ML21076A504

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Facility Decommissioning Plan, Revision 2, Appendix K - Compiled, Part 1
ML21076A504
Person / Time
Site: 07000925
Issue date: 02/26/2021
From:
Environmental Properties Management, Enercon Services, Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co, Veolia Nuclear Solutions Federal Services
To:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, NRC Region 4
Shared Package
ML21076A479 List: ... further results
References
Download: ML21076A504 (52)
v • d • e


Text

Memorandum BURNS ~ M£DONNELL Document No.: BMCD-GWREMED-TM001 Revision: C Date: October 30, 2018 To: Jeff Lux, EPM From: John Hesemann, Bums & McDonnell

Subject:

Basis of Design for Groundwater Remediation This Basis of Design for Groundwater Remediation has been developed to support remediation design activities and preparation of a Decommissioning Plan (D-Plan) for the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust (CERT) remediation project at the Cimarron Site located in Guthrie, Oklahoma (Site).

The efficacy of the groundwater remediation technologies proposed for implementation at the Site (groundwater extraction and injection) have been demonstrated through previous investigative activities (e.g., pump testing, packer testing, site investigation, groundwater modeling, etc.) as well as pilot testing conducted in late 2017 and early 2018. Likewise, the efficacy of technologies proposed for treatment of recovered groundwater at the Site (ion exchange and biodenitrification) were demonstrated through treatability testing conducted in 2015 1* Results of the treatability testing demonstrated that ion exchange is capable of reducing the concentration of uranium in groundwater recovered at the Site to below the permissible discharge concentration of 30 micrograms per liter (µg/L ), and that biodenitrification is capable of reducing the concentration of nitrate in recovered groundwater below the permissible discharge concentration of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L).

The processes used to develop the remediation basis of design are summarized in the following sections.

1.0 Uranium Groundwater Data Review A review of laboratory analytical results for groundwater samples collected during monitoring events conducted in 2011 through 2017 was performed in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Functional Guidelines for Inorganics Superfund Methods Data Review 2

  • The review was performed to assess the validity of the laboratory data, 1

Kurion, Inc. (2015). Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, 2015 Groundwater Treatability Tests (KUR-ENVIOl-001-RPT-002 Rev. 0). Richland: Barker, Luey, Gholami, Mertz, Walton.

2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). National Functional Guidelines for Inorganics Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA-540-R-201 7-001). Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation.

Washington, DC.

Memorandum (cont d) 3 BURNS ~ SDONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 2 of 19 including uranium mass concentrations used in calculating representative groundwater concentrations to support design basis development (see Section 2.0 below). No uranium mass concentration data were rejected as a result of the analytical data review.

2.0 Calculation of Representative Groundwater Concentrations Representative groundwater concentrations were calculated for the Site in accordance with the following process:

2.1 Monitor wells for which data are available for years 2011 through Second Quarter (Q2) 2017, located within and in the vicinity of remediation areas, and screened within the appropriate aquifer units, were selected for use in design basis development.

Groundwater data associated with these wells was transferred from the project database into an MS Excel data workbook. Uranium, nitrate, and fluoride data sheets exported from the MS Excel data workbook are included as Attachment 2.1.

Note: If multiple concentrations were reported for a given monitor well in a single sampling event (e.g., a sample and a duplicate), the highest of the available concentrations for a given monitor well within the same event were used.

2.2 For monitor wells with at least four independent sample results, data from the worksheets identified in 2.1 were imported into the ProUCL Ver. 5.1002 software application for calculation of the ninety-five percent upper confidence level of the arithmetic mean (95%

UCL) concentration. The software application calculated the uranium, nitrate, and fluoride 95% UCL data concentrations.

Note: If the 95% UCL value recommended by ProUCL exceeded the maximum observed value for a given monitor well, the maximum observed value was used in place of the 95% UCL. The 95% UCL values calculated by the software application assumed normal distribution using the 95% Student' s-t UCL. This methodology was employed due to the small sample size and relatively varied concentrations at some monitor wells.

Pro UCL provides suggested UCL determination methods based on the characteristics of the data set. The Student's-t UCL method was suggested for the majority of the data sets, and for instances in which the data set did not exhibit a normal distribution and the Student's-t method was not suggested, Pro UCL was unable to recommend an alternative method, based on data set characteristics and methods available within the program. In addition, tests conducted using other statistical methods provided concentration results that were comparable to those calculated using the Student's-t method. Based on these

Memorandum (cont'd) BURNS ~  !:DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 3 of 19 factors, the Student's-t determination method was used to calculate the 95% UCL contaminant concentration for all applicable data sets.

The 95% UCL concentrations calculated by Pro UCL for uranium, nitrate, and fluoride are tabulated in Attachment 2.1.

2.3 For each monitor well, the representative groundwater concentrations used in basis of design development consisted of:

  • The 95% UCL concentration (if calculated);
  • The maximum contaminant concentration (if used in place of the 95% UCL value);

or,

  • The average contaminant concentration (if data were not sufficient to determine the 95% UCL concentration).

These representative uranium, nitrate, and fluoride concentrations were added to the data sheets included as Attachment 2.1, in the column labeled "Representative Groundwater Concentration".

3.0 Isopleth Map Generation The representative groundwater concentrations were used to generate updated isopleth maps for the Site.

Representative groundwater concentrations for each monitor well and contaminant, and northing and easting coordinates for each monitor well were transferred into an input data file that was subsequently imported into the Surfer software application developed by Golden Software.

Surfer was used to generate isopleth concentration plots for both Burial Area 1 (BAI) and the Western Area (WA). For BAI, representative uranium groundwater concentrations for wells screened within the Sandstone B (SSB), transition zone, and alluvium formations were combined to develop a uranium isopleth map.

For the WA, representative uranium, nitrate, and fluoride groundwater concentrations for wells screened within SSB, transition zone, and alluvium formations were combined to develop isopleth maps for each contaminant. In addition, representative uranium, nitrate, and fluoride groundwater concentrations for wells screened within Sandstone A (SSA) were used to develop separate isopleth maps for each contaminant. Copies of the BA 1 and WA isopleth maps are included as Attachment 3.0.

Memorandum (cont'd) BURNS ~ £DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 4 of 19 4.0 Design Modifications Resulting from Revised Plume Definition The updated isopleth maps described above provided a refined understanding of contaminant nature and extent. This served as the basis for reassessing groundwater injection and extraction component quantities and locations. Each remediation area was reviewed to determine if remediation components should be relocated, removed, or added to improve contaminant capture, mass removal, and overall performance. Based on this review, extraction well locations were adjusted within the Western Alluvial Area (WAA). In addition, one alluvial extraction well was eliminated and several extraction well locations were adjusted in BA 1.

5.0 Design Modifications Resulting from Pilot Testing A pilot test consisting of injection and extraction trench construction, injection pilot testing, and extraction pump testing, began in the Fourth Quarter of2017 and was completed in the First Quarter of 2018. Results of the Pilot Test indicated that remediation design modifications were necessary to improve remediation performance and achieve project objectives. These design modifications are described below:

5.1 BAl injection and extraction component quantities, locations, dimensions, and design parameters were updated to maximize contaminant mass removal, minimize remediation duration, and optimize the overall design. Updates included the following:

  • The anticipated groundwater recovery rate for extraction trench GETR-BAl-01 was reduced from 30 to 7 gallons per minute (gpm) based on pumping test results.
  • Extraction trench GETR-BAl-02 was relocated and the anticipated groundwater recovery rate was reduced from 10 to 7 gpm. The position and length of this trench were also influenced by the results of the Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy and Porosity Analysis, conducted by Bums & McDonnell in April 2018 3 .
  • The anticipated water infiltration rate for injection trench GWI-BAl-01 was increased from approximately 4 to 10 gpm based on water injection test results.
  • Injection trench GWI-BAl-02 was reconfigured and a third injection trench (GWI-BA 1-03) was added. The anticipated water infiltration rate for each of these trenches (GWI-BAl-02 and GWI-BAl-03) is approximately 4 gpm.

3 Bums & McDonnell Engineering Company. (2018). Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy (ESS) and Porosity Analysis, Burial Area 1, Cimarron Former Nuclear Fuel Production Facility. Concord: Mike Shultz.

Memorandum (cont/Id) BURNS ~ £DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 5 of 19 Additional details regarding these design modifications were presented in the Remediation Pilot Test Report, prepared by Bums & McDonnell in June 2018 4 . The final locations and dimensions of the remediation components described above are presented on the figure included as Attachment 5.1 and in Figure 8-2 of the Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev. 1.

5.2 WA injection and extraction component quantities, locations, dimensions, and design parameters were updated to maximize contaminant mass removal, minimize remediation duration, and optimize the overall design. Updates included the following:

  • Injection trenches GWI-UPl-04 and GWI-UPl-06, formerly proposed for the Western Upland (WU) Uranium Pond 1 (WU-UPI) remediation area, were eliminated from the design. In addition, the lengths of injection trenches G WI-UP 1-03 and GWI-UPl-04 (formerly GWI-UPl-05) proposed for the WU-UPI area were significantly reduced. Flow rates for WU-UPI injection trenches were also adjusted based on pilot test results.
  • The length of injection trench GWI-UP2-04 proposed for the WU Uranium Pond 2 (WU-UP2) area was significantly reduced and the north-south lateral components previously proposed for injection trench GWI-UP2-0l were also eliminated. Flow rates for WU-UP2 injection trenches were also adjusted based on pilot test results.
  • The anticipated water infiltration rate for injection trench GWI-WU-01 , located in WU Burial Area 3 (WU-BA3), was revised based on the results of water injection pilot tests conducted at WU-UPI. The WU-UPI pilot test injection trenches are located approximately 600 feet from G WI-WU-01 and are constructed in the same formation (SSA) as GWI-WU-01.
  • The anticipated groundwater extraction rate for extraction trench GETR-WU-02, proposed for construction within transition zone deposits in the 1206-NORTH remediation area, was revised based on the results of the groundwater pumping test conducted at GETR-BAl-01, the extraction trench constructed within BAI transition zone deposits.
  • The anticipated groundwater pumping rate for extraction trench GETR-WU-01, located in the WU-1348 remediation area, was revised based on the results of water 4

Bums & McDonnell Engineering Company. (2018). Remediation Pilot Test Report. Kansas City.

Me orandum (cont d) 1 BURNS ~  !:DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 6 of 19 injection pilot tests conducted at WU-UPI. The WU-UPI pilot test injection trenches are located approximately 960 feet from GETR-WU-01 and are constructed in the same formation (SSA) as GETR-WU-01.

Additional details regarding these design modifications were presented in the Remediation Pilot Test Report. The final locations and dimensions of the remediation components described above are presented on the figure included as Attachment 5 .2 and in Figure 8-1 of the Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev. 1.

6.0 Groundwater Modeling and Remediation Simulations 6.1 The groundwater models previously developed for the Site were updated in 2016 to support an evaluation of groundwater remediation alternatives and subsequent remediation design. Both the BAI and WA flow models were updated in 2016. These updates consisted of:

  • Inclusion of new geologic and hydro geologic data, based on additional site characterizations performed in 2014 and 2016;
  • Expansion of the WA model domain to include a larger area, including WU areas;
  • Updated calibration of both models using a comprehensive groundwater elevation data set generated in August 2016;
  • Incorporation of 1206 Drainageway and other potentiometric surface "sinks" into the model; and,
  • Updating of saturated thicknesses for remediation areas and formations.

The groundwater model review, calibration, and updates are documented in the 2016 Groundwater Flow Model Update 5 report.

6.2 In 2018, following completion of the pilot test, the revised remediation component quantities, locations, dimensions, flow rates, etc. described above in 4.0 and 5.0. were incorporated into the groundwater models. The revised groundwater extraction rates for individual extraction components, and the revised groundwater injection rates for 5 Burns

& McDonnell Engineering Company. 2016 Groundwater Flow Model Update. January 2017. Kansas City, Missouri.

Memorandum {cont 1dJ BURNS ~  !:DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 7 of 19 individual injection components are presented in on the figure included as Attachment 6.2 and in Figure 8-3 of the Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev. 1.

6.3 The updated groundwater model was used to simulate and optimize the performance of site remediation components located in alluvial areas (i.e., the WAA and BAI alluvium).

However, pilot test results for trenches installed within the transition zone and sandstone formations are more reflective of actual conditions than those predicted by the model; consequently, numerical groundwater modeling was not used for these areas. Instead, potentiometric surface contours, pumping test drawdown analyses, and dye tracer test results were used to optimize designs for remediation components proposed for construction in these formations.

6.4 The groundwater model was used to perform particle tracking analyses and generate capture zone depictions for remediation components located in alluvial areas. Iterative remediation simulations (particle tracking model runs) were then performed to confirm adequate capture of injected water and groundwater contamination exceeding remediation criteria. The criteria used in this evaluation are as follows:

  • Extraction components in both WA and BA 1 remediation areas must achieve capture of uranium contamination exceeding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) criterion of 180 picocuries per liter (pCi/L).
  • BAI extraction components must achieve capture of uranium contamination exceeding the State criterion of 30 µg/L.
  • With the exception of remediation components located in WAA-EAST and WAA-WEST, all WA extraction components must achieve capture of uranium, nitrate, and fluoride contamination exceeding the State criteria- 30 µg/L, 22.9 mg/L, and 4 mg/L, respectively. Remediation components in the W AA-EAST, and W AA-WEST areas were located to maximize capture of contamination hot spots, thereby optimizing contaminant mass removal.
  • Extraction components in the BAI, WA-BLUFF, and 1206-NORTH areas must achieve capture of injected water.

o At a minimum, the total recovery rate for extraction components located downgradient of injection components must equal the total injection rate for those injection components.

o The capture zone of extraction components must encompass the zone of injection influence.

Memora dum (cont'd) BURNS ~  !:DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 8 of 19 Results of the particle tracking analyses, including finalized remediation component locations and capture zones, are depicted in figures included as Attachment 6.4.

6.5 Following completion of the iterative remediation simulations and finalization of remediation component quantities, locations, and dimensions, geospatial coordinate data for the finalized remediation components was exported to the necessary design applications. A comprehensive review of geospatial coordinate data and data acquisition protocols was then conducted to confirm proper control of coordinate data and the consistent use of current coordinate data by all design applications (e.g., ArcGIS, AutoCAD, Surfer, EVS, MODPATH/MODFLOW). This review confirmed that consistent geospatial coordinate data was utilized by all applications during the design effort. This review was documented in a memorandum entitled CERT Groundwater Remediation Project - Review of Geospatial Coordinate Systems and Data Management Practices 6*

6.6 Following finalization of the remediation component design criteria described above, the potential for hydraulic stagnation in alluvial remediation areas exceeding the NRC uranium criterion (WAA U> DCGL and BAl-B) were addressed as follows:

  • A particle tracking analysis was conducted to identify zones of potential stagnation under nominal groundwater extraction rates.
  • Two operating scenarios, each consisting of different pumping rates for each extraction well, were developed for both remediation areas.
  • A new particle tracking analysis was performed for both remediation areas under the operating scenarios described above. For this analysis, a new particle was added in the center of each previously identified zone of potential stagnation.

The result of the stagnation zone analysis for WAA U> DCGL and BAl-B are presented in the figures included as Attachment 6.6 and in Figures 8-4 and 8-5 of the Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev. 1. The figures indicate that the alternating operating scenarios should eliminate the potential for hydraulic stagnation.

6 Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company. CERT Groundwater Remediation Project - Review ofGeospatial Coordinate Systems and Data Management Practices. August 24, 2018. Kansas City, Missouri.

Memorandum (cont dJ 1 BURNS ~  !:DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 9 of 19 7.0 Remediation Area and Pore Volume Estimate Revisions Pore volume, calculated by multiplying the aquifer volume targeted for remediation by effective porosity, is one of the input parameters required for the calculating the remediation timeframe required to achieve remediation goals. For most remediation areas, the targeted aquifer volume was calculated by multiplying the lateral extent of each remediation area by saturated thickness.

Three-dimensional visualization (3DV) modeling was used to calculate the aquifer volume for remediation areas with variable saturated thicknesses.

7 .1 The lateral extent of each remediation area was estimated based on:

  • The approximate hydraulic capture zone of extraction component( s) exhibiting uranium concentrations at or above 30 µg/L and - for WA areas only - nitrate concentrations at or above 10 mg/L; and/or
  • The approximate hydraulic zone of influence associated with injection component(s).

The contaminant and formation specific isopleth maps generated for BA 1 and the WA (see Section 3.0), and particle tracking depictions generated during remediation simulation analysis (see Section 6.0) were used to estimate the lateral extent of each remediation area. The BAI uranium isopleth was used to estimate the lateral extent of all BAI remediation areas (i.e., BAI-A through BAl-C).

Uranium and nitrate isopleths developed using data from the SSB, transition zone, and alluvium formations in the WA were used to estimate the lateral extent of the following remediation areas:

  • WAA U>DCGL
  • WAA-EAST
  • WAA-WEST
  • WAA-BLUFF
  • 1206-NORTH
  • WU Process Building Area (WU-PBA)

Uranium and nitrate isopleths developed using data from the SSA formation in the WA were used to estimate the lateral extent of the following remediation areas:

  • WU-UPI
  • WU-UP2-SSA
  • WU-UP2-SSB

Memorandum (cont.,d) BURNS ~  !:DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 10 of 19

  • WU-1348
  • WU-BA3 7 .2 The aquifer volume targeted for remediation in each area, with the exception of the 1206-NORTH and BAI-A, was estimated based on:
  • The lateral extent of each remediation area, estimated as described above in 7 .1; and,
  • The saturated thickness of each remediation area, estimated as described in the 2018 Technical Memorandum entitled Input Parameters for Updated Remediation Duration Estimates. A copy of this memorandum is included as Attachment 7.2.

7.3 Due to the variability in vertical formation thickness in the 1206-NORTH and BAI transition zone remediation areas, the aquifer volumes targeted for remediation in these areas were estimated using Earth Volumetric Studio (EVS), a 3DV application.

8.0 Area and Linear-Weighted Influent Concentration Estimates Area-weighted influent concentration estimates were performed to support remediation duration estimate calculations, as described in Section 9.0, and to estimate influent concentrations in WAA BLUFF extraction wells that will be influenced by contaminant concentrations in WU-UPI and WU-UP2 areas. The contaminant and formation specific isopleth maps generated for BAI and the WA (see Section 3.0), and particle tracking depictions generated during remediation simulation analysis (see Section 6.0) were used to conduct incremental groundwater concentration averaging within the combined capture zone of each remediation area containing groundwater extraction components. The isopleth maps were also used to conduct linear-weighted averaging for all four groundwater extraction trenches (GETR-BAI-02, GETR-BAI-02, GETR-WU-01, and GETR-WU-02) to approximate initial influent contaminant concentrations.

Results of the area and linear-weighted averaging analysis completed for each applicable remediation area and groundwater extraction component are presented in Attachment 8.0.

Calculation files in native (MS Excel) format will also be provided to facilitate review of calculation methods (i.e., formulas, references, inputs, etc.) by NRC and Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) personnel.

9.0 Remediation Duration Estimates Groundwater remediation at the Cimarron Site will require two separate but related functions -

groundwater remediation and water treatment. The remediation function involves the extraction

Memorandum (cont d) 1 BURNS ~  !: DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 11 of 19 and injection of groundwater for the purposes of achieving groundwater remediation criteria. The water treatment function involves the removal of uranium and nitrate from extracted groundwater to facilitate injection or discharge of the water. The duration of remediation varies by area and is generally determined by groundwater remediation criteria and injection and/or extraction flow rates. Operation of the BAI and WA treatment systems must continue until concentrations of uranium and nitrate (WA only) are below the respective maximum contaminant level (MCL), thereby facilitating injection and/or discharge without treatment.

Consequently, it will be possible for water treatment in either area to conclude before remediation (groundwater pumping and injection) is discontinued. Estimated remediation timeframes are discussed below and anticipated water treatment timeframes are discussed in Section 10.0.

The estimated time required to achieve the remediation criterion for each contaminant in each remediation area and formation was calculated using the input parameters outlined in Attachment 7.2. A summary remediation and water treatment schedule is included as Attachment 9 .0 and as Figure 9-3 of the Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev. 1. The remediation duration estimate calculations and results for BA 1 and the WA are presented in Attachments 9 .1 and 9 .2, respectively. A first-order kinetic sorption equation that assumes linear, reversible and instantaneous sorption was determined to be appropriate for modeling concentration decline and the time required to achieve remediation criteria in each area 7* Remediation duration estimate calculation files in native (MS Excel) format will be provided to facilitate review of calculation methods (i.e., formulas, references, inputs, etc.) by NRC and DEQ personnel.

9.1 BAI was divided into three remediation areas (BAI-A, BAl-B, and BAl-C) for the purposes of calculating duration estimates. Uranium concentrations in BAI-A exceed the NRC criterion and this area is characterized by fine grained SSB and transition zone deposits. BAI-A is expected to require more time to achieve the NRC criterion than any other remediation area at the Site; consequently, BAI-A is expected to drive the overall site remediation schedule.

The dimensions and flow rates for BA 1-B and BA 1-C are expected to change over time since a different subset of extraction wells will be operated in these areas as remediation progresses. Consequently, multiple phases of remediation were evaluated for BA 1-B and BAl-C. The initial phase of remediation for BAl-B and BAl-C are denoted as Bl and 7

Fetter, C.W. (1993). Contaminant Hydrogeology (pp. 129-130). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Memorandum (contJdJ BURNS ~  !:DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 12 of 19 C 1. The lateral extent of BA 1-C will be minimized during C 1 as the two most downgradient extraction wells (GE-BAl-08 and-09) will be operating and GE-BAl-05 through-07 will remain idle (see Attachment 9.1). Conversely, the lateral extent ofBAl-B (i.e., Bl) is maximized during this phase. Once uranium concentrations in Cl fall below the State criterion, the second phase of remediation (B2/C2) will begin by shutting down extraction wells GE-BAl-08 and -09 and initiating operation of GE-BAl-06 and -

07. As noted in Attachment 9 .1, the initial uranium groundwater concentrations used in B2 and C2 timeframe calculations are 'decayed concentrations' (i.e., the estimated concentrations following completion of the initial remediation phase [B 1/C 1]). The State criterion for uranium is expected to be achieved in BAl-C by the conclusion of phase B2/C2; consequently, extraction wells GE-BAl-06 and -07 will be shut down and the additional treatment capacity provided by the discontinuation of remediation in area BAl-C will be applied to BAl-B for the final phase ofremediation in this area (B3R).

The initial uranium groundwater concentration used in B3R timeframe calculations are

'decayed concentrations' (i.e., the estimated concentrations following completion of

[B2/C2]). The State criterion for uranium is expected to be achieved in BAl-B by the conclusion of phase B3R (see Attachment 9.1).

9 .2 As discussed in Attachment 7 .2, remediation duration estimates for uranium and nitrate were calculated for all WA remediation areas except for WU-UP2 SSB and WAA-BLUFF. A uranium remediation duration estimate was not calculated for WU-UPI since the maximum representative initial concentration is below the State criterion and nitrate remediation duration estimates were not calculated for WAA-WEST or WU-1348 since the maximum representative initial concentrations are below the State criterion. Uranium groundwater concentrations exceed the NRC criterion in three WA remediation areas -

1206 NORTH, WAA U>DCGL, and WU-BA3; consequently, the time required to achieve both the NRC and State criterion for uranium was calculated for each of these areas. The maximum anticipated remediation timeframe for any BA 1 or WA area to achieve the NRC criterion is approximately 150 months (in BAI-A). The following areas are not expected to achieve the State criterion for all contaminants within 150 months:

Memorandum <cont'd) BURNS ~ SDONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 13 of 19 10.0 Influent Contaminant Concentration and Treatment Duration Estimates The estimated concentrations of uranium, nitrate, and fluoride in BA 1 and WA treatment system groundwater influents were calculated to support treatment system design and calculation of treatment system operational timeframes. The BA 1 uranium treatment system must operate until the uranium concentration in the combined influent falls below the MCL of 30 µg/L. The WA nitrate treatment system must operate until the nitrate concentration in the combined influent falls below the MCL of 10 mg/L. Finally, the WA uranium treatment system must operate until the uranium concentration in the combined influent falls below the MCL of 30 µg/L and nitrate treatment is discontinued. This final requirement is necessary because biodenitrification influent must be pretreated for uranium to minimize the potential for uranium accumulation in biomass generated within the nitrate treatment system. A detailed description of the processes used to estimate treatment system influent contaminant concentrations and operational timeframes is provided below and a summary remediation and water treatment schedule is included as .0.

10.1 Initial (i.e., time zero) and maximum (i.e., time "t") influent contaminant concentrations were estimated for each groundwater extraction component. The initial and maximum contaminant concentrations were equivalent for all components except for the WAA-BLUFF extraction wells (GE-WAA-06 through GE-WAA-13). For these wells, uranium, nitrate, and fluoride concentrations are expected to increase over time due to the injection activities proposed for WU-UPl and WU-UP2, located upgradient of the WAA-BLUFF extraction wells. The initial and maximum influent contaminant concentrations for each extraction component were estimated using one of three methods:

  • Concentration isopleth interpolation conducted using the Surfer software application;
  • Linear-weighted concentration averaging (see Section 8.0); or,
  • Area-weighted concentration averaging (see Section 8.0).

Initial and maximum influent contaminant concentration calculations are presented in Attachment 10.1. Calculation files in native (MS Excel) format will also be provided to facilitate review of calculation methods (i.e., formulas, references, inputs, etc.) by NRC and DEQ personnel.

If a remediation area included more than one groundwater extraction component, flow rate-weighted averaging was used to calculate the estimated initial/maximum influent concentrations for each remediation area (i.e., influent treatment stream). If a remediation

Memorandum (cont'd) BURNS ~ ~DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 14 of 19 area included only one groundwater extraction component, flow rate-weighted averaging was not required and the initial/maximum component-specific concentrations estimated as described above were used. Finally, since the initial nitrate groundwater concentrations for the WU-1348 and WAA-WEST areas (where uranium exceeds State criterion) are below the applicable remediation criteria, the highest representative nitrate concentration for any well in each of these areas was used as the initial/maximum influent concentration.

The estimated/calculated initial and maximum influent contaminant concentrations (Ci and Cmax, respectively), along with the parameters used to calculate estimated remediation durations (see Section 9.0), were used to predict declining influent concentrations and calculate operational timeframes for both the BA 1 and WA treatment systems. For each treatment system, the same first-order kinetic sorption equation used to calculate groundwater remediation durations (see Section 9.0) was used to model the decline in concentration for influent streams associated with each remediation area contributing to the combined influent. A flow rate-weighted average of the combined influent stream was then calculated to model the decline in concentration for each contaminant. This trend analysis was then used to estimate the operational timeframe required for the combined treatment train influent to reach the MCL for each contaminant, at which time treatment can be bypassed and the groundwater influent can be directly injected or discharged to the corresponding outfall. The results of the BAI influent concentration decline analysis are presented in Attachment 10.2a and the results of the WA analysis are presented in Attachment 10.2b. Additional details regarding the methodology used in these analyses are provided in the following subsections. In addition, calculation files in native (MS Excel) format will also be provided to facilitate review of calculation methods (i.e., formulas, references, inputs, etc.) by NRC and DEQ personnel.

10.2.1 As with the BAI remediation duration estimates, multiple phases ofremediation were evaluated for BA 1-B and BA 1-C areas since a different subset of extraction wells will be operated in these areas over time. For the initial remediation phase in these areas (i.e., Bl and C 1), the flow rate weighted average concentration, calculated as described in 10.1 above, was used as the initial concentration. For the second remediation phase in these areas (i.e., B2 and C2), the final concentration from the previous corresponding remediation phase was used as the initial concentration (see Attachment 10.2a). Since the uranium remediation criterion in BA 1-C was achieved during phase C2, the concentration decline analysis did not include phase B3 and C3. However, during phase B3R, the

Memorandum (cont d) 1 BURNS ~  !:DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 15 of 19 treatment capacity previously allocated to area BAl-C (20 gpm) was applied to BAl-B, increasing the groundwater extraction rate for this area from 66 to 86 gpm. The final uranium groundwater concentration from phase B2 was used as the initial B3R concentration and the concentration decline analysis was extended through the BA 1 remediation period (see Attachment 10.2b). It should be noted that while the uranium remediation criterion in BAl-B is projected to be achieved 24 months into phase B3R, remediation in B3R will continue through 150 months to maintain the minimum influent flow rate to the BA 1 groundwater treatment system.

Based on the results of the BA 1 concentration decline analysis, the influent uranium groundwater concentration is projected to fall below the MCL (30 µg/L) after approximately 116 months of remedial operations. Consequently, it is expected that the uranium treatment system will be bypassed after 116 months and recovered groundwater will be directly injected or discharged to Outfall 002 through the end of the 150-month groundwater remediation operation.

10.2.2 For each contaminant, a qualitative assessment was conducted to evaluate whether the C estimated for each remediation area was representative of the Cmax that may occur over the operational life of the treatment system. As discussed in 10.1 above, the only instances in which C i- Cmax were related to uranium, nitrate, and fluoride concentrations associated with WAA-BLUFF extraction wells GE-WAA-06 through GE-WAA-13. For these wells, the maximum uranium, nitrate, and fluoride influent concentrations are not expected to occur until groundwater displaced by treated water injection activities in WU-UPl and WU-UP2, arrives in the W AA-BLUFF area. Consequently, the area-weighted concentration averaging for the WU-UPl and WU-UP2 areas (see Section 8.0) was used to calculate a Cmax value for the WAA-BLUFF area. In addition, results of the pilot test injection activities conducted in WU-UPl and WU-UP2 were used to estimate the time required for groundwater displaced by injection activities in WU-UPl and WU-UP2 to arrive in the WAA-BLUFF area. Based on the test results, the estimated time required for groundwater displaced by treated water injection activities in WU-UPl and WU-UP2 to reach the W AA-BLUFF extraction wells is approximately 1 year.

The time series concentration decline analysis for each WA remediation area was concluded the month in which uranium and nitrate remediation criteria are predicted to be achieved, as determined by remediation duration estimate calculations. Based on the remediation duration calculations, uranium and nitrate remediation criteria for WU-UPl and WU-UP2 will be achieved after 57 months of treated water injection. However,

Memorandum (cont d) 1 BURNS ~ £DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 16 of 19 operation of WAA-BLUFF extraction wells will continue through the end of the 150-month groundwater remediation operation to maintain the minimum treatment system flow rate. Based on remediation duration calculations, uranium and nitrate remediation criteria for the 1206-NORTH and 1206-SOUTH areas will be achieved after 10 and 127 months of groundwater extraction, respectively, allowing remediation in these areas to be discontinued. However, since nitrate remediation is projected to continue for all other WA remediation areas through the end of the 150-month groundwater remediation operation, and all water treated for nitrate must be pretreated for uranium, the WA uranium and nitrate treatment systems will remain operational through the end of the 150-month groundwater remediation operation.

11.0 Limitations and Assumptions Associated with Duration Estimates The accuracy of the groundwater remediation and water treatment duration estimates presented above are potentially limited by the quantity of available data, subsurface heterogeneity, variability in the concentration and distribution of contaminants in the aquifer units targeted for remediation, and other factors. In developing this basis of design, Bums & McDonnell and EPM consistently applied reasonably conservative assumptions to minimize the potential for remediation and water treatment durations to be underestimated. This in turn reduced the probability that long-term remediation costs would be underestimated. These assumptions included the following:

  • As discussed in Section 2.0, the 95% UCL concentration (if available), maximum contaminant concentration (if used in place of the 95% UCL value), or the average contaminant concentration (if data sufficient for determining the 95% UCL concentration were not available) was used for each monitor well and contaminant in developing the basis of design. This method of establishing groundwater concentrations was selected to address variability in the concentrations of contaminants in the aquifer units targeted for remediation.
  • As discussed in Attachment 7 .2, conservatively high bulk soil density, distribution coefficient (Kct), and saturated thickness values were applied in remediation duration estimates.
  • As discussed in Attachment 7 .2, the larger of the following concentration values were used as the initial groundwater concentration for the purposes of estimating the remediation timeframe required for each area:

o The maximum representative concentration reported for any well within the remediation area (determined as described in Section 2.0)

Memorandum (cont"dJ BURNS ~  !:DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 17 of 19 o The concentration estimated by conducting area-weighted averaging of representative concentrations within the remediation area (determined as described in Section 8.0)

  • As discussed in Section 7.0, the lateral extent ofremediation areas including nitrate contamination were extended to the limit of impacts exceeding the MCL (10 mg/L).

Because the nitrate remediation criterion is 22.9 mg/L, this assumption results in a larger pore volume input for remediation and water treatment duration calculations.

  • The methods used to estimate remediation and water treatment durations assume contaminants are evenly distributed throughout the entire saturated thickness of each remediation area. Previous investigation activities have demonstrated that contaminants are likely to be stratified within alluvium and transition zone formations at the Site. In order optimize remediation and water treatment efficiency, additional contaminant and hydraulic conductivity profiling will be conducted at each alluvial extraction well location, prior well installation, and extraction wells will be constructed with screen intervals focused on zones exhibiting uranium and nitrate concentrations exceeding remediation criteria. This well construction approach is likely to result in mass removal rates that are higher than those predicted by the duration estimate models since groundwater extraction efforts will be focused on aquifer intervals containing the greatest contaminant mass. It should be noted that in-process and post-remediation monitoring will be conducted using results for groundwater samples collected from monitor wells screened across the full extent of the saturated zone.

While focusing alluvial extraction well screen intervals on zones of elevated contaminant concentration could result in water treatment influent concentrations higher than currently predicted (i.e., predicted concentrations are based on sample results from monitor wells with screen intervals that fully penetrate the saturated alluvium), the influent concentrations presented in Attachment 10.1 are considered sufficiently conservative. In addition, the ion exchange treatment systems specified for uranium removal are capable of treating water with uranium concentrations significantly higher than predicted, and both uranium and nitrate treatment systems will be closely monitored, particularly during the initial phases of remediation, for appropriate contaminant removal efficiencies and achievement of discharge criteria.

Ion exchange treatment systems will also be monitored for U-235 accumulation and nitrate treatment systems will be equipped with real-time nitrate sensors to monitor influent concentrations.

Memorandum (cont d) 1 BURNS ~ SDONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 18 of 19 The maximum combined fluoride influent concentration for the WA treatment system (11.9 mg/L), exceeds the MCL and the permitted discharge limit for fluoride (4 mg/L). Because fluoride will not be actively removed by the proposed ion exchange or denitrification treatment systems, influent concentrations must not be permitted to exceed 4 mg/L. As discussed above, the influent concentrations presented in Attachment 10.1 are conservative based on the groundwater concentration data used in the calculations. In addition, the majority of the fluoride represented in the WA treatment system influent concentration estimate originates in the UPl remediation area, within the SSA formation. Because the effects of groundwater mixing with injected water were neglected in estimating influent contaminant concentrations for the WAA-BLUFF extraction wells, these concentrations are considered more conservative than contaminant concentration estimates for other remediation areas.

Finally, WA treatment system influent concentrations will be monitored closely to assess the potential for MCL exceedances. In the event fluoride concentrations approach the MCL, operational adjustments, including, but not limited to reduced UPl injection flow rates, will be implemented to maintain compliance with effluent criteria.

12.0 Treatment Effluent Criteria Bums & McDonnell developed water quality criteria for treatment system effluents to comply with the Oklahoma Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (OPDES) permit issued for the Site.

The effluent criteria are also intended to prevent degradation of the quality of the receiving water body (Cimarron River) and potential complications ( e.g., scaling and fouling) associated with the injection of water into the aquifer. A number of applicable standards were used to establish effluent criteria for constituents that are not stipulated in the discharge limits listed in the OPDES permit. A complete list of these standards and the rationale used for establishing treatment effluent criteria are provided on the table included as Attachment 12.0a. Several of the effluent criteria are based on anticipated influent characteristics for groundwater streams associated with various remediation areas. These influent characteristics are summarized on the table included as 2.0b.

13.0 Treated Water Injection Criteria Bums & McDonnell developed criteria for treated water that will be injected into the aquifer for remediation purposes. These criteria are summarized on the table included as Attachment 13.0.

As shown on the table, a number of constituents are expected to exceed injection criterion limits or ranges, indicating pretreatment may be required to minimize the potential for scaling and/or fouling of the injection systems and aquifer. Provisions for injection water pretreatment have

Memorandum (cont d) 1 BURNS ~ S: DONNELL October 30, 2018 Page 19 of 19 been included in the 60% Design and pretreatment specifications and associated process design will be completed during the detailed design phase.

Attachments:

Attachment 2.1 - Nitrate, Uranium, and Fluoride Data Sheets Attachment 3.0 - BAl and WA Contaminant Isopleth Maps: Nitrate, Uranium, and Fluoride Attachment 5 .1 - BA 1 Remediation Component Locations Attachment 5 .2 - WA Remediation Component Locations Attachment 6.2 - Well field & Water Treatment Line Diagram Attachment 6.4 - BAl and WA Particle Tracking Results Attachment 6.6 - Particle Tracking Figures: Stagnation Zone Analysis Attachment 7.2 - Technical Memorandum: Input Parameters for Updated Remediation Duration Estimates Attachment 8.0 - Area and Linear-Weighted Averaging Results Attachment 9 .0 - Remediation and Water Treatment Summary Schedule Attachment 9 .1 - Remediation Duration Estimate Calculations: BA 1 Attachment 9.2 - Remediation Duration Estimate Calculations: WA Attachment 10.1 - Initial and Maximum Influent Contaminant Concentration Cales. for BA 1 and WA Attachment 10.2a - BAl influent concentration decline analysis Attachment 10.2b - WA influent concentration decline analysis Attachment 12.0a- Treatment System Effluent Criteria: BAl and WA Attachment 12.0b-Treatment System Influent Characteristics: BAl and WA Attachment 13 .0 - Treated Water Injection Criteria

.1 - Nitrate, Uranium, and Fluoride Data Sheets Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Fluoride Concentration (mg/L) 02W01 0.474 0.4740 0.4740 02W02 02W03 0.651 0.6510 0.6510 02W04 0.765 0.7650 0.7650 02W05 0.550 0.5500 0.5500 02W06 0.503 0.483 0.4147 0.4830 02W07 0.484 0.4840 0.4840 02W08 02W09 1.040 0.985 0.8920 0.9850 02W10 02W11 02W12 02W13 02W14 0.513 0.5130 0.5130 02W15 0.727 0.7270 0.7270 02W16 02W17 02W18 0.459 0.4590 0.4590 02W19 0.486 0.4860 0.4860 02W20 02W21 02W22 02W23 02W24 02W25 02W26 02W27 0.565 02W28 0.789 0.742 0.6886 0.7420 02W29 0.673 0.6730 0.6730 02W30 0.724 0.7240 0.7240 02W31 0.638 0.6380 0.6380 02W32 0.769 0.726 0.5940 0.7260 02W33 02W34 02W35 02W36 02W37 0.443 0.4430 0.4430 02W38 0.506 0.5060 0.5060 02W39 0.716 0.7160 0.7160 02W40 0.654 0.6540 0.6540 02W41 0.519 0.5190 0.5190 02W42 0.601 0.541 0.4761 0.5410 02W43 0.449 0.435 0.4067 0.4350 02W44 0.571 0.546 0.4883 0.5460 Page 1 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Fluoride Concentration (mg/L) 02W45 0.413 0.4130 0.4130 02W46 1.180 1.1800 1.1800 02W47 02W48 02W50 02W51 02W52 02W53 02W62 1311 0.561 0.4773 0.4773 1312 12.200 10.46 9.4440 10.4600 1313 55.800 48.9 46.3300 48.9000 1314 0.329 0.318 0.2846 0.3180 1315R 2.000 2.0000 2.0000 1316R 0.549 0.5490 0.5490 1319A-1 1319A-2 0.366 0.3415 0.3415 1319A-3 1319B-1 0.348 0.337 0.3206 0.3370 1319B-2 0.455 0.447 0.4010 0.4470 1319B-3 0.314 0.307 0.2850 0.3070 1319B-4 0.424 0.412 0.3486 0.4120 1319B-5 0.430 0.403 0.3414 0.4030 1319C-1 1319C-2 1319C-3 1320 0.643 0.5750 0.5750 1321 0.303 0.2933 0.2933 1322 0.549 0.5490 0.5490 1323 1324 0.530 0.5153 0.5153 1325 0.522 0.5055 0.5055 1326 0.322 0.3130 0.3130 1327B 0.348 0.3355 0.3355 1328 1329 0.480 0.4125 0.4125 1330 0.629 0.6095 0.6095 1331 0.557 0.5570 0.5570 1332 1333 0.705 0.7050 0.7050 1334 0.602 0.5533 0.5533 1335A 0.386 0.3577 0.3577 1336A 9.890 9.627 9.0717 9.6270 1337 14.400 14.16 12.1050 14.1600 Page 2 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Fluoride Concentration (mg/L) 1338 0.879 0.878 0.7723 0.8780 1339 1340 20.900 18 15.0667 18.0000 1341 0.687 0.645 0.5910 0.6450 1342 0.050 1343 0.406 0.3950 0.3950 1344 0.384 0.3840 0.3840 1345 0.530 0.534 0.4870 0.5300 1346 10.600 9.641 8.8509 9.6410 1347 4.950 4.753 4.3860 4.7530 1348 9.770 8.858 8.4882 9.7700 1349 1.030 1.016 0.7915 1.0300 1350 1.590 1.5900 1.5900 1351 1.280 1.063 0.8170 1.0630 1352 0.589 0.528 0.4608 0.5280 1353 1.720 1.795 1.1608 1.7200 1354 0.520 0.499 0.4580 0.4990 1355 0.439 0.4390 0.4390 1356 0.981 0.739 0.5421 0.7390 1357 0.557 0.5555 0.5555 1358 0.335 0.3350 0.3350 1359 0.973 0.9730 0.9730 1360 1.600 1.6000 1.6000 1361 0.513 0.4675 0.4675 1362 1363 0.447 0.4115 0.4115 1364 0.424 0.4240 0.4240 1365 0.504 0.4770 0.4770 1366 0.492 0.4830 0.4830 T-51 0.452 0.4385 0.4385 T-52 1.640 1.5400 1.5400 T-53 0.934 0.8850 0.8850 T-54 2.440 2.228 1.6720 2.2280 T-55 2.410 2.193 1.8240 2.1930 T-56 1.020 0.984 0.8928 0.9840 T-57 5.030 4.636 4.3470 4.6360 T-58 0.887 0.861 0.7325 0.8610 T-59 0.405 0.3283 0.3283 T-60 0.496 0.4845 0.4845 T-61 0.498 0.4560 0.4560 T-62 4.410 3.747 3.4091 3.7470 T-63 5.740 5.279 4.3660 5.2790 T-64 3.450 2.506 1.6803 2.5060 T-65 3.290 3.219 2.8700 3.2190 Page 3 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Fluoride Concentration (mg/L)

T-66 1.850 1.841 1.5750 1.8410 T-67 2.700 2.77 2.4200 2.7000 T-68 1.760 1.724 1.5400 1.7240 T-69 1.290 1.244 1.0216 1.2440 T-70R 1.440 1.327 1.1417 1.3270 T-72 1.420 1.395 1.2525 1.3950 T-73 0.320 0.3200 0.3200 T-74 0.329 0.3290 0.3290 T-75 0.895 0.8440 0.8440 T-76 3.010 2.929 2.8609 2.9290 T-77 1.220 1.085 0.9936 1.0850 T-78 0.365 0.3650 0.3650 T-79 1.000 0.898 0.7960 0.8980 T-81 0.415 0.4150 0.4150 T-82 0.585 0.49 0.4404 0.4930 T-83 0.397 0.3970 0.3970 T-84 0.800 0.7900 0.7900 T-85 1.490 1.4467 1.4467 T-86 3.170 3.032 2.3475 3.0320 T-87 1.300 1.28 1.1480 1.2800 T-88 1.370 1.261 1.0558 1.2610 T-89 0.559 0.5050 0.5050 T-90 0.737 0.7065 0.7065 T-91 0.622 0.5837 0.5837 T-93 0.518 0.4680 0.4680 T-94 0.555 0.5395 0.5395 T-95 1.640 1.5650 1.5650 T-96 0.533 0.5330 0.5330 TMW-01 0.607 0.6070 0.6070 TMW-02 TMW-05 TMW-06 TMW-07 TMW-08 0.563 0.502 0.4506 0.5020 TMW-09 0.874 0.744 0.6559 0.7440 TMW-13 0.796 0.711 0.6047 0.7110 TMW-17 TMW-18 0.340 0.3400 0.3400 TMW-19 TMW-20 TMW-21 TMW-23 TMW-24 0.448 0.4160 0.4160 TMW-25 0.375 0.3750 0.3750 Page 4 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Fluoride Concentration (mg/L)

CDW-1 CDW-1A Abandonded CDW-2 Abandonded CDW-2A Abandonded CDW-3 Abandonded CDW-3A Abandonded CDW-4 Abandonded CDW-4A Abandonded CDW-5 Abandonded CDW-SA Abandonded CDW-6 Abandonded CDW-6A Abandonded CDW-7 Abandonded CDW-7A Abandonded GE-BA1-01 Abandonded GE-WA-01 Abandonded MWWA-03 13.300 9.663 7.7222 9.6630 MWWA-09 4.200 3.965 3.8027 3.9650 1370 0.449 0.4490 0.4490 1371 0.405 0.4050 0.4050 1367 0.469 0.4690 0.4690 T-97 0.385 0.3850 0.3850 T-98 0.340 0.3400 0.3400 T-99 0.552 0.5520 0.5520 T-100 0.772 0.7720 0.7720 T-101 0.534 0.5340 0.5340 T-102 0.315 0.3150 0.3150 T-103 0.356 0.3560 0.3560 1368 0.458 0.4580 0.4580 1372 0.422 0.4220 0.4220 1373 0.369 0.3690 0.3690 1374 1375 0.386 0.3710 0.3710 1376 0.713 0.5640 0.5640 1377 0.464 0.4640 0.4640 1378 0.281 0.2810 0.2810 1379 0.754 0.7250 0.7250 1380 0.505 0.5050 0.5050 1381 2.120 1.6477 1.6477 1382 0.507 0.4817 0.4817 1383 19.400 11.7633 11.7633 1384 0.455 0.4307 0.4307 1385 9.680 7.651 6.6288 7.6510 1386 0.453 0.4370 0.4370 Page 5 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Fluoride Concentration (mg/L) 1387 9.240 8.206 7.3438 8.2060 1388 2.160 1.9300 1.9300 1389 0.211 0.1753 0.1753 1390 1.070 0.9607 0.9607 1391 3.430 2.8533 2.8533 1392 0.698 0.6860 0.6860 1393 21.300 11.89 7.3700 11.8900 1394 0.399 0.3820 0.3820 T-92R 0.407 0.3960 0.3960 1369 0.430 0.4300 0.4300 Page 6 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) 02W01 0.353 0.3530 0.3530 02W02 02W03 0.683 0.6830 0.6830 02W04 0.192 0.1920 0.1920 02W05 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 02W06 0.202 0.139 0.0780 0.1390 02W07 0.185 0.1850 0.1850 02W08 02W09 0.774 0.458 0.2463 0.4580 02W10 02W11 02W12 02W13 02W14 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 02W15 0.534 0.5340 0.5340 02W16 02W17 02W18 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 02W19 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 02W20 02W21 02W22 02W23 02W24 02W25 02W26 02W27 1.590 1.5900 1.5900 02W28 0.500 0.239 0.1135 0.2390 02W29 13.400 13.4000 13.4000 02W30 2.520 2.5200 2.5200 02W31 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 02W32 0.921 0.505 0.2188 0.5050 02W33 02W34 02W35 02W36 02W37 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 02W38 0.160 0.1600 0.1600 02W39 0.173 0.1730 0.1730 02W40 0.223 0.2230 0.2230 02W41 0.722 0.7220 0.7220 02W42 7.690 4.083 2.1141 4.0830 02W43 0.500 0.339 0.1878 0.3390 02W44 0.800 0.589 0.3390 0.5890 Page 1 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) 02W45 0.019 0.0191 0.0191 02W46 0.053 0.0529 0.0529 02W47 02W48 02W50 02W51 02W52 02W53 02W62 1311 30.000 21 .5667 21.5667 1312 465.000 379.7 352.3000 379.7000 1313 464.000 240.3 172.9000 240.3000 1314 2.040 1.869 1.6600 1.8690 1315R 9.820 9.8200 9.8200 1316R 10.900 10.9000 10.9000 1319A-1 1319A-2 33.000 31.9000 31.9000 1319A-3 1.620 1.6200 1.6200 13198-1 85.500 57.44 47.4700 57.4400 13198-2 2.680 2.699 2.3875 2.6800 13198-3 90.100 75.79 69.5818 75.7900 13198-4 3.770 3.699 3.3280 3.6990 13198-5 13.100 11.33 8.7320 11.3300 1319C-1 1319C-2 1319C-3 1320 18.600 19.14 17.0500 18.6000 1321 0.826 0.7560 0.7560 1322 19.400 19.4000 19.4000 1323 1324 6.450 3.7600 3.7600 1325 20.500 19.6500 19.6500 1326 33.800 27.1000 27.1000 13278 38.700 36.3667 36.3667 1328 1329 33.000 31.3667 31.3667 1330 16.000 13.0633 13.0633 1331 10.100 10.1000 10.1000 1332 1333 4.190 4.1900 4.1900 1334 6.810 5.8300 5.8300 1335A 2.770 2.5033 2.5033 1336A 414.000 376.6 323.5000 376.6000 Page 2 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) 1337 63.700 53.34 43.1500 53.3400 1338 10.500 7.0133 7.0133 1339 1340 66.500 53.77 44.9667 53.7700 1341 29.300 28.63 25.3800 28.6300 1342 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 1343 6.890 6.448 4.6225 6.4480 1344 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 1345 7.800 7.663 6.5080 7.6630 1346 499.000 406.5 357.3636 406.5000 1347 95.900 64.97 28.2600 64.9700 1348 16.500 11.57 10.0609 11.5700 1349 21.500 20.21 11.0800 20.2100 1350 15.600 11.7333 11.7333 1351 87.400 76.09 59.3000 76.0900 1352 61.500 54.99 49.1700 54.9900 1353 7.750 8.789 5.5100 7.7500 1354 190.000 141.8 106.1143 141.8000 1355 14.500 14.0333 14.0333 1356 18.800 14.77 12.4127 14.7700 1357 55.400 51.99 38.1500 51.9900 1358 20.600 16.9333 16.9333 1359 23.100 21.7333 21.7333 1360 16.400 13.4167 13.4167 1361 0.080 0.0651 0.0651 1362 1363 0.141 0.0913 0.0913 1364 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 1365 0.091 0.0857 0.0857 1366 0.147 0.1224 0.1224 T-51 16.000 14.73 8.5700 14.7300 T-52 58.000 56.69 30.0250 56.6900 T-53 47.700 47.7 41.7500 47.7000 T-54 431.000 238.6 179.5800 238.6000

. T-55 281.000 236 134.0000 236.0000 T-56 26.400 24.89 21.0800 24.8900 T-57 125.000 111.5 98.0900 111.5000 T-58 61.000 44.87 35.8333 44.8700 T-59 150.000 112.4 100.8400 112.4000 T-60 101.000 97.42 74.8500 97.4200 T-61 56.800 34.93 25.4580 34.9300 T-62 143.000 88 66.7727 88.0000 T-63 150.000 138.6 80.1800 138.6000 Page 3 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)

T-64 20.700 14.03 9.5500 14.0300 T-65 55.500 56.7 51.6750 55.5000 T-66 40.300 40.73 32.1500 40.3000 T-67 29.400 26.98 17.4000 26.9800 T-68 21.400 21 .22 17.4400 21.2200 T-69 140.000 72.14 53.0200 72.1400 T-70R 6.920 4.407 3.1057 4.4070 T-72 25.800 27.82 14.0125 25.8000 T-73 0.034 0.0282 0.0282 T-74 1.570 1.4700 1.4700 T-75 1.970 1.6633 1.6633 T-76 47.800 30.35 26.0364 30.3500 T-77 5.500 3.068 2.1665 3.0680 T-78 0.251 0.1639 0.1639 T-79 3.560 1.258 0.7224 1.2580 T-81 0.074 0.0710 0.0710 T-82 0.086 0.0677 0.0532 0.0677 T-83 0.063 0.0542 0.0542 T-84 51.000 46.54 30.0250 46.5400 T-85 123.000 100.4 64.9800 100.4000 T-86 58.000 43.88 36.5778 43.8800 T-87 110.000 108.4 80.0400 108.4000 T-88 130.000 75.36 58.9700 75.3600 T-89 72.500 68.53 60.7400 68.5300 T-90 34.500 35.2 27.5750 34.5000 T-91 38.900 30.87 25.4300 30.8700 T-93 58.500 54.5 39.1500 54.5000 T-94 18.900 18.7 16.2250 18.7000 T-95 49.000 49.17 38.6750 49.0000 T-96 33.000 31.58 27.3750 31.5800 TMW-01 0.172 0.1720 0.1720 TMW -02 TMW-05 TMW-06 TMW-07 TMW-08 2.630 2.189 1.8543 2.1890 TMW-09 1.280 0.633 0.2893 0.6330 TMW-13 0.500 0.342 0.2025 0.3420 TMW-17 TMW-18 0.374 0.3740 0.3740 TMW-19 TMW-20 TMW-21 TMW-23 Page 4 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Nitrate Concentration (mg/L)

TMW-24 0.050 0.0356 0.0356 TMW-25 1.470 1.4700 1.4700 CDW-1 Abandonded CDW-1A Abandonded CDW-2 Abandonded CDW-2A Abandonded CDW-3 Abandonded CDW-3A Abandonded CDW-4 Abandonded CDW-4A Abandonded CDW-5 Abandonded CDW-SA Abandonded CDW-6 Abandonded CDW-6A Abandonded CDW-7 Abandonded CDW-7A Abandonded GE-BA1-01 GE-WA-01 MWWA-03 84.600 42.37 25.1172 42.3700 MWWA-09 56.000 43.05 34.9364 43.0500 1370 0.040 0.0404 0.0404 1371 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 1367 0.035 0.0354 0.0354 T-97 13.800 10.22 6.8763 10.2200 T-98 2.000 0.8617 0.8617 T-99 46.600 37.37 31.0625 37.3700 T-100 51.600 39.49 30.6125 39.4900 T-101 36.500 27.2333 27.2333 T-102 24.400 22.2667 22.2667 T-103 8.640 4.0198 4.0198 1368 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 1372 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 1373 0.050 0.0500 0.0500 1374 27.300 27.3000 27.3000 1375 37.900 34.2667 34.2667 1376 17.700 17.0000 17.0000 1377 8.730 8.7300 8.7300 1378 8.550 8.5500 8.5500 1379 7.370 7.3700 7.3700 1380 17.100 17.1000 17.1000 1381 881.000 839.1 790.8750 839.1000 1382 3.060 2.4400 2.4400 1383 308.000 226.6667 226.6667 1384 0.505 0.4003 0.4003 Page 5 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Nitrate Concentration (mg/L) 1385 1,200.000 1006 876.5000 1006.0000 1386 17.600 15.4333 15.4333 1387 71.900 60.17 47.2875 60.1700 1388 10.400 9.1500 9.1500 1389 31.600 21.6667 21.6667 1390 7.030 4.8933 4.8933 1391 5.250 4.0850 4.0850 1392 1.560 1.1093 1.1093 1393 505.000 274.9 153.1750 274.9000 1394 5.140 4.2500 4.2500 T-92R 40.500 36.2500 36.2500 1369 0.017 0.0173 0.0173 Page 6 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Uranium Concentration (ug/L) 02W01 2,720.0 2,495 2,217 2495 02W02 2,345.9 2,128 2,128 02W03 1,190.0 862 862 02W04 497.0 300.9467 300.95 02W05 638.1 388.2333 388.23 02W06 1,950.0 1310 548.2800 1,310.00 02W07 1,478.0 924 924 02W08 744.0 429.3 268.9600 429.30 02W09 10.0 6.965 4.1978 6.97 02W10 4.4 3.9908 3.99 02W11 311.0 136.2610 136.26 02W12 448.0 203.4697 203.47 02W13 33.8 28.3637 28.36 02W14 305.5 278.5033 278.50 02W15 261.0 100.5027 100.50 02W16 20.2 17.38 11 .6140 17.38 02W17 15.7 13.94 11 .8400 13.94 02W18 504.0 289.0133 289.01 02W19 1,305.9 711.6333 711.63 02W20 1.5 1.2368 1.24 02W21 5.5 5.4850 5.49 02W22 10.5 8.6250 8.63 02W23 7.4 7.2400 7.24 02W24 15.7 13.2763 13.28 02W25 28.4 18.9760 18.98 02W26 7.1 4.0421 4.04 02W27 188.0 134.5 94.8733 134.50 02W28 428.0 352.5 296.7350 352.50 02W29 1,570.0 1,115 1,115 02W30 338.0 309.6500 309.65 02W31 997.0 861 861 02W32 3,410.0 1,577 949 1,577 02W33 31.1 17.4460 17.45 02W34 5.6 4.9700 4.97 02W35 29.3 24.51 18.1200 24.51 02W36 18.6 15.1800 15.18 02W37 789.4 333.3833 333.38 02W38 392.0 255.4133 255.41 02W39 851.0 613.1 504.2600 613.10 02W40 1,430.0 1,137 1,001 1,137 02W41 517.0 420.6067 420.61 02W42 516.0 407.6 248.5517 407.60 02W43 134.0 124.2 99.8400 124.20 02W44 945.0 506.2 360.9044 506.20 Page 1 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Uranium Concentration (ug/L) 02W45 62.4 48.6243 48.62 02W46 4,330.0 2,663 2,663 02W47 342.0 264.2467 264.25 02W48 27.0 27.1 26.0710 27.00 02W50 4.0 3.8450 3.85 02W51 4.6 4.5200 4.52 02W52 2.5 2.2750 2.28 02W53 63.6 41.6280 41.63 02W62 5.6 5.0700 5.07 1311 2.9 2.7195 2.72 1312 22.3 22.11 19.3693 22.11 1313 18.8 19.9 15.2885 18.80 1314 1.4 1.274 1.1700 1.27 1315R 1,510.0 1,103 881 1,103 1316R 144.0 137.2367 137.24 1319A-1 1319A-2 11.0 6.2751 6.28 1319A-3 5.8 5.7997 5.80 1319B-1 42.8 38.01 28.9918 38.01 1319B-2 1.4 1.445 1.3451 1.41 1319B-3 31.0 28.53 26.6360 28.53 1319B-4 1.6 1.621 1.5215 1.62 1319B-5 2.6 2.445 2.1298 2.45 1319C-1 1319C-2 1319C-3 1320 2.2 2.204 2.0139 2.20 1321 11.0 10.7333 10.73 1322 19.9 12.8343 12.83 1323 1324 1.8 1.6209 1.62 1325 1.0 0.9375 0.94 1326 5.5 4.1996 4.20 1327B 4.4 4.0995 4.10 1328 1329 4.9 4.3892 4.39 1330 6.1 5.6513 5.65 1331 36.8 32.12 27.6421 32.12 1332 1333 21.7 20.9777 20.98 1334 16.2 11.4740 11.47 1335A 8.0 6.0887 6.09 1336A 39.8 36.14 30.3278 36.14 1337 7.0 6.688 5.5819 6.69 Page 2 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Uranjum Concentration (ug/L) 1338 0.8 0.7640 0.76 1339 1340 9.0 8.456 7.6270 8.46 1341 2.4 2.359 2.2038 2.36 1342 4.9 4.9422 4.94 1343 21.9 21.28 17.6058 21.28 1344 2.4 1.9633 1.96 1345 2.2 2.081 1.8054 2.08 1346 7.0 5.457 3.4180 5.46 1347 40.3 34.45 24.0490 34.45 1348 73.5 71.26 69.6464 71.26 1349 30.0 29.62 19.5160 29.62 1350 19.4 14.2513 14.25 1351 1,547.6 874.5 412.4571 874.50 1352 149.0 124.9 102.4046 124.90 1353 44.7 50.29 25.2725 44.68 1354 3.1 3.046 2.8494 3.05 1355 2.6 2.5763 2.58 1356 1,260.2 572.4 394.6864 572.40 1357 2.2 2.193 1.9486 2.16 1358 1.7 1.5702 1.57 1359 14.3 12.0857 12.09 1360 39.3 23.9407 23.94 1361 271.0 172.9 117.8241 172.90 1362 77.7 40.1847 40.18 1363 104.0 111.1 73.9918 104.00 1364 15.9 7.1612 7.16 1365 123.0 100.9 80.2549 100.90 1366 6.0 5.54 3.6919 5.54 T-51 36.8 36.37 28.0220 36.37 T-52 23.5 23.21 19.9468 23.21 T-53 33.6 34.41 27.6440 33.60 T-54 4.1 3.785 3.1545 3.79 T-55 8.5 7.391 5.6136 7.39 T-56 7.4 5.773 3.7763 5.77 T-57 14.5 13.61 12.1542 13.61 T-58 20.4 19.92 17.4588 19.92 T-59 101.0 92.26 87.4233 92.26 T-60 50.1 48.59 42.2678 48.59 T-61 35.0 30.44 27.6090 30.44 T-62 238.0 177.8 159.2327 177.80 T-63 104.2 104.8 83.9900 104.15 T-64 208.0 125.7 77.0700 125.70 T-65 156.0 152 135.7775 152.00 Page 3 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Uranium Concentration (ug/L)

T-66 123.0 121.6 98.6600 121.60 T-67 159.0 159.6 140.8975 159.00 T-68 162.0 150.2 131.3200 150.20 T-69 92.3 77.29 65.6090 77.29 T-70R 119.0 97.71 79.1283 97.71 T-72 142.0 141 118.0350 141.00 T-73 11.9 10.3976 10.40 T-74 16.1 13.8050 13.81 T-75 86.4 76.7367 76.74 T-76 194.0 173.2 163.6891 173.20 T-77 95.8 86.79 78.7345 86.79 T-78 21 .8 17.4677 17.47 T-79 77.0 62.76 56.1982 62.76 T-81 12.7 11.0281 11.03 T-82 37.6 34.28 31.2042 34.28 T-83 15.1 14.3363 14.34 T-84 48.1 48.6 44.9458 48.10 T-85 27.8 28.09 25.1590 27.80 T-86 25.4 22.91 19.5178 22.91 T-87 24.1 21.99 18.8868 21.99 T-88 10.2 9.943 9.3855 9.94 T-89 52.1 50.65 46.4850 50.65 T-90 25.0 24.82 23.5475 24.82 T-91 28.0 27.82 25.5998 27.82 T-93 33.5 32.68 29.0985 32.68 T-94 20.2 20.9 18.4360 20.24 T-95 29.5 29.25 27.8630 29.25 T-96 36.1 34.73 33.4118 34.73 TMW-01 767.0 462.5667 462.57 TMW-02 5.4 3.7566 3.76 TMW-05 3.9 3.5830 3.58 TMW-06 2.4 2.2583 2.26 TMW-07 221.0 210.3733 210.37 TMW-08 3,230.0 2589 1,670 2,589 TMW-09 3,760.0 2,975 2,750 2,975 TMW-13 4,510.0 3516 2,090 3,516 TMW-17 7.9 4.5299 4.53 TMW-18 17.2 14.7947 14.79 TMW-19 48.2 48.2170 48.22 TMW-20 8.9 6.4000 6.40 TMW-21 96.6 62.3787 62.38 TMW-23 6.8 6.909 6.2923 6.76 TMW-24 82.3 68.34 57.7092 68.34 TMW-25 123.0 116.4167 116.42 Page 4 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Uranium Concentration (ug/L)

CDW-1 Abandonded CDW-1A Abandonded CDW-2 Abandonded CDW-2A Abandonded CDW-3 Abandonded CDW-3A Abandonded CDW-4 Abandonded CDW-4A Abandonded CDW-5 Abandonded CDW-SA Abandonded CDW-6 Abandonded CDW-6A Abandonded CDW-7 Abandonded CDW-7A Abandonded GE-BA1-01 Abandonded GE-WA-01 Abandonded MWWA-03 666.0 526.6 431.2667 526.60 MWWA-09 156.0 139.8 130.6627 139.80 1370 15.5 7.2520 7.25 1371 31.3 27.8763 27.88 1367 13.1 8.3432 8.34 T-97 67.8 64.07 61.4413 ' 64.07 T-98 63.3 53.0600 53.06 T-99 48.1 42.06 38.2223 42.06 T-100 31.6 29.0630 29.06 T-101 36.0 34.7830 34.78 T-102 33.2 32.3393 32.34 T-103 11.1 10.1850 10.18 1368 8.6 5.8936 5.89 1372 10.5 9.3553 9.36 1373 64.3 51.21 40.9325 51.21 1374 12.8 12.8230 1375 4.7 3.5549 3.55 1376 27.1 15.4350 15.44 1377 20.3 16.4543 16.45 1378 2.4 2.2522 2.25 1379 19.9 18.3437 18.34 1380 11.1 10.4790 10.48 1381 92.5 81.92 72.2913 81.92 1382 1.3 1.2550 1.26 1383 13.5 10.0430 10.04 1384 0.7 0.6345 0.63 1385 20.4 18.9790 18.98 1386 1.3 1.2300 1.23 Page 5 of 6

Max Observed Representative Monitor Value 95% UCL Well Average Concentration Well Uranium Concentration (ug/L) 1387 23.7 20.3647 20.36 1388 1.4 1.3500 1.35 1389 2.3 1.4023 1.40 1390 1.5 1.5400 1.54 1391 1.8 1.6600 1.66 1392 1.1 1.0450 1.05 1393 35.0 24.2 18.0671 24.20 1394 1.0 1.0005 1.00 Page 6 of 6

.0 - BA1 and WA Contaminant Isopleth Maps: Nitrate, Uranium, and Fluoride

Burial Area 1 Uranium lsoconcentration Map (ug/L) 323900 7 I

I 323800 -i 32370J I I

i ...

Jo.

3236001 i

323500 .-J I

323400 ~

3400 3200

3
'

323300 ----i ...........

0.0 3000 I

I z 2800 I

I

"'::l i-. 2600 3232001 0

-+-,I 2400 u

=

0 2200 I 2000 323100 --l

".Cl

=

0 1800 I C,;j i-.

-+-,I 1600 323000 1

=

Cl.)

u 1400 u

=

0 1200 1000 I

I a::l 800 3229001 *2C,;j 600

! i-.

I ~ 400 I

322800 1 200 0

I 322700 ~ + Burial Area 1 Extraction Wells I

I I

  • Burial Area 1 Monitor Wells I i I 322600 -l 322500 ~

322400]

N 322300 I I I I I I 2095100 2095200 2095300 2095400 2095500 2095600 2095700 2095800 2095900 0 100 200 300 400 CREATED 07/06/2018 BY BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING, INC.

Sandstone B, Transition Zone, and Alluvium Total Uranium lsoconcentration Map (ug/L) 323500 323000 500 480 322500 460 0 440

--- "0.0 2,

420 400

., ...t.. ~

i.-. 380

., --  ::s 0 360

-- 340 322000 'I' u

=

0 320 300

...t..T

=

'f

'f 'l' 0 280

'I' 'f T :p 260 "ti 1/

ro i.-. 240

'f ..,..;

=

Q,)

u 220 200 321500

'f u

=

0 180 160 140 a

s 120
  • aro 100 i.-.

80

i 60 40 20 321000 0

+ West Area Recovery Wells I e Western Area Alluvial Monitor Wells I I

320500 Transition Zone I b.. Sandstone B Monitor Wells I 320000 2091500 2092000 2092500 2093000 2093500 2094000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 CREATED 07/05/2018 BY BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING

Sandstone B, Transition Zone, and Alluvium Fluoride lsoconcentration Map (mg/L) 323500 J.,,

'I'

., T .,

323000

.,.L,,

322500

..a...

..a...

~

--g 0..0 18 i ***-* -.. (;/)

J.,,

i ':=""

322000 ., ., T 0

.;...i

'I

., ..t... ~ ,";_ ; ,

u

=

0 6 T 1'

=

"" ~ . *.o 0

ro

.;...i

'It

,. 'l'

=Q) u 4

321500 ...... C\, 1 u

=0

'f Cl)

"'O

  • c: 2 0

~ ' ~

321000 ~ ~'"

- ()

+ West Ar:a Recovery Wells I e Western Area Alluvial Monitor Wells I 320500-Transition Zone I D. Sandstone B Monitor Wells I

'T T

~

~

320000 T N

I 2091500 2092000 2092500 2093000 2093500 2094000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 CREATED 07/05/2018 BY BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING

Sandstone B, Transition Zone, and Alluvium Nitrate-Nitrite lsoconcentration Map (mg/L) 323500 323000 322500

~

--g 0.0 350 V,

, 300 0

.,...i Ii 322000 u

=

0 r

,,1, 250

=

0

"-0

~

.,...i 200

=

C) u 321500 u

=

0 150 a;

.,...i

  • c::

.,...i z0,)

.,...i ro z

.,...i 321000

+ West Area Recovery Wells

  • Western Area Alluvial Monitor Wells Transition Zone 320500 I:::.. Sandstone B Monitor Wells

!~

320000 N

2092000 2092500 2093000 2093500 2094000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 CREATED 07/05/2018 BY BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING

Sandstone A Fluoride lsoconcentration Map (mg/L) 323500 323000 Q WM!>

45

~

322500 -...........

0.0 40

.._,a (I) 1-.

l 35 0

=

-+,-I 0

  • ).

30 322000 u

p

=0 25 ro 1-.

-+,-I

= 20

~\ \~ -~ Cl) u 321500 ow ~~ u

=

0 15 Cl) 2i "O

  • c0 10
l 6
: 5 321000 0

+ West Area Recovery Wells

  • Sandstone A Monitor Wells 320500 320000 N

2091500 2092000 2092500 2093000 2093500 2094000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 CREATED 07/05/2018 BY BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING

Sandstone A Nitrate-Nitrite lsoconcentration Map (mg/L) 323500 323000 322500 950 0

.......... 900 g0.0 850 V) 800 i-.

s 750 0

c 700 0 650 322000 u c 600 0

'.O 550 ro i-.

...... 500 c0,) 450 u

c 400 0

321500 u 350 0,)

...... 300

  • c...... 250 za) 200

...... 150 ro i-.

...... 100 321000 z 50 0

+ West Area Recovery Wells

... ... ...

  • Sandstone A Monitor Wells 320500 ...

!\\

320000 N

I 2091500 2092000 2092500 2093000 2093500 2094000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 CREATED 07/05/2018 BY BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEER ING

Sandstone A Uranium lsoconcentration Map (ug/L) 323500 323000 322500 800 0-0.0 2, 700

[,/)

~

l 0 600

~

322000 u

=0

=0

'.P 500 ro

~

~ 400

=

Q,)

u 321500 u

0= 300 a:::l 200

  • aro

~

. ~ 100 321000 ...

0

... . + West Area Recovery Wells I

  • Sandstone A Monitor Wells 320500- ...

320000 2091500 2092000 2092500 2093000 2093500 2094000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 CREATED 07/05/2018 BY BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING

.1 - BA1 Remediation Component Locations Path: Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT \_Clientlnfo\Sites\Da tabase\Geospatial\M aps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD _Files\Arcdocs\2018\ Updated O-Plan Figures\Figure 8-2_BA1 GW Remediation Areas.mxd COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

2094900 2095000 2095100 2095200 2095300 2095400 2095500 2095600 2095700 2095800 2095900 2096000 0

0 t-C")

Pl 0

0 (D

C")

Pl 0

0 U)

C")

N C")

D D

st C")

Pl 0

D C")

C")

Pl 0

D N

C")

N C")

0 0

Pl 0

D 0

C")

Pl 0

0 (J)

N Pl 0

0 (Xl N

Pl 0

0 t-N Pl 0

0 (D

N Pl 0

0 U)

N Pl 0

0 st N

Pl 0

0 C")

N Pl Legend Notes:

1) Injection trench GWI-BA 1-01 and extraction trench MONITORING WELL IN ALLUVIUM BA1-A REMEDIATION AREA GETR-BA1-01 were installed in 2017.

~~

2) Injection well GWI-BA1-01A and extraction wells MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE A

+ BA1-B REMEDIATION AREA GETR-BA1-01 Aand GETR-BA1-01B were installe~ in 2017. ~

+ MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE B BA1-C REMEDIATION AREA 0 55 110 220

+

+

MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE C MONITORING WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE BA #1 TREATMENT FACILITY Feet A i~

  • COORDINATES: DATE: o (NAD 83) STATE PLANE OKLAHOMA NORTH FEET MAP PRODUCED - 10/29/2018 ~

EXTRACTION WELL (PLANNED) 1--------- ----------- IL-------- ----------* NPl EXTRACTION WELL (INSTALLED) FIGURE 8-2

  • INJECTION WELL (PLANNED) BURIAL AREA #1 GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION AREAS ffl~ ~

INJECTION WELL (INSTALLED)

FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN 0 0

0 C") - GROUNDWAT ER EXTRACTION TRENCH ~

REVISION 1 TREATED WATER INJECTION TRENCH

~

GROUNDWAT ER EXTRACTION PIPES

~ BURNS GROUNDWAT ER INJECTION PIPES "-MSDO NNELL~ environmenta l properties management. . LC i;i 2094900 2095000 2095100 2095200 2095300 2095400 2095500 2095600 2095700 2095800 2095900 2096000

.2 - WA Remediation Component Locations 2090000 2092000 2094000 2096000 FIGURE 8-1 WESTERN AREA GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION AREAS FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN REVISION 1

-0

~ BURNS ~

X E

c,j

" M~DONNELL~ environmental properties management _LC ro Q)

-d'.

,Q C Legend iii

'oQ)

E Q)

  • MONITORING WELL IN ALLUVIUM a::

sc.::, MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE A ro

~ MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE B

<(

C cv + MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE C iii

~I MONITORING WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE I

00 EXTRACTION WELL (PLANNED)

~

CJ) u:::: EXTRACTION WELL (INSTALLED) u.i Q)

=i CJ)

  • INJECTION WELL (PLANNED) u::::

C ro INJECTION WELL (INSTALLED) a:: D 0 D

~

GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION PIPES D 0

D

-0 N N Q) C'?

~

iii

-0 GROUNDWATER INJECTION PIPES 0.

00 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TRENCH E;

N u.i u

- TREATED WATER INJECTION TRENCH 0

-0 u WESTERN AREA TREATMENT FACILITY

~

.l!1 u:::: BURIALAREA#3 REMEDIATION AREA I

Cl

(..) WAA BLUFF REMEDIATION AREA 2

Ill 1.n WAA U<DCGL EAST REMEDIATION AREA (5

~

~

WAA U<DCGL WEST REMEDIATION AREA

"'rne,j

~z Cl -

WAA U>DCGL REMEDIATION AREA oa >--

rllZ

0. ,;:(

WUA 1206 REMEDATION AREA ro a..

22 WUA 1348 REMEMDIATION AREA

~8

[c.::,

"'Z o-WUA PROCESS BUILDING AREA Q) a::

C.::,W

-w WUA UP1 REMEDIATION AREA 3l z ro-

.0 c.::,

roz WUA UP2 SSA REMEDATION AREA iiiw Cl ...J

-...J gJ w WUA UP2 SSB REMEDIATION AREA

.-;::z cnz

§o c Cl

.::u

~2 Notes:

= oa 1) Injection trenches GWI-UP1-01, GWI-UP1-02

(..) (/)

-'z I- a::

and a portion of GWI-UP2-01 were installed in 2017.

a:::::,

~Ill

2) Injection wells GWI-UP1-01A, GWI-UP1-02A, en~

Zo 00 GWI-UP2-01 D were installed in 2017.

0 WN 0 N 0

§© 0 0 210 420 840 0

A 0 D CI- N 0 C'?

.!!!:r: ~

c3 c.::, Feet

~~ Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus OS, USDA, USGS,

_ca._

ro o AeroGRID, f~N. and the GIS User Community COORDINATES : DATE:

a..(..) (NAO 83) STATE PLANE OKLAHOMA NORTH FEET MAP PRODUCED - 10/29/2018 2090000 2092000 2094000 2096000

.2 -Well field & Water Treatment Line Diagram WESTERN AREA BURIAL AREA 1 NOTES:

GE-WAA-04 (20 GPM) GE-WAA-13 (12 GPM)

1. EXTRACTION AND INJECTION FLOW RATES ARE GE-WAA-15 (10 GPM)

NOMINAL DESIGN RATES FOR EACH COMPONENT.

GE-WAA-12 (13 GPM) EXTRACTION AND INJECTION RATES WILL VARY GE-WAA-01 (25 GPM)

THROUGHOUT OPERATION .

GE-WAA-14 (10 GPM)

2. THIS SCHEMATIC IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS GE-WAA-02 (30 GPM) GE-WAA-11 (14 GPM) NOT INTENDED TO CONVEY ALL PIPING OR PROCESS I GE-BA1-05 (0 GPM) COMPONENTS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR GE-WAA-05 (10 GPM) PROPER SYSTEM DESIGN , CONSTRUCTION , OR GE-WAA-10 (13 GPM) GE-BA1-09 (10 GPM) I OPERATION .

GE-WAA-03 (24 GPM)

I GE-BA1-04 (24GPM) 1 3. THE FLOW RATES PRESENTED ON THIS SCHEMATIC REFLECT INITIAL OPERATING CONDITIONS. FLOW GETR-WAU-02A (8 GPM) GE-WAA-09 (13 GPM) 1 GE-BA1 -08 (10 GPM) I RATES FOR INDIVIDUAL REMEDIATION COMPONENTS 1

I GE-BA1 -03 (18 GPM) WILL VARY OVER THE COURSE OF OPERATIONS AND I COMBINED TREATMENT SYSTEM INFLUENT FLOW GE-WAA-08 (13 GPM) GE-BA1 -07 (0 GPM) I RATES ARE EXPECTED TO DECREASE OVER TIME .

I GE-BA1-02 (24 GPM)

4. THE COMBINED TREATMENT SYSTEM INFLUENT GE-BA1 -06 (0 GPM) I CONCENTRATIONS PRESENTED ON THIS SCHEMATIC GE-WAA-07 (13 GPM) I REFLECT INITIAL OPERATING CONDITIONS .

GETR-WU-01A (4 GPM)

GE-WU-01 (5 GPM) CONCENTRATIONS WILL VARY OVER THE COURSE GE-WAA-06 (13 GPM) ~, OF OPERATIONS.

f--------j GETR-BA1-02A (7 GPM)I LEGEND:

U- URANIUM IGETR-BA1-01B (7 GPM) N - NITRATE F- FLUORIDE GPM - GALLONS PER MINUTE IGETR-BA1-01A (0 GPM)1 ug/L - MICROGRAMS PER LITER TK-101 Ci - INITIAL CONCENTRATION 15,000 GALLON Cmax - MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION 250 GPM Ci U-8U ug/L

~, IX- ION EXCHANGE N-70.4 mg/L F - 2.11 mg/L Cmax U - 81.8 ug/L N-147 mg/L TK-201 F -2.11 mg/L 12,000 GALLON 100 GPM Ci U - 999 ug/L Cmax U - 999 ug/L URANIUM URANIUM IX TRAIN 1 IX TRAIN 2 100 -125 GPM 100 - 125 GPM URANIUM IX TRAIN 3 NITRATE 70 -100 GPM TREATMENT SYSTEM 250 GPM ~,

TK-202 12,000 GALLON TK-102 0

15,000 GALLON I

z<(

a. OUTFALL 002 BURIAL AREA 1 0 82 GPM INJECTION

(.)

<.'J 18 GPM z WESTERN AREA OUTFALL 001

~

z 132 GPM INJECTION 118 GPM a u

~

__J

__J w GWI-UP1-01 (15 GPM)

GWI-BA1-03 (4 GPM) f---

~ GWI-UP2-01 (35 GPM) u*

0

<a GWI-UP1 -02 (15 GPM)

, GWI-BA1-02 (4 GPM) f---

1/l z

Cl'.

a:,

GWI-UP1-03 (7 GPM)

GWI-UP2-02 (5 GPM)

~,

<Xl GWI -UP2-03 (5 GPM) GWI-BA1-01 (10 GPM) f---

~ GWI-UP1-04 (7 GPM)

@ FIGURE 8-3

'i= GWI-UP 2-04 ( 21 GPM) WELL FIELD & WATER

~ GWI-WU-01 (8 GPM) ~~fJ"JNNELL TREATMENT LINE DIAGRAM FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING 8t ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ _________.______._____R~E;;.V.;.;l PLAN

~S.;.;IO;.;.N.;..;.1_ ___,

Z:\CLIENTSIENSICERT\ 104407_CERT-DECOM2018\DESIGN\CADDIDWGS\BMCD REV 60% DESIGN 2018\WELL FIELD AND WATER TREATM ENT LINE DIAGRAM\WELL FIELD & WATER TREATMENT LIN E DIAGRAM_REV.A (09-17-18).DWG 10/2412018 11 :15 AM DHORNE

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML21076A504&oldid=3598179"