ML22074A018

Raw Teams Autogenerated Transcript of Discussions During Pre-application Audit Meeting 03/10/2022

ML22074A018
Person / Time
Site:	07000925
Issue date:	03/10/2022
From:	Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs
To:	Cimarron Environmental Response Trust
James Smith, 301-415-6103
Shared Package
ML22074A008	List: ML22074A015 ML22074A017 ML22074A018 ML22074A019
References
Download: ML22074A018 (98)

Text

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.400 Smith, James K.

00:00:02.120 --> 00:00:04.900 Smith, James Transcription has started OK uhm.

00:00:02.170 --> 00:00:02.650 J. Paul Davis In America.

00:00:04.440 --> 00:00:04.770 J. Paul Davis Yeah.

00:00:05.870 --> 00:00:08.310 Smith, James Kelly Dixon next on my list.

00:00:09.850 --> 00:00:14.320 Kelly Dixon Hi I'm Kelly Dixon with the Oklahoma DEQ, director of land protection division.

00:00:15.200 --> 00:00:18.190 Smith, James OK uh Mike Stickney.

00:00:19.790 --> 00:00:25.710 Mike Stickney Hey Mike Stickney, Oklahoma, DEQ UI work in hazardous waste and radiation management.

00:00:26.300 --> 00:00:28.170 Smith, James OK, Mike Broderick.

00:00:29.200 --> 00:00:32.670 Mike Broderick Mike Broderick I'm the green state program manager in Oklahoma.

00:00:34.430 --> 00:00:35.550 Smith, James Paul Davies.

00:00:36.430 --> 00:00:45.250 J. Paul Davis Yeah, I'm with the EQ or I'm the project manager for the inherited that from David Cates. We you'll also see on our list.

00:00:45.860 --> 00:00:48.680 Smith, James OK grasp Annette are Christine Panetta.

00:00:50.990 --> 00:01:03.180 Pineda, Christine Yes, Christine Pineda I worked for the NRC and I'm I. I work in the environmental group and will be responsible for doing the environmental assessment for the licensing action.

00:01:04.380 --> 00:01:12.340 Smith, James K there's a host of other people listed as just plus 8. I know Ian Irvine remote GC is on the line.

00:01:13.450 --> 00:01:23.010 Irvin, Ian Yeah, this is an urban I'm from the office of general counsel here at the NRC and I'll I'll I'll pass the ball over to Angela Coggins my colleague.

00:01:24.070 --> 00:01:27.590 Coggins, Angela Yeah, Hi Angela, Coggins also with ogc here on the line thanks.

00:01:28.030 --> 00:01:30.330 Smith, James OK, Umbil Halliburton.

00:01:31.350 --> 00:01:34.640 Halliburton, Bill Yeah, Bill Halliburton Trust Administrator.

00:01:35.120 --> 00:01:39.490 Smith, James OK, David Cates your names already been mentioned but.

00:01:41.640 --> 00:01:42.690 David Cates Hi everyone, 00:01:43.960 --> 00:01:45.860 David Cates yeah, this is David Cage I'm the.

00:01:46.020 --> 00:01:56.640 David Cates And Engineering manager for the solid waste section at DEQ and as Paul mentioned the previous project manager for the Super on site.

00:01:57.470 --> 00:01:57.990 Smith, James OK.

00:01:57.790 --> 00:01:58.230 David Cates Thanks.

00:01:58.800 --> 00:01:59.510 Smith, James Uhm.

00:02:00.560 --> 00:02:01.960 Smith, James Daniel Clement, 00:02:04.060 --> 00:02:08.290 Clement, Daniel W Yeah, Daniel Clement Burns, McDonnell hydrogeologist and groundwater modeler.

00:02:08.880 --> 00:02:09.840 Smith, James alright thanks.

00:02:10.470 --> 00:02:13.140 Smith, James Let's say Adam Schwartzman 's online.

00:02:14.200 --> 00:02:18.830 Schwartzman, Adam Yeah, it's Adam Schwartzman. I'm a risk analyst NMSS I work with Karen.

00:02:19.810 --> 00:02:22.480 Smith, James OK, if there's anybody I've missed.

00:02:23.080 --> 00:02:25.710 Smith, James I've tried to capture everybody that I can see.

00:02:25.770 --> 00:02:31.650 Smith, James See if there's anybody. I miss Oh John Saxton, I'm sorry John.

00:02:26.560 --> 00:02:27.190 Pam Dizikes Hi.

00:02:26.670 --> 00:02:28.160 Saxton, John Uh you got me.

00:02:32.290 --> 00:02:32.730 Saxton, John Right.

00:02:32.600 --> 00:02:34.030 Smith, James The whole reason for the meeting.

00:02:35.290 --> 00:02:40.700 Saxton, John Uh John Saxon hydrogeologist the project type geologists with this project.

00:02:41.430 --> 00:02:43.150 Smith, James OK, well.

00:02:42.570 --> 00:02:44.460 Lux, Jeff J And we also have those details.

00:02:42.950 --> 00:02:44.000 Pam Dizikes I also.

00:02:44.910 --> 00:02:49.850 Pam Dizikes Yes, this is Pam Disy 'cause attorney with the Oklahoma DEQ.

00:02:45.050 --> 00:02:45.620 Smith, James I'm sorry.

00:02:50.270 --> 00:02:55.970 Smith, James I'm sorry, Pam I for some reason. Oh, it's right in front of my face now OK.

00:02:56.820 --> 00:02:58.250 Smith, James Ah, OK, but 00:02:59.350 --> 00:03:00.130 Smith, James 2.

00:03:01.260 --> 00:03:01.820 Smith, James Get to the 00:03:02.450 --> 00:03:09.530 Smith, James the whole purpose of the meeting, John is going to present his presentation on his concerns about the groundwater remediation system.

00:03:10.180 --> 00:03:13.220 Smith, James Uhm feel free to ask questions.

00:03:13.830 --> 00:03:20.820 Smith, James Uh it might be better if we hold them off unless there's something you think we need to address while we're going through the presentation.

00:03:22.030 --> 00:03:25.030 Smith, James John do you have your presentation ready to feed?

00:03:27.700 --> 00:03:29.840 Saxton, John Yes, I do hold on a minute, let me.

00:03:29.330 --> 00:03:29.750 Smith, James OK.

00:03:30.600 --> 00:03:32.500 Saxton, John See if I can get control.

00:03:33.790 --> 00:03:34.880 Saxton, John Let's see.

00:03:42.640 --> 00:03:45.870 Smith, James I'm sorry mark Mike did you ask another question?

00:03:49.460 --> 00:03:52.580 Mike Broderick I didn't ask when I thought I heard somebody asks mentioned my name, though.

00:03:52.910 --> 00:03:53.390 Smith, James Yeah.

00:03:53.780 --> 00:03:59.440 David Cates Yeah, sorry guys that was me playing a voice recording.

00:04:00.960 --> 00:04:01.780 Smith, James Oh, OK.

00:04:05.060 --> 00:04:06.110 Smith, James Alright well.

00:04:05.300 --> 00:04:05.790 David Cates Neighbors.

00:04:06.660 --> 00:04:07.470 J. Paul Davis It uh.

00:04:06.860 --> 00:04:08.900 Saxton, John Uh can you see the slides?

00:04:09.200 --> 00:04:11.640 Smith, James Yes, I can see the first page is like.

00:04:09.680 --> 00:04:10.000 J. Paul Davis Yeah.

00:04:12.150 --> 00:04:15.680 J. Paul Davis Are we gonna be will you be able to provide a copy of these later on?

00:04:12.280 --> 00:04:12.750 Saxton, John OK.

00:04:15.930 --> 00:04:21.820 Saxton, John Oh yes, uh this be almighty, public whenever we discuss it's definitely going to be on the public record.

00:04:17.080 --> 00:04:17.440 J. Paul Davis Thank you.

00:04:18.780 --> 00:04:19.490 J. Paul Davis OK great.

00:04:22.240 --> 00:04:23.340 J. Paul Davis Fantastic thanks.

00:04:25.030 --> 00:04:29.120 Saxton, John Uh as Jim alluded to I brought this.

00:04:30.210 --> 00:04:35.520 Saxton, John Uh matter up with gentle 'cause, we did the where in the initial review for the.

00:04:36.150 --> 00:04:39.120 Saxton, John Decommissioning plan and one of my concerns was that.

00:04:39.600 --> 00:04:40.200 Saxton, John Uh.

00:04:41.660 --> 00:04:44.020 Saxton, John Was the project gonna be able to meet her?

00:04:44.550 --> 00:04:50.280 Saxton, John Ah, cleanup criteria so let me or the release criteria within the time frame that they had.

00:04:51.890 --> 00:04:52.530 Saxton, John Estimated.

00:04:53.630 --> 00:05:01.120 Saxton, John So basically since everybody probably is all familiar with this. I don't have to go in through this. But this is just for the public record.

00:05:01.700 --> 00:05:11.060 Saxton, John So basically we talked about the our concerns about the 150 months for the B 8 A one A area.

00:05:11.810 --> 00:05:15.250 Saxton, John And then the the license, he had requested a public meeting and that's what?

00:05:16.220 --> 00:05:18.320 Saxton, John Is this meeting is about?

00:05:19.380 --> 00:05:26.240 Saxton, John And we agreed to this meeting and again. I want to make sure that everybody knows that this is just preliminary stuff.

00:05:26.720 --> 00:05:27.920 Saxton, John Uh you know like.

00:05:29.090 --> 00:05:38.900 Saxton, John The tent is to discuss things, which could facilitate the final review so but anyway, I just want to make sure that everybody knows that this is preliminary.

00:05:40.870 --> 00:05:41.620 Saxton, John OK First off.

00:05:43.020 --> 00:05:48.020 Saxton, John The initial flow calculations, I I wanted to do was basically to verify.

00:05:48.690 --> 00:05:48.990 Saxton, John The.

00:05:49.890 --> 00:05:54.130 Saxton, John Pilot test a hydraulic conductivity of the transition zone.

00:05:55.270 --> 00:05:58.830 Saxton, John So basically I looked at the uh.

00:05:59.990 --> 00:06:09.250 Saxton, John The 2018 pilot tests report, which was part of the revisions for the components on the revised DP the other report that.

00:06:09.640 --> 00:06:10.410 Saxton, John Ah.

00:06:11.430 --> 00:06:23.350 Saxton, John

The new components are baseline was where the 2018 environmental sequence credit stratigraphy, and poor porosity analysis memorandum and I actually I included that in the?

00:06:24.200 --> 00:06:29.890 Saxton, John That showed it heterogeneity in the transition zone. I included that in the in the model that was created.

00:06:32.330 --> 00:06:38.390 Saxton, John The plumber review of the pilot test reports suggest some inconsistency and possible errors and I can get into that.

00:06:37.700 --> 00:06:41.820 Smith, James Hey John, have you for have you advance the slides yet or you still on the first slide?

00:06:42.280 --> 00:06:42.710 Saxton, John Oh.

00:06:43.630 --> 00:06:49.590 Saxton, John Yes, I'm on the first slide. Let me let me just keeping this mode, then sorry.

00:06:45.250 --> 00:06:45.670 Smith, James OK.

00:06:49.140 --> 00:06:49.550 Smith, James OK.

00:06:51.540 --> 00:07:00.320 Saxton, John OK, so the preliminary review of the pilot test port it looked like there was some inconsistencies, especially in the hydraulic conductivity calculations.

00:07:00.940 --> 00:07:03.400 Saxton, John So I developed this numeric model just to.

00:07:04.480 --> 00:07:09.460 Saxton, John Look at the uh pilot test on that extraction well in the.

00:07:10.260 --> 00:07:11.290 Saxton, John Transition zone.

00:07:12.290 --> 00:07:20.580 Saxton, John And the results of the flow model differed from the licensees interpretation in particularly hydraulic conductivities.

00:07:21.980 --> 00:07:26.270 Saxton, John But they were consistent with the earlier 2013 pilot tests results.

00:07:30.060 --> 00:07:41.990 Saxton, John This is what the model actually predicted it. It's basically uh you know it's uh. It's multi layer model. This is layer. One it's a Modflow US.

00:07:43.590 --> 00:07:44.680 Saxton, John Our teams are still showing.

00:07:45.780 --> 00:07:46.510 Saxton, John Ah.

00:07:45.940 --> 00:07:49.140 Smith, James Yeah, I'm still saying oh the first page.

00:07:49.620 --> 00:07:50.050 J. Paul Davis Here we go.

00:07:50.580 --> 00:07:51.030 Smith, James OK.

00:07:51.030 --> 00:07:51.470 Saxton, John Alright.

00:07:52.530 --> 00:07:55.480 Saxton, John It's really small and my computer is it bigger and you guys.

00:07:56.860 --> 00:08:00.320 Smith, James Mines bigger, but I've got a 48 inch screen I'm looking at.

00:08:01.830 --> 00:08:04.140 Saxton, John Well, sorry about that let me see.

00:08:02.760 --> 00:08:03.030 David Cates Uh.

00:08:03.610 --> 00:08:04.270 David Cates I notice.

00:08:03.940 --> 00:08:08.940 Halliburton, Bill Now, John it, it Johnny it looks good, I mean, it's very readable on a standard sized monitor.

00:08:06.320 --> 00:08:06.840 Saxton, John OK.

00:08:09.260 --> 00:08:10.150 Saxton, John OK, good.

00:08:10.130 --> 00:08:10.420 David Cates Uh.

00:08:11.300 --> 00:08:17.310 David Cates On my screen there is a feature at the bottom left where you where I can advance or.

00:08:18.130 --> 00:08:18.620 Saxton, John Oh really.

00:08:18.450 --> 00:08:20.210 David Cates The slides yes.

00:08:20.020 --> 00:08:24.720 Saxton, John Oh yeah, I see on the bottom line, yeah, OK well, I'm learning something new.

00:08:25.590 --> 00:08:26.300 Saxton, John Ah.

00:08:27.640 --> 00:08:39.810 Saxton, John So I talked about 3 or ready again. That's just I notice time discrepancies and I wanted to verify the hydraulic on any of the transition zone 'cause that's going to be important.

00:08:27.830 --> 00:08:28.210 J. Paul Davis Very.

00:08:40.830 --> 00:08:41.430 Saxton, John So.

00:08:42.640 --> 00:08:46.400 Saxton, John I'd like to make this bigger. I don't know if you can see that can everybody see that.

00:08:48.290 --> 00:08:49.350 J. Paul Davis There may be a?

00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:52.740 J. Paul Davis Share control that you can make that full screen.

00:08:53.670 --> 00:08:55.510 Lux, Jeff J Which which slaughter you on now John?

00:08:55.720 --> 00:08:56.350 Saxton, John 4.

00:08:58.160 --> 00:08:59.140 Hesemann, John I can see it fine.

00:08:59.820 --> 00:09:00.280 Lux, Jeff J Fine.

00:09:00.770 --> 00:09:04.030 Saxton, John It's pretty small mine uh is there.

00:09:05.710 --> 00:09:07.990 Saxton, John Let me see if I can change do.

00:09:13.730 --> 00:09:14.440 Saxton, John Is there any better?

00:09:13.750 --> 00:09:14.240 J. Paul Davis That's better.

00:09:15.330 --> 00:09:16.790 Saxton, John Let me see if I can help it.

00:09:21.460 --> 00:09:21.860 J. Paul Davis Bush.

00:09:21.790 --> 00:09:29.030 Saxton, John Now it went out OK. Sorry I have 2 monitors that's what's so let me go back to this mode.

00:09:30.060 --> 00:09:31.400 J. Paul Davis Can you go into the?

00:09:32.830 --> 00:09:36.240 J. Paul Davis PowerPoint controls to make that a full stack full page slide.

00:09:37.240 --> 00:09:40.720 Saxton, John I I have it, but it's on another monitor so let me.

00:09:40.250 --> 00:09:40.590 J. Paul Davis Hey.

00:09:42.060 --> 00:09:47.410 Mike Broderick Were there any of the audience that had problems viewing it before for me the initial weight was was great?

00:09:42.290 --> 00:09:42.710 Pinkston, Karen Tom.

00:09:42.590 --> 00:09:43.040 Saxton, John Alright.

00:09:48.690 --> 00:09:56.250 Pinkston, Karen John do you want one of us to drive up so then you can show it big for yourself and we can handle the team, so you don't have to do both.

00:09:49.190 --> 00:09:49.860 David Cates Same here.

00:09:57.480 --> 00:09:58.610 Saxton, John Uh sure.

00:09:59.450 --> 00:10:01.860 Pinkston, Karen OK, it's the same version you sent.

00:10:01.770 --> 00:10:10.360 Saxton, John Uh I corrected some some typos. Let me I'll just go back to this and then I'll expand this out.

00:10:08.570 --> 00:10:08.900 Pinkston, Karen OK.

00:10:13.090 --> 00:10:13.530 Saxton, John Alright.

00:10:14.950 --> 00:10:29.300 Saxton, John So this is the model uh results from this first flow and I just did the flow on this one and basically what I'm showing is it's a Modflow Usg Model. It's unstructured grid, but this is layer one.

00:10:30.240 --> 00:10:40.460 Saxton, John Ah this magenta area over here is where layer one pinches out layer. One was just the alluvial and the transition zone so.

00:10:43.350 --> 00:10:46.540 Saxton, John That pinched out where it's all in this magenta color.

00:10:47.850 --> 00:10:51.190 Saxton, John The trench itself is located in this linear array here.

00:10:52.880 --> 00:10:56.810 Saxton, John And it extends down to Layer 6, which is the mudstone be.

00:10:58.150 --> 00:11:04.370 Saxton, John The Purple area here is just that. The layer and in the first, the cells in the layer one are dry so.

00:11:07.470 --> 00:11:13.730 Saxton, John When you do a model basically you wanna look at the residual which is the observed or the model predicted.

00:11:14.610 --> 00:11:20.990 Saxton, John The observed drawdown minus the model predicted draw down and you try to get that to zero to 2.

00:11:21.710 --> 00:11:23.730 Saxton, John To calibrate the model.

00:11:24.870 --> 00:11:31.640 Saxton, John And, of course, the residuals statistics over here, yeah, it's again this is a preliminary model but.

00:11:32.430 --> 00:11:37.950 Saxton, John I came pretty close to what the drawdowns were observed during the test.

00:11:38.700 --> 00:11:51.250 Saxton, John But The thing is I had to use a hydraulic conductivity of 0.4, whereas when you guys calculated the count. The hydraulic conductivity is based on the active solve you usually got.

00:11:51.860 --> 00:11:55.150 Saxton, John A much higher connectivities 4 to 5.

00:11:56.020 --> 00:11:56.780 Saxton, John Or even more.

00:11:57.860 --> 00:12:02.200 Saxton, John So one of the things I notice that this was a little bit lower than what you had.

00:12:02.730 --> 00:12:04.360 Saxton, John Uh I had the 00:12:05.380 --> 00:12:06.080 Saxton, John calculate it.

00:12:07.880 --> 00:12:08.710 Saxton, John So with that.

00:12:09.430 --> 00:12:18.930 Saxton, John The next step was I had some concerns about which led to the fate and Transport Model Development, which is using the same model, but it just incorporated fate and transport parameters.

00:12:20.020 --> 00:12:31.670 Saxton, John And the problems with that or the concerns that I had was that the analytical model used through estimate their remediation timeframes as soon a homogeneous aquifer and linear isotherms.

00:12:33.500 --> 00:12:36.530 Saxton, John Second is that the new design had 2 trenches.

00:12:37.630 --> 00:12:40.340 Saxton, John Basically and you guys all know this so I'm not gonna.

00:12:41.510 --> 00:12:48.400 Saxton, John This is the second trench and so my concern was in between them. You might have a groundwater divide or saddle.

00:12:48.910 --> 00:12:50.780 Saxton, John Uh, which would 00:12:51.480 --> 00:12:57.480 Saxton, John minimize the flow rate in those in between? And so with these with this new design capture?

00:12:58.450 --> 00:13:00.200 Saxton, John Any contaminants that were between them.

00:13:01.790 --> 00:13:18.340 Saxton, John And then 3rd thing I wanted to check was that the extraction well in the alluvial nearest the transition zone may draw contaminants from the transition zone when it's operating so I just wanted to check that and So what I did was expand this model to include fate and transport.

00:13:20.430 --> 00:13:24.830 Saxton, John And I included the heterogeneity in your 2018.

00:13:25.190 --> 00:13:26.950 Saxton, John Uh Essm Memorandum.

00:13:27.970 --> 00:13:42.470 Saxton, John And again I just want to emphasize that this is really preliminary. It's not the final fine tune. But I just want to again. I brought it to jims attention. 'cause like I did a bunch of simulations at different values and they all came to the same.

00:13:43.420 --> 00:13:50.720 Saxton, John The conclusion some are better than others, but the same conclusion was the set the groundwater in between wasn't being captured within the 150 months.

00:13:53.070 --> 00:14:02.320 Saxton, John So what I did for calibrating it, I started at the initial disposal materials that pits until November 2017.

That's when the?

00:14:03.500 --> 00:14:05.250 Saxton, John Uh trenches were put in.

00:14:07.310 --> 00:14:21.980 Saxton, John And again there's a lot of uncertainty so that's why I just want to be clear about that and particularly their original source term 'cause. Nobody really knows exactly what the reaching was from that, but that's that's the important term in this type of bacon transport modeling.

00:14:23.040 --> 00:14:26.240 Saxton, John I did a bunch of simulations in to.

00:14:27.090 --> 00:14:30.000 Saxton, John Mainly to bound the calculations.

00:14:30.550 --> 00:14:44.440 Saxton, John Uh I'm just gonna present one on today, which I signed the transition zone. A value hydraulic conductivity of value of 0.8 feet per day. If you remember back in the flow model. I use 0.4 feet so this was.

00:14:45.150 --> 00:14:47.520 Saxton, John I was trying to put as much or have they?

00:14:48.450 --> 00:14:50.630 Saxton, John Hydraulic conductivity as high as I could.

00:14:51.920 --> 00:15:12.170 Saxton, John And it's not the best fit, but it's it is a. A representative one of what the simulations. All all entailed and the source term was actually adding the source term was a lower concentration in this case was 35 milligrams per liter at the source when the when the that arrow was disposed of in the pit.

00:15:15.280 --> 00:15:21.650 Saxton, John I just want to give you because when I plot the concentrations. I'm going to be in his these weird units.

00:15:23.240 --> 00:15:29.360 Saxton, John But mostly I had a I used your concentrations and I I wanted to use the total.

00:15:30.150 --> 00:15:38.390 Saxton, John Our activity concentration so I used your ratio basically 'cause there's a lot of mass numbers, they included in their database.

00:15:40.380 --> 00:15:45.830 Saxton, John And as I go through this basically I'm gonna use your model or your.

00:15:46.500 --> 00:16:01.780 Saxton, John Isotherm isopleth map and I'm gonna point out the 200 2003. 1000 Isopleth and that corresponds to this roughly these concentrations and activities with 180 being the release criteria.

00:16:03.250 --> 00:16:05.660 Saxton, John And these are the values Justin.

00:16:06.390 --> 00:16:13.270 Saxton, John The model unit because I use a foreign lick isotherm. I had a used these units so it gets complicated but.

00:16:14.100 --> 00:16:18.230 Saxton, John But this is the only this is the conversion so you know 2.8.

00:16:18.930 --> 00:16:22.470 Saxton, John Or 28.3 liters per cubic foot.

00:16:24.760 --> 00:16:30.150 Saxton, John Again, this is your ISO path, but it's not a real one that's really the maximum number.

00:16:30.890 --> 00:16:38.180 Saxton, John The UCL 95 or single value, but basically what I'm going to show later on is I'm going to use these contours.

00:16:39.350 --> 00:16:44.450 Saxton, John As one of the general indicators of Calibrating, the model so basically.

00:16:45.140 --> 00:16:55.020 Saxton, John This first one, is going to be in general, the release Criterion. This second one is 2000.

00:16:56.690 --> 00:16:59.210 Saxton, John As in this one as well and then 3000.

00:17:01.670 --> 00:17:11.410 Saxton, John So when I go through this. Basically, the primary goal was to match the trend. But the secondary goal. It made it easier was using this color.

00:17:12.370 --> 00:17:13.260 Saxton, John Calibration.

00:17:13.810 --> 00:17:16.300 Saxton, John Uh so if anything was in green.

00:17:17.110 --> 00:17:24.190 Saxton, John That means the release. Criterion is the green was greater than a recent release criterion, but less than the 2000.

00:17:24.830 --> 00:17:25.430 Saxton, John So that's 00:17:26.320 --> 00:17:32.120 Saxton, John If we had a model and it matched his 100%. This is what the color scheme will be looking like.

00:17:33.670 --> 00:17:38.320 Saxton, John So the red would be 3000 yellow above 2000 and the green above.

00:17:38.930 --> 00:17:40.570 Saxton, John The release Criterion.

00:17:45.160 --> 00:17:52.470 Saxton, John Now that was for model calibration so I use that for the you know October or November 2017.

00:17:54.090 --> 00:17:57.270 Saxton, John When we go through the predictive simulations after 150 months.

00:17:57.960 --> 00:17:58.640 Saxton, John If the 00:17:59.520 --> 00:18:01.640 Saxton, John remediation was successful.

00:18:02.250 --> 00:18:03.790 Saxton, John You would have all Gray.

00:18:05.030 --> 00:18:07.010 Saxton, John There will be no green yellow or red.

00:18:07.650 --> 00:18:11.190 Saxton, John And or science assignments just background for for this model.

00:18:13.100 --> 00:18:14.500 Saxton, John Alright so.

00:18:15.970 --> 00:18:39.840 Saxton, John This is the simulation that we have on this one that I'm going to report is is with the higher hydraulic conductivity as you see it and I agree that it's not the best fit. This first layer is the transition zone and alluvium and then this is the sandstone be down in a in in depth, but this was the source area over here, these are the.

00:18:40.620 --> 00:18:42.910 Saxton, John A pet so.

00:18:44.200 --> 00:18:44.820 Saxton, John The.

00:18:45.540 --> 00:18:49.050 Saxton, John Stance will be was pretty good as far as matching the.

00:18:49.580 --> 00:18:53.670 Saxton, John Uh estimated concentrations here.

00:18:54.480 --> 00:18:57.620 Saxton, John What was really lacking was because I use a low?

00:18:58.340 --> 00:19:01.200 Saxton, John Uh source it term it didn't come.

00:19:02.640 --> 00:19:17.680 Saxton, John Been in attenuate into the alluvial aquifer as much as a It is observed. The other crate. The other simulations did when I especially when I use a higher source term it did extend into the into the alluvial aquifer.

00:19:18.750 --> 00:19:21.360 Saxton, John So anyhow after 150 months after I.

00:19:22.770 --> 00:19:38.770 Saxton, John Did this calibration then predicted out? Let me these are some of the curves for the temporal concentrations the blue line is the model predicted, and the red circles are.

00:19:39.370 --> 00:19:40.110 Saxton, John The.

00:19:41.020 --> 00:19:49.620 Saxton, John Uranium concentrations and again the peak it's in Pico curies per cubic foot and they're at several wells.

I just picked several selected wells.

00:19:51.000 --> 00:19:57.770 Saxton, John And again there is a lot of scatter in the data and so the final any final.

00:19:58.480 --> 00:20:06.500 Saxton, John Determination I'll probably have to do it a little bit more of a sensitivity analysis because there is a lot of data scattering the data.

00:20:10.020 --> 00:20:16.170 Saxton, John These are some other selected Wells 131516 and 17 were the longest term ones.

00:20:21.360 --> 00:20:28.410 Saxton, John And so after 150 months and the predicted simulation basically again in between the 2.

00:20:28.960 --> 00:20:32.150 Saxton, John Uh trenches is where it didn't clean up.

00:20:32.850 --> 00:20:46.730 Saxton, John To the release, Criterion and in addition, in this simulation actually the first extraction well was continually pulling contaminates to it, other simulations. I didn't specially when I around the.

00:20:47.500 --> 00:20:48.430 Saxton, John Uh calibrated.

00:20:49.330 --> 00:20:55.930 Saxton, John The number of you know 0.4 feet per day for the transition zone and then you're.

00:20:56.380 --> 00:21:03.630 Saxton, John So you're a conductive zone be along this line right here and I think that user 3 feet per day for that that zone.

00:21:04.770 --> 00:21:07.060 Saxton, John And that was cases actually.

00:21:08.200 --> 00:21:09.980 Saxton, John The extraction well.

00:21:10.690 --> 00:21:27.110 Saxton, John It it pulled it a little bit more than the 50 months that you predicted that it was going to clean up. But it's cleaned up well before the 16 months or a time frame. So my 150 months. It wasn't pulling any thing, but in the transition zone there still was.

00:21:28.050 --> 00:21:31.610 Saxton, John Some values higher than the release Criterion in between the 2.

00:21:32.220 --> 00:21:32.680 Saxton, John Uhm.

00:21:34.300 --> 00:21:34.880 Saxton, John Trenches.

00:21:36.100 --> 00:21:41.340 Hesemann, John John would you mind repeating what you just said I didn't quite follow that we were talking about 60 months versus?

00:21:36.220 --> 00:21:36.770 Saxton, John So just 00:21:41.620 --> 00:21:57.870 Saxton, John oh sorry uh, yeah, I kind of stepped ahead. What happened is your predicted that the extraction. Wells will clean up the alluvial act for within I think 50 months or 38 months or something like that. It was a shorter time frame it much shorter than the transition zone.

00:21:42.100 --> 00:21:42.460 Hesemann, John 50.

00:21:58.510 --> 00:22:00.360 Saxton, John What happened is that?

00:22:00.960 --> 00:22:01.400 Saxton, John Ah.

00:22:02.320 --> 00:22:26.830 Saxton, John I checked a couple months, it wasn't completely this first well. Everything else was claimed by this first well had some poll of contaminants from the transition zone still in the alluvial aquifer 'cause. It was pulling it after the the whatever prescribed time frame was but it wasn't that significant and I think after about 10 more months it. It cleaned it up so it wasn't it wasn't nearly.

00:22:27.590 --> 00:22:40.830 Saxton, John

It wasn't the deterministic one if you will in other words, was clean up well. Before 60 months. This this is actually the 150 months on this simulation. But if I go back to those.

00:22:41.580 --> 00:22:42.010 Saxton, John Ah.

00:22:43.320 --> 00:22:55.480 Saxton, John It took a little longer than what predicted but it was less than you know the overall remediation times.

So it wasn't a concern of mine in that case in this case, it seems to have gone on for a long time afterwards.

00:22:56.660 --> 00:22:56.920 Saxton, John Is it?

00:22:56.920 --> 00:23:01.930 Hesemann, John It's just one other real quick question does did you include the injection in this model?

00:22:58.820 --> 00:22:59.180 Saxton, John Sure.

00:23:02.140 --> 00:23:05.460 Saxton, John Ah, yes, I did actually I I'll well.

00:23:07.190 --> 00:23:10.740 Saxton, John Those are the injection wells are right here.

00:23:12.370 --> 00:23:16.470 Saxton, John And and that's that's another concern and I have it on the last slide.

00:23:17.540 --> 00:23:19.350 Saxton, John Uh when it was.

00:23:20.410 --> 00:23:21.970 Saxton, John The preferred if you will.

00:23:22.730 --> 00:23:24.820 Saxton, John Hydraulic conductivity of 0.4.

00:23:25.630 --> 00:23:26.160 Saxton, John Uh.

00:23:27.130 --> 00:23:28.730 Saxton, John This well or this trend.

00:23:29.560 --> 00:23:33.320 Saxton, John Wouldn't have been a meet it wouldn't meet your projected?

00:23:34.070 --> 00:23:37.260 Saxton, John Extraction rate of I think with 7 gallons a minute.

00:23:38.600 --> 00:23:40.400 Saxton, John It was like 6 and a half.

00:23:41.190 --> 00:23:52.900 Saxton, John And similar to this one was right at the 7 so there isn't a lot of flexibility and on adjusting these flow rates so that's one concern and the second is if I turn this.

00:23:53.540 --> 00:23:58.280 Saxton, John Off then this well this extraction well wouldn't meet its?

00:23:59.160 --> 00:24:00.510 Saxton, John Uh pumping right.

00:24:01.440 --> 00:24:02.440 Saxton, John For that low.

00:24:02.490 --> 00:24:05.140 Saxton, John So ah connectivity values.

00:24:06.290 --> 00:24:11.400 Saxton, John One of the biggest difference is basically just the isotherms and again, I use foreign lick isotherm.

00:24:12.090 --> 00:24:19.590 Saxton, John And versus the linear and your model that you assumed and these are that the formula has 2 constants.

00:24:20.200 --> 00:24:27.020 Saxton, John There are 2 variables, so 2 parameters. One is the constant, which is this KF and the other is the Exponent.

00:24:27.780 --> 00:24:28.430 Saxton, John Ah.

00:24:29.510 --> 00:24:35.720 Saxton, John And these are the values that I I uh for this particular simulation is what it came to.

00:24:36.440 --> 00:24:38.400 Saxton, John Uh and if I plot them.

00:24:40.220 --> 00:24:40.670 Saxton, John Ah.

00:24:41.330 --> 00:24:43.720 Saxton, John As far as per concentration.

00:24:46.420 --> 00:24:51.600 Saxton, John A linear one would be this Gray line, which is used 3 and your.

00:24:52.760 --> 00:24:53.670 Saxton, John Calculations.

00:24:54.490 --> 00:24:55.860 Saxton, John Based on measured data.

00:24:56.650 --> 00:25:06.350 Saxton, John And the foreign like isotherms are the ones that are at a angle if you will and you can see which one of the transition zone is blue.

00:25:07.250 --> 00:25:12.590 Saxton, John This alluvium is higher, but that's because I I had to put it in the higher.

00:25:13.440 --> 00:25:14.000 Saxton, John Uhm.

00:25:15.120 --> 00:25:18.440 Saxton, John Uh retardation factor so because it wasn't.

00:25:19.720 --> 00:25:43.870 Saxton, John I used a low source term so there wasn't much going out there. The other source terms actually fit the data better. It actually showed that the aquifer was it wasn't at 0.3 but it was, it was above background so that's why I'm saying the other simulations were much better fit this one. I just you know was the last one. I did so I that's why I put this model together on this, but I want to make a point that.

00:25:44.450 --> 00:25:52.970 Saxton, John When you determine your case. KD values you actually use the value of brown water of 3 point, something 3.5.

00:25:53.570 --> 00:26:01.490 Saxton, John And so all these actually just called you know, I only look at this after I was trying to make this platform.

This this presentation.

00:26:02.280 --> 00:26:06.380 Saxton, John But they cross at that 3.5 so these are the same.

00:26:06.960 --> 00:26:10.500 Saxton, John So could be fit the same data that you used your 3.

00:26:10.900 --> 00:26:15.620 Saxton, John Ah, you're right so you're linearizes tournament 3 liters per kilogram.

00:26:16.250 --> 00:26:17.210 Saxton, John Or Katie of 3.

00:26:19.560 --> 00:26:22.280 Lux, Jeff J John won't let me ask you a question about your source term.

00:26:21.320 --> 00:26:21.690 Saxton, John Sure.

00:26:22.830 --> 00:26:23.180 Saxton, John Yep.

00:26:23.930 --> 00:26:25.180 Lux, Jeff J

'cause that's kind of a key.

00:26:25.820 --> 00:26:26.860 Saxton, John Or it is I agree.

00:26:27.130 --> 00:26:27.670 Lux, Jeff J Parameter.

00:26:29.560 --> 00:26:37.760 Lux, Jeff J Where did you get 35 milligrams per liter for a source that you're talking about. That's a groundwater concentrations? Where did that come.

00:26:37.080 --> 00:26:37.600 Saxton, John That's great.

00:26:38.440 --> 00:26:39.910 Saxton, John That came from the pit.

00:26:40.550 --> 00:26:42.080 Saxton, John That uh.

00:26:42.730 --> 00:26:44.450 Saxton, John It's just let me.

00:26:46.880 --> 00:26:50.230 Saxton, John Let me go to this one and I were talking about this second one again.

00:26:50.950 --> 00:26:51.340 Saxton, John I.

00:26:53.380 --> 00:26:56.190 Saxton, John That is an unknown.

00:26:56.890 --> 00:26:59.330 Saxton, John It basically you had a pit in there.

00:27:00.260 --> 00:27:00.990 Saxton, John With.

00:27:01.220 --> 00:27:01.460 Saxton, John Wow.

00:27:02.930 --> 00:27:10.440 Saxton, John I think it was 1000 kilograms of DU in the 100 of enrich uranium.

00:27:11.450 --> 00:27:12.980 Saxton, John And it really stout.

00:27:14.120 --> 00:27:14.660 Saxton, John Ah.

00:27:17.250 --> 00:27:20.090 Saxton, John The uranium contamination so.

00:27:20.750 --> 00:27:22.730 Saxton, John Using going from that point.

00:27:24.620 --> 00:27:30.130 Saxton, John To make it migrate out to the alluvial I had to have a source term.

00:27:31.070 --> 00:28:01.800 Saxton, John And what happened is if I only I first only said, OK, this was not saturated by your some of your cross sections. The pits were not saturated so the only way you could get anything reaching out is from recharge, infiltrating through it, and you have see pitch. But in those cases, the only way I could even get close to the number that you have in the in the observed in the aquifer in you predict that you have 300 kilograms that you're going to collect over the 10 years.

00:28:02.820 --> 00:28:08.800 Saxton, John Was that I had had to recharge concentration of 1300 milligrams? Which is pretty unrealistic.

00:28:09.700 --> 00:28:11.300 Saxton, John So the subsequent.

00:28:12.080 --> 00:28:23.630 Saxton, John Uh simulations would I end up doing was happening, you're perched water could able conditions actually saturating the lower end of your pets.

00:28:24.290 --> 00:28:33.660 Saxton, John And with that uh the concentrations of some of the material that was leaching out had the 35 milligrams per liter uranium.

00:28:34.780 --> 00:28:35.490 Saxton, John Does that make sense?

00:28:35.930 --> 00:28:43.260 Lux, Jeff J Well, I I understand what you're saying, I I we have data and it only goes back to the 1980s, but 00:28:44.080 --> 00:28:44.800 Saxton, John Well, that's it.

00:28:44.270 --> 00:28:44.930 Lux, Jeff J the higher.

00:28:45.560 --> 00:28:46.350 Saxton, John That's a purpose, with 00:28:45.730 --> 00:28:51.310 Lux, Jeff J The hottest person tradition, we've ever recorded is less than 9 milligrams per liter.

00:28:53.820 --> 00:29:02.390 Saxton, John and that's part of the reason why you know, I think this was important 'cause. I need to know those are the information that I need to do, if I can calibrate the model better.

00:29:04.060 --> 00:29:06.280 Saxton, John Personally, there's a 00:29:07.500 --> 00:29:15.000 Saxton, John I'd like to get some information on water levels. 'cause there's a couple things that are a little bit odd there's a?

00:29:16.040 --> 00:29:17.440 Saxton, John There might be a?

00:29:18.550 --> 00:29:21.120 Saxton, John A little sync that was around that.

00:29:21.780 --> 00:29:23.760 Saxton, John First extraction well the G.

00:29:24.400 --> 00:29:29.830 Saxton, John Well, what is it called GBA they one or one is that right is that?

00:29:29.750 --> 00:29:30.070 Lux, Jeff J Yeah.

00:29:30.890 --> 00:29:51.270 Saxton, John I think that you know, I had a I had some sort of sync there, it and I you know, I didn't see any information on then but that would be. You know a better way of Calibrating. The model if I had that information so that's one thing if you have information on the source terms. I'm I'm willing to use those and that might show.

00:29:51.420 --> 00:30:00.060 Saxton, John Uh Uh, I better not a better but more a more accurate portrayal of this. I'm just saying for this model, the way it's set up.

00:30:01.010 --> 00:30:01.470 Saxton, John Ah.

00:30:02.600 --> 00:30:11.640 Saxton, John I had to use this source term that concentration to observe any of the concentrations that you observed today.

00:30:14.750 --> 00:30:25.400 Lux, Jeff J OK, I I just I. I saw that number and I thought we've never seen anything like that. In groundwater, but and that's why I asked about the impact the source term and I understand I came up with that.

00:30:15.000 --> 00:30:15.300 Mike Broderick Good.

00:30:25.970 --> 00:30:30.330 Saxton, John Yeah, no it's it. I I again. That's that's an unknown and I try to do it as.

00:30:31.170 --> 00:30:37.330 Saxton, John As small as I can basically I you know, I don't know what effect would would have but it it, you know this.

00:30:39.040 --> 00:30:40.220 Saxton, John What happens is that?

00:30:41.500 --> 00:30:43.530 Saxton, John This Plumas went through the bedrock.

00:30:44.630 --> 00:30:45.830 Saxton, John Then it possibly.

00:30:46.700 --> 00:30:53.600 Saxton, John Young went directly to the alluvium from the the lower end of the pits or went through bedrock to Louisville.

00:30:54.340 --> 00:31:03.900 Saxton, John Or by bedrock to the transition zone or bedrock to alluvium further out if it migrated down so there was all different scenarios that you could use and I'm.

00:31:04.550 --> 00:31:07.270 Saxton, John You know you could you know I tried sleep it's even?

00:31:08.040 --> 00:31:21.210 Saxton, John So, but that's you know, those things are unknown. So I I really didn't wanna go way overboard. Jeff I tried to make it as simple as possible and so with this.

00:31:22.040 --> 00:31:23.500 Saxton, John This is just a 00:31:24.660 --> 00:31:35.040 Saxton, John it had a source term right at the end of the the pits and you know had it available until the pits were excavated and whatever 85 I think or 88.

00:31:36.520 --> 00:31:37.800 Saxton, John Then I removed those.

00:31:38.410 --> 00:31:47.290 Saxton, John Cleaned it all up and had no source term. So it's just the source term from when it was filled to when it was excavated and then it was cleaned up.

00:31:47.990 --> 00:31:52.530 Saxton, John 2 background and then just let it go let the model go after that.

00:31:56.670 --> 00:31:59.640 Mike Broderick It's Mike Broderick I have a big picture question.

00:31:59.610 --> 00:32:00.040 Saxton, John Sure.

00:32:00.380 --> 00:32:02.040 Mike Broderick I'm not a hydrologist.

00:32:03.530 --> 00:32:16.540 Mike Broderick My ignorance of it is I'm reminded of my ignorance every time I attend a meeting like this. But I think I've I want I've summarized what I think your your big picture findings weren't just a couple of sentences and I'd like you to tell me if this is accurate. There's a big picture.

00:32:16.030 --> 00:32:16.350 Saxton, John Sure.

00:32:17.350 --> 00:32:35.350 Mike Broderick You looked at what was provided to you and you had 2 concerns about it. One was the figures used for hydraulic hydraulic conductivity, you felt I used to have a value and secondly. There's 2 trenches, and you use the you know 2 sources of?

00:32:36.020 --> 00:32:57.120 Mike Broderick Material of contamination and you felt that the the initial work, they've been done didn't really adequately treat them as 2 sources, particularly for the area in between. And because of that. You did some various calculations and found that we won't meet the objective within the prime frame is that on the very largest level is that accurate.

00:32:57.530 --> 00:32:58.270 Saxton, John Ah yes.

00:32:59.370 --> 00:33:00.300 Mike Broderick Appreciate it thank you.

00:33:01.920 --> 00:33:10.160 Hesemann, John Well, I think I don't think so because the 2 trenches are groundwater extraction trenches. They're not they're not the source of.

00:33:10.760 --> 00:33:11.600 Hesemann, John Examination.

00:33:12.380 --> 00:33:17.580 Hesemann, John The trenches that are the source of contamination or the 4 or 5 on the very South end.

00:33:18.280 --> 00:33:18.920 Hesemann, John I I think.

00:33:21.080 --> 00:33:25.130 Saxton, John Right the trenches trenches are down here and just.

00:33:21.130 --> 00:33:21.480 Hesemann, John I think.

00:33:23.500 --> 00:33:26.780 Hesemann, John Those are the sources, the 2 up, yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

00:33:26.200 --> 00:33:31.160 Saxton, John The 2 yeah. No, you're right the the 2 trenches that we're looking for and is.

00:33:31.940 --> 00:33:41.690 Saxton, John Uh remediation infrastructure are these 2 here but what happens is you have draw down on this one and draw down on this one. You're going to get a saddle in between them.

00:33:42.350 --> 00:33:59.450 Saxton, John And that was the concern is that this has zero velocity. You know you can talk it as a saddle or divide or

stagnation point or you know, I'm my concern was OK. We're going to have some sort of divide here where the last city of groundwater is zero.

00:34:00.720 --> 00:34:03.330 Saxton, John And I know that you're planning on.

00:34:04.560 --> 00:34:06.130 Saxton, John How altering the?

00:34:06.770 --> 00:34:37.820 Saxton, John Uh extraction rates, but again, I think you're going to be limited in how much you can extract from one or the other and I if I obviously I didn't do that because you know, I I'm not trying to design thing. I'm just trying to get a reasonable assurance that this is can meet the objectives that you state, it and I'm just saying right now based on this preliminary information, which again you know, I think I gotta find to it, and Jeff can give me some numbers that he has.

00:34:37.900 --> 00:34:46.930 Saxton, John As far as the source term. I'll try to incorporate everything I can, but you know this is this is just like I say it's it's trying to fit the data.

00:34:47.700 --> 00:34:54.560 Saxton, John You know, and there's assumption about the source term, which you know again. It's going to be an unknown, but I think I was fairly.

00:34:55.640 --> 00:35:05.100 Saxton, John Fairly conservative about you know the source term was only like I say when it was first installed and then took it out in 80s.

00:35:08.980 --> 00:35:16.360 J. Paul Davis This is probably because I I just wanna clarify one thing when you put together your model for the remediation.

00:35:17.240 --> 00:35:21.520 J. Paul Davis Did you were were both of the remediation trenches?

00:35:22.540 --> 00:35:28.100 J. Paul Davis Extraction trenches or was one of them in an injection trenchant and one was an extraction trench.

00:35:28.870 --> 00:35:38.470 Saxton, John

No, I just followed what you guys had put in that this. This wasn't extraction trench at, I think was 7 gallons a minute. This wasn't exactly extraction trench 7 gallons a minute.

00:35:39.050 --> 00:35:42.650 Saxton, John This was an injection this one down by the old pits.

00:35:43.270 --> 00:35:50.510 Saxton, John Was in that direction well? I think 10 gallons a minute. This was injection at 4:00 gallons a minute and this was an objection at 4:00 gallons a minute.

00:35:51.140 --> 00:36:00.260 Saxton, John And I forgot what these are 24 gallons a minute. I think it was the first well and the second one. I just I just followed what you had proposed in your mediation scheme.

00:36:00.820 --> 00:36:05.630 Smith, James Hey John Paul Davis is with the state of Oklahoma So so.

00:36:00.990 --> 00:36:01.510 Hesemann, John Yeah, that's 00:36:04.100 --> 00:36:05.150 Saxton, John Oh, I'm sorry.

00:36:06.810 --> 00:36:09.400 Smith, James I don't think he had anything to do with designing it but.

00:36:09.890 --> 00:36:10.390 J. Paul Davis Yeah.

00:36:10.660 --> 00:36:11.910 Saxton, John Sorry about that I didn't.

00:36:11.560 --> 00:36:13.150 J. Paul Davis Hope I wasn't speaking out of turn here.

00:36:13.480 --> 00:36:36.250 Saxton, John Oh no no, I I'll do this for information. I you know, I I you know, my I'm not trying to say that it's not going to work. I'm just saying I tried to set it up and I each time I did a simulation. I came to the same

thing where this is kind of one extreme or the other one. There's this little area. It's a little bit smaller and I don't have the actual number you know if it was.

00:36:15.410 --> 00:36:15.650 J. Paul Davis Hey.

00:36:37.070 --> 00:36:50.430 Saxton, John You know 181, you know again. I don't know how how you know, I'd I'd say that's within experimental error. But if it's you know the top near 1000. Still, I would be more concerned.

00:36:51.760 --> 00:36:54.530 Saxton, John You know being the release criteria of 180.

00:36:55.390 --> 00:37:01.530 Saxton, John So I didn't I haven't looked at that in depth. I'm I only simulations that I did.

00:37:02.370 --> 00:37:05.850 Saxton, John You know again so they all ended up with.

00:37:06.580 --> 00:37:12.320 Saxton, John This right in the middle of these 2 was where it didn't meet the release criteria based on this color scheme.

00:37:15.960 --> 00:37:16.800 Saxton, John Does that answer?

00:37:16.320 --> 00:37:17.050 David Cates John what?

00:37:17.470 --> 00:37:17.770 Saxton, John Yep.

00:37:18.360 --> 00:37:18.890 David Cates Oh. Sorry.

00:37:18.660 --> 00:37:18.960 Saxton, John Great.

00:37:20.430 --> 00:37:24.130 David Cates Thrown in what model, he mentioned it, but I I missed it.

00:37:24.220 --> 00:37:28.430 Saxton, John Oh. Sorry it's called a Modflow Usg.

00:37:29.100 --> 00:37:41.880 Saxton, John It's it's my my flow hyphen. Usg it's actually one of the newer versions. They have its with the call and then structured grid model and basically.

00:37:42.670 --> 00:37:54.630 Saxton, John What this does definitely it you cannot see all these cells or not a rectangular cells grid it? It has this running or a type grid and I can focus and that's the reason why I can focus.

00:37:48.360 --> 00:37:48.880 David Cates Right.

00:37:55.420 --> 00:38:02.240 Saxton, John The cells to where I wanna look at it, so it it eliminated lot overhead. The second thing is.

00:37:58.550 --> 00:37:58.840 David Cates Right.

00:38:02.960 --> 00:38:04.660 Saxton, John It allowed me to actually.

00:38:05.460 --> 00:38:05.920 Saxton, John This.

00:38:07.370 --> 00:38:23.000 Saxton, John Was groundwater migrating and went to the edge of its layer and we're a pinched out. It actually took it out of the role model. There's no really layered 7 over in this magenta area, so this cell here was connected to this cell.

00:38:24.020 --> 00:38:24.960 Saxton, John In the layer one.

00:38:26.730 --> 00:38:32.790 Saxton, John So it's it's a lot better to do this type of analysis because I got these connected directly.

00:38:34.500 --> 00:38:40.390 Saxton, John So that's why you know it. It actually is a pretty good modeling software that it's the new update on.

00:38:41.420 --> 00:38:44.830 David Cates In its numerical it's not analytical.

00:38:43.870 --> 00:38:44.460 Saxton, John Yes.

00:38:45.250 --> 00:38:46.110 Saxton, John Yes, it is.

00:38:45.540 --> 00:38:46.190 David Cates And then what?

00:38:47.010 --> 00:38:48.630 David Cates What about the fate and transport?

00:38:49.720 --> 00:39:12.100 Saxton, John The version I use on usg. It's actually the same. It's the same it. They basically there's 2 versions. One is from USGS directly, but in that doesn't have the fate and transport and the other one is from actually the the people that developed the GUI 's for for the The Modflow ground vistas and GMs.

00:38:54.090 --> 00:38:54.530 David Cates OK.

00:39:12.860 --> 00:39:20.900 Saxton, John And that they used to call it a beta version, but it's actually incorporate straightened fate and transport as well and so.

00:39:22.800 --> 00:39:30.600 Saxton, John It it was easy I didn't have to do any linkage or anything else, it, it allowed me just to kind of just.

00:39:31.160 --> 00:39:32.460 Saxton, John Go from that flow model.

00:39:33.560 --> 00:39:40.300 Saxton, John To this one thing I did do, though I did have to. I did want to be pretty careful about the.

00:39:41.060 --> 00:39:55.170 Saxton, John Aquifer bottom so I you know got your contours that you had from like one of your previous studies and I looked at some of your wells in the area. So I made sure that the bottoms. Actually, pretty are pretty accurate, so I think the geometry of the model is pretty good.

00:39:58.210 --> 00:39:59.200 Saxton, John It goes.

00:39:58.640 --> 00:39:59.000 Lux, Jeff J Hey.

00:40:00.080 --> 00:40:03.850 David Cates Junior band Reconditions, I didn't hear that either.

00:40:01.420 --> 00:40:01.880 Lux, Jeff J Done.

00:40:04.050 --> 00:40:04.850 Saxton, John No, I didn't go in.

00:40:04.780 --> 00:40:05.450 David Cates Did you mention?

00:40:06.580 --> 00:40:08.580 Saxton, John Well, I don't know if I have that.

00:40:16.830 --> 00:40:22.800 Lux, Jeff J While you're looking for that. Let me just interrupt for a minute and and uh tell Paul that he still has his hand up.

00:40:23.200 --> 00:40:24.320 Saxton, John Oh, I didn't.

00:40:23.660 --> 00:40:29.220 Lux, Jeff J Yeah, and is in and his camera on so I can see him drinking at Margarita and.

00:40:24.040 --> 00:40:24.820 J. Paul Davis Oh, right.

00:40:29.970 --> 00:40:31.460 Saxton, John It's it's early there isn't it?

00:40:32.260 --> 00:40:39.160 Lux, Jeff J Yeah, and also I I do have a question because we would like to be able to dive into your model with you and.

00:40:32.750 --> 00:40:33.200 J. Paul Davis There we go.

00:40:40.190 --> 00:40:46.930 Lux, Jeff J Would we be able to get the input files if we want to have a technical discussion with you about the model.

00:40:47.110 --> 00:40:49.260 Saxton, John Sure, I don't I don't see any problem.

00:40:48.450 --> 00:40:54.090 Lux, Jeff J Can we have that technical discussion outside of a public meeting or is that another public meeting and?

00:40:54.640 --> 00:41:05.030 Lux, Jeff J Uh you know, we have expressed internally among our project team concerns about the area that is between the 2 extraction trenches.

00:41:05.690 --> 00:41:06.230 Lux, Jeff J Uhm.

00:41:06.970 --> 00:41:07.600 Lux, Jeff J And.

00:41:08.180 --> 00:41:10.050 Saxton, John You know, I have.

00:41:08.540 --> 00:41:10.150 Lux, Jeff J Uh we use the?

00:41:11.330 --> 00:41:11.910 Saxton, John So go ahead.

00:41:12.430 --> 00:41:19.540 Lux, Jeff J No, we did not really determine our duration remediation from North groundwater flow model, so this is a different.

00:41:20.240 --> 00:41:35.380 Lux, Jeff J A different approach and I think I would I would like for us to be able to say, Oh, so how did we come up with 150 because it wasn't it wasn't determined that same by you know based on the groundwater flow model.

00:41:35.930 --> 00:41:36.540 Lux, Jeff J Uhm.

00:41:37.820 --> 00:41:44.910 Lux, Jeff J John has actually prepared a presentation that we'd like to be able to do this afternoon before we conclude this meeting but.

00:41:47.240 --> 00:41:53.330 Lux, Jeff J As long as we can you know dive into this little deeper within the next couple weeks?

00:41:53.960 --> 00:41:54.510 Lux, Jeff J Uh.

00:41:55.680 --> 00:42:01.980 Lux, Jeff J I just wanted to say we, we'd like to have the opportunity to do that. And with that. You can go ahead and John that's all I wanted to get in.

00:42:02.520 --> 00:42:08.220 Saxton, John OK, no, I you know, I have no problem with that. I think we have to go through you know, I have to go through gym and you know it.

00:42:07.450 --> 00:42:10.820 Smith, James Yeah, we would have to to if any kind of.

00:42:12.050 --> 00:42:19.740 Smith, James Any kind of meeting where we're not just sharing ideas and not making decisions you know if it's just asking for clarification.

00:42:21.050 --> 00:42:30.250 Smith, James Those can happen without a public meeting, but in any place and especially like this so we're showing you the model that we use that causes your the problem.

00:42:30.800 --> 00:42:54.220 Smith, James Uhm you know whether you choose to use that that somebody 's gonna have to be done in a public forum. So it's only 10 days so you telling me that you want to meeting and 10 days is one week or 101 work week, plus another 3 days on the other end. So it's not that hard to develop that public meeting for one of these things.

00:42:55.400 --> 00:42:58.960 Smith, James It's just that we have to have it in 10 days advance notice.

00:43:02.090 --> 00:43:05.620 Saxton, John And Jeff just answer your question that you know again and probably can.

00:43:06.940 --> 00:43:07.640 Saxton, John Uh you know.

00:43:08.670 --> 00:43:36.020 Saxton, John Uh once you know if I if I give you the input files that's fine. But I you know it's yours. Then you gotta own it, and I I would just do it to facilitate you setting something up. But I you can't come back and say OK and RC predicted this 'cause that's not that's not what I want to do. I just my purpose was just calc verify your information. I didn't want to develop a model to say. This is how it's going to migrate to the river so I I kind of focused on.

00:43:36.810 --> 00:43:54.910 Saxton, John

You know my concerns about that, capturing between it but I have no problem in you know if it's OK with our legal people and Jeff. I you know, or Jim. I don't you know, I I I see. Yeah, why not? You know it.

Anyhow just for your I. I think you want to get into this but this is.

00:43:56.150 --> 00:44:06.280 Saxton, John Your your model that you provided for the VA. One area was actually pretty similar to this area and what I did was basically.

00:44:07.200 --> 00:44:10.650 Saxton, John The model boundaries for this model was this teal color.

00:44:11.600 --> 00:44:28.520 Saxton, John I didn't included this drainage because I I wanted to use the ground surface as one of the bounding conditions. You can't have water table going above the water table and then these other things are your remediation features and basically all these all I did was created in art GIS shapefile.

00:44:29.460 --> 00:44:38.200 Saxton, John Then I brought it into this program called algo mesh and based on those. I just it developed it pretty simply you know it's pretty fast.

00:44:39.520 --> 00:45:06.870 Saxton, John And then also the next step was yeah, where's the alluvial? Where's not you over in this area. You know, we may disagree? Which how what's the extent of Louisville and you know, I could I could change that.

But it's a little bit more work to change that. But I mean that's those are just things I I you know if you I want to be reasonable and you know if it comes down to it that you know that does me 250 days. It's fine and that's what I write in the SCR eventually.

00:45:07.850 --> 00:45:12.140 Saxton, John Uh we go through this real quick this is the layering scheme. I just did.

00:45:12.950 --> 00:45:29.290 Saxton, John I just did horizontal layers and our interest areas. This one, so it's it's a lab in Layer 3 of them are in the alluvial and the other ones are in the bedrock. So basically that's that's it's a simplified model in you know.

00:45:30.580 --> 00:45:31.160 Saxton, John Would I 00:45:33.220 --> 00:45:44.860 Saxton, John

I just wanna this is just the bottom of the alluvial aquifer so again. The higher points were up here in your trenches and then it, it decreased and went out to the river.

00:45:46.260 --> 00:45:57.070 Saxton, John You know that that that's basically the model, it was pretty simple to set up and it was no time it. The problem was calibrating. The fate and transport it specially with the noise and you know.

00:45:57.710 --> 00:46:06.310 Saxton, John Ah, you know again, you know a lot of this is scatter. Now, if I included higher concentrations in the source area.

00:46:07.070 --> 00:46:32.710 Saxton, John This one will be the most affected by it. So this will this one. This well, 1315 is the key one for the early time and then the late time are these other ones. But as you can see, there's a lot of scatter so again.

The point that I was trying to do is try to minimize it. This is a weird one because it's above what you observed so you know, I'd like to. I try to kind of.

00:46:33.780 --> 00:46:51.280 Saxton, John Be conservative or at least get realistic number and and go if there's a lot of scatter use the low end of the range rather than going in high end so I tried to be fair and all of this and but each time it came to the same sort of conclusion that the saddle was the problem area.

00:46:58.220 --> 00:46:59.570 Saxton, John Any other questions.

00:47:00.270 --> 00:47:05.000 J. Paul Davis So you have your you're concerned about a saddle point between the 2 extraction trenches.

00:47:05.140 --> 00:47:05.600 Saxton, John Yes.

00:47:08.190 --> 00:47:08.640 J. Paul Davis OK.

00:47:11.410 --> 00:47:12.120 J. Paul Davis Ah.

00:47:11.640 --> 00:47:12.260 Hesemann, John Yeah, yeah.

00:47:14.390 --> 00:47:15.150 Hesemann, John Sorry go ahead Paul.

00:47:14.650 --> 00:47:14.910 Saxton, John Yes.

00:47:15.840 --> 00:47:16.560 J. Paul Davis Yeah, go ahead.

00:47:18.620 --> 00:47:30.470 Hesemann, John I was just gonna say like like, John said. Our intent was to very extraction rates and optimize the system based on data. We collect during full scale operations.

00:47:31.530 --> 00:47:41.520 Hesemann, John And and also based on data. We have the the majority of the uranium if not, you know, essentially all of it is within that.

00:47:42.420 --> 00:47:52.750 Hesemann, John San channel body that that we outlined in the the SS evaluation or identified in the SS evaluation, so that's that's the intent is to?

00:47:52.800 --> 00:47:56.790 Hesemann, John You UM recover groundwater from that zone.

00:47:57.640 --> 00:48:00.280 Hesemann, John And you know.

00:48:01.160 --> 00:48:05.600 Hesemann, John Expedite remediation by focusing on that, so that that was the intent.

00:48:01.420 --> 00:48:01.690 Saxton, John Yeah.

00:48:04.360 --> 00:48:04.690 Saxton, John It.

00:48:05.990 --> 00:48:10.660 Saxton, John No and I I agree with you know, I mean, your first design was basically.

00:48:11.600 --> 00:48:17.340 Saxton, John You know flushing it from the bedrock and pushing it to that one well on the east side of the plume.

00:48:18.400 --> 00:48:25.700 Saxton, John But with the lower hydraulic conductivity, and the heterogeneities you know that's not going to work out so well.

00:48:26.800 --> 00:48:33.620 Saxton, John With his other trench basically some of the simulations basically indicated in I didn't do a mod path type of analysis, but 00:48:34.450 --> 00:48:36.010 Saxton, John the injection actually.

00:48:36.640 --> 00:48:42.640 Saxton, John Went to that trench and it was capturing a lot of the injection at the expense of the saddle just to let you know.

00:48:43.290 --> 00:48:46.410 Saxton, John So it it really you know, there is you know.

00:48:47.320 --> 00:48:58.290 Saxton, John Design considerations and I understand what you did, and you know, I you know, I personally I I wouldn't know how to design it any better unless I did a model like this so I understand what you did is just.

00:48:59.000 --> 00:49:08.490 Saxton, John I the input mate implementation part of it is what concerns me and whether or not. This can be cleaned up in 150 month so that's that's where I was headed.

00:49:10.070 --> 00:49:21.020 Hesemann, John Yeah, I think in general, we need to, we need to look at what you've done and digest it. There's a lot.

There obviously and all the input parameters and everything like we've talked about are very important and.

00:49:21.930 --> 00:49:23.880 Hesemann, John And I just that and and.

00:49:24.920 --> 00:49:31.820 Saxton, John And if I can make it available. That's fine with me and but there is a couple of steps that I had to do in between for instance, like.

00:49:33.450 --> 00:49:39.150 Saxton, John Normally, what you do, I had. I had set up 3 simulations basically the first one was to.

00:49:40.110 --> 00:49:40.690 Saxton, John Uhm.

00:49:41.720 --> 00:49:42.740 Saxton, John God I can't remember now.

00:49:43.400 --> 00:49:48.000 Saxton, John The first all uh before it was excavated.

00:49:48.690 --> 00:49:57.550 Saxton, John And then when it was excavated. I had to change the properties because a I took out all all the concentrations in that.

00:49:58.180 --> 00:50:02.870 Saxton, John Ah, in that in the pits so that's that was excavated.

00:50:03.940 --> 00:50:19.200 Saxton, John Then, for a while, there, it was just an open so you had you had basically surface water that was ponding in there, causing amount. But it you know it didn't have any contamination it, but it spread the contamination and then finally after that is, you backfilled it.

00:50:19.850 --> 00:50:21.670 Saxton, John And then from after backfilled it.

00:50:22.460 --> 00:50:31.920 Saxton, John You know want to whatever I'd picked November first 2017. I don't know you know it may not be the most appropriate they but that's the date I I picked.

00:50:32.680 --> 00:50:33.780 Saxton, John

'cause then after that.

00:50:34.750 --> 00:50:41.210 Saxton, John When after I got to that point that's where I said, OK, I'm going to match your isopleth that you had.

00:50:41.950 --> 00:50:55.800 Saxton, John And looked at all the curves as you as you saw some of my curves, then go all the way to you know you, you still got some samples after that there is a little squirrelly thing that's going on because of your the bio remediation or bio.

00:50:56.870 --> 00:51:01.960 Saxton, John Uh activity after after the trenches were put in but you know.

00:51:03.120 --> 00:51:30.070 Saxton, John That 3rd simulation what I did then was put the trenches in and all I did was operated from. I think I I had a period like 5 years and then 1000, 2023 start, it for 150 months. So basically that's that's all I did, but to get it set up I have to kind of explain it to you and Young. It's just Excel Street. So it'll be easier for me to explain it to your model or if that's the case.

00:51:34.080 --> 00:51:36.860 J. Paul Davis John this is probably missing 4 year.

00:51:37.350 --> 00:51:38.120 J. Paul Davis Uh.

00:51:38.980 --> 00:51:49.620 J. Paul Davis One part of your calibration was did that include when the actual uranium trenches. The original burial area. One trenches that were actually removed in.

00:51:50.400 --> 00:51:52.630 J. Paul Davis Oh, Gosh was it in the 90s.

00:51:52.920 --> 00:52:02.350 Saxton, John Yes, it actually maybe I don't happen to listen. Uh I started with 1966 and it filled.

00:52:00.960 --> 00:52:01.360 J. Paul Davis K.

00:52:03.010 --> 00:52:06.710 Saxton, John Did they fill them in capital and I think 97 or 70s?

00:52:07.330 --> 00:52:09.190 Saxton, John Is that correct or something that thereabouts?

00:52:10.200 --> 00:52:11.870 Saxton, John And I was just getting this information.

00:52:10.880 --> 00:52:12.120 Lux, Jeff J That's correct that's correct.

00:52:12.990 --> 00:52:24.610 Saxton, John And then from 70s to 8585 was the first time he's detected something but then in 88, is when they first were excavated and they were left open till 93. I think is that correct.

00:52:26.750 --> 00:52:31.140 Saxton, John And and and so the model took each one of those.

00:52:27.250 --> 00:52:27.980 Lux, Jeff J Yeah, that's right.

00:52:32.800 --> 00:52:54.350 Saxton, John Uh and they had a stress period or like I say I said set up 2 different stimulations because I couldn't you there's a there's a limited. I could use a transient conditions. There's there is uh that but it doesn't. The initial concentrations. What happened is if I have a source term and I let it go to the end.

00:52:55.290 --> 00:53:11.320 Saxton, John That source term even if I took the source term out there was some residual contamination. If I left the material and and in fact, basically if I let the model go without any remediation. Amit there's there's a lot worse than it is now.

00:53:11.370 --> 00:53:17.530 Saxton, John Well then that's Neil and I mean that's kind of just saying, you don't need a model to predict that.

00:53:18.610 --> 00:53:27.470 Saxton, John But anyhow yes, I did, I I went from the start and try to and the reason why I wanted to do that is 'cause I didn't want to just pick.

00:53:28.950 --> 00:53:29.520 Saxton, John Ah.

00:53:30.500 --> 00:53:36.080 Saxton, John AKD or I don't want to pick an isotherm just say, well, I think it's going to be this.

00:53:36.730 --> 00:53:47.060 Saxton, John Well, I tried to do was say OK on these flow rates because the hydraulic. Conductivity is and I matched it to, I guess I should have explained this, I matched the.

00:53:47.110 --> 00:54:02.300 Saxton, John He took the water levels to a set of water levels for you know a couple different days. Based on the river. The river was a boundary condition. I'd ensure that explain that the river was a boundary condition and so I.

00:54:03.050 --> 00:54:04.250 Saxton, John A matched all.

00:54:04.960 --> 00:54:05.460 Saxton, John Yeah.

00:54:06.140 --> 00:54:10.670 Saxton, John Uh you know fancy had 3 wells.

00:54:11.400 --> 00:54:23.140 Saxton, John The hardest one was Samsung baby because of the purge conditions and that was the most difficult one, and then the transition zone and alluvial aquifer so it matched the water levels to that and then once you get the.

00:54:23.920 --> 00:54:26.020 Saxton, John The flow velocities.

00:54:26.720 --> 00:54:50.180 Saxton, John Then you can calibrate your fate and transport by saying OK if it started here. I ended up here at in the alluvial aquifer but it got to go through these fate and transport as it went down the road. So it basically you ended up calibrating model better. That way because the fate and transport parameters are based on historical data and so that's once I did that.

00:54:50.760 --> 00:54:55.900 Saxton, John Then I use the same numbers going forward, so that's that's what it did is not shell.

00:55:02.700 --> 00:55:03.310 Saxton, John And the other.

00:55:02.720 --> 00:55:07.180 Smith, James Well, I I've got some OG C on the line.

00:55:07.890 --> 00:55:18.900 Smith, James And I I guess before we provide the model and go into further discussion. I guess we ought to get some input if if they're able to.

00:55:18.100 --> 00:55:18.730 Saxton, John Uh.

00:55:19.970 --> 00:55:31.200 Saxton, John I think we probably should talk offline first. I mean, I personally you know, we don't do this normally. I I'll be honest with you. We don't do this at all, and any model. We do you know it? I'll 00:55:22.230 --> 00:55:22.610 Smith, James Yeah.

00:55:25.670 --> 00:55:26.130 Smith, James Yeah.

00:55:32.330 --> 00:55:37.830 Saxton, John I I put it with the CRS and I documented what I did in the SCR 's but I don't provide it to the Licensee.

00:55:38.510 --> 00:55:42.910 Saxton, John Early on, so, so basically that's our normal practice and if it you know I.

00:55:38.790 --> 00:55:39.170 Smith, James Yeah.

00:55:43.620 --> 00:55:44.680 Saxton, John Yeah, I.

00:55:45.460 --> 00:55:47.920 Saxton, John You know again, I'm I'm just saying out of.

00:55:48.730 --> 00:55:49.750 Saxton, John I don't you know.

00:55:50.700 --> 00:56:09.290 Saxton, John If I write this up and I make it public you know it's it's you know, I'm talking about text files for all the input files and that's that's basically where I would head and say OK. Here's the here's here's the calibration data here is the input files all text files you know.

00:56:09.980 --> 00:56:17.870 Saxton, John Uh you could regenerate this you know pretty easily. But that's when I but it's only after the right in the SCR.

00:56:19.500 --> 00:56:21.040 Saxton, John Normally, we don't provide.

00:56:22.020 --> 00:56:24.200 Saxton, John A model that we developed because basically.

00:56:25.990 --> 00:56:34.230 Saxton, John We don't we're not assuming any liability or on the on the model for sale. You know, I again, I that's just what are?

00:56:35.060 --> 00:56:36.200 Saxton, John Common practices so.

00:56:36.910 --> 00:56:42.800 Saxton, John I don't know if we're going to be able to do that. But you know, and I will give him will question will ask him and see what happens but.

00:56:42.870 --> 00:56:46.430 Smith, James Yeah, I mean, we'll ask him because we are in a UM.

00:56:47.910 --> 00:56:53.490 Smith, James Keep calling in the Unicorn position with this site and that we do have responsibility in approving.

00:56:54.230 --> 00:56:56.640 Smith, James The budget and scope of work for the year.

00:56:57.430 --> 00:56:57.730 Saxton, John Yeah.

00:56:58.450 --> 00:56:59.420 Smith, James And we are.

00:57:00.320 --> 00:57:07.920 Smith, James In a way responsible for trying to get this site to be releasable within the amount of money that's remaining in the trust.

00:57:09.940 --> 00:57:16.560 Smith, James I don't wanna authorize a boondoggle if we have some knowledge that we could provide that would.

00:57:18.070 --> 00:57:24.510 Smith, James Tell them where the rock was what color it was what kind of beats you could look at for it what tide?

00:57:25.670 --> 00:57:37.340 Saxton, John Yep, no and like I say this is still preliminary and if I was to finish finalize this. I would actually look at the variability in the and meat and matching all the.

00:57:37.910 --> 00:57:57.100 Saxton, John Well water quality information, I'll probably do a pest analysis just to make sure that it's the best way I would probably do the deterministic one where it actually shows that there's some low levels above background in the alluvial almost all the way to the.

00:57:58.080 --> 00:58:15.250 Saxton, John River Ah, but I would document that all of that in in the in the SCR so you know. Eventually it's going to be, but you know, I'm I'm not here to help design it or anything. I'm just saying that you know, I just trying to see if this is a doable.

00:58:16.250 --> 00:58:23.860 Saxton, John Uh remediation scheme as it is, and I'm just saying that I'm having some concerns. But if you can provide Jeff.

00:58:24.780 --> 00:58:31.030 Saxton, John Water levels at that one well 'cause I think that's the one thing I didn't wasn't able to.

00:58:31.820 --> 00:58:36.320 Saxton, John Determining 'cause I think be quite honest to looking at that is uh.

00:58:37.750 --> 00:58:52.410 Saxton, John One thing I didn't include in all this model was the evapo transpiration and the variability of Apple transpiration and I you know if you have a little sink in that area because of it. Apple transpiration you know that may affect what actual.

00:58:53.370 --> 00:59:00.370 Saxton, John Retardation factor is and then you know when you do it in future where there's no dapl transpiration.

It's going to change.

00:59:00.960 --> 00:59:08.000 Saxton, John So basically if I but, I that that's going to be all speculation unless I have real data that I can try to Mac so.

00:59:10.150 --> 00:59:15.510 Lux, Jeff J Yeah, and from from our perspective, I want to make clear.

00:59:16.630 --> 00:59:21.050 Lux, Jeff J We just don't want to be in a position where.

00:59:21.730 --> 00:59:31.540 Lux, Jeff J Uh I mean, I see your I see your concern regarding the area between the 2 extraction trenches. We've discussed that among ourselves.

00:59:34.180 --> 00:59:35.000 Lux, Jeff J But I feel like.

00:59:36.310 --> 00:59:39.150 Lux, Jeff J We we've gotta have sufficient.

00:59:40.000 --> 00:59:42.910 Lux, Jeff J A technical understanding of.

00:59:43.570 --> 00:59:44.990 Lux, Jeff J What the NRC?

00:59:45.600 --> 00:59:52.880 Lux, Jeff J Is doing or how they are? What would causes them to express this concern because the truth is?

00:59:53.560 --> 00:59:54.130 Lux, Jeff J Uh.

00:59:55.090 --> 01:00:01.530 Lux, Jeff J Outside and saying hey, please address the area between the 2 trenches were kind of stuck if.

01:00:02.090 --> 01:00:11.270 Lux, Jeff J Now we're in a position where we say, well, we, we think we have incorporated a B&C into the models such that the 150 months is actually conservative.

01:00:11.860 --> 01:00:23.980 Lux, Jeff J But it doesn't mean anything if the NRC says well we have concerns. So we, we can't approve your planning 'cause. We have concerns. We really have to be able to digest the technical basis for the concern.

01:00:24.410 --> 01:00:24.920 Lux, Jeff J Uhm.

01:00:25.560 --> 01:00:30.070 Lux, Jeff J That's why you know that's why we're asking for things like the the inputs to the model.

01:00:31.870 --> 01:00:39.800 Lux, Jeff J Also, because we use different some different methodology and I think we have probably some different understanding of.

01:00:40.890 --> 01:00:43.600 Lux, Jeff J The importance of that sand burying.

01:00:44.660 --> 01:00:57.450 Lux, Jeff J Blob in in Barillari 1:00 in the transition zone. I I think it would be very worthwhile or John to be able to put up a few slides that depict.

01:00:58.900 --> 01:01:05.580 Lux, Jeff J Uhm that area and the basis you know how we went about calculating the duration of remediation.

01:01:06.570 --> 01:01:13.760 Lux, Jeff J So that you have an understanding of what we did, and we wind up with us. Having a good handle on what you did, you have a good handle on what we did?

01:01:14.320 --> 01:01:14.980 Saxton, John II 01:01:14.330 --> 01:01:17.560 Smith, James OK, we got 2 different John speaking, which one were you.

01:01:14.400 --> 01:01:14.840 Lux, Jeff J Uhm.

01:01:16.770 --> 01:01:17.520 Saxton, John No, I agree.

01:01:18.470 --> 01:01:45.660 Saxton, John I I agree that you know, I like to see what you have so that you know, I'm you know understand what you did. I'm just saying the way that it's presented is that we're going to do it based on operational and you know again. I think you're going to be limited to about how much you can extract from each one of these wells, so you're you can't pump. You know 14 gallons a minute from one of the wells so there's only a limited amount you can do so by I'm.

01:01:46.390 --> 01:01:55.780 Saxton, John But let me just think make another point. Whatever you present here. We have to include in the in the presentation right up for this right def jam.

01:01:56.220 --> 01:01:56.640 Smith, James Yeah.

01:01:57.210 --> 01:01:57.590 Saxton, John So.

01:01:57.270 --> 01:01:58.190 Lux, Jeff J Yeah, that that's

01:01:57.930 --> 01:02:00.350 Smith, James Let's being transcribed right now, so.

01:02:01.930 --> 01:02:02.270 Smith, James I'm 01:02:03.910 --> 01:02:09.970 Smith, James I'm sure that the state people and those of us from the NRC would love to hear.

01:02:12.330 --> 01:02:17.710 Lux, Jeff J John John John Hussman would you mind would you mind running through?

01:02:12.520 --> 01:02:12.970 Smith, James I guess.

01:02:15.380 --> 01:02:15.910 Smith, James Yeah.

01:02:18.200 --> 01:02:25.930 Lux, Jeff J Uh that portion of the presentation put together that addresses the distribution of uranium in the.

01:02:26.680 --> 01:02:31.720 Lux, Jeff J In the transition zone materials and the basis for the duration of remediation calculations.

01:02:32.960 --> 01:02:34.540 Hesemann, John Yeah, sure can can you hear me?

01:02:35.360 --> 01:02:36.180 Smith, James Yes, we can.

01:02:35.530 --> 01:02:35.860 Saxton, John Yep.

01:02:35.570 --> 01:02:35.970 Lux, Jeff J Yeah.

01:02:36.240 --> 01:02:36.820 J. Paul Davis Sure can.

01:02:36.590 --> 01:02:38.780 Hesemann, John OK. Let me share my screen here.

01:02:41.270 --> 01:02:43.180 Hesemann, John And if someone would tell me.

01:02:43.950 --> 01:02:45.610 Hesemann, John If and when they can see it.

01:02:45.760 --> 01:02:46.310 J. Paul Davis There we go.

01:02:46.010 --> 01:02:46.210 Smith, James Hi.

01:02:46.270 --> 01:02:46.770 Smith, James I can see it.

01:02:47.500 --> 01:02:47.840 Hesemann, John K.

01:02:48.810 --> 01:02:50.410 Hesemann, John Uh alright so.

01:02:50.460 --> 01:02:54.190 Hesemann, John So So what you're looking at here this is Planview.

01:02:54.830 --> 01:03:00.180 Hesemann, John Of a slice horizontal slice through the transition zone that we've been talking about.

01:03:00.760 --> 01:03:02.370 Hesemann, John And this is a uh.

01:03:03.090 --> 01:03:09.770 Hesemann, John EBS Earth Volumetric Studio 3 D visualization model, but this is a 2 D depiction.

01:03:10.430 --> 01:03:22.460 Hesemann, John So we've stripped away all of the sediments other than the interconnected sand channel deposits, which are the most permeable zone within the transition zone. That's the tan.

01:03:23.170 --> 01:03:25.810 Hesemann, John Some body that you see here.

01:03:26.410 --> 01:03:39.370 Hesemann, John Uh and then the The Black the heavy black line is basically the escarpment at the water table elevation, so that's where the transition zone sediments meet the sandstone be.

01:03:34.460 --> 01:03:34.830 J. Paul Davis K.

01:03:39.900 --> 01:03:40.490 Hesemann, John Uhm.

01:03:41.120 --> 01:04:11.230 Hesemann, John Uh formation and then that's what the magenta is the sandstone be so I'll show you in a different view here will be much more well so we right now, it's it's much more apparent what we're talking about so this is looking from the side and you can see the the shape of the kind of the channel channelized sandstone be so that's the channel. That was filled in with sediments. That created the transition zone and then this is a 3 D depiction of those interconnected so different.

01:04:11.280 --> 01:04:31.130 Hesemann, John Points in time there were saying channels formed between these these different these 2 different horizons of of silt and clay and I'll show you those in a minute, but that's really the permeable pathway through here are these interconnected sand channel deposits in this blue surface as the groundwater table.

01:04:31.780 --> 01:04:51.480 Hesemann, John And so, yeah, I'll just show you this here, so again. We're seeing the same thing here in the upper left and on the right. This is showing what we call the upper Gully fill so this is low. Permeability material again in the saturated zone beneath the water table and then this blue here is the lower Gully Phil and then.

01:04:51.760 --> 01:05:00.400 Hesemann, John Uh you can see kind of the the surface here and the surface here and that's what the tan sand body fits into so it's it's like building blocks.

01:05:01.300 --> 01:05:13.700 Hesemann, John Uh so that's and that's based on a lot of data. I mean, you can see all these borings here and we we digitize that data and put it into this 3 D visualization model and and that's what we've got in terms of.

01:05:14.360 --> 01:05:19.210 Hesemann, John A simplified stratigraphy in this transition zone beneath the water table.

01:05:20.800 --> 01:05:50.440 Hesemann, John So then you know, John 's already basically shown this, but this is again planview. The Gray is that's and body at the water table surface so if you go deeper. It's got a different you know footprint. If you go shallower. It's got a deeper footprint. But just at the water table. This is what it looks like and then you can kind of see the I still plus here showing the groundwater contamination. So TMW 9. That's that's a hot spot and then TMW 13 is a hot spot and so the purple line.

01:05:50.540 --> 01:06:18.070 Hesemann, John On this side is the escarpment so this is the boundary between the transition zone sediments and the sandstone formation, but then here. It's the approximate boundary and of course, it's not a a hard line.

It's you know, there's there's ********* that goes on between the transition zone sediments and the alluvium. But it's the boundary approximately between the lower permeability transition zone and the higher permeability. Sandy alluvial aquifer material down gradient.

01:06:19.420 --> 01:06:32.320 Hesemann, John So just conceptually what we did is we well, we installed this trench already like like John said, and did a uh pumping test to pilot test for that and then we installed our we're planning to install another one here too.

01:06:32.830 --> 01:06:49.380 Hesemann, John Uhm maximize inner intersection with this sand body because again that's where we that's one of the uranium is and that's where it's traveling and that's where the groundwater is going to come from and a trench is the most is the best way to do that.

01:06:50.740 --> 01:06:51.940 Hesemann, John So that's those are the.

01:06:53.010 --> 01:06:59.020 Hesemann, John And we're not showing the injection trenches on this one, but we are on this one so these these.

01:07:00.180 --> 01:07:11.820 Hesemann, John We're showing piping on here, too, so it's a little bit busy, but this line here is is the trench. I'd one of the trenches. I just showed this one here is the other one and then these blue these light blue lines or the injection trenches.

01:07:13.530 --> 01:07:25.110 Hesemann, John That would be installed this one was installed during the pilot test and we actually had pretty good flow 10 GPM better than we expected initially so and this was in the sandstone material.

01:07:25.860 --> 01:07:26.520 Hesemann, John Uhm.

01:07:27.250 --> 01:07:28.690 Hesemann, John So that's what that looks like.

01:07:30.570 --> 01:07:56.180 Hesemann, John So what I'm going to show now is you know well what I'm gonna say now is you know what? What we're what the data shows that the uranium is not evenly distributed across those sediments. So if you remember the red. I'm sorry, the green. The blue and the tan as I said they're uranium is really within that that tan those tans sediments that are more permeable and we've got data that show that we've got 204 soil samples, we don't have.

01:07:56.840 --> 01:07:59.060 Hesemann, John Uhm groundwater samples.

01:07:59.940 --> 01:08:14.720 Hesemann, John Discrete groundwater samples from the low permeability zones because it's very difficult to get groundwater out of that material. But we do have 204 soil samples collected from 21 different locations within that transition zone, so we've got a pretty robust data set.

01:08:15.430 --> 01:08:26.920 Hesemann, John And it's going to and I'll show you the results of that just at a high level in a minute. But it's going to show you that the uranium is primarily like I said within those permeable sand channel deposits.

01:08:27.690 --> 01:08:55.400 Hesemann, John

Uhm and so 45 of those, 204 samples came from 10 different borings at but only 45 of them exceeded the background. Uranium concentration of 7. Pico curies program. So pretty small fraction exceeded that but they were distributed out amongst 10 different borings, so still a pretty good amount of spatial variability.

01:08:56.150 --> 01:08:56.830 Hesemann, John Uhm.

01:08:56.410 --> 01:08:56.950 Lux, Jeff J Hey Joe, 01:08:57.780 --> 01:08:58.150 Hesemann, John Yeah.

01:08:58.570 --> 01:09:07.770 Lux, Jeff J it won't let me point out that these 7 people curious background. That's Max background. That's the main background is for that would be Max background.

01:09:00.410 --> 01:09:00.790 Hesemann, John Sure.

01:09:09.960 --> 01:09:10.840 Hesemann, John Yeah, thank you.

01:09:12.380 --> 01:09:25.840 Hesemann, John Uh so of those, 45 that exceeded that only 8 or collected from what we would consider to be low.

Permeability materials so that that upper or lower. Gully fill all the rest of them were collected from the more permeable sandy material.

01:09:26.470 --> 01:09:37.500 Hesemann, John And if you look at that graphically what this shows is numbers of samples starting at above 7 but but 8.9.

01:09:37.850 --> 01:09:50.480 Hesemann, John Uh or less, and then we got different. Concentration ranges in green means it was collected from a high medium or high permeability material so salty sand or or a fine grain sand.

01:09:51.060 --> 01:10:01.420 Hesemann, John And then red means it came from a low permeability material. But even when we collected one from a low permeability material like the there's 3 samples here that are red.

01:10:02.330 --> 01:10:14.380 Hesemann, John One of them was collected at at the base of a of a sand deposit and it actually was described I believe as a shale so we think that was kind of a uh.

01:10:15.100 --> 01:10:20.880 Hesemann, John You know a misnomer and and where the sample was actually collected. It was probably representative of the sandy material.

01:10:21.550 --> 01:10:28.600 Hesemann, John And then these other 2 were actually in zones of mixed clay and sand so again it's almost always.

01:10:28.970 --> 01:10:38.270 Hesemann, John Uhm showing any elevated concentration being in or very near to a sand channel deposit is what we were seeing in the data.

01:10:39.470 --> 01:10:55.530 Lux, Jeff J No, it can't let me insert something here, too, and that is that when when the soil samples were categorized as lower high permeability. If there was a sample that had some sand and some clay or some silt and some.

01:10:41.780 --> 01:10:42.190 Hesemann, John Sure.

01:10:56.440 --> 01:10:57.770 Lux, Jeff J A fan 01:10:58.380 --> 01:10:58.860 Lux, Jeff J uhm.

01:10:59.570 --> 01:11:09.090 Lux, Jeff J The soil was categorized as the lower as in the lower whichever the lower permeability sample was so.

01:11:10.330 --> 01:11:18.790 Lux, Jeff J Most of those red samples are most of the samples represented by the red come from samples collected in a one foot.

01:11:19.660 --> 01:11:25.930 Lux, Jeff J A sample interval that contained both fine grained and coarse grained material.

01:11:27.370 --> 01:11:28.780 Lux, Jeff J Which means if you say all right?

01:11:30.030 --> 01:11:39.010 Lux, Jeff J Which samples only had low permeability material it would actually be as a fraction of those that appear red on this chart.

01:11:45.440 --> 01:11:45.850 Hesemann, John Right.

01:11:48.930 --> 01:11:54.910 Hesemann, John So this is a table from the the transition zone.

01:11:55.570 --> 01:12:17.240 Hesemann, John A sequence stratigraphy analysis that we did, and and basically what this is showing. We we divided the aquifer up into like I just showed the upper Gully fill the sand channel deposits in the Lower Gully, Phil and then we looked at bulk awkward Aqua for volume and based on an assumed effective porosity for these different materials. We calculated the transmissive poor volume.

01:12:17.870 --> 01:12:44.220 Hesemann, John And just what you're what this is showing is that the the sand channel deposits represent only 9% of the bulk Aqua for volume and 16% of the transmissive 4 volumes, so, although we're we're only like John was saying able to pump in individual trench had 7 GPM and and you know, he's expressed some concern that we'd be able to do that for both of them.

01:12:44.880 --> 01:13:00.690 Hesemann, John You know the water is coming from that small fraction of the aquifer and so is the uranium. So it's a It's a relatively you know targeted zone, that we have to extract groundwater from.

01:13:03.300 --> 01:13:12.660 Hesemann, John And I don't think we need to really go through this, too much. John talked already about you know the linear sorption model. We used to calculate.

01:13:12.720 --> 01:13:18.040 Hesemann, John Uhm uh radiation duration and then our our input parameters.

01:13:18.670 --> 01:13:21.980 Hesemann, John Uhm and we already talked about the the.

01:13:23.050 --> 01:13:28.170 Hesemann, John The poor volume being the composer those 3 different units, but 01:13:28.780 --> 01:13:32.520 Hesemann, John if we go to our our calculation here real quick, I can run through this.

01:13:33.710 --> 01:13:35.260 Hesemann, John So this is the retardation.

01:13:35.310 --> 01:13:41.630 Hesemann, John In a term that we calculate based on Katie, which he mentioned we use 3 milliliters per gram.

01:13:42.240 --> 01:13:48.730 Hesemann, John Effective porosity of 11% and then bulk bulk density of the solids.

01:13:49.800 --> 01:14:06.190 Hesemann, John Uh and then we, we used an uh initial concentration of as you can see here almost 3000 micrograms per liter. We're presenting things here and in micrograms per liter or not not pico curies per liter, but 201.

01:14:07.730 --> 01:14:18.270 Hesemann, John Well let me finish explaining this so the the 3000 micrograms per liter that's the highest concentration of any any monitoring well within this zone. That's what we assumed as the initial.

01:14:18.870 --> 01:14:20.510 Hesemann, John Concentration that we're starting with.

01:14:21.100 --> 01:14:28.980 Hesemann, John And then we're remediating down to 201 micrograms per liter that's equivalent to the the goal of 180 picocuries per liter?

01:14:29.900 --> 01:14:41.490 Hesemann, John And then using the linear 's origin model. We come up with a number of poor volumes that we have to exchange in order to get to 101 and that comes out to 136 roughly.

01:14:42.080 --> 01:14:47.360 Hesemann, John And then assuming a flow rate of 14 GPM we get to 149 and change months.

01:14:47.700 --> 01:14:54.560 Hesemann, John Uh so that's how we got to the the 150 months that that we've been talking about.

01:14:56.430 --> 01:15:09.140 Hesemann, John So, in as I mentioned you know the the potential for stagnation between those 2 trenches that that John was talking about. That's something we talked about as well, and you know the idea was we're we're going to look at data.

01:15:09.610 --> 01:15:21.780 Hesemann, John Uhm as soon as we start the system. We're going to start collecting data. We're going to or gonna analyze that data and make adjustments to flow rates, both injection and extraction to optimize the system.

01:15:22.460 --> 01:15:32.070 Hesemann, John Also, John was talking about this. This first extraction well here, capturing groundwater and contamination from the transition zone.

01:15:33.060 --> 01:15:36.320 Hesemann, John We we had in the in the in the D plan.

01:15:37.590 --> 01:16:04.250 Hesemann, John We we addressed concerns or or we addressed potential stagnation between these wells that are out here in the alluvium as well. So this will will not operate at A at a constant rate. It will be altered. That's already part of the plan and and will alter it further based on performance monitoring data so all the things that that were brought up. You know, we're we're cognizant of and we plan to address along the way.

01:16:05.590 --> 01:16:16.650 Hesemann, John You know, I I think we would definitely like to digest. What John has prepared and presented and provide a response to those concerns.

01:16:17.000 --> 01:16:25.560 Hesemann, John Uh and we're not prepared to provide that response today, obviously, but would like to have an opportunity to do that so.

01:16:25.610 --> 01:16:29.520 Hesemann, John Uhm anyway that's pretty much a.

01:16:30.520 --> 01:16:35.320 Hesemann, John What we came up with I guess? Yeah, I had to cut a few assumptions and limitations?

01:16:36.650 --> 01:16:59.040 Hesemann, John So you know the the estimated number of poor volume exchanges required to meet the the goal. Does assume linear reversible and instantaneous desorption based on the method. We used it does assume that each pore volume that comes in to replace the poor volume that gets extracted as groundwater containing no uranium and that's that's not reality because our?

01:17:00.330 --> 01:17:16.020 Hesemann, John The polar volume, we used is based on the drinking water standard of 30 micrograms per liter, so there will be some uranium in the water that comes in and there's there's uranium in background naturally occurring uranium at this site anyway, so that's not 100% accurate.

01:17:16.800 --> 01:17:20.260 Hesemann, John Uhm, however, we we will be injecting water.

01:17:20.610 --> 01:17:27.900 Hesemann, John Uhm and and enhancing the head and that's not reflected in the extraction rate. We used so that would.

01:17:29.540 --> 01:17:29.930 Hesemann, John Uh.

01:17:30.560 --> 01:17:31.840 Hesemann, John Provide better performance.

01:17:32.430 --> 01:17:54.080 Hesemann, John And then although uranium is based on the data is believed only be president. 16% of the poor volume.

We used 100% of the poor volume in that time frame calculation so that would suggest. It's if anything, and over estimate of time on that basis alone and there's other things to consider obviously but.

01:17:54.750 --> 01:18:06.050 Hesemann, John Uh we went we used the entire poor volume in terms of what has to be extracted and exchanged when their uranium really, and the groundwater is really coming from a small fraction of the board volume.

01:18:09.590 --> 01:18:11.920 Lux, Jeff J And just sort of I understand.

01:18:13.060 --> 01:18:18.180 Lux, Jeff J I know that the decommissioning plan present specific flow rates from from.

01:18:19.410 --> 01:18:22.090 Lux, Jeff J Locations and that there has to be a starting point.

01:18:23.460 --> 01:18:36.750 Lux, Jeff J But it also makes it clear that we're going to be monitoring groundwater elevations concentrations as time goes on. And if it turns out that the reason we put the Western.

01:18:37.390 --> 01:18:41.970 Lux, Jeff J Transitions on trench in there is because when you look at the 3 dimensional.

01:18:42.600 --> 01:18:44.660 Lux, Jeff J Uh depiction of the sand body.

01:18:45.830 --> 01:18:53.120 Lux, Jeff J The eastern trench is like on the edge of it, whereas the western trenches really right in the heart of it.

01:18:54.170 --> 01:18:57.240 Lux, Jeff J At at the minimum that western trench.

01:18:58.350 --> 01:19:00.050 Lux, Jeff J Should be able to capture?

01:19:01.130 --> 01:19:09.030 Lux, Jeff J A greater volume more rapidly because there's just in expectation is that there is more sand in the cross section.

01:19:09.680 --> 01:19:18.090 Lux, Jeff J So if in fact that injection is able to the injections that's occurring to the southwest of that is able to.

01:19:18.140 --> 01:19:19.570 Lux, Jeff J We will uh.

01:19:20.610 --> 01:19:28.050 Lux, Jeff J

Really increase the head in that's an channel it's quite possible that that western trench could only operate.

01:19:28.690 --> 01:19:34.820 Lux, Jeff J Uh until we start seeing the concentrations decline and shut that thing down and.

01:19:35.610 --> 01:19:40.130 Lux, Jeff J Have a consistent gradient all the way across from the injection wells to the.

01:19:40.820 --> 01:19:48.100 Lux, Jeff J Eastern extraction well there's just a lot of potential and I know there. There's no way we can model.

01:19:49.770 --> 01:19:55.790 Lux, Jeff J Every different pumping scenario based on assumptions about what happens with groundwater infiltration.

01:19:56.490 --> 01:19:57.000 Lux, Jeff J Uhm.

01:19:57.840 --> 01:19:58.960 Lux, Jeff J So injection.

01:19:59.680 --> 01:20:00.060 Lux, Jeff J But.

01:20:01.820 --> 01:20:12.290 Lux, Jeff J I I also don't want to give the impression that we have to model 7 gallons a minute out of each trench as though they are going to be steady state conditions throughout remediation.

01:20:01.990 --> 01:20:02.660 Hesemann, John The other.

01:20:14.440 --> 01:20:15.400 Hesemann, John The other thing that.

01:20:14.630 --> 01:20:15.120 Lux, Jeff J Those are.

01:20:17.110 --> 01:20:34.040 Hesemann, John Sorry. Jeff the other thing we're anticipating which is is difficult to represent in a model is that the groundwater were injecting is particularly in this trend is going to it's going to find its way into that stand channel and and preferentially flow through that stand channel and flushed the uranium out of that sand channel.

01:20:34.640 --> 01:20:43.440 Hesemann, John And you know that's that's difficult to represent in a model how you know flow is going to happen in in that.

01:20:44.270 --> 01:20:50.850 Hesemann, John Discrete interval, but that would be expected because if you.

01:20:50.190 --> 01:20:53.650 Saxton, John Well actually I'll disagree with that right now, but yeah, go ahead.

01:20:53.440 --> 01:20:53.770 Hesemann, John OK.

01:20:54.950 --> 01:20:55.590 Hesemann, John No, that's OK.

01:20:55.820 --> 01:21:03.130 Saxton, John No, I mean go to your other picture where the Gray with us and it is. I mean, I didn't want interrupt you but alright.

01:21:03.890 --> 01:21:08.990 Saxton, John On your 2018 you had contours along.

01:21:09.660 --> 01:21:16.690 Saxton, John Along the if for lack of better along this boundary basically and then you had like up to 3 feet of sand.

01:21:17.890 --> 01:21:22.220 Saxton, John Like that followed the transition zone boundary between bedrock and.

01:21:23.040 --> 01:21:32.500 Saxton, John I I don't know if I don't see it on this one. It didn't extend all the way to the eastern trench, so I did incorporate it that I didn't do.

01:21:33.260 --> 01:21:45.880 Saxton, John I didn't do particle pathlines I could, but I you know again. I'm not. I was just seeing what the fate and transport was, but basically like I said the model every time I did a simulation.

01:21:46.580 --> 01:21:47.860 Saxton, John This wasn't capturing.

01:21:48.660 --> 01:21:55.940 Saxton, John Poor volumes here in the middle. It was capturing the well that was your injecting up here so if you rejecting 4 gallons.

01:21:56.710 --> 01:22:04.150 Saxton, John It's capturing 4 gallons that you would just inject it up in this bedrock. That's why I think the model is much better to try to design something but.

01:22:05.100 --> 01:22:06.580 Saxton, John It's you know part of the.

01:22:07.340 --> 01:22:08.140 Saxton, John My concern is.

01:22:09.310 --> 01:22:09.760 Saxton, John You know.

01:22:10.880 --> 01:22:14.990 Saxton, John I didn't have this one. This this graph so I was basing it on your.

01:22:15.770 --> 01:22:31.370 Saxton, John Your isopleth nap that he did have it in the 2018 report for that Channel, you know again. I don't know how far it goes up or what the kind activity was I I didn't see any numbers that you have for that the sand itself as far as its conductivity, but 01:22:32.560 --> 01:22:34.390 Saxton, John you know, unfortunately, it's only.

01:22:35.460 --> 01:22:48.240 Saxton, John This this area is only has 2 layers. In it, and so when I when he modeled it. I gotta do an average of what this flow rate is and that's going to be a limitation yes, but it's much higher than.

01:22:50.630 --> 01:23:03.980 Saxton, John Ah, yeah, this was 3 feet per day versus 0.4 so the flow lines, definitely migrated down that and I you know, I didn't do it by I'll tell you from modeling that's what's going to happen.

01:23:05.020 --> 01:23:10.330 Saxton, John I agree with you that it should be in the sand. 'cause basically how do you know if it got into the?

01:23:11.350 --> 01:23:16.560 Saxton, John Into the fine grain stuff, you know, I had have had to travel there somehow.

01:23:17.350 --> 01:23:20.850 Saxton, John But you know, I would have expected to it, but again, I think.

01:23:21.490 --> 01:23:22.030 Saxton, John Looking at.

01:23:22.780 --> 01:23:36.140 Saxton, John The model from right from the scratch when you had high heads here because you know, I and again. I had to assume some sort of infiltration. You know, and I took like half of what the difference between.

01:23:37.460 --> 01:23:54.370 Saxton, John It rained and and evaporation and cut that in half, but that actually added head that forced it into the into some of the finer grained materials so that's why you know the plume actually migrated to the West with time because I think.

01:23:54.960 --> 01:24:03.740 Saxton, John In the model kind of confirms this is that you. You kind of forced it there because this was full of water for 10 years and then you know.

01:24:04.410 --> 01:24:07.230 Saxton, John They got into the finer grain and now it's coming out.

01:24:07.900 --> 01:24:14.850 Saxton, John But my question was only it's 150 months. Gonna clean it up to the release criteria that's you know.

01:24:16.280 --> 01:24:29.240 Saxton, John If getting this, let me put it this way if I got this, I'd put this in the model and have that pine channel that how you distributed through there, but the problem is in again is that?

01:24:31.750 --> 01:24:32.520 Saxton, John The trench.

01:24:33.240 --> 01:24:52.540 Saxton, John Pilot test if I put any higher than 0.8 I'd have a problem where I have to put a what we call the horizontal flow barrier around it and basically it's a rind around the trench now. I'm not. I didn't even want to go into the construction or anything, but if I have to put that in.

01:24:47.190 --> 01:24:47.500 Hesemann, John Uh-huh.

01:24:53.230 --> 01:24:57.410 Saxton, John You know did you smear any claim material so that you don't have a good?

01:24:58.230 --> 01:25:08.990 Saxton, John Connection and you know eventually yeah that's going to be weird down and so we're going to have connection. But right now, the numbers. I have suggests that this is actually pretty low conductivity that's that's 01:25:08.390 --> 01:25:09.010 Hesemann, John Well, I think.

01:25:10.620 --> 01:25:11.430 Hesemann, John I'm sorry go ahead.

01:25:10.720 --> 01:25:12.700 Saxton, John go ahead, no no, I I was done.

01:25:13.740 --> 01:25:20.940 Hesemann, John No, no, I I hear what you're saying John I think that's that's why we need to look at at your numbers versus our numbers and provide a response to that.

01:25:20.830 --> 01:25:42.590 Saxton, John And then I think we'll regroup and you know, Tim would probably get back to you. I I I have no problem with it and like I say I try to fit your pilot test your 2018 SS thing. I didn't have this diagram. So I don't.

I'm not sure where where this is from and there's a lot of scattering data and I only brought up a bunch of Wells, but you know.

01:25:42.770 --> 01:25:48.960 Saxton, John You know, even with wells that aren't impacted that's that's important to to also show so.

01:25:50.110 --> 01:25:57.360 Saxton, John I understand what you're saying and I'm that's yeah, you know, I you know this. This is easy to do in the model is to change.

01:25:58.050 --> 01:25:59.970 Saxton, John Zones if I have to change.

01:26:00.710 --> 01:26:06.790 Saxton, John You know elevations that's a little bit difficult and I don't want to do that, but changing zones. It's if this is the better.

01:26:07.260 --> 01:26:08.850 Saxton, John Uh realistic.

01:26:09.540 --> 01:26:19.000 Saxton, John Then fine I'll do it and I'll see what happens, but I'm gonna run into problems like I say 'cause I. I didn't go into all of the details but I actually.

01:26:19.860 --> 01:26:36.320 Saxton, John Did a transient simulations for this well extraction test and then a transient simulation for your injection test and again? It showed it matches a little bit, but you're well is on its South of that injection or that injection trench actually you didn't really get a uh.

01:26:36.370 --> 01:26:41.180 Saxton, John The uh our actual starting value before it was purged and so you.

01:26:41.760 --> 01:26:44.880 Saxton, John We draw down there is a little bit odd, so anyhow.

01:26:46.780 --> 01:27:05.810 Saxton, John I'm you know if you can send me that or whatever information use do you think is the best thing of?

What that Channel looks like and water levels for their and even up in this one little corner on the alluvial for that's always it looks always lower and it's more than one well so it again. If you can give me the water level data that.

01:27:06.940 --> 01:27:15.330 Saxton, John I I wanna try to calibrate it being as realistic as possible to say you know, OK and if it shows that if it shows that it can do it, I'm fine with it.

01:27:12.440 --> 01:27:12.780 Hesemann, John Yeah.

01:27:16.310 --> 01:27:20.570 Saxton, John But then I can write it down and then OTC will never have a problem with me, saying OK.

01:27:23.090 --> 01:27:32.320 Hesemann, John Yeah, so it's I I'll let Jeff speak to this, but it sounds like you're looking for some more data from AWS.

John so I'm I'm not sure how that works in terms of.

01:27:34.150 --> 01:27:38.610 Hesemann, John Anyway rip the request for this specific data points and how we get that to you, but 01:27:40.770 --> 01:27:45.560 Hesemann, John and then you're you need it. You need to check and see if you can share the model is what I heard.

01:27:41.070 --> 01:27:42.710 Smith, James Well, right now, I mean?

01:27:46.060 --> 01:27:46.480 Saxton, John Yeah.

01:27:46.480 --> 01:27:47.360 Hesemann, John Well, OK.

01:27:47.360 --> 01:27:48.300 Smith, James Well, well.

01:27:49.390 --> 01:27:51.980 Smith, James We don't currently have a DP before us.

01:27:53.510 --> 01:27:57.160 Smith, James And this was an effort to clarify why we were asking for.

01:27:57.940 --> 01:28:07.460 Smith, James Responses to requests for information that we had done in the past and RSI 's quest for I can't remember what RSI stands for.

01:28:08.000 --> 01:28:15.190 Smith, James A supplemental information, I guess so we don't have a license application before us right now.

01:28:15.700 --> 01:28:18.530 Smith, James Uhm how we proceed from this point.

01:28:19.180 --> 01:28:23.640 Smith, James You know, we were just trying to provide input to what we had seen.

01:28:24.290 --> 01:28:40.410 Smith, James Uhm during the license application audit or the pre application audit. So I would imagine that you know, we can discuss Johns model one more time and the other Johns model another time, or another session.

01:28:41.220 --> 01:28:47.340 Smith, James But as far as what you need to do is basically come to a point where you feel comfortable that.

01:28:48.800 --> 01:28:57.000 Smith, James You think you have solved whatever deficiency that we see and want to submit a copy of or new DP to us.

01:28:57.420 --> 01:28:57.820 Smith, James Ah.

01:28:59.100 --> 01:29:01.660 Smith, James I see somebody 's hand up, who is that?

01:29:02.350 --> 01:29:02.880 Smith, James Ah.

01:29:05.180 --> 01:29:07.550 Kelly Dixon It's Kelly Dixon with DEQ.

01:29:07.880 --> 01:29:09.050 Smith, James OK go ahead, Kelly.

01:29:09.150 --> 01:29:39.100 Kelly Dixon I feel like we're trying to summarize where we are then in the path forward and and I heard something a little different during the discussion. Then, maybe what you're saying so I just wanted to clarify I heard in RC indicate that they would benefit from some more information where they have data gaps and I heard the trustees say that they would benefit from getting the the model inputs, so they could evaluate what you did, and and so there there would be an understanding on both sides of what's what?

01:29:39.640 --> 01:29:43.040 Kelly Dixon Is that is that the case? Are you guys gonna share information?

01:29:40.760 --> 01:29:41.140 Smith, James Well.

01:29:43.910 --> 01:29:54.130 Smith, James Well, I I believe we're gonna at least share our presentations. I have to talk with ogc to see whether or not. We can share the models. I don't understand why there would be a problem with that.

01:29:55.060 --> 01:30:10.890 Smith, James But let me talk with ogc but what I was saying was right now. There's no real need for you to come back and argue your position or you being the the simmer on the Licensee.

01:30:11.680 --> 01:30:29.090 Smith, James I mean, we can do that, if you would feel more comfortable before you submit another DP. We can continue in this communication back and forth on the pre application audit because the whole point of it is. We don't want to have another license. That's rejected or license application is rejected.

01:30:30.740 --> 01:30:42.510 Smith, James We would like it to be a full and complete application and include all there enough information to give us for lack of better words. A warm and fuzzy feeling that will actually work.

01:30:42.890 --> 01:30:43.420 Smith, James Uhm.

01:30:45.350 --> 01:30:57.400 Smith, James

And again this is not a normal path. We don't usually do this because we you know it's always if there's a question as to whether or not a model is going into work generally it's A at The.

01:30:58.690 --> 01:30:59.240 Smith, James Ah.

01:31:01.600 --> 01:31:03.550 Smith, James The licenses is gambling.

01:31:04.780 --> 01:31:05.690 Smith, James Their money.

01:31:06.590 --> 01:31:22.970 Smith, James To ensure you know to give it a try and we don't have to have absolute assurance that then approach will work because in the end if it doesn't work. Then you get it back up and do it again till you meet the release criteria. We do have sort of a you know.

01:31:24.470 --> 01:31:38.570 Smith, James A different situation in here and that we were manually approving the work and the budget in the scope of work so if we see something that looks like it needs to be fixed before yeah.

01:31:40.000 --> 01:31:45.370 Smith, James Submit something to us I guess it's incumbent upon us to give you that information at this point.

01:31:48.390 --> 01:31:57.030 Smith, James So no you don't have to to submit it to us. But if you would like to submit it to us. I think we can go ahead with that that approach.

01:32:03.390 --> 01:32:04.800 Halliburton, Bill So Jim this is.

01:32:05.480 --> 01:32:08.490 Halliburton, Bill So Halbert and you know, I I think.

01:32:09.100 --> 01:32:39.300 Halliburton, Bill I think our goal all along has been to get concurrence whether it's in formality or in letters or in formal approvals, but concurrence that the path that we're on is is is at least based on the information that's been submitted is appropriate in everybody's mind and and with the idea that we are cutting off time time is our I'm as our enemy.

01:32:31.900 --> 01:32:32.300 Smith, James Yeah.

01:32:39.480 --> 01:33:09.390 Halliburton, Bill Uhm there's a day today cost of carrying this license and and the requirements that are associated with that. And so the goal is is to. I mean, we've been submitting information for years now and you know the idea is to submit the information so that everybody gets comfortable with it. So it's not such a huge bite at this at the final submittal of our decommissioning plan and so we don't have situations like we're looking at today?

01:33:09.750 --> 01:33:39.580 Halliburton, Bill Where we've made decisions we've made plans we've done designs. In then there is something that pops up, I mean, everybody is doing their best but the idea is is that everybody is is coming along at the same time, and we're all making understand your your the regulator and we are the licensee or at least, there's that trust is a licensee, but there are no surprises like we have here today because time is again not on our side, so we can't submit.

01:33:39.970 --> 01:34:03.660 Halliburton, Bill And then wait for approvals and go through all of the administrative functions that are required. And so that's that's our goal so anything we can do between you know the final approval of this to get everybody on board and up to speed on on what the approach is and what the science. We're using to to move forward in the design and the submittal of the D plan is going to behooves all of us.

01:34:04.270 --> 01:34:06.010 Smith, James Yeah, and that's so.

01:34:04.480 --> 01:34:07.840 Halliburton, Bill So anything we can do for that is, it is our goal.

01:34:08.400 --> 01:34:20.090 Smith, James And that's why we you know decided to have this public meeting and let John submit his concerns. I know that it probably felt like bring me a rock when we kept asking questions.

01:34:21.760 --> 01:34:30.840 Smith, James But the whole point of the pre application. Audit was to preclude something like that, and in this case, we you know, we were providing further.

01:34:31.490 --> 01:34:33.040 Smith, James Requests for information.

01:34:34.130 --> 01:34:44.330 Smith, James But I sort of heard concerns that you know, we think that's not going to be beneficial and you know, we think everything is fine and.

01:34:45.630 --> 01:34:51.890 Smith, James John was pretty confident in his his model based on the information he had.

01:34:52.750 --> 01:34:53.380 Smith, James So.

01:34:54.990 --> 01:35:04.880 Smith, James And again much like my Broderick. My ignorance of groundwater. Hydrology is probably exceeds us by a little bit.

01:35:06.690 --> 01:35:14.430 Smith, James But John was John 's acting was confident and I. We just wanted to provide this for something for you to think about and we can go and discuss it further.

01:35:06.920 --> 01:35:07.600 Halliburton, Bill Well and 01:35:14.990 --> 01:35:22.280 Smith, James Uh for you feel comfortable turning something in it, it may help the model that John 's come up with May.

01:35:23.090 --> 01:35:23.540 Smith, James Uh.

01:35:24.940 --> 01:35:33.040 Smith, James Drake you as being innovative or you know, giving you another perspective or you may look at it and say you know, we don't agree with that and.

01:35:33.880 --> 01:35:35.970 Smith, James We'd like to argue against it.

01:35:37.640 --> 01:36:07.150 Halliburton, Bill yeah, I understand what you're saying and you have complete you know legitimacy in in challenging any information that's been provided. I guess the probably what you're hearing is frustration on our part

that this information is not new. There's nothing new in our current or this current conversation that has come to light in the last month or even a year. I mean, this stuff is years old that has been submitted we've had discussions with NRC.

01:36:07.450 --> 01:36:33.760 Halliburton, Bill We've had technical discussions about what our approaches and here we are. You know this is exactly what we were trying to alleviate by sharing this information sharing. This data years and years ago and here we are. You know ready to to go? What I consider to be essentially final approval of the approach and and then all of a sudden somebody decides to dig deeper, or look at it from a different approach.

01:36:34.460 --> 01:36:49.720 Halliburton, Bill In in here we are you know, having to rework things that we've made decisions on that that you know is that's that's that's my challenge. I guess is so let's do the work that we need to do now. We felt like that work should have already been done.

01:36:50.630 --> 01:36:57.460 Halliburton, Bill You know the evaluation of the model, the evaluation of the data. That's being submitted should have already been accomplished.

01:36:58.490 --> 01:37:00.700 Halliburton, Bill In in, not waiting until right now.

01:37:01.850 --> 01:37:09.390 Smith, James Well, the only thing I could say is there a new set of eyes put on it, I. I don't know what happened before. I got on the project.

01:37:10.210 --> 01:37:10.840 Smith, James Uhm.

01:37:13.620 --> 01:37:20.420 Smith, James Yeah, of course, we can bring people in with new backgrounds and different perspectives and their approach might be different but.

01:37:21.920 --> 01:37:24.700 Smith, James I don't know I I think this might benefit the project.

01:37:26.190 --> 01:37:31.210 Smith, James Hopefully to come to the end and actually meet the goals.

01:37:33.020 --> 01:38:02.000 Smith, James But I don't think that we could have kept this to ourselves. If you know, I don't know what the previous hydrogeologist did on the site and whether or not they looked at it and detail that John does I. I think that that's that was pretty unique for John to actually share the model usually what he does is take the information that you provide for your model and you know, he'll run a test. You know on his side and see where they're not it passes this the smell test.

01:38:02.180 --> 01:38:02.610 Smith, James Uhm.

01:38:03.240 --> 01:38:06.830 Smith, James I don't know what the previous hydrogeologist did for the site or.

01:38:07.100 --> 01:38:37.690 Halliburton, Bill Right no and I understand that I just I guess my point being is that we need to bring whatever issues forward and and the last thing we want to do is implement something that is not going to reach our end goal. I mean that's that's not what I'm saying but but my point is is that time is of the essence and we need to, we need to get this thing moving forward and everybody needs to bring their best efforts forward now so that we can, we can have a chance of of reaching you know license termination.

01:38:38.020 --> 01:38:57.930 Halliburton, Bill So, but whatever that is, do it now, I mean that's where we thought we were at all. Along is that everybody was looking at this, they were in Concurrence and and didn't see any issues. So I mean. That's that's been the conversation for years, so that's that's where I'm going that's what I'd like to have.

01:38:38.220 --> 01:38:38.600 Smith, James Yeah.

01:38:58.620 --> 01:38:59.620 Halliburton, Bill So anyway, I'll 01:38:58.680 --> 01:39:02.710 Smith, James Well, I apologize for the sins and transgressions of my predecessors.

01:39:04.530 --> 01:39:11.160 Halliburton, Bill I understand we're all it at this point we're all doing our best, but I I just I've I've felt UM.

01:39:12.220 --> 01:39:17.680 Halliburton, Bill I I felt like I I needed to kind of get that off my chest. If nothing else, so thank you for listening.

01:39:16.710 --> 01:39:19.360 Smith, James Well, I appreciate that, but I think that dumb.

01:39:20.830 --> 01:39:25.690 Smith, James Think this gets us closer I mean, if you your John and my John?

01:39:26.810 --> 01:39:28.270 Smith, James He couldn't get their models.

01:39:28.820 --> 01:39:29.430 Smith, James Uhm.

01:39:30.980 --> 01:39:38.440 Smith, James To get closer and so far as their conclusions that would help a lot, it would short circuit any concerns, because generally?

01:39:39.020 --> 01:39:41.550 Smith, James Uh you know, although there was some.

01:39:43.810 --> 01:39:50.670 Smith, James I guess confusion on the pre application audit. At least it gave us a chance to look at these things and provide feedback.

01:39:51.310 --> 01:39:51.950 Smith, James Uhm.

01:39:53.100 --> 01:39:58.160 Smith, James And I'm still offering to have another public meeting we send you a copy of our slides.

01:39:58.750 --> 01:40:16.680 Smith, James Uh and you send us a copy of your slides and we'll talk to our lawyers and see if we can transmit the model and maybe set up another public meeting to go into depth that if you feel. It's necessary, but again we, we need 10 days in order to set up another public meeting.

01:40:17.380 --> 01:40:23.540 Smith, James But we don't want to get an application in house and then run into a problem like this.

01:40:25.340 --> 01:40:30.880 Smith, James That's when we start sending RA eyes back and forth and we lose the ability to be candid in our discussions.

01:40:31.530 --> 01:40:33.310 Halliburton, Bill Yeah, for sure, thank you.

01:40:33.780 --> 01:40:34.090 Smith, James K.

01:40:34.630 --> 01:40:35.230 Lux, Jeff J Paul.

01:40:40.160 --> 01:40:42.450 Smith, James All of you trying to get the light to turn on in your room.

01:40:40.380 --> 01:40:41.450 Lux, Jeff J All over.

01:40:45.060 --> 01:40:47.010 J. Paul Davis That's what it is OK that's bad.

01:40:47.700 --> 01:40:57.710 J. Paul Davis OK, thank you so much. Uh I'm taking a slightly narrower view as far as the The The Model presented today.

01:40:58.380 --> 01:40:58.930 J. Paul Davis Uh.

01:41:00.530 --> 01:41:04.750 J. Paul Davis Is there a way for for John and John to get together to to?

01:41:06.370 --> 01:41:19.320 J. Paul Davis

Modify how the model was operated to show that by say staging different different flow rates on on the different trenches to at least get rid of that stagnation point.

01:41:20.620 --> 01:41:34.260 Smith, James I would leave that up to John to tell me if it's technically feasible. I mean, what I was envisioning is him, providing a copy of his model to you well to simmer on and allowing you guys to take a look at it and see if there's.

01:41:20.810 --> 01:41:21.390 J. Paul Davis So that's 01:41:35.080 --> 01:41:44.800 Smith, James You know, some fatal flaw in his calculation or assumptions or whether vice versa. There's something that you guys hadn't anticipated in your model but.

01:41:45.370 --> 01:41:45.960 Smith, James Uhm.

01:41:50.110 --> 01:41:50.740 J. Paul Davis OK.

01:41:51.800 --> 01:41:53.350 Saxton, John Is that a question to me or?

01:41:53.150 --> 01:42:01.290 Smith, James Yeah, well, no, I'm just saying that I'm we're gonna have to talk with some OG see about that. But I I'm pretty well at least provide this slides back and forth.

01:41:58.350 --> 01:41:58.630 Saxton, John Yes.

01:41:58.550 --> 01:41:58.860 Mike Broderick Right.

01:42:01.800 --> 01:42:08.950 Saxton, John I I have no problem sharing the model. I just wanna do it through the right mechanism whatever NRC approved.

01:42:07.300 --> 01:42:07.680 Smith, James Yeah.

01:42:09.200 --> 01:42:12.970 Saxton, John Uh and Bill I just want to make you know if.

01:42:13.880 --> 01:42:18.520 Saxton, John If we're bringing this up at the end of the CR and say, well, we're not going to prove it because we don't think you can do it.

01:42:19.130 --> 01:42:35.710 Saxton, John Then I you know in 2 years from now, then definitely you know, I understand your your frustration, but I'm writing up the SCR as they go now, so it's going to be documented and no matter what I where I come from or but other review is going to be documented so.

01:42:37.050 --> 01:42:41.330 Saxton, John That's that's what's going on right now and so there's no no.

01:42:42.690 --> 01:42:55.200 Saxton, John Uh you know something in the future. It's going to be documented and you know, I I agree that this is going to work. I agree that the alluvial is going to work I agree that the uh western upland you know.

01:42:55.930 --> 01:43:01.990 Saxton, John Works will work, but that's what the SCR is going to going to come down to it's going to be documented and so.

01:43:04.030 --> 01:43:12.140 Saxton, John You I think I brought this to Jim 's attention just because I know that time is of the essence and I just soon work this out.

01:43:13.060 --> 01:43:27.670 Saxton, John So that I can have reasonable assurance that it can be met and that's that's all I'm trying to do and you know because all the simulations didn't show the same thing. I'm I lost my reasonable assurance, but I'll try whatever you think is the best way to.

01:43:28.610 --> 01:43:35.350 Saxton, John Uh characterize the transition zone, you know if you have new information anyone. It's provide that's fine, but right now.

01:43:37.080 --> 01:43:41.310 Saxton, John I would have to go back to what you have submitted and fitting all that data together.

01:43:42.090 --> 01:43:44.760 Saxton, John Uh the simulation still.

01:43:45.910 --> 01:43:48.420 Saxton, John Been quite meeting so that's 01:43:50.750 --> 01:43:52.470 Saxton, John that's all I say thank you.

01:43:56.340 --> 01:43:58.940 Halliburton, Bill Thanks, John I I I I'm sorry go ahead Mike.

01:43:56.450 --> 01:43:57.360 Mike Broderick Uh Mike.

01:44:00.850 --> 01:44:01.680 Mike Broderick Uhm.

01:44:03.100 --> 01:44:11.960 Mike Broderick There's been some people are kinda hinted at what I'm gonna ask but it hasn't quite come out Internet Explorer or in an email exchange between me and Jim Smith.

01:44:12.580 --> 01:44:13.760 Mike Broderick A few days ago.

01:44:15.210 --> 01:44:28.860 Mike Broderick There was a suggestion, yeah for some follow on meetings and I asked about should we go ahead and schedule. A public meeting because of the the lead time and Jim it said. Well, many of these things can be discussed in non public meetings.

01:44:29.510 --> 01:44:33.390 Mike Broderick Uh they have a quicker response time and we probably can do that.

01:44:33.970 --> 01:44:35.390 Mike Broderick Uh and I haven't heard.

01:44:34.380 --> 01:44:38.070 Smith, James Well, the communications that I was talking about her government government.

01:44:39.740 --> 01:44:41.280 Smith, James If we're gonna be advising.

01:44:41.940 --> 01:44:45.630 Smith, James The licensee those had to be done in the public forum.

01:44:45.940 --> 01:44:48.310 Mike Broderick I see I didn't understand that distinction.

01:44:49.040 --> 01:44:52.120 Smith, James Yeah, I mean, we have a certain amount of leeway when we have.

01:44:53.560 --> 01:45:04.890 Smith, James Sister agencies out there and they have concerns and specially in this case, where we both have a vested interest in meeting the release criteria so.

01:45:05.510 --> 01:45:06.240 Smith, James I mean, it's 01:45:05.630 --> 01:45:21.580 Mike Broderick Walk away and I'll go ahead and ask user for David and Paul from from DEQ and for John Sexton for or anyone else from NRC is there any any topics of having useful private discussion that we can set up?

01:45:25.310 --> 01:45:26.180 Smith, James uhm.

01:45:27.600 --> 01:45:29.440 Smith, James Uh we're open to it, I mean?

01:45:30.040 --> 01:45:32.910 Smith, James Not sure that John has any secrets that he asked.

01:45:30.220 --> 01:45:31.590 Saxton, John Uh yes.

01:45:33.260 --> 01:45:33.820 Smith, James Sure.

01:45:33.360 --> 01:45:38.210 Saxton, John No, I no, I mean that the model isn't a model. I'm but I mean, I'm I'm not.

01:45:38.860 --> 01:45:41.730 Saxton, John From Oklahoma and so I you know, I'm.

01:45:42.360 --> 01:45:46.220 Saxton, John Just basing it what's on in front of me as far as the characterization.

01:45:46.710 --> 01:45:47.110 Mike Broderick Sure.

01:45:46.720 --> 01:45:52.540 Saxton, John And there are some things that I had had as soon like the the recharge rate when those those.

01:45:53.090 --> 01:45:56.860 Saxton, John Uh pits were open now of Oklahoma has you know.

01:45:57.510 --> 01:46:27.790 Saxton, John Precipitation data for that those years and evaporation potential that could quantify that better. That's fine with me. I I like to incorporate it. I'm not trying to make it a problem. I'm just trying to understand that you can do it and that's that's that's my point is you know, there's a lot of assumptions in the model. I I probably well aware of that and I you know, I rather minimize those and I think people from Oklahoma can give me more data.

01:46:28.090 --> 01:46:30.010 Saxton, John Guys site specific information like.

01:46:30.820 --> 01:46:31.140 Smith, James Yeah.

01:46:31.730 --> 01:46:40.080 Mike Broderick David and Paul is there anything you'd like to share with John that would be useful to do without the licensee present we'd set up such a meeting.

01:46:41.390 --> 01:46:43.740 David Cates This is David Owen UM.

01:46:44.350 --> 01:46:45.550 David Cates Like to see the.

01:46:45.600 --> 01:46:50.810 David Cates The the slides and model and you know digest.

01:46:52.520 --> 01:46:55.020 David Cates Which been presenting today and?

01:46:55.780 --> 01:46:57.840 David Cates A little bit more and.

01:46:58.740 --> 01:47:01.530 David Cates You know at that point, maybe we could.

01:47:02.500 --> 01:47:02.800 Mike Broderick K.

01:47:02.530 --> 01:47:04.220 David Cates Have a government to government.

01:47:06.270 --> 01:47:11.050 Smith, James OK, I mean, John 's planning to provide his his slides.

01:47:11.650 --> 01:47:17.000 Smith, James Uhm I'm sure I could either post them to everybody that's on this meeting or.

01:47:19.130 --> 01:47:27.890 Smith, James Yeah, I would probably be the best approach we could just put it in atoms and give you guys an accession number, but it's probably quicker to give it to you today.

01:47:25.710 --> 01:47:26.150 Saxton, John No.

01:47:27.780 --> 01:47:40.960 Saxton, John No, I mean, I can if you're if you want to understand how the model was developed and what the you know all the different facets to it. That's fine. I can just run through it, it. It is a long slide. So you know it.

It's better just to show you right in the.

01:47:41.840 --> 01:47:46.530 Saxton, John Application and all the various things so it might make better sense.

01:47:47.100 --> 01:47:47.690 Saxton, John Uh.

01:47:48.530 --> 01:47:51.330 Saxton, John And that's and that's fine with me, I I you know.

01:47:52.070 --> 01:48:13.340 Saxton, John Uh especially if you're concerned what the impact would be to the river and the mobile and aquifer in such an that's that's fine with me. You know, I I have no problem with that. I already have all the slides put together if you will because you know. Hey, I just wanted to sort all my thoughts. So then when I write the SCR that it it. It's 01:48:14.410 --> 01:48:22.190 Saxton, John had the figures kind of already there, so it's not that much work for me to put together something for you, if you really are interested but.

01:48:24.000 --> 01:48:24.940 Saxton, John Well, I'll I'll wait.

01:48:25.320 --> 01:48:25.570 David Cates Uh.

01:48:27.150 --> 01:48:28.140 Smith, James K uh.

01:48:27.330 --> 01:48:32.740 Lux, Jeff J

Well, guys, we're about we're about out of the scheduled meeting time and that doesn't mean it has to end then but.

01:48:33.380 --> 01:48:40.320 Lux, Jeff J Uhm I would like to kind of jump in and say ask John if he would please send us.

01:48:41.050 --> 01:48:45.210 Lux, Jeff J A detailed list of specifically what information.

01:48:45.970 --> 01:49:02.140 Lux, Jeff J Uh you know if we had everything you could possibly want what would you ask for and there will probably be some things we can say we don't have that, but we can we would be able to provide you the information that you would like to have and.

01:49:03.790 --> 01:49:28.770 Lux, Jeff J We will I guess I want to make it clear that I don't. I don't think that we are saying that either Johns or either of the either the NRC or the burns and Mcdonnel model is necessarily defective. I think they are based on some different assumptions and they have modeled different layers differently, and our goal is going to be too.

01:49:29.270 --> 01:49:33.340 Lux, Jeff J Uh we work with our groundwater flow model.

01:49:33.390 --> 01:49:36.100 Lux, Jeff J Or uh in an effort to.

01:49:36.790 --> 01:49:50.400 Lux, Jeff J Address the NRCS concerns as expeditiously as we can, but in order to do that. I think we need to see how that model was set up I think the really the key is.

01:49:51.120 --> 01:49:51.640 Lux, Jeff J Uhm.

01:49:52.500 --> 01:50:03.760 Lux, Jeff J Not being able to model this and body in the transition zone and get appropriate hydraulic conductivity values for the sand zone and the gully fills and.

01:50:05.740 --> 01:50:08.690 Lux, Jeff J Uh I think that's where the biggest part of the.

01:50:09.910 --> 01:50:11.320 Lux, Jeff J Discrepancy lies.

01:50:12.170 --> 01:50:12.800 Lux, Jeff J And.

01:50:14.450 --> 01:50:26.510 Lux, Jeff J My goal is to be able to uh within a couple weeks have information from NRC provide information and RC that we'll be able to submit a decommissioning plan formally submitted decommissioning plan.

01:50:27.120 --> 01:50:28.020 Lux, Jeff J And.

01:50:30.260 --> 01:50:33.450 Lux, Jeff J Get that acceptance review finished as soon as possible.

01:50:34.450 --> 01:50:46.520 Smith, James He John Saxton would it be possible to do. That kind of a presentation where you go into detail in your model if we were to schedule another public meeting and say, 10 days.

01:50:36.760 --> 01:50:37.200 Saxton, John Yes.

01:50:55.870 --> 01:50:56.520 Smith, James Oh, good.

01:50:56.830 --> 01:51:02.440 Saxton, John You know, so it's it depends how much detail in you know, I'm I that's fine with me.

01:51:03.710 --> 01:51:28.900 Saxton, John I can just answer Jeff Yeah, I'll get us a list of specific information at you know whether or not you have it because you know, I don't know what happened when you turn the bankruptcy. You might have lost some of the records couple of them go away with back then. But there's some recent ones like I say that one well so I'll I'll give you a specific list. And I'll give it through gym and you can forward it to you.

01:51:30.980 --> 01:51:31.440 Smith, James K.

01:51:33.590 --> 01:51:34.380 Lux, Jeff J Good thank you.

01:51:33.810 --> 01:51:37.840 Smith, James So Uhm, Oklahoma before we get to the end.

01:51:38.760 --> 01:51:39.400 Smith, James Uhm.

01:51:40.020 --> 01:51:45.160 Smith, James Did you guys want to go ahead and schedule a meeting to go over that information or do you want to?

01:51:46.340 --> 01:51:47.860 Smith, James Wait, for the next public meeting.

01:51:53.940 --> 01:52:08.070 Mike Broderick I think you're asking if we wanted to schedule a private meeting and I think our answer. At least from David was that he wants some time to digest this before he schedules a private media if I'm wrong, David or Paul say so.

01:51:57.210 --> 01:51:57.690 Smith, James Yeah.

01:52:04.290 --> 01:52:04.700 Smith, James OK.

01:52:10.190 --> 01:52:13.360 David Cates No, I think that's right you know, maybe.

01:52:14.430 --> 01:52:23.250 David Cates We could schedule a meeting first or talked about it and then scheduling meeting. If we want to something like first of.

01:52:24.170 --> 01:52:25.160 David Cates Next week.

01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:34.710 Smith, James

Well tell you what it doesn't take that much effort to do that. All it's all it's gonna do is send out a teams meeting it's just.

01:52:27.110 --> 01:52:27.820 David Cates And trying to 01:52:36.430 --> 01:52:45.130 Smith, James We have to act in the public domain when we are giving advice or recommendations to the licensee so.

01:52:46.730 --> 01:52:53.840 Smith, James If you have questions that you feel uncomfortable about let us know. And we'll set up the meeting.

Whenever you think it's convenient for you.

01:52:54.640 --> 01:52:55.390 David Cates sounds good.

01:52:54.770 --> 01:52:55.210 J. Paul Davis Yeah.

01:52:55.770 --> 01:52:56.210 Smith, James OK.

01:52:56.660 --> 01:53:04.670 David Cates And I just I've gotta get off here now and but I wanted to thank the 2 Johns and and for the presentations today.

01:52:56.820 --> 01:52:57.230 J. Paul Davis Yep.

01:53:05.670 --> 01:53:06.280 David Cates Thanks.

01:53:05.820 --> 01:53:12.130 Smith, James Well, thanks, I'm although I don't think there was a member of the public who joined in I mean.

01:53:12.880 --> 01:53:13.380 Smith, James I guess.

01:53:15.210 --> 01:53:25.540 Smith, James By the way we characterize these anybody, but sick for the NRC and the licensee or members of the public and we have heard quite a bit from DEQ.

01:53:25.590 --> 01:53:36.240 Smith, James So uhm was there anybody who joined the meeting that's not part of the inner CDEQ or the Semoran Environmental Response Trust.

01:53:40.150 --> 01:53:44.060 Smith, James Hearing none. I assume there will be no questions from that person that didn't respond.

01:53:45.170 --> 01:54:00.900 Smith, James OK, well. Thank you very much. We'll try to get a copy of our slide city as soon as possible and we look forward to getting your slides to us too. And we'll be talking with our lawyers, see what we can do about providing the modeling data and everything.

01:54:01.110 --> 01:54:03.050 Smith, James You come to simmer on.

01:54:05.190 --> 01:54:08.060 Smith, James OK, well. Thank you very much for joining us.

01:54:06.290 --> 01:54:07.100 J. Paul Davis So, like like?

01:54:08.680 --> 01:54:09.350 Lux, Jeff J Thank you.

01:54:09.770 --> 01:54:10.290 Smith, James Alright.

01:54:11.440 --> 01:54:12.080 Hesemann, John Thanks everybody.

01:54:12.420 --> 01:54:13.140 Mike Broderick Thanks everybody.

01:54:12.500 --> 01:54:12.960 Smith, James Thanks.

01:54:12.560 --> 01:54:13.100 J. Paul Davis Thank you.

01:54:13.890 --> 01:54:14.670 Halliburton, Bill Thanks everybody.

01:54:15.980 --> 01:54:16.520 Kelly Dixon Thank you.