Text

Cimarron Environmental Response Trust - Groundwater Flow Model Report Cimarron Remediation Site
	ML22286A227
Person / Time
Site:	07000925
Issue date:	10/07/2022
From:	; Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Shared Package
ML22287A079	List: ML22286A225; ML22286A227; ML22286A230; ML22286A235; ML22286A244; ML22286A246; ML22286A247;
References
	142089
	Download: ML22286A227 (87)
	v • d • e

BURNS ^ISDONNELL Groundwater Flow Model Report Cimarron Remediation Site Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Project No. 142089 Revision 0 10/7/2022

Groundwater Flow Model Report Cimarron Remediation Site prepared for Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Crescent, Oklahoma Project No. 142089 Revision 0 10/7/2022 prepared by Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.

Enter City, State of Office Location

Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.....................................................................................................1-1 2.0 BA1GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CONSTRUCTION..................................2-1 2.1 Groundwater Model Domain....................................................................................2-1 2.2 Groundwater Model Discretization......................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Groundwater Model Layering..................................................................................2-3 2.4 Model Perimeter Boundary Conditions.................................................................. 2-3 2.4.1 No Flow Boundaries.................................................................................. 2-3 2.4.2 General Head Boundaries........................................................................ 2-5 2.4.3 River Boundaries...................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Internal Model Boundary Conditions..................................................................... 2-5 2.5.1 Aquifer Recharge...................................................................................... 2-5 2.5.2 Groundwater Wells MNW2Well Package.............................................. 2-7 2.5.3 Injection and Extraction Trenches...........................................................2-7 2.6 Hydrogeologic Properties.......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.0 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CALIBRATION.................................... 3-1 3.1 Verification of Model After Grid Re-Discretization............................................. 3-1 3.2 Simulated versus Observed Groundwater Heads................................................... 3-1 3.3 BA1 Model Limitations and Uncertainty............................................................... 3-4 4.0 BA1 REMEDIATION SIMULATIONS.................................................... 4-1 5.0 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CONSTRUCTION.............................. 5-1 5.1 Groundwater Model Domain and Discretization....................................................5-1 5.2 Model Perimeter Boundary Conditions.................................................................. 5-1 5.2.1 No Flow Boundaries................................................................................. 5-1 5.2.2 Constant Head Boundaries......................... 5-1 5.2.3 General Head Boundaries.........................................................................5-4 5.2.4 River Boundaries...................................................................................... 5-4 5.3 Internal Model Boundary Conditions..................................................................... 5-4 5.3.1 Aq uifer Recharge...................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.2 Groundwater Extraction Wells and Trenches......................................... 5-4 5.4 Hydrogeologic Properties........................................................................................ 5-6 6.0 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CALIBRATION.................................. 6-1 6.1 Simulated versus Observed Groundwater Heads....................................................6-1 6.2 WAA Model Limitations and Uncertainty............................................................. 6-4 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust TOC-1 Bums & McDonnell

Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 Table of Contents 7.0 WAA REMEDIATION SIMULATIONS..................................................................7-1 8.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................ 8-1

9.0 REFERENCES

........................................................................................................9-1 APPENDIX A - 2022 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL LITHOLOGY DISTRIBUTION BY MODFLOW LAYER APPENDIX B - ENVIRONMENTAL SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY (ESS)

AND POROSITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX C - 2022 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL LITHOLOGY DISTRIBUTION BY MODFLOW LAYER Cimarron Environmental Response Trust TOC-2 Burns & McDonnell

Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Page No.

Table 2-1: Model Lithology Zones and Hydrogeologic Properties.............................................2-9 Table 3-1: Model Computed versus Observed Heads..................................................................3-3 Table 4-1: BA1 Model Simulated Rates for Remedial Wells and Trenches..............................4-2 Table 5-1: Model Lithology Zones and Hydrogeologic Properties.............................................5-6 Table 6-1: WAA Model Computed versus Observed Heads....................................................... 6-2 Table 7-1: WAA Model Simulated Rates for Remedial Wells and Trenches............................7-1 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust TOC-3 Burns & McDonnell

Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Page No.

Figure 2-1: BA1 Groundwater Model Domain............................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2: BA1 Model Perimeter Boundary Conditions........................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3: BA1 Model Internal Boundary Conditions.............................................................. 2-6 Figure 3-1: 2022 BA1 Calibrated Steady State Model - Modeled vs Observed Heads (feet).............................................................................................................................3-2 Figure 3-2: BA1 Calibrated Model Head Results and Residuals............................................... 3-5 Figure 4-1: BA1 Site Facility Decommissioning Plan Rev 3 Calculated Heads...................... 4-3 Figure 4-2: BA1 Groundwater Flow Model MODPATH Particle Results Decommissioning Plan Rev 3....................................................................................4-4 Figure 4-3: BA1 Site Facility Decommissioning Plan Rev 3 MODPATH Results Near Trenches...................................................................................................................... 4-5 Figure 5-1: WAA Groundwater Flow Model Domain................................................................ 5-2 Figure 5-2: WAA Model Perimeter Boundary Conditions.........................................................5-3 Figure 5-3: WAA Model Internal Boundary Conditions............................................................5-5 Figure 6-1: WAA Calibrated Steady State Model - Modeled vs Observed Heads (feet)....... 6-4 Figure 6-2: WAA Groundwater Flow Model Calibrated Head Field and Residuals................6-5 Figure 7-1: WAA Site Facility Decommissioning Plan Rev 3 Calculated Heads.................... 7-2 Figure 7-2: WAA Site Facility Decommissioning Plan Rev 3 MODPATH Particle Results..........................................................................................................................7-3 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust TOC-4 Burns & McDonnell

Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 List of Abbreviations LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name ARM Absolute Residual Mean BA1 Burial Area #1 Bums & McDonnell Bums & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.

EPM Environmental Properties Management LLC ft Feet fit/day Feet per Day GHB MODFLOW General Head Boundary GPM Gallon per Minute K Hydraulic Conductivity MNW2 MODFLOW Multi-Node Well package RMS Root Mean Square Site Cimarron Site Trust Cimarron Environmental Response Trust U>DCGL Uranium Greater Than the DCGL Area VDU Vertical Distribution of Uranium WAA Western Alluvial Area Cimarron Environmental Response Trust i Burns & McDonnell

Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On behalf of Environmental Property Management LLC (EPM), Trustee for the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, Bums & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Bums & McDonnell) submits this 2022 Groundwater Flow Model Report for the Cimarron site (the Site), located at 100 N. Highway 74, Guthrie, Oklahoma. During this report existing groundwater flow models were updated to evaluate groundwater remediation alternatives for the Western Alluvial Area (WA) and Burial Area #1 (BA1) located on the Site.

The WAA and BA1 groundwater models were originally developed in 2006 (ENSR October, 2006), and have been periodically updated to reflect newly available data and various remedial alternatives:

Groundwater Flow Modeling Report (ENSR October, 2006)

Groundwater Flow Model Update, (Bums & McDonnell, 2014)

2016 Groundwater Flow Model Update (Bums & McDonnell, 2017a).

2020 Groundwater Flow Model Review (Bums & McDonnell, 2020)

The purpose of this report is to document the construction, calibration, and remedial alternative simulations of the WAA groundwater flow model and the BA1 groundwater flow model in support of the Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3). Consistent with previous iterations of the CERT groundwater models, MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh et al., 2000), a three-dimensional, finite difference groundwater flow computer code, was used for the update to the groundwater models. Model construction and the evaluation of model-predicted output were completed using Groundwater Vistas Version 8.

Groundwater Vistas is a pre- and post-processing software package that was used to create standard format MODFLOW file sets from graphically input data. Model outputs were evaluated using Groundwater Vistas, ArcGIS Pro (ESRI) and Microsoft Office programs. Groundwater Vistas was used to provide contoured model-predicted results (model predicted heads and drawdown) and numerical data output. Additional data contouring and evaluation was completed using ArcGIS Pro. All model units for length are in feet, and all model units for time are in days.

Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 1-1 Burns & McDonnell

Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Construction 2.0 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CONSTRUCTION The BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model Review (Bums & McDonnell, 2020) was used as the starting point for revisions of the BA1 groundwater flow model documented in this report. The two improvements made to the BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model include decreasing the uniform cell size from ten feet to five feet and updates to the distribution of lithology zones. A reduction in cell size was performed to allow for more accurate analysis of groundwater flow near boundary conditions such as infiltration and extraction trenches. The second improvement included updates of lithology zones and associated hydraulic conductivity within the valley of the BA1 transition zone. The Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy (ESS) and Porosity Analysis (Burns & McDonnell, 2018) was used as the basis for an improved representation of varying lithology and specifically the isolated sand channels within the BA1 transition zone.

2.1 Groundwater Model Domain The same model domain of the BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model Review (Bums & McDonnell, 2020) was used for reconstruction of the groundwater flow model in this report (Figure 2-1). The northern extent of the model domain intersects the boundary of the Cimarron River. Groundwater flow is primarily northward toward the Cimarron River. The eastern and western extents of the model domain were developed at adequate distance to limit impact to flow fields within the BA1 transition area. The southern extent of the model boundary was selected to be upgradient of the BA1 transition area and is oriented along an east-west line approximately parallel to the Reservoir #2 dam (ENSR, 2006).

Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 2-1 Burns & McDonnell

LEGEND NOTES FIGURE 2-1

1) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MEAN BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN

2) BASEMAP: GOOGLE EARTH 2017 (REVISION 3)

^BURNS BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) v ^msdo nnel l environmental properties management. ILC ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN Rev No: 0 Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 Coordinate System WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Construction 2.2 Groundwater Model Discretization The BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model Review (Bums & McDonnell, 2020) was used as the starting point for revisions to the BA1 groundwater flow model documented in this report. The BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020) featured a uniform square cell size of ten feet by ten feet. Re-discretization to a smaller uniform square cell size of five feet by five feet was achieved by splitting each ten feet by ten feet MODFLOW cell into four equal cells. The revised grid model domain consists of 340 rows, 340 columns, 12 layers, 1,387,200 total cells, and 1,126,246 active cells. ArcGIS Pro was utilized to assign the properties of the higher-resolution model grid based upon a spatial location match to the attributes of the BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020). This approach allowed for model re-discretization while maintaining established layer geometry (layer top and bottom elevations), boundary conditions, and hydrogeologic attributes (hydraulic conductivity, porosity) from the active model domain of the BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020).

2.3 Groundwater Model Layering Twelve layers are used to simulate the geology of the BA1 area. The upper eight model layers are generally used to simulate the alluvial aquifer, which is approximately 20 feet thick in most of the model domain, and the lower four layers primarily contain bedrock with lower permeability. The model layers are generally uniform with individual layer thicknesses typically between two to three feet. No adjustments were made to the number of layers or model layer elevations within the active model domain during this model update. The original model layering system setup is further described in the 2006 Groundwater Flow Modeling Report (ENSR, 2006).

2.4 Model Perimeter Boundary Conditions Model perimeter boundary conditions are used to simulate the conceptual flow into and out of the model domain along the outer perimeter of the active model domain. Model perimeter boundary conditions were developed to mirror those implemented in the BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020) and include the use of no flow cells, the MODFLOW river package, and general head boundaries.

The location of model perimeter boundary conditions is illustrated in (Figure 2-2).

2.4.1 No Flow Boundaries Outside of the active domain are no flow cells that define the western and eastern boundary of the model domain. Starting water levels for all steady-state model solutions were assigned as being one foot below the top of model Layer 1. The high starting water levels allow for the MODFLOW steady-state solution to start cells within the active model domain as saturated and therefore active. Model cells will then remain active unless calculated by MODFLOW to be dry during a final solution.

Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 2-3 Burns & McDonnell

FIGURE 2-2 MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM 1) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MEAN BA1 GROUNDWATER MODEL SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF PERIMETER BOUNDARY CONDITIONS MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B 1988). SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CD ' MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C (REVISION 3) 2 2) BASEMAP: GOOGLE EARTH 2017 LD =

MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ^BURNS F=

environmental uj Z Cd BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) xVMSDONNELL. properties management. ILC Z LU oy 5

o CO NO FLOW BOUNDARIES s i Rev No: 0 RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS Date: 9/20/2022 CO c z jg N Preparer: BELOCKWOOD cr o GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS 230 460 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 CO N ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN Coordinate System O A3 CN CL SCALE IN FEET WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Construction 2.4.2 General Head Boundaries General Head Boundaries (GHB) were utilized to simulate upgradient flux into the aquifer along the southern extent of the model domain and model Layer 12 consistent with previous the BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020). The assigned head and conductance terms assigned to general head boundaries within the model are equal to the BA1 2020 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020).

2.4.3 River Boundaries The river package was used to simulate the surface water and groundwater interaction of the Cimarron River as a regional groundwater discharge point within model layers 3 through 6. River boundary cells are based upon the location of river cells within the 2020 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model. Values for assigned river heads, boundary conductance, and riverbed elevation were also maintained at those established by the 2020 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020).

2.5 Internal Model Boundary Conditions Internal model boundary conditions are used to simulate internal sources and sinks including recharge, remedial infiltration trenches, remedial extraction trenches, and pumping wells (Figure 2-3).

2.5.1 Aquifer Recharge Recharge to groundwater is simulated using the MODFLOW recharge package. The recharge package is used to represent the fraction of precipitation that enters the subsurface as rainfall recharge directly to the groundwater table. The model domain is small enough that significant variability in precipitation is not anticipated, therefore recharge is applied uniformly across the model domain. For the steady-state simulation of groundwater flow the recharge package was used to apply a uniform constant recharge rate of 2.4 inches per year (approximately 8% of annual precipitation) consistent with previous steady-state model values (ENSR, 2006) (Bums & McDonnell, 2020).

Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 2-5 Burns & McDonnell

m 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

N 160 320 i *>> Vi<< a >> a * <<i<< W!v <D w 2 s ^

iaaaacuamsieaajMi>>l SCALE IN FEET :....A M -4 ^_i ~ - -

LEGEND FIGURE 2-3 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL INTERNAL MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)

MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS NO FLOW BOUNDARIES MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ^BURNS EXTRACTION WELL/SUMP TRENCH MODEL CELLS ^MCDONNELL. environmental properties management. ILC INJECTION WELL NOTES

1) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE Rev No: 0 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TRENCH MEAN SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 DATUM OF 1988).
GROUNDWATER INJECTION TRENCH Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) 2) BASEMAP: GOOGLE EARTH 2017 Coordinate Svstem i
WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Construction 2.5.2 Groundwater Wells MNW2 Well Package The updated groundwater model simulates extraction wells with discrete, short screen intervals, using the Multi-Node Well (MNW2) Package (Konikow, et. al. 2009). In the MNW2 Package, a single well screen can occur at any position within a model layer if the user specifies the elevation of the top and bottom of the well screen. The MNW2 package uses the specified top and bottom of the screen intervals to distribute the prescribed well pumping rate within the cell and to calculate the additional head loss in the pumping well that occurs due to partial penetration effects. All extraction wells simulated in the BA1 model were simulated with ten-foot screen sections.
2.5.3 Injection and Extraction Trenches The Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3) includes several proposed groundwater injection and extraction trenches. Injection and extraction trenches were simulated utilizing the MODFLOW well package by assigning individual well boundary conditions to model cells which overlapped the linear extent of each infiltration or extraction trench. Injection or extraction rates were then assigned to individual cells based upon the total simulated flow rate for the trench, divided by the number of cells in the well package simulating each trench.
2.6 Injection and Extraction Trenches The hydrogeologic properties specified within the model are horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kx-y),
vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kz), and porosity. All modeling simulations were run under steady-state conditions, which do not require specification of aquifer storage coefficients (specific storage or specific yield).
Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of a material's capacity to transmit water and is defined as a constant of proportionality relating the specific discharge of a porous medium under a unit hydraulic gradient. The units for hydraulic conductivity within this report are provided as feet per day (feet/day). Hydraulic conductivity values are required to describe the permeability of each cell in the MODFLOW model. The BA1 model represents a complicated layering system of unconsolidated deposits underlain by semi-permeable bedrock (ENSR, 2006). The distribution of hydraulic conductivity within the model is based upon hydraulic conductivity zones which correlate to a specific lithology type.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 2-7 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Construction Distribution of hydraulic conductivity values for this model update began with utilizing values established by the 2020 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020). The intended use of this model update is additional examination of groundwater flow and transport conditions, specifically within the BA1 transition zone under the remedial conditions of the Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3). In 2018 an ESS and porosity analysis (Bums & McDonnell, 2018) was performed which developed a high-resolution three-dimensional interpretation of the lithology within the BA1 transition zone (Appendix B). This ESS analysis included three-dimensional interpolation of specific lithology zones which include:
Cimarron River Floodplain Deposits - Clay, silt, and interbedded fine-grained sand corresponding to floodplain deposits of the Cimarron River. Includes sands as overbank splays deposited during flood-stages.
Cimarron River Channel Deposits - Fine to coarse grained, cross-bedded sand deposited as point-bars by the Cimarron River.
Cimarron River Clay Plug Deposits: Clay and silt with some thin sands, deposited in abandoned stretches of Cimarron River channels (oxbow lakes).
Upper Gully Fill - Silt and silty sand with interbedded clayey sand and silty sand deposited as gully-wash by streamflow during flash flood events. Contains minor sand-rich streamflow deposits.
Lower Gully Fill: Clay-rich deposits including gully-wall failure (slump, slide, and debris-flow) features. Chaotic, may include minor re-worked streamflow deposits.
Intra-gully Stream Deposits: Sand and silty sand deposited by streamflow within gully system.
Garber Sandstone Bedrock (undifferentiated).
Using ArcGIS Pro and Groundwater Vistas 8, the three-dimensional distribution of lithology zones within the ESS model was incorporated into the groundwater model using a nearest neighbor merge of the MODFLOW cell nodes to the three-dimensional ESS lithology coverage. Each of the unconsolidated sediment lithologies defined by ESS was assigned a distinct zone within the model so that model hydraulic conductivity and porosity attributes are grouped by lithology zone. The final distribution of lithology zones is provided within Table 2-1 and illustrated within Appendix A.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 2-8 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Construction Table 2-1: Model Lithology Zones and Hydrogeologic Properties Groundwater Model Lithology Kx Ky Kz Porosity Lithology Zone Number Cimarron River Floodplain 101 3 3 0.3 0.2 Deposits Clay/Silt traces sand Cimarron River Deposits - Upper 2 and 102 117.5 117.5 11.75 0.3 Alluvial Aquifer Sands Cimarron River Deposits - Lower 12 352.5 352.5 35.25 0.3 Alluvial Aquifer Sands River Clay Plug Deposits 103 2.77 2.77 0.277 0.2 Uppermost Gulley Fill Unit 5 1.28 1.28 0.128 0.2 Upper Gully Fill 104 15 15 1.5 0.2 Lower Gully Fill 105 3 3 0.3 0.2 Intra Gully Stream Deposits 106 50 50 5 0.3 (Sand Body)
Clay 10 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.2 Silt 3 0.283 0.283 0.0283 0.2 Siltstone 6, 8, and 9 8.43 8.43 0.422 0.01 Sandstone A 4 40 40 2 0.05 Sandstone B 7 5 5 0.25 0.05 Sandstone C 11 3 3 0.15 0.05 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 2-9 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration 3.0 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CALIBRATION After updating model discretization and lithology zones, validation of model calibration was evaluated by comparing observed and simulated groundwater elevations, groundwater flow contours, and water budgets. The calibration goals for the numerical model are based upon industry standards and previous BA1 modeling efforts which are defined as:
A less than one (1) percent water balance error, which is considered appropriate for a calibrated groundwater model (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). The water balance error is defined as the total inflow minus the total outflow, divided by either the inflow or outflow, whichever yields the highest error.
A Normalized Root Mean Square error (NRMS) of less than ten (10) percent. A NRMS of less than ten (10) percent is generally considered appropriate for a calibrated groundwater model (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). A lower NRMS indicates a better statistical model calibration.
An Absolute Residual Mean (ARM) of less than ten percent the observed head change value across the model domain. The ARM can be described as the average error of the absolute value of the residuals.
A qualitative match of model simulated potentiometric surface and observed potentiometric surface, evaluated by visually comparing contours. When calibrated, the model should be able to reproduce the direction and magnitude of the hydraulic gradient observed within the boundary.
3.1 Verification of Model After Grid Re-Discretization The groundwater flow model was updated to a smaller uniform square grid cell size of five feet by five feet. Prior to any other model changes, the calculated groundwater heads from the updated grid model were then compared to the heads obtained from the 2020 groundwater flow model. The comparison found that the heads in the updated grid model and the 2020 groundwater flow model were nearly identical. The near identical heads confirm that model grid refinement and the re-import of model attributes did not significantly influence model calibration.
3.2 Simulated versus Observed Groundwater Heads As documented in the model construction portion of this report, updates to the distribution of lithology zones were completed after refinement of the groundwater model grid. After completing the modifications to the distribution of lithology zones, water level measurements collected in August 2016 were compared to the model calculated head values. The calibration data set and the model calculated heads reflect non-pumping conditions prior to implementation of any remedial alternatives. The Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 3-1 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration calibration dataset included 68 wells with a range in observed water level elevations of 17.48 feet. The model simulated heads and observed heads used for the calibration dataset are within Table 3-1.
The calibration statistics for the updated model indicate a mass balance error of 0.0012 percent, NRMS of 0.059 (5.9 percent), and ARM of 0.64 feet which meet the established model calibration goals. As an additional evaluation for the model calibration, the simulated versus observed groundwater level data for the calibrated steady state model is provided as Figure 3-1 and indicates a good fit between simulated and observed head data. The resulting flow field of the calibrated groundwater model and distribution of residuals are illustrated Figure 3-2. The updated model calibration is an improvement of the calibration statistics from the 2016 Groundwater Flow Model Update which achieved a NRMS of 0.069 (6.9 percent) and ARM of 0.7 feet (Bums & McDonnell, 2017a).
Figure 3-1: 2022 BA1 Calibrated Steady State Model - Modeled vs Observed Heads (feet) 950 CD CD A#
945 *9
,e.'
.i 940
~o c
I*
u 935 930 <<*#
925 925 930 935 940 945 950 Observed Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 3-2 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration Table 3-1: Model Computed versus Observed Heads Observation X Y Model Observed Computed Residual Well Name Coordinate Coordinate Layer Head (ft) Head (ft) (ft) 02W02 2095455 322885 6 930.53 930.93 -0.40 02W03 2095375 322885 5 928.42 929.94 -1.52 02W04 2095335 322905 6 927.88 928.24 -0.36 02W05 2095315 322955 5 927.88 928.01 -0.13 02W06 2095305 323005 7 927.87 927.85 0.02 02W07 2095345 323005 7 927.87 927.84 0.03 02W08 2095395 323015 7 927.85 927.78 0.07 02W09 2095595 322765 6 935.13 935.43 -0.30 02W10 2095575 322825 6 933.81 933.69 0.12 02W11 2095445 323055 8 927.74 927.65 0.09 02W12 2095455 323035 8 927.73 927.68 0.05 02W13 2095475 322985 8 927.93 927.81 0.12 02W14 2095395 323055 8 927.76 927.68 0.08 02W15 2095285 322895 5 927.91 928.24 -0.33 02W16 2095265 322945 6 927.90 928.06 -0.16 02W17 2095255 323005 7 927.86 927.87 -0.01 02W18 2095345 323095 8 927.74 927.61 0.13 02W19 2095325 323055 7 927.82 927.71 0.11 02W21 2095195 323055 8 928.41 927.75 0.66 02W22 2095215 322935 6 927.89 928.10 -0.21 02W23 2095205 323005 8 927.89 927.88 0.01 02W24 2095265 323055 8 927.83 927.73 0.10 02W26 2095625 322715 5 935.88 936.73 -0.85 02W27 2095395 322825 6 932.18 932.72 -0.54 02W28 2095535 322835 6 933.91 933.07 0.84 02W29 2095555 322755 5 934.99 935.68 -0.69 02W30 2095475 322765 7 934.91 935.52 -0.61 02W31 2095505 322855 6 933.53 932.45 1.08 02W32 2095435 322965 7 927.87 927.90 -0.03 02W33 2095255 322915 6 927.96 928.16 -0.20 02W34 2095185 323105 8 927.84 927.64 0.20 02W35 2095255 323155 8 927.75 927.53 0.22 02W36 2095255 323105 8 927.78 927.62 0.16 02W37 2095325 323155 7 927.69 927.51 0.18 02W38 2095395 323095 8 927.70 927.59 0.11 02W39 2095575 322735 5 935.29 936.32 -1.03 02W40 2095525 322665 7 939.37 939.49 -0.12 02W41 2095575 322685 6 937.77 938.13 -0.36 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 3-3 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration Observation X Y Model Observed Computed Residual Well Name Coordinate Coordinate Layer Head (ft) Head (ft) (ft) 02W42 2095475 322725 7 937.06 937.45 -0.39 02W43 2095325 323205 8 927.66 927.43 0.23 02W44 2095375 323155 8 927.65 927.49 0.16 02W45 2095285 323195 8 927.69 927.46 0.23 02W46 2095465 322905 6 929.07 930.29 -1.22 02W47 2095525 322625 7 940.39 940.92 -0.53 02W50 2095525 322565 7 940.91 942.77 -1.86 02W52 2095555 322565 7 940.25 942.09 -1.84 02W53 2095385 322825 6 932.28 932.68 -0.40 02W62 2095205 323145 8 927.77 927.56 0.21 1314 2095465 322415 8 944.45 947.88 -3.43 1344 2095775 323505 7 926.97 927.05 -0.08 1361 2095435 323265 8 927.53 927.31 0.22 1362 2095455 323185 10 927.61 927.08 0.53 1315R 2095505 322755 7 934.62 935.87 -1.25 1316R 2095435 322775 7 933.38 935.21 -1.83 TMW-01 2095505 322695 7 942.72 938.53 4.19 TMW-02 2095505 322595 7 940.77 942.31 -1.54 TMW-05 2095555 322885 7 932.30 931.92 0.38 TMW-06 2095635 322795 4 934.64 934.80 -0.16 TMW-08 2095535 322725 6 935.37 936.89 -1.52 TMW-09 2095485 322825 6 933.65 933.19 0.46 TMW-13 2095375 322955 6 927.90 927.96 -0.06 TMW-17 2095495 322765 12 932.22 934.50 -2.28 TMW-18 2095335 322865 6 928.12 929.89 -1.77 TMW-19 2095335 322865 4 928.99 930.06 -1.07 TMW-21 2095435 322705 6 937.22 938.66 -1.44 TMW-24 2095435 323405 7 927.44 927.17 0.27 TMW-25 2095625 322655 5 937.22 938.57 -1.35 3.3 BA1 Model Limitations and Uncertainty All models are a simplified representation of the physical aquifer system. Use of the updated groundwater model documented in this report is appropriate for the development of the conclusions provided within this report. Site conditions and hydrogeologic properties have been estimated through extrapolation of measured or estimated properties based on existing site information and professional judgment. Use of the groundwater model is currently limited to steady-state analyses which are intended to represent long-term static groundwater elevations or specific remedial alternatives. Additional specification of aquifer storage terms would be required for implementation of transient MODFLOW solutions.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 3-4 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Construction 2.5.2 Groundwater Wells MNW2 Well Package The updated groundwater model simulates extraction wells with discrete, short screen intervals, using the Multi-Node Well (MNW2) Package (Konikow, et. al. 2009). In the MNW2 Package, a single well screen can occur at any position within a model layer if the user specifies the elevation of the top and bottom of the well screen. The MNW2 package uses the specified top and bottom of the screen intervals to distribute the prescribed well pumping rate within the cell and to calculate the additional head loss in the pumping well that occurs due to partial penetration effects. All extraction wells simulated in the BA1 model were simulated with ten-foot screen sections.
2.5.3 Injection and Extraction Trenches The Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3) includes several proposed groundwater injection and extraction trenches. Injection and extraction trenches were simulated utilizing the MODFLOW well package by assigning individual well boundary conditions to model cells which overlapped the linear extent of each infiltration or extraction trench. Injection or extraction rates were then assigned to individual cells based upon the total simulated flow rate for the trench, divided by the number of cells in the well package simulating each trench.
2.6 Injection and Extraction Trenches The hydrogeologic properties specified within the model are horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kx-y),
vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kz), and porosity. All modeling simulations were run under steady-state conditions, which do not require specification of aquifer storage coefficients (specific storage or specific yield).
Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of a material's capacity to transmit water and is defined as a constant of proportionality relating the specific discharge of a porous medium under a unit hydraulic gradient. The units for hydraulic conductivity within this report are provided as feet per day (feet/day). Hydraulic conductivity values are required to describe the permeability of each cell in the MODFLOW model. The BA1 model represents a complicated layering system of unconsolidated deposits underlain by semi-permeable bedrock (ENSR, 2006). The distribution of hydraulic conductivity within the model is based upon hydraulic conductivity zones which correlate to a specific lithology type.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 2-7 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Construction Distribution of hydraulic conductivity values for this model update began with utilizing values established by the 2020 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020). The intended use of this model update is additional examination of groundwater flow and transport conditions, specifically within the BA1 transition zone under the remedial conditions of the Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3). In 2018 an ESS and porosity analysis (Bums & McDonnell, 2018) was performed which developed a high-resolution three-dimensional interpretation of the lithology within the BA1 transition zone (Appendix B). This ESS analysis included three-dimensional interpolation of specific lithology zones which include:
Cimarron River Floodplain Deposits - Clay, silt, and interbedded fine-grained sand corresponding to floodplain deposits of the Cimarron River. Includes sands as overbank splays deposited during flood-stages.
Cimarron River Channel Deposits - Fine to coarse grained, cross-bedded sand deposited as point-bars by the Cimarron River.
Cimarron River Clay Plug Deposits: Clay and silt with some thin sands, deposited in abandoned stretches of Cimarron River channels (oxbow lakes).
Upper Gully Fill - Silt and silty sand with interbedded clayey sand and silty sand deposited as gully-wash by streamflow during flash flood events. Contains minor sand-rich streamflow deposits.
Lower Gully Fill: Clay-rich deposits including gully-wall failure (slump, slide, and debris-flow) features. Chaotic, may include minor re-worked streamflow deposits.
Intra-gully Stream Deposits: Sand and silty sand deposited by streamflow within gully system.
Garber Sandstone Bedrock (undifferentiated).
Using ArcGIS Pro and Groundwater Vistas 8, the three-dimensional distribution of lithology zones within the ESS model was incorporated into the groundwater model using a nearest neighbor merge of the MODFLOW cell nodes to the three-dimensional ESS lithology coverage. Each of the unconsolidated sediment lithologies defined by ESS was assigned a distinct zone within the model so that model hydraulic conductivity and porosity attributes are grouped by lithology zone. The final distribution of lithology zones is provided within Table 2-1 and illustrated within Appendix A.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 2-8 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Construction Table 2-1: Model Lithology Zones and Hydrogeologic Properties Groundwater Model Lithology Kx Ky Kz Porosity Lithology Zone Number Cimarron River Floodplain 101 3 3 0.3 0.2 Deposits Clay/Silt traces sand Cimarron River Deposits - Upper 2 and 102 117.5 117.5 11.75 0.3 Alluvial Aquifer Sands Cimarron River Deposits - Lower 12 352.5 352.5 35.25 0.3 Alluvial Aquifer Sands River Clay Plug Deposits 103 2.77 2.77 0.277 0.2 Uppermost Gulley Fill Unit 5 1.28 1.28 0.128 0.2 Upper Gully Fill 104 15 15 1.5 0.2 Lower Gully Fill 105 3 3 0.3 0.2 Intra Gully Stream Deposits 106 50 50 5 0.3 (Sand Body)
Clay 10 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.2 Silt 3 0.283 0.283 0.0283 0.2 Siltstone 6, 8, and 9 8.43 8.43 0.422 0.01 Sandstone A 4 40 40 2 0.05 Sandstone B 7 5 5 0.25 0.05 Sandstone C 11 3 3 0.15 0.05 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 2-9 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration 3.0 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CALIBRATION After updating model discretization and lithology zones, validation of model calibration was evaluated by comparing observed and simulated groundwater elevations, groundwater flow contours, and water budgets. The calibration goals for the numerical model are based upon industry standards and previous BA1 modeling efforts which are defined as:
A less than one (1) percent water balance error, which is considered appropriate for a calibrated groundwater model (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). The water balance error is defined as the total inflow minus the total outflow, divided by either the inflow or outflow, whichever yields the highest error.
A Normalized Root Mean Square error (NRMS) of less than ten (10) percent. A NRMS of less than ten (10) percent is generally considered appropriate for a calibrated groundwater model (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). A lower NRMS indicates a better statistical model calibration.
An Absolute Residual Mean (ARM) of less than ten percent the observed head change value across the model domain. The ARM can be described as the average error of the absolute value of the residuals.
A qualitative match of model simulated potentiometric surface and observed potentiometric surface, evaluated by visually comparing contours. When calibrated, the model should be able to reproduce the direction and magnitude of the hydraulic gradient observed within the boundary.
3.1 Verification of Model After Grid Re-Discretization The groundwater flow model was updated to a smaller uniform square grid cell size of five feet by five feet. Prior to any other model changes, the calculated groundwater heads from the updated grid model were then compared to the heads obtained from the 2020 groundwater flow model. The comparison found that the heads in the updated grid model and the 2020 groundwater flow model were nearly identical. The near identical heads confirm that model grid refinement and the re-import of model attributes did not significantly influence model calibration.
3.2 Simulated versus Observed Groundwater Heads As documented in the model construction portion of this report, updates to the distribution of lithology zones were completed after refinement of the groundwater model grid. After completing the modifications to the distribution of lithology zones, water level measurements collected in August 2016 were compared to the model calculated head values. The calibration data set and the model calculated heads reflect non-pumping conditions prior to implementation of any remedial alternatives. The Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 3-1 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration calibration dataset included 68 wells with a range in observed water level elevations of 17.48 feet. The model simulated heads and observed heads used for the calibration dataset are within Table 3-1.
The calibration statistics for the updated model indicate a mass balance error of 0.0012 percent, NRMS of 0.059 (5.9 percent), and ARM of 0.64 feet which meet the established model calibration goals. As an additional evaluation for the model calibration, the simulated versus observed groundwater level data for the calibrated steady state model is provided as Figure 3-1 and indicates a good fit between simulated and observed head data. The resulting flow field of the calibrated groundwater model and distribution of residuals are illustrated Figure 3-2. The updated model calibration is an improvement of the calibration statistics from the 2016 Groundwater Flow Model Update which achieved a NRMS of 0.069 (6.9 percent) and ARM of 0.7 feet (Bums & McDonnell, 2017a).
Figure 3-1: 2022 BA1 Calibrated Steady State Model - Modeled vs Observed Heads (feet) 950 CD CD A#
945 *9
,e.'
.i 940
~o c
I*
u 935 930 <<*#
925 925 930 935 940 945 950 Observed Groundwater Elevation (feet)
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 3-2 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration Table 3-1: Model Computed versus Observed Heads Observation X Y Model Observed Computed Residual Well Name Coordinate Coordinate Layer Head (ft) Head (ft) (ft) 02W02 2095455 322885 6 930.53 930.93 -0.40 02W03 2095375 322885 5 928.42 929.94 -1.52 02W04 2095335 322905 6 927.88 928.24 -0.36 02W05 2095315 322955 5 927.88 928.01 -0.13 02W06 2095305 323005 7 927.87 927.85 0.02 02W07 2095345 323005 7 927.87 927.84 0.03 02W08 2095395 323015 7 927.85 927.78 0.07 02W09 2095595 322765 6 935.13 935.43 -0.30 02W10 2095575 322825 6 933.81 933.69 0.12 02W11 2095445 323055 8 927.74 927.65 0.09 02W12 2095455 323035 8 927.73 927.68 0.05 02W13 2095475 322985 8 927.93 927.81 0.12 02W14 2095395 323055 8 927.76 927.68 0.08 02W15 2095285 322895 5 927.91 928.24 -0.33 02W16 2095265 322945 6 927.90 928.06 -0.16 02W17 2095255 323005 7 927.86 927.87 -0.01 02W18 2095345 323095 8 927.74 927.61 0.13 02W19 2095325 323055 7 927.82 927.71 0.11 02W21 2095195 323055 8 928.41 927.75 0.66 02W22 2095215 322935 6 927.89 928.10 -0.21 02W23 2095205 323005 8 927.89 927.88 0.01 02W24 2095265 323055 8 927.83 927.73 0.10 02W26 2095625 322715 5 935.88 936.73 -0.85 02W27 2095395 322825 6 932.18 932.72 -0.54 02W28 2095535 322835 6 933.91 933.07 0.84 02W29 2095555 322755 5 934.99 935.68 -0.69 02W30 2095475 322765 7 934.91 935.52 -0.61 02W31 2095505 322855 6 933.53 932.45 1.08 02W32 2095435 322965 7 927.87 927.90 -0.03 02W33 2095255 322915 6 927.96 928.16 -0.20 02W34 2095185 323105 8 927.84 927.64 0.20 02W35 2095255 323155 8 927.75 927.53 0.22 02W36 2095255 323105 8 927.78 927.62 0.16 02W37 2095325 323155 7 927.69 927.51 0.18 02W38 2095395 323095 8 927.70 927.59 0.11 02W39 2095575 322735 5 935.29 936.32 -1.03 02W40 2095525 322665 7 939.37 939.49 -0.12 02W41 2095575 322685 6 937.77 938.13 -0.36 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 3-3 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 BA1 Groundwater Flow Model Calibration Observation X Y Model Observed Computed Residual Well Name Coordinate Coordinate Layer Head (ft) Head (ft) (ft) 02W42 2095475 322725 7 937.06 937.45 -0.39 02W43 2095325 323205 8 927.66 927.43 0.23 02W44 2095375 323155 8 927.65 927.49 0.16 02W45 2095285 323195 8 927.69 927.46 0.23 02W46 2095465 322905 6 929.07 930.29 -1.22 02W47 2095525 322625 7 940.39 940.92 -0.53 02W50 2095525 322565 7 940.91 942.77 -1.86 02W52 2095555 322565 7 940.25 942.09 -1.84 02W53 2095385 322825 6 932.28 932.68 -0.40 02W62 2095205 323145 8 927.77 927.56 0.21 1314 2095465 322415 8 944.45 947.88 -3.43 1344 2095775 323505 7 926.97 927.05 -0.08 1361 2095435 323265 8 927.53 927.31 0.22 1362 2095455 323185 10 927.61 927.08 0.53 1315R 2095505 322755 7 934.62 935.87 -1.25 1316R 2095435 322775 7 933.38 935.21 -1.83 TMW-01 2095505 322695 7 942.72 938.53 4.19 TMW-02 2095505 322595 7 940.77 942.31 -1.54 TMW-05 2095555 322885 7 932.30 931.92 0.38 TMW-06 2095635 322795 4 934.64 934.80 -0.16 TMW-08 2095535 322725 6 935.37 936.89 -1.52 TMW-09 2095485 322825 6 933.65 933.19 0.46 TMW-13 2095375 322955 6 927.90 927.96 -0.06 TMW-17 2095495 322765 12 932.22 934.50 -2.28 TMW-18 2095335 322865 6 928.12 929.89 -1.77 TMW-19 2095335 322865 4 928.99 930.06 -1.07 TMW-21 2095435 322705 6 937.22 938.66 -1.44 TMW-24 2095435 323405 7 927.44 927.17 0.27 TMW-25 2095625 322655 5 937.22 938.57 -1.35 3.3 BA1 Model Limitations and Uncertainty All models are a simplified representation of the physical aquifer system. Use of the updated groundwater model documented in this report is appropriate for the development of the conclusions provided within this report. Site conditions and hydrogeologic properties have been estimated through extrapolation of measured or estimated properties based on existing site information and professional judgment. Use of the groundwater model is currently limited to steady-state analyses which are intended to represent long-term static groundwater elevations or specific remedial alternatives. Additional specification of aquifer storage terms would be required for implementation of transient MODFLOW solutions.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 3-4 Burns & McDonnell
bus*-
stlsl
-i; ii
,j. II:
0:078843
[5:269391 0.217912
0:526977 0.093073
0.42717'2
.0.0.1.5615 1:517302: 0:380093:
0.157266 0119875
0.328449 :0.-399245
0:295766
'0.836804
__ Limi.53j
0:8.45632:
5S6Q47^:
0:12176
1.85593 *1.837585
C;.
460 fr'-i':* r .<*-. *: :y :
<
'GETR-BA1-02
'GWI-BA1'03. 'GWI-BA1;04'
[GWIiBA1T04
[GWrBAiT03A GETR-BA1-01
GWI-BA1-02i ,GWllBA1i02A'
'GWI-BAYOI FEE=F LEGEND FIGURE 4-2 O 15 MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM PUMPING HEAD CONTOURS (1 FT) BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CD cr ~ BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) MODPATH PARTICLE TRACKING RESULTS MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B LU co LU O SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS (REVISION 3)
MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS
^BURNS LU f- EXTRACTION WELL/SUMP NO FLOW BOUNDARIES ^MSDONNELL. environmental properties management. LLC INJECTION WELL TRENCH MODEL CELLS O CO GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TRENCH Rev No: 0 oo c/)
NOTES Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 GROUNDWATER INJECTION TRENCH 1) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA
+ PARTICLE FLOW DIRECTION ARROWS LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988). Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 CM if Coordinate Svstem o ro CM =*=
PARTICLE TRACKING 2) BASEMAP: GOOGLE EARTH 2017 WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere CM 0-
?m a
-nr.;,tirtt:.mB y .
i /
vm
i'v
- \\
2&c. -\
r >1rs&BKlt w
, \j*-
Files\Arcdocs\2022\2022 GW Model Updates from DCIement\Site Facility Decommissioning Plan Rev 3 Trench Modpath.aprx GWI-BA1104J 1111 i n la
'GETR-BA1I02 i . ( i " i i i i i i I
1 t I l t tg i l 1 \
gwiTBAlgg]
1 r k.
GWI-BA1-03,
[GWiTBA1^03'/K i \
7T ralV .
_ \ _____
1 gWPBA102A' GWI-BA1-02 1
- GWI-BA1-01 iPath: Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\ Clientlnfo\Sites\D atabase\Geospatial\Ma i i r rps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
B LEGEND FIGURE 4-3 i i MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM PARTICLE TRACKING BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL MODPATH PARTICLE TRACKING RESULTS MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B -V PARTICLE FLOW DIRECTION ARROWS NEAR TRENCHES PUMPING HEAD CONTOURS (1 FT) SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)
MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C PUMPING HEAD CONTOURS (0.5 FT)
MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ^BURNS EXTRACTION WELL/SUMP TRENCH MODEL CELLS xS. MCDONNELL. environmental properties management, lie INJECTION WELL Rev No: 0 NOTES GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TRENCH 1) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS IN FEET ABOVE MEAN Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF GROUNDWATER INJECTION TRENCH Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 1988).
BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) Coordinate System
2) BASEMAP: GOOGLE EARTH 2017 WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 WAA Groundwater Flow Model Construction 5.0 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CONSTRUCTION The WAA Groundwater Flow Model described by (Bums & McDonnell, 2020) was used as the model for remedial alternative simulations. The sections below document model construction.
5.1 Groundwater Model Domain and Discretization The same model domain of the 2020 Groundwater Flow Model Update (Bums & McDonnell, 2020) was used for construction of the groundwater flow model in this report. The model domain for the WA area was set up to include the area from the escarpment to the south to the Cimarron River to the north and east and west to distances to have a negligible effect on groundwater flow conditions within the interior of the model domain (Figure 5-1). The model was developed with 402 rows, 412 columns, and three layers for which grid cells are approximately 10 feet square in the X-Y plane. This results in 496,872 total cells with 407,245 cells within the active model domain.
5.2 Model Perimeter Boundary Conditions Model perimeter boundary conditions are used to simulate the conceptual flow into and out of the model domain along the outer perimeter of the active model domain. Model perimeter boundary conditions are the same as those described by the 2020 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020) and include the use of no flow cells, the MODFLOW river package, and general head boundaries. The location of model perimeter boundary conditions is illustrated in (Figure 5-2).
5.2.1 No Flow Boundaries Outside of the active domain are no flow cells that define the western and eastern boundary of the entire model domain. Starting water levels for all steady-state model solutions were assigned as being one foot below the top of model Layer 1. The high starting water levels allow for the MODFLOW steady-state solutions to start cells within the active model domain as saturated and therefore active. Model cells will then remain active unless calculated by MODFLOW to be diy during a final solution.
5.2.2 Constant Head Boundaries The impact of leakage to groundwater from Reservoir 3 on the groundwater elevations within the WAA model is simulated utilizing a coverage of constant head boundary cells. The constant head boundaries are assigned an elevation of 958 feet msl. The assigned head elevation based on prior investigations (Bums &
McDonnell, 2017a).
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 5-1 Burns & McDonnell
FIGURE 5-1 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL DOMAIN FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN REVISION 3 BURNS V^MSDONNELL. environmental properties management.
LEGEND MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM 4- MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE A 4- MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B 4- MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C 4 MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
NOTES
1) Groundwater elevations in feet above mean sea level (North American Vertical datum of 1988).
550 SCALE IN FEET =
Rev No: 0 0
Preparer: DHORNE Date: 10/6/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 10/6/2022 Coordinate System NAD 1983 StatePlane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501 Feet
FIGURE 5-2 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL PERIMETER BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN REVISION 3
^BURNS VVMSDONNELL. environmental properties management, Lie LEGEND MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE A MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN NO FLOW BOUNDARIES CONSTANT HEAD BOUNDARIES RIVER BOUNDARIES CELLS GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
NOTES
1) Groundwater elevations in feet above mean sea level (North American Vertical datum of 1988).
550 SCALE IN FEET Rev No: 0 Preparer: DHORNE Date: 10/6/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 10/6/2022 Coordinate System NAD 1983 StatePlane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501 Feet Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\_Clientlnfo\Sites\Database\Geospatial\Maps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD_Files\Arcdocs\2020\2022 - Decommissioning PlanVFigure 2 - Perimeter Boundary Conditions
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 WAA Groundwater Flow Model Construction 5.2.3 General Head Boundaries General Head Boundaries (GHB) were utilized to simulate upgradient flux into the aquifer along the southern extent of the model domain (Layer 2), and flux from underlying bedrock (Layer 3). The locations, assigned heads, and conductance terms allocated to general head boundaries within the model are equal to the 2020 Groundwater Flow Model (Bums & McDonnell, 2020).
5.2.4 River Boundaries The river package was used to simulate the surface water and groundwater interaction of the Cimarron River as a regional groundwater discharge point within model Layers 1 and 2. River boundary cells are based upon the location of river cells within the 2020 Groundwater Flow Model Review (Bums &
McDonnell, 2020). Values for assigned river heads, boundary conductance, and riverbed elevation were also maintained at those established by the 2020 Groundwater Flow Model Review.
5.3 Internal Model Boundary Conditions Internal model boundary conditions are used to simulate internal sources and sinks including recharge, remedial infiltration trenches, remedial extraction trenches, and pumping wells (Figure 5-3).
5.3.1 Aquifer Recharge Recharge to groundwater is simulated using the MODFLOW recharge package. The recharge package is used to represent the fraction of precipitation that enters the subsurface as rainfall recharge directly to the groundwater table. The model domain is small enough that significant variability in precipitation is not anticipated, therefore recharge is applied uniformly across the model domain. For the steady-state simulation of groundwater flow the recharge package was used to apply a uniform constant recharge rate of 2.4 inches per year (approximately 8% of annual precipitation) consistent with previous steady-state model values (ENSR, 2006) (Bums & McDonnell, 2020).
5.3.2 Groundwater Extraction Wells and Trenches The Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3) includes several proposed groundwater extraction wells and trenches. The WAA groundwater model simulates extraction wells, extraction trenches, and injection trenches utilizing the MODFLOW well package. Extraction trench GETR-WU-01A was simulated utilizing the MODFLOW well package by assigning individual well boundary conditions to model cells which overlapped the linear extent of the trench. Flux from infiltration trench GWI-WU-01A reaching the end of nearby interceptor trench and piping is simulated as a group of MODFLOW well package cells near the downhill termination of the interceptor collection.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 5-4 Burns & McDonnell
FIGURE 5-3 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL INTERNAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN REVISION 3 BURNS
^MCDONNELL environmental properties management. Lie LEGEND MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM 4 MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE A
-f MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B 4 MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C f MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE EXTRACTION WELL INJECTION WELL GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TRENCH GROUNDWATER INJECTION TRENCH ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN NO FLOW BOUNDARIES l RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS l WELL PACKAGE CELLS l CONSTANT HEAD BOUNDARIES l GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS GE-WAA-04 GE-WAA-01 GE-WAA-02 + *' :4- 4=- 4 GE-WAA-03:
)
GE'I R-WU-O/a 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
GWI-WU-01A NOTES
1) Groundwater elevations in feet above mean sea level (North American Vertical datum of 1988).
N Rev No: 0 Preparer: DHORNE Date: 10/6/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 10/6/2022 Coordinate System 3ervice_La^ei_£reditsUmac[^ Maxar NAD 1983 StatePlane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501 Feet Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\_Clientlnfo\Sites\Database\Geospatial\Maps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD_Files\Arcdocs\2020\2022 - Decommissioning Plan\Figure 3 - Internal Boundary Conditions
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 WAA Groundwater Flow Model Construction 5.4 Hydrogeologic Properties The hydrogeologic properties specified within the model are horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kx-y),
vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kz), and porosity. All modeling simulations were run under steady-state conditions, which do not require specification of aquifer storage coefficients (specific storage or specific yield). The WAA model represents a layering system of unconsolidated deposits underlain by semi-permeable bedrock (ENSR, 2006). The distribution of hydraulic conductivity within the model is based upon hydraulic conductivity zones which correlate to a specific lithology type. Distribution of hydraulic conductivity is based upon values established by the 2020 Groundwater Flow Model Review (Bums &
McDonnell, 2020). The final distribution of lithology zones is provided within Table 5-1 and illustrated within Appendix C.
Table 5-1: Model Lithology Zones and Hydrogeologic Properties Groundwater Model Lithology Kx Ky Kz Porosity Lithology Zone Number Cimarron River Deposits 5 117.5 117.5 11.75 0.3 Upper Alluvial Aquifer Sands Cimarron River Deposits 2 117.5 117.5 11.75 0.3 Lower Alluvial Aquifer Sands Sandstone 4 3 3 0.15 0.05 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 5-6 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 WAA Groundwater Flow Model Calibration 6.0 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CALIBRATION Validation of the WAA model calibration was evaluated by comparing observed and simulated groundwater elevations, groundwater flow contours, and water budgets. The calibration goals for the numerical model are based upon industry standards and previous WAA modeling efforts which are defined as:
A less than one (1) percent water balance error, which is considered appropriate for a calibrated groundwater model (Anderson and Woessner, 1992).
A Normalized Root Mean Square error (NRMS) of less than ten (10) percent.
An Absolute Residual Mean (ARM) of less than ten percent the observed head change value across the model domain.
A qualitative match of model simulated potentiometric surface and observed potentiometric surface, evaluated by visually comparing contours.
6.1 Simulated versus Observed Groundwater Heads Water level measurements collected in August 2016 were compared to the model calculated head values as part of model calibration. The calibration data set and the model calculated heads reflect non-pumping conditions prior to implementation of any remedial alternatives. The calibration dataset included 70 wells with a range in observed water level elevations of 26.03 feet.
The model simulated heads and observed heads used for the calibration dataset are within Table 6-1. The calibration statistics for the WAA model indicate a mass balance error of 0.0034 percent, NRMS of 0.033 (3.3 percent), and ARM of 0.62 feet which meet established model calibration goals. As an additional evaluation for the model calibration, the simulated versus observed groundwater level data for the calibrated steady state model is provided as Figure 6-1 and indicates a good fit between simulated and observed head data. The resulting flow field of the calibrated groundwater model and distribution of residuals are illustrated Figure 6-2.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 6-1 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 WAA Groundwater Flow Model Calibration Table 6-1: WAA Model Computed versus Observed Heads Observation X Y Observed Computed Residual Well Name Coordinate Coordinate Head (ft) Head (ft) (ft)
T-51 2091962 322775 929.40 929.59 -0.19 T-52 2092407 321938 929.33 929.99 -0.66 T-53 2092659 322773 929.20 929.45 -0.26 T-54 2092871 321928 929.90 929.89 0.01 T-55 2093120 322070 928.46 929.74 -1.28 T-56 2093378 322211 927.75 929.61 -1.86 T-57 2092461 321788 930.23 930.05 0.18 T-58 2092165 321742 930.42 930.13 0.29 T-59 2092955 322774 929.18 929.40 -0.22 T-60 2093282 322774 929.20 929.36 -0.16 T-61 2093610 322774 929.03 929.34 -0.31 T-62 2091853 321471 930.69 930.28 0.41 T-63 2091977 321623 930.50 930.20 0.30 T-64 2091691 321342 930.85 930.53 0.32 T-65 2091814 321569 930.65 930.24 0.41 T-66 2091842 321712 930.53 930.19 0.34 T-67 2091743 321657 930.61 930.22 0.39 T-68 2091713 322052 930.25 930.04 0.20 T-69 2091872 321962 930.35 930.07 0.27 T-70R 2091626 321578 930.72 930.26 0.46 T-72 2091717 321899 930.40 930.12 0.28 T-73 2091492 321771 930.53 930.19 0.34 T-74 2091531 321541 930.80 930.28 0.52 T-75 2091598 321911 930.08 930.12 -0.04 T-76 2091731 321776 930.52 930.17 0.34 T-77 2091578 322010 930.29 930.08 0.21 T-78 2091494 321897 930.39 930.14 0.25 T-79 2091582 322213 930.07 929.97 0.10 T-81 2091476 321994 930.29 930.09 0.20 T-82 2091569 322414 931.77 929.86 1.91 T-83 2091501 322297 929.80 929.93 -0.13 T-84 2091869 322295 929.92 929.89 0.03 T-85 2092243 322346 929.81 929.79 0.01 T-86 2092647 322374 929.63 929.69 -0.06 T-87 2092979 322422 929.40 929.58 -0.19 T-88 2093384 322464 929.10 929.50 -0.40 T-89 2093072 323042 928.73 929.22 -0.49 T-90 2092830 323042 928.85 929.25 -0.40 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 6-2 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 WAA Groundwater Flow Model Calibration Observation X Y Observed Computed Residual Well Name Coordinate Coordinate Head (ft) Head (ft) (ft)
T-91 2092966 323228 927.63 929.10 -1.48 T-92R 2093121 323143 925.85 929.15 -3.30 T-93 2093414 323104 928.66 929.16 -0.50 T-94 2093267 323409 928.31 928.95 -0.64 T-95 2092458 323019 928.98 929.34 -0.36 T-96 2091985 322557 929.56 929.72 -0.16 T-97 2092039 323318 928.78 929.20 -0.42 T-98 2092176 323514 928.61 929.03 -0.42 T-99 2092590 323746 928.25 928.79 -0.54 T-100 2093060 323821 927.05 928.54 -1.49 T-101 2093508 323599 927.99 928.84 -0.85 T-102 2093581 323085 928.69 929.17 -0.48 T-103 2094028 322867 928.86 929.33 -0.47 1319B-1 2092053 320128 947.62 946.62 0.99 1319B-2 2092078 320000 948.71 947.85 0.86 1319B-3 2092005 320105 947.82 946.51 1.31 1319B-4 2092053 320207 947.11 946.01 1.10 1319B-5 2091860 320322 945.37 943.99 1.38 1338 2093546 321819 944.27 943.25 1.02 1341 2092542 321355 937.68 937.36 0.33 1345 2092347 321461 934.66 933.99 0.67 1346 2093200 321854 938.38 936.47 1.91 1382 2093128 321736 938.76 937.56 1.20 1384 2093399 321602 945.03 944.25 0.78 1386 2093376 321918 939.89 938.00 1.89 1388 2093710 321837 946.55 946.73 -0.18 1390 2093720 322017 942.47 942.17 0.30 1391 2093820 321752 951.88 951.98 -0.10 1392 2093115 321861 936.82 934.88 1.94 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 6-3 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 WAA Groundwater Flow Model Calibration Figure 6-1: WAA Calibrated Steady State Model - Modeled vs Observed Heads (feet) 955 CD CD 950 w 945 a
c 940
=3 O
£ "a
935
£ CO T3 O
6.2 WAA Model Limitations and Uncertainty All models are a simplified representation of the physical aquifer system. Use of the updated groundwater model documented in this report is appropriate for the development of the conclusions provided within this report. Site conditions and hydrogeologic properties have been estimated through extrapolation of measured or estimated properties based on existing site information and professional judgment. Use of the groundwater model is currently limited to steady-state analyses which are intended to represent long-term static groundwater elevations or specific remedial alternatives. Additional specification of aquifer storage terms would be required for implementation of transient MODFLOW solutions.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 6-4 Burns & McDonnell
FIGURE 6-2 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CALIBRATED HEADS / REDIDUALS FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION3)
^ BURNS V^MSDONNELL environmental properties management, ILC LEGEND MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE A
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C f MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN NO FLOW BOUNDARIES j CONSTANT HEAD BOUNDARIES
] RIVER BOUNDARIES CELLS GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS

CALIBRATION HEAD CONTOURS (FEET) 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

NOTES
1) Groundwater elevations in feet above mean sea level (North American Vertical datum of 1988).
Rev No: 0 Preparer: DHORNE Date: 10/6/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 10/6/2022 Coordinate System NAD 1983 StatePlane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501 Feet Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\_Clientlnfo\Sites\Database\Geospatial\Maps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD_Files\Arcdocs\2020\2022 - Decommissioning Plan\Figure 7 - Calibration Model
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 WAA Remediation Simulations 7.0 WAA REMEDIATION SIMULATIONS For this groundwater model update, particle tracking was completed under the nominal extraction and injection rates proposed in the current Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3). The nominal rates used to simulate the extraction and injection infrastructure within the model are summarized in Table 7-1. The resulting groundwater heads for the steady-state MODFLOW solution based upon the injection and extraction rates within Table 7-1 are illustrated within Figure 7-1.
Table 7-1: WAA Model Simulated Rates for Remedial Wells and Trenches Extraction or Extraction or Trench or Well Name Injection Injection Rate (GPM)
GE-WAA-04 Extraction Well 20 GE-WAA-05 Extraction Well 25 GE-WAA-02 Extraction Well 30 GE-WAA-03 Extraction Well 24 GETR-WU-01A Extraction Trench 8 GWI-WU-01 Infiltration Trench 8 The groundwater heads and cell flux information from the MODFLOW solution were then input into a 30-year MODPATH particle tracking simulation (Pollock, 1989). MODPATH utilizes the results of the MODFLOW model along with specified porosity values and user-specified starting particle locations to calculate a three-dimensional pathline. Particles are tracked individually through the simulated flow system using the calculated distribution of velocity throughout the flow system. MODPATH was selected for this modeling study because of its applicability and simple linkage with MODFLOW. Particles were placed near the outer boundaries of the remediation area. MODPATH particle tracking results for the remediation area is presented in Figure 7-2. Particle tracking indicate that all particles are captured by the proposed extraction wells.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 7-1 Burns & McDonnell
FIGURE 7-1 WAA SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REV 3)
MODEL CALCULATED HEADS
^ BURNS
^MSDONNELL environmental properties management.
LEGEND MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM t MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE A
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN NO FLOW BOUNDARIES l CONSTANT HEAD BOUNDARIES

WA 2022 Nominal Q Head Contours l RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS I GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

NOTES
1) Groundwater elevations in feet above mean sea level (North American Vertical datum of 1988).
Rev No: 0 Preparer: DHORNE Date: 10/6/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 10/6/2022 Coordinate System NAD 1983 StatePlane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501 Feet Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\_Clientlnfo\Sites\Database\Geospatial\Maps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD_Files\Arcdocs\2020\2022 - Decommissioning Plan\Figure 8 - DPIan Rev 3 Head Results
FIGURE 7-2 WAA SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REV 3)
MODPATH PARTICLE TRACKING RESULTS
^BURNS
\VMSDONNELL. environmental properties management, 110 LEGEND MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE A
-f- MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B
-f MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C
-4 MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE
© EXTRACTION WELL
^ INJECTION WELL GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TRENCH
GROUNDWATER INJECTION TRENCH ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN NO FLOW BOUNDARIES l CONSTANT HEAD BOUNDARIES

NOMINAL HEAD CONTOURS l RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS l GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS

PARTICLE TRACKING

^ PARTICLE FLOW DIRECTION ARROWS WELL PACKAGE CELLS 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
NOTES
1) Groundwater elevations in feet above mean sea level (North American Vertical datum of 1988).
130 260 uu SCALE IN FEET lV h Rev No: 0 Preparer: DHORNE Date: 10/6/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 10/6/2022 Coordinate System NAD 1983 StatePlane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501 Feet Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\_Clientlnfo\Sites\Database\Geospatial\Maps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD_Files\Arcdocs\2020\2022 - Decommissioning Plan\Figure 10 - DPIan Rev 3 Modpath Results Pumping
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 Summary and Conclusions 8.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS This groundwater flow model report documents the construction, calibration, and remedial alternative simulations of the WAA groundwater flow model and the BA1 groundwater flow model in support of the Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3).
The BA1 groundwater flow model from the 2020 Groundwater Flow Model Review (Bums &
McDonnell, 2020) was improved by decreasing the uniform MODFLOW cell size from ten feet to five feet and through updates of lithology zones within the valley of the BA1 transition zone. The reduction in cell size allows for more accurate analysis of groundwater flow near boundary conditions such as infiltration and extraction trenches. The lithology update improved upon the distribution of lithology zones based on the Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy (ESS) and Porosity Analysis (Bums &
McDonnell, 2018), which incorporated the distribution of isolated sand channels within the gulley fill of the BA1 transition zone (Appendix A). After verifying the BA1 groundwater model calibration, the model was used to simulate the resulting groundwater flow field under the proposed nominal extraction and infiltration rates of the current Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3). This included simulation of a new infiltration trench GWI-BA1-04 to address the potential for dewatering of the coarse-grained, intra-gully sand deposits between GETR-BA1-01 and GETR-BA1-02. Implementing infiltration trench GWI-BA1-04 raises groundwater levels and provides additional flushing of the pore space in the unconsolidated sediments between GETR-BA1-01 and GETR-BA1-02. Based upon the resulting steady state groundwater flow field from MODFLOW, particle tracking was performed utilizing MODPATH forward particle analysis for a period of 30 years. The results indicate groundwater capture for the BA1 remediation area. Particle tracking also indicates that particles between GETR-BA1-01 and GETR-BA1-02 are either captured by these two infiltration trenches or flushed from the additional flux of GWI-BA1-04 to downgradient extraction wells.
The WAA groundwater flow is primarily based upon the groundwater flow model described by the 2020 Groundwater Flow Model Review (Bums & McDonnell, 2020). After verifying the WAA groundwater model calibration, the model was used to simulate the resulting groundwater flow field under the proposed nominal extraction and infiltration rates of the current Site Facility Decommissioning Plan (Revision 3). Based upon the resulting steady state groundwater flow field from MODFLOW, particle tracking was performed utilizing MODPATH forward particle analysis for a period of 30 years. The results indicate groundwater capture for the WAA remediation area.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 8-1 Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater Flow Model Report Revision 0 References
9.0 REFERENCES
Bums and McDonnell, 2014. Groundwater Flow Model Update, Cimarron Remediation Site. January.
Bums and McDonnell, 2017a. 2016 Groundwater Flow Model Update, Cimarron Remediation Site.
January 25.
Bums and McDonnell, 2017b. Vertical Distribution of Uranium in Groundwater. May 10.
Bums and McDonnell, 2018. Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy (ESS) and Porosity Analysis, Burial Area 1, Cimarron Former Nuclear Fuel Production Facility, April 6, 2018 Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells Second Edition. Johnson Filtration Systems Inc., St. Paul Minnesota.
Faybishenko, B.A., Javandel, I. and Witherspoon, P.A. 1995. Hydrodynamics of the Capture Zone of a Partially Penetrating Well in a Confined Aquifer. Water Resources Research. Volume 31, Issue 4.
April.
ENSR, 2006, Groundwater Flow Modeling Report. October.
Environmental Properties Management, LLC, 2018. Cimarron Facility Decommissioning Plan, Revision
1. October.
Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, M.G., 2000. The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model - User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Groundwater Flow Process. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-92.
Konikow, L.F., Homberger, G.Z., Halford, K.J., and Hanson, R.T., 2009, Revised multi-node well (MNW2) package for MODFLOW ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A30, Kruseman, G.P., and de Ridder, N.A. 1994. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement. The Netherlands.
Pollock, D.W., 1989. Documentation of a computer program to compute and display pathlines using results from the U.S. Geological Survey modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 94-464.
Cimarron Environmental Response Trust 9-1 Burns & McDonnell
APPENDIX A - 2022 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL LITHOLOGY DISTRIBUTION BY MODFLOW LAYER
LEGEND APPENDIX A MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM (101) CIMARRON RIVER FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS CLAY/SILT TRACES SAND - KX/KY: 3 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B (2 & 102) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - UPPER LAYER 3 - LITHOLOGIC ZONES ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 117.5 SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)
MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C (5) UPPERMOST GULLEY FILL UNIT - KX/KY: 1.28 MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE
(104) UPPER GULLY FILL-KX/KY: 15 BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) ^BURNS (3) SILT -KX/KY: 0.283 NO FLOW BOUNDARIES VVMSDONNELL, environmental properties management, lie (6,8. & 9) SILTSTONE - KX/KY: 8.43 RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS (4) SANDSTONE A - KX/KY: 40 Rev No: 0 Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 Coordinate System WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
APPENDIX A MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM (101) CIMARRON RIVER FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS CLAY/SILT TRACES SAND - KX/KY: 3 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B (2 & 102) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - UPPER LAYER 2 - LITHOLOGIC ZONES ALLUVIALAQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 117.5 SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)
MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C (5) UPPERMOST GULLEY FILL UNIT - KX/KY: 1.28 MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE o, (104) UPPER GULLY FILL- KX/KY: 15 F
BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L)
(105) LOWER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 3
^BURNS cr LU NO FLOW BOUNDARIES XVMSDONNELL. environmental properties management, ILC o (106) INTRA GULLY STREAM DEPOSITS (SAND 55 RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS BODY) - KX/KY: 50 GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS (3) SILT-KX/KY: 0.283 Rev No: 0 (6,8, & 9) SILTSTONE - KX/KY: 8.43 Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 o
(4) SANDSTONE A - KX/KY: 40 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 rsi (7) SANDSTONE B - KX/KY: 5 Coordinate System WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
.r 460 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
SCALE IN FEET
_ . \
LEGEND (101) CIMARRON RIVER FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS FIGURE X MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM CLAY/SILT TRACES SAND - KX/KY: 3 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY ZONES - L3
-F MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B (2 & 102) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - UPPER FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 117.5 REVISION 3
-F MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C (104) UPPER GULLY FILL-KX/KY: 15
-F MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE (105) LOWER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 3 '
BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L)
(106) INTRA GULLY STREAM DEPOSITS (SAND ^BURNS NO FLOW BOUNDARIES BODY) - KX/KY: 50 ^MSDONNELL- environmental properties management, ilc RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS (3) SILT - KX/KY: 0.283 GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS (6,8, & 9) SILTSTONE - KX/KY: 8.43 Rev No: 0 (4) SANDSTONE A - KX/KY: 40 PreDarer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 (7) SANDSTONE B - KX/KY: 5 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 Coordinate Svstem WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
v y 0 230 460 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
SCALE IN FEET APPENDIX A MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM (101) CIMARRON RIVER FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS CLAY/SILT TRACES SAND - KX/KY: 3 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B (2 & 102) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - UPPER LAYER 4 - LITHOLOGIC ZONES ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 117.5 SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)
MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C (104) UPPER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 15 MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE (105) LOWER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 3 BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L)
(106) INTRA GULLY STREAM DEPOSITS (SAND ^BURNS xVMSDONNELL. environmental 5
NO FLOW BOUNDARIES BODY) - KX/KY: 50 properties management, lie RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS (10) CLAY-KX/KY: 0.5 GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS (6) SILTSTONE - KX/KY: 8.43 Rev No: 0 (7) SANDSTONE B - KX/KY: 5 Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 Coordinate System WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
£ _
LEGEND O ra (101) CIMARRON RIVER FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS APPENDIX A O to MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM CD 9 CLAY/SILT TRACES SAND - KX/KY: 3 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL z MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B 0
CxL .ts (2 & 102) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - UPPER LAYER 5 - LITHOLOGIC ZONES LU CO ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 117.5 MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)
LU o (12) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - LOWER
^ C MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 352.5
£? c
^ 0 BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) (103) RIVER CLAY PLUG DEPOSITS - KX/KY: 2.77 LU :=
_,o NO FLOW BOUNDARIES (5) UPPERMOST GULLEY FILL UNIT - KX/KY: 1.28
^BURNS uj z cc F
RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS (104) UPPER GULLY FILL- KX/KY: 15 ^MSDONNELL environmental properties management. ILC Z LU O 9 GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS (105) LOWER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 3 Q CO (106) INTRA GULLY STREAM DEPOSITS (SAND
£ 2 2 LU BODY) - KX/KY: 50 Rev No: 0 (10) CLAY- KX/KY: 0.5 Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 (6) SILTSTONE - KX/KY: 8.43 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 m n (7) SANDSTONE B - KX/KY: 5 CM j=
CM +/-= Coordinate System o CO (11) SANDSTONE C - KX/KY: 3 WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere cm 0.
APPENDIX A MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM (101) CIMARRON RIVER FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS CLAY/SILT TRACES SAND - KX/KY: 3 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B (2 & 102) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - UPPER LAYER 6 - LITHOLOGIC ZONES ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 117.5 SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C (12) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - LOWER O' MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 352.5 Z _
LU =
(104) UPPER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 15 Ij U BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) <NBURNS V^MSDONNELL.
uj P z or NO FLOW BOUNDARIES (105) LOWER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 3 environmental properties management. LLC Z UJ RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS oy (106) INTRA GULLY STREAM DEPOSITS (SAND Q CO o BODY) - KX/KY: 50 S Lu GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS Rev No: 0 oQ £ (10) CLAY - KX/KY: 0.5 Z.M Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 (6) SILTSTONE - KX/KY: 8.43 cr o Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 CD N (7) SANDSTONE B - KX/KY: 5 CM if Coordinate System CM ~
o CC (11) SANDSTONE C - KX/KY: 3 WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere CM CL
j .
y WSC&rM-r-S> it;?
J
' Y 7
MK TO £&>-' . *">' .
TTl;
-V. ;
/i fey.. , ' Fife sr.i.
mijirc;
/
s GE-BA1-03 kGWI-BA1;04'
[GWI-BA1i03J

- ---- V-v GWI-BA1-03Av GETR-BA1-01 GWI-BA1-02A GWI-BA1 -02 GWI-BA1-01

.< i'VC 460 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND O m (2 & 102) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - UPPER APPENDIX A MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM o Q ALLUVIALAQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 117.5 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CD -f MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B (12) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - LOWER LAYER 7 - LITHOLOGIC ZONES LJJ CO ALLUVIALAQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 352.5
-f MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C j (103) RIVER CLAY PLUG DEPOSITS - KX/KY: 2.77 SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)
F MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE (104) UPPER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 15 EXTRACTION WELL/SUMP o (105) LOWER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 3 INJECTION WELL BURNS mF=
z cc ------- GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION TRENCH (106) INTRA GULLY STREAM DEPOSITS (SAND ^.MCDONNELL environmental Z LU BODY) - KX/KY: 50 properties management. ILC 09 (10) CLAY-KX/KY: 0.5 CO ------- GROUNDWATER INJECTION TRENCH o
^ UJ
BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) (6) SILTSTONE - KX/KY: 8.43 Rev No: 0
°3 jo l TRENCH MODEL CELLS
§5 (7) SANDSTONE B - KX/KY: 5 PreDarer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 q: o NO FLOW BOUNDARIES (11) SANDSTONE C - KX/KY: 3 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 H
CO N RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS CM if CM ~
Coordinate System o ro ___ i GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere CM 0-
APPENDIX A MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM (2 & 102) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - UPPER ALLUVIALAQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 117.5 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B (12) CIMARRON RIVER DEPOSITS - LOWER LAYER 8 - LITHOLOGIC ZONES ALLUVIALAQUIFER SANDS - KX/KY: 352.5 SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)
MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C (103) RIVER CLAY PLUG DEPOSITS - KX/KY: 2.77 CD Z 0> MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE L_L1 = (105) LOWER GULLY FILL - KX/KY: 3 uj F BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L)
(106) INTRA GULLY STREAM DEPOSITS (SAND ^BURNS VC HI
.Ml NO FLOW BOUNDARIES BODY) - KX/KY: 50 VVM£DONNELL. environmental properties management. LLC o o RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS (10) CLAY - KX/KY: 0.5 Q
o w
GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS (6) SILTSTONE - KX/KY: 8.43 Rev No: 0 (7) SANDSTONE B - KX/KY: 5 Preoarer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 (11) SANDSTONE C - KX/KY: 3 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 Coordinate System WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
APPENDIX A MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM (6) SILTSTONE - KX/KY: 8.43 BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B (7) SANDSTONE B - KX/KY: 5 LAYER 9 - LITHOLOGIC ZONES SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN (REVISION 3)
MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C (11) SANDSTONE C - KX/KY: 3 MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) ^BURNS VwMSDONNELL environmental 8
NO FLOW BOUNDARIES properties management. ILC RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS Rev No: 0 Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 Coordinate System WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
' r'~<-
mm 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
APPENDIX A MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM BA1 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
-f MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B LAYER 10 THROUGH 12 - LITHOLOGIC ZONES SITE FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C (REVISION 3)
MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE
.0 O ----- BA1 URANIUM CONTOUR (30 UG/L) ^BURNS F='
^MSDONNELL environmental or NO FLOW BOUNDARIES properties management. UC lu o
w RIVER BOUNDARY CELLS z Rev No: 0 UJ GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 9/20/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 9/20/2022 Coordinate Svstem WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
APPENDIX B - ENVIRONMENTAL SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY (ESS) AND POROSITY ANALYSIS
Memorandum BURNS^SDONNELL Date: April 6,2018 To: Jeff Lux, P.E.
From: Mike Shultz, PhD
Subject:
Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy (ESS) and Porosity Analysis, Burial Area 1, Cimarron Former Nuclear Fuel Production Facility The ESS analysis described herein includes reviews of existing subsurface data and reformatting of grain size information provided in existing lithologic logs to elucidate trends in grain size.
These trends can be interpreted by a stratigrapher in the context of the depositional environments in which aquifer materials were originally laid down. This process yields an updated conceptual site model (CSM) and provides insight into preferential pathways for groundwater migration and contaminant fate and transport. The work products resulting from the ESS analysis consist of:
1. A network of cross-sections through the Transition Zone (TZ) and out onto the Cimarron River floodplain (Cross-Sections A-A through El-H);
2. An interpretive isopach map of more permeable deposits within the TZ saturated zone;
3. A calculated estimate of the transmissive fraction of the saturated interval within the TZ; and,
4. This technical memorandum.
Figure 1A shows the geologic cross-section locations and Figure IB is provided as a legend for the cross-section symbology. Cross-Sections A-A through H-EP are included as Figures 2A through 2H. Isopach maps, included as Figures 3A through 3C, show relatively permeable strata thickness with cross-section transects, potentiometric surface, and uranium isopleths, respectively. With the exception of monitor wells 02W29 and 02W46, monitor well water levels presented on the cross-sections were recorded on November 6, 2017. The 02W29 and 02W46 water levels presented on the cross-sections were recorded on July 31, 2017, because water levels recorded at these wells in November 2017 were outside typical historical ranges.
Geologic Setting The BA-1 area consists of a bedrock bench of Permian-age deltaic channel sands and interbedded claystone (Garber Sandstone) upon which the burial trenches were sited (see Figure 1A). An erosional gully partially filled with primarily low-permeability material is present to the north and east of the bedrock ridge, and this gully area has been referred to as the Transition Zone between the bedrock escarpment and the sand-rich deposits of the Cimarron River alluvium present to the north of the burial area.
Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy Analysis The TZ represents a gully eroded into the underlying bedrock which has been partially filled with predominantly fine-grained deposits. The eastern margin of the gully cannot be defined due to the lack of lithologic logs; no borings have been advanced in that area to date. The gully fill
Memorandum (cont'd) BURNS MSDONNELL April 5,2018 Page 2 can be subdivided into a basal clay-rich unit (Lower Gully Fill [LGF]), and an upper silt-rich unit (Upper Gully Fill [UGF]). A relatively sandy deposit marks the base of the UGF unit. An isopach (equal-thickness) map of the sandy zone (relatively permeable strata) at the base of the UGF has been interpreted as part of the ESS analysis (see Figures 3 A through 3C). The lateral connectivity of this deposit cannot be fully defined by existing lithologic information. Thus, the isopach map interpreted herein represents a sum of the interpreted permeable thickness and should not necessarily be taken to indicate a channel in the sense of a wholly continuous layer of sandy material. However, the consistent position of the sandy deposit at the contact of the UGF and the LGF suggests that it may in fact be hydraulically connected to a certain degree and that a disproportionate percentage of groundwater flow and contaminant mass flux likely occurs within this thin zone. Figure 3B illustrates the groundwater flow directions and geometry of the potentiometric surface as groundwater flows from the upland deposits through the TZ into the alluvial floodplain deposits.
The LGF likely represents slope failure (slump and debris-flow deposits) derived from soil horizons developed atop the bedrock in the immediate vicinity during initial phases of gully development. Flash flood events periodically removed portions of this material in an iterative process of erosion and deposition. With time, as the gully widened and headward erosion of the gully proceeded, the gully captured a greater area and greater volumes of surface water flowed through the gully during rain events. The area of investigation in the TZ was transformed into an alluvial valley and the setting changed from slope failure-dominated deposition to streamflow-dominated deposition. An erosional surface was carved into the underlying LGF by streams, likely during flash flood events. As described above, residual sands at the base of the UGF mark this transition. From this point on, the gully fill is dominated by thin sand channel deposits and silts of the UGF deposited by waning flow after flood events.
Isoconcentration contours of uranium in groundwater are plotted on the isopach map included as Figure 3C. As shown on this figure, the distribution of uranium in the subsurface seems to correlate well with the interpretive isopach map of the permeable material, with the plume extending northwest from the burial trenches, following the gully sand channel deposits through the TZ and out to the alluvial aquifer in the floodplain. In the upper reaches of the gully, the contaminant distribution appears to be controlled by the location and orientation of the burial trenches, the source of contamination. In this area, the permeable TZ materials appear to split into an eastern and a western zone (e.g., Cross-Section G-G). Contamination appears to be limited to the western permeable unit in this area, likely due to the proximity of the burial trenches. From a CSM perspective, it appears that contaminated groundwater emanating from the BA-1 burial trenches percolates downward through the bedrock and TZ sediments (depending on burial trench location), is discharged into the western arm of the sandy deposits at the UGF/LGF contact, travels northwest within this interval down-gully, and then discharges primarily to the Upper Point Bar (UPB) deposit of the Cimarron River sands.
Memorandum (c©ntw BURNS. MSDONNELL April 5, 2018 Page 3 Estimate of Transmissive Porosity within BA1 Transition Zone Boring logs for TZ wells were critically examined as part of the ESS analysis and cross-section creation. Thickness of the sandy unit at the base of the UGF was tabulated for each well and imported into Earth Volumetric Studio (EVS) for calculation of total saturated sand channel volume within the uranium-impacted portion of the TZ (44,458 cubic feet [ft3]). This value was multiplied by an assumed effective porosity for fine silty sand (20%), based on reference values obtained from Applications of-Environmental Chemistry - A Practical Guide for Environmental Professional, to calculate the transmissive pore volume for saturated sand channel deposits located within the effected BA1 TZ (8,892 ft3).
EVS was also used to calculate the total saturated volume within the uranium-impacted portion of the TZ (511,425 ft3). This volume is comprised of the saturated, uranium-impacted UGF volume (189,137 ft3), the saturated, uranium-impacted LGF volume (277,830 ft3), and the saturated, uranium-impacted sand channel volume (44,458 ft3). The saturated, uranium-impacted UGF and LGF volumes were each multiplied by a conservatively assumed effective porosity for silty-clay (10%), based on reference values1, *to calculate the corresponding transmissive pore volume for these fine-grained deposits - 18,914 ft3 for the UGF and 27,783 ft3 for the LGF.
Finally, all three transmissive pore volumes were added together and divided by the bulk volume of impacted, saturated TZ material (511,425 ft3) to calculate the transmissive porosity for the effected BA 1 TZ(11%).
The calculation conducted to estimate the transmissive fraction of the saturated interval within the uranium-impacted TZ is presented in Table l and two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) renderings of the EVS volume calculations are presented on Figures 4 through
7. This work suggests that approximately 9% of the overall TZ saturated thickness is sandy and therefore constitutes a porous interval with the potential to transmit groundwater and contaminant mass. The estimates presented above and in Table 1 assume that the sand channel deposits are in fact permeable and somewhat connected, and that the clay- and silt-rich LGF and UGF are significantly less transmissive.
As stated above, EVS was used to model 3D volumetric 'bodies for the saturated, uranium-impacted sand channel, UGF, and LGF TZ deposits. Figure 4 provides a plan view rendering of the volumetric analysis domain. In the horizontal dimension, the northwest domain boundary represents the BA1 TZ/alluvium boundary, the northeast and southeast domain boundaries represent the approximate extent of BA1 uranium groundwater impacts, and the southeast domain boundary (annotated black line) represents the saturated TZ deposit/bedrock interface (at the water table). In the vertical dimension, the water table (depicted as the blue surface on Figure 1 Weiner, Eugene R, Applications ofEnvironmental Chemistry - A Practical Guide for Environmental Professionals. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, CRC Press, 2000.
Memorandum (cnt3d) BURNS MEDONNELL April 5,2018 Page 4
5) serves as the upper boundary of the volumetric analysis domain, and the basal TZ/bedrock interface (see Figure 5) serves as the lower boundary. Figure 5 provides an orthogonal view of the volumetric analysis domain and the sand channel deposit body, with the UGF and LGF deposits hidden in the model. Figure 6 provides the same orthogonal view shown in Figure 5, with the UGF deposits shown and the LGF and sand channel deposits hidden. Finally, Figure 7 provides the same orthogonal view with the LGF deposits shown and the UGF and sand channel deposits hidden.
Cimarron River Deposits Sand-rich point bar and overlying floodplain deposits of the Cimarron River to the north interfinger with the gully fill deposits (e.g., Cross-Section A-A). Individual point-bar deposits of the Cimarron River are approximately 5 thick, and in the BA1 investigation area there are two stacked point bar deposits (UPB and Lower Point Bar [LPB]). A sharp grain size increase marks the base of the UPB, and this contact surface is well-displayed in Cross-Sections A-A, B-B, and C-C. This contact is indicated by a thin zone of increased conductivity in the electrical conductivity (EC) log for 02W32 (Cross-Section D-D), probably related to a slight increase in clay content in the upper foot of the lower point bar. This contact is also indicated by a color change described in the boring log for 02W32. Depth-discrete sampling at 02W32 (see Cross-Section D-D) suggests that the majority of contaminant mass flux is occurring within the UPB deposit within the Cimarron River sands. Cross-section A-A shows a connection to the UPB deposits with the sandy unit present at the base of the UGF, suggesting that this is the pathway from the gully fill to the UPB Deposits. The relatively higher concentration within the UPB may be explained by this connection.
Data Gaps and Recommendations While it is likely that channel sand deposits at the UGF/LGF interface represents the primary pathway for contaminants in the TZ, there are no data related to the vertical distribution of uranium within the TZ gully fill deposits. Attempts at depth-discrete groundwater sampling in TZ material have been unsuccessful due to the low-permeability nature of the gully fill sequence.
Vertical profiling of groundwater flow and chemistry within existing wells via dye tracer systems offered by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and/or BESST, Inc. may provide data to support the CSM presented herein, and the results may be useful in refining the BA1 remedial action implementation plans. In addition, other means of obtaining depth-discrete high-resolution vertical profiling of uranium should be investigated.
Attachments:
Figure 1A: Cross-Section Location Map Figure IB: Cross-Section Legend Figures 2A-2H: Cross-Sections A-A through H-H Figure 3 A: Isopach Map of Relatively Permeable Deposits of the
Memorandum (cantd) BURNS MSDONNELL April 5, 2018 Page 5 Transition Zone Figure 3B: Isopach Map of Relatively Permeable Deposits of the Transition Zone with Potentiometric Surface Contours Figure 3C: Isopach Map of Relatively Permeable Deposits of the Transition Zone with Uranium Isopleth Contours Table 1: Transmissive Porosity Calculation for Saturated and Contaminated BA1 Transition Zone Figure 4: Plan View of Transition Zone Saturated Bedrock and Intra-Gully Stream Deposits - Burial Area 1 Figure 5: Orthogonal View of Saturated Intra-Gully Stream Deposits and Bedrock Burial Area 1 Figure 6: Orthogonal View of Saturated Upper Gully Fill Deposits and Bedrock - Burial Area 1 Figure 7: Orthogonal View of Saturated Lower Gully Fill Deposits and Bedrock - Burial Area 1 cc: John Hesemann Jeff Binder Bill Halliburton
Path: Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\_Clientlnfo\Sites\Database\Geospatial\Maps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD_Files\Arcdocs\2018\ESS Tech MemcABasemap.mxd COPYRIGHT © 2018 BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
322600 322800 323000 CD ft>
C Q.
(ft rr
<<i 5:
o C) o o z z z z o o o o 73 73 73 73 Z z Z Z a GO go GO 5 5 ? ?
III III Ill Ill r~ r~ r~ r~
r~ r~ r~ r~
z z Z Z cn <V) (7) >
r~
z z Z n n n in c/) in i (_
n o o z z z m m m o CD >
322600 322800 323000 323200 323400
Cimarron River Floodplain Deposits: Clay, silt, and interbedded fine-grained sand corresponding to floodplain LOG LEGEND WELL ID deposits of the Cimarron River. Sands as overbank splays deposited during flood-stages. CLAY SANDY CLAY O O.On Cimarron River Channel Deposits: Fine to coarse-grained, trough cross-bedded sand deposited as point-bars by the GRAVELLY CLAY SILT Cimarron River. Minor intraclast or extrabasinal conglomerate lags define bases of individual point-bar sequences SANDY SILT CLAYEY SILT Cimarron River Clay Plug Deposits: Clay and silt, some thin sands, deposited in abandoned stretches of Cimarron FINE GRAVELY SILT COARSE GRAVELY SILT River channels (oxbow lakes). CLEAN FINE SAND SILTY FINE SAND Upper Gully Fill: Silt and silty sand with interbedded clayey sand and silty sand deposited as gully-wash by stream- CLEAN MEDIUM SAND CLAYEY MEDIUM SAND flow during flash flood events. Contains minor sand-rich streamflow deposits.
MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE GRAVEL GRAVELY SAND WITH COARSE GRAVEL Lower Gully Fill: Clay-rich deposits including gully-wall failure (slump, slide, and debris-flow). Chaotic, may include CLEAN COARSE SAND COARSE SAND WITH FINE GRAVEL minor re-worked streamflow deposits.
COARSE SAND WITH COARSE GRAVEL FINE GRAVEL WITH SAND Intra-gully Stream Deposits: Sand and silty sand deposited by streamflow within gully system. MEDIUM GRAVEL WITH SAND COARSE GRAVEL WITH SAND r ~ ~i I I Estimated Intra-gully Stream Deposits: Sand and silty sand deposited by streamflow within gully L _ J system.
EC/HPT LOG Garber Sandstone Bedrock (undifferentiated). 02W02 EC (mS/m)
Schematic point bar lateral accretion surface.
Waste Disposal Trench (approximate) mS/m - MILLISIEMENS PER METER psi - POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH EC - ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY HPT - HYDRAULIC PROFILING TOOL COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELLENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
- OBSERVED WATER LEVEL Figure 1B CROSS-SECTION LEGEND BURNS
^MSDONNELL BURIAL AREA 1 10 20 40 60 80 HPT Press. Max (psi) CIMMARON SITE, OKLAHOMA
NORTH A Cross-Section A-A' G-G' H-H' SOUTH A
955- -955
-950
-9o:
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 IG COMPANY, INC.
NOTES
1) Y-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1983)
2) X-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET Figure 2A
3) ALL CROSS-SECTION SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED ON FIGURE 1B
4) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES ARE APPROXIMATE CROSS-SECTION A-A' BURNS
5) SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE ^.MSDONNELL BURIAL AREA 1
6) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED NOVEMBER 6, 2017, EXCEPT 02W29 (MEASURED JULY, 31 2017)
CIMMARON SITE, OKLAHOMA
7) CORRELATION OF UNITS IS AN INTERPRETATION AND NOT NECESSARILY A DELINEATION OF ACTUAL EXTENT AND THICKNESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT
WEST Cross-Section B-B' EAST B B' I 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 COPYRIGHT © 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL NOTES
1) Y-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1983)
2) X-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET
3) ALL CROSS-SECTION SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED ON FIGURE 4-1
4) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES ARE APPROXIMATE
5) SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE
6) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED NOVEMBER 6, 2017
7) CORRELATION OF UNITS IS AN INTERPRETATION AND NOT NECESSARILY A DELINEATION OF ACTUAL EXTENT AND THICKNESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT
940 Cross-Section A-A' C-C' TMW-23 EAST WEST 02W08 02W17 02W07 02W23 0.0rn_
o.o 935 935 930 = 930 UPPER'POINT,:BAR 925 0EPO5IT YlSfl t!
45.0 920 :, POWER POINT BAR 920 915 915
V:/
.*..**ML:-:
. .* . : .* i; 910' V 910
':30>0 A 905 905 C O P Y R IG H T © 2018 BU R N S & M cD O N N E LL EN G IN EER IN G COMPANY, INC.
35.0-900 900 40.0-895 895 0.0 100.0 300.0 NOTES
1) Y-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1983) Figure 2C
2) X-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET
3) ALL CROSS-SECTION SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED ON FIGURE 4-1 CROSS-SECTION C-C'
^BURNS
4) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES ARE APPROXIMATE VVMSDONNELL BURIAL AREA 1
5) SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE CIMMARON SITE, OKLAHOMA
6) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED NOVEMBER 6, 2017
7) CORRELATION OF UNITS IS AN INTERPRETATION AND NOT NECESSARILY A DELINEATION OF ACTUAL EXTENT AND THICKNESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT
Cross-Section D-D' 940 A-A' 940 TMW-13 02W13 O.O-i 02W05 02W22 02W16 O.Oi-i__
935 935 jr =
- -------- ------------- r 930 930 m.
VO,13 JDONED imik'r. mm\ mi* *' :L CLAY
v 7:iq :p :v 925 925 i.v.uj/yV:-;:'/ i
15;0 color c ian< is-ftOw-y.el^)W : *** *; */:
<5.b 3bovef^;pcfe*QrahgH;;:
grayabove : *J 920 ---- EEuHE below @13 £\ott#;ftf.-trori bg::A; 920 logrsubtle : orl ducVfy Uy/H icU*::V*.
V':/;'.v.'.'-. :-.Vv/jr--------
915 * :-:/To:'-;3a6a-;V) V 915 CO PYRIG HT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELLENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
'"' *: V i-;V) 5"/.< I ? i
.* *
tft y coterie. ; v.\ *.* / */. ;.** *.'
Ked'sart^itQftb/.;*/.Y.:_
T 0.0 100.0 200.0 NOTES
1) Y-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1983) Figure 2D
2) X-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET
3) ALL CROSS-SECTION SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED ON FIGURE 4-1 BURNS CROSS-SECTION D-D'
4) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES ARE APPROXIMATE VVMSDONNELL BURIAL AREA 1
5) SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE
6) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED NOVEMBER 6, 2017 CIMMARON SITE, OKLAHOMA
7) CORRELATION OF UNITS IS AN INTERPRETATION AND NOT NECESSARILY A DELINEATION OF ACTUAL EXTENT AND THICKNESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT
E' Cross-Section E-E' EAST 945 02W01 940 02W46 "012) 1 935 930 o
c 925 920
v:\ V. .\v: **
COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELLENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
-V; ** }>: :s -/.:.****; *-} V; JlftiilllW 915 0.0 100.0 NOTES
1) Y-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1983)
2) X-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET Figure 2E
3) ALL CROSS-SECTION SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED ON FIGURE 4-1
4) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES ARE APPROXIMATE CROSS-SECTION E-E'
5) SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE BURNS V*.M£DONNELL BURIAL AREA 1
6) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED NOVEMBER 6, 2017, EXCEPT 02W46 (MEASURED JULY 31,2017)
7) CORRELATION OF UNITS IS AN INTERPRETATION AND NOT NECESSARILY A DELINEATION OF ACTUAL CIMMARON SITE, OKLAHOMA EXTENT AND THICKNESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT
950 950 F'
F WEST Cross-Section F-F' EAST 1316R A-A' 945 945 02W10 940 935 930 925 920 920 I
100.0 COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL NOTES
1) Y-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1983)
2) X-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET Figure 2F
3) ALL CROSS-SECTION SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED ON FIGURE 4-1
4) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES ARE APPROXIMATE CROSS-SECTION F-F'
5) SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE BURNS
^MSDONNELL BURIAL AREA 1
6) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED NOVEMBER 6, 2017
7) CORRELATION OF UNITS IS AN INTERPRETATION AND NOT NECESSARILY A DELINEATION OF ACTUAL CIMMARON SITE, OKLAHOMA EXTENT AND THICKNESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT
G Cross-Section G-G' 960 960 WEST EAST TMW-21 955 ----- 955 02W42 A-A' 1315R/TMW-17 02W29 ,
950 02W09 TMW-06 950 945 945 940 940 935 935 930 930 925 925 920 920 915 915 910 910 905 905 900 900 I
0.0 100.0 .0 COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL NOTES
1) Y-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1983)
2) X-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET Figure 2G
3) ALL CROSS-SECTION SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED ON FIGURE 4-1
4) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES ARE APPROXIMATE CROSS-SECTION G-G'
5) SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE BURIAL AREA 1
6) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED NOVEMBER 6, 2017, EXCEPT 02W29 (MEASURED JULY, 31 2017)
7) CORRELATION OF UNITS IS AN INTERPRETATION AND NOT NECESSARILY A DELINEATION OF ACTUAL EXTENT CIMMARON SITE, OKLAHOMA AND THICKNESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT
WEST H
Cross-Section H-H' EAST 965 ----- ----- 965 960 ----- o.O ----- 960 COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
NOTES
1) Y-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1983)
2) X-AXIS MEASURED IN FEET Figure 2H
3) ALL CROSS-SECTION SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED ON FIGURE 4-1
4) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES ARE APPROXIMATE CROSS-SECTION H-H'
^BURNS
5) SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY IS APPROXIMATE ^MSDONNELL BURIAL AREA 1
6) GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS MEASURED NOVEMBER 6, 2017
7) CORRELATION OF UNITS IS AN INTERPRETATION AND NOT NECESSARILY A DELINEATION OF ACTUAL CIMMARON SITE, OKLAHOMA EXTENT AND THICKNESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT
Path: Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\_ClientInfo\Sites\Database\Geospatial\Maps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD_Files\Arcdocs\2018\ESS Tech MemoMsopach Map.mxd COPYRIGHT © 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY. INC.
322600 322800
2095000 2095200 2095400 2095600 2095600 FIGURE 3B ISOPACH CONTOURS WITH 1344 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE BURIAL AREA 1 CIMARRON SITE, OKLAHOMA TMW-24 ^BURNS D2W48 927.09 927.17
.MCDONNELL. environment3! _
Legend MONITORING WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE MONITORING WELL IN ALLUVIUM 927.31 927.22 927.19
+ MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE A 4- MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE B
- MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE C 1361 927.23 GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION

ALLUVIUM DEPOSITS GW CONTOURS

SANDSTONE B GW CONTOURS I I WASTE DISPOSAL TRENCH 32W45 8

927.34 CROSS-SECTION LINE s' ESTIMATED THICKNESS OF RELATIVELY 02W35 02W44 927.38 927.32 PERMEABLE STRATA 02W62 927.37 ZERO EDGE ONE FOOT 02W34 02W36
[ 927.43] 927.42 02W38 TWO FEET 927.37 THREE FEET 02W21 02W24
[02W14] 02W1l]'ljTMW-23 C' 927.45 J-1928.26 927 45 927.43 927.47
[02W12:
02W23 02W08 02W17 02WO6 [927.42]
. f 48 927.42 927.46 927
[02W13]
[927.67]
[02W32]
[927.541 02W05 927.53 t02W22
[02W46 02W15
[02W04]
927.56
[929:611 .TMW-07]
927.56 I932.57J 928 53 TMW-05 TMW-19 933.51
. m w.
oo :o2wio; 5
02W28]
COPYRIGHT © 2018 BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
02W27, iTMW-06 02W53 932.21 932.266
[1316R]
[932.85] '02W30]
[934:83] .02W29 K5-43J 1315R [02W42 934.95 [937.70] NOTES:
\T MW-21 .TMW-01 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA COLLECTED 936.331 1940.6 r MARCH 18, 2015 02W40 ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL 939.13
[02W25
[94 5.'4 3' (NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988)
[02W20]
DATA FROM GE-BA1-01 NOT USED IN CONTOURING
[02W47 ISOPACH CONTOUR LINES APPROXIMATED. LINES
.TMW-20]
[938.59J BASED ON BASAL, SATURATED, INTRA-GULLY
[02W51
[950.63]
STREAM DEPOSITS.
02W52 939.75 GW-GROUNDWATER 02W50 200
[940.38, 3 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Source: ESRI and Burns & McDonnell Engineering.
COORDINATES : (NAD 83) STATE PLANE OKLAHOMA NORTH FEET DATE: AERIAL PHOTO - 2010 / MAP PRODUCED - 4/6/2018 2095800
2095800 2096000 2096200 2095200 FIGURE 3C ISOPACH CONTOURS 1368 WITH URANIUM ISOPLETHS BURIAL AREA 1 CIMARRON SITE, OKLAHOMA
^ BURNS <5^
02W48' TMW-24
^MSDONNELL.
Legend
' -f MONITORING WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE MONITORING WELL IN ALLUVIUM 1367
+ MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE A
^ MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE B
+ MONITORING WELL IN SANDSTONE C

URANIUM CONTOURS IN UG/L l l WASTE DISPOSAL TRENCH CROSS-SECTION LINE r02W43' ESTIMATED THICKNESS OF RELATIVELY mm PERMEABLE STRATA ZERO EDGE 02W35 [02W37j ONE FOOT TWO FEET

THREE FEET Path: Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\_Clientlnfo\Sites\Database\Geospatial\Maps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD_Files\Arcdocs\2018\ESS Tech MemoMsopach U Cone Map.mxd I2W34J 02W36

[02W38]
[02W18 02W21 '02W24J 02W14i f02WHl TMW-23 I2W19; afwi2-
< V 02W23}\ (02W177 / I02W0E1 (02W07
\ I
[02W2:
02W33i I02W46J
^ V JSmMlln M>>'°7
02W04
'02W15j
-Jr, i'/nrWte=>>L \ Tuu/nc
,TMW:05 02 W5. 02W10 .
w\v \
02W2m COPYRIGHT © 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY. INC.
W-06 I1315R' NOTES:
02WA* t , -$
UG/L - MICROGRAMS PER LITER 02W40 SA.02W20 ISOPACH CONTOUR LINES APPROXIMATED. LINES 02W25 BASED ON BASAL, SATURATED, INTRA-GULLY 02W47 STREAM DEPOSITS.
URANIUM COTOURS ARE BASED ON 95% UCL FROM TMW-Of DATA COLLECTED 2011 THROUGH 2ND QUARTER 02W51 2017.
02W50 02W52 N
A 200 3 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies. CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, Source: ESRI and Burns & McDonnell Engineering.
IGN, and the GIS User Community COORDINATES : (NAD 83) STATE PLANE OKLAHOMA NORTH FEET DATE : AERIAL PHOTO - 2010/ AMP PRODUCED - 4/6/2018
1 2095000
' 02WO 8 O02W23 D02W17 ' 02W06 O02W07 02W13 O02W32 002W05 CTMW-13 O02W16 5 vTMW-07 QTli/V-05
(-02W10 TMW-06
02W09 02W26 TMVV-21 ATURAT COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
INTERFACE (ATTHE
_ 02W20 02VV47 FIGURE 4 TMW-02 PLAN VIEW OF TRANSITION ZONE 02W51 ABURNS SATURATED BEDROCK AND vtfSS*"
\S.M£DONNELL INTRA-GULLY STREAM DEPOSITS BURIAL AREA 1 CIMARRON SITE, OKLAHOMA
COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
02W29 1 315R/TMW17 Tlm^ Q c
02W28 1316R o T MW-09 02W10 02W27 02W01 0 APPROXIMATE GROUND-WATER SURFACE TMW187TMW19 02WO 7 O2W1.0 COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
1 315R7TMW17 APPROXIMATE GROUND-WATER SURFACE 02WO 8 02W07 02WO 5 02W16 O
Lithology River_Floodpiam_Depos!ts River_CtisirmeI_Deposits COPYRIGHT© 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Ri'v'er_Clay_Plug_Deposits U pper_G u tiy_Fi 11 Lowei_Gulty_Fill lhtra-giillte.Strearn_Deposits FIGURE 7 Bedrock UPPER G y i-il lAPPROXIMATE VOLUME ORTHOGONAL VIEW OF UPPER 137 CUBIC FEET GULLY FILL DEPOSITS AND BURNS
^MSDONNELL BEDROCK BURIAL AREA 1
___________ ___ CIMARRON SITE, OKLAHOMA
APPENDIX C - 2022 WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL LITHOLOGY DISTRIBUTION BY MODFLOW LAYER
APPENDIX C WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL LITHOLOGY ZONES - MODEL LAYER 1
^BURNS
^MSDONNELL environmental properties management, HC LEGEND MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE A
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B 4- MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C
-f MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN UPPER ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS NO FLOW BOUNDARIES (LITHOLOGYZONE 5) £ CONSTANT HEAD BOUNDARIES l RIVER BOUNDARIES CELLS
] GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS UPPER ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS (LITHOLOGY ZONE 5)
SANDSTONE (LITHOLOGY ZONE 4) 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
SANDSTONE NOTES (LITHOLOGY ZONE 4) 1) Groundwater elevations in feet above mean sea level (North American Vertical datum of 1988).
N Rev No: 0 Preparer: DHORNE Date: 10/6/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 10/6/2022 Coordinate System NAD 1983 StatePlane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501 Feet iceLayerCreditsUma^er^ Maxar
APPENDIX C WAA GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
- * -i LITHOLOGY ZONES - MODEL LAYER 2
^ BURNS VVMSDONNELL environmental properties management, LEGEND MONITOR WELL IN ALLUVIUM
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE A
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE B
+ MONITOR WELL IN SANDSTONE C MONITOR WELL IN TRANSITION ZONE ACTIVE MODEL DOMAIN LOWER ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS NO FLOW BOUNDARIES (LITHOLOGYZONE 2) l CONSTANT HEAD BOUNDARIES If RIVER BOUNDARIES CELLS l GENERAL HEAD BOUNDARY CELLS LOWER ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SANDS (LITHOLOGY ZONE 5)
SANDSTONE (LITHOLOGY ZONE 4) 2022 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
NOTES
1) Groundwater elevations in feet above mean sea level (North American Vertical datum of 1988).
N Rev No: 0 Preparer: DHORNE Date: 10/6/2022 Reviewer: DCLEMENT Date: 10/6/2022 Coordinate System NAD 1983 StatePlane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501 Feet Z:\Clients\ENS\CERT\_Clientlnfo\Sites\Database\Geospatial\Maps & Dwgs\ArcGIS\BMCD_Files\Arcdocs\2020\2022 - Decommissioning Plan\Figures 4-6 Appendix A

ML22286A227

Text

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

9.0 REFERENCES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

9.0 REFERENCES

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search