibrated value for Sandstone B was 5 ft/day. One slug test was completed in Sandstone C and the result was 0.2 ft/day, less than the calibrated value of 3 ft/day. In both instances, the calibrated values are higher than the measured. Values derived from pump tests and values from calibrated models are often higher than slug test data. The locations of slug tests represent only a tiny fraction of each Sandstone Band C. During model calibration, the values are adjusted upward and may ultimately be more representative of site conditions than just a few data points may indicate. In some instances, the hydraulic conductivities were adjusted upward to provide numerical stability to the model. The model can become numerically unstable when there are large changes (in hydraulic conductivity, groundwater elevation, etc) over short distances. In the BA#1 model this happens, for instance where clay (hydraulic conductivity less than 1 ft/day) comes into contact with sand (over 200 ft/day). This instability can be mitigated by smoothing those contrasts. Sometimes this is done at the expense of making a perfect match with measured data. As long as the adjustments are consistent with the conceptual model, the conceptual understanding of how different soils transmit water, and are mindful of the project objectives, smoothing typically does not impact simulations. The model will simulate this general behavior whether the contrast is 100 or 1000 times different. This change was evaluated in the sensitivity analyses, discussed below. In the absence of data for fill, silt, clay and Sandstone A, estimates were made based on literature values and on qualitative site observations. Adjustments to these values were made during the calibration to encourage a good match of simulated and measured groundwater elevation and to encourage numerical stability. Figures 13 and 14 summarize the calibration results. The graph shows the measured versus predicted groundwater elevations. Each point represents the groundwater elevation at a particular well. The closer the point is to the line, the less difference there is between the simulated and observed groundwater elevation. These figures also show the simulated groundwater contour map. Overall these match well for both models. For the BA#1 model, Figure 13 also shows a comparison of a particle pathline originating from the Burial Area with the plume map as drawn from U concentrations measured on August 2004. As discussed above, these pathlines are a good match for the groundwater flow paths suggested by the distribution of U in groundwater. 4.3.4 Summary of Calibration Results Three calibration targets were set as objectives prior to model calibration: achieve a good match between simulated and measured groundwater elevations and gradients, achieve a good match with the site conceptual model, and yield relatively consistent correlation of water budget estimates. For the most part, the first two objectives were achieved without difficulty. The measured and simulated groundwater elevations are in Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report 4-5 October 2006
ENSR concert and especially for the BA#1 model, the simulated flow directions agree with flow directions indicated by U concentrations. Discrepancies between measured and simulated groundwater elevations, flow paths, and water budgets are explainable and can be accounted for when interpreting simulation results. Ultimately, the discrepancies in estimated flow-through volumes and simulated flow-through volumes are explained by ranges in recharge to and discharge from the site as well as uncertainties inherent in the modeling. 4.4 Sensitivity Analysis In order to characterize the effects of uncertainty in the modeling parameters (recharge, hydraulic conductivity, and general head boundaries) on model predictions, sensitivity runs were conducted. In these runs, each parameter was varied from the base run (calibrated model). Differences were noted and these differences help in understanding the range of possible predictions, and how uncertainties in these parameters may affect model predictions. Rainfall recharge, hydraulic conductivity and the general head boundary were the three primary variables tested in the sensitivity evaluation. Rainfall recharge has a direct impact on the amount of water moving through the aquifer and an impact on the amount of water that can be withdrawn from an aquifer. The conductivity is the fundamental parameter describing how effectively groundwater is transmitted in an aquifer. The sensitivity evaluation was focused on the hydraulic conductivity of the sand. The upgradient head boundary and the aquifer bottom boundary in the model of the BA #1 area were both represented using the general head boundary (GHB) in MODFLOW. This boundary fixes a water level at a specific group of cells in a model domain and uses a conductance term to facilitate the calculation of the volume of water that can be moved across the general head boundary. Like recharge, the general head boundary has a significant effect on the hydrologic budget and can largely control the amount of water entering or leaving the model domain. Therefore the models' sensitivity to this parameter was evaluated also. One parameter was adjusted to complete the sensitivity analysis of the BA #1 area to enable this already complex and numerically sensitive model to iterate to a solution under the range of conditions imposed by the sensitivity analysis. During the sensitivity analysis, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the clay was increased from the 0.5 ft/day that was used during the model calibration, to 10 ft/day. By increasing the hydraulic conductivity of the clay, the gradients were decreased resulting in a smoother transition across adjacent model cells and therefore, a more stable model. With the parameters selected for the sensitivity analysis a sequence of model scenarios were developed and run to evaluate the effect of varying the magnitudes of the selected parameters on the calibration. The results are as follows. For the BA#' 1 area, with the increased hydraulic conductivity of the clay, calibration results were marginally different results then when the original calibrated clay conductivity value was used. Modification of the recharge rate by a factor of 50% and 200% resulted in only minor changes to the steady-state head calibration. This is largely because of the relatively small component of the hydrologic budget that surface recharge represents in the calibrated model, which is less than 10% of the overall budget. Changing the hydrologic conductivity in the sand aquifer by a factor of 50% and 200% resulted in a relatively minor change to the steady state calibration. Small differences in the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) between the calibration run and the sensitivity runs are primarily because the Mean Absolute Error value is calculated using several wells outside of the sand aquifer that were relatively unaffected by the change and because the flow regime is so strongly controlled by the recharge and discharge boundary conditions. Changes made independently to the head and the conductance of the subsurface general head boundary by factors of 50% and 200% resulted in fairly substantial changes to the steady state calibration. This is because water flowing into the model through the subsurface general head boundary represents a significant portion of Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report 4-6 October 2006
ENSR the total water budget in the model. Both the elevation and the conductance are strong controllers of how much water is permitted to enter the model, thus have obvious impacts to model predictions. 4.5 Uncertainties and Assumptions In order to fully understand the predictions and simulations, it is important to understand the factors that contribute to model uncertainty. Addressing these uncertainties allows users to understand and interpret the results of the simulations. Flow-Through Volumes As discussed above, estimates of flow-through volume were made based on drainage area and recharge rates. Comparing these estimates to simulated flow-through volumes was one way calibration was evaluated. Other methods can also be used to estimate flow-through volumes. For instance, one method varies recharge rates based on the ranges of annual precipitation rates of 24 inches, 30 inches, 32 inches, and 42 inches (CSM-Rev 01, ENSR, 2006). Another method uses streamflow measurements collected by the USGS on the Cimarron River at Dover (upstream) and Guthrie (downstream) and basin scaling to estimate the rate of groundwater discharge from the Western Alluvial area and the Burial Area #1. These approaches indicated that flow-through volume estimates may range over more than an order of magnitude depending on the methodology for making the estimate. In turn, depending on the technique to calculate flow-through volumes, different groundwater fluxes through the plume areas may be calculated. Equivalent Porous Media Assumption The MODFLOW model assumes that flow is through a porous media. That is, MODFLOW is designed to model groundwater flow through unconsolidated materials. MODFLOW is often used to model consolidated soils and bedrock, but flow through these materials may be governed by fractured flow, not porous media flow. The presence of fractures may greatly affect the direction and rate of groundwater flow especially on a local scale. For example, if the local groundwater flow system is dominated by a single fracture, the orientation of the fracture will control the direction of travel. Depending on the fracture's size, groundwater velocity through the fracture may be higher than would occur in more diffuse flow through a porous media even if the flux is the same. There is no evidence that groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the Cimarron Site are necessarily controlled by fracture flow. However, there may be local effects associated with fracturing the bedrock units. It is beyond the capabilities of the current model to accurately predict the time of travel through fractures in the consolidated soils or bedrock. Travel times through the consolidated units (sandstones and mudstones) can be calculated by MODPATH based on the assumption that the consolidated units are an equivalent porous media. The use of equivalent porous media assumptions are best suited for predictions over the scale of the model and may not provide accurate predictions local to a fracture or fracture system. Despite this uncertainty, groundwater flow is still likely to coincide generally with the surface water catchments and groundwater will discharge to the surface waters located within and adjacent to the site. Steady-State Assumption If the model should be used to simulate either groundwater extraction or injection, it should be noted that the groundwater model assumes that steady-state is reached instantaneously. In fact, there will be some time that will elapse before steady-state will be reached. Simulated pumping or injection also assumes that groundwater will be extracted from or injected into the entire cell saturated thickness. In fact, depending on where the well screen is placed and where the pump is set, this may not hold true. Simulated pumping or injection also occurs throughout the entire 10 foot by 10 foot cell. For these reasons, pumping and injection scenarios implemented in the field may result in drawdown and flow rates different from what has been predicted. Because the model accurately represents the conceptual model and overall observed flow rates, directions, and gradients, overall capture zones should be relatively accurate. As field data become available, they may be used to update and refine the model. Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report 4-7 October 2006
ENSR Fate and Transport Issues It should be noted that this application is a flow model and, as such, only considers the movement of water in the subsurface. Constituents dissolved in groundwater may be subject to processes that result in migration that cannot be explained exclusively by groundwater velocity (i.e., advection). Groundwater velocities generated by the model and presented in the CSM, Rev.1 (ENSR, 2006) require input of a value for porosity for each of the geologic materials. There are no site-specific data on porosities, and they are likely to be very variable. Literature values were used. It should be recognized that the calculated velocities are directly dependent on these input values of porosity. Changes to the porosity values could potentially change estimate velocities by more than an order of magnitude. Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report 4-8 October 2006
ENSR 5.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS Numerical groundwater models for the BA #1 and the WA areas have been conceptualized, developed, and calibrated to provide tools by which groundwater flow can be evaluated and changes to groundwater flow can be assessed as different remedial alternatives are simulated. In particular, in consideration of a bioremediation approach, the model may be used design scenarios for injection of reagents that will enhance stabilization of U and to demonstrate the permanence of uranium stabilization in groundwater. The objective was achieved by developing and calibrating the numerical models to include key data that characterize groundwater flow at the site consistent with the CSM-Rev 01 (ENSR, 2006). Specifically, the BA
- 1 model domain included portions of the uplands at the site, which are underlain by a series of sandstone and mudstone layers, the transition zone, which is characterized by silts and clays underlain by sandstone and mudstone, and the alluvial valley where the geology is predominantly sand with smaller fractions of silt and clay. The BA #1 model was bounded on the south, in part, by the reservoir and on the north by the Cimarron River. The WA model included only the alluvial materials (sands, silts, clay) from the escarpment that forms the northern edge of the uplands to the Cimarron River. In the WA area, the alluvial materials are underlain by sandstone. Upgradient sandstones in both models are assumed to contribute groundwater to the alluvial soils and overlying sandstone and mudstone units. The Cimarron River is a discharge boundary to which all modeled groundwater flows.
Calibration targets included measured groundwater elevations, flow budgets, and flow path data. The flow models achieved good calibration to the observed groundwater elevation data, to the estimated water budgets, and to observed flow path trajectories. Discrepancies between observed and predicted elevations were reasonable. The simulated water table configuration for each model was consistent with flow paths suggested by observations of U concentrations. Overall hydrogeological concepts as presented in the Conceptual Site Model, Rev 01 (ENSR, 2006) were captured by the numerical models. A sensitivity evaluation established that the model simulations will be most sensitive to boundary conditions, especially the recharge from upgradient sandstone units. Uncertainties, especially associated with boundary conditions, are important when interpreting and using model predictions in remedial designs. Ultimately, the resulting numerical models have captured key hydrologic and geologic features that shape the groundwater flow directions, patterns, and rates, thus satisfying the objective to provide useful tools to consider remediation design options. For instance, groundwater extraction can be simulated to create capture zones that include areas of high U concentration. Injection scenarios can also be simulated to ensure adequate distribution of reagents. Even the calibrated model itself can yield valuable information about groundwater flow directions and rates. For instance, the design of the bioremediation system requires estimates of groundwater flux to the plume area, which can be extracted from the model. The calibrated BA #1 model indicates that there are 19 gpm to the plume area. The calibrated WA area model indicates that there are 31 gpm to the impacted area. ARCADIS will use the model further to help design the bioremediation effort; their uses of the model will be documented in their work plan. Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report 5-1 October 2006
ENSR
6.0 REFERENCES
Adams, G.P. and D.L. Bergman. 1995. Geohydrology of Alluvium and Terrace Deposits, Cimarron River from Freedom to Guthrie, Oklahoma. USGS WRI 95-4066. Cimarron Corporation, 2003. Burial Area #1 Groundwater Assessment Report for Cimarron Corporation's Former Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Facility, January. Freeze, RA. and J. A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Harbaugh, Arlen W., 1990. A computer program for calculating subregional water budgets using results from the U.S. Geological Survey modular three-dimensional ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-392, 46 p. MacDonald, Michael G. and Arlen, W. Harbaugh. 1988. A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 83-875. Pollock, David W. 1994. User's Guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, Version 3:A particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW, the U. S. Geological Survey finite-difference ground-water flow model. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-464. Weaver, J.C., 1998. Low-Flow Characteristics and Discharge Profiles for Selected Streams in the Cimarron River Basin, Oklahoma. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4135. Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report 6-1 October 2006
Tables Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report ENSR October 2006
Table 1 Summary of Slug and Aquifer Test Results Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Slug Test Bouwer & Slug Test Geology Well Rice Hvorslev Alluvium TMW-09*** 6.01 E-03 1.20E-03 TMW-13 6.99E-02 6.20E-02 02W2* 1.92E-05 02W10* 3.36E-04 2.80E-04 02W11*** 3.24E-03 4.00E-03 02W15 1.09E-02 1.80E-02 02W16 3.66E-02 3.90E-02 02W17 3.25E-02 6.00E-02 02W22 02W33 1.30E-02 1.90E-02 02W46* 3.56E-05 1.37E-05 02W56** 4.20E-02 7.10E-02 02W58 02W59 1.40E-02 3.30E-02 02W60 02W61 2.20E-02 2.30E-02 02W62 TMW-24 Sandstone B TMW-01 6.35E-05 2.70E-05 TMW-20 9.97E-04 4.10E-04 02W40 02W51 7.10E-05 2.39E-05 Sandstone C 02W48 7.85E-05 Notes: Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) Analysis Methodology 1-'umpmg Test-Pumping Jacob Test-Sieve Straight Pumping distance-Butler and Analysis Line Test - tit' drawdown Garnett 1.70E-03 1.00E-02 1.10E-02 6.00E-03 8 90E-02 1.70E-03 1.70E-02 8.30E-02 8.30E-02 8.60E-02 9.60E-02 8.60E-02 9.60E-02 8.00E-02 1.1 0E-01 8.60E-02 1.10E-01 8.90E-02 2.80E-02 4.13E-02 All data presented is summarized from the Burial Area #1 Groundwater Assessment Report (Cimarron Corporation, 2003).
- Clay present at or near this well; data excluded from calculating ranges, mean.
- Pumping Well
- Some clays/silts present in well screen; data excluded from calculating ranges, means.
- Pumping Well
October 22, 2006 Cooper-Bredehoeft-Geometric Geometric Papadopulos Mean (cm/s) Mean (ft/day) 2.69E-03 7.61 6.58E-02 186.61 1.92E-05 0.05 3.07E-04 0.87 2.80E-03 7.95 1.25E-02 35.49 2.50E-02 70.98 2.27E-02 64.35 8.90E-02 252.28 7.49E-03 21.23 2.21 E-05 0.06 5.58E-02 158.04 9.09E-02 257.56 4.34E-02 123.03 9.73E-02 275.70 4.72E-02 133.73 2.80E-02 79.37 4.13E-02 117.07 4.14E-05 0.12 6.39E-04 1.81 5.50E-04 5.50E-04 1.56 4.12E-05 0.12 7.85E-05 0.22 Page 1 of 1
Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Data used for Calibration Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Summary 9/16/03 12/16/03 Aug/Sep 04 Water Level Water Level Water Level ID (feet) (feet) (feet)
- 1206
- 1206
- 1208
- 1208 1311 965.48 964.83 966.02 1312 962.66 963.64 964.48 1312 1313 963.60 963.19 964.04 1314 944.02 943.67 944.14 1315R 932.31 934.73 935.46 1315R 1316R 931.57 932.89 936.84 1319 A-1 969.86 969.63 970.37 1319 A-2 969.74 969.49 1319 A-3 968.46 968.56 968.45 1319 B-1 946.73 947.13 948.35 1319 B-1 1319 B-2 947.73 948.25 949.44 1319 B-3 946.67 947.12 948.37 1319 B-4 946.18 946.52 947.84 1319 B-5 945.61 944.87 946.24 1319 C-1 942.27 943.81 946.01 1319 C-1 1319 C-2 939.80 940.69 941.94 1319 C-3 939.06 939.78 941.07 1320 967.04 966.58 968.34 1321 935.97 936.45 937.74 1322 967.97 966.43 967.95 1323 941.84 942.49 943.29 1324 968.10 967.45 969.20 1325 971.25 970.62 972.44 1326 970.85 970.49 971.45 1327 966.02 965.95 13278 966.05 965.55 966.01 1328 948.85 950.79 950.71 1329 968.26 967.97 968.00 1330 967.97 967.72 969.37 1331 965.80 965.30 967.02 1332 940.00 940.47 941.75 1333 967.92 967.16 968.48 1334 966.51 966.58 968.20 1335A 969.81 969.07 970.78 1336A 959.65 959.57 960.53 1337 965.90 965.48 October 22, 2006 5/24/05 AvgWL Water Level Elevation (feet)
(feet) n/a-SEEP n/a-SEEP n/a-SEEP n/a-SEEP 962.70 964.76 964.66 963.86 964.66 964.66 963.97 963.70 944.57 944.10 936.45 934.74 936.45 936.45 936.12 934.35 969.88 969.93 969.79 969.68 968.35 968.45 pumping 947.40 pumping 950.06 948.87 949.02 947.79 948.54 947.27 947.37 946.02 pumping 944.03 pumping 941.50 940.98 940.85 940.19 968.20 967.54 938.07 937.06 968.48 967.71 944.19 942.95 969.28 968.51 972.31 971.66 971.54 971.08 966.62 966.19 966.63 966.06 ? 950.12 968.62 968.21 970.07 968.78 966.63 966.19 942.43 941.16 969.03 968.15 967.72 967.25 970.45 970.03 960.08 959.96 966.95 966.11 Page 1 of 5
Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Data used for Calibration Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Summary 9/16/03 12/16/03 Aug/Sep 04 Water Level Water Level Water Level ID (feet) (feet) (feet) 1338 943.71 943.62 945.25 1339 951.68 952.74 938.46 1340 961.49 961.42 1341 936.75 936.75 1342 929.95 930.13 1343 928.37 928.57 1344 925.84 926.22 1345 933.74 933.63 935.32 1346 937.60 937.31 938.81 1347 965.13 964.47 1348 975.27 975.26 977.96 1348 977.96 1349 971.74 971.23 973.71 1349 973.71 1350 974.98 974.69 977.08 1350 977.08 1351 969.93 969.78 971.33 1351 971.33 1352 966.49 966.06 967.89 1352 967.89 1352 967.89 1353 985.70 988.00 988.31 1353 988.31 1354 965.51 965.24 967.00 1354 967.00 1355 967.64 967.01 968. 71 1355 968.71 1356 968.83 968.24 969.38 1356 969.38 1357 969.51 968.88 970.72 1357 970.72 1358 971.26 970.53 972.67 1358 972.67 1359 972.79 1359 972.79 1360 974.88 1360 974.88 02W01 930.56 932.92 934.49 02W02 928.87 930.72 932.30 02W03 926.43 927.99 930.33 02W04 927.64 928.09 929.64 02W04 02W05 927.43 927.86 929.56 02W06 927.37 927.77 929.56 October 22, 2006 5/24/05 AvgWL Water Level Elevation (feet) (feet) 939.32 942.98 955.13 949.50 962.42 961.78 939.39 937.63 930.40 930.16 929.40 928.78 928.62 926.89 936.30 934.74 939.22 938.23 965.96 965.18 977.50 976.49 977.50 977.73 973.83 972.63 973.71 980.01 976.69 977.08 970.80 970.46 971.33 967.50 966.99 967.50 967.70 967.89 988.04 987.52 988.31 966.46 966.05 967.00 968.85 968.05 968.71 969.57 969.00 969.57 969.47 970.47 969.89 970.72 972.49 971.74 972.74 972.71 972.79 974.82 973.80 974.88 974.88 934.51 933.12 932.25 931.03 930.40 928.79 929.81 928.79 929.81 929.81 929.77 928.65 929.78 928.62 Page 2 of 5
Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Data used for Calibration Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Summary 9/16/03 12/16/03 Aug/Sep 04 Water Level Water Level Water Level ID (feet) (feet) (feet) 02W07 927.53 927.98 929.53 02W07 02W08 927.57 928.02 929.57 02W08 02W09 933.09 935.51 936.32 02W10 931.73 934.39 935.54 02W11 927.27 927.85 929.57 02W12 927.29 927.83 929.69 02W13 927.41 927.91 929.71 02W14 927.27 927.77 929.50 02W15 927.34 927.81 929.60 02W16 927.37 927.81 929.50 02W17 914.25 927.87 929.55 02W18 927.30 927.75 929.47 02W19 927.56 927.95 929.47 02W19 02W20 936.42 937.88 938.04 02W21 927.43 927.84 929.46 02W22 927.42 927.85 929.50 02W23 927.42 927.74 929.56 02W23 02W24 927.32 927.75 929.53 02W25 940.60 941.84 947.51 02W26 934.13 936.34 937.00 02W27 930.37 931.97 934.48 02W28 931.52 934.17 935.30 02W29 932.59 935.12 936.19 02W30 932.19 934.13 937.03 02W31 931.19 933.83 934.97 02W32 927.31 927.84 929.61 02W33 927.44 927.85 929.52 02W33 02W34 927.44 927.71 929.39 02W35 938.70 927.92 929.36 02W36 927.42 927.83 929.46 02W37 934.00 934.40 935.82 02W38 926.67 927.10 929.47 02W39 933.00 935.46 936.43 02W40 938.36 939.05 940.18 02W41 936.42 937.80 938.62 02W42 934.42 936.09 941.05 02W43 927.35 927.91 929.29 02W43 02W44 929.23 927.77 929.35 October 22, 2006 5/24/05 AvgWL Water Level Elevation (feet) (feet) 929.76 928.70 929.76 929.76 929.80 928.74 929.80 929.80 936.57 935.37 935.62 934.32 929.73 928.61 929.71 928.63 929.89 928.73 929.70 928.56 929.80 928.64 929.77 928.61 929.80 925.37 929.69 928.55 929.41 928.59 929.41 929.41 937.99 937.58 929.74 928.62 929.72 928.62 929.79 928.63 929.79 929.79 929.75 928.59 946.01 943.99 937.14 936.15 933.97 932.70 935.41 934.10 936.65 935.14 937.17 935.13 935.02 933.75 931.65 929.10 929.77 928.65 929.77 929.77 929.66 928.55 929.60 931.39 929.71 928.60 936.03 935.06 929.64 928.22 936.90 935.45 940.18 939.44 938.66 937.88 940.34 937.98 929.53 928.52 929.53 929.53 929.55 928.97 Page 3 of 5
Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Data used for Calibration Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Summary 9/16/03 12/16/03 Aug/Sep 04 Water Level Water Level Water Level ID (feet) (feet) (feet) 02W45 927.55 927.86 929.32 02W46 927.97 929.10 930.88 02W47 937.87 939.46 941.28 02W48 925.58 926.13 02W50 939.89 940.20 941.60 02W51 949.20 949.84 952.77 02W52 938.96 939.45 940.74 02W53 930.40 932.03 934.70 02W62 927.68 928.02 929.44 02W62 T-51 929.26 929.25 T-52 929.07 929.14 T-53 929.09 929.16 T-54 929.65 929.88 930.94 T-55 929.30 929.58 T-56 929.21 929.54 T-57 929.83 929.90 930.94 T-58 929.87 929.83 930.77 T-59 928.94 929.04 T-60 928.89 969.49 T-61 928.65 928.65 T-62 930.14 930.14 930.82 T-63 931.48 T-63 930.02 930.02 931.48 T-63 931.48 T-64 930.31 930.31 931.57 T-65 930.06 929.93 930.90 T-65 T-66 931.71 T-67 931.17 T-67 931.17 T-67 931.17 T-67 931.17 T-68 930.81 T-69 930.93 T-70 T-70R 931.24 T-71 T-72 930.96 T-73 931.02 T-74 931.20 T-75 930.88 T-76 931.04 T-77 930.82 October 22, 2006 5/24/05 AvgWL Water Level Elevation (feet) (feet) 929.56 928.58 930.73 929.67 ??? 939.54 929.09 926.93 941.70 940.85 952.03 950.96 940.97 940.03 934.13 932.81 929.69 928.71 929.69 929.69 930.45 929.66 930.42 929.55 930.57 929.61 931.61 930.52 931.25 930.04 931.27 930.01 931.85 930.63 931.87 930.58 930.60 929.53 930.89 943.09 930.79 929.36 932.15 930.81 932.01 931.75 932.01 930.88 931.48 932.43 931.15 932.05 930.74 932.05 932.05 931.71 931.17 931.17 931.17 931.17 930.81 930.93 931.24 930.96 931.02 931.20 930.88 931.04 930.82 Page 4 of 5
Table 2 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Data used for Calibration Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Summary 9/16/03 12/16/03 Aug/Sep 04 Water Level Water Level Water Level ID (feet) (feet) (feet) T-77 930.82 T-77 930.82 T-78 930.87 T-79 930.53 T-81 930.80 T-82 930.35 TMW-01 939.36 940.23 942.38 TMW-02 940.65 940.99 941.29 TMW-05 930.74 933.29 934.56 TMW-06 932.81 935.77 936.02 TMW-07 930.17 932.54 933.41 TMW-08 933.75 935.89 936.50 TMW-09 931.68 934.32 935.02 TMW-09 TMW-13 927.66 928.18 929.36 TMW-13 TMW-17 932.23 933.08 933.97 TMW-17 933.97 TMW-18 927.30 927.76 930.18 TMW-19 dry dry TMW-20 938.43 939.35 TMW-21 936.45 937.09 944.33 TMW-23 928.33 928.87 929.94 TMW-24 927.71 928.05 928.73 TMW-25 936.83 938.41 938.42 October 22, 2006 5/24/05 AvgWL Water Level Elevation (feet) (feet) 930.82 930.82 930.87 930.53 930.80 930.35 943.82 941.45 941.62 941.14 934.02 933.15 936.05 935.16 933.05 932.29 936.99 935.78 935.28 934.08 935.28 935.28 929.77 928.74 929.77 929.77 934.11 933.35 933.97 930.05 928.82 n/a 939.91 939.23 942.49 940.09 930.37 929.38 929.19 928.42 938.32 937.99 Page 5 of 5
Table 3 BA #1 Summary of Model Inputs Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Subsurface Units: KH Kv Horozontal Anisotropy LL Vertical Anisotropy (Kh/Kv) Specific Storaqe Specific Yield Long. Disp. Porosity KH Kv Horozontal Anisotropy Vertical Anisotropy (Kh/Kv) u5 Specific Storage Specific Yield Lonq. Disp. Porosity KH Kv Horozontal Anisotropy "C Vertical Anisotropy (KH/Kv) C ro Cl) Specific Storaqe Specific Yield Long. Disp. Porosity KH Kv Horozontal Anisotropy Vertical Anisotropy (KH/Kv) ro 0 Specific Storaqe Specific Yield Long. Disp. Porosity KH Kv <( Horozontal Anisotropy (1) C Vertical Anisotropy (KH/Kv) 0 t5 "C Specific Storaqe C ro Specific Yield Cl) Long. Disp. Porosity October 22, 2006 Value 3.30E+00 3.30E-01 1.0 1.0 NA NA NA 30 2.83E-01 2.83E-02 1.0 1.0 NA NA NA 20 2.53E+02 2.53E+01 1.0 1.0 NA NA NA 30 5.00E-01 5.00E-02 1.0 1.0 NA NA NA 20 4.00E+01 2.00E+00 1.0 1.0 NA NA NA 5 Burial Area (BA#1) Units Reference ft/day Average of Silt, Sand, & Clay ft/day 10% of KH No horizontal anisotropy No vertical anisotropy Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for flow model Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 ft/day ENSR CSM Sec-3.2.1 ft/day 10% of KH No horizontal anisotropy No vertical anisotropy Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for flow model Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 ft/day Average of pumping tests in alluvial wells ft/day 10% of KH No horizontal anisotropy No vertical anisotropy Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for flow model Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 ft/day Artificially high to improve model stability ft/day 10% of KH No horizontal anisotropy No vertical anisotropy Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for flow model Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 ft/day Calibrated to high end of range in ENSR CSM Sec-3.2.1 ft/day 5% of KH No horizontal anisotropy No vertical anisotropy Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for steady-state simulation Not required for flow model Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 Page 1 of 2
Table 3 BA #1 Summary of Model Inputs Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Subsurface Units: KH Kv Q) Horozontal Anisotropy C Vertical Anisotropy (KH/Kv) 0 ~ Specific Storaae u5 Specific Yield Lonq. Disp. Porosity KH Kv OJ Horozontal Anisotropy (]) C Vertical Anisotropy (KH/Kv) .8 (f) "O Specific Storaqe C co Specific Yield Cl) Lonq. Disp. Porosity KH Kv (.) Horozontal Anisotropy (]) C Vertical Anisotropy (KH/Kv) 0 in "O Specific Storaae C co Specific Yield Cl) Lonq. Disp. Porosity Cimarron River: Upstream Elevation Downstream Elevation Conductance Areal Boundaries: Rechar e October 22, 2006 Burial Area (BA#1) Value Units Reference 8.43E+00 ft/day 4.22E-01 ft/day 5% of KH 1.0 No horizontal anisotropy 1.0 No vertical anisotropy NA Not required for steady-state simulation NA Not required for steady-state simulation NA Not required for flow model 1 Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 5.00E+00 ft/day Calibrated to high end of range in ENSR CSM Sec-3.2.1 2.50E-01 ft/day 5% of KH 1.0 No horizontal anisotropy 1.0 No vertical anisotropy NA Not required for steady-state simulation NA Not required for steady-state simulation NA Not required for flow model 5 Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 3.00E+00 ft/day Slug test results at well 02W48 1.50E-01 ft/day 5% of KH 1.0 No horizontal anisotropy 1.0 No vertical anisotropy NA Not required for steady-state simulation NA Not required for steady-state simulation NA Not required for flow model 5 Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 Value Units Reference 924.8 feet Based on Dover and Guthrie qaae datums 924.8 feet Based on Dover and Guthrie qaqe datums 10,000 (tr/day)/ft Estimate to for hiqh river/aquifer connectivity Value Units Reference 5.48E-04 ft/da ENSR CSM Sec-3.1.1 & 3.1.4 Page 2 of 2
Table 4 WA Summary of Model Inputs Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Subsurface Units: KH Kv Horozontal Anisotropy Vertical Anisotropy (KH/Kv) ro u Specific Storaqe Specific Yield Long. Disp. Porosity KH Kv Horozontal Anisotropy "O Vertical Anisotropy (KH/Kv) C ro Cf") Specific Storage Specific Yield Long. Disp. Porosity KH Kv u Horozontal Anisotropy (I) C Vertical Anisotropy (KH/Kv) 0 en "O Specific Storaqe C ro Specific Yield Cf") Lonq. Disp. Porosity Cimarron River: Upstream Elevation Downstream Elevation Conductance Areal Boundaries: Rechar e October 22, 2006 Western Alluvial Area (WA] Value Units Reference 5.00E-01 ft/day ENSR CSM Sec-3.2.1 5.00E-02 ft/day 10% of KH 1.0 No horizontal anisotropy 1.0 No vertical anisotropy 0.001 Default 0.001 Default. 10 Default 20 Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 2.35E+02 ft/day Average of pumping tests in alluvial wells 2.35E+01 ft/day 10% of KH 1.0 No horizontal anisotropy 1.0 No vertical anisotropy 0.001 Default 0.001 Default 10 Default 30 Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 3.00E+00 ft/day Slug test results at well 02W48 1.50E-01 ft/day 5% of KH 1.0 No horizontal anisotropy 1.0 No vertical anisotropy 0.001 Default 0.001 Default 10 Default 5 Freeze & Cherry, 1979 Table 2.4 Value Units Reference 924.8 feet Based on Dover and Guthrie gage datums 924.8 feet Based on Dover and Guthrie qaqe datums 20,000 (ff /day)/ft Medium estimate based on prior experience Value Units Reference 5.48E-04 ft/da ENSR CSM Sec-3.1.1 & 3.1.4 Page 1 of 1
Figures Report No. 04020-044 Groundwater Modeling Report ENSR October 2006
<D If) 0 0 0 N 0..,. 0 ci z I J AlWVIUM / I I / --- --{----* ----
REFERENCE:
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CRESCENT QUADRANGLE, OKLAHOMA-LOGAN CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES {TOPOGRAPHIC), 1970 {PHOTOINSPECTED 1981). . : : :**:.-:\\:":/:'-' 0 800 1600 SCALE IN FEET ~L------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CD 8 z C) El Cl
- i 0
a.. QC u [3 Cl ci....: "",,.; z ~ 0 u WJ <1'.'. 0::: V) z WJ CD (/) ~ <( ~ -, 0:: Cl 0 0 <D w '= LL 0 (/)..,- FIGURE NUMBER: 1 SHEET NUMBER: LL 0 r--- N .. I") ei I ~v
- ) v zo
§ I c30 o:: N a.. 0 v 0 -- CD 0 w '-.... >- N ~ N en 0 0 ~ CXJ ~ ~ II
N 0 0 0 N 0 v 0 ci z 0 FREEDOM 99* 9a*45* 36i BASED FROM U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1: 250,000 SERIES WOODWARD QUADRANGLE, 1955, REVISED 1971; ENID QUADRANGLE, 1966; OKLAHOMA CITY QUADRANGLE, 1957; AND CLINTON QUADRANGLE, 1964 0 10 20 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES 9a* EXPLANATION ALLUVIUM ~ TERRACE DEPOSITS [] [)) OGALLALA FORMATION CLOUD CHIEF FORMATION§ AA6 WHITEHORSE GROUP
- A:A:4:
MUNICIPAL LOCATIONS ~ 97°30' EL RENO GROUP EXCEPT CEDAR HILLS SANDSTONE CEDAR HILLS SANDSTONE BASAL UNITS OF THE EL RENO GROUP HENNESSEY GROUP GARBER SANDSTONE WELLINGTON FORMATION OUTER BOUNDARY OF ALLUVIUM AND TERRACE DEPOSITS CIMARRON SITE LOCATION ro 8 z 0 iii w 0
- i 0
F 0... ii" (.) [;] 0 0 z ~ 0 u w.J <( Cr::'.': r./') z U.I ,...: N ro (./) LJ._ z 3: <( ~ <{ -, 0 Cl:'. 0 FIGURE NUMBER: 2 SHEET NUMBER* LJ._ ~ 0 r--- N .. I"") 5 I ~...t-
- >...t-z o
~ I c30 oc N 0... 0 ...t-o -- en Q) II ~..... ~ 1 o ____________________________________________________________________________________ __. _______ _
I[) 0 0 0 0 N 0,q-0 ci z ~ 0 0 c:i I'-m 0 c:i c.o m 0 c:i I[) m 0 c:i ,q-
- 0) 0 c:i 10
- 0) 0 c:i N m 0
c:i m 0 c:i 0 m 0 c:i CJ) CX) NORTH A 0 100 0 0 SILT 200 15 VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET 75 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET ALLUVIUM TMW-23 02W13 300 400 30 150 TRANSITIONAL ZONE 02W46 500 APPROX. NORTHERN EXTENT OF TRENCH 600 ALLUVIUM SAND a CLAY SILT 700
- i,~:!~\\
a SOUTH _J (/J
- ?!
<( UPLANDS A' "'-/ 800 BEDROCK SANDSTONE MUDSTONE SHALE 1314 APPROX. SOUTHERN EXTENT OF, TR~N?r?r-~- -~- ~A~*~,~To~ ~... ; ~.. \\ :* > (' -~ ~.~, ':;'; ::, ;:*. t -~
- SHALE
- 1 900 1,000 0
c:i I'-m 0 c:i c.o O"l 0 c:i LC)
- 0) 0 c:i
,q-
- 0) 0 ci 10
- 0) 0 c:i N
- 0) 0 c:i
- 0) 0 c:i 0
O"l 0 ci
- 0)
CX) (FEET) 1314 MONITORING WELL SCREENED WELL INTERVAL (/) z 0 vi ~ 0:: en 0 w z C) E3 0 z 0 F Q_ ii:: u ~ 0 ci z ~ 0 u l..1..1 <l'.'. 0::: V) z LIJ en z <( 0:: 0 N en (/) l.J._ 4:: 8 ~ "' 0 ~ ~ I u 0 0 <D w I-s l/)._,- z 0 F u w CJ') I U1z U10<C o_~ 5~o o::::I I") <C _j o<C w <( a_....J w 0::: S2 0::: ~ <Cc., 00 a:: 0
- >,- _j O c., ~o
~ wZZ -<( ow LL CO c., o::::O w o::::(I) ><(W F~O:::: <(-0 1-0 z w CJ') w a:::: (L w a:::: FIGURE NUMBER: 3 SHEET NUMBER: 1 en 0 l.J._ ~ ~ 0 0 0:: Q_ Q_ <( I'- N ri:' I"") w I en -.;I- -.;I-z 0 I- ~ I 0 0 0:: N Q_ 0 -.;I-0 co 0 w.........._ ~N 0 0,1 O') i.n ~ I'- <( II u (/) =
DWG. NO. 040200009 ~ 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1,000 (AMSL) 0 z "'TJ fTl fTl
- o
() )> r (/) () )> r fTl z "'TJ fTl fTl 0 vi (Jl um [ill.,* gtm .,*. im _;l;l;l; (/) 0 (/) )> -i )> z 0 0 )> ~ ~rn ~ ~ ~ I ffij (/) ~ (/) '1 C )> 1 -i O Z '- 0 -i (/) (/) 0 -i )> Z 0 z fTl z 0 fTl (/) -i 0 z fTl -tttttt- ~ zU> ~ -10 0 fTl :::0 z
- 0 fTl -
< fTl -i )>z o 1 fTl :::0 0 z C) ~~ 1 fTl )> C < C ~ rn fTl 0
- 0 0
0 A
- I: I :
- i' cl i'
8l i' m i' ~ 'U ui ,---~;ii el ~;f
- .\\ ~1\\/;~~*7',-,_
I :!!j I
- I I. I : I : I. I I : I :I.~-
. I i t.
- Z '* I. I. I. I I. I. I. I I i *"' j ljl **i i*i i *i*i i*i*1,-... -.. --~"
-j~ :-J ~*- i*1T i iT1 :i*j : *:* ;-'*:/,::
- 1*1 "' * *1*1* *1*1*1 *1*1* ' '
- '
- 1: 1~ :1 : 1:1 1
- 1* "' 1* 1* 1*
- i l l l ~ l
! l j t { _..._, ._ J-=-=-=~-~-=-=-- ~ I : I : I : I: I : I: r. 1\\_!lll!ttllll!/~l~!~~l -. f--------------i ~ .,*.. \\llii!ift,:f+\\lil:-=-,:{ -!.\\ ~ f"::. \\.(/.Ii:.
- -- : ~ : I : I : I : I.
1: 1 : 1: .. * {
- : I : 1 *
~~-- *~ / t
- -~
~ ';.,.,._.j I. <,, :1: I : I . ',:. i \\ i
- 1:
- 1 z
0 m;:o
- r
~ lil ~ ~ Ul a me . :r fTl -i -i 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1,000 (A~SL) ..i:,.. 0 0 --.J 0 FIGURE 4 REPRESENTATIVE GEOLOGICAL CROSS-SECTION WESTERN UPLAND AND ALLUVIAL AREAS CIMARRON CORPORATION CRESCEN~ OKLAHOMA SCALE: I DATE: I PROJECT NUMBER: 1" = 200* I 9/22/06 I 04020-044-327 ENSR I AECOM ENSR CORPORATION 4888 LOOP CENTRAL DRIVE, SU ITE 600 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77081-2214 PH ONE: (713) 520-9900 FAX: (713) 520- 6802 WEB: HTTP:/ /WWW.EN SR. AECOM.COM DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: JAS CHECKED BY: DJF APPROVED BY: DJF REVISIONS NO.: DESCRIPTION: DATE: BY:
- 1.
4/01/05 JAS
- 2.
6/17 /05 JAS
BA #1 Model Domain ENSR N D BA #1 Boundary Cimarron Corporation AECOM A Crescent, Oklahoma Figure DATE PROJECT 5 NOTTO SCALE October 2006 04020-044-300 J:\\Water\\PROJEC~2\\P40\\4020\\044-Cl~1 \\modeling\\MODEL_ ~1 \\GIS\\figure5.mxd
N D WAArea Model Domain A WAArea Boundary Cimarron Corporation ENSR AECOM Crescent, Oklahoma Figure NOTTO SCALE DATE PROJECT 6 October 2006 04020-044-300 J.\\Water\\PROJEC 2\\P40\\4020\\044-CH \\model1ng\\MODEL_ -1\\GIS\\FI0BD2-1.MXD
BA #1 Boreholes and Cross-sections ENSR AECOM Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Figure DATE PROJECT 7 October 2006 04020-044-300 J:\\Water\\PROJEC~2\\P40\\4020\\044-C 1~1 \\modeling\\MODEL_ ~1 \\GIS\\figure?.mxd
BA #1 Solids Developed from Borehole Data ENSR AECOM Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Figure DATE PROJECT 8 October 2006 04020-044-300 J:\\Water\\PROJE C~2\\P40\\4020\\044-C I~ 1 \\modeling\\MODEL_ ~1 \\GI S\\fig ureB. mxd
BA #1 3D Grid Incorporating Geologic Information ENSR AECOM Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Figure DATE PROJECT 9 October 2006 04020-044-300 J:\\Water\\PROJEC-2\\P40\\4020\\044-C 1-1 \\modeling\\MODEL_ -1 \\GIS\\figure9.mxd
Note: Shows extent of borings and cross-sections. Figure 11 shows extrapolation of geology to model domain. J:\\Water\\PROJEC~2\\P40\\4020\\044-Cl~1 \\modeling\\MODEL_ ~1\\GIS\\figure10.mxd WAArea Boreholes and Cross-sections Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma DATE PROJECT October 2006 04020-044-300 ENSR AECOM Figure 10
WAArea Solids Developed from Borehole Data ENSR AECOM Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Figure DATE PROJECT 11 October 2006 04020-044-300 J:\\Water\\PROJEC~2\\P40\\4020\\044-Cl~1 \\modeling\\MODEL_ ~1 \\GI S\\figure11.mxd
WAArea 3D Grid Incorporating Geologic Information ENSR AECOM Cimarron Corporation Crescent, Oklahoma Figure DATE PROJECT 12 October 2006 04020-044-300 J:\\Water\\PROJEC~2\\P40\\4020\\044-Cl-1\\modeling\\MODEL_ ~1\\GIS\\figure12.mxd
N A NOTTO SCALE Predicted Groundwater Contours and Particle Pathlines MODFLOW Computed vs Observed Groundwater Levels 920 925 930 935 940 945 950 0 bserved (feet) Results of Burial Area #1 Model Calibration: Predicted Groundwater Contours with Pathline and Measured vs Predicted Water Levels October 2006 955 J:\\Water\\PROJ EC~2\\P40\\4020\\044-Cl~1 \\model ing\\MODEL_ ~ 1\\GIS\\FI FF2A~1.MXD ENSR AECOM Figure 13
N A NOTTO SCALE Predicted Groundwater Contours MODFLOW Computed vs Observed Groundwater Levels 932.50 ~--------------------/- 932.00 ~ ~ 931.50 't, s j a. g 931.00 - u 930.50 - 930.00 -*1""------,-------,-------.-----,------1 930.0 930.5 931.0 931.5 932.0 932.5 Observed (feet) Results of Western Alluvial Area Model Calibration: Predicted Groundwater Contours and Measured vs Predicted Water Levels October 2006 J :\\Water\\PROJ EC~2\\P40\\4020\\044-Cl~1 \\model ing\\MODEL_ ~1\\GIS\\figure14. mxd ENSR AECOM Figure 14
__ = __ ._~_,_* __ I - SI NCE 1898 Burns & McDonnell World Headquarters 9400 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114 Phone: 816-333-9400 Fax: 816-333-3690 www.burnsmcd.com Burns & McDonnell: Making our clients successful for more than 100 years
APPENDIX B - VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF URANIUM IN GROUNDWATER CROSS SECTIONS
(.) z >--z <( a.. 2 0 u (.9 z a: w w z (!) z w _J _J w z z 0 0 (.) 2 oc!S (/'J z 0:: en t--- ~ 0 N I-I (.9 a: a.. 0 u (J) 2 w 0 en <( I-w w LL z 0 i== ~ w _J w A SOUTH 940 935 930 925 920 915 910 905 Borehole North T-51 322775 T-67 321657 T-68 322052 T-84 322295 T-97 323344 T-67 1-34.0-50 100 140 183. 10 40 60 82 East Elev. Depth 2091962 937.8 20.6 2091743 938.0 29.0 2091713 937.4 27.8 0 2091869 936.9 27.9 2092125 939.0 29.1 T-68 107.4 0 50 100 120 15.6 12.9 NA NA 0 I T-84 38.2 50 100 120 y * --50 / 8.1 9.6 12.3 17.2 63.8 / / T-51 26.2 0 50 100 12
- y 0 "' 1 0
"\\ ~ ~ APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE T-97 62.6 0 50 100 120 9.2 8.1 12.1 19.7 -50 100 - 100 109. A' NORTHEAST 940 935 930 (J) 2 w 0 en <( 925 I-w w LL z 0 i== ~ 920 w _J w 915 LEGEND GEOLOGIC CONTACT y_ ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION 6.4 DISCRETE GROUNDWATER URANIUM CONCENTRATION (µg/L) 27.9 MONITORING WELL URANIUM CONCENTRATION (µg/L) NA NO GROUNDWATER SAMPLE COLLECTED URANIUM ISO-CONCENTRATION CONTOUR ~ WELL SCREEN EC SCALE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) EC (mS/m) 0 50 100 120 HPT AVERAGE PSI SCALE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) I I I I I I I I ii 10 40 60 82 HPT Press. Avg. (psi) NA _-4-1---__ APPROXtMA TE TOP OF BEDROCK ~ ---- 910 10 40 60 82 VERTICAL SCALE 5' SCALE IN FEET 10 40 60 82 10' 0 HORIZONTAL. SCALE 200' 400' SCALE IN FEET ~BURNS "-M!=DONNELL date 4/17/2017 designed D. HORNE 10 40 60 82 NOTES
- 1) EC - ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY 905
- 2) HPT - HYDRAULIC PROFILING TOOL
- 3) PSI - POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
- 4) µg/L - MICROGRAMS PER LITER
- 5) mS/m - MILLISIEMENS PER METER
- 6) MSL - MEAN SEA LEVEL project Figure 2-2 89761 WAA CROSS-SECTION A-A' contract VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF URANIUM IN GROUNDWATER CONTNO CIMARRON SITE, OKLAHOMA dwg. no.
rev.
(.) z ~ z <t: a.. 2 0 u z a:: w w z a z w _J _J w z z 0 0 (.) 2 ~ Cl) z 0:::
- J Ill
- i' Cl)
~ w > 940 935 930 ~ 925 <( r-w w LL -- z 0 j::: ~ 920 w ....J w 915 910 905 0 APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE T-59 93.8 EC (mS/m) 0 50 100 130 6.9 9.4 0.4 36.7 65.0 NA NA -50 HPT Press. Avg. (psi) VERTICAL SCALE 5' 1 O' SCALE IN FEET 2 _y LEGEND GEOLOGIC CONTACT ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION 6.4 DISCRETE GROUNDWATER URANIUM CONCENTRATION (µg/L) 27.9 MONITORING WELL URANIUM CONCENTRATION (µg/L) NA NO GROUNDWATER SAMPLE COLLECTED URANIUM ISO-CONCENTRATION CONTOUR WELL SCREEN EC SCALE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) EC (mS/m) 0 50 100 120 HPT AVERAGE PSI SCALE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) I I I I I I I I II 10 40 60 82 HPT Press. Avg. (psi) NOTES
- 1) EC - ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY
- 2) HPT - HYDRAULIC PROFILING TOOL
- 3) PSI - POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
- 4) µg/L - MICROGRAMS PER LITER
- 5) mS/m - MILLISIEMENS PER METER
- 6) MSL - MEAN SEA LEVEL I'--.,... _________.,.... ________________ -. _________ ____
0 project N Figure 2-3 89761 ~BURNS 1- ~MSDONNELL T-59 PROFILE contract I VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF URANIUM IN GROUNDWATER CONTNO ~ date 4/1 7/2017 a.. CIMARRON SITE, OKLAHOMA dwg. no. rev. 8 designed D. HORNE
0 ~ ~ z <( a.. ~ 0 (.) (!) z a: w w z a z w .....J .....J w z z 0 0 (.) ~ ca Cf) z a:::
- J OJ B SOUTH 945 940 935
- J'
(/J ~ w 0 930 OJ <( I-w w LL z 0 ~ 925 ~ w .....J w 920 915 910 905 TMW-09 50 100 140 02.W02. NA NA NA NA NA NA 10 40 10 02W32 1,568.7 50 100 120
~
40 60 - 286.5 278.3 200-110.3 126.5 159.0 ""'-NA 0 02W44 306.8 50 100 120 10 40 60 82 17.4 26.3 7.5 0.1 NA NA 17.1 29.4 0 TMW-24 38.4 50 100 120 10 40 60 82 / APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE 1373 27.9 0 50 100 120 6.4 2.3 1.5 2.7 26.7 46.4 1.1 1.2 NA . 42.2 \\_ 10 40 60 82 APPROXIMATE TOP OF BEDROCK B' NORTHEAST 945 940 935
- J'
(/J ~ w > 930 O OJ <( 1-w w LL -z 0 925 ~ ~ 920 915 910 905 w .....J w LEGEND GEOLOGIC CONTACT _y ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION 6.4 DISCRETE GROUNDWATER URANIUM CONCENTRATION (µg/L) 27.9 MONITORING WELL URANIUM CONCENTRATION (µg/L) NA NO GROUNDWATER SAMPLE COLLECTED URANIUM ISO-CONCENTRATION CONTOUR ~ WELL SCREEN EC SCALE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) EC (mS/m) D 50 100 120 I I I I I HPT AVERAGE PSI SCALE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) I I I I I I I I ij 10 40 60 82 HPT Press. Avg. (psi) NOTES
- 1) EC - ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY
- 2) HPT - HYDRAULIC PROFILING TOOL
- 3) PSI - POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
- 4) µg/L - MICROGRAMS PER LITER
- 5) mS/m - MILLISIEMENS PER METER
- 6) MSL - MEAN SEA LEVEL r,-...t--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 project 0
N (Q) I-I (!) a: >-a.. 0 (.) Borehole 1373 02W02 02W32 02W44 TMW-09 TMW-24 North East 323653 2095689 322882 2095451 322964 2095430 323155 2095374 322825 2095490 323409 2095433 Elev. Depth 933.0 26.1 VERTICAL SCALE 938.9 18.3 937.2 22.1 0 5' 936.5 22.1 943.2 20.5 SCALE IN FEET 936.6 29.9 ~URNS Figure 3-2 89761 HORIZONTAL SCALE '1 M!:DONNELL 8A-1 CROSS-SECTION 8-8' contract 10' 0 100' 200' VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF URANIUM IN GROUNDWATER CONTNO SCALE IN FEET date 4/17/2017 CIMARRON SITE, OKLAHOMA dwg. no. rev. designed D. HORNE
APPENDIX C - SELECT FIGURES FROM THE 2018 CIMARRON FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, REVISION 1
OJ .f: ..I< u C1l f!:: QJ
- "Q
~ 0.. "E ~ 0 u.. ,:i QJ E Q) Cl'.'. ~ ~ cc NI a:, I!!
- J OJ u:
ui 0
- c C1l C
Q) u (/) Cl C *o. E
- J 0..
00 0 ~ ~ 0 u ~ ~ ~ u: I 0 <..) ~ cc u5 a !::? en ~'.i Cl-ea>-" en Z c.<:( C1l a.: ~~ ~8 ~(!) ~~ Q) Cl'.'. (!)W ]~ 2a roz row Cl...J im ~z ~z so c Cl
- u a} ~
= ca <..)(/) -'z I-Cl'.'. Cl'.'.:::> ~cc en ~ Zo WN ~@ ]~ <..) (!) ~~ .c 0.. roO 0.. <..) Nominal Pumping Scenario Operating Scenario 1 Operating Scenari_o 2 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus OS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 8-4 BURIAL AREA #1 PARTICLE TRACKING MODEL FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN REVISION 1 ~ BURNS ~ M£DONNELL~ ~ environmental properties manager1en1.LC Legend + MONITORING WELL IN ALLUVIUM + MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE B + MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE C + MONITORING WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE EXTRACTION WELL GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TRENCH
- PARTICLE ADDED FOR STAGNATION ZONE ANALYSIS STAGNATION ZONE PARTICLE TRAVEL PATH Notes:
- 1) The distance between arrows represents the distance the particle travels in 60 days.
- 2) GPM - gallons per minute.
0 200 ~~~--~~~~~~Feet 50 100 COORDINATES : (NAO 83) STATE PLANE OKLAHOMA NORTH FEET I DATE : MAP PRODUCED - 10/26/2018 N A
"C X E iii' co N e -~ g!, ii5 C <( w C 0 N en ro ii.i Cl -~ u ~ w u t ro a.. "C <ii 2: 0 LL -ci w E w a:: s C) ~ 00 e:> I Cl ii: en 0 -~ C: w u en Cl -~ a.. E a.. 00 0 ~ (/J u 0 -g ~ _gi ii: I u <.) 2 aJ en ci ~ ~ (/J Cl<.) S:z 0-Cll >-- v, Z a..<( ro a.. 22 ~8 ~C) "'Z o-wa:: C) w -w 5l z ro - .o Cl ro z mW Cl...I -...1
- tlw
~z ~z ,EO C: 0
- u c
- 2
~Cll Ucn -'z f-a:: ct'.::::, ~co co en..- Z o WN !?@ Cf- ~ J: uci ~" .c a.. mO a..u Nominal Pumping Scenario Operating Scenario 1 Operating Scenario 2 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus OS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 8-5 WESTERN AREA PARTICLE TRACKING MODEL FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN REVISION 1 ~ BURNS ~ M£DONNELL~ ~ environmental properties manager.ient _LC Legend + Notes: MONITORING WELL IN ALLUVIUM MONITORING WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE EXTRACTION WELL GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TRENCH PARTICLE ADDED FOR STAGNATION ZONE ANALYSIS STAGNATION ZONE PARTICLE TRAVEL PATH
- 1) The distance between arrows represents the distance the particle travels in 60 days.
- 2) GPM - gallons per minute.
0 50 100 200 Feet COO RD/NA TES : (NAD 83) STATE PLANE OKLAHOMA NORTH FEET I DATE: MAP PRODUCED - 10/26/2018 N A
BURNS M£DONNELL~ CREATE AMAZ IN G. Burns & McDonnell World Headquarters 9400 Ward Parkway Kansas City, MO 64114 0 816-333-9400 F 816-333-3690}}