ML23319A252

Cimarron Environmental Response Trust - Response to September 6, 2023, Request for Additional Information

ML23319A252
Person / Time
Site:	07000925
Issue date:	11/03/2023
From:	Lux J Environmental Properties Management
To:	Miller R, James Smith Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk
References
Download: ML23319A252 (1)

Text

November 3, 2023

Mr. James Smith U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738

Ms. Rachel Miller Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 707 North Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73101

Re: Docket No. 07000925; License No. SNM-928 Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Response to September 6, 2023, Request for Additional Information

Dear Recipients:

Solely as Trustee for the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust (CERT), Environmental Properties Management LLC (EPM) submits herein responses to requests for additional information (RAIs) issued by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 6, 2023. It is our understanding that these were one of three RAIs that the NRC will issue based on the detailed technical review of Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 3. RAIs for chemical management and waste management appear to have been duplicated in the September 6, 2023, letter. presents each RAI, followed by a response. Figures, tables, or attachments related to a response immediately follow each response. If clar ification or additional information is needed, please notify us as soon as possible to minimize any potential delay in the issuance of an amended license.

Sincerely,

Jeff Lux Project Manager

cc: (electronic copies only)

Stephanie Anderson and Linda Gersey, NRC Region IV Paul Davis, Keisha Cornelius, Pam Dizikes, David Cates, and Jonathan Reid, DEQ NRC Public Document Room vcpsubmittals@deq.ok.gov

9400 Ward Parkway

• Kansas City, MO 64114 Tel: 405-642-5152

• jlux@envpm.com

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSE TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

9400 Ward Parkway

• Kansas City, MO 64114 Tel: 405-642-5152

• jlux@envpm.com

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

1.0 BU BUILDING USE 1.1 NRC RAI:

BU-1: Three water pumps along the northern site border, as well as three buildings on the sitethe former MOFF building (and associated cooling pl ant), former warehouse, and former emergency response buildingare all likely eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as stated in DP Section 5.6.8. DP section 1.3.2 stat es that the emergency response building is now used as an office for CERT employees and contractors, bu t it is unclear whether this use would continue during the proposed action. Additionally, it is not clear whether the warehouse and MOFF buildings are being used now or whether they would be u sed for any purpose during the proposed action. Please describe the current and future uses of all three buildings.

1.2 EPM Response:

All three of these buildings are in former Subarea I. A final status survey report was submitted to the NRC on June 29, 1999 (ML20212L572). Subarea I was released for unrestricted use in License Condition 29, Amendment 17 of SNM-928, on Ap ril 9, 2001. The following sections provide information on the recent, current, and pote ntial future uses of these three buildings.

1.2.1 Former Emergency Response Building The former emergency response building was initia lly constructed to function as an emergency medical services facility. During facility operations This building, du ring facility operations, housed the site emergency coordinator, records, emergency supplies, and emergency decontamination showers. It later contained a gamma spectrum whole-body counter used as part of the dosimetry program at the facility. It was ne ver used to respond to a medical emergency.

In the mid-2000s, the building was converted into an office. In June 2018, the CERT divested a 0.77-acre parcel on which the office building was located. Cimarron Holdings LLC (the buyer) executed a lease agreement with the CERT to lease the office for up to ten years, with a potential 5-year extension. This building is still in use as the site office for the CERT.

The lease agreement will terminate within 12 months after replacement offices are provided in the Western Area Treatment Facility shown in Appendix J of Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 3.

Cimarron Holdings sold the 0.77-acre property to John Stewart in 2020. Mr. Stewart has no current plans for the use of the build ing after the lease is terminated.

1.2.2 Warehouse The former warehouse is a sheet-metal building which was never used to process radioactive materials. Cladded fuel assemblies were inspected and packaged for a short period of time within this building.

The warehouse building is located on a 24-acre parcel of land that was sold to Cimarron Holdings on January 28, 2015. Cimarron Holdings used this building as a machine shop, fabricating ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

equipment for Cimarron Holdings to use in manuf acturing parts for the aerospace industry. These operations continued into 2020, when Ci marron Holdings terminated operations.

Cimarron Holdings sold the 24-acre property to Kalidy LLC on June 13, 2022. The building has not been used since 2020; Kalidy is seeking to sell or lease the facilities or the 24-acre property.

The most likely future use of this build ing is for commercial/industrial use.

1.2.3 Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication (MOFF) Building The MOFF building was used to manufacture mixed oxide nuclear fuel under NRC License SNM-1174. Six reports on the decontamina tion and decommissioning of the MOFF building were submitted to the NRC on December 20,1988. The NRC released the MOFF building for unrestricted use and terminated License SNM-1174 on February 5, 1993.

The MOFF building is located on a 24-acre parcel of land that was sold to Cimarron Holdings on January 28, 2015. Cimarron Holdings used this building to manufacture parts for the aerospace industry. These operations continued into 2020, when Cimarron Holdings terminated operations.

Cimarron Holdings sold the 24-acre property to Kalidy LLC on June 13, 2022. The building has not been used since 2020; Kalidy is seeking to sell or lease the facilities or the 24-acre property.

Both Cimarron Holdings and Kalidy LLC have au thorized the CERT to use the vault in the MOFF building as a storm shelter in case of severe weather, and provided keys to the building to provide access to the vault.

The most likely future use of this build ing is for commercial/industrial use.

2.0 AQ AIR QUALITY 2.1 NRC RAI:

AQ-1: Table 5-1 in the DP provides estimates of pr oject transportation emissions, information that is needed to assess the impacts of transportation ac tivities as described in NUREG-1748, section 6.4.2.

Provide sources or references, assumptions, and any qualifying notes to clarify the data provided in each row of table 5-1. This information is n eeded because the data for the EA, including the information in this table, need to be understandable and traceable. For example, it is unclear if paved roads refers to all traffic on and offsite associated with construction and operation. Similarly, it is unclear what the assumed time span is for total emissions, and if the total emissions refers to the complete life of the project. Further, please confirm the staffs assumption that all of the emissions sources described in DP section 5.6.6 are captured in table 5-1 2.2 EPM Response:

Table 5-1 presented in the DP provides estimates of emissions related to construction of the remediation and treatment system infrastructure only. This table has been updated to include estimated emissions that may be generated annually during both cons truction and operation (note that the construction duration is anticipated to be less than one calendar year). Additional information, including source references and notes, have been added to Table 5-1. Minor updates to the methodology and factors to the calculations are refl ected in the table. Specifically, the expected ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

sources of emissions for the construction and operational phases are summarized below. These source categories are in alignment with the categories presented on Table 5-1.

2.2.1 Emissions During Construction Construction Engine Emissions This category includes emissions from combustion engines generated by standard earthmoving machinery, hauling equipment, hand tools, temporary generators, etc. required to construct the remediation and treatment infrastructure. Specifically, the estimated emissions for this category include the following emission sources:

Air compressors All-terrain vehicles Backhoes Bulldozers Generators Graders Scrapers Water trucks Welders Soil compactors Loaders and Mini-loaders Unpaved Roads This category includes fugitive dust emissions only (PM 10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during travel on unpaved, onsite roads. This includes vehicular traffic on established gravel roads and temporary haul or construction routes required for equipment and utility installation. The equipment in this category includes pickup trucks, tractor trailers, dump trucks, concrete trucks, and other earthmoving machinery lis ted in Section 1.1.1 above. This assumes onsite travel distances ranging from 3 to 5 miles per day for each individual vehicle.

Paved Roads This category includes fugitive dust emissions only (PM 10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during travel on paved, offsite roads. This incl udes vehicular traffic that may be required for personnel transportation to the site, routine and heavy material deliveries, etc. The equipment in this category includes passenger vehicles, pi ckup trucks, tractor trailers, dump trucks, and concrete trucks that will be used to transport personnel and materials to the site (including tractor trailers used to transport earthmoving machinery listed in Section 1.1.1 above). This assumes an average travel distance of approximately 60 miles for each individual vehicle.

Earthmoving This category includes fugitive dust emissions only (PM 10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during physical earthwork construction (trenching, grading, backfilling, etc.). This category includes dust from soil only; emissions from the combustion engines of earthmoving equipment is included in the Construction Engi ne Emissions category above (Section 1.1.1).

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

This category assumes up to 33,000 cubic yards of soil will be excavated during the various activities listed above.

On-Road Tailpipe This category includes emissions from combustion engines that may be generated during travel on offsite roads. This includes vehicular traffic that may be required for personnel transportation to the site, routine and heavy mate rial deliveries, etc. The equipment in this category includes passenger vehicles, pickup tr ucks, tractor trailers, dump trucks, and concrete trucks that will be used to transpor t personnel and materials to the site. To account for variable speed limits, vehicle idle periods, et c., this assumes an average speed of 15 to 30 miles per hour for a total distance of approximately 60 miles for each individual vehicle.

2.3 Emissions During Operations Equipment Engine Emissions This category includes emissions from combustion engines generated by equipment used to operate the treatment system. The primary source of emissions for this will be a forklift used to move materials (resin, waste, drums, etc. ). The estimated emissions assumes a forklift will operate on average 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per day (5 days per w eek). This also includes a commuter vehicle will operate 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per day (5 days per week).

Unpaved Roads This category includes fugitive dust emissions only (PM 10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during travel on unpaved, onsite roads. This includes vehicular traffic on established gravel roads. The equipment in this category includes commuter vehicles, pickup trucks, and tractor trailers required for routine ope rations personnel, material deliveries, waste removal, etc.

Specifically, this assumes the following:

5 miles per day for commuter/pickup trucks 2 miles every two weeks for routine trash removal 6 weeks annually for onsite maintenance (mowing) 1 fuel delivery each year for the backup generators 2 miles onsite for the following:

o 3 resin disposal and delivery and absorbent delivery trips per year o 4 hydrochloric acid replacement trips per year

Paved Roads This category includes fugitive dust emissions only (PM 10 and PM2.5) that may be generated during travel on paved, offsite roads related to waste disposal (per NUREG-1748, section 6.4.2). As discussed in Section 13.1.1 of the DP, spent resin is anticipated to be disposed of at either the EnergySolutions facility in Utah or the Waste Control Specialists facility in Texas.

The fugitive dust emission estimate conservatively assumes that waste will be disposed of at the EnergySolutions facility in Utah, located approximately 1,400 miles from the Site. This estimate also includes routine general waste disposal every two weeks at the solid waste disposal facility located in Guthrie, OK (approximately 20 miles from the Site).

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

On-Road Tailpipe This category includes emissions from combustion engines that may be generated during travel on offsite roads related to waste disposal with the same assumptions as listed in Section 1.2.3 above.

Emergency Generator 30 kW This category includes emissions from the combustion engine of the 30 kW generator that will serve as backup power for the BARF. The estimated emissions assume an operational period of up to 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> per year.

Emergency Generator 528 kW This category includes emissions from the com bustion engine of the 528 kW generator that will serve as backup power for the WATF. The estimated emissions assume an operational period of up to 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> per year.

(The rest of this page was left blank intentionally.)

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

3.0 WU WATER USE 3.1 NRC RAI:

NUREG-1748 sections 6.2.1.2, 6.3.4, and 6.4.4 descr ibe the information needed to assess impacts on water resources. Cimarron Environmental Response Tr ust (CERT) expects to use potable water for sluicing resin from resin vessels, as described in section 5.6.4 of the DP: potable water will also be used to sluice resin from resin vessels. This use will be minimal and is not expected to impact users of potable water provided by the Water District. Section 8.3.2 describes the resin vessels as containing 38 ft3 of resin, weighing approximately 750 kg, according to section 13.1.1. How much potable water is anticipated for sluicing the resin from the vessels, and is this a significant quantity relative to the daily load for the supplier, Logan County Rural Water District #2?

3.2 EPM Response:

3.2.1 Process Use Potable water is used during the sluicing of ne w resin into the vessels as well as sluicing spent resin out of the vessels. During new resin sluicing approximately 800 gallons of potable water will be used to add new resin to the ion exch ange vessel. Potable water is recirculated as necessary to sluice the required quantity of resi n into the vessel and minimize the amount of potable water required.

During the removal of spent resin, approximately 400 gallons of potable water is used to clean and flush the vessel and piping after the removal of the spent resin. The Sluice Water Tank, TK-302, and the Excess Water Tank, TK-303 (550-gallon capacity each) are used for the collection of sluice water, one for sluicing resin out of a vessel and the other for filling a vessel with fresh resin. Potable water may be used to maintain a full tank if the required amount of process water is not available to complete sluicing activities.

3.2.2 Daily Load Logan County Rural Water District #2 (LCRWD) will provide potable water during both construction and operation of groundwater remediation and treatment systems. During construction, water will be taken from either a hydrant located at the intersection of Highways 74 and 33 or a hydrant located on the 24-acre property now owned by Kalidy LLC. During operations, water will be provided by the LCRW D directly to the Western Area Treatment Facility.

During construction, potable water will be used as needed for dust suppression; quantities will vary based on weather conditions during construction. During the 2017 pilot test, water use for dust suppression varied from zero to 16,000 gallons per day. The maximum daily water use of 32,000 gallons occurred when frac tanks were be ing filled for the construction of Extraction Trench GETR-BA1-01.

As described in Section 3.2.1, less than 1,500 gall ons of water will be needed to sluice spent resin out of the resin vessel and to reload the resin vessel with fresh resin (initially averaging approximately once every five weeks). Sanitary u se of potable water will typically be less than a few hundred gallons per day.

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

During conversations with the LCRWD operations manager, the LCRWD stated that during the summer months, when water use is greatest, the LCRWD provides up to 500,000 gallons per day of potable water from that portion of their infrastructure from which the site obtains water. The current LCRWD system can provide more than 100,000 gallons per day above the summer daily load. The LCRWD does not anticipate that the pot ential need for potable water (even during construction) will have any adverse impact to their ability to provide potable water to their users.

4.0 CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT (CM) 4.1 NRC RAI:

CM-1: NUREG-1748 section 6.2.1.2 specifies informati on that should be provided to describe the proposed action, including the identification of ch emicals that will be used, as well as the proposed storage, handling, and disposal activities. Describe anticipated uses of pest management or maintenance chemicals, such as solvents and herbicides, during all phases of the project.

4.2 EPM Response:

The following table provides a list of the chemicals used and stored on site to support operations and maintenance of the facility and equipment. The op eration and maintenance of the system depletes these chemicals, so disposal is not required. So lid waste generated from the consumption of the chemicals is provided in the following table. It is anticipated that pest and weed control activities will be contracted out to a licensed vendor. No pes ticides or herbicides will be stored on-site.

Chemical Quantity in Use/Storage Description Storage Type/Locate

Process 36 wt% concentration. Used Hydrochloric Acid Up to 6650 gal to adjust pH of groundwater Outdoor PE Tank to optimize uranium capture

Scrubber Up to 710 gal Captures vapors from HCl tank Outdoor PE Tank

Resin (new) 16 55-gal drums Strong Base Anion Resin Palleted drums in WATF

Absorbent 750 lbs Polycarboxylate Polymer Palleted bags in WATF

Diesel Fuel Up to 200 gal Diesel fuel for emergency generators Integral tank(s)

Maintenance Grease 1 gal Dolium R, Polyrex, SRI Grease NLGI2 Container(s) in WATF

Buffer Solution(s) 1 gal pH 7 and pH 4 buffer solution for calibration Container(s) in WATF

Sodium Carbonate 5 gal Neutralize any HCl spills (as needed) Bucket(s) in WATF ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

5.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT (WM) 5.1 NRC RAI:

WM-1: NUREG-1748 section 6.4.13 specifies informa tion that should be provided to assess waste management impacts, including waste types and quantities and the disposal plans for all wastes.

Provide the name of the municipal solid waste or construction and demolition waste landfill that would be used. Also, provide estimates of the yearly amounts of solid non-hazardous waste that would be disposed of at a municipal solid w aste or construction and demolition waste landfill.

5.2 EPM Response:

5.2.1 Solid Waste Estimate Attached Calculation EPM-00041 CALC 001 presents the calculation to estimate yearly amounts of solid non-hazardous waste that will be disposed at a municipal solid waste landfill or construction debris landfill during decommissioning activities at the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Site near Crescent, Oklahoma. The calculation includes the following sections:

1. Purpose and Scope

2. Summary of Results and Conclusions

3. References

4. Assumption

5. Design Inputs

6. Methodology

7. Calculations

8. Computer Software Estimates for annual amounts of non-hazardous solid waste are provided in Table 9-1.

5.2.2 Disposal Facility All non-hazardous municipal waste and construction and demolition waste is planned to be transported to, and disposed at, the Guthrie Landfill, located approximately 9 miles from the Cimarron site.

5.2.3 Municipal Solid Waste Municipal solid waste will consist of typical trash such as food waste, paper, glass, cardboard, and plastic.

5.2.4 Waste Generated During Mobilization and Construction The use of a pre-engineered metal building (PEMB) for office space and to house the groundwater treatment equipment should reduce th e amount of construction waste since material arrives pre-cut and sized for installation. This waste will generally consist of concrete, sheetrock, metal, and excess pipe.

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

5.2.5 Waste Generated During Operations Very little non-hazardous, non-radioactive solid waste is generated from the operation of the ion exchange system. Normal operation and mainte nance of the equipment does not generate significant waste due to the nature of the process and the selection of equipment. Waste during operations will generally consist of empty absorbent bags and empty absorbent drums.

5.2.6 Waste Generated During Demobilization and Demolition Wellfield pipes and appurtenances will be removed near the end of the project and disposed of as construction debris. All steel tanks and equipment will be surveyed for release and salvaged.

10,000 pounds has been included for undefined tooling, and disposable equipment.

(The rest of this page was left blank intentionally.)

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

Table 9-1: Estimated Annual Amount s of Non-Hazardous Solid Waste

Mun ic ipal & Demol iConstruct ion Solid Waste Des cription of Mun icipal Waste tion Ye ar Debris Waste Descr ip tiEstimate Stream on o f C & D Wa ste Stream

(pound s) Estimat e ( pound s)

2025 46, 385 month s p l8. 93 pound s per worker over 10.4 Debri s from in sta llation of u s empty ab sorbent bag s 62, 30 5 c onveya n c e and treatment sy stems.

2026 4,495 8. 93pound s perworkeroverent ire year p lu s empty a b sorbent bag s 3, 750 Empty re sin d rum s

2027 4,495 8. 93pou n d s perworkerovere n tire 3, 750 Empty resiyear p lu s empty ab sorbent bag s n d rum s

2028 4,495 8. 93 pound s per worker over ent ire year p lu s empty ab sorbent bag s 3, 750 Empty re sin drum s

2029 4,495 8. 93pound s pe rwo rkerove r ent ire yea r p lu s empty ab sorbent bag s 3, 750 Emp ty re sin drum s

2030 4,495 8. 93pound s perworkeroverentire 3, 750 Empty resiyea r p lu s empty a b sorbent bag s n drum s

2031 4,495 8. 93pound s perworkeroverentire year p lu s empty ab so rbent bag s 3, 750 Empty resin d rum s

2032 4,495 8. 93pound s pe rworkeroverentire year p lu s empty ab sorbent bag s 3, 750 Empty resin drum s

2033 4,495 8.93pound s pe rworkeroverentir e 3, 750 Empty resiyear p lu s empty ab sorbent bag s n drum s

20 3 4 4,495 8. 93 pound s p e r worker over entire year p lu s empty ab sorbent bag s 3, 750 Empty resin drum s

20 35 4,495 8. 93 pound s p e r worker over entire yea r p lu s empty ab sorbent bag s 3, 750 Empty resin drum s

20 36 4,495 8. 93 pound s p e r worker over entire 3, 7 50 Empty resiyear p lu s empty ab sorben t bag s n drum s

2037 4,495 8. 93 pound s p e r worker over entire year plu s empty ab sorbent bag s 3, 750 Empty resin drum s

2038 2, 798 8. 93 pound s per worker (2 samp ling n drum s events) 1,875 Empty resi

2039 1,072 8. 93 pound s p e r worker (4 samp ling 0 NA event s)

2040 16,163 event s; 7 month s demobilization) 20,887 d e bris (64 % ). 8. 93 pound s p e r worker (2 samp ling Demo lition and d e mob ilization

8. 93 pound s per worker (4 month s Demo lition and d e mob ilization 2041 10, 604 demobil izat ion ; 3 month s final 11,935 statu s survevl debris (36 % ).

2042 0 NA 0 NA

2043 0 NA 0 NA

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

ATTACHMENT 1 ANNUAL AMOUNTS OF NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE ESTIMATE

r.--~ ENERCON CALCULATION COVER SHEET

Ex cellence-Every project. Every day

Title:

Waste Estimate REV. 01 Annual Amounts of Non-hazardous CALC NO. EPM-00041 CALC-001

Environmental Client: Property Project Identifier: Decommissioning Support Management

Item Cover Sheet Items Yes No

1 Does this calculation contain any open assumptions, including [g]

preliminary information, that require confirmation? (If YES, identify the assumptions.)

2 Does this calculation serve as an "Alternate Calculation"? (If YES, [g]

identify the approved calculation.)

Original Calculation No. NA 3 Does this calculation supersede an existing Calculation? (If YES, [g]

identify the approved calculation.)

Superseded Calculation No. NA Scope of Revision: NA

Revision Impact on Results: NA -

D Study Calculation ~ Final Calculation D Safety-Related D Augmented Quality ~ Non-safety Related D Safety Class D Safety Significant D General Services D Production Support

(Print Name and Sign)

Preparer: Charles R. Beatty Jr. Digitally signed by Charles R. Beatty J "Date:

Date: 2023.10.26 14:29:20 -04'00' Design Reviewer: Michael Snyder Digitally signed by Michael Snyder Date:

Date: 2023.10.26 12:36:10 -07'00' Approver: Q_G,_~ Digitally signed by Dane Watson Date:

Date: 2023.10.26 16:01 :22 -04'00'

Page 1 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 p:- _~ ENERCON CALCULATION REVISION STATUS SHEET

Ex cellence-Every project. Every day

Title:

Waste Estimate REV. 00 Annual Amounts of Non-hazardous CALC NO. EPM-00041 CALC-001

CALCULATION REVISION STATUS

REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION 00 09/22/2023 Initial Issue 01 10/26/2023 Revised per client comments

Page 2 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F.~::J E N E R C O N CALCULATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Excellence-Every project Every day

Title:

Waste Estimate REV. 01 Annual Amounts of Non-hazardous CALC NO. EPM-00041 CALC-001

1.0 Purpose and Scope............................................................................................ 4

2.0 Summary of Results and Conclusions............................................................. 5

3.0 References.......................................................................................................... 7

4.0 Assumptions....................................................................................................... 7

5.0 Design Inputs...................................................................................................... 8

6.0 Methodology....................................................................................................... 8

7.0 Calculations........................................................................................................ 9

8.0 Computer Software.......................................................................................... 15

Appendices.................................................................................................................. 15

Calculation Preparation Checklist............................................................................. 16

Page 3 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F. -:.1 E N E R C O N

Title:

Waste Estimate REV. 00 Annual Amounts of Non-hazardous CALC NO. EPM-00041 CALC-001

1.0 Purpose and Scope

The purpose and scope of this calculation is to estimate yearly amounts of solid non hazardous waste that will be disposed at a municipal solid waste landfill or construction debris landfill during decommissioning activities at the Cimarron Environmental Response Trust Site near Crescent, Oklahoma.

Page 4 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F. **:J E N E R C O N

2.0 Summary of Results and Conclusions

Estimates for annual amounts of non-hazardous solid waste are provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Estimated Annual Amounts of Non-hazardous Solid Waste

Construction Municipal Demolition Vear Solid Waste Description of Municipal Waste (C& D) Description of C & D Waste Estimate Stream Debris Stream (pounds) Waste Estimate (pounds) 8.93 pounds per worker over 10.4 Debris from installation of 2025 46,385 months plus empty absorbent 62,305 conveyance and treatment bags systems.

8.93 pounds per worker over 2026 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2027 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2028 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2029 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2030 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2031 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2032 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2033 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2034 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags

Page 5 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F..::I E N E R C O N

Construction Municipal Demolition Year Solid Waste Description of Municipal Waste (C& D) Description of C & D Waste Estimate Stream Debris Stream (pounds) Waste Estimate (pounds) 8.93 pounds per worker over 2035 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2036 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags 8.93 pounds per worker over 2037 4,495 entire year plus empty absorbent 3,750 Empty resin drums bags

2038 2,798 8.93 pounds per worker (2 1,875 Empty resin sampling events) drums

2039 1,072 8.93 pounds per worker (4 0 NA sampling events)

8.93 pounds per worker (2 Demolition and demobilization 2040 16,163 sampling events; 7 months 20,887 debris (64%).

demobilization) 8.93 pounds per worker (4 months Demolition and demobilization 2041 10,604 demobilization; 3 months final 11,935 debris (36%).

status survey)

2042 0 NA 0 NA

2043 0 NA 0 NA

Page 6 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F. *l E N E R C O N

3.0 References

1. Decommissioning Plan Figure 9-2 Construction Schedule

2. Decommissioning Plan Figure 9-3 Remediation Schedule

3. Decommissioning Plan Figure 9-4 Post-Remediation Schedule

4. Decommissioning Plan Appendix 1-3 Extraction System Details

5. Decommissioning Plan Appendix 1-4 Injection System Details

6. Capital Cost Estimate, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, Logan County, OK, Groundwater Remediation, BMcD #142089

7. Wilson, J (2023) E-mail to Charles Beatty, 5 September regarding estimated waste amounts for treatment system installation and operation.

8. Sandale Utility Products Municipal & Industrial Series Pipe Data

4.0 Assumptions

1. 250 workdays in a year.

2. 24 workers will be on site each workday during mobilization and construction of the decommissioning systems.

3. Two workers will be on site each workday during the operation of the decommissioning system.

4. 12 workers will be on site each workday during deconstruction and demobilization of the decommissioning systems.

5. Three workers will be onsite for ten days per quarter during post remediation sampling.

6. Three workers will be on site each workday during final status survey field work.

7. Construction pipe quantities will be increased by 10% to account for waste.

8. All steel tanks and treatment equipment will be surveyed for release and salvaged.

9. 10,000 pounds of C & D waste is estimated to be generated during system dismantling and demobilization.

Page 7 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 p: -;.1 E N E R C O N

5.0 Design Inputs

1. Decommissioning Plan Figure 9-2 Construction Schedule

2. Decommissioning Plan Figure 9-3 Remediation Schedule

3. Decommissioning Plan Figure 9-4 Post-Remediation Schedule

4. Decommissioning Plan Appendix 1-3 Extraction System Details

5. Decommissioning Plan Appendix 1-4 Injection System Details

6. Capital Cost Estimate, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, Logan County, OK, Groundwater Remediation, BMcD #142089

7. Wilson, J (2023) E-mail to Charles Beatty, 5 September

8. Sandale Utility Products Municipal & Industrial Series Pipe Data

6.0 Methodology

1. The Decommissioning Schedules (Design Inputs 1 through 3) were examined to determine the duration of each decommissioning phase as follows:

• Mobilization and Site Construction (2/18/2025 to 12/31/2025)

• Treatment System Operation (Remediation 1/1/2026 to 6/30/2038)

• Post-Remediation Monitoring (7/1/2038 to 5/31/2040)

• System Deconstruction and Demobilization (6/1/2040 to 4/30/2041)

2. Design Inputs 4, 5, 6, and 7 were examined to determine quantities of solid waste to be generated each decommissioning phase.

3. Unit weights were estimated for each solid waste type (Design Inputs 7 and 8).

4. Waste unit quantities were multiplied by durations to estimate total annual amounts.

Page 8 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F.*~::J ENERCON

7.0 Calculations

As described in Section 6.0 above, standard calculations were completed in spreadsheets. Results are summarized in Section 2.0, above. The complete spreadsheet results are as follows:

Page 9 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F.::I ENE RCO N

Spreadsheet Results - Schedule

Mobi I izati on/Construction Design Input 1 Start 2/18/2025 Finish 12/31/2025 Months 10.4 Work days per month 20.8 Total Duration (days) 216

Operation Design Input 2 Start 1/1/2026 Finish 6/30/2038 Months 149.9 Work days per month 20.8 Total Duration (days) 3123

Post-Remediation Sampling Design Input 3 Start 7/1/2038 Finish 5/31/2040 Quarters 7.7 Work days per quarter 10.0 Total Duration (days) 77

Deconstruction/Demo~ilization Design Input 3 Start 6/1/2040 Finish 4/30/2041 Months 10.9 Work days per month 20.8 Total Duration (days) 228

Final Status Survey Design Input 3 Start 7/1/2041 Finish 9/30/2041 Months 3.0 Work days per month 20.8 Total Duration (days) 62

Page 10 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F. *.::a E N E R C O N

Spreadsheet Results - Annual Municipal Waste Generated

During Mobilization /Co nstru ctio n 8.93 pounds per work day perworker(Design lnput7)

-- -- ----*--**---* 24 Number of workers ----- -* -*-*---*- ---------****** ' ***.. ------- ----- *-**-------------- *-. --------*- -----

20. 8 work days per month 4465 pounds per month

During Operation

...................... ?.:.~.?... p_c:>.':!. n9.~.P.~t_'-Y9.E~.. 9 ?..Y..P~ r work e r ( Desi g ~.. 1 !]_P.~t 7). ****-** _

2 Number of workers

... ?q:?."Yg r.~.9?Y.~...P.~ ~ '!)~n~~..

372

• pounds per month

Post-Remediation Sampling 8.93 pounds per work day perworker{Design lnput7) 3 Number of workers

--* ~--.~,-..............,...,_ ".

10.0 work days per -.. -. - - -. - -. quarter 268 _poun.ds.pe t_quarte.r.................. *********-*********....

Final Status Survey 8.93 pounds per work day perworker(Design lnput7)...

• ------------* --- **--*--*****-***3 Number of workers **-**-*-**------------. --. *******------ -------- -------- -- -- --.

20.8 work days per month 558 pounds per month

...... --.........,.. --*-** --.,.. ~ *-. ------...

During 1?e mob i lizati on/Deconstruction

___ 8_.9_ 3. P..~-~-~9~...P.~t.~ 9T~... 9..~.Y _. ee _ r _Y.- _C?tk.er {Design lnP.l!!-71.

12 Number of workers 20.8 work days per month 2233 pounds per month

Page 11 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 f.~::I ENERCON

Spreadsheet Results - Annual Construction & Demolition Debris Generated

Waste Estimate Year (pounds) 2025 62,305 2026 3,750 2027 3,750 2028 3,750 2029 3,750 2030 3,750 2031 3,750 2032 3,750 2033 3,750 2034 3,750 2035 3,750 2036 3,750 2037 3,750 2038 3,750 2039 -

2040 20,887 2041 11,935

Spreadsheet Results - Annual Other Solid Waste

All from Design Input 7

Annual Weight Unit Total Item Quantity Weight (pounds) (pounds)

Empty Absorbent Bags (Municipal Waste) 15 2.00 30 Empty Resin Drums (C&D Waste) 75 so 3750

Page 12 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F.~ ENE RCO N

Spreadsheet Results - C&D Debris Generated During Installation

TOTAL: 62305 Pounds :

Injection Conveyance Pipe (Design Input 5)

Pipe Feet Weight Weight Unit Total

Size/rype (pounds) (pounds)

4" HOPE 387 1.26 488

11 HOPE 128 0.43 55 2

543

Injection Well Pipe (Design Input 5)

Pipe Feet Weight Weight Unit Total

Size/fype (pounds) (pounds)

11 HOPE 13.3 2.73 36 6

Extraction Conveyance Pipe (Design lnput4)

Pipe Feet Weight Weight Unit Total

Size/rype (pounds) (pounds)

11 HOPE 577 2.73 1575 6

11 HOPE 108.5 1.26 137 4

2" HOPE 117 0.43 50 187

Extraction Well Pipe (Design lnput4)

Pipe Feet Weight Weight Unit Total

Size/fype (pounds) (pounds)

11 HOPE 11.5 2.73 31 6

Outfall Pipe (Design Input 6)

Pipe Feet Weight Weight Unit Total

Size/fype (pounds) (pounds)

11 HOPE 320 4.64 1485 8

PEMB and Treatment System Construction Debris (Design Input 7)

(1% of we II-fie Id construction pl us 60,000 pounds pre-engineered metal bui !ding waste}

60,023 pounds

Page 13 of 19 QF-043, Rev. O F: *:ta ENERCON

Spreadsheet Results - C & D Debris Generated During Demobilization

TOTAL: 32,822 Pounds -... -

Injection Conveyance Pipe (Design Input 5)

Pipe Unit Total Feet Weight Weight Size/Type (pounds) (pounds)

4" HDPE 3870 1.26 4876 2" HDPE 1280 0.43 550 5427

Injection Well Pipe (Design Input 5)

Pipe Feet Weight Weight Unit Total

Size/Type (pounds) (pounds}

11 HOPE 133 2.73 363 6

Extraction Conveyance Pipe (Design Input 4) _

Pipe Feet Weight Weight Unit Total

Size/Type (pounds) (pounds)

11 HOPE 5770 2.73 15752 6

4" HOPE 1085 1.26 1367 2" HOPE 1170 0.43 503 1870

Extraction Well Pipe (Design Input 4)

Pipe Feet Weight Weight Unit Total

Size/Type (pounds) (pounds)

11 HOPE 115 2.73 314 6

Outfall Pipe (Design Input 6)

Pipe Feet Weight Weight Unit Total

Size/Type (pounds) (pounds)

11 HOPE 3200 4.64 14848 8

Treatment System Construction Debris (Design Input 7)

Estimated at 10,000 pounds, based on decommissioning experience.

10,000 pounds

Page 14 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 p: -::1 E N E R C O N

8.0 Computer Software

Microsoft Excel Version 2308 (Build 16731.20170)

Appendices

None.

Page 15 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0

r. -::a ENE RCO N

CALC NO. EPM-00041 CALC-001 Calculation Preparation Checklist REV. 01

CHECKLIST ITEMS 1 YES NO2 N/A

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Are the latest procedure revisions being used? [81

2. Are the proper forms being used and are they the latest revision? [81

3. Have the appropriate client review forms/checklists been completed? [81

4. Are all pages properly identified with a calculation number, calculation revision [81 and page number consistent with the requirements of the client's procedure?

5. Is all information legible and reproducible? [81

6. Is the calculation presented in a logical and orderly manner? [81

7. Have all other calculations impacted by this change been revised or voided as [81 appropriate?

8. If an existing calculation is being used for design inputs, are the key design inputs, assumptions and engineering judgments used in that calculation valid [81 and do they apply to the calculation revision being performed.

9. Is the format of the calculation consistent with applicable procedures and ~

expectations?

10. Were design input/output documents properly updated to reference this [81 calculation?

11. Can the calculation logic, methodology and presentation be properly [81 understood without referring back to the originator for clarification?

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

12. Does the calculation provide a clear concise statement of the problem and ~

objective of the calculation?

13. Does the calculation provide a clear statement of quality classification? [81

14. Is the reason for performing and the end use of the calculation understood? [81

15. If the calculation provides the basis for information found in the plant's license [81 basis, is it clearly documented in the calculation?

16. If the calculation provides or supports the basis for information found in the plant's design basis documentation, is it clearly documented in the [81 calculation?

Page 16 of 19 QF-043, Rev. O r.-::1 E N E R C O N

CALC NO. EPM-00041 CALC-001 Calculation Preparation Checklist REV. 01

CHECKLIST ITEMS 1 YES N02 N/A

17. Has the appropriate design or license basis documentation been revised, or has the change notice or change request documents being prepared for 121 submittal?

DESIGN INPUTS

18. Are design inputs clearly identified? 121

19. Are design inputs retrievable or have they been added as attachments? 121

20. If Attachments are used as design inputs or assumptions are the Attachments 121 traceable and verifiable?

21. Are design inputs clearly distinguished from assumptions? 121

22. If the calculation relies on Attachments for design inputs or assumptions, are 121 the attachments properly referenced in the calculation?

23. Are input sources (including industry codes and standards) appropriately selected and are they consistent with the quality classification and objective of 121 the calculation?

24. Are input sources (including industry codes and standards) consistent with the 121 plant's design and license basis?

25. If applicable, do design inputs adequately address actual plant conditions? 121

26. Are input values reasonable and correctly applied? 121

27. Are design input sources approved? 121

28. Does the calculation reference the latest revision of the design input source? 121

29. Were all applicable plant operating modes considered? 121

ASSUMPTIONS

30. Are assumptions reasonable/appropriate to the objective? 121

31. Is adequate justification/basis for all assumptions provided? 121

32. If engineering judgements are used, are they clearly identified as such? 121

33. If engineering judgments are used as design inputs, are they reasonable and can they be quantified or substantiated by reference to site or industry 121 standards, engineering principles, physical laws or other appropriate criteria?

METHODOLOGY

34. Is the methodology used in the calculation consistent with the methodology 121 described or implied in the plant's licensing basis?

Page 17 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F. -.::J ENERCON

/:vre, ( /onro - l=11Dr\\l nl'nior t ~,Jt>r'tl rln \\l

CALC NO. EPM-00041 CALC-001 Calculation Preparation Checklist REV. 01

CHECKLIST ITEMS 1 YES NO2 N/A

35. If the methodology used differs from that described in the plant's licensing 121 basis, has the appropriate license document change notice been initiated?

36. Is the methodology used consistent with the stated objective? 121

37. Is the methodology used appropriate when considering the quality 121 classification of the calculation and intended use of the results?

BODY OF CALCULATION

38. Are equations used in the calculation consistent with recognized engineering 121 practice and the plant's design and license basis?

39. Is there reasonable justification provided for the use of equations not in 121 common use?

40. Are the mathematical operations performed properly and documented in a 121 logical fashion?

41. Is the math performed correctly? 121

42. Have adjustment factors, uncertainties and empirical correlations used in the 121 analysis been correctly applied?

43. Has proper consideration been given to results that may be overly sensitive to 121 very small changes in input?

SOFTWARE/COMPUTER CODES

44. If computer codes or software languages used in the preparation of the calculation, have the requirements of CSP 3.09, including verification of 121 accuracy and applicability been met?

45. If computer codes have been used, are they properly identified along with 121 source vendor, organization, and revision level?

46. If a computer code is being used, is it applicable for the analysis being 121 performed?

47. If applicable, does the computer model adequately consider actual plant 121 conditions?

48. If applicable, are the inputs to the computer code clearly identified and 121 consistent with the inputs and assumptions documented in the calculation?

49. If applicable, is the computer output clearly identified? 121

50. If applicable, does the computer output clearly identify the appropriate units? 121

51. If applicable, are the computer outputs reasonable when compared to the 121 inputs and what was expected?

Page 18 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 F::d ENE RC ON

CALC NO. EPM-00041 CALC-001 Calculation Preparation Checklist REV. 01

CHECKLIST ITEMS 1 YES NO2 N/A

52. If applicable, was the computer output reviewed for ERROR or WARNING 121 messages that could invalidate the results?

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

53. Is adequate acceptance criteria specified? 121

54. Are the stated acceptance criteria consistent with the purpose of the 12.1 calculation, and intended use?

55. Are the stated acceptance criteria consistent with the plant's design basis, 12.1 applicable licensing commitments and industry codes, and standards?

56. Do the calculation results and conclusions meet the stated acceptance 121 criteria?

57. Are the results represented in the proper units with an appropriate tolerance, if 121 applicable?

58. Are the calculation results and conclusions reasonable when considered 121 against the stated inputs and objectives?

59. Is sufficient conservatism applied to the outputs and conclusions? 121

60. If the calculation results and conclusions affect other calculations, have the 121 affected calculations been revised and cross referenced?

61. Have any conceptual, unconfirmed or open assumptions requiring later 12.1 confirmation been properly identified?

DESIGN REVIEW

62. If alternate calculation methods were used to verify calculation results, are 121 they properly documented and included?

Note 1: Where required, provide clarification/justification for answers to the questions in the space provided below each question.

Note 2: An explanation is required for any questions answered as "No".

Digitally signed by Charles R. Beatty Jr.

Preparer: Charles R. Beatty Jr. Date: 2023.10.26 14:29:43 -04'00'

Print Name and Sign Date

Page 19 of 19 QF-043, Rev. 0 ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

6.0 ECO AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6.1 NRC RAI:

ECO-1: NUREG -1748 section 6.3.5 states that an ER should provide information regarding the aquatic ecological resources at and near the proposed site, including biological, hydrological, and chemical characteristics. The DP does not describe the aquatic ecology of the Cimarron River at the site location and does not describe the ecology of the two natural ponds and immediately surrounding vegetation (such as wetla nds vegetation). Please provide information about the aquatic environment associated with the Cimarron site, including an assessment of the potential impacts from the activities proposed in the DP.

6.2 EPM Response:

Studies of the aquatic ecology specifically at or adjacent to the Site have not been completed. Pigg (1988)1 detailed the aquatic ecology of the Cimarron River in the vicinity of Guthrie, Oklahoma. The Cimarron River in this area is a relatively sha llow and sandy river dominated by run and some riffle components, relatively little pool hab itat, little aquatic vegetation, and a riparian corridor that includes salt cedars (Tamarix ramosissima ) and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides). Fish species diversity and abundance in the Cimarron River in the vicinity of Guthrie, Oklahoma included 40 collected species and 43,473 individuals during the period of 1976 to 1986. The fish diversity and abundance were generally in this area higher compared to reaches far upstream but consistent with other reaches near Guthrie both upstream and downstream. A fi sh community rating value based on sixteen parameters resulted in the Cimarron River in the area of Guthrie scoring a mean of 159 on a scale of 46 to 300, therefore determined to have a rating of Fair.

The two ponds located at the Site are man-made and representative of medium-sized ponds in the region (Figure ECO-1-1). No sampling or quantitativ e study of the aquatic community of the ponds has been completed. The ponds would be consid ered palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) wetlands and have a surrounding or nearby riparian area and/or palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands.

The riparian woodlands include dogwood species ( Cornus spp.), eastern cottonwood, and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). One large wetland was noted and included dogwood species, eastern cottonwood, and eastern red cedar. Herbaceous wetland vegetation includes pinkweed (Persicaria spp.) and spike-rush (Eleocharis spp.) among many other species.

The project as proposed is not anticipated to adver sely impact either the Cimarron River or either pond. All appropriate best management practices (BMPs) associated with other permits and industry standards would be applied to the project activities to minimize impacts to these features.

(The rest of this page was left blank intentionally.)

1 Pigg, J. 1988. Aquatic Habitats and Fish Distribution in a Large Oklahoma River, the Cimarron, From 1976 to 1986. Oklahoma State Department of Health.

~ BURNS ~

~ M SDONNELL. properties environmental management. LLC

E2Z3 c=J ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

7.0 ECO TREE REMOVAL 7.1 NRC RAI:

ECO-2: The NRC staff used the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Environmental Conservation Online System Information for Planning and Conservation tool to obtain a current list of Federally proposed, threatened, and endangered sp ecies that may be present on the site and could be affected by project activities. These species include the tricolored bat, which roosts, forages, and travels through a variety of forest ed and wooded habitats. Please describe CERTs plans for vegetation removal associated with the proposed project, including but not limited to removals to accommodate the groundwater tr eatment infrastructure and the wastewater discharge outfall at the Cimarron River. For any planned tree removals, include the tree locations, species, maturity, and quantity.

7.2 EPM Response:

Clearing and grubbing activities may be required w ithin the Area of Potential Land Disturbance identified on Figure 5-5 of the DP during construction activities. These activities will generally consist of clearing and removal of native grasses and topsoil, trees, and shrubs as needed to install infrastructure, BMPs, roads and surfacing, etc. Tr ees and/or shrubs will be removed using standard earthmoving machinery. Figure ECO-1-1 illustrates the approximate locations in which tree removal will be required to facilitate infrastructure installation.

A qualitative assessment of the woodland areas including documenting the presence of Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila ), eastern red cedar, Kentucky coffeetree (Gymnocladus dioicus), black willow (Salix nigra), fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica), bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The diameter at breast height (dbh) of trees evaluated ranged from 3 to 20 inches for Siberian elm, Kentucky coffee tree, and green ash. It is estimated that tree removal of mature trees will not exceed 2,000 trees of the above species. Tw o mature bur oak trees were identified as needing to be removed for project activities with dbhs of 30 to 40 inches. Trees determined to be potential roost trees (PRTs) for protected (or proposed for protection) bat species included those at PRT-1, PRT-2, and PRT-3 (Figure ECO-1-1). Tree removal would be completed in compliance with other permitting drivers and during the period of Nove mber 16 to March 31 (i.e., when protected bat species would not be potentially using the trees) following USFWS guidelines for northern long-eared bats2 (as they are often applied to other protected bat species) or as further prescribed by USFWS guidelines for protected bat species.

8.0 ECO-3A - MIGRATORY BIRDS - 1 OF 2 8.1 NRC RAI ECO-3a: NUREG-1748 section 6.3.5 states that an ER should provide information regarding the distribution and seasonal patterns of species, including local flight patterns and travel corridors,

2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023. Inactive Season Dates for Northern Long-eared Bats in Summer Habitat Outside of Swarming/Staging Areas. Available at:

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Inactive%20Season%20Dates%20for%20Areas%20Outside%20 of%20Swarming%20and%20Staging%20Areas_0.pdf.

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

breeding and nesting areas, wintering areas, and other similar ecological aspects of the site.

The piping plover, red knot, and whooping cran e are Endangered Species Act threatened or endangered shorebirds that could be present al ong the Cimarron River or around wet areas of the site. Please indicate whether any of these birds have been observed or are known to be present on the site or along the river shoreline during certain times of the year.

8.2 EPM Response:

Avian surveys to quantitatively assess the use of the Site area for species diversity, abundance, and seasonal usage by migratory birds have not been co mpleted. The Site is adjacent to the Cimarron River which can provide breeding, stopover, and wintering habitat for many migratory bird species.

The Site is located within the Central Flyway for waterfowl species. Woodland, grassland, and wetland areas within the Site may provide foraging and nesting habitat for migratory bird species.

The Site does not include any habitat that is unique relative to the surrounding area that would result in a concentration of migratory bird species. Individual and small groups of migratory bird species would be displaced by the Site activities, but regi onal or population level impacts as a result of the project should be considered highly improbable.

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus), rufa red knot (Calidris canutus), and whooping crane (Grus americana) have not been observed in or adjacent to the Site along the Cimarron River. The piping plover selects for habitat that includes open, relativel y flat sandbars without vegetation. This habitat may be found in the Cimarron River. The project does not propose to directly impact the Cimarron River or sandbar habitats and therefore woul d have no effect on the piping plover.

The red knot may be present in Oklahoma during migrations using open mudflats or sandbars, but there are no critical breeding or staging areas for the species identified in the state. Fewer than five birds are reported in Oklahoma annually3. This habitat may be found in the Cimarron River. The project does not propose to adversely impact the Ci marron River or habitat potentially capable of supporting the species and therefore w ould have no effect on the red knot.

The whooping crane prefers large, shallow open water wetlands or seasonally flooded areas for stopover habitat. The majority of the sightings of the species in Oklahoma are associated with Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge4. Habitat capable of supporting whooping cranes may be found in the Cimarron River. The project does not propose to adversely impact the Cimarron River and therefore would have no effect on whooping cranes.

3 Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2023. Rufa Red Knot. Available at https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlife/field-guide/birds/rufa-red-knot.

4 Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 2023. Whooping Crane. Available at https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlife/field-guide/birds/whooping-crane.

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

9.0 ECO-3B MIGRATORY BIRDS - 2 OF 2 9.1 NRC RAI ECO-3b: Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Indicate whether there have been observations of migratory birds or eagles at the site or if you know these birds to be present at certain times of the year.

9.2 EPM Response:

Avian surveys to quantitatively assess the use of the Site area for species diversity, abundance, and seasonal usage by migratory birds have not been co mpleted. The Site is adjacent to the Cimarron River which can provide breeding, stopover, and wintering habitat for many migratory bird species.

The Site is located within the Central Flyway for waterfowl species. Woodland, grassland, and wetland areas within the Site may provide foraging and nesting habitat for migratory bird species.

The Site does not include any habitat that is unique relative to the surrounding area that would result in a concentration of migratory bird species. Individual and small groups of migratory bird species would be displaced by the project activities, but region al or population level impacts as a result of the project should be considered highly improbable.

Numerous migratory avian species have been observed qualitatively during other project efforts throughout the Site. No bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), or eagle nests, all protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) have been observed at the Site.

10.0 PER WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION 10.1 NRC RAI:

PER-1: As indicated in section 5.6.4 of the DP, CERT plans to discharge some of the treated groundwater to the Cimarron River through an ou tfall in accordance with an OPDES permit. As indicated in section 5.6.5 of the DP, CERT also plans to obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Wate r Act (CWA). Under CWA section 401 (see https://www.epa.gov/cwa-401/overview-cwa-section-401-certification), a federal agency may not issue a permit or license to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the U.S.

unless a section 401 water quality certification is issued, or certification is waived. See https://www.deq.ok.gov/water-quality-division/wate rshed-planning/water-quality-certification/.

Please indicate whether the State of Oklahoma has issued a certification or waiver to CERT for the proposed activities that would affect waters of the U.S. If no waiver or certification has yet been issued, please request that the OK Department of Environmental Quality issue a waiver or certification and provide a copy of the request in your response to this letter.

10.2 EPM Response:

An individual 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC ) is not required so long as the activity is covered by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U SACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP) with an existing WQC. The Oklahoma Department of Environmenta l Quality (ODEQ) has issued a valid WQC for NWPs in Oklahoma (see Attachment PER-1-1). EPM will obtain a NWP 7 permit (see the response to ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

PER-2 below), for which a WQC is valid as long as we comply with conditions 1 - 6 listed in Attachment PER-1-1. As such a waiver is not re quired and the completed WQC will be issued with the NWP permit (see PER-2 response for NWP status update).

(The rest of this page was left blank intentionally.)

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

ATTACHMENT PER-1-1 DEQ LETTER RE: WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION

Scott A. Thompson Kevin Stitt Executive Director 0 K LAH O MA Governor

DE PARTMENT OF ENVIRONM ENTAL QUALITY

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

December 18, 2020

Mr. Andrew R. Commer Chief, Regulatory Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District 1645 South 101 st East Avenue Tulsa, OK 74128-4609

Re: Water Quality Certification for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Nationwide Permits

Dear Mr. Commer:

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has received your request for a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972)],

for the proposed issuance of the Nationwide Permits published September 15, 2020 in Federal Register. The Department of Environmental Quality rules governing 401 Certification are contained in Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) § 252:611-3 (2011) pursuant to 27 A O.S. § 2-6-103(C)(2) (OSCN 1999). DEQ rules and regulations related to the 401 procedures are available at https://www.deq.ok.gov/wp-content/uploads/deqmainresources/611.pdf or through contacting the DEQ Office of External Affairs at (800) 869-1400.

This Water Quality Certification supersedes all previous Water Quality Certifications for the Nationwide Permits in the State of Oklahoma.

DEQ requests that all Pre-Construction Notifications (PCN) and information pertaining to any project, regardless of size, located within any waters designated in Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards (WQS) as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW),

Sensitive Public and Private Water Supplies (SWS), and Appendix B Waters (OAC 785:45-5-25),

which is proposed to be authorized under NWP 19, 23, 27, 33, or 37 be provided to the DEQ.

This request is not a condition of certification.

DEQ requests that all PCN and information pertaining to any project which may result in a loss of more than 300 linear feet of stream which is proposed to be authorized under NWP 21, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 51, or 52 be provided to the DEQ. Additionally, DEQ requests the opportunity to review and comment on these proposed actions following the time frames specified in the NWP General Condition 32. DEQ will expedite the review and notification process when practicable.

This request is not a condition of certification.

Water Quality Certification for the proposed Nationwide Permits 3, 13, 18, 41, 45, 46, 53, C, D, and E is denied and require an individual water quality certification for all activities located within any Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Sensitive Public and Private Water Supplies (SWS), and Appendix B Waters as identified in WQS, OAC 785:45-5-25.

Page 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits December 18, 2020

In order to determine compliance with water quality standards set forth in OAC 785:455-25 for these waters, projects covered under NWP on such waters shall be reviewed by DEQ.

Water Quality Certification for the proposed Nationwide Permits 49 and 50 are denied and require individual water quality certification for all activities in all watersheds of Oklahoma. We are concerned that use of these permits could lead to more than minimal adverse environmental effects on waters of the U.S. located in Oklahoma and may result in violation of WQS as set in OAC 785: 45-3-2. In order to determine compliance with water quality standards set forth in OAC 785:45-3 and OAC 785: 455-25 for Oklahoma waters of the U.S., projects covered under these two NWP shall be reviewed by DEQ.

For the proposed Nationwide Permit 16, Return Water from Upland Contained Disposal Areas, the certification is conditioned as follows to comply with OAC 785: 45-5-9(b) and OAC 785: 45 12(f)(7) and (8). A plan describing best management practices for sediment control in return water shall be submitted to, and approved by DEQ before any discharge can be commenced.

DEQ acknowledges that the potential to use NWP 34, 48. 54, A, and B in Oklahoma is not likely.

However, for administrative clarity the Water Quality Certification is denied for the proposed NWP 34, 48, 54, A, and B.

This certification does not authorize industrial stormwater discharges, stormwater runoff from construction sites, or municipal/domestic wastewater discharges. These discharges may require permits from DEQ.

Subject to the exceptions noted above, the DEQ grants Clean Water Act 401 Water Quality Certification for the Corps Nationwide Permits subject to the following conditions:

1. Permittee shall take all reasonable measures to prevent spills of fuel or other pollutants to comply with CWA 301(a), OAC 785: 45-3-2, OAC 785:45-5-12(f)(4) and (6), and OAC 785: 45-5-19. In the event such spill occurs it shall be reported to the DEQ, within twenty four (24) hours, to the pollution prevention hotline at 1-800-522-0206.

2. All fueling and servicing of vehicles and equipment shall be done above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) to comply with CWA 301 (a), OAC 785: 45-3-2, OAC 785: 45 12(f)(4) and (6), and OAC 785: 45-5-19.

3. Any material and fuels used in the project shall be stored and/or stockpiled above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and shall be removed from a likely flood zone prior to any predicted flood to comply with CWA 301(a), OAC 785: 45-3-2, OAC 785: 45-5-12(f)(4) and (6), OAC 785: 45-5-19.

4. If the project is located on or may affect water impaired for turbidity and/or sediment, Best Management Practices and other controls shall be selected and implemented in order to control soil erosion and maintain compliance with WQS, OAC: 45-5-12(f)(7)(B ). A copy of the current EPA-approved list of impaired waters (303(d) list) is available at Integrated Report - 303(d) & 305(b) - Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.

5. For any project involving bank stabilization, the permittee shall consider implementing bioengineering practices in lieu of structural practices (e.g. riprap) to minimize impacts to an aquatic resource and enhance aquatic habitat to comply with WQS, OAC 785: 45-3-2.

Page 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits December 18, 2020

6. Post-project condition should not result in downstream water quality degradation which will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of an existing or designated beneficial uses to ensure compliance with WQS, OAC 785: 45-3-2.

If you have any questions regarding this Certification, please contact Elena Jigoulina at (405) 702-8200.

J~ ong, Environme n tal Progra Watershed Planning Section Water Quality Division

cc: David Carraway, Regulatory Project Manager, Regulatory Branch, Corps, Tulsa Barry Bolton, Fisheries Chief, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation Bill Cauthron, Chief, Water Quality Programs Division, Oklahoma Water Resources Board Brooks Tramell, Monitoring, Assessment and Wetlands Programs, Oklahoma Conservation Commission Daniel Landeros, EPA Region 6 (6WQ-EM)

Jennifer Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Conservation Unit, OK Office of the Attorney General ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

11.0 PER UPDATED NWP-12 11.1 NRC RAI:

PER-2: As noted in DP section 5.6.13, CERT previously held a Nationwide Permit 12 for construction of the treated wastewater discharge out fall in the Cimarron River floodplain. That permit expired in 2017 and the DP indicates that CERT will need a new permit. Describe the status of coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers re garding the issuance of an updated permit. Please provide any updated figures that will be used in the permit application.

11.2 EPM Response:

The USACE - Tulsa District project manager for the original permit (SWT-2015-609) was Bryan Noblitt. Burns & McDonnell contacted the USACE - Tulsa District on October 11, 2023, and spoke with Mr. Noblitt, confirming he will remain as the point of contact for this project. As noted above and in DP section 5.6.13, a NWP-12 permit was issued for the project as a portion of the BA1 discharge pipeline and outfall structure has the poten tial to be constructed within designated wetland areas. However, the current configuration eliminates the discharge pipeline and outfall structure in BA1. All treated water not injected in treated water injection trenches will be discharged via the Western Area outfall. The Western Area discharge pipeline and outfall structure are not expected to include piping routed through wetlands. An update d wetlands map is included as Figure PER-2-1.

Because the only anticipated impacts at this time are associated with the water outfall structure located near the Cimarron River, Mr. Noblitt indicated that a permit under NWP 7 (Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures) would be more appropriate and applicable. Based on discussions with Mr. Noblitt, Burns & McDonnell will submit re vised permit application information which Mr.

Noblitt will use to update the original permit num ber and issue a permit under NWP 7 instead of NWP 12.

(The rest of this page was left blank intentionally.)

0

~

0

CJ ~

D ~ BURNS CJ D '-.'-. M ~DONNELL' "

- D ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

12.0 PER FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 12.1 NRC RAI:

PER-3: As noted in DP section 5.6.13, CERT will need to apply for a new Floodplain Development Permit from Logan County. Describe the status of coordination and any communication with Logan County regarding the application for this permit. Please provide any available updated figures that will be used in the permit application.

12.2 EPM Response:

The Floodplain Administrator for Logan County, Oklahoma, is Steven Haga. Burns & McDonnell contacted Mr. Haga on October 3, 2023, to pr ovide an update on the project. Following that discussion, Mr. Haga provided an updated Floo dplain Development Application that Burns &

McDonnell will complete. A new map for the floodplain application has been developed to depict the current anticipated disturbance relative to the 100- year flood plain and is included as Figure PER-3-1.

This figure will be included with the permit application.

As detailed in Section 2.6.1 of the DP, the estimated Base Flood Elevation (BFE) at the Site is approximately 951.0 feet above mean sea level (ft amsl). While this calculated BFE will be used for the purpose of implementing protective measures for infrastructure and equipment that will be permanently installed at the Site, the 100-year floodplain generated from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) will be required for the Logan County Floodplain Development Perm it for construction activities. As detailed in the DP, equipment and material will be staged outside of the 100- year floodplain (as per the Floodplain Development Permit requirements) during construction activities.

(The rest of this page was left blank intentionally.)

1,200. PER-3-1 E28J oundary - _ _

D Property 8 Estimated Pro.. ~ - i City Limit - NHDStream Cimarron E

• Res nv1ronmental 1ect Limits c::::::::=> Public Highway ~ 100-Year Floodplain ponse Trust Prepared b. Scale in Feet Floodplain Map Ch k y. K. Gouvi ec ed b : E. Dulle-on; Date: 10/23/23 Date: 10/24/23 ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

13.0 PER NEED FOR AN AIR PERMIT 13.1 NRC RAI:

PER-4: NUREG-1748 section 6.1.3 states that an ER should provide information regarding approvals and authorizations needed for the proposed action, including the current status and any potential problems that may arise. DP section 5.6.13 states that a determination of the need for an air permit will be conducted but that CERT assumes no perm it will be needed. Based on the information in DP table 5-1 and section 5.6.6, it appears that th e air permit application would include information about emissions from construction equipment, vehicl es, and generators. If there are other possible air emissions that CERT plans to evaluate when determining the need for an air permit application, please provide information about those other types of emissions.

13.2 EPM Response:

Based on operational information presented in Ta ble 5-1, the estimated total emissions during construction are less than the Oklahoma de minimus facility actual emissions threshold of 5 tons per year of each regulated pollutant and below the threshold of 40 tons per y ear for a permit exempt facility. However, Oklahoma rules require a permit when emergency backup generators are installed, due to the fact that they are subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (as cited in the definitions referenced above in in 252:100-7-1.1). The diesel emergency generators are subject to Subpart IIII of the NSPS.

Oklahoma has established a Permit-by-Rule (PBR) for facilities that are subject to permitting activities solely from installing an emergency engine that is subject to an emissions standard under the NSPS. To be eligible for the PBR, the facility must meet the requirements established in 252:100-7-60.6(a)(1). New and existing minor facilities and ar ea sources are eligible for this PBR, provided they comply with the following conditions:

The obligation to obtain a permit from the DEQ is solely because of the presence of one or more emergency engines.

The facility has actual emissions of 40 TPY or l ess of each regulated air pollutant, except HAPs.

The facility has potential emissions of each regul ated air pollutant, except HAPs, that are less than the emission levels that require prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), nonattainment new source review (NNSR), and Part 70 permits.

The facility does not emit or have potential emissi ons of 10 TPY or more of any single HAP and 25 TPY or more of any combination of HAPs.

The facility must meet the criteria in 252:100-7-15(b)(1)(D) and (E).

The facility is not otherwise a Part 70 source.

The proposed facility meets all of these criteria in the list above. Therefore, the engines would be required to be permitted, but can be perm itted through the emergency engine PBR.

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

14.0 CU CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 14.1 NRC RAI:

CU-1: NUREG-1748 section 6.2.3 states that an ER should provide information on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could r esult in cumulative impacts when combined with the proposed action. Provide a discussion on present and r easonably foreseeable future actions in the area that could have impacts overlapping in time or pl ace with the impacts from this proposed action. For example, please provide information as to whether there are currently operating, or planned construction of, commercial or industrial facilities th at could have overlapping effects on traffic, groundwater resources, the Cimarron River, or other resources.

14.2 EPM Response:

Figure CU-1-1 shows the location of the Cimarron site. The western two-thirds of the figure shows portions of Sections 1 and 2 and a ll of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 in Township 16 North, Range 4 West, Indian Meridian. The eastern third of the figure shows a portion of Section 6 and all of Sections 18 and 19 of Township 16 North, Range 4 West, Indian Meridian. Green dashed lines showing the section boundaries are approximate. Red polygons show the locations of facilities addressed in this response; these polygons are also estimated and are not accurate property lines based on the legal description of the properties.

Land in the southern half of Sections 1, 2, and 6 north of the Cimarron River are residential, fallow, or used for ranching and/or farming. A small chur ch is located in Section 2. Publicly available information suggests there are no planned or curre ntly operating commercial or industrial facilities north of the Cimarron River that could have overlapping effects on traffic, groundwater resources, the Cimarron River, or other resources. The same applies to that portion of Section 6 that lies south of the Cimarron River.

There are seventeen industrial or commercial facilities in the six full sections (Sections 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 18) shown on Figure CU-1-1. These will be described individually in the following sections, beginning with the oil production facility in Sec tion 11 and proceeding roughly clockwise from there to the Turkey Creek HDD facility in Section 14. Excluding the seventeen industrial or commercial facilities described in the following Sections 16.2.1 through 16.2.15, the land use in these six sections is almost exclusively residential, fallow, or used for ranching and/or farming.

14.2.1 Oil Production Facility An oil production location with a single oil well is located in the SW Quarter of Section 11. The production well is designated in the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) database as ROTHER 16-4-11. A saltwater disposal well is also located on this site, designated by the OCC as ROTHER 16-4-11 1 SWD. Both the oil produc tion well and the saltwater disposal well were completed in 2013. The saltwater disposal well is not a commercial injection well; it disposes of fluids only from the ROTHER 16-4-11 oil well.

Produced fluids are stored in above-ground storag e tanks prior to transportation via pipeline or truck. In the unlikely event that there was a catastrophic failure such that all storage tanks and the containment berm were ruptured, the released fluid would flow to Pawnee Creek, and then to the ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

Cimarron River approximately one-quarter mile upstream of the Cimarron site. Such a release would have no impact on groundwater remedi ation operations at the Cimarron site.

14.2.2 Pour Pub / Mayers Office Bar A small building, located in the SW Quarter of Section 11, is identified on Google Maps as Mayers Office Bar. It has a sign on the front door identifying it as Pour Pub. It is a small bar serving drinks each evening. This facility presents no potential impact to groundwater or surface water at the Cimarron site.

14.2.3 Riverside Gas & Grill The Riverside Gas & Grill property, located in th e SE Quarter of Section 11, contains a gas and diesel station, a convenience store with a fast-food restaurant, and a small strip mall containing a cannabis dispensary. No release from tanks or lines has been identified in a search of OCC records; tanks and lines contain leak detection syst ems so that a leak could be detected before a release became significant. If there were a leak from an underground gasoline or diesel storage tank, impacted groundwater could migrate northwa rd toward the western portion of the Cimarron site.

14.2.4 Jon Stewart Property Jon Stewart owns an approximately 3/4-acre property containing the former emergency response building in the SE Quarter of the NE Quarter of Section 11. Environmental Properties Management LLC (EPM) leases this building and uses it as its site office. The lease will expire when new office facilities are available in the groundwater treatment facility that will be constructed on the Cimarron site. If the building were to be occupied after the current lease expires, it would most likely continue to be u sed as an office. This facility as currently used presents no potential impact to groundwater or surface water at the Cimarron site.

14.2.5 Kalidy LLC Most of the 24-acre property owned by Kalidy LLC is in Section 12; a portion of it extends into Section 11. This property contains former wa rehouse Building #4 and the former mixed oxide fuel fabrication (MOFF) building. It is not currently occupied; the owners have posted a sign advertising that the property is available for lease. Since Kalidy LLC purchased the property in 2022, several prospective lessees or buyers have t oured the facility; none have executed a lease or purchase agreement.

There is no way to determine if future operations, whether industrial or commercial, will present overlapping effects on groundwater resources. The property is located upgradient of a portion of the Cimarron site; this property is not anticipate d to have any impact on groundwater remediation operations at the Cimarron site.

14.2.6 Can-Med Can-Med is a marijuana growing facility located in the SE Quarter of Section 12. Operations are contained within the building. This facility presents no potential impact to groundwater or surface water at the Cimarron site.

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

14.2.7 Cyclone Septics Cyclone Septics makes and installs concrete septic tanks and aerobic septic systems. They store septic tank installation equipment (e.g., backhoe, loader), septic tanks, and aerobic septic system components on site. They do not have an on-site above ground storage tank for fuel. This facility presents no potential impact to groundwater or surface water at the Cimarron site.

14.2.8 Oil Production Facilities Three oil wells are located in Section 7. A well designated by the OCC as DATIN 16-3-7 1HW is located in the NW Quarter of Section 7. Th is well was completed in 2014 and is currently abandoned; it has not yet been plugged. This facility presents no potential impact to groundwater or surface water at the site. When active, produ ced fluids are stored in above-ground storage tanks prior to transportation via pipeline or tr uck. In the unlikely event that there was a catastrophic failure such that all storage tanks and the containment berm were ruptured, the released fluid would flow directly to the Ci marron River downgradient from the Cimarron site.

This facility presents no potential impact to grou ndwater or surface water at the Cimarron site.

Two oil wells are located in the SW Quarter of Section 7, designated by the OCC as STUBBLEFIELD 1 and STUBBLEFIELD 3. STUBBLEFIELD 1 was completed in 1980, and STUBBLEFIELD 3 was completed in 1996. Both of these wells are listed as active, but STUBBLEFIELD 3 is not operating. Produced fluids are stored in small above-ground storage tanks. In the unlikely event that there was a catastrophic failure such that all storage tanks and the containment berm were ruptured, the released fluid would flow to the North-Northeast. These wells present no potential impact to groundwater or surface water at the site.

14.2.9 Cedar Valley Golf Course A golf course occupies the entire western half of S ection 18, plus approximately half of the SE Quarter of Section 18. Surface water runoff from the golf course, which may potentially contain dissolved fertilizer, enters the creek leading to the freshwater pond near the eastern boundary of the site. The pond discharges to the Cimarron Rive r through a spillway located on the eastern end of the dam. The presence of these fertilizer chemicals in surface water would have no impact on groundwater remediation operations at the Cimarron site.

14.2.10 Bostick Services Bostick Services operates two saltwater disposal wells on this property in the NE Quarter of Section 13. They are identified in the OCC da tabase as Harris SWD 1 and Harris SWD 2.

Both are commercial disposal wells operated in accordance with OCC regulations.

Produced fluids are stored in above-ground storage tanks prior to injection. In the unlikely event that there was a catastrophic failure such that all storage tanks and the containment berm were ruptured, the released fluid would flow to a sm all pond located west of the facility. If the pond overflowed, released fluid would enter a creek ch annel leading to the pond located in the center of the Cimarron site. The quantity of fluid typica lly retained on site is unlikely to achieve a sufficient volume to reach the site, so a release would not impact groundwater remediation operations at the Cimarron site.

ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

14.2.11 Oil Production Facility A saltwater disposal well is located in the NW Quarter of Section 13. It is identified by the OCC as HARRIS 1. It was completed in 1996. Two oil wells are also located on this site. They are identified by the OCC as FRICK 16-4-13 and CIMARRON RIVER 16-4-12 1HW. Both were completed in 2014. The saltwater disposal well is a commercial injection well operated in accordance with OCC regulations.

Produced fluids are stored in above-ground storag e tanks prior to transportation via pipeline or truck. In the unlikely event that there was a catastrophic failure such that all storage tanks and the containment berm were ruptured, the released fluid would flow to a lined impoundment located south of the storage tanks.

14.2.12 Four Corners Storage This property, located in the NW Quarter of Section 13, contains three long metal buildings that provide storage facilities for private individuals. This facility presents no potential impact to groundwater or surface water.

14.2.13 Zachgo Fireworks This property, located in the NE Quarter of Section 14, contains a warehouse that stores fireworks. During June and early July, it operat es as a point-of-sale for fireworks. Most of the year the facility lies vacant. This facility presents no potential impact to groundwater or surface water.

14.2.14 Oil Production Facility Two oil wells are located in the NW Quarter of the NE Quarter of Section 14. They are designated by the OCC as in the KAY ROTHER 16-4-14 1HW and KAY ROTHER 16-4-14 1HM. Both wells were completed in 2014.

Produced fluids are stored in above-ground storag e tanks prior to transportation via pipeline or truck. If there were a catastrophic failure such that the containment berm was ruptured, fluids would flow to Pawnee Creek, and then to the Cimarron River approximately one-quarter mile upstream of the Cimarron site. Such a release would have no impact on gr oundwater remediation operations at the Cimarron site.

14.2.15 Turkey Creek HDD Turkey Creek HDD is a horizontal directional drilling company with a property used as a staging area for equipment and supplies in the NW Quarte r of Section 14. The only chemical stored on site are bags of bentonite for use in making dr illing slurries. This facility presents no potential impact to groundwater or surface water.

14.3 Traffic Considerations Farming, ranching, and oil production activities resu lt in significant traffic on State Highways 33 and

74. During the construction of the Western Area Treatment Facility and groundwater remediation infrastructure, delivery of materials and the daily commute of construction workers will represent a ENCLOSURE 1 RESPONSES TO RAIS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING PLAN - REV 3

marginal increase in the traffic. Traffic to and from the Cimarron site during operations will be insignificant compared to the existing traffi c flow, as described in Section 5.6.2 of Facility Decommissioning Plan - Rev 3.

(The rest of this page was left blank intentionally.)

Figure CU-1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

~ BURNS environmental ~

'-."-. M SDONNELL properties managemenl, UC

LEGEND c::J CERT PROPERTY LINE - MARCH 2018 c::J ADJACENT PROPERTIES LOGAN COUNTY SECTION

NOTES

1. PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE CERT PROPERTY, KALIDY LLC PROPERTY, AND JON STEWART PROPERTY ARE ACCURATE PER THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE PROPERTY.

2. RED POLYGONS AND GREEN SECTION LINES ARE APPROXIMATE.

0 1,500 3,000

SCALE IN FEET

Time: 14:36 Date: 10/10/2023 Preparer: BELOCKWOOD Date: 10/10/2023 Reviewer: EDULLE Date: 10/16/2023 Coordinate System NAO 1983 2011 StatePlane Oklahoma North FIPS 3501 Ft US