|
---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML24220A2442024-08-0707 August 2024 Email Dated 08 07 2024 Jlux, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, (Cert) Regarding Cimarron Environmental Response Trust - Accrual of Some Expenditures to 2023, $700K, Identified as Unpaid as of 8/7/2024 ML24192A3182024-07-10010 July 2024 Email Dated 07102024 from Jlux, Cert, to Jsmith, NRC, Providing Attachment 3 - Dp Figure 6-4 - Site-Wide Licensed Area ML24192A2442024-07-0909 July 2024 Email Dated 07 09 2024 from Ryalen, DOJ, to Jlux, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, (Cert) Regarding Letter Dated 5 31 2024 Regarding Seeking Insurance (ML24173A272) ML24219A2322024-06-28028 June 2024 Email from Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office of the Usfws Request for Concurrence with ESA Determinations for Cimarron Site Decommissioning Plan ML24151A5492024-05-23023 May 2024 Email Jsmith, NRC, to Jlux, Cert, Dated 5/23//204 Regarding Enriched Uranium in Environmental Media Discussed in Dp. Rev. 3 ML24122A7422024-05-0707 May 2024 Email to Fws Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office Notification of Endangered Species Act Determinations for Cimarron Site ML24109A1642024-04-16016 April 2024 Email J. Lux to Lifeng Guo 4-16-2024 Comprehensive Analytical Data Spreadsheet ML24043A1562024-02-0101 February 2024 Email from Jsmith, NRC 2/1/2024 to Jlux Regarding Request for Supplemental Information Regarding Health Physics Questions for Dp Rev. 3 ML24046A1972024-01-30030 January 2024 Email from Khayes, NRC 01/30/2024 to Jlux Regarding Comments on Gw RAI Responses for Cimarron Environmental Response for Dp Rev.3 ML23317A3152023-11-13013 November 2023 Letter from Jeff Lux, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Regarding New Trust Administrator John Hesemann, Upon Bill Halliburtons Retirement, Dated 11/10/2023 ML23222A1342023-08-0808 August 2023 Environmental Properties Management, LLC, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, Determination of Distribution Coefficients for Use in the Cimarron Decommissioning Plan ML23171A9202023-06-13013 June 2023 Email from Odeq, Dated 6/13/2023 Providing a Copy of a Letter from the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust ML23268A0502023-06-12012 June 2023 Email to Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0422023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Wyandotte Nation Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0392023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Seminole Nation Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0432023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Fort Sill Apache Tribe Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0442023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0452023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Wichita Tribes Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0462023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Pawnee Nation Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0472023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Ponca Tribe Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0482023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Shawnee Tribe Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0492023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Otoe-Missouria Tribe Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0412023-06-0909 June 2023 Email to Seneca-Cayuga Nation Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0382023-06-0808 June 2023 Email to United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0372023-06-0808 June 2023 Email to Absentee-Shawnee Tribe Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0362023-06-0808 June 2023 Email to Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0352023-06-0707 June 2023 Email to Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0342023-06-0505 June 2023 Email to Caddo Nation Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML23268A0332023-06-0505 June 2023 Email to Muscogee Creek Nation Update on Decommissioning Activities at Cimarron Site in Logan County, Ok ML24207A1562023-01-13013 January 2023 Email Dated 01132023 from Jsmith, NRC, to Jlux, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, Regarding Locating Material Control and Accountability Section in Dp. Rev.3 ML22321A2762022-11-16016 November 2022 Email Dated 11/17/2022 from J Lux to J Smith Regarding the Status of the Cimarron Decommissioning Plan Rev.3 Status ML22286A2352022-10-0707 October 2022 Basis of Design for Groundwater Remediation ML24089A1462022-09-23023 September 2022 Email Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Environmental Monitoring Report 2022 ML22250A1912022-09-0202 September 2022 Email Response to Daphne Summers, with Corrected Email, Dated 9/2/2022 with 8/31/2022 Email ML22250A1132022-08-31031 August 2022 Email on License Status of Subarea I of the Cimarron Site ML22236A5172022-08-22022 August 2022 Response to NRC Request for Standby Trust Information Email ML22250A1482022-08-10010 August 2022 Email with Voice Message from Daphne Summers Dated 8/10/2022 ML22132A1892022-05-10010 May 2022 Email Dated 5/10/2021 from Jeff Lux, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Regarding 2021 Cert Annual Financial Report ML22104A0462022-04-13013 April 2022 E-mail from J. Saxton, NRC to J. Lux, Environmental Properties Management, LLC, Dated April 13, 2022 Regarding Public Meeting Notice on Groundwater Flow Modeling ML22095A1522022-04-0505 April 2022 Follow Up Email Regarding Public Meeting Notice Regarding Discussions of pre-application Audit Meeting, March 10, 2022, Containing Emails Between Jlux and Jsaxon Dated April 5, 2022 Regarding RAI 11 Clarification ML22084A5922022-03-25025 March 2022 Email from Jeff Lux Dtd 03/25/2022 to Participants of March 10 Public Meeting - Slides Presented by Burns & Mcdonnell During the March 10 Public Meeting ML22084A5932022-03-25025 March 2022 Burns and Mcdonnell Remediation Slides Presented 2022-03-10 ML22087A0192022-03-24024 March 2022 Email from Jlux 3 24 2022 Regarding Water Level Information ML22081A1872022-03-22022 March 2022 E-mail from J. Smith, NRC, to Participants of March 10, 2022 Public Meeting ML22074A0152022-03-11011 March 2022 E-mail from J. Smith, NRC, to DEQ, NRC, and Burnsmcd - Regarding Slides and Raw Transcript from Public Meeting on 03/11/2022 ML22038A0612022-02-0404 February 2022 HP Comments on Cimarron Responses_Epm ML22038A0602022-02-0404 February 2022 E-mail from J. Maisler, Cert, to J. Smith, NRC - Cimarron Response to HP Comments ML22040A1502022-02-0101 February 2022 Email Re Questions on NRC Comments ML22031A1752022-01-31031 January 2022 Comment on EPMs Responses to Rsis Rev 1 ML22031A1772022-01-31031 January 2022 HP Comments on Cimarron Responses Rev. 1 2024-08-07
[Table view] |
Text
From: Saxton, John To: Lux, Jeff J Cc: Smith, James; J. Paul Davis
Subject:
RE: Groundwater Flow Model Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 11:43:29 AM
- Jeff,
My comments are in bold.
John
I just received a call from Paul Davis and came away with the following understanding:
- 1. The MODFLOW version on which Burns & McDonnells groundwater flow model is based is old and has some deficient characteristics associated with the regular grid, the trench is a series of wells, etc.
Yes, I discussed with Paul my expectations on the utility of you revising your model at this time.
I am sure you will be able to discretize it to reflect the heterogeneities; however, it is not setup to simulate the trench as the trench is not aligned with a principal axis for the model grid. Using a series of individual wells to simulate the trench may be fine for a first approximation; however, I anticipate it would not provide the details needed nor would it be calibrated to the pilot test data.
- 2. You are preparing a report on the flow model you generated.
Yes, I discussed with Paul my plan to complete in the near future a report on my calculations including the model setup, etc. I hope to make the report publicly available prior to issuance of RAIs on the DP so that, if elected to do so, you can provide comment on the assumptions, etc.,
that were used in the calculations.
- 3. The shortest path to concurrence on the flow models, the infrastructure, the pumping rates, and the duration of remediation may be for Burns & McDonnell to replace their existing MODFLOW model with the model you generated (at least as a starting point) and adding the treated water injection component, etc.
Yes, Paul and I discussed how to come to a mutually agreeable calculation that is needed to demonstrate that a proposed remediation timeframe is reasonable. My comment was largely about what sort of calculations were needed. If the revisions to your existing model provide a reasonable scenario, I would expect to accept those calculations. However, as stated above for comment (1), I am doubtful that the revised model will provide sufficient detail. And I want to be clear, my comment about you using the current version of MODFLOW may be preferred over revision to your existing model, or possibly using a simple analytical element model. In the alternative, when my calculations are made public, you can provide comment on those calculations, including disagreement with any assumption or any revision to the model, if you choose to do so, in the response to any RAI. I am not advocating that NRC give you a model to use for your design, in fact, the purpose of the model was solely to provide calculations in order to verify assumptions in your calculations.
I dont know if you can talk modeler-to-modeler about what your plans are and if you can make the flow model available to him, but time is passing and were going to be on hold at least until Jim arranges a public meeting to discuss technical issues. Is my understanding (as expressed above) reasonably accurate, and what is the best path forward to expedite making progress?
I think it would be possible for me to demonstrate to your technical personnel the process used in developing my calculations in a non-public setting. From my perspective, such a meeting is a follow-up clarification on information provided during the last public meeting. With respect to your proposed infiltration system, from a conceptual point of view, using some sort of infiltration system between extraction trenches seems reasonable. I dont think an expansive numerical model is needed for its justification at this time in order to submit a revised DP for a detailed technical review. I think the details could be hashed out through the RAI process. Similarly, I dont think it wise to alter the construction diagrams at this time; this also can be best accomplished when all RAIs are addressed.Revisions to the figures included in the DP narrative should be sufficient.
I know Jim is finalizing our comments to your responses on our comments to your responses on the audit review comments. In my opinion, once the comments are finalized and sent to you, a revised DP could be submitted shortly thereafter.
From: Lux, Jeff J <jlux@burnsmcd.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 5:08 PM To: Saxton, John <John.Saxton@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] Groundwater Flow Model
I just received a call from Paul Davis and came away with the following understanding:
- 1. The MODFLOW version on which Burns & McDonnells groundwater flow model is based is old and has some deficient characteristics associated with the regular grid, the trench is a series of wells, etc.
- 2. You are preparing a report on the flow model you generated.
- 3. The shortest path to concurrence on the flow models, the infrastructure, the pumping rates, and the duration of remediation may be for Burns & McDonnell to replace their existing MODFLOW model with the model you generated (at least as a starting point) and adding the treated water injection component, etc.
I dont know if you can talk modeler-to-modeler about what your plans are and if you can make the flow model available to him, but time is passing and were going to be on hold at least until Jim arranges a public meeting to discuss technical issues. Is my understanding (as expressed above) reasonably accurate, and what is the best path forward to expedite making progress?
Jeff Lux, P.E.
Project Manager Environmental Properties Management LLC A Subsidiary of Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
405-642-5152