ML23353A106
| ML23353A106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000925 |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1990 |
| From: | Stauter J Cimarron Corp, James L. Grant & Associates |
| To: | Haughney C Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Document Control Desk |
| References | |
| 808211 | |
| Download: ML23353A106 (1) | |
Text
CIMARRON CORPORATION P.O. BOX 25881
- X*
return receip ? t* requested *; ' 7 .
Charles Halghne^ Chief Fue 1 6y c 1-e ;Cafe.ty Branch Division of Fue%(Xy cl;e, Med i c a 1, Acadera.M_,aA.d Xommerp-ial Use Safety..-
D^S.. ;SuclVar-fSegulatory-iCorami ss 'Ioji ^
Washington, D. C. 20555 RE: License ^NM-928; Docket 70-925 Amendmen>t RequesLH^ On-Site Disposition of Uranium Containing Solis Meeting NRC .Branch Technical Position Option 2 Criteria Submittal of Supplemental Material
Dear- Mr. Haughney:
Attached is the supplemental report prepared by James L. Grant and AseoCiates, Inc.... addressing NRC 1 s comments relating .to the - Cimarron Si te inyesti gati on Report. Thissc addi tional fnformition responds- 'to thei sp.^c{i;^i:C-:c,oncems:oili$cussed with NRC; at the March, Y, 199.6 meeting in yburl offices%,in Rockville, Maryland. " v ^ '
In addition ^o comments, on J.L. Grant's geohyd'r o 1 ogi.ca 1 report Cimarron / Corporation has 'included in the report/^a, revised vol/ume estimate for the soil to be left at the Cimarron Faci 11 ty under the provisions' of Option 2 'of the Branch Technical Position^' Ximarron collected , addi tional soil samples from the uraniurn pi ant. yard area and, based on the analyses, estimated the volume of soil to be left on-site at approximately 18,500 cubic yards. The- majority of. this soi1^mplfro.x1mabe/ly^rlI5,,9P0 cubic yardsysswi 1-1 fbie \pfacedQintqt the ijdesi^hitbU. Option' 2 - disposal: area. ApproXimate!y 3,500 cpbici/yards:^
of b prfe i b ii J,-2 tjlfc'ilV so IK wiivlf/^be left ,in^si/bu: within the perimeter *of:
/the lirahibm plsafht yard, area under four*;feiat of clean soil.- ? S T.hese^soil volume estimates are based on analysis of the soil sampl es
-ysring#the- C+marronFacility-Gamma Spec* System. Ten percent of the sampl es. ;were .submi tted to the1 Kerr-McGee / Technical Center:; f o r /
.racfiobffemical ^/analysis fpr comparison against. the faci 11 ty r gamma /'
spec. ; resul ts for quai 1,ty control . purposes. This Z /data /?i s al so ,
provided in the' supplement submitted; wi th thi s letter.; :
a s u b s id ia r y o f
If you have any questions concerning the information contained in the attached report, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely J.C. Stauter, Director Environmental Affairs JCSrgw Attachment {4 copies) cc: P. Brown - OSDH - Radiological Health (1 copy) bcc: W. Ganns S. Munson W. Norwood R- Smith E. Still J. Young 0306s
Cimarron Facility Closure Responses to NRC Questions Prepared for Cimarron Corporation Prepared by . .
James L, Grant and.Associates, Inc.
Denver, Colorado May 10, 1990 Project 808211
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF STUDY.................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1 Previous Investigation......................................................................................................... 1 Current Investigation........................................................................................................... 2 Stratigraphy.............................................................................................................2 PERCHED WATER.........................................................................................................................6 Data and Observations........................................................................................................ 6 Conclusions.......................................................................................................... ...............7 JOINTING......................................................................................................................................... 12 GROUND-WATER FLOW DIRECTIONS....................................................................................IS EROSION.......................................................................................................................................... 20 Introduction................................................................. 20 Physical Considerations....................................................................................................... 20 Topographic Setting...............................................................................................20 Soil Properties........................................................ 21 Evaluation of Erosion..........................................................................................................21 NRC Draft Technical Position Paper....................................................................22 GLEAMS................................................................................................................ 23 Summary'............................................................................................................. 24 COMPUTER SIMULATIONS........................... 24 EXISTING GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION.................................................................. 24 Cimarron Ground-Water Geochemistry.............................................................................25 Site Ground-Water Quality.......................................... 25 Areal Distribution of Selected Constituents......................................................... 26 Geochemical Modeling........................................................................................................ 27 Introduction............................................................................................................ 27 Model Used............................................................................................................27 Validation........................ 27 Data Sources............................. 2S Geochemical Modeling Results.................................. 2S Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Pag e i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
GROUND-WATER PATHWAY MODEL................................................................................. ...55 FUTURE LAND AND WATER USE........................................................................... 57 REVISED VOLUME ESTIMATE..................................................................................................60 Appendix A Appendix B Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Pag e ii
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Site Ground-Water Quality Data (mg/I)...........................................................................32 Table 2 Site Ground-Water Quality Data (meq/1)............................................................. ;..........33 Table 3 Average Background Ground-Water Quality Data (mg/1)..................... ........................ 34 Table 4 Saturation Indices Calculated For Site Ground Water Using WATEQ4F....................35 Table 5 Summary of Pathway Evaluation - Cimarron Facility'.......................................................56 Table 6 Area Wells Near the Cimarron Facility'............................................................................5S Table 7 Area Population Projections for the Site Area................................................................59 Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page m
LIST OF FIGURES Figure I: Locations of measured stratigraphic sections and stratigraphic cross-sections within waste landfill excavation.................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Stratigraphic cross-sections A-A and B-B...................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Photograph of contact between sandstone and underlying mudstone...........................S Figure 4: Photographs of ponded water directly west of landfill excavation.................................9 Figure 5: Photograph taken inside excavation looking north......................................................... 10 Figure 6: Representative stratigraphic cross-section perpendicular to long dimension of excavation ........................................................................................... ......................... 11 Figure 7 Facility Map.......................... 14 Figure S Rose Diagram............................................................. 15 Figure 9 Stereogram............................................................................... 16 Figure 10 Contoured Stereogram.....................................................................................................17 Figure 11 Potentiometric Surface of the Shallow Ground Water.................................................. 19 Figure 12 Piper Diagram of Site Ground Water............................................................................. 36 Figure 13 Stiff Diagram of Wells 1312 and 1314............................................... 37 Figure 14 Stiff Diagram of Wells 1315 and 1316........................................................................... 3S Figure 15 Stiff Diagram of Wells 1317 and 1325...........................................................................39 Figure 16 Stiff Diagram of Wells 1326 and 1331............... 40 Figure 17 Stiff Diagram of Wells 1335 and 1336............................................................................ 41 Figure IS Areal Distribution of Calcium.................... 42 Figure 19 Areal Distribution of Bicarbonate................................................................................. 43 Figure 20 Areal distribution of Sodium............... 44 Figure 21 Areal Distribution of Potassium..................................................................................... 45 Figure 22 Areal Distribution of Uranium.............................. 46 Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page tv
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure 23 Areal Distribution of Fluoride.......................................................................................47 Figure 24 Areal Distribution of Ammonia and Nitrate.................................................................4S Figure 25 Carbonate Mineral Stability Diagram..................................................................... ......49 Figure 26 Silicate Mineral Stability Diagram for Activity of K+/H+ andH4Si04....................... 50 Figure 27 Silicate Mineral Stability Diagram for Activity of Na+/H+ and H4SI04....................51 Figure 2S Silicate Mineral Stability Diagram for Activity of Ca+/(H+)2 and H4Si04.............. 52 Figure 29 Silicate Mineral Stability Diagram for Activity of Mg+/(H+)2 and H4Si04............. 53 Figure 30 Ion Activity Product Diagram for Fluorite and Calcite............................................... 54 Figure 31 Special Soil Sampling - March 1990............................................................................. 61 Figure 32 Locations Where Uranium Concentration > 20 pCi/g: 0-1 Foot Depth...................62 Figure 33 Locations Where Uranium Concentration > 20 pCi/g: 1 - 2 Foot Depth...................63 Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Pag e v
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In a meeting on March 1, 1990 at the NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland, the NRC requested additional information related to the Cimarron Site Investigation Report. Additional information was requested on nine specific areas. The Cimarron Corporation has collected additional information to respond to the NRC requests. The additional information, which includes field and laboratory data, calculations, and computer simulations, is included in the main body of this report.
The additional data collected indicate that the proposed facility closure is viable. Specifically, the additional studies completed by the Cimarron Corporation on the nine areas have demonstrated the following:
" Fracture Flow:
Fracture flow was determined not to be an important component to ground-water flow at the Cimarron Facility. Fractures are not numerous, the intergranular permeability of the sandstones is large, and no influence of jointing can be seen in the shape of the piezometric surface.
" Unsaturated Ground-Water Flow:
Shallow mudstones act as aquitards and Influence the direction of movement of infiltrating water in the unsaturated zone. The mudstones slope to the west in the vicinity of the Option 2 landfill. The Cimarron Corporation is revising.the_d_esign of the Jandfiil tn control and limit seepage into the landfill.
Ground-Water Flow Directions:
The Option 2 landfill is located on the spine of a north-south trending ridge. Shallow ground-water flow is similar to surface-water flow, and consequently, ground water in the vicinity of the Option 2 landfill may flow either to the east or to the west. Cimarron Corporation has conducted additional analyses of ground-water flow and potential for contaminant transport from the landfill to include the movement in either direction.
" Erosional Stability:
The erosional stability of the proposed landfill has been modeled under long-term and extreme conditions. Calculations using the NRC draft guidance document, and simulations using the GLEAMS computer code, have been used to demonstrate stability.
The calculations using NRC draft guidance show that the cell will not be subject to severe erosion during the PMP so long as the slope of the cell cover is less than about 6 percent if the cover is grassed, and less than about 1 percent if the cover is fallow.
Erosion control practices followed in the area would protect the cell from erosion at slopes steeper that one percent while it is under cultivation.
The GLEAMS analyses showed the average annual erosion from the cover to be about 5 tons/acre (0.03 inches) for fallow conditions and a 4 percent slope. Calculations for a Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page ES-1
specified occurrence of the.PMP indicated an increase of about 60 tons/acre (0.33 inches) for the year during which the PMP occurred.
Data Files:
Copies of data files used by the Cimarron Corporation and its consultants have been included with this submittal to facilitate independent review by the staff.
Uranium Mobility:
Additional information explaining the mechanisms by which uranium migrates downgradient from the former waste management areas (now cleaned and closed) has been collected, and computer modeling of the chemical behavior of uranium in this environment has been completed. Uranium is more mobile downgradient of the former waste management areas because the waste management activities had altered the natural chemistry of the ground water. Because only soil contaminated with uranium that has been sorbed on the soil matrix is to be placed in the Option 2 burial ground, alteration of the ground water downgradient of the burial ground will not occur.
The eFfects of the former waste management practices on the quality of ground water, and consequently, the mobility of uranium, downgradient from the former waste management areas decrease with distance from the former waste management areas because natural chemical reactions gradually mitigate the process-related impacts on ground-water quality.
Future Land and Water Use:
Population information and current water use data have been collected. Little population increase is projected. The data indicate that changes in current land and water use are unlikely.
Pathways Analyses:
Analyses have been made of the impacts radionuclides moving along exposure pathways may have on human health and the environment. These analyses indicate that the impacts both on human health and the environment are negligible.
Volume Estimates:
Cimarron Corporation has collected additional radiological data to refine the estimate of the volume of soil to be left at the facility under the provisions of Option 2 of the Branch Technical Position Paper. The data indicate that 3,500 ctjbij: yards of soil will be left under 4 feet of clean soil. Approximately 15,000 cubic feetof soil will be relocated from the yard area to the designated Option 2 material disposal area.
Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page ES - 2
- 1. PURPOSE OF STUDY 1.1. Introduction This study responds to questions that NRC raised during their review of Cimarrons September 9, 1989 submittal and further outlined in a meeting with the NRC on March 1, 1990 at the NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland. At the March 1 meeting, the NRC commented on the Cimarron Site Investigation Report (September, 9, 1989) completed by James L. Grant & Associates (JLGA). The NRC requested additional information on several aspects of the report including:
- 1) documentation on the importance or lack of importance of jointing to groundwater flow in the site area,
- 2) information on the orientation of mudstone units in the unsaturated zone found in the vicinity of the Option 2 concentration soil disposal cell to determine if these mudstones might channel water into or out of the disposal cell,
- 3) a review of the direction of ground-water flow in the vicinity of the Option 2 landfill to determine the amount of ground-water flow in each direction from the Option 2 landfill,
- 4) information on the erosional stability of the Option 2 landfill cover,
- 5) copies of data files used by Kerr-McGee and its consultants to analyze uranium transport from the Option 2 landfill,
- 6) Information explaining the mechanism(s) by which uranium has entered the ground-water system around former waste management areas, and a demonstration that these mechanisms and existing conditions will not promote large-scale mobilization and migration of uranium from the Option 2 landfill,
- 7) information used to make projections concerning future ground-water and land use, and S) an analysis of all reasonable exposure pathways along which materials leaching from the landfill site might reach the public.
- 9) a revised estimate of the volume of soils to be placed in the Option 2 landfill.
1.2. Previous Investigation On September 12, 1989, JLGA submitted a Site Investigation Report for the Cimarron Facility to Cimarron Corporation. This report was then formally transmitted to the NRC. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the impacts that facility production activities had on the local hydrologic system, and how these impacts might influence future exposure potential. Also Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 1
investigated were the geotechnical properties of the native materials surrounding the proposed Option 2 landfill site.
Data from that report, and additional data collected to address the above-referenced NRC questions, are presented in the following sections.
1.3. Current Investigation 1.3.1. Stratigraphy A detailed stratigraphic analysis of the shallow soils and rocks around the Option 2 landfill excavation was completed by JLGA. Thirty-four detailed stratigraphic sections were measured within the excavation. From these stratigraphic sections, several stratigraphic cross-sections were constructed. Figure 1 shows the locations of measured sections and locations of stratigraphic cross-sections. Figure 2 shows stratigraphic correlations for the east and west walls of the excavation.
Rocks found in the Option 2 landfill excavation at the Cimarron Facility comprise a portion of the Permian Garber Sandstone. The Garber sandstone either crops out or is found underlying a thin veneer of soil throughout the Cimarron facility. Rock types found in the proposed landfill area are dominantly sandstones and mudstones, and are covered by a thin layer of soil. The mudstones exposed in the Option 2 landfill, although important to the hydrology in the immediate vicinity, are relatively minor inclusions of limited extent within a predominantly sandstone unit. The rocks exposed in the Option 2 excavation, including the mudstones, were included in the Site Investigation Report within the unit identified as Sandstone A.
The mudstones are less permeable than the sandstones, and the mudstone surface slopes from west to east around the Option 2 landfill. The mudstones locally limit the downward flow water, causing it to be diverted laterally through the sandstones along the top of the mudstones.
1.3.1.1. Soil The Garber Sandstone at the facility is capped hy a veneer of soil which ranges in thickness from 6 to 36 inches. This soil is reddish-brown in color and dominated by silt, very fine sand, and clay-size material. The soils overlying the upper mudstone contain a large percentage of clav-size material, while those overlying the upper sandstone contain a large percentage of sand- and silt-size grains.
1.3.1.2. Mudstones Two distinct mudstone layers are exposed in the Option 2 excavation area. These are described as Mudstone 1 and Mudstone 2. The mudstones are dark reddish-brown in color and generally massive, although some zones are thinly laminated. Laminations, if present, generally occur in the upper portions of an individual mudstone unit. Mudstone 1 shows no trend in grain size.
Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 2
Mudstone 2 becomes finer-grained upward, grading from silty mudstone at the base into'clay-dominated mudstone at the top. Mudstone 1 occurs in the southern part of the excavation directly above Sandstone 1 (Figure 2). Mudstone 2 is found throughout the excavation below Sandstone 1 and above Sandstone 2.
Light-green to bluish-gray "reduction" zones were found within ali mudstone units. These reduction zones are present at every mudstone-sandstone contact and are also found at scattered intervals throughout individual mudstone units. These features are generally planar and range in thickness from less than 0.10 to over 6 inches. These light-green to bluish-gray zones are believed to reflect the reduction of ferric oxides to ferrous oxides.
The mudstones present in the excavation area, particularly Mudstone 2, typically retard water moving vertically, causing transient saturated or near-saturated conditions to develop, and local horizontal flow to occur in the sandstone. Where the mudstone surface in the area slopes toward the excavation, the flow in the sandstone may produce seeps in the excavation. A purpose of this investigation was to determine the extent and slope of the mudstones near the Option 2 burial area and to evaluate the possibility that seepage along the top of the mudstones would enter the excavation.
1,3.1.3. Sandstones Sandstones identified in the Option 2 excavation are reddish-brown, fine- to very fine-grained quartz arenites. Individual sandstone units grade upward from fine-grained sand to very fine-grained sand to silt-size material. Sediment is dominated by well sorted, subrounded to rounded, subspherical, quartz grains. Feldspar, muscovite and mafic minerals are present, but are rare. The sum of these three constituents comprises less than about 10 percent of the rock. Particles are only lightly cemented by calcite or hematite. The combination of near-spherical grains and light cementation makes the sandstone units porous, permeable, and friable. Sedimentary structures include both large- and medium-scale, trough cross-bedding and small-scale, ripple-drift cross-stratification. Bedding may also be massive to thinly bedded in some areas. Large-scale trough cross beds are common and generally occur near the base of a given unit, with the scale of the cross-bedding becoming smaller upward within the unit. Near the top of individual sedimentation units, bedding generally becomes massive to thinly bedded. Small-scale ripple-drift cross-stratification is also present near the top of some sandstone units.
Project No. 80S211 May 10, 1990 Page 3
Sides of A B Option 2 Pit 0 100 feet LEGEND 1 -------------1 SCALE 1* Measured Section Location Location of Stratigraphic Cross-Section Figure 1: Locations of measured stratigraphic sections and stratigraphic cross-sections within waste landfill excavation.
Project No. S08211 May 10, 1990 Page 4
- 2. PERCHED WATER 2.1. Data and Observations The area surrounding the proposed Option 2 landfill area was investigated to determine whether the mudstones in the unsaturated zone might direct infiltrating water into the excavation. This investigation was aided by a substantial rainfall which occurred in the area immediately before the investigation was scheduled. This allowed direct observation of water movement in the unsaturated zone at the Option 2 pit walls.
Seepage was observed at the interface between sandstone units and underlying mudstone units on the western wall of the excavation (Figure 3). The western wall of the proposed Option 2 landfill is the most affected by seepage. Water also was observed seeping from the sandstones on the bluff facing the Cimarron River. As in the Option 2 landfill, seepage is confined to the contacts between sandstones and mudstones.
Rocks found in the vicinity of the Cimarron Facility were deposited in Permian time by a west-flowing fluvial-deltaic system. Because of the depositional environment, the upper surface of a given mudstone unit is uneven. This is shown by stratigraphic cross-sections A-A1 and B-B (Figure 2 - stratigraphy sections). The irregularity of the surface of the upper mudstone makes a detailed depiction of the upper mudstone impossible without a very large number of borings or additional test pits. However, cross-sections completed across the Option 2 pit excavation show that, in the immediate vicinity of the excavation, the upper sandstone and mudstone units dip toward the east. Figure 6 is a representative east-west stratigraphic cross-section showing this relationship.
On a larger scale, stratigraphic cross-sections constructed for the Site Investigation Report for the Cimarron Facility by JLGA show that sedimentary units dip gently to the northwest (Figures 5.1 and 5.2 from the aforementioned report). It is likely that the apparent eastward dip within the Option 2 excavation is an artifact of the slope of the mudstone surface, and is not related to the overaE dip of the strata. Because the Option 2 landfill is located near the spine of a ridge, the extent of the shallow mudstones that are the subject of this study is limited by the ridge slopes to the east and west Immediately preceding the investigation of the excavation, the area received 4.7 inches of rainfall.
This rain fell on March 11. In the week prior to this rainfall, the area received 1.1 inches of rainfall. Only a small volume of water was flowing out of the rock exposed on the walls of the excavation on the morning of March 12. By the end of the day however, more seepage was occurring on the western wall of the excavation. On March 13, seepage was still occurring on the western wall.
The reason for this seepage along the western wall is twofold. First, terracing resulted in water being ponded directly west of the landfill excavation at an elevation approximately' equal to the elevation of the top of the excavation (Figure 2, A and B). Figure 5 shows that a larger influx of Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 6
water occurs on the western wall than on the eastern wall. Second, the surface of the tipper mudstone unit locally dips toward the northeast.
2.2. Conclusions The following conclusions result from the study of the rocks in the landfill excavation:
- 1) The surface of the upper mudstone unit, which is a low-permeability layer and directs seepage into the excavation, is very irregular. It is not possible to map this surface accurately with the number of data points available, nor is it necessary given the observation of seeps after a significant rainfall.
- 2) Transient saturated or near-saturated conditions occur at the bottom of sandstones. The local northerly slope of the surface of the mudstone directs this water into the landfill excavation,
- 3) Seepage into the excavation is accelerated by terracing for erosion control and the associated ponding of water near the excavation.
- 4) Minor changes in land slopes around the Option 2 landfill can improve drainage, and prevent ponding around the landfill caused by the existing terraces. Erosional stability calculations presented in a later section of this report show that these changes can be accomplished without significant increases in succeptability to erosion.
- 5) With proper drainage around the Option 2 landfill, seepage along the mudstones into the landfill will be small. This seepage into the fill material can be eliminated by constructing an interceptor drain along the west side of the landfill to capture and divert the seepage around the landfill.
Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 7
Figure 3: Photograph of contact between sandstone and underlying mudstone. Water emerges from wall at contact between sandstone and mudstone and collects at the base of the excavation. Photograph of western wall of landfill excavation; photo taken 13 March 1990.
Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 8
Figure 5: Photograph taken inside excavation looking north. Photograph shows seepage occurring on western wall, which forms a small stream. Note lack of stream or other evidence of seepage on eastern wall.
Project No. S08211 May 10, 1990 Page 10
W C C E 25 8 HEIGHT ABOVE PIT FLOOR (FEET) l_______________________ 1 HORIZONTAL SCALE Vertical Exaggeration 5X Q Stratigraphic Section Location 8 Measured Section Location Figure 6: Representative stratigraphic cross-section perpendicular to long dimension of excavation showing that local dip of sedimentary units has a component to the east.
Location of cross-section is shown in Figure 1.
Project No. 80S2U May 10, 1990 Pag e 11
Figure S is a rose diagram showing frequency of joint strike directions. A total of 138 measurements were made around the facility, with the majority of the measurements (SS) made in the Option 2 excavation. The majority of joints strike in the range N 60 E to N 75 E, and a subordinate conjugate population strikes N 45 W. Orientation measurements at outcrops and the Option 2 excavation were consistent and no systematic variation in orientation was observed across the facility area.
Figure 9 is a stereogram showing the distribution of poles or normals to the joint planes. The poles were plotted on a Schmidt equal-area stereonet. Figure 10 is a contoured stereogram that more clearly shows the distribution of the poles. Both principal populations are steeply dipping about the vertical plane.
Jointing of the surface and near surface bedrock is minimal and joints are not anticipated to have a significant effect on ground-water flow for the following reasons. The joint pattern has affected the pattern of weathering and erosion, but has no apparent effect upon the shape of the piezometrie surface nor the direction of ground-water movement (see Figure 11). Fractures are not numerous enough given the inter-granular permeability of the sandstones in the area to have a great impact on ground water movement. Further, the wide spacing, limited vertical trace length, and termination at lithologic contacts will limit any influence of jointing on the hydrologic system, particularly in comparison with the inter-granular permeability of the sandstone units.
Project No. 808211 May 10,1990 Page 13
NORTH WEST 20+ 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20+
Number of Observations Figure S Rose Diagram Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 15
NORTH S
Figure 9 Stereogram Project No. S0S211 May 10,1990 Page 16
NORTH WEST Number of Observations Figure S Rose Diagram Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Pace 15
NORTH S
Figure 9 Stereogram Project No. 80S211 May 10,1990 Page 16
NORTH W-LEGEND Contours represent percent of observations per 1 percent area of stereogram.
0-3%
3-6% 12-15%
6-9% >15%
9-12%
Figure 10 Contoured Stereogram Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 17
- 4. GROUND-WATER FLOW DIRECTIONS Shallow ground-water flow directions in the immediate vicinity of the Option 2 burial area were reviewed to determine the fraction of ground water flowing beneath the Option 2 site that subsequently flows easterly toward Reservoir 3, and the fraction of ground water that flows north or northwest toward the Cimarron River alluvium. The Option 2 site is located along the spine of a ridge. Shallow ground-water flow is influenced by topography, and so the position of the excavation relative to the spine of the ridge may be a determining factor in the direction of ground-water flow away from the excavation.
The location and dimensions of the current Option 2 excavation were measured in the field to verily the location shown in the SIR. These measurements confirmed that the excavation is located within the indicated boundaries. Figure 11 depicts the potentiometric surface of the shallow ground water. Flow lines drawn normal to the potentiometric surface contours are shown on this figure. Figure 11 indicates that ground water flows from the southwest toward the northeast beneath the excavation.
Because the excavation is over the topographic divide, and very near the ground-water divide, even a small difference in the position of the ground-water divide could obscure the actual direction of flow. For this reason, Cimarron has concluded that, although the flow of the ground water in the immediate area probably is toward Reservoir 3, the direction of flow is somewhat uncertain. To accommodate this uncertainty, Cimarron will evaluate transport of contaminants both toward the Cimarron River alluvium and toward Reservoir 3. Pathways analyses described elsewhere examine both migration directions.
Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page IS
- 5. EROSION 5.1. Introduction Evaluation of potential erosion of the Option 2 landfill cover and the area surrounding the cell was undertaken to determine whether the landfill cover will resist erosion to the extent that the material within the cell will be isolated from the environment for at least 200 years, and to the extent practicable, for 1,000 years.
Information was obtained from the Soil Conservation Service in Oklahoma City regarding typical erosion rates for the soils and vegetative covers found in the region.
The evaluation was completed using two well-established methods for evaluating long-term ero-sion. A tractive force method was used to evaluate erosion during the probable maximum storm.
This method provides an assessment of the stability of a soil structure during very large precipitation events. The GLEAMS model was used to evaluate annual erosion of the landfill cover over a 100-year period. The GLEAMS model allows erosion to be calculated for average and extreme events, and allows an assessment of the resistance of an earth structure to the cumulative effects of erosion over a period of time.
5.2. Physical Considerations 5.2.1. Topographic Setting The proposed Option 2 landfill is located on the spine of a ridge (see Figure 7). Drainage in the vicinity of the cell is mostly to the east and west toward the sides of the ridge. Ground slopes in these directions are about four percent. The ridge also slopes to the north toward the nose of the ridge at a slope of about one percent.
The Option 2 cell is aligned with the topography of the ridge. The cell excavation now is about 535 feet long (in a north-south direction), and about 61 feet wide (in an east-w'est direction).
The finished cell will be about 535 feet long and ISO feet wide. For purposes of the erosional stability analyses, the width of the cover was assumed to be 200 feet. This allows the cover to extend about ten feet beyond the cell excavation on either side.
5.2.1.1. Drainage The stabilized final shape of the landfill cover will conform generally with the shape of the original ground surface, except for minor modifications of the cover shape and the shape of the adjacent ground surface to prevent water flow from adjacent areas over the landfill cover. The spine of the cover will be aligned with the spine of the pre-existing ridge in a north-south Project No. S0S211 May 10,1990 Page 20
direction. Rainfall on the cover will drain to the east and the west from the spine. The landfill location was chosen to assure that Ilow from off-site areas onto the landfill will not occur.
5.2.2. Soil Properties Properties of site surficial soils have been determined by various investigators. These properties were used in the evaluations presented in a following section of this report.
5.2.2.I. JLGA Investigation Laboratory tests of shallow soils from the Option 2 landfill area were performed by JLGA1.
These tests showed the soil to be a silty clay or clayey silt. The D75 of the soils ranged from about 0.1 to 0.2 mm (about 0.004 to 0.008 inches). The soils belong to the Unified Soil Classification type CL. The plasticity index of the soils is about 10.
The maximum dry' density of the soils as determined by ASTM 698 ranges from about 118 to 121 pounds per cubic foot. The average bulk density at 85 percent compaction is about 1.62, and the void ratio is about 0.64.
5.2.2.2. Engineering Enterprises Engineering Enterprises2, in an earlier study for Kerr-McGee, determined that the soils in the landfill area are in the Soil Conservation Sendee Zaneis type. This soil type was used, in con-junction with a soils data base3, in the GLEAMS simulations. Soil properties for a clay loam, taken from the GLEAMS manual, also were used in these simulations.
5.2.2.3. Soil Thickness Soils in the vicinity of the Option 2 landfill are relatively thin, ranging in thickness from one foot to about eight feet. The soils exposed in the Option 2 landfill excavation range in thickness from about 6 to 36 inches. Soils on the adjacent slopes usually are thinner. The soils are underlain by sandstones and mudstones which, while not very hard, are sufficiently indurated to form an erosional bottom, and prevent significant headcutting near the landfill.
5.3. Evaluation of Erosion This section describes the evaluation of potential erosion of the landfill cover and the surrounding area.
1 James L. Grant & Associates, Inc., 19S9, Site Investigation Report for the Cimarron Corporation Facility, Logan County, Oklahoma.
2 Engineering Enterprises, unknown date, Report in Kerr-McGee Hydrology Section files.
3 Arnold, J. G., J. R. Williams, A. D. Nicks, and N. B. Sammons, 19S9, SWRRB, A Basin Scale Simulation Model for Soil and Water Resources Management, (to be published by the Texas A&M University Press).
Project No. S08211 May 10, 1990 Pag e 21
5.3.1. NRC Draft Technical Position Paper The tractive force method described in the NRC Draft Technical Position Paper4 and Nelson, et.al.5 was used to calculate the maximum slope at which the landfill cover soils would not be subject to erosion during the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event. Soil properties necessary for this evaluation were taken from the JLGA study, and are summarized above. PMP amounts were taken front Design of Small Dams.6 Allowable shear stress values were taken from Temple, et.al.7, and from Chow.8 The landfill cover was assumed to be 200 feet wide, and drainage from the cover equally diverted to the east and the west from the spine.
Potential erosion of the cell cover was evaluated assuming no vegetation on the cover. The al-lowable tractive force on the soil was evaluated using Table 3.3 in Temple, et. al. assuming a CL soil. The allowable tractive force was calculated to be 0.037 pounds/square foot. The 6-hour PMP was determined to be 31 inches, and the maximum intensity during the most intense 2.5 minute period was estimated to be 23.56 inches per hour. A maximum allowable slope of one-half percent was computed.
The above calculation of maximum allowable slope includes a conservative flow concentration factor of three. This factor, while probably appropriate for remote facilities in the west, is not consistent with the assumption, also used in these calculations, that the land is cultivated. Based upon current site agricultural use, erosion protection practices such as terracing would be followed while the land is cultivated. This practice is followed in the area today. If cultivation stops, the land would revert rapidly to meadow, prairie, or woodland, and potential erosion would be much less than during cultivation.
The maximum allowable slope, computed with application of the above factors and a unit concentration factor, is about 1.2 percent.
The allowable tractive force calculated above is low relative to values given in other references.
Chow gives a value of 0.075 pounds/square foot for clay loam. Use of this value gives a maximum allowable slope of about 1 percent for a runoff concentration factor of 3, and 2.7 percent for a unit concentration factor. The effects of a projected wheat cover (the current crop cultivated) were evaluated by using the maximum permissible velocity from Chow for a poor grass cover. The maximum permissible velocity was converted to an allowable stress of about 0.25 4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1989, DRAFT STAFF TECHNICAL POSITION, DESIGN OF EROSION PROTECTION COVERS FOR STABILIZATION OF URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SITES, Unpublished Draft document from NRC files.
5 Nelson, J. D., S. R. Abt, R. L. Volpe, D. van Zyl, N. E. Hinkle, W. P. Slaub, 19S6, Methodologies for Evaluating Long-Term Stabilization Designs of Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-4620.
6 Bureau of Reclamation, 1973, Design of Small Dams, U. S. Department of the Interior.
7 Temple, D. M., K. M. Robinson, R. M. Ahring, and A G. Davis, 19S7, Stability Design of Grass-Lined Open Channels. U. S. Department of Agricullrue, Agruculture Handbook 667.
8 Chow, V. T., 1959, Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 22
pounds/square foot. This gave a maximum allowable slope of almost 6 percent for a runoff concentration factor of 3.
In summary, the analyses show that the landfill cover in a fallow condition is resistant to erosion during the PMP so long as the slope of the cover is less than about 1 percent. Erosion control practices currently followed in the area would protect the cover from severe erosion while it was under cultivation. A grass (or small grain) stand will prevent erosion of the cover constructed with even greater slopes. Absent cultivation, the cover would revert to a grass or forest condition.
5.3.2. GLEAMS The GLEAMS model9 was used to calculate average erosion of the Option 2 landfill cover.
Climatic data from nearby Oklahoma City were used.10 Required soil data were taken from the JLGA report and the SCS soil data base for Zaneis soil.11 The SCS data base includes statistical parameters which allows synthetic sequences of daily rainfall to be computed.
Erosion of the landfill cover over a 100-year period was calculated using a cover slope of four percent, conforming to the average slope of the top of the ridge. The cover was assumed to be tilled, and planted in winter wheat (small grain cover).
After calculating cover erosion for a 100-year climatic sequence, the rainfall sequence within a wet year was modified to include a 48-hour PMP. The rainfall was inserted during a wet period in a wet year. The 48-hour PMP was separated into two 24-hour events to conform to the GLEAMS input. Rainfall during the first day of the two-day event was 2.33 inches, and during the second day was 37.2 inches. These values were determined from Design of Small Dams.12 The unmodified annual precipitation for the year in which the PMP was inserted was 56.2 inches.
The modified rainfall was 95.7 inches. Annual precipitation in the Oklahoma City area is about 30 inches.
The GLEAMS analyses indicated a total soil loss over the 100-year period of 497 tons per acre.
Using a soil unit weight of 102 pounds per cubic foot, this equates to about 2.7 inches per century, or about 27 inches over a 1000-year period.
The GLEAMS analysis for the modified rainfall record including the 48-hour PMP indicated that the erosion during that storm to be 60.4 tons per acre. This equates to about 0.33 inches of soil.
Although the amount of erosion resulting from a PMP depends upon the timing of the storm, these analyses indicate that the occurrence of a PMP would have little effect on the landfill cover.
9 Davis, Frank M., Ralph A. Leonard, and Walter G. Kniscl, 1990, GLEAMS User Manual, Version 1.8.55, USDA-ARS Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, Lab Note SEWRL-030190FMD.
10 Arnold, J. G., ibid.
11 Arnold, J. G., er.al. op cit.
12 U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, op. cit.
Project No. S08211 May 10,1990 Pag e 23
5,4. Summary Erosion calculations using tractive force procedures presented in the NRC Staff Technical Position Paper, and using the GLEAMS model, indicate that the landfill cover will be safe from erosion even under the scenario of continued cultivation of small grain crops.
The tractive force method indicated that the cover will resist erosion even during the PMP if slopes are maintained below about 1 percent during cultivation, and 6 percent if allowed to revert to grass or forest. Analyses using the GLEAMS model indicate that erosion during a 200-year period will be about 5.4 inches. Calculated erosion during a PMP event was about 0.33 inches.
The above results are consistent with Cimarron Corporation's plans to shape the cell cover to generally conform to the existing topography. The results indicate that such a cover will be protected from erosion even during large storms.
- 6. COMPUTER SIMULATIONS The attached floppy disk, in IBM-PC high-density (1.2 megabyte) format, contains the data files used by JLGA to calculate the migration of uranium along unsaturated and saturated flow pathlines from the landfill area. Two types of files are included. Files with the extension DAT are the actual data files used in the analyses. Files with the extension ANN are the same data files, annotated within the file to explain the information in the file. The annotated files are included to clarify the meaning of the data should the versions of TRANSS used by JLGA and the NRC be slightly different.
Copies of the GLEAMS input and output files also are included. These file names follow the above conventions, except that no annotated files are included, and the climatic file extensions are DAI, DA2, and PMP, representing the first and second 50-year series, and the modified record containing the PMP.
- 7. EXISTING GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION This section addresses the mobility of uranium in the ground water at the Cimarron facility. The chemistry of the ground water is examined, particularly as it relates to uranium solubility. The ground water in areas where higher levels or uranium are observed is compared with background ground water. The ground water downgradiem of the waste management areas has been demonstrated to be altered by the waste materials which were managed within the areas. Since the proposed Option 2 burial includes only soils upon which uranium is sorbed, similar ground-water alteration is not likely as a result of the burial.
Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 24
7.1. Cimarron Ground-Water Geochemistry 7.1.1 , Site Ground-Water Quality 7.1.11. Data Sources Ground-water samples were collected on March 5, 1990 from ten of the monitoring wells at the Cimarron facility. The groundwater samples were analyzed by the Kerr-McGee Technical Center.
The results of these analyses are presented in Table 1. The ten wells were selected to provide ground-water quality data upgradient and downgradient of previously used, but then cleaned and closed, site waste management areas. Upgradient ground-water quality data are representative of background groundwater quality at the site. Ground-water quality downgradient of the site waste management areas reflects groundwater affected by past leakage from the closed waste management areas. Solid wastes were excavated prior to closure of the waste management areas, so that continuing leakage of waste constituents would not occur.
7.I.I.2. Data Analysis and Interpretation Constituent concentrations shown in Table 1 are presented in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Table 2 presents the same data expressed in milliequivalents per liter (meq/L). Data provided in Table 2 were used to calculate the ion balance and for plotting Stiff and Piper diagrams. Stiff diagrams provide for a rapid visual comparison of groundwater composition. Hydrochemical facies classification, based on Piper diagrams, was used to determine the dominant constituents in the ground water at the site and to detect chemical trends that might be present in the site groundwater.
7.1.1.2.1. Major Ions Groundwater present in the shallow water-bearing stratum beneath the site exhibits a relatively homogenous chemical composition generally dominated by calcium and bicarbonate ions. Minor constituent concentrations are dominated by fluoride and nitrate. The background water chemistry, represented as average concentrations from upgradient wells 1314, 1325, 1326, and 1335, is shown in Table 3.
Ion balance calculations were made to determine the completeness of the groundwater analyses.
Results of the ion balance calculations are presented in Table 2. Groundwater samples are electrically neutral, so the total charges on cations and anions reported in an analysis should be equal. The total positive and negative charges are obtained by summing the equivalent concentrations of cations and anions. The ion balance error is normally expressed by the difference as a percentage of the sum and should be less than about 7.5 percent error13. The ion balances for seven of the ten wells are within the acceptable error range. Wells 1312, 1316, and 1336 exceed the acceptable ion balance error.
13 Lloyd, J. W., and J. A. Heathcote, 1985. Natural Inorganic Hydrochemistry in Relation to Groundwater - An Introduction. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 296 pp.
Project No. 80S211 May 10, 1990 Page 25
Site groundwater From the monitoring wells was grouped into dominant cation and anion types on the basis of the relative concentrations of major ions present. To facilitate this comparison, a Piper diagram was plotted for the groundwater results from the site wells. This diagram (Figure
- 12) shows that the hydrochemical type of the groundwater in the shallow aquifer is similar over the site. Figure 12 indicates that the site groundwater plots within the calcium dominant field.
Table 2 indicates that calcium generally is the most dominant cation. Site groundwaters generally plot within the bicarbonate dominant anion field. Table 2 indicates that bicarbonate generally is the most dominant anion in groundwater at the site.
Stiff diagrams prepared for the site groundwater quality data are presented as Figures 13 through
- 17. These diagrams indicate that groundwaters at the site are similar, but exhibit a range in concentration of the major ions.
7.I.I.2.2. Radionuclides The groundwater samples were analyzed for total uranium. Background concentrations of uranium at the site are generally at or less than the detection limit (0.005 mg/L). Concentrations of uranium ranged from not detected to 6.25 mg/L. Wells 1312, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1331, and 1336 exhibit uranium concentrations greater than the detection limit. Uranium concentrations greater than background generally are found downgradient of former waste management areas. Uranium concentrations in the site groundwater are shown in Table 1.
7.1.2. Areal Distribution of Selected Constituents The areal distribution of selected groundwater constituents is shown by Figures 18 through 24.
These figures were developed using the water quality data from the March, 1990 sampling event.
Groundwater near or downgradient of former waste management areas and the uranium plant generally show salt concentrations above background, reflecu'ng groundwater affected by the previously-managed waste materials. The waste materials at the waste management areas have been removed and the units closed.
Upgradient to downgradient groundwater quality comparisons are best made by examining data from the series of wells at the former waste burial location near the No. 2 Reservoir. This series of wells provides an upgradient well (1314), and wells (1315,1316, and 1317) downgradient of the former burial location. Concentrations of most of the major ions increase downgradient, with the highest concentrations in well 1317. For example, calcium concentrations increase from 74 mg/1 in well 1314 to 117 mg/1 in wells 1315 and 1316. Bicarbonate concentrations increase from 402 mg/1 in well 1314 to 496 mg/1 in well 1315, and 61S in well 1316. The concentration of bicarbonate in well 1317 is 1290 mg/1, and the concentration of calcium is 223 mg/1. These concentrations are about two limes higher than in the wells upgradient of this well. However, it is likely that this well is completed in the Cimarron River alluvium, and the well water is influenced by seepage from the river. Similar increases in concentration are observed in other ions.
Uranium concentrations also increase in a downgradient direction; however, in the case of the uranium, the highest uranium concentrations are observed near the former burial area. Salt concentrations are higher further downgradient, even excepting the well that appears to be completed in the alluvium. This is a consequence of the removal of the source from the former burial ground. The separation of the plumes indicates that the salts are moving more rapidly in Project No. S0S211 May 10,1990 Page 26
the ground-water than is the uranium. The presence of the salts increases the mobility of the uranium by complexing and by competition for exchange sites. The chromographic separation of the uranium and the salts will lead to decreasing mobility of the uranium as it moves downgradient from the former source, and the salts that increase its mobility separate from the uranium plume.
7.2. Geochemical Modeling 7.2.1. Introduction Geochemical modeling was conducted to determine the uranium solution-mineral equilibria relationships in the ground water of the shallow water-bearing stratum at the Cimarron facility anS to determine the apparent discrepancy between the solubility predicted by the soil distribution coefficients and uranium present in the ground water at certain locations downgradient of former waste management areas.
7.2.2. Model Used Geochemical modeling of the shallow water-bearing stratum groundwater chemistry is based on calculations using the computer programs WATEQ4F and MINTEQA214>15>16 . WATEQ4F and MINTEQA2 compute major and trace element aqueous speciation and mineral saturation for low temperature natural waters. The WATEQ and MINTEQ family of aqueous speciation programs and thermodynamic database have been extensively used and evaluated by numerous researchers and government agencies.
7.2.3. Validation WATEQ4F and MINTEQA2 were validated according to the guidelines presented by the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission17. Validation was accomplished by executing the problem sets 14 Ball, J. W., and D. K. Nordstrom, 19S7, WATEQ4F - a personal computer FORTRAN -
translation of the geochemical model WATEQ2 with revised database. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report S7-50, 10S pp.
15 Brown, D. S., and J. D. Allison, 19S7, MINTEQA1, an equilibrium meial speciation model:
users manual. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/6Q0/3-S7/012, 92 pp.
16 Brown, D. S., and J. D. Allison, 19S8, User's Manual for PRODEF/MINTEQA2, Version A2.00; Problem definition program for hflNTEQ (PRODEF); Metal speciation equilibrium model for Surface and Groundwater (MINTEQ). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia, 22 pp.
17 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983, Final technical position of documentation of computer codes for high-lewl waste management. NUREG-0856-F, 13 pp.
Project No. 80S211 May 10, 1990 Page 27
furnished by the U. S. Geological SuA'cy and EPA on an IBM PC and comparing the results of these analyses with the results presented in these reports. Thermodynamic data provided with the model have been critically evaluated by numerous university, government, and private researchers, and was not validated separately for this project.
7.2.4. Data Sources Solute concentrations necessary for input into WATEQ4F and MINTEQA2 were obtained from groundwater quality data collected on March 5,1990 for several monitoring wells at the Cimarron facility. Data include laboratory analyses of major cations and anions and some minor ions. pH was measured in the field. Model input comprised major and minor .ion concentrations that were above the detection limit, pH, and estimates of groundwater temperature and redox conditions.
Temperature and Eh were not measured for these groundwater samples. An estimate of the temperature, 16°C, was made using the average annual air temperature at the site. Eh conditions were assumed to be oxidizing in the shallow water table aquifer. A conservative Eh value of 600 millivolts was estimated for the site groundwater. This value is representatis-e of typical oxidizing conditions in shallow groundwater aquifers.
7.2.5. Geochemical Modeling Results Geochemical modeling was performed to determine possible mineral-water reactions that might control the solubility of uranium in the site groundwater. Ideally, a geochemical model should accomplish the following: (1) calculate the aqueous speciation, pH, and redox potential, (2) specify the kinds and amounts of minerals that precipitate or dissolve in the course of reactions, and (3) determine the equilibrium relationships between the groundwater, aquifer minerals, and waste constituents.
7.2.5.I. Mineral Equilibrium Calculations Equilibrium calculations were performed for S of the 10 groundwater samples collected during March, 1989. Output from WATEQ4F is included as Appendix A, and includes calculation of the aqueous speciation of the major and minor ions, pH, ionic strength, TDS, cation-anion balance, activity coefficients,, and the saturation indices (SI) of mineral phases. Table 4 presents the calculated saturation indices.
WATEQ4F calculates mineral SI for an aqueous solution using the chemical analysis and the thermodynamie stability data for both minerals and aqueous species. The SI is defined as log(IAP/Kt), where IAP is the ion activity product for the input chemical analysis, and Kt is the mineral equilibrium constant at the input temperature of the solution. A solution that is theoretically saturated with respect to a particular mineral phase will have a SI = 0; SI is negative for undersaturation and positive for supersaturation. Therefore, an SI equal to zero indicates that the groundwater is in equilibrium with a particular mineral phase.
Silicate fOuartzl Minerals: SI for quartz (SiO^) mineral phases, alpha quartz , chalcedony ,
cristobalite , and amorphous silica average 0.828, 0.309, 0.393, and -0.200, respectively. In the site ground-water samples analyzed, amorphous silica is undersaturated, which suggests that silica is not in equilibrium with the groundwater. Quartz, one of the major aquifer host minerals, appears Project No. S0S211 May 10,1990 Page 2S
to have little control on silica concentrations in groundwater. Highly-ordered alpha quartz .is oversaturated, a condition often observed for crystalline phases that in low temperature systems do not precipitate directly from ground water, but rather forms initially as amorphous silica.
The most important controls of aqueous silica in groundwater at the site-probably are the day minerals that are present in the aquifer matrix. Polzer18 reported that groundwater in equilibrium with amorphous silica contains between 100 to 140 mg/L and groundwater in equilibrium with quartz contains about 6 to 12 mg/L silica. Groundwater in equilibrium with clay minerals, feldspars, mica, and other silicate phases contain intermediate concentrations of silica.
The intermediate silica concentrations observed at the site and the presence of abundant clay minerals agree with Polzers observations.
Carbonate Minerals: SI for the carbonate mineral phases, aragonite, calcite, and dolomite average -0.091, 0.059, and -0.146, respectively. The SI for calcite indicates that the site groundwater is in equilibrium with calcite. Calcite is the most abundant carbonate mineral phase present in the aquifer matrix, typically occurring as matrix cement. Dolomite is undersaturated in the site groundwater.
Figure 25 is a carbonate mineral stability diagram for the system Ca-Mg-CO^-^O at 25°C.
Figure 25 plots the activity of (Ca+2/Mg+2) against the log of the partial pressure of C02.
Activities for site groundwaters are shown on this figure and indicate that the site groundwater is in equilibrium with calcite. The abundant calcite observed in the aquifer matrix and the equilibrium concentrations of calcite suggest that the primary control of calcium in solution is the dissolution and precipitation of calcite.
Aluminosilicate Minerals: Aluminosilicate minerals such as clay minerals comprise a large portion of the aquifer matrix. The stability of clay minerals in Cimarron groundwater was evaluated using cation ratio activity diagrams. Figures 25 through 29 are mineral stability diagrams showing the groundwater samples from Cimarron, and are indicative of the ratio of cation activity versus the activity of H^SiO^. Quartz and amorphous silica saturation lines also are shown on these figures. The mineral stability diagrams for the site indicate that the groundwater is in equilibrium with kaolinite.
Other Mineral Phases: Elevated fluoride concentrations present in some of the site wells near old waste management areas are related to the past waste management activities. SI for fluoride average -0.362 indicating that fluoride is undersaturated in the site groundwater. Figure 30 is a graph of the log of the ion activity product of fluoride versus calcite. This figure also indicates that fluoride is undersaturated in the site ground water, and that as fluoride migrates, it will react with matrix materials (e.g., calcium) and precipitate. The precipitation of fluoride as CaF2 also makes other cations like uranium that are otherwise complexed with fluoride susceptible to sorption on the clays as the fluoride is stripped from the soluble ligand. The presence of the predominant calcium and clay minerals at the site provides an environment for the rapid attenuation of constituents such as uranium as they flow downgradient from the introduction 18 Plozer, W. L., 1967, "Geochemical control of solubility of aqueous silica:" in S. D. Faust and J.
V. Hunter (editors), Principles and Applications of Water Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons, Jnc.,
pp 505-519.
Project No. 808211 May 10,1990 Page 29
location. The effectiveness of these minerals in retaining uranium is reflected in the low natural background uranium concentrations.
7.2.5.2. Comparison of Geochemical Modeling Results with Kd Results In order to compare the concentration of uranium in site groundwater with the uranium solubility predicted by the distribution coefficient results, groundwater from wells 1325, an upgradient well, and well 1315, a well downgradient of a former cleaned and closed waste management area, was modeled using MINTEQA2 to determine the solubility and speciation of uranium in site groundwater. Well 1325 is an upgradient well with no detectable uranium. Well 1315 is a well which has 6.25 mg/L uranium in solution.
The results of the modeling indicate that naturally soluble uranium in the site groundwater occurs primarily as the uranyl dicarbonate (UDC) and uranyl tricarbonate (UTC) complexes and aqueous uranyl carbonate. MINTEQA2 calculates that about 72 percent of the uranium is complexed as UDC, 25 percent as UTC, and the remaining 4 percent as aqueous uranyl carbonate.
The site geochemical modeling suggests a higher uranium solubility than otherwise reflected in the laboratory Kd tests. The Kd tests indicate that the uranium is less-soluble than predicted, and therefore is bound tightly to the soil. In order to explain this apparent discrepancy, it was assumed that the groundwater composition might have been altered during the Kd tests. The most likely source of change is degassing of CO^ from the groundwater sample. PCO^ pressures
-2 calculated using WATEQ4F indicate that the site groundwater has a PCO^ of about 10 atmospheres. This value is typical of natural groundwaters. Simulation of CO^ degassing was
-3 5 made by fixing the partial pressure of CC>2 at 10 ' atmospheres for groundwater from well 1315. This partial pressure of CC>2 is equal to that of the atmosphere and would represent degassing of groundwater supersaturated with CO^, hence equilibration with atmospheric C02.
The results of the carbon dioxide degassing simulation indicates that about S5 percent of the uranium in solution would be precipitated as the mineral schoepite (UO^f^O). MINTEQA2 calculates that the uranium remaining (15%) in solution would be complexed as 56%
(U02)3(0H)5+1, 29% as aqueous U02CC>3, 8% as U02(C03)2'2, and 6% as U020H+1.
The results of these calculations supports the suggestion that losses of CC>2 would be reflected in laboratory Kd values higher than field values. However, a comparison of the concentration of uranium remaining in solution indicates that the loss of C02 influences uranium concentrations by a factor of less than 10. Thus, changes in carbon dioxide in the laboratory cannot account alone for the discrepancy in uranium solubility suggested by the Kd results.
Since an overall increase in salts, generally fluoride and nitrate, is observed downgradient of the former waste disposal facilities, as shown on Figures 18 through 24, and an increase in total dissolved solids concentrations also is observed downgradient of these facilities, the apparent discrepancy between the solubility predicted by the geochemical modeling and the Kd results can Project No. 8Q8211 May 10,1990 Page 30
also be accounted for by the effects of complexing of the uranium by other ions. Uranium complexes of fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate may be more soluble than uranium carbonate salts, and the complexes often are not sorbed as strongly. Increased competition between uranium and other cations for a limited number of sorption sites will increase the concentration of uranium in solution relative to the uranium sorbed on the soils. As anions are stripped from the ligands to react with matric materials, eg, P with Ca++, the uranium ion becomes susceptible to formation of more insoluble species and eventually sorbs on clays where it is tightly bound. That such behavior is indicated is also reflected in the history of waste management at the site, where strong solutions of uranium in fluoride and nitrate form were stored or disposed. The competition for exchange sites and the complexing of the uranium by other ions will diminish in importance downgradient of the former waste management areas as dilution and chemical reactions cause the modified ground water to become more akin to the native ground water than to the leachate.
Neither of these solubility-enhancing factors should be operative in the potential leaching of soils placed in the Option 2 landfill, since these soils do not contain the high concentrations of salts or complexing ligands that were present in the original wastes.
Project No. S0SZ11 May 10, 1990 Page 31
TABLE 1: SITE GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA {axpro6sod In milligrams por Hlor {mg/L WoJi Numbor Units 1312 1314 1315 1316 1317 1325 1326 1331 1335 1336 Sampling Data Mnr-00 Mar-90 Mor-90 Mar-90 Mar-90 Mar-90 Mar-00 Mar-90 Mnr-90 Mar-90 G pacific Conductance umho/cm 0000 goo 600 800 1750 900 550 750 550 14000 IDS mg/L 1020 309 630 608 1550 331 376 634 377 2320 pH sltl units 6.9S 7.03 7.05 7.01 7.07 7.09 6.97 6.95 7.00 6.99 Calcium mg/L -10.1 73.9
- 117 117 223 64.8 73 124 74.6 110 Magnesium mg/L 12.4 23.7 47.1 41,4 100 22.8 26.8 42.3 29.2 114 Sodium mg/L 140 16.4 40.1 40.6 213 22.1 23.4 54.5 19.6 123 Potassium mg/L 13.5 1.2 < 1.0 < 1.0 3.2 < 1.0 1.2 < 1.0 < t.o 15.2 Dicofbonolo mg/L 1140 402 490 618 1290 336 364 663 363 1090 Carbonate mg/L < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < to < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 Chloride mg/L 30 16 67 68 130 7.9 12 17 6.9 49 Sulfate mg/L 45 6.6 100 39 190 10 23 70 12 97 Silicon mg/L 3.0 12 It 14 20 14 19 9.1 11 4,5 Fluorido mg/L 46 0.7 1.5 1.4 3.1 1 0.61 1.2 1.1 57 Nitroto ©a M mg/L 930 2.2 9.5 10 1.1 14 18 13 21 1700 Ammonia as N mg/L 1500 < 10 < to < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 2100 Phosphate mg/L < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < t.o < 1.0 Aluminum mg/L 0.001 0.072 0.12 0.076 0.073 0.074 0.069 0.065 0.062 0.066 Iron ; mg/L 0.053 0.061 0.031 0.015 0.020 <0.008 0.062 0.028 0.013 0.009 Uranium mg/L 0.045 < 0.005 6.25 0.30 - 0.007 < 0.005 0.005 0.16 < 0.005 0.060 boron mg/L 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.46 0.12 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.065 Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 32
TABLE 2: SITE GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA {axprossod In mlllloqulvalonls par tiler (meq/L)) Well Number Unlls 13)2 1314 1315 1316 1317 1325 1326 1331 1335 1338 Sampling Oalo Mar-90 Mor-90 Mnr-90 Mar-90 Mar-90 Mar-90 Mar-90 Mnr-90 Mar-90 Mor-90 Calcium moq/L 2.00 3.69 5.84 5.04 11.13 3.23 3.64 8.19 3.72 5.49 Miignasluni tnoq/L 1,02 1.05 3.87 3.41 0.00 1.88 2.20 3.40 2.40 0.30 Sodium meq/L 6.09 0.71 1.74 1.77 9.27 0.98 1.02 2.37 0.05 5.35 Potassium moq/L 0.35 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.39 Olcmbonale moq/L 10.60 6.59 8.13 10.13 21.14 6.51 5.97 10.07 5.95 17.87 Cmbonato moq/L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CliJoiido moq/L 0.85 0.45 1.09 1.92 3.67 0.22 0.34 0.48 0.19 1.38 Sulfata moq/L 0.94 0.16 2.03 0.81 3.96 0.21 0.43 1.46 0.25 2.02 fluoride moq/L 2.42 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.18 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.08 3.00 NiU ata as N msq/L 15.00 0.04 0.15 0.16 0.02 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.34 27.42 Phosphato meq/L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aluminum moq/L 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Iron moq/L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tola! Cations moq/L 9.47 6.39 11,47 11.02 29.37 8.00 6.91 12.05 6.98 20.61 Total Anions maq/L 37.09 7.29 12.33 13.09 28.95 6.22 7.07 13.00 6.79 51.69 Total Anlons-N03 moq/L 22.09 7.28 12.10 12.93 23.93 5.99 8.02 12.07 6.45 24.27 ion Oalanoo % G0.02 8.67 3.62 8.61 0.72 1.12 1.10 4.10 1.41 42.90 ion Unlonco-1103 % 41.49 0.33 2.99 7.99 0.75 0.73 0.67 3.29 3.96 8.14 Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 33
TABLE 3: AVERAGE BACKGROUND AND SITE GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA (mg/L) Well Number Units BKG SITE AVERAGE AVERAGE Specific Conductance umho/cm 725 3000 TDS ' mg/L 348 876 pH std units 7.02 7.01 Calcium jng/L 71.6 101.7 Magnesium mg/L 25.6 46.8 Sodium mg/L 20.4 69.3 Potassium mg/L 1.2
- 3.4 Bicarbonate mg/L 366 676 Carbonate mg/L ' 0.00 0.00 Chloride mg/L 10.7 40.4 Suifate mg/L 13.4 59.5 Silicon mg/L 14.0 11.8 Fluoride mg/L 0.9 11.4 Nitrate as N mg/L 13 271 Ammonia as N mg/L 0 360 Phosphate mg/L 0.00 0.00 Aluminum mg/L 0.069 0.074 iron mg/L 0.045 . 0.030 Uranium mg/L 0.000 0.699 Boron mg/L .0.120 . 0.154 Project No. SOS211 May 10, 1990 Pag e 34 -
TABLE 4: Saturation Indlcles Calculated For Site Groundwater Using WATEQ4F WoIJ Number 131^ 1315 1316 1317 1325 1326 1331 1335 MEAN Atfuioila *0.012 0.787 0.501 0.425 Albilo *1.329 -0.901 *0,829 0.150 -0.953 *0.661 -1.358 -1.521 -0.924 Alloplmno (a) 0.237 0.340 0.218 0.098 0.264 0.273 0,107 0.144 0.210 AicgonUo -0.261 -0.031 0.034 0.551 -0.327 -0.377 0.017 -0.337 -0.091 Calcilo -0,110 0.119 0.185 0.702 -0.177 -0.227 0.167 -0.167 0.059 Chalcedony 0.260 0.224 0.329 0.480 0.328 0.463 0.153 0.222 0.309 Cdsiobdito 0.350 0.309 0.413 0.570 0.412 0.548 0.237 0.306 0.393 Dolomite -0.553 o.ooe 0.081 1.256 -0.846 -0,727 0.031 -0.620 -0.146 fluorite -0,057 -0.123 -0.163 0.603 -0.595 -0.905 -0.286 -0.480 -0,302 Gypsum -2.024 -1.496 -1.602 -1.159 2.599 -2.216 -1.831 -2.490 -2.013 MaJloysIto -0.223 0.007 *O,t90 -0.300 -0.100 0.135 -0.685 -0.524 0.245 lliilo 2.495 2.9S5 3,090 2.060 Jarosito K -0.240 1.253 0.640 ........ 0.551 Mognasfte -0.931 -0.600 -0.592 0.066 -0.957 -0,900 -0.624 -0.921 -0.693 MontmoiWonUo Ca 3.890 4.232 4.120 4.102 4.220 4.651 3.300 3.571 4.034 PhtlUpallo -0.731 0.412 -0.140 -0.153 OuarU 0.7B5 0.744 0.640 1.006 0.047 0.903 0.672 0.741 0.020 S!02{n.L) -0.243 -0.205 -0.100 -0.023 -0.18! -0.048 -0.356 -0.267 -0.200 S!Q2(n,M) -0.564 -0.605 -0.500 -0.343 -0.502 -0.366 -0.676 -0.607 0.520 Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 35
Ca C! Figure 12 Piper Diagram of Site Ground Water Project No. 80S21L May JO, 1990 Page 36
3 o o ° ° o a Figure 13 Stiff Diagram of Wells 1312 and 1314 Project Mo. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 37
Na+K Figure 14 Stiff Diagram o f Wells 1315 and 1316
r0£- -OZ- -Ot~ 0
- 01 - oz *- oc Na+K Figure 15 Stiff Diagram of Wells 1317 and 1325
g figure 16 SUIT Diagram of Wells 1326 and 1331 Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 40
g Figure 17 Stiff Diagram of Wells 1335 and 1336 Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page 41
JAMES L GRANT & ASSOCIATES Figure 18 'll gooUchnloat origin oorlnn
- manaoomont
- I(jJL*/ cofnputor ocTonao Areal Distribution of Calcium CD DENVER, COLORADO
- JAMES L GRANT Sc ASSOCIATES Figure 19
>> / yy gootachnlcal enginewing
- management
- j ItA-J computer aclenoo Areal Distribution of Bicarbonate J CD DENVER. COLORADO
JAMES L. GRANT <fc ASSOCIATES Figure 20 goekoclmlcal englnoorlng
- managamont*
aompUkor oclanoo Areal Distribution of Sodium DENVER, COLORADO
JAMES L. GRANT It ASSOCIATES Figure 21 jf / -v* gootochntcal onalnoorlna
- management*
computer Bclonoo Areal Distribution of Potassium 1 [jLJ J CD DENVER, COLORADO
JAMES L GRANT & ASSOCIATES Figure 22 j / y-v* geotachnical engineering* manogomanl* 1 l/JLs aomputor aclenoo
- Areal Distribution of Uranium J CD DENVER, COLORADO
JAMES L. GRANT & ASSOCIATES Figure 23
*1 I y'-y* geotechnical engineering
- management*
/L/jLy computer aclonco Areal Distribution of Fluoride
<J C3> DENVER, COLORADO
JAMES L. GRANT <fc ASSOCIATES Figure 24 ~i j gootochnloal englnoorlna
- managomont*
/ /Jo/ aomputar ootonoo Areal Distribution of Ammonia and CD DENVER. COLORADO Nitrate
LOG OF CARBON DIOXIDE PRESSURE LOG OF CA+2 ACTIVITY MINUS LOG OF MG+2 ACTIVITY LOG (aCa+2/aMg+2) Legend 1 1314 2 1315 3 1316 4 1317 5 1325 6 1326 7 1331 8 1335 Figure 25 Carbonate Mineral Stability Diagram Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 49
Log (K +)/(H +) Figure 26 Silica, te Mineral Stability Diagram for Activity ofK+/H+ and H4S1O4 Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page :>0
Log (H4SiO+) Figure 27 Silicate Mineral Stability Diagram for Activity of Na+/H+ and H^SiO^ Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 51
Log (C q 2+ )/(H +) Figure 28 Silicate Mineral Stability Diagram for Activity of Ca +/(H+jr and H4S1O4 Project'No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 32
18 _ Chlorite 16 - QUARTZ SATURATION
<N Log (Mg 2+ )/(H + )
8 _ Kaolinite 6 _
- l. -2 Log (H4SiO+)
Figure 29 Silicate Mineral Stability Diagram for Activity of Mg+/(H+Jr and H4S/O4 Project No. S08211 May 10, 1990 Page 53
-9
-9.5 -
FLUOR1TE SATURATED
*N LOG IAP CaR-
-10.5 -
-11 -
-11.5 -
n5 CALOTTE 12-SATURATED UNDERSATURATED SOLUTION
-12.5-
---- -j-.---- 1------ j------ 1------ r~ i------ 1-------
-8.9 - 8.7 8.5 8.3
- -8.1 -7.9 -7.7 LOG JAP CaC03 Legend 1 131+
2 1315 3 1316 4 1317 5 1325 8 1326 7 1331 8 1335 Figure 30 km Activity Product Diagram for Fluorite and Calcite Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 54
- 8. GROUND-WATER PATHWAY MODEL Cimarron Corporation has evaluated the potential for radiological exposure to the general public from future use of ground water and from surface activities at the Cimarron Facility. Potential pathways evaluated for exposure to the public were ingestion of drinking water from a ground-water source, ingestion of drinking water from a surface water source, ingestion of agricultural products grown in contaminated soil, inhalation of airborne soils and direct external exposure to penetrating radiation.
Exposure scenarios, parameter values and assumptions used in the pathway evaluation were based on the methods contained in NUREG/CR-5512.19 Exposure potential calculations are based on average predicted concentrations of uranium in contaminated soil and water of 70 pCi/g and 10 pCi/I, respectively. The soil concentration of 70 pCi/g total uranium is the predicted average concentration for soil to be left on-site under the provisions of Option 2 NRC Branch Technical Position. The water concentration of 10 pCi/1 total uranium was determined to be a localized concentration of uranium in ground water reflective of past localized impacts from waste management. (See Site Investigation Report for the Cimarron Corporation Facility, James L. Grant and Associates, Inc., September 12, 19S9, page 3-10). The assumptions and calculations to determine the potential doses received by individuals potentially exposed to the uranium contained in media left at the Cimarron Facility is attached. The committed effective dose equivalent from each exposure pathway is summarized in Table 5. The calculation details are presented in Appendix B. The total committed effective dose equivalent is 5 mrem, from a one-year intake from all pathway sources combined. This dose is well within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reference level of 100 mrem/year to the general public contained in the proposed ehanges to 10 CFR 20. We believe that this exposure potential is not significant, and in fact is conservative, based upon the probable future land use for agricultural or pasture utilization. Any nearby future residents would be connected to the existing rural water supply sources for potable water. 19 U. S. Nuelear Regulatory Commission, Residual Radioactive Contamination form Decommissioning - Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Dose. Project No. S08211 May 10,1990 Page 55
Tabic 5 Summary of Pathway Evaluation - Cimarron Facility PATHWAY DOSE* (rare*11) Direct External To Penetrating Radiation 0.29 Inhalation of Airborne Materials 2.44 Ingestion of Agricultural Food Products 0.90 Ingestion of Drinking Water 1.36 Ingestion of Surface Water (Res. No. 3) Q.QQ5 TOTAL COMMITTED EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENT 5.00 Dose means committed effective dose equivalent from one year Intake. Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page d6
- 9. FUTURE LAND AND WATER USE Cimarron Corporation completed a survey to locate and describe all wells south of the Cimarron river and within a three mile radius of the Cimarron facility. This survey was conducted by searching the data files of the USGS in Oklahoma City, the Water Resources Division of the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG), and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. The wells located during this search are presented in Table 6. This table presents information, where available, about the depth, screened interval, and reported use of each well.
Lands around the Cimarron Facility are used for farming and grazing. The predominant crop is winter wheat. Irrigation is not common; most wells provide a domestic water supply for individual houses. A rural public water company supplies potable water to most homes and farms in the area. This water company obtains its water from wells completed in terrace deposits north of the Cimarron River. Cimarron Corporation understands that land and water use in the area in the foreseeable future will be the same as is found today. The site area is sufficiently far from Oklahoma City, the nearest major metropolitan area, that significant development is not anticipated. Table 7 presents 1980 populations of Logan County and the cities of Cresent and Guthrie, along with projected populations for these governmental units for the years 1990 and 2000. Little growth is projected for the county or for the cities. The projected growth rate of the county is decreasing with time. Projected growth front 1980 to 1990 represents a 16 percent Increase over the 1980 population, while growth from 1990 to 2000 is only 7 percent of the 1990 population. The above population estimates indicate that the site area will remain rural. Because population and land use are not projected to change much in the future, the patterns of well construction and ground water use indicated by Table 6 are considered representative of future conditions and uses. Table 6 shows that the Garber-Weliington is used primarily for domestic supplies in the area (only one irrigation well is completed in the Garber-Weliington). Most of the Garber-Wellington wells are deep; three of the four domestic wells are deeper than 90 feet, and the most shallow well is 6S feet deep. The Garber-Weliington wells typically are screened from near ground surface to the bottom of the well. No shallow wells, wells completed only in the shallow water-bearing zone located at the site, were found in the area survey. Project No. S0S211 May 10,1990 Page 57
Table 6 Area Wells Near the Cimarron Facility Weir Location Elevation Formation Wen Date Total Casing FOter Perforations Water Flow Owner Sec/Twn/Rn (ft,msg Purpose Installed Depth Depth Pack (ftbgs] Level Rate S m (ftbgs) (ft bgs) (ft bgs) (9pm) STOLTS SW NE NE 990 NA DOMESTIC 1984 150 4.5*- 150 10-150 60-90 50 NA 8-16N-3W 120-160 ELLIS SE SENE NA NA DOMESTIC 1987 190 6* -10 10-190 50-190 70 20 18-16N-3W 4.5*-190 NA SW SE SE 970 PGW TEST 1974 62 NA NA NA 42 NA 1CM8N-4W CWRB SESESE 985 QT TEST NA 45 NA NA NA NA NA SE 14-16N-4W OVVRB SW SE SE 1005 QT TEST NA 32 NA NA NA NA NA SE NA NE NE NE 1074 PGW DOMESTIC 1974 9t NA NA NA 55 NA 14-16N-4W NA nene nw 1010 PGW DOMESTIC 1970 68 NA NA NA 40 NA 14-16N-4W ELUS SESWSW NA NA DOMESTIC 1987 160 4.5* - 160 65- 160 110-120 90 15 14-16N-4W 130-160 buxton NWNWNE 950 PGW IRRIGATION NA 163 NA NA NA 20 NA NE 16-16N-4W BUXTON NWHESE NA NA INDUSTRIAL 1979 163 9*-30 NONE NONE 20 PLUGGED 16-16N-4W 6.75* -163 (SALTY) NA SWNWNW NA NA NA NA 11 NA NA NA NA NA 23-16N-4W MARTIN NE NEW/ 1040 PH IRRIGATION 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA 18-16N-3W MARTIN NV/ SW NW 1010 PH IRRIGATION 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA 18-16N-3W MARTIN SE NESW 1063 PW IRRIGATION NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 18-16N-3W MARTIN SE SW SE 1040 PH IRRIGATION 1989 190 8*- 18 18-190 50-190 40 80 18-16N-3W 6*- 190 MARTIN NE SE NE 1063 PGW DOMESTIC 1974 NA NA NA NA 75 NA 18-16N-3W Project No. 80S211 May 10,1990 Page 58
Table 6 Area Wells Near the Cimarron Facility (Continued) WeU Location Elevation Formation Well Dale Total Casing Fitter Perforations Water Owner Sec/Tvm/Rng (fLmsl) Purpose Installed Depth Depth Pack (ft bgs) Level A) (ft bgs) (ftbgs) (ft bgs) MARTIN SE SESW 1040 PH IRRIGATION NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 18-16N-3W MARTIN SESWSW 1030 PH IRRIGATION NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 18-16N-3W POPE SENENE 1060 PGW DOMESTIC NA 157 NA NA NA NA 35 18'16N-3W HARMONY SESENE 1060 PGW DOMESTIC 1970 150 NA NA NA NA 50 18-16N-3W DAT1N swsv/sw NA NA DOMESTIC 1989 too 5*-14 12- 100 80-100 25 20 7-T6N-3W 4- - 100 WILLIAMS sesw ne NA NA DOMESTIC 1984 165 6-11 60 -165 120-135 60 15 7-T6N-3W 4* -165 145-160 FABUON NENWNE NA NA DOMESTIC 1980 170 6*-10 60 - 170 80-90 40 20 8-16N-3W 4.5* - 170 120-160 Notes: NA - not available PH - Permian Herrington PGW - Permian Garber-WeEngton GT - Quaternary-Terrace Table 7 Area Population Projections for the Site Area Area 1980 Census 1990 Percent 2000 Percent Projection Increase Projection Increase Logan 26,881 31,200 16 33350 7 County Cresent 1,651 1,700 3 1,800 6 Guthrie 11,3S4 12,100 6 13,200 9 Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Population Projections for Oklahoma, 19S0 - 2010, November, 19S8. Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 59
- 10. REVISED SOIL VOLUME ESTIMATE Cimarron Corporation includes herein a revised volume estimate for the soil to be left at the Cimarron Facility under the provisions of Option 2 of the Branch Technical Position. The estimate is based on Cimarron Corporations collection of an additional 100 soil samples from 50 locations within the uranium plant yard area. Analysis of the sampling data indicates that 3,500 cubic yards of soil will be left within the perimeter of the uranium plant yard area under four feet of clean soil. The balance of the Option 2 level soil (consisting of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of Option 2 material closer than 4 feet to the surface) will be relocated from the yard area to the designated Option 2 material disposal area.
The sample locations used to calculate the volume estimate are identified in Figure 31. Two samples were collected at each location, from the 0-1 foot and 1-2 foot depth intervals. Figures 32 and 33 show locations which exceeded a uranium concentration of 20 pCi/g for the two depth intervals described above. In addition to this soil, contaminated soil is presently being removed from beneath the uranium plant floor. Approximately 1/6 of the potentially contaminated floor area has been evaluated and the above Option 2 concentration soil removed. The projected volume of affected soil under the floor is 3,300 cubic yards. Experience gained in this decommissioning activity was used to estimate the quantity of soil requiring removal and the quantity which will remain in-situ under the provisions of Option 2 of the Branch Technical Position beneath the floor area. This soil is included in the 3,500 cubic yard estimate for soil which will be left within the perimeter of the yard area. Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 60
Figure 31 Special Soil Sampling - March 1990 Project No. 808211 May 10,1990 Page 61
Figure 32 Locations Where Uranium Concentration > 20 pCi/g: 0-1 Fool Depth Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 62
Figure 33 Locations Where Uranium Concentration > 20 pCi/g: 1 - 2 Foot Depth Project No. 808211 May 10, 1990 Page 63
1 CIMARRON WELL 1314 1314 X5 900 309 030590 0 0 0 1200 TEMP = 16,000000 PH B 7.030000 EHM B .600000 DOC = .000000 DOX = .000000
.CORAUC = 0 FUG = MG/L DENS a 1.000000 PRNT c 0 PUNCH = 1 EHOPT = 0 EMPOX a 0 ITDS a 309.000000 COND a 900.000000 SIGMDO B .000000 SIGMEH = .000000 SIGMPH = .000000 Species index No Input Concentr Ca 0 : 73.90000000 Mg 1 : 23.70000000 ,'.i Ma 2 : 16.40000000 ' i.!
, i .
K 3 : 1.20000000
'\
Cl 4 : 16.00000000 '* r; SQ4 5 : 8.60000000 HC03 6 : 402.00000000 Fe total 16 : .06100000 *I : , N2S aq 13 : .00000000 C03 17 : .00000000 Si02 tot 34 : 26.00000000 NH4 38 : ,00000000 8 tot 86 : .11000000 PQ4 44 ; .00000000 Al 50 : .07200000 F 61 .70000000 N03 84 : 9.70000000 JLGA 1 of 9 May 10, 1990
1CIMARR0M WELL 1314 1314 X5 900 309 030590 0 0 0 1200 ITER S1-AnalC03 S2-AnalS04 S3-AnolF S4-AnalP04 S5-AnalCL S6-AnolH2S S7-AnolFULV S8-AnalHUM 1 1.437354E-04 1.983911E-05 1.782144E-06 O.OOOOOOE+OO 4.920957E-17 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO o .ooooooe+oo 2 1.175631E-06 2.3543S7E-07 -6.066525E-09 O.OOOOOOE+OO -1.749388E-19 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 3 -1.949897E-08 -5.025339E-09 -1.49S219E-10 O.OOOOOOE+OO 7.729176E-21 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO o.ooooooe+oo JLGA 2 of 9 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1314 1314 XS Date = 3/27/90 15:05 900 309 030590 000 1200 DOX = .0000 DOC s ,0 INPUT TDS = 309.0 Anal Cond = 900.0 Calc Cond s 626.3 Anal EPMCAT = 6.3953 Anal EPMAN = 7.4163 Percent difference in input cation/anion balance = -14.7842 Calc EPMCAT = 6.2112 Calc EPMAN = 7.2408 Percent difference in calc cation/anion balance = -15.3087 Total Ionic Strength (T.l.S.) from input data = .00982 Effective Ionic Strength (E.I.S.) from speciation = .00947 Sato Calc Input Sigma Fe3/Fe2 Sigma H202/02 Sigma N03/N02 Sigma N03/NH4 Sigma H202/02 Sigma S04/S* Sigma As5/As3 Sigma
....................................................-.......................................................- - - - - Eh....................................................................................................................... - - - - -
.600 .000 .600 .000 9.900 .000 .000 .000 9.900 .000 9.900 .000 9.900 .000 9.900 .000 PE 10.457 .000 10.457 .000 100.,000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 Effective T pH TDS ppm Ionic Str p02 Atm pC02 Atm pCH4 Atm C02 Tot Uncom C02 ppm Uncom C02 Ncrb Aik OH20 16.00 7.030 578.4 .00947 5.16E-17 3.19E-Q2 7.76-118 .00799 6.45E-03 2.84E+02 7.41E-07 .9998 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 0 Ca 2 73.900 69.948 1.845E-03 1.746E-03 1.189E-03 .6808 2.925 28 CaOH 1 .000093 1.630E-09 1.476E-09 .9056 8.831 31 CaS04 aq 0 1.509 1.1096-05 1.111E-05 1.0022 4.954 81 CaHS04 1 .000000 5.542E-12 5.018E-12 .9056 11.299 29 CaHC03 1 8.383 8.297E-05 7.514E-05 .9056 4.124 30 CaC03 aq 0 .411 4.110E-06 4.119E-06 1.0022 5.385 100 CaF 1 .018 2.983E-07 2.701E-07 .9056 6.568 1 Mg 2 23.700 22.416 9.754E-04 9.227E-04 6.319E-04 .6849 3.199 18 MgOH 1 .000219 S.292E-09 4.793E-09 .9056 8.319 22 MgS04 aq 0 .621 5.164E-06 5.176E-06 1.0022 5.286 21 MgHC03 1 3.851 4.516E-05 4.089E-05 .9056 4.388 20 MgC03 aq 0 .106 1.258E-06 1.261E-06 1.0022 5.899 19 MgF 1 .050 1.149E-06 1.040E-06 .9056 5.983 2 Na 1 16.400 16.345 7.138E-04 7.115E-04 6.450E-04 .9065 3.190 43 NaS04 -1 .020 1.668E-07 1.511E-07 .9056 6.821 42 NaHC03aq 0 .178 2.118E-06 2.123E-06 1.0022 5.673 41 NaC03 -1 .001645 1.984E-08 1.797E-08 .9056 7.746 297 NaF aq 0 .000101 2.397E-09 2.402E-09 1.0022 8.619 JLGA 3 of 9 May 10, 1990
3 K 1 1.200 1.200 3.071E-Q5 3.0706-05 2.775E-05 .9040 4,.557 45 KS04 '1 .001227 9.0816-09 8.223E-09 .9056 8.085 63 H 1 .000103 1.0196-07 9.333E-08 .9163 7.030 26 OH -1 .000988 5.8126-08 5.263E-08 .9056 7.279 17 C03 -2 .211 3.S23E-06 2.400E-06 .6812 5.620
,6 HC03 -1 402.000 392.885 6.5926-03 6.4436-03 5.8546-03 .9085 2.233 85 H2C03 aq 0 86.972 1.403E-03 1.4076-03 1.0024 2.852 5 S04 -2 8.600 7.022 8.958E-05 7.315E-05 4.957E-05 ,6777 4.305 62 HS04 -1 .000038 3.8776-10 3.511E-10 .9056 9-455 61 F -1 .700 .668 3-687E-05 3.5176-05 3.185E-05 .9056 4.497 125 HF aq 0 .000073 3.649E-09 3.6576-09 1.0022 8.437 126 KF2 -1 .000000 4.618E-13 4.182E-13 .9056 12.379 296 H2F2 aq 0 .000000 5.166E-17 5.178E-17 1.0022 16.286 4 Cl -1 16.000 15.998 4.516E-04 4.516E-04 4.082E-04 .9040 3.389 34 Si02 tot 0 26.000 4.330E-04 23 H4Si04aq 0 41.551 4.326E-04 4.3356-04 1.0022 3.363 24 H3Si04 -1 .036 3.740E-07 3.3876-07 .9056 6.470 25 H2SI04 -2 .000000 3.601E-12 2.4216-12 .6724 11.616 124 Si F6 -2 .000000 1.8166-28 1.221E-28 .6724 27.913 86 B tot 0 .110 1-018E-05 JLGA A of 9 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1314 1314 X5 I Species Anal ppm Cate ppm Anal Molal Calc Mola Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 35 H3B03 aq 0 .625 1.012E-05 1.014E-05 1.0022 4.994 36 H2803 -1 .003510 5.775E-08 5.230E-08 .9056 7.282 101 BF(QH)3 -1 .000010 1.289E-10 1.167E-10 .9056 9.933 102 BF2<OH)2 -1 .000000 4.193E-14 3.797E-14 .9056 13.421 103 BF30H 1 .000000 1.634E-19 1.480E-19 .9056 18.830 104 BF4 -1 .000000 2.021E-24 1.830E-24 .9056 23.737 84 N03 -1 9,700 9.699 1.565E-04 1.565E-04 1.417E-04 .9056 3.848 50 Al 3 .072000 .000001 2.670E-06 4.264E-11 1.746E-11 .4095 10.758 51 AtOH 2 .000067 ' 1.523E-09 1.024E-09 .6724 8.990 52 At(OH)2 1 .011 1.758E-Q7 1.592E-07 .9056 6.798 181 Al <OH)3 0 .167 2.14HE-06 2.147E-06 1.0022 5.668 53 Al<OH)4 -1 .024 2.510E-07 2.273E-07 .9056 6.643 54 AlF 2 .000389 8.462E-09 5.690E-09 .6724 8.245 55 AIF2 1 . 002497 3.846E-08 3.483E-08 .9056 7.458 56 AIP3 oq 0 .004337 5.168E-08 5.179E-Q8 1.0022 7.286 57 Al F4 1 .000107 1.041E-09 9.426E-10 .9056 9.026 58 AIS04 1 .000000 8.9406-13 8.096E-13 .9056 12.092 59 Al(S04)2 -1 .000000 3.395E-15 3.074E-15 .9056 14.512 203 AIHS04 2 .000000 2.629E-20 1.768E-2Q .6724 19.753 16 Fe,total 2 .061 1.093E-06 7 Fe 2 .000000 3.378E-12 2.272E-12 .6724 11.644 10 FeOH 1 .000000 4.248E"15 3.847E-15 .9056 14.415 79 Fe(OH)2 0 .000000 1-561E-19 1.565E-19 1.0022 18.806 11 Fe<OH)3 -1 .000000 6.279E-23 5.686E-23 .9056 22.245 33 FeS04 aq 0 .000000 1-686E-14 1.690E-14 1.0022 13.772 122 FeHS04 1 .000000 1.059E-20 9.589E-21 .9056 20.018 8 Fe 3 .000000 8.737E-15 3.578E-15 .4095 14.446 9 FeOH 2 .000016 2.131E-10 1.433E-10 .6724 9.844 76 Fe(OH)2 1 .087 9.694E-07 8.778E-07 .9056 6.057 77 Fe(0H)3 0 .012 1.102E-07 1.1QSE-07 1.0022 6.957 78 Fe(OH)4 -1 .001618 1.307E-08 1.184E-08 .9056 7.927 179 Fe2(OH)2 4 .000000 3.966E-18 8.109E-19 .2045 18.091 180 Fe3(OH)4 5 .000000 1.703E-21 1.426E-22 .0837 21.846 14 FeS04 1 .000000 1.327E-15 1.201E-15 .9056 14.920 108 Fe(S04)2 -1 .000000 2.005E-18 1.816E-18 .9056 17.741 123 FeHS04 2 .000000 5.641E-22 3.793E-22 .6724 21.421 15 FeCl 2 .000000 4.887E-17 3.2876-17 .6724 16.483 JLGA 5 of 9 May 10, 1990
27 FeCl2 1 .000000 8.882E-20 8.043E-20 .9056 19.095 32 FeCl3 aq 0 .000000 3.276E-24 3.283E-24 1.0022 23.484 105 FeF 2 .000000 2.330E-13 1.567E-13 .6724 12.805 106 FeF2 1 .000000 1.965E-13 1.779E-13 .9056 12.750
'107 FeF3 aq 0 .000000 8.683E-15 8.702E-15 1.0022 14.060 1
CIMARROM WELL 1314 1314 X5 Mole ratios from analytical molality Log activity ratios Cl/Ca 5 2.4477E-01 Log Ca /H2 = 11.1351 Cl/Mg 4.6296E-01 Log Mg /H2 10.8607 Cl/Na = 6.3264E-01 Log Na /HI = 3.8395 Cl/K = 1.4706E+O1 Log K m = 2.4733 Cl/Al = 1.6912E+02 Log At /H3 = 10.3321 Cl/Fe
- O.OOOOE+OO Log Fe /H2 = 2.4163 CI/S04 5.0410E+00 Log Ca/Mg s .2745 CL/HC03 6.8501E02 LOG NA/K = 1.3662 Ca/Mg a 1.8914E+00 Log Ca/K2 = 6.1886 Ma/K = 2.3245E+01 Log Diss Fe/H2 = 14.0600 JLGA 6 of 9 May 10 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1314 1314 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 39 Adularia -.012 -21.288 -21.276 40 Albite -1.329 -19.922 -18.593 140 AIOH3 (a) -.687 .002 -32.594 -31.907 -32.596 471 A10HS04 -4.803 *4.643 -4.963 -8.033 -3.230 -3.390 -3.070 472 Al4(OH)10SO4. .263 22.963 22.700 157 Allophane(a) .237 6.347 6.110 158 Allophane(F) 1.062 6.347 5.286 338 Alum k -18.591 -23.925 -5.335 50 Alunite -3.098 -89.113 -86.014 42 Analcime -3.443 -16.559 -13.116 17 Anhydrite -2.679 -7.230 -4.551 113 Annite 30.851 -56.219 -87.070 41 Anorthite -2.959 -22.937 -19.978 21 Aragonite -.261 .020 -8.545 -8.284 150 Artinite -7.666 2.590 10.256 48 Beidellite 4.245 -42.404 -46.649 52 Boehmite 1.093 1.606 -32.594 -33.688 -34.201 19 Brucite -6.534 -17.757 -11.223 12 Calcite -.110 .020 -.044 -8.545 -8.435 -8.501 97 Chalcedony .266 -3.363 -3.628 49 Chlorite 14A -6.958 6.000 -1.683 -15,682 64.878 71.836 66.561 80.560 125 Chlorite 7A -10.416 6.000 64.878 75.294 20 Chrysotile -7.567 -59.996 -52.429 29 Clinoenstite -4,309 -3.943 -4.603 -21.120 -16.810 -17.176 -16.516 56 Clinoptitolt -25.044 99 Cristobalite .350 -3.363 -3.712 154 Diaspore 2.878 -32.594 -35.472 28 Diopside -5.377 -41.965 -36.587 11 Dolomite -.553 -17.364 -16.811 340 Epsomite -5.300 -7.505 -2.204 55 Erionite -21.604 112 Ferrihydrite 1.752 5.086 1,647 6.643 4.891 1.557 4.996 419 Fe3(0H)8 -4.519 -1.409 -8.402 15.703 20.222 17.112 24.105 181 FeOH)2.7Cl.3 6.558 3.518 -3.040 401 Fe2<S04)3 -46.736 -42.506 -41.807 4.929 .699 62 Fluorite -.857 -11.919 -11.062 27 Forsterite -11.071 -38.876 -27.805 JLGA 7 of 9 May 10, 1990
51 Gibbsite (c) 1.042 .200 1.325 372 10.332 9.290 9.007 9.960 110 Goethite 5.813 .800 6.643 .830 111 Greenalite -20.287 .523 20.810 18 Gypsum -2.624 -7.230 -4.606 64 Halite -8.141 -6.580 1.561 47 Halloysite -.223 -34.072 -33.849 108 Hematite 16.591 13.287 -3.304 117 Hunt its -5.622 -35.002 -29.380 38 Hydrmagnesit -16.854 -53.034 -36.180 45 Ulite 2.495 -39.019 -41.515 204 Jarosite Na -2.585 1.000 -12.960 -10.375 205 Jarosite K -.240 1.100 -2.540 -14.326 -14.086 -11.786 337 Jarosite H -5.958 -16.799 -10.842 46 Kaolinite 3.970 4.849 2.869 -34.072 -38.042 -38.921 -36.941 43 Kmica 9.323 1.300 10.721 7.644 23.381 14.058 12.660 15.737 128 Laumontite 2.201 -29.663 -31.864 , 147 Leonhardite 12.485 -59.326 -71.811 98 Magadiite -6.767 -21.067 -14.300 109 Maghemite 6.901 13.287 6.386 10 Magnesite -.931 -.681 -1.181 -8.819 -7.888 -8.138 -7.638 JIGA 8 of 9 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1314 1314 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log NT Log MintCT Log MaxKT 107 Magnetite 10.815 11.185 7.957 15.703 4.888 4.518 7.746 339 Melanterite -13.414 -15.949 -2.535 63 Montmoril Ca 3.990 -42.369 -46.359 115 Montmoril 8F . . 4.317 -30.596 -34.913 116 Montmoril AB 3.435 -26.253 -29.688 57 Mordeni te -23.362 66 Mlrabillte -9.139 -10.687 -1.547 58 Nahcollte -4.790 -5.423 -.633 60 Natron -10.331 -12.002 -1.670 149 Nesquehonite -3.331 -3.819 -4.406 -8.819 -5.489 -5.001 -4.414 54 PhillipsiCe -.731 -20.605 -19.874 44 Phlogopite -32.972 3.000 11.293 44.265 141 Prehriite -3.233 -15.165 , -11.932 53 Pyrophyltite 7.516 10.812 5.682 -40.798 -48.314 -51.610 -46.480 101 Quartz .785 -3.363 -4.148 36 Sepiolite(c) -4.344 11.632 15.976 153 Sepiolite(a) -7.028 11.632 18.660 9 siderite -6.835 -5.281 -17.263 -10.428 -11.982 100 Si02 (a,L) -.243 -3.363 -3.119 395 Si02 (a,M) -.564 -3.363 -2.799 37 Talc -3.326 2.000 -1.158 -5.074 19.130 22.456 20.288 24.204 65 Thenardite -10.520 -10.686 -.166 61 Thermonatr -12.190 -12.001 .189 31 Tremolite -9.167 -150.651 -141.484 59 Trona -17.040 -17.424 -.384 155 Wairkite -2.358 -29.663 -27.304 JLGA 9 of 9 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON NELL 1315 1315 X5 800 638 030590 0 0 0 1200 TEMP R 16.000000 PH a 7.050000 EHM a .600000 DOC = .000000 DOX = .000000 CORALK 0 FLG = MG/L DENS B 1.000000 PRNT = 0 PUNCH = 1 EHOPT 0 EMPOX = 0 ITDS = 638.000000 COND R 800.000000 SIGMDO a .000000 SIGMEH a :000000 SIGMPH R .000000
; Species Index No Input Concentration
- Ca 0 117.00000000 Mg 1 47.10000000 I' Na 2 40.10000000
; K 3 .00000000 Cl 4 67.00000000 S04 5 100.00000000 HC03 6 496.00000000 j,-j Fe total 16 .03100000 v- H2S aq 13 .00000000 i" C03 17 .00000000
!: si02 tot 34 23.60000000 V! NH4 38 ,00000000
; 8 tot 86 .16000000 po 4 44 .00000000 j :V Al 50 ,12000000
' F 61 1.50000000 N03 84 42.00000000
- I.
JLGA 1 of 27 May 10, 1990
j 1CIMARRON WELL 1315 1315 X5 800 638 030590 0 0 0 1200 i rI1 ITER Sl~AnalC03 S2-AnalS04 S3-AnalF s4-Anat.P04 S5-AnalCL $6-Ana(.H2s s7-AnatFULV S8"Ana (.HUM 1 2.600098E-04 2.976585E-04 7.704396E-06 O.OOOOOOE+OO 1.020591E-16 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 2 7.899581E-06 1.165011E-05 -1.001669E-07 O.OOOOOOE+OO -1.05Q744E-18 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 3 -9.002885E-08 -3.375838E-07 7.343272E-10 O.OOOOOOE+OO 9.147956E-20 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO l ji:: r .
\
1 I; JLGA 2 of 27 May 10, 1990
i CIMARRON WELL 1315 1315 X5 Date = 3/27/90 15:18 800 638 030590 O 0 0 1200 DOX << .0000 DOC = .0 INPUT TDS = 638.0 Anal Cond = 800.0 Calc Cond ~ 1144.5 Anal EPMCAT = 11.4825 Anal EPMAN = 12.8691 Percent difference in input cation/anion balance = -11.3881 Calc EPMCAT = 10.7295 Calc EPMAN = 12.1273 Percent difference in calc cation/anion balance >> -12.2311 Total Ionic Strength (T.I.S.) from input data == .01809 Effective Ionic Strength (E.I.S.) from speciation == .01661 Sato Calc Input Sigma Fe3/Fe2 Sigma H202/02 Sigma N03/N02 Sigma N03/NH4 Sigma H202/02 Sigma S04/S= Sigma As5/As3 Sigma
.600 . 000 . 600 . 000 9.900 . 000 . 000 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 .000 9.900 .000 9,900 .000 10.457 .000 10.457 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 000 100.000 ,000 100.000 .000 Effective T pH TDS ppm Ionic Str p02 Atm pC02 Atm pCH4 Atm C02 Tot Uncom C02 ppm Uncom C02 Ncrb Aik aH20 16.00 7.050 934.6 .01661 6.20E-17 3.63E-02 6.11-118 .00971 7.88E-03 3.47E+02 9.06E-07 .9997 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 0 Ca 2 117.000 105.202 2.922E-03 2.628E-03 1.617E-03 .6153 2.791 28 CaOH 1 .000136 2.385E-Q9 2.102E-09 .8815 8.677 31 CaS04 aq 0 20.213 1.486E-04 1.492E-04 1.0038 3.826 81 CaHS04 1 .000010 7.299E-11 6.434E-11 .8815 10.192 29 CaHC03 1 13.935 1.380E-04 1.216E-04 .8815 3.915 30 CaC03 aq 0 .695 6.955E-06 6.982E-06 1.0038 5.156 100 CaF 1 .049 8.315E-07 7.329E-07 .8815 6.135 1 Mg 2 47.100 42.497 1.939E-03 1.750E-03 1.087E-03 .6213 2.964 18 MgOH 1 .000404 9.794E-09 8.633E-09 .8815 8.064 22 MgS04 aq 0 10.530 8.757E-05 8.791E-05 1.0038 4.056 21 MgHC03 1 8.099 9.502E-05 8.376E-05 .8815 4,077 20 MgC03 aq 0 .227 2.693E-06 2.703E-06 1.0038 5.568 19 MgF 1 .175 4.051E-06 3.571E-06 .8815 5.447 2 Na 1 40.100 39.864 1.746E-03 1.736E-03 1.533E-03 .8829 2.815 43 NaS04 -1 .478 4.021E-06 3.544E-06 .8815 5.450 42 NaHC03aq 0 .502 5.983E-06 6.005E-06 1.0038 5.221 41 NaC03 -1 ,005005 6.037E-08 5.321E-08 .8815 7.274 297 Nap aq 0 .000476 1.135E-08 1.139E-08 1.0038 7.944 JL6A 3 Of 27 May 10, 1990
63 H 1 .000100 9.929E-08 8.913E-08 .8976 7.050 26 OH -1 .001062 6.251E-08 S.510E-08 .8815 7.259 17 C03 -2 .291 4.860E-06 2.992E-06 .6155 5.524 6 HC03 -1 496.000 479.546 8.136E-03 7.8676-03 6.969E-03 .8858 2.157 85 H2C03 aq 0 98.662 1.592E-03 1.599E-03 1.0043 2.796 5 S04 -2 100.000 76.936 1.Q42E-03 8.017E-04 4.894E-04 .6105 3.310 62 HS04 -1 .000364 3.755E-09 3.310E-09 .8815 8.480 61 F -1 1.500 1.368 7,903E-05 7.209E-05 6.355E-05 .8815 4.197 125 HF aq 0 .000139 6.942E-09 6.969E-09 1.0038 8.157 126 HF2 -1 .000000 1.8046-12 1.590E-12 ,8815 11.799 296 H2F2 aq 0 .000000 1.8736-16 1.880E-16 1.0038 15.726 4 Cl -1 67.000 66.992 1.892E-03 1.892E-03 1,6626-03 ,8788 2.779 34 Si02 tot 0 23,600 3.931E-04 23 H4Si04aq 0 37,713 3.928E-04 3.943E-04 1.0038 3.404 24 H3$i04 -1 .035 3.659E-07 3.226E-07 .8815 6.491 25 H2Si04 -2 .000000 3.999E-12 2.414E-12 .6037 11.617 124 Si F6 -2 .000000 9.663E-27 5.834E-27 .6037 26.234 86 B tot 0 .160 1.481E-05 35 H3803 aq 0 .909 1.472E-05 1.478E-05 1.0038 4.830 36 H2B03 -1 .005499 9.050E-08 7.978E-08 .8815 7.098 JLGA 4 of 27 ' Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1315 1315 X5 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 101 BF(OH)3 -1 .000031 3.849E-10 3.393E-10 .8815 9.469 102 BF2(OH>2 -1 .000000 2.386E-13 2.103E-13 .8815 12.677 103 BF30H -1 .000000 1.772E-18 1.562E-18 .8815 17.806 104 BF4 -1 .000000 4.178E-23 3.683E-23 .8815 22.434 84 N03 -1 42.000 41.995 6.780E-Q4 6.780E-04 5.976E-04 .8815 3.224 50 Al 3 .120000 .000002 4.452E-06 6.782E-11 2.179E-11 .3213 10.662 51 ALOH 2 .000097 2.217E-09 1.339E-Q9 .6037 8.873 52 Al(0H>2 1 .015 2.470E-07 2.178E-07 .8815 6.662 181 Al(OH)3 0 .239 3.063E-06 3.075E-06 1.0038 5.512 53 Al(OH)4 -1 .037 3.866E-07 3.408E-07 .8815 6.467 54 AlF 2 .001078 2.347E-08 1.417E-08 .6037 7.849 55 AIF2 1 .013 1.963E-07 1.731E-07 .8815 6.762 56 AIF3 aq 0 .043 5.115E-07 5.135E-07 1.0038 6.289 57 AlF4 -1 .002176 2.116E-08 1.865E-08 .8815 7.729 58 AIS04 1 .000001 1.132E-11 9.975E-12 .8815 11.001 59 Al<S04)2 -1 .000000 4.241E-13 3.739E-13 .8815 12.427 203 AtHS04 2 .000000 3.446E-19 2.080E-19 .6037 18.682 16 Fe total 2 .031 5.556E-07 7 Fe 2 .000000 1.694E-12 1.023E-12 .6037 11.990 10 FeOH 1 .000000 2.057E-15 1.8136-15 .8815 14.742 79 Fe(0H)2 0 .000000 7.692E-20 7.721E-20 1.0038 19.112 11 Fe(0H)3 -1 .000000 3.332E-23 2.937E-23 .8815 22.532 33 FeS04 aq 0 .000000 7.482E-14 7.511E-14 1.0038 13.124 122 FeHS04 1 .000000 4.617E-20 4.Q69E-20 .8815 19,390 8 Fe 3 .000000 5.012E-15 1.610E-15 .3213 14.793 9 FeOH 2 .000008 1.1196-10 6.7S3E-11 .6037 10.170 76 Fe(OH)2 1 .044 4.914E-07 4.331E-07 .8815 6.363 77 Fe(OH)3 0 .006070 5.686E-08 5.7Q8E-08 1.0038 7.244 78 Fe(0H)4 -1 .000899 7.263E-09 6.402E-09 .8815 8.194 179 Fe2(0H)2 4 .000000 1.355E-18 1.800E-19 .1328 18.745 180 Fe3(0H)4 5 .000000 3.655E-22 1.560E-23 .0427 22.807 14 FeS04 1 .000000 6.056E-15 5.338E-15 .8815 14.273 108 Fe(S04)2 -1 .000000 9.036E-17 7.965E-17 .8815 16.099 123 FeHS04 2 .000000 2.666E-21 1.610E-21 .6037 20.793 15 FeCt 2 .000000 9.978E-17 6.024E-17 .6037 16.220 27 FeCl2 1 .000000 6.81QE-19 6.003E-19 .8815 18.222 32 FeC13 aq 0 .000000 9.940E-23 9.978E-23 1.0038 22.001 JLGA 5 of 27 May 10, 1990
105 FeF 2 .000000 2.331E-13 1.407E-13 .6037 12.852 106 FeF2 1 .000000 3.617E-13 3.189E-13 .8815 12.496 107 FeF3 aq 0 .000000 3.100E-14 3.1126-14 1.0038 13.507 CIMARRON WELL 1315 1315 X5 Mote ratios from analytical molality Log activity ratios Cl/Ca = 6.4739E-01 Log Ca /H2 a 11.3086 Cl/Mg 9.7549E-01 Log Mg /H2 = 11.1363 Ct/Na t= 1.0835E+00 Log Na /HI 4.2354 Cl/K ss O.OOOOE+OQ Log K /H1 = .0000 Cl/Al = 4.2492E+02 Log Al /H3 a 10.4883 Cl/Fe = O.OOOOE+OO Log Fe /H2 - 2.1097 CI/S04 = 1.8154E+00 Log Ca/Mg s .1723 CL/HC03 = 2.3248E-01 LOG NA/K = .0000 Ca/Mg = 1.5068E+0Q Log Ca/K2 a .0000 Na/K = O.OOOOE+OO Log Diss Fe/H2 = 14.1000 JLGA 6 of 27 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1315 1315 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 40 Albite -.901 -19.493 -18.593 140 ALQH3 (a) -.531 .158 -32.438 -31.907 -32.596 471 A10HS04 -3.692 -3.532 -3.852 -6.922 -3.230 -3.390 -3.070 472 Al4(OH)10SO4 1.841 24.541 22.700 157 AUophane<a) .340 6.484 6.144 158 AllophanelF) 1.168 6,484 5.316 42 Analcime -2.973 -16.090 -13.116 17 Anhydrite -1.551 -6.102 -4.551 41 Anorthite -2.555 -22.534 -19.978 21 Aragonite -.031 .020 -8.315 -8.284 150 Artinite -7.263 2.992 10.256 48 Beideltite 4.506 -42.143 -46.649 52 Boehmite 1.249 1.762 -32.438 ' -33.688 -34.201 19 Bruoite -6.258 -17.481 -11.223 12 Calcite .119 .020 .186 -8.315 -8,435 -8.501 97 Chalcedony .224 -3.404 -3.628 49 Chlorite 14A -5.392 6.000 -.117 -14.116 66.445 71.836 66.561 80.560 125 Chlorite 7a -8.850 6.000 66.445 75.294 20 Chrysotile -6.823 -59.252 -52.429 29 Clinoenstite -4.075 -3.709 -4.369 -20.885 -16.810 -17.176 -16.516 56 Clinoptilolt -24.894 99 Cristobalite .309 -3.404 -3.712 154 Oiaspore 3.034 -32.438 -35.472 28 Diopside -5.011 -41.598 -36.587 11 Dolomite .008 -16.803 -16.811 340 Epsomite -4.071 -6.275 -2.204 55 Erionite -21.196 112 Ferrihydrite 1.465 4.799 1.360 6.356 4.891 1.557 4.996 419 Fe3(0H)8 -5.400 -2.290 -9.283 14.822 20.222 17.112 24.105 181 Fe0H)2.7Cl.3 6.448 3.408 -3.040 401 Fe2(S04)3 -44.446 ' -40.216 -39.517 4.929 .699 62 Fluorite -.123 -11.185 -11.062 27 Forsterite -10.561 -38.366 -27.805 51 Gibbsite (c) 1.198 .200 1.481 .528 10.488 9.290 9.007 9.960 110 Goethite 5.526 .800 6.357 .830 111 Greenalite -21.290 -.480 20.810 18 Gypsum -1.496 -6.102 -4.606 JLGA 7 of 27 May 10, 1990
64 Halite -7..155 -5.594 1.561 47 Halloysite - 007 -33.842 -33.849 108 Hematite 16. 018 12.713 -3.304 117 Huntite -4. 399 -33.779 -29.380 38 Hydrmagnesit -15.,253 -51.433 -36.180 204 Jarosite Na -1..141 1.000 -11.515 -10.375 337 Jarosite H -4..909 -15.751 -10.842 46 Kaolinite 4.,200 5.079 3.099 -33.842 -38.042 -38.921 -36.941 128 Laumontite 2.,522 -29.342 -31.864 147 Leonhardite 13. 127 -58.684 -71.811 109 Maghemite 6. 327 12.713 6.386 10 Magnesite 600 **.350 -.850 -8.488 -7.888 -8.138 -7.638 107 Magnetite 9. 935 10.305 7.077 14.823 4.888 4.518 7.746 339 Melanterite -12. 766 -15.302 -2.535 63 Montmoril Ca 4. 232 -42.127 -46.359 115 Montmoril BF 4. 719 -30.194 -34.913 116 Montmoril AB 3..837 -25.851 -29.688 57 Mordenite -23.192 66 Mirabilite -7.,394 -8.941 -1.547 58 Nahcolite -4.,339 -4.971 -.633 JLGA 8 of 27 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1315 1315 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 60 Natron -9.485 -11.155 -1.670 149 Nesquehonite -2.999 -3.487 -4.074 -8.488 -5.489 -5.001 -4.414 141 Prehnite -2.697 -14.629 -11.932 53 PyrophylLite 7.664 10.960 5.830 -40.650 -48.314 -51.610 -46.480 101 Quartz .744 -3.404 -4.148 36 Sepiolite(c) -3.916 12.060 15.976 153 Sepiolite(a) -6.600 12.060 18.660 9 Siderite -7.086 -5.532 -17.514 -10.428 -11.982 100 Si02 (a,L) -.285 -3.404 -3.119 395 Si02 (a,M) -.605 -3,404 -2.799 37 Talc -2.664 2.000 -.496 -4.412 19.793 22.456 20.288 24.204 65 Thenardite -8.774 -8.940 -.166 61 Thermonatr -11.342 . -11.153 .189 31 TremoLite -7.771 -149.256 -141.484 59 Trona -15.741 -16.125 -.384 155 Wairkite -2.037 -29.342 -27.304 JLGA 9 of 27 Nay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1316 1316 X5 608 030590 0 0 0 1200 TEMP << 16.000000 PH = 7.010000 EHM = .600000 DOC = .000000 DOX = .000000 CORALK = 0 FLG = MG/L DENS = 1.000000 PRNT = 0 PUNCH - 1 EHOPT = 0 EMPOX = 0
, ITDS = 608.000000 COND = 800.000000 SIGMDO = .000000 SIGMEH = .000000 SIGMPH = .000000 Species Index No Input Concentration Ca 0 117.00000000 Mg 1 41.40000000 Na 2 40.60000000 K 3 .00000000 Cl 4 68.00000000 S04 5 39.00000000 HC03 6 618.00000000 Fe total 16 .01500000 H2S aq 13 .00000000 C03 17 .00000000 Si02 tot 34 30.00000000 NH4 38 .00000000 B tot 86 .13000000 P04 44 .00000000 Al 50 .07600000 F 61 1,40000000 N03 84 44.20000000 1 CIMARRON WELL 1316 1316 X5 JLGA 10 Of 27 May 10, 1990
800 608 030590 0 0 0 1200 ITER si-Analco3 S2-AnalS04 s3-AnalF 54-Ana IP04 55-Ana ICL S6-AnatH2S $7-AnalFULV S8-AnalHUM 1 3.163032E-04 1.15S478E-04 6.200895E-06 0.000000E+00 6.070219E-17 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 2 5.743779E-06 2.809523E-06 -6.738792E-08 O.OOOOOOE+OO -3.979996E-19 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 3 *A .089680E-07 -8.500965E-08 1.532777E-10 O.OOOQOOE+OQ 5.421011E-20 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO JLGA 11 of 27 Hay 10, 1990 i
1 CIMARRON WELL 1316 1316 X5 Date = 3/27/90 15:18 800 608 030590 0 0 0 1200 DOX = -0000 DOC = .0 INPUT TDS >> 608.0 Anal Cond = 800.0 Calc Cond = 1129.5 Anal EPMCAT = 11.0302 Anal EPMAN = 13.6585 Percent difference in input cation/anion balance = -21,2921 Calc EPMCAT = 10.5238 Calc EPMAN = 13.1591 Percent difference in calc cation/anion balance = -22.2545 Total Ionic Strength <T.I.S.) from input data >> .01739 Effective Ionic Strength (E.I.S.) from speciation = .01640 Sato Calc Input Sigma Fe3/Fe2 Sigma H202/02 Sigma N03/N02 Sigma N03/NH4 Sigma H202/02 Sigma S04/S= Sigma As5/As3 Sigma
.................... -..............................................................................................................Eh---------------------------
,600 . 000 . 600 . 000 9.900 . 000 . 000 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 . 000
- ~ PE........................ -
10.457 .000 10.457 .000 100.000 .000 TOO.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 Effective T pH TDS ppm Ionic Str p02 Atm pC02 Atm pCH4 Atm C02 Tot llncom C02 ppm Uncom C02 Ncrb Aik aH20 16.00 7.010 999.8 .01640 4.29E-17 4.97E-02 1.75-117 .01230 9.83E-03 4.32E+02 7.67E-07 .9996 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 0 Ca 2 117.000 107.197 2.922E-03 2.678E-03 1.652E-03 .6168 2.782 28 CaOH 1 .000127 2.22OE-09 1.958E-09 .8821 8.708 31 CaS04 aq 0 8.116 5.968E-05 5.991E-05 1.0038 4.223 81 CaHS04 1 .000004 3.211E-11 2.833E-11 .8821 10.548 29 CaHC03 1 17.758 1.759E-04 1.551E-04 .8821 3.809 30 CaC03 aq 0 .809 8.090E-06 8.120E-06 1.0038 5.090 100 CaF 1 .047 8.024E-07 7.077E-07 .8821 6.150 1 Mg 2 41.400 37.921 1.705E-03 1.562E-03 9.725E-04 .6228 3.012 18 MgOH 1 .000330 7.984E-09 7.043E-09 .8821 8.152 22 MgSo4 aq 0 3.702 3.079E-05 3.091E-05 1.0038 4.510 21 MgHC03 1 9.038 1.060E-04 9.353E-05 .8821 4.029 20 MgC03 aq 0 .231 2.743E-06 2.753E-06 1.0038 5.560 19 MgF 1 .148 3.423E-06 3.019E-06 .8821 5.520 2 Na 1 40.600 40.381 1.768E-03 1.759E-03 1.554E-03 .8834 2.809 43 NaS04 -1 .190 1.601E-06 1.412E-06 .8821 5.850 42 NaHC03aq 0 .635 7.571E-06 7.600E-06 1.0038 5.119 41 NaC03 -1 .005772 6.963E-08 6.142E-08 .8821 7.212 297 NaF aq 0 .000456 1.087E-08 1.091E-08 1.0038 7.962 JLGA 12 of 27 May 10, 1990
63 H 1 .000110 1.088E-07 9.772E-08 .8981 7.010 26 OH -1 .000968 5.697E-08 5,025E-08 .8821 7.299 17 C03 -2 .331 5.520E-06 3.406E-06 .6171 5.468 6 HC03 -1 618.000 598.215 1.014E-02 9.815E-03 8.699E-03 .8863 2.061 85 H2C03 aq 0 135.042 2.180E-03 2.189E-03 1.0042 2.660 5 S04 -2 39.000 30.159 4.064E-04 3.1436-04 1.9246-04 .6120 3.716 62 HS04 -1 .000157 1.617E-09 1.427E-09 .8821 8.846 61 F -1 1.400 1.292 7.376E-05 6.810E-05 6.0Q7E-05 .8821 4.221 125 HF aq 0 .000144 7.1966-09 7.2236-09 1.0038 8.141 126 HF2 -1 .000000 1.7666-12 1.558E-12 .8821 11.808 296 H2F2 aq 0 .000000 2.012E-16 2.020E-16 1.0038 15.695 4 Cl -1 68.000 67.990 1.920E-03 1.9206-03 1.688E-03 .8794 2.773 34 Si02 tot 0 30.000 4.998E-04 23 H4Si04aq 0 47.942 4.994E-04 5.013E-04 1.0038 3.300 24 H3Si04 -1 .040 4.240E-07 3.740E-07 .8821 6.427 25 H2Si04 -2 .000000 4.218E-12 2.5536-12 .6053 11.593 124 Si F6 -2 .000000 1.2636-26 7.647E-27 .6053 26.117 86 8 tot 0 .130 1.204E-05 35 H3B03 aq 0 .739 1.197E-05 1.201E-05 1.0038 4.920 36 H2B03 -1 .004074 6.7066-08 5.9156-08 .8821 7.228 JLGA 13 of 27 Hay 10, 1990
0661 'Ql -<bw iz 3° vl voir wzz 8£00'L £2-3951-'9 £2-3££L'9 000000' 0 be 2£ S£9'8L L288' 61.-3999£ 6L-3££L'9 000000' L 210>>3 IZ
£W9L £509 ZL-3209'£ ZL~3LS6'S 000000' 2 1033 SL 68£'L2 £509' 22-3580'9 22-389/'9 000000' 2 90SH3J £2L ovl -zl 1288' 81.-3992Z 8L-3SL2'8 000000' L- 2<90S)93 80 L 806 '9L LZ88' SL-3S£2'L SL-3009'L 000000' L 90S9J 9L Z59'£Z 9£90' 92-3902'2 £2-3080'5 000000' 5 9(HO)£33 08 L 582'6L £9£L" 02-3061'5 6L3998'£ 000000' 9 2(H0>23J 6ZL 985'8 1288' 60-3/09'2 60-3956'2 99£000 L- 9(H0)3J 8/
965 '/ 8£00'L 80-3695'2 8Q-36£5'2 LL/200' 0 £(H0)a3 11
£199 L288' ZQ-3L2L '2 ZO-3909'2 220' L 2<H0)aj 91 WOl £509' LI-3929'£ LL-3066'S 900000' 2 HOa3 6
£E0'51- 2£2£' 9L-3L896 £l3££6'Z 000000' £ a3 8 986'6L L288' 02-3££0'L 02-3L/L' L 000000' L VOSHa3 22 L 09/£L 8£00L 9L-38£Z'L 9L-3L£/'L 000000' 0 be V0S3 ££ 288'ZZ U28S £2-32L£'L £2-3/89'L 000000' L~ £(H0)3 LL 229'6L 8£00
- L 02-3L8Z'£ 02-3/9/'£ 000000' 0 2(HO)S3 6/
ZLO'SL L288' 9L-39£Z'6 SL390L'L 000000' L HOaJ OL 022'2L £509' £1-3020'9 £L-3S96'6 000000' 2 aj /
/0-3689'2 SLO' 2 9L 9£L'6L £509' 02-36££'Z 6L-32L2"L 000000' 2 90SH1V £02 S2£'£L 1-288 9L-382Z'9 9L-3L9£'S 000000' L- 2(90S)1V 65 969'LL L288' 2L-3602'£ 2L-38£9'£ 000000' L 90S IV 85 9L6'Z 1.288 80-36L2'L 80-3285'L L29L00' L- 931V ZS 059'9 8£00L Z0-30SS'£ /0~39£S'£ 0£0' 0 be £31V 95 868'9 1288' Z0-3992'L /0-3S£9'L £L£600' L 231V 55 096 L £509' 80-3960'L 80-3LL8'L 2£8000' 2 31V 95 SLZ'9 L288' Z0-30£6'L /0-388l'2 L20' L- 9<H0)1V £5 6LZ'S 8£00'L 90-3606'L 90-3206'L 89L' 0 £<H0)1V L8L 628'9 1-288' Z0-3£89'L ZQ-3L89L 0L0' L 2CHO)1V 25 000'6 £S09' 0L-3£66'6 6Q-3LS9'L £/0000' 2 H01V LS 69/ 0L 2£2£' LL-398Z'L LL-36LS'S 90-3028'2 , L00000' 0009/0' £ IV 05 1.02'£ 1.288' 90-3962'9 90-39£L'/ 90-39£L'/ £6L'99 002'99 L £ON 98 205'22 1.288* £23 LS L£ £2-32/5'£ 000000' L- 930 VOL 688 Ll 1288' 8L-3062'L 8L-3299'L 000000' L- HO£39 £0L 9Z/'2L 1.288' EL-3SZ9' L £L-3668'L 000000' L- 2(H0)238 20 L 9856 1.288' OL-3Z09'2 0L~39S6'2 920000' L- £(HO)39 LOL q.ov Boi- 1J.3O0 lov XlVftLlOV ie-)ow O')BO *)B1ow ieuv wdd 01B3 uidd ieuv saloads I SX 9l£U 9U£U 113(1 NOHMVWI3 1,
105 FeF 2 .000000 1.294E-13 7.832E-14 .6053 13.106 106 FeF2 1 .000000 1.902E-13 1.677E-13 .8821 12.775 107 FeF3 aq 0 .000000 1.541E-14 1.547E-14 1.0038 13.810 CIMARRON WELL 1316 1316 X5 Mole ratios from analytical molality - Log activity ratios Cl/Ca = 6.5705E-01 Log Ca /H2 = 11.2379 Cl/Mg a 1.1264E+00 Log Mg /H2 11.0079 Cl/Na = 1.O861E+00 Log Na /H1 = 4.2013 Cl/K a O.OOOOE+OO Log K /H1 = .0000 Cl/Al = 6.8094E+02 Log Al /H3 = 10.2813 Cl/Fe = O.OOOOE+OO Log Fe /H2 1.7996 CI/S04 = 4.7243E+00 Log Ca/Mg = .2300 CL/HC03 a 1.8937E-01 LOG NA/K a .0000 Ca/Mg 3 1.7143E+00 Log Ca/K2 = .0000 Na/K a O.OOOOE+OO Log Diss Fe/H2 3 14.0200 JLGA 15 of 27 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1316 1316 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 40 Albite -.829 -19.422 -18.593 140 AIOH3 (a) -.738 -.049 -32.645 -31.907 -32.596 471 A10HS04 -4.225 -4.065 -4.385 -7.455 -3.230 -3.390 -3.070 472 Al4(OH)10S04 .688 23.388 22.700 157 AUophane(a) .216 6.293 6.077 158 Allophane(F) 1.038 6.293 5.255 42 Analcime -3.006 -16.122 -13.116 17 Anhydrite -1.947 -6.498 -4.551 41 Anorthite -2.832 -22.810 -19.978 21 Aragonite .034 .020 -8.250 -8.284 150 Artinite -7.269 2.987 10.256 48 Beidellite 4.385 -42.264 -46.649 52 Boehmite 1.042 1.555 -32.645 -33.688 -34.201 19 Brucite -6.386 -17.610 -11.223 12 Calcite .185 .020 .251 -8.250 -8.435 -8.501 97 Chalcedony .329 -3.300 -3.628 49 Chlorite 14A -6.135 6.000 -.860 -14.859 65.701 71.836 66.561 80.560 125 Chlorite 7A -9.593 6.000 65.701 75.294 20 chrysotile -6.999 -59.429 -52.429 29 Clinoenstite -4.099 -3.733 -4.393 -20.909 -16.810 -17.176 -16.516 56 Clinoptilolt -24.617 99 Cristobalite .413 -3.300 -3.712 154 Diaspore 2.827 -32.645 -35.472 28 Diopside -5.001 -41.589 -36.587 11 Dolomite .081 -16.730 -16.811 340 Epsomite -4.525 -6.729 -2.204 55 Erionite -21.072 112 Ferrihydrite 1.115 4.449 1.010 6.006 4.891 1.557 4.996 419 Fe3(0H)8 -6.410 -3.300 -10.293 13.812 20.222 17.112 24.105 181 FeOH)2.7Cl.3 6.112 3.072 -3.040 401 Fe2(S04)3 -46.123 -41.893 -41.194 4.929 .699 62 Fluorite -.163 -11.225 -11.062 27 Forsterite -10.714 -38.519 -27.805 51 Gibbsite <c) .991 .200 1.274 .321 10.281 9.290 9.007 9.960 110 Goethite 5.176 .800 6,007 .830 111 Greenalite -22.011 -1.201 20.810 18 Gypsum -1.892 -6.498 -4,606 JLGA 16 of 27 May 10, 1990
64 Halite -7.142 -S.581 1.561 47 Halloysite -.198 -34.048 -33.849 108 Hematite 15.318 12.013 -3.304 117 Huntite -4.309 -33.689 -29.380 38 Hydrmagnesit -15.350 -51.530 -36.180 204 Jarosite Na -2.876 1.000 -13.251 -10.375 337 Jarosite H -6.611 -17.452 -10.842 46 Kaolinite 3.99S 4.874 2.894 -34.048 -38.042 *38.921 -36,941 128 Laumontite 2.454 -29.410 -31.864 147 Leonhardite 12.992 -58.819 -71.811 109 Maghemite 5.627 12.013 6.386 10 Magnesite -.592 -.342 -.842 -8.480 -7.888 *8.138 -7.638 107 Magnetite 8.924 9.294 6.066 13.813 4.888 4.518 7.746 339 Melanterite -13.402 -15.937 -2.535 63 Montmoril Ca 4.120 -42.238 -46.359 115 Montmoril BF 4.677 -30.236 -34.913 116 Montmoril AB 3.747 -25.941 -29.688 57 Mordenite -22.967 66 MirabiLite -7.788 -9.335 -1.547 58 Nahcolite -4.236 -4,869 -.633 JtGA 17 of 27 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1316 1316 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) SigmaOT) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 60 Natron -9.417 -11.087 -1.670 149 Nesquehonite -2.991 -3.479 -4.066 -8.480 -5.489 -5.001 -4.414 141 Prehnite -2.940 -14.872 -11.932 53 PyrophyLlite 7.667 10.963 5.833 -40.647 -48.314 -51.610 -46.480 101 Quartz .848 -3.300 -4.148 36 Sepiolite(c) -3.860 12.116 15.976 153 sepiolite(a) -6.544 12.116 18.660 9 Siderite -7.260 -5.706 -17.688 -10.428 -11.982 100 Si02 (a,L) -.180 -3.300 -3.119 395 Si02 (a,M) -.500 -3.300 -2.799 37 Talc -2.632 2.000 -.464 -4.380 19.825 22.456 20.288 24.204 65 Thenardite -9.167 -9.333 -.166 61 Thermonatr -11.274 -11.085 .189 31 Tremolite -7.721 -149.205 -141.484 59 Trona -15.570 -15.955 -.384 155 Wairkite -2.105 -29.409 -27.304 JLGA 18 of 27 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1317 1317 X5 1750 1550 030590 0 0 0 1200 TEMP = 16.000000 PH = 7.070000 EHM = .600000 DOC .000000 DOX << .000000 CORALK = 0 FLG a MG/L DENS = 1.000000 PRNT a 0 PUNCH = 1 EHOPT = 0 EMPOX a 0 ITDS a 1550.000000 COND = .1750.000000 SIGMDO a .000000 SIGHEH a .000000 SIGMPH a .000000 Species Index No Input Concentration Ca 0 223.00000000 Mg 1 108.00000000 Na 2 213.00000000 K 3 3.20000000 CL 4 130.00000000 S04 5 190.00000000 HC03 6 1290.00000000 Fe totaL 16 .02600000 H2s aq 13 .00000000 C03 17 .OOOODOOO Si02 tot 34 42.80000000 NH4 38 .00000000 B tot 86 .46000000 P04 44 .00000000 AL 50 .07300000 F 61 3.10000000 N03 84 5.00000000 1CIMARR0N WELL 1317 1317 X5 JLGA 19 of 27 May 10, 1990
1750 1550 030590 0 0 0 1200 ITER S1-AnaLC03 S2~AnalS04 S3-AnalF S4-AnalP04 s5-AnalCL S6-AnatH2S S7~AnalFULV S8-AnalHUM 1 1.132026E-03 7.641778E-04 2.350792E-05 O.OOOOOOE+OO 1.684384E-16 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 2 5.298169E-05 4.534441E-Q5 6.348727E-07 O.OOOOOOE+OO -2.363010E-18 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 0.000000E+00 3 1.183898E-07 -9.524211E~07 -6.259324E-09 O.OOOOOOE+OO -4.637505E-2Q O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO JLGA 20 of 27 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1317 1317 X5 Date = 3/27/90 15:18 1750 1550 030590 0 0 0 1200 OOX = .0000 DOC = .0 INPUT TDS = 1550.0 Anal Cond = 1750.0 Calc Cond = 2469.1 Anal EPMCAT = 29.4332 Anal EPMAN - 29.0722 Percent difference in input cation/anion balance = 1.2339 Calc EPMCAT = 27.1526 Calc EPMAN = 26.7953 Percent difference in calc cation/anion balance = 1.3244 Total Ionic Strength (T.I.S.) from input data = .04127 Effective Ionic Strength (E.I.S.) from speciation = .03680 Sato Calc Input Sigma Fe3/Fe2 Sigma H202/02 Sigma N03/N02 Sigma N03/NH4 Sigma H202/02 Sigma S04/$a sigma As5/As3 Sigma
.600 ,000 .600 .000 9.900 .000 .000 .000 9.900 .000 9.900 .000 9,900 .000 9.900 .000
- PE-------- --
10.457 .000 10.457 000 100.000 .000 100.000 000 100,000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 Effective T pH TDS ppm Ionic Str p02 Atm pC02 Atm pCH4 Atm C02 Tot Uncom C02 ppm Uncom C02 Ncrb Aik aH20 16.00 7.070 2208.7 .03680 7.44E-17 8.49E-02 9.85-118 .02482 2.01E-02 8.83E+02 1.24E-06 .9992 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 0 Ca 2 223.000 187.790 5.576E-03 4.697E-03 2.425E-03 .5163 2.615 28 CaOH 1 .000223 3.924E-09 3.300E-09 .8409 8.482 31 CaS04 aq 0 43.719 3.219E-04 3.2476-04 1.0085 3.489 81 CaHS04 1 .000022 1.5906-10 1.337E-10 .8409 9.874 29 CaHC03 1 53.305 5.286E-04 4.445E-04 .8409 3.352 30 CaC03 aq 0 2.645 2.649E-Q5 2.672E-05 1.0085 4.573 100 CaF 1 .145 2.464E-06 2.072E-06 .8409 5.684 1 Mg 2 108.000 91,059 4.452E-03 3.7556-03 1.9756-03 .5260 2.704 18 MgOH 1 .000805 1.9526-08 1.6416-08 .8409 7.785 22 MgS04 aq 0 27.586 2.297E-04 2.317E-04 1.0085 3.635 21 MgHC03 1 37.523 4.408E-04 3.707E-04 .8409 3.431 20 MgC03 aq 0 1.045 1.2426-05 1.253E-05 1.0085 4.902 19 MgF 1 .628 1.454E-05 1.223E-05 .8409 4.913 2 Na 1 213.000 210.537 9.285E-03 9.180E-Q3 7.738E-03 .8429 2.111 43 NaS04 -1 3.667 3.088E-05 2.596E-05 .8409 4.586 42 NaHC03aq 0 6.139 7.326E-05 7.388E-05 1.0085 4.131 41 NaC03 -1 .067 8.152E-07 6.855E-07 .8409 6.164 297 NaF aq 0 .004501 1.0756-07 1.084E-07 1.0085 6.965 JLGA 21 of 27 May 10, 1990
3 K 1 3.200 3.186 8.202E-05 8.167E-05 6.818E-05 .8348 4.166 45 KS04 -1 .046 3.441E-07 2.894E-07 .8409 6.539 63 H 1 .000099 9.807E-08 8.511E-08 .8679 7.070 26 OH -1 .001163 6.858E-08 5.767E-08 .8409 7.239 17 C03 -2 .886 1.480E-05 7.632E-06 .5156 5.117 6 HC03 -1 1290.000 1219.497 2.119E-02 2.004E-02 1.698E-02 .8474 1.770 85 H2C03 aq 0 228.048 3.686E-03 3.721E-03 1.0094 2.429 5 S04 -2 190.000 134.097 1.982E-03 1.399E-03 7.100E-04 .5074 3.149 62 HS04 -1 .000528 5.454E-09 4.586E-09 .8409 8.339 61 F -1 3.100 2.699 1.635E-04 1.424E-04 1.198E-04 .8409 3.922 125 HF aq 0 .000248 1.244E-08 1.254E-08 1.0085 7.902 126 HF2 -1 .000000 6.413E-1H 5.393E-12 .8409 11.268 296 H2F2 aq 0 .000000 6.039E-16 6.090E-16 1.0085 15.215 4 Cl -1 130.000 129.967 3.675E-03 3.675E-03 3.068E-Q3 .8348 2.513 34 Si 02 tot 0 42.800 7.139E-04 23 H4si04aq 0 68.378 7.132E-04 7.192E-04 1.0085 3.143 24 H3Si04 -1 .070 7.327E-07 6.161E-07 .8409 6.210 25 H2S104 -2 .000000 9.657E-12 4.829E-12 .5001 11.316 124 SiF6 -2 .000000 7.946E-25 3.973E-25 .5001 24.401 86 B tot 0 .460 4.264E-05 JIG A 22 of 27 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1317 1317 X5 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 35 H3B03 aq 0 2.612 4.235E-05 4.271E-05 1.0085 4.369 36 H2B03 -1 .017 2.871E-07 2.414E-07 .8409 6.617 101 BF(OH)3 -1 .000177 2.198E-09 1.848E-09 .8409 8.733 102 BF2<0H)2 -1 .000000 2.453E-12 2.063E-12 .8409 11.685 103 BF30H -1 .000000 3.281E-17 2.759E-17 .8409 16.559 104 BF4 -1 .000000 1.393E-21 1.171E-21 .8409 20.931 84 N03 -1 5.000 4.999 8.082E-05 8.082E-05 6.796E-05 .8409 4.168 50 Al 3 .073000 .000000 2.712E-06 3.215E-11 6.760E-12 .2103 11.170 51 ALOH 2 .000038 8.692E-10 4.346E-10 .5001 9.362 52 Al<0H)2 1 .005354 8.800E-08 7.400E-08 .8409 7.131 181 AU0H)3 0 .084 1.084E-06 1.094E-06 1.0085 5.961 53 Al(0H)4 -1 .014 1.509E-07 1.269E-07 .8409 6.897 54 AIF 2 .000760 1.657E-Q8 8.285E-09 .5001 8.082 55 AlF2 1 .015 2.268E-07 1.907E-07 .8409 6.720 56 AIF3 aq 0 .089 1.057E-06 1.066E-06 1.008S 5.972 57 AIF4 -1 .008915 8.679E-08 7.298E-08 .8409 7.137 58 AIS04 1 .000000 5.339E-12 4.489E-12 .8409 11.348 59 Al<S04)2 ~1 .000000 2.902E-13 2.441E-13 .8409 12.612 203 AIHS04 2 .000000 1.788E-19 8.941E-20 .5001 19.049 16 Fe total 2 .026 4.666E-07 7 Fe 2 .000000 1.495E-12 7.474E-13 .5001 12.126 10 FeOH 1 .000000 1.649E-15 1.387E-15 .8409 14.858 79 Fe(0H)2 0 .000000 6.1306-20 6.182E-20 1.0085 19.209 11 Fe(0H)3 -1 .000000 2.9276-23 2.461E-23 .8409 22.609 33 FeS04 aq 0 .000000 7.897E-14 7.964E-14 1.0085 13.099 122 FCHS04 1 .000000 4.900E-20 4.121E-20 .8409 19.385 8 Fe 3 .000000 5.597E-15 1.177E-15 .2103 14.929 9 FeOH 2 .000008 1.033E-10 5.166E-11 .5001 10.287 76 Fe(0H)2 1 .037 4.124E-07 3.468E-07 .8409 6.460 77 Fe(0H)3 0 .005056 4.743E-QS 4.783E-08 1.0085 7,320 78 Fe(0H)4 -1 .000825 6.677E-09 5.615E-09 .8409 8.251 179 Fe2(OH)2 4 .000000 1.683E-18 1.052E-19 .0625 18.978 180 Fe3(0H)4 5 .000000 5.552E-22 7.301E-24 .0131 23.137 14 FeS04 1 .000000 6.731E-15 5.660E-15 .8409 14.247 108 Fe(S04)2 -1 .000000 1.457E-16 1.225E-16 .8409 15.912 123 FeHS04 2 .000000 3.260E-21 1.630E-21 .5001 20.788 15 FeCl 2 .000000 1.625E-16 8.126E-17 .5001 16.090 JLGA 23 Of 27 May 10, 1990
27 FeC 12 1 .000000 1,.777E-18 1.494E-18 .8409 17.826 32 FeCl3 aq 0 .000000 4,.546E-22 4.585E-22 1.0085 21.339 105 FeF 2 .000000 3..877E-13 1.939E-13 .5001 12.712 106 FeF2 1 .000000 9,844E-13 8.278E-13 .8409 12.082 107 FeF3 aq 0 .000000 1,*510E-13 1.522E-13 1.0085 12.817 CIMARRON WELL 1317 1317 X5 Mole ratios from analytical molality Log activity ratios Cl/Ca = 6.5904E-01 Log Ca /H2 >> 11.5247 Cl/Mg a 8.2544E-01 Log Mg /H2 11.4356 Cl/Na = 3.9577E-01 Log Na /H1 a 4.9587 Ct/K = 4.4806E+01 Log K /H1 = 2.9037 Cl/Al a 1.3S53E+03 Log Al /H3 s= 10.0400 Cl/Fe = O.OOOOE+OO Log Fe /H2 a 2.0135 CI/S04 = 1.8539E+00 Log Ca/Mg s .0891 CU/HC03 = 1.7344E-01 LOG NA/K c 2.0550 Ca/Mg a 1.2525E+00 Log Ca/K2 a 5.7173 Na/K << 1.1321E+02 Log Diss !Fe/H2 ss 14.1400 JLGA 24 of 27 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1317 1317 XS Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 39 Adularia .787 -20.489 -21.276 40 Albite .158 -18.434 -18.593 140 A10H3 (a) -.980 -.291 -32.887 -31.907 -32.596 471 A10HS04 -4.019 -3.859 -4.179 -7.249 -3.230 -3.390 -3.070 472 Al4(0H)1QS04 .168 22.868 22.700 157 Allophane(a) .098 6.276 6.178 158 Allophane(F) .929 6.276 5.346 338 Alum k -16.303 -21.638 -5.335 50 Alunite -1.394 -87.408 -86.014 42 Analeime -2.176 -15.292 -13.116 17 Anhydrite -1.213 -5.764 -4.551 113 Annite 30.202 -56.868 -87.070 41 Anorthite -2.714 -22.692 -19.978 21 Aragonite .551 .020 -7.733 -8.284 150 Artinite -6.466 3.790 10.256 48 Beidellite 4.486 -42.163 -46.649 52 Boehmite .801 1.314 -32.887 -33.688 -34.201 19 Brucite -5.959 -17.183 -11.223 12 Calcite .702 .020 .768 -7.733 -8.435 -8.501 97 Chalcedony .486 -3.142 -3.628 49 Chlorite 14A -4.010 6.000 1.265 -12.734 67.826 71.836 66.561 80.560 125 Chlorite 7A -7.468 6.000 67.826 7S.294 20 Chrysotile -5.403 -57.832 -52.429 29 Clinoenstite -3.514 -3.148 -3.808 -20.325 -16.810 -17.176 -16.516 56 Clinoptilolt -23.663 99 Cristobalite .570 -3.142 -3.712 154 Diaspore 2.586 -32.887 -35.472 28 Diopside -3.973 -40.560 -36.587 11 Dolomite 1.256 -15.554 -16.811 340 Epsomite -3.651 -5.856 -2.204 55 Erionite -20.007 112 Ferrihydrite 1.389 4.723 1.284 6.280 4.891 1.557 4.996 419 Fe3(0H)8 -5.650 -2.540 -9.533 14.572 20.222 17.112 24.105 181 FeOH)2.7Cl.3 6.445 3.405 -3.040 401 Fe2(S04)3 -44.233 -40.003 -39.305 4.929 .699 62 Fluorite .603 -10.459 -11.062 27 Forsterite -9.702 -37.507 -27.805 JLGA 25 Of 27 Kay 10, 1990
51 Gibbsite (c) .749 .200 1.032 .079 10.039 9.290 9.007 9.960 110 Goethite 5.450 .800 6.280 .830 111 Greenalite -21.056 -.246 20.810 18 Gypsum -1.159 -5.765 -4.606 64 Halite -6.186 -4.624 1,561 47 Halloysite -.368 -34.217 -33.849 108 Hematite 15.865 12.560 -3.304 117 Huntite -1.818 -31.198 -29.380 38 Hydrmagnesit -12.291 -48.471 -36.180 45 Illite 2.995 -38.519 -41.515 204 Jarosite Na -.404 1.000 -10.779 -10.375 205 Jarosite K 1.253 1.100 -1.047 -12.834 -14.086 -11.786 337 Jarosite H -4.896 -15.738 -10.842 46 Kaolinite 3.825 4.704 2.724 -34.217 -38.042 -38.921 -36.941 43 Kmica 9.537 1.300 10.935 7.858 23.594 14.058 12.660 15.737 128 Laumontite 2.885 -28,978 -31.864 147 Leonhardite 13.855 -57.956 -71.811 98 Magadiite -4.795 -19.095 -14.300 109 Maghemite 6.174 12.560 6.386 10 Magnesite .066 .316 -.184 -7.822 -7.888 -8.138 -7.638 JLGA 26 of 27 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1317 1317 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log HaxKT 107 Magnetite 9.685 10.055 6.827 14.574 4.888 4.518 7.746 339 Melanterite -12.742 -15.278 -2.535 63 Montraoril Ca 4.182 -42.177 -46.359 115 Montmoril BF 5.700 -29.213 -34.913 116 Montmoril AB 4.878 -24.810 -29.688 57 Mordenite -22.092 66 MirabHite -5.828 -7.375 -1.547 58 Nahcolite -3.249 -3.881 -.633 60 Natron -7.673 -9.344 -1.670 149 Nesquehonite -2.334 -2.822 -3.409 -7.823 -5.489 -5.001 -4.414 54 Phillipsite .412 -19.462 -19.874 44 phLogopite -30.449 3.000 13.816 44.265 141 Prehnite -2.378 -14.310 -11.932 53 PyrophyUite 7.813 11.109 5.979 -40.501 -48.314 -51.610 -46.480 101 Quartz 1.006 -3.142 -4.148 36 Sepiolite(c) -2.535 13.442 15.976 153 Sepiolite(a) -5.218 13.442 18.660 9 Siderite -6.815 -5.261 -17.244 -10.428 -11.982 100 Si02 (a,L) -.023 -3.142 -3.119 395 Si02 (a,M) -.343 -3.142 -2.799 37 Talc -.721 2.000 1.447 -2.469 21.736 22.456 20.288 24.204 65 Thenardite -7.205 -7.371 -.166 61 Thermonatr -9.529 -9.340 .189 31 Tremolite -3.753 -145.237 -141.484 59 Trona -12.838 -13.222 -.384 155 Wairkite -1.673 -28.978 -27.304 JLGA 27 of 27 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1325 1325 X5 900 331 030590 0 0 1200 TEMP a 16.000000 PH a 7.090000 EHM = .600000 DOC << .000000 DOX = .000000 CORALK = 0 FLG = MG/L DENS = 1.000000 PRNT = 0 PUNCH a 1 EHOPT B 0 EMPOX >> 0 ITDS a 331.000000 COND = 900.000000 SIGMDO a .000000 SIGMEH = .000000 SIGMPH a .000000 Species Index N Input Concentration Ca 0 64.80000000 Mg 1 22.80000000 Na 2 22.10000000 K 3 .00000000 CL 4 7.90000000 S04 5 10.00000000 HC03 6 336.00000000 Fe total 16 .00000000 H2S aq 13 .00000000 C03 17 .oooooooo Si02 tot 34 30.00000000 NH4 38 .oooooooo B tot 86 .12000000 P04 44 .oooooooo Al SO .07400000 F 61 1.00000000 N03 84 62.00000000 JLGA 1 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1325 1325 X5 900 331 030590 0 0 0 1200 ITER S1-AnalC03 S2-AnalS04 S3-Ana IF S4-AnatP04 S5-AnalCL S6-AnaLH2S S7-AnalFUl_V S8-AnalHUM 1 1.130032E-04 2.151833E-05 2.545421E-06 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 2 8.504473E-07 2.334069E-07 -1.692635E-08 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 3 *-1.518221E-08 -5.351426E-09 -8.045736E-11 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO JLGA 2 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1325 1325 X5 Date = 3/27/90 15:31 900 331 030590 0 0 0 1200 DOX = .0000 ROC = .0 INPUT TDS a 331.0 Anal Cond = 900.0 Calc Cond - 610.4 Anal EPMCAT = 6.0821 Anal EPMAN = 6.9942 Percent difference in input cation/anion balance -13.9494 Calc EPMCAT = 5.9258 Calc EPMAN = 6.8453 Percent difference in calc cation/anion balance = -14.4005 Total Ionic Strength (T.I.S.) from input data >> .00921 Effective Ionic Strength (E.I.S.) from speciation = .00891 Sato Calc Input Sigma Fe3/Pe2 Sigma H2O2/02 Sigma N03/N02 Sigma N03/NH4 Sigma H202/02 Sigma S04/S= Sigma As5/As3 Sigma
---------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------- --- ----------------------------------------------Eh------------------------------------------------- --- -------------------------------------------------------------
.600 . 000 9.900 , 000 9.900 . 000 . 000 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 . 000 10.457 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 Effective T pH TDS ppm Ionic Str p02 Atm pC02 Atm pCH4 Atm C02 Tot Uncom C02 ppm Uncom C02 Ncrb Aik aH20 16.00 7.090 556.8 .00891 8.96E-17 2.33E-02 1,88-118 .00653 5.40E-03 2.38E+02 9.20E-07 .9998 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 0 Ca 2 64.800 61.691 1.618E-03 1.540E-03 1.059E-03 .6876 2.975 28 CaOH 1 .000095 1.663E-09 1.510E-09 .9079 8.821 31 CaS04 aq 0 1.599 1.175E-05 1.178E-Q5 1.0021 4.929 81 CaHS04 1 .000000 5.101 E-12 4.632E-12 .9079 11.334 29 CaHC03 1 6.247 6.183E-05 5.614E-05 .9079 4.251 30 CaC03 aq 0 .353 3.526E-06 3.533E-06 1.0021 5.452 100 CaF 1 .022 3.796E-07 3.4476-07 .9079 6.463 1 Mg 2 22.800 21.688 9.383E-04 8.926E-04 6.173E-04 .6915 3.210 18 MgOH 1 .000244 5.920E-09 5.3756-09 .9079 8.270 22 MgS04 aq 0 .722 6.002E-06 6.015E-06 1.0021 5.221 21 MgHC03 1 3.147 3.691E-05 3.351E-05 .9079 4.475 20 MgC03 aq 0 ,100 1.183E-06 1.186E-06 1.0021 5.926 19 MgF 1 .069 1.603E-06 1.456E-06 .9079 5.837 2 Ma 1 22.100 22.036 9.618E-04 9.591E-Q4 8.717E-04 .9089 3.060 43 NaS04 -1 .032 2.676E-07 2.429E-07 .9079 6.614 42 NaHC03aq 0 .202 2.402E-06 2.407E-06 1.0021 5,619 41 NaC03 -1 .002136 2.576E-08 2.339E-08 .9079 7.631 297 NaF aq 0 .000195 4.642E-09 4.651 E-09 1.0021 8.332 JLGA 3 Of 34 May 10, 1990
63 H 1 .000089 8.853E-08 8.128E^08 .9182 7.090 26 OH -1 .001131 6.655E-08 6.042E-08 .9079 7,219 17 C03 -2 .201 3.360E-06 2.311E-06 .6880 5.636 6 HC03 -1 336.000 328.762 5.510E-03 5.391E-03 4.910E-03 .9107 2.309 85 H2C03 aq 0 63.554 1.025E-03 1.028E-03 1.0023 2.988 5 S04 -2 10.000 8.269 1.Q42E-04 S.613E-05 5.898E-05 .6847 4.229 62 HS04 -1 .000039 4.0Q7E-1Q 3.638E-10 .9079 9.439 61 F -1 1.000 .954 5.267E-Q5 5.025E-05 4.562E-05 .9079 4.341 125 HF aq 0 .000091 4.554E-09 4.563E-09 1.0021 8.341 126 HF2 -1 .000000 8.232E-13 7.474E-13 .9079 12.126 296 H2F2 aq 0 .000000 8.044E-17 8.061£-17 1.0021 16.094 4 Cl -1 7.900 7.899 2.230E-04 2.230E-04 2.021E-04 .9065 3.694 34 Si02 tot 0 30.000 4.996E-04 23 H4Si04aq 0 47.939 4.991E-04 5.001E-04 1,0021 3.301 24 H3Si04 -1 .047 4.941E-07 4.486E-07 .9079 6.348 25 H2Si04 -2 .000000 5.418E-12 3.682E-12 .6796 11.434 124 SiF6 -2 .000000 1.031E-27 7.006E-28 .6796 27.155 86 8 tot 0 .120 1.111E05 35 H3B03 aq 0 .682 1.103E-05 1.106E-05 1.0021 4.956 36 H2B03 -1 .004381 7.208E-08 6.544E-08 .9079 7.184 JLGA 4 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
I 1 CIMARRON NELL 1325 1325 X5 I Species Anal ppm Cate ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 101 BF(0H)3 -1 .000016 2.007E-10 1.822E-10 .9079 9.739 102 BF2(OH)2 -1 .000000 8.146E-14 7.396E-14 .9079 13.131 103 BF30H -1 .000000 3.961E-19 3.597E-19 .9079 18.444 104 BF4 -1 .000000 6.113E-24 5.550E-24 .9079 23.256 84 N03 -1 62.000 61.995 1.000E-03 1.000E-03 9.084E-04 .9079 3.042 50 AL 3 .074000 .000000 2.744E-06 2.749E-11 1.152E-11 .4193 10.938 51 AlOH 2 .000050 1.142E-09 7.763E-10 .6796 9.110 52 Al(OH>2 1 .009299 1.525E-07 1.385£-07 .9079 6.859 181 Al(OH)3 0 .167 2.14QE-06 2.145E-06 1.0021 5.669 53 Al(OH)4 -1 .027 2.871£-07 2.607£-07 .9079 6.584 54 AlF 2 .000364 7.917E-09 5.380E-09 .6796 8.269 55 AlF2 1 .003374 5.196E-08 4.718E-08 .9079 7.326 56 ALF3 aq 0 .008417 1.003E-07 1.005E-07 1.0021 6.998 57 AIF4 -1 .000297 2.886E-09 2.620E-09 .9079 8.582 58 AIS04 1 .000000 7.001E-13 6.357E-13 .9079 12.197 59 Al(S04)2 -1 .000000 3.163E-15 2.872E-15 .9079 14.542 203 AIHS04 2 .000000 1.779E-20 1.209E-20 .6796 19.918 CIMARRON WELL 1325 1325 X5 Mole ratios from analytical molality Log activity ratios Cl/Ca a 1.3782E-01 Log Ca /H2 a 11.2049 Cl/Mg = 2.3761E-01 Log Mg /H2 = 10.9705 Cl/Na = 2.3180E-Q1 Log Na /HI = 4.0304 Cl/K a O.OOOOE+OO Log K /H1 = .0000 Ct/Al a 8.1247E+01 Log AL /H3 = 10.3316 Cl/Fe a O.OOOOE+OO Log Fe /H2 a .0000 CI/S04 = 2.1405E+00 Log ca/Mg = .2344 CL/HC03 = 4.0466E-02 LOG NA/K a .0000 Ca/Mg = 1.7240E+00 Log Ca/K2 = .0000 Na/K = O.OOOOE+OO Log Diss Fe/H2 a 14.1800 JLGA 5 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON HELL 1325 1325 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 40 Albite -.953 -19.546 -18.593 140 AIOH3 (a) -.687 .002 -32.595 -31.907 -32.596 471 A10HS04 -4.848 -4.688 -5.008 -8.078 -3.230 -3.390 -3.070 472 Al4(OH)10SO4 .216 22.916 22.700 157 Allophane(a) .264 6.476 6.211 158 Allophane(F) 1.099 6.476 5.377 42 Analcime -3.129 -16.245 -13.116 17 Anhydrite -2.653 -7.204 -4.551 41 Anorthite -2.766 -22.744 -19.978 21 Aragonite -.327 .020 -8.611 -8.284 150 Artinite -7.663 2.593 10.256 48 Beidellite 4.490 -42.159 -46.649 52 Boehmite 1.093 1.606 -32.595 -33.688 -34.201 19 Brucite -6.424 -17.647 -11.223 12 Calcite -.177 .020 -.110 -8.611 -8.435 -8.501 97 Chalcedony .328 -3.301 -3.628 49 Chlorite 14A -6.224 6.000 -.949 -14.948 65.612 71.836 66.561 80.560 125 Chlorite 7A -9.682 6.000 65.612 75.294 20 Chrysotile -7.113 -59.543 -52.429 29 Clinoenstite -4.138 -3.772 -4.432 -20.948 -16.810 -17.176 -16.516 56 Clinoptilolt -24.618 99 Cristobalite .412 -3.301 -3.712 154 Diaspore 2.878 -32.595 -35.472 28 Oiopside -5.074 -41,661 -36.587 11 Dolomite -.646 -17.457 -16.811 340 Epsomite -5.235 -7.439 -2.204 55 Erionite -21.196 62 Fluorite -.595 -11.657 -11.062 27 Forsterite -10.790 -38.595 -27.805 51 Gibbsite (c) 1.041 .200 1.324 .371 10.331 9.290 9.007 9.960 18 Gypsum -2.599 -7.205 -4.606 64 Halite -8.315 -6.754 1.561 47 Halloysite -.100 -33.949 -33.849 117 Huntite -5.768 -35.148 -29.380 38 Hydrmagnesit -16.850 -53.030 -36.180 46 Kaolinite 4.093 4,972 2.992 -33.949 -38.042 -38.921 -36.941 128 Laumontite 2.518 -29.346 -31.864 JLGA 6 of 34 May 10, 1990
147 Leonhardite 13.119 -58.692 -71.811 10 Magnesite -.957 -.707 -1.207 -8.846 -7.888 -8.138 -7.638 63 Montmoril Ca 4.228 -42.131 -46.359 57 Mordenite -22.967 66 Mirabilite -8.802 -10.349 -1.547 58 Nahcolite -4.736 -5.369 -.633 60 Natron -10.086 -11.756 -1.670 149 Nesquehonite -3.357 -3.845 -4.432 -8.846 -5.489 -5.001 -4.414 141 Prehnite -2.908 -14.840 -11.932 53 Pyrophyllite 7.763 11.059 5.929 -40.551 -48.314 -51.610 -46.480 101 Quartz .847 -3.301 -4.148 36 Sepiolite(c) -3.938 12.038 15.976 153 Sepiolite(a) -6.622 12.038 18.660 100 Sio2 <a,L) -.181 -3.301 -3.119 395 Si02 (a,M) -.502 -3.301 -2,799 37 Talc -2.748 2.000 -.580 -4.496 19.708 22.456 20.288 24.204 65 Thenardite -10.183 -10.349 -.166 61 Theraonatr -11.944 -11.755 .189 31 Tremolite -7.982 *149.467 -141.484 59 Trona -16.740 -17.124 -.384 JLGA 7 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1325 132S X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/HinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 155 Wairkite -2.041 -29.346 -27.304 1 CIMARRON WELL 1326 1326 X5 550 376 030590 0 0 0 1200 Temp = 16.000000 PH - 6.970000 EHM = .600000 DOC = .000000 DOX .000000 CORALK = 0 FLG = MG/L DENS = 1.000000 PRNT s Q PUNCH 1 EHOPT = 0 EHPOX 0 ITDS 376.000000 COND = 550.000000 SIGMDO = .000000 SIGMEH b .000000 SIGMPH << .000000 Species Index No Input Concentration Ca 0 73.00000000 Mg 1 26.80000000 Na 2 23.40000000 K 3 1.20000000 Cl 4 12.00000000 S04 5 23.00000000 HC03 6 364.00000000 Fe total 16 .06200000 H2S aq 13 .00000000 C03 17 .00000000 Si02 tot 34 41.00000000 NH4 38 .00000000 0 tot 86 .14000000 P04 44 .00000000 JLGA 8 of 34 May 10, 1990
Al 50 : .06900000 F : 61 : .61000000 N03 : 84 : 71.00000000 1 CIMARRON WELL 1326 1326 X5 550 376 030590 0 0 0 1200 ITER S1-AnalC03 S2-AnalS04 S3-AnalF S4-AnalP04 SS-AnalCL S6-Ana LH2S S7"AnaLFULV S8-AnalHUM 1 1.32176QE-04 5.331827E-05 1.697558E-06 0.OOOOOOE+OO 5.056278E-17 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 2 1.459824E-06 8.235522E-07 -3.569407E-09 O.OOOOOOE+OO -2.157816E-19 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 3 --3.006452E-08 -2.388330E-08 -2.996999E-10 0.OOOOOOE+OO 9.582Q60E-21 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO JLGA 9 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1326 1326 X5 Date << 3/27/90 15:31 550 376 030590 D 0 0 1200 DOX = .0000 DOC = .0 INPUT TOS = 376.0 AnaL Cond = 550.0 Calc Cond = 699.5 Anal EPMCAT = 6.9103 Anal EPMAN = 7.9652 Percent difference in input cation/anion balance = -14.1822 Calc EPMCAT = 6.6826 Calc EPHAN = 7.7458 Percent difference in calc cation/anion balance = -14.7372 Total Ionic Strength (T.I.S.) from input data .01061 Effective Ionic Strength (E.I.S.) from speciation = .01017 Sato Calc Input Sigma Fe3/fe2 Sigma H202/02 Sigma N03/N02 Sigma N03/NH4 Sigma H202/02 Sigma S04/S=> Sigma As5/As3 Sigma
- - ~ -------- -- . - - ---------------- ------------------------------- ------------ . - - Eh----------------- ---------------- ------------ .
600 .000 .600 .000 9.900 .000 .000 .000 9,900 .000 9.900 .000 9.900 .000 _ _ . . .. _ _ ^ _ _ - ---------------------PE...................... . _ ^ ~ - 10.457 ' .000 10.457 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 Effective T pH TDS ppm Ionic Str p02 Atm pC02 Atm pCH4 Atm C02 Tot Uncom C02 ppm Uncom C02 Ncrb aH20 16.00 6.970 636.3 .01017 2.97E-17 3.30E-02 2.43-117 .00742 5.84E-03 2.57E+02 8.41! .9998 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act coeff Log Act 0 Ca 2 73.000 68.793 1.823E-03 1.718E-03 1.156E-03 .6728 2.937 28 CaOH 1 .000079 1.385E-09 1.250E-09 .9027 8.903 31 CaS04 aq 0 3.868 2.843E-05 2.850E-05 1.0023 4.545 81 CaHS04 1 .000002 1.637E-11 1.477E-11 .9027 10.830 29 CaHC03 1 7.377 7.303E-05 6.592E-05 .9027 4.181 30 CaC03 aq 0 .314 3.140E-06 3.147E-06 1.0023 5.502 100 Cap 1 .015 2.516E-07 2.271E-07 .9027 6.644 1 Mg 2 26.800 25.267 1.103E-03 1.040E-03 7.042E-04 .6771 3.152 18 MgOH 1 .000213 5.153E-09 4.652E-09 .9027 8.332 22 MgS04 aq 0 1.826 1.518E-05 1,522E-05 1.0023 4.818 21 MgHC03 1 3.886 4.557E-05 4.114E-05 .9027 4.386 20 MgC03 aq 0 .093 1.102E-06 1.104E-06 1.0023 5.957 19 MgF 1 .048 1.111E-06 1.003E-06 .9027 5.999 2 Na 1 23.400 23.320 1.018E-03 1.0156-03 9.174E-04 .9037 3.037 43 NaS04 -1 .075 6.280E-07 5.670E-07 .9027 6.246 42 NaHC03aq 0 .228 2.719E-06 2.726E-06 1.0023 5.565 41 NaC03 -1 .001846 2.225E-08 2.009E-08 .9027 7.697 297 NaF aq 0 ,000124 2.949E-09 2.956E-09 1.0023 8.529 JLGA 10 of 34 May 10, 1990
3 K 1 1.200 1.199 3.O71E-05 3.068E-05 2.765E-05 .9011 4.558 45 KS04 -1 .003234 2.394E-08 2,161E-08 .9027 7.665 63 H 1 .000118 1.172E-07 1.072E-07 .9140 6.970 26 OH -1 .000863 5.077E-08 4.583E-08 .9027 7.339 17 C03 -2 .168 2.803E-06 1.887E-06 .6732 5.724 6 HC03 -1 364.000 355.648 5.969E-03 5.833E-03 5.284E-03 .9058 2.277 85 H2C03 aq 0 90.111 1.454E-03 1.458E-03 1.0026 2.836 5 S04 -2 23.000 18.748 2.396E-04 1.953E-04 1.308E-04 .6696 3.883 62 HS04 -1 .000114 1.178E-09 1.063E-09 .9027 8.973 61 F -1 .610 .579 3.213E-05 3.O52E-05 2.755E-05 .9027 4.560 125 HF aq 0 .000072 3.624E-09 3.632E-09 1.0023 8.440 126 HF2 -1 .000000 3.979E-13 3.592E-13 .9027 12.445 296 H2F2 aq 0 .000000 5.09SE-17 5.107E-17 1.0023 16.292 4 Ct -1 12.000 11.999 3.387E-04 3.387E-04 3.052E-04 .9011 3.515 34 Si02 tot 0 41.000 6.828E-04 23 H4Si04aq 0 65.529 6.823E-04 6.839E-04 1.0023 3.165 24 H3S104 -1 .049 5.155E-07 4.653E-07 .9027 6.332 25 H2Si04 -2 .000000 4.363E-12 2.897E-12 ,6641 11.538 124 SiF6 -2 .000000 2.112E-28 1.402E-28 .6641 27.853 86 B tot 0 .140 1.296E-05 JLGA 11 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1326 1326 X5 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 35 H3B03 aq 0 .797 1.289E-05 1.292E-05 1.0023 4.889 36 H2B03 -1 .003907 6.428E-08 5.803E-08 .9027 7.236 101 BF(0H)3 -1 .000012 1.425E-10 1.286E-10 .9027 9.891 102 BF2(OH)2 -1 .000000 4.603E-14 4.155E-14 .9027 13.381 103 BF30H 1 .000000 1.782E-19 1.608E-19 .9027 18.794 104 BF4 -1 .000000 2.189E-24 1.976E-24 .9027 23.704 84 N03 -1 71.000 70.992 1.146E-03 1.146E-03 1.034E-03 .9027 2,985 50 Al 3 .069000 .000002 2.559E-06 6.358E-11 2.531E-11 .3981 10.597 51 AlOH 2 .000086 1.948E-09 1.293E-09 .6641 8.888 52 Al(0H>2 1 .012 1.939E-07 1.750E-07 .9027 6.757 181 AUOH>3 0 .160 2.Q51E-Q6 2.0568-06 1.0023 5.687 53 Al(0H)4 ~1 .020 2.100E-07 1.896E-07 .9027 6.722 54 AtF 2 .000494 1.074E-08 7.135E-09 .6641 8.147 55 AlF2 1 .002717 4.185E-08 3.777E-08 .9027 7.423 56 AIF3 aq 0 .004068 4.847E-08 4.859E-08 1.0023 7.313 57 AlF4 -1 .000087 8.474E-10 7.650E-10 .9027 9.116 58 A1304 1 .000000 3.430E-12 3.096E-12 .9027 11.509 59 Al(S04)2 -1 .000000 3.436E-14 3.101E-14 .9027 13.508 203 AIHS04 2 .000000 1.169E-19 7.763E-20 .6641 19.110 16 Fe total 2 .062 1.111E06 7 Fe 2 .000000 4.645E-12 3.084E-12 .6641 11.511 10 FeOH 1 .000000 5.039E-15 4.549E-15 .9027 14.342 79 Fe(0H)2 0 .000000 1.608E-19 1.612E-19 1.0023 18.793 11 Fe(0H)3 -1 .000000 5.650E-23 5.100E-23 .9027 22.292 33 FeS04 aq 0 .000000 6.039E-14 6.054E-14 1.0023 13.218 122 FeHS04 1 .000000 4.368E-20 3.943E-20 .9027 19.404 8 Fe 3 .000000 1.220E-14 4.857E-15 .3981 14.314 9 FeOH 2 .000019 2.S52E-10 1.695E-10 .6641 9.771 76 Fe(OH)2 1 .090 1.002E-06 9.041E-07 .9027 6.044 77 Fe(OH)3 0 .011 9.888E-08 9.911E-08 1.0023 7.004 78 Fe(OH)4 -1 .001268 1.024E-08 9.247E-09 .9027 8.034 179 Fe2(0H)2 4 .000000 5.829E-18 1.134E-18 .1945 17.945 180 Fe3(0H)4 5 .000000 2.651E-21 2.053E-22 .0774 21.688 14 FeS04 1 .000000 4.766E-15 4.3Q3E-15 .9027 14.366 108 Fe(S04)2 -1 .000000 1.901E-17 1.716E-17 .9027 16.766 123 FeHS04 2 .000000 2.349E-21 1.S60E-21 .6641 20,807 15 FeCl 2 .000000 5.024E-17 3.336E-17 .6641 16.477 JLGA 12 of 34 May 10, 1990
27 FeC 12 1 .000000 6.7616-20 6.103E-20 .9027 19.214 32 FeCL3 aq 0 .000000 1,8586-24 1.863E-24 1.0023 23.730 105 FeF 2 .000000 2.771 E-13 1.840E-13 .6641 12.735 106 FeF2 1 .000000 2.002E-13 1.807E-13 .9027 12.743 107 FeF3 aq 0 .000000 7.629E-15 7.646E-15 1.0023 14.117 CIMARRON HELL 1326 1326 X5 Mole ratios from analytical molality Log activity ratios Cl/Ca = 1.85846-01 Log Ca /H2 = 11.0028 Cl/Mg = 3.0705E-01 Log Mg /H2 = 10.7877 Cl/Na = 3.3254E-01 Log Na /H1 = 3.9326 Cl/K = 1.10296+01 Log K /H1 = 2.4117 Cl/Al = 1.3236E+02 Log Al /H3 = 10,3133 Cl/Fe = Q.OOOOE+OO Log Fe /H2 2.4292 CI/S04 a 1.4137E+00 Log Ca/Mg = .2151 CL/HC03 = 5.6739E-OH LOG NA/K 1.5209 Ca/Mg = 1.6523E+00 Log Ca/K2 = 6.1794 Na/K a 3.3166E+01 Log Diss Fe/H2 = 13.9400 JLGA 13 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1326 1326 X5 Phase Log AP/KT sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 39 Adularia .501 -20.775 -21.276 40 Albite -.661 -19.254 -18.593 140 AIOH3 (a) -.706 -.017 -32.613 -31.907 -32.596 471 A10HS04 -4.280 -4.120 -4.440 -7.510 -3.230 -3.390 -3.070 472 Al4(0H)10SO4 .729 23.429 22.700 157 AUophane(a) .273 6.283 6.010 158 AUophane(F) 1.088 6.283 5.194 338 Alum k -17.588 -22.923 -5.335 50 Alunite -2.134 -88.148 -86.014 42 Analei me -2.973 -16.089 -13.116 17 Anhydrite -2.270 -6.821 -4.551 113 Annite 31.763 -55.307 -87.070 41 Anorthite -2.733 -22.711 -19.978 21 Aragonite -.377 .020 -8.661 -8.284 150 Artinite -7.915 2.341 10.256 48 Beidellite 4.917 -41.732 -46.649 52 Boehmite 1.075 1.588 -32.613 -33.688 -34.201 19 Brucite -6.606 -17.830 -11.223 12 Caloite -.227 .020 -.160 -8.661 -8.435 -8.501 97 Chalcedony .463 -3.165 -3.628 49 Chlorite 14A -6.767 6.000 -1.492 -15.491 65.070 71.836 66.561 80.560 125 Chlorite 7A -10.225 6.000 65.070 75.294 20 Chrysotile -7.390 -59.819 -52.429 29 Clinoenstite -4.184 -3.818 -4.478 -20,995 -16.810 -17.176 -16.516 56 Clinoptilolt -24.059 99 Cristobalite .548 -3.165 -3.712 154 Oiaspore 2.859 -32.613 -35.472 28 Diopside -5.187 -41.774 -36.587 11 Dolomite -.727 -17.538 -16.811 340 Epsomite -4.832 -7.036 -2.204 55 Erionite -20.837 112 Ferrihydrite 1.705 5.039 1.600 6.596 4.891 1.557 4.996 419 Fe3(0H)8 -4.601 -1.491 -8.484 15.621 20.222 17.112 24.105 181 FeOH)2.7Cl.3 6.491 3.451 -3,040 401 Fe2<S04)3 -45.206 -40.976 -40.278 4.929 .699 62 Fluorite -.995 -12.057 -11.062 27 Forsterite -11.019 -38.824 -27.805 JLGA 14 of 34 May 10, 1990
51 Gibbsite (c) 1.023 .200 1,306 .353 10.313 9.290 9.007 9.960 110 Goethite 5.766 .800 6.596 .830 111 Greenalite -19.853 .957 20.810 18 Gypsum -2.215 -6:821 -4.606 64 Halite -8.114 -6.5S3 1.561 47 Halloysite .135 -33.714 -33.849 108 Hematite 16.497 13.193 -3.304 117 Huntite -5,911 -35.291 -29.380 38 Hydrmagnesit -17.157 -53.337 -36.180 45 ILlite 3.090 -38.425 -41.515 204 Jarosite Na -1.551 1.000 -11.926 -10.375 205 Jarosite K .640 1.100 -1.660 -13.447 -14.086 -11.786 337 Jarosite H -5.017 -15.858 -10.842 46 Kaolinite 4.328 5.207 3.227 -33.714 -38.042 -38.921 -36.941 43 Kmica 9.799 1.300 11.197 8.120 23.857 14.058 12.660 15.737 128 Laumontite 2.823 -29.041 -31.864 147 Leonhardite 13.729 -58.082 -71.811 98 Magadiite -5.443 -19.743 -14.300 109 Maghemite 6.807 13.193 6.386 10 Magnesite -.988 -.738 -1.238 -8.877 -7.888 -8.138 -7.638 JIG A 15 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1326 1326 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) SigmaCT) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 107 Magnetite 10.733 11.103 7.875 15.622 4.888 4.518 7.746 339 Melanterite -12.860 -15.395 -2.535 63 Montmoril Ca 4.651 -41.708 -46.359 115 Montmoril BF 5.138 -29.775 -34.913 116 Montmoril AB 4.219 -25.469 -29.688 57 Mordenite -22.476 66 MirabiLite -8.412 -9.959 -1.547 58 Nahcolite -4.682 -5.315 -.633 60 Natron -10.130 -11.800 -1.670 149 Nesquehonite -3.388 -3.876 -4.463 -8.877 -5.489 -5.001 -4.414 54 Phillipsite -.140 -20.014 -19.874 44 Phlogopite -32.677 3.000 11.588 44.265 141 Prehnite -2.941 -14.873 -11.932 53 Pyrophyllite 8.271 11.567 6.437 -40.043 -48.314 -51.610 -46.480 101 Quartz .983 -3,165 -4.148 36 Sepiolitelc) -3.896 12.080 15.976 153 Sepiolite(a) -6.580 12.080 18.660 9 Siderite -6.807 -5.253 -17.235 -10.428 -11.982 100 Si02 (a,L) -.046 -3.165 -3.119 395 Si02 <a,M) -.366 -3.165 -2.799 37 talc -2.753 2.000 -.585 -4.501 19.704 22.456 20.288 24.204 65 Thenardite -9.792 -9.958 -.166 61 Thermonatr -11.988 -11.799 .189 31 Tremolite -8.213 -149.697 -141.484 59 Trona -16.730 -17.114 -.384 155 Wairkite -1.736 -29.041 -27.304 JLGA 16 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1331 1331 X5 7S0 634 030590 0 0 1200 TEMP a 16.000000 PH = 6.950000 EHM = .600000 DOC = .000000 DOX = .000000 CORALK = 0 FLG = MG/U DENS = 1,000000 PRNT = o PUNCH = 1 EHOPT = 0 EMPOX = 0 ITDS = 634.000000 COND = 750.000000 SIGMDO = .000000 SIGMEH - .000000 SIGMPH = .000000 Species Index No Input Concentration Ca : 0 124.00000000 Mg : 1 42.30000000 Na : 2 54.50000000 K : 3 .00000000 cl : 4 17.00000000 S04 : 5 70.00000000 HC03 : 6 663.00000000 Fe total ; 16 .02800000 H2S aq : 13 .00000000 C03 : 17 .,00000000 Si02 tot : 34 20.00000000 NH4 : 38 .00000000 B tot : 86 .11000000 P04 : 44 .00000000 Al : 50 .06500000 F : 61 1.20000000 N03 : 84 57.50000000 1 CIMARRON WELL 1331 1331 X5 JLGA 17 of 34 May 10, 1990
750 634 030590 0 0 0 1200 ITER S1-AnalC03 S2-AnatS04 53-AnalF S4-AnaLP04 s5-AnalCI_ s6-AnalH2S S7-AnalFUCV S8-AnalHUM 1 3.42416QE-04 2.082696E-04 5.2636506-06 0.0000006+00 3.7778286-17 O.OOOOOOE+OO 0.0000006+00 o.ooooooe+oo 2 8.469586E-06 6.8355066-06 -2.4668726-08 0.0000006+00 -3.243342E-19 O.OOOOOQE+QO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 3 --1.1781896-07 -1.9488796-07 -1.125302E-09 O.OOOOOOE+OO 1.7522996-20 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO JLGA 18 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1331 1331 X5 Date = 3/27/90 15:31 750 634 030590 0 0 0 1200 DOX = .0000 DOC a .0 INPUT TDS = 634.0 Anal Cond = 750.0 Calc Cond = 1155.2 Anal EPMCAT = 12.0590 Anal EPMAN = 13.8077 Percent difference in input cation/anion balance ~ -13.5210 Calc EPMCAT = 11.3783 CaLc EPMAN a 13.1331 Percent difference in calc cation/anion balance = -14.3183 Total Ionic Strength (T.I.S.) from input data = .01851 Effective Ionic Strength (E.I.S.) from speciation = .01717 Sato Calc Input Sigma Fe3/Fe2 Sigma H202/02 Sigma N03/N02 Sigma N03/NH4 Sigma H202/02 Sigma S04/S= Sigma As5/As3 Sigma
--- --------- --------- - ~ ----------------- Eh----------------- ----------------- ------------- .600 .000 .600 .000 9.900 .000 .000 .000 9.900 .000 9.900 .000 9.900 .000 9.900 .000 10.457 .000 10.457 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 Effective T pH TDS ppm Ionic Str p02 Atm pC02 Atm pCH4 Atm C02 Tot Uncom C02 ppm Uncom C02 Ncrb Aik aH20 16.00 6.950 1049.7 .01717 2.47E-17 6.10E-02 6.48-117 .01354 1.0SE-02 4.64E+02 5.10E-07 .9996 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 0 Ca 2 124.000 111.494 3.097E-03 2.785E-03 1.702E-03 .6112 2.769 28 CaOH 1 .000114 1.998E-09 1.758E-09 .8799 8.755 31 CaS04 aq 0 14.821 1.090E-04 1.094E-04 1.0040 3.961 81 CaHS04 1 .000009 6.751E-11 5.941E-11 .8799 10.226 29 CaHC03 1 19.632 1.944E-04 1.71IE-04 .8799 3.767 30 CaC03 aq 0 .777 7.770E-06 7.801E-06 1.0040 5.108 oo CaF 1 .042 7.091E-07 6.239E-07 .8799 6.205 1 Mg 2 42.300 38.090 1.742E-03 1,569E-03 9.684E-04 .6173 3.014 18 MgOH 1 .000286 6.942E-09 6.108E-09 .8799 8.214 22 MgS04 aq 0 6.532 5.433E-05 S.454E-05 1.0040 4.263 21 MgHC03 1 9.653 1.133E-04 9.966E-05 .8799 4.001 20 MgC03 aq 0 .214 2.545E-06 2.555E-06 1.0040 5.593 19 MgF 1 .126 2.922E-06 2.S71E-06 .8799 5.590 2 Na 1 54.500 54.152 2.373E-03 2.358E-03 2.079E-03 .8813 2.682 43 NaS04 -1 .452 3.805E-06 3.348E-06 .8799 5.475 42 NaHC03aq 0 .909 1.084E-05 1.088E-05 1.0040 4.963 41 NaC03 -1 .007215 8.703E-08 7.658E-08 .8799 7.116 297 NaF aq 0 .000522 1.244E-08 1.249E-08 1.0040 7.903 JLGA 19 of 34 May 10, 1990
63 H 1 .000126 1.252E-07 1.122E-07 .8965 6.950 26 OH -1 .000845 4.974E-08 4.377E-08 .8799 7.359 17 C03 -2 .311 5.192E-06 3.174E-06 .6114 5.498 6 HC03 -1 663.000 641.539 1.088E-02 1.053E-02 9.309E-03 .8843 2.031 85 H2C03 aq 0 165.865 2.677E-03 2.689E-03 1.0044 2.570 5 S04 -2 70.000 53.952 7.295E-04 5.623E-04 3.409E-04 .6062 3.467 62 HS04 -1 .000320 3.299E-09 2.903E-09 .8799 8.537 61 F -1 1.200 1.108 6.323E-05 5.839E-05 5.138E-05 .8799 4.289 125 HF aq 0 .000141 7.065E-09 7.093E-09 1.0040 8.149 126 HF2 -1 .000000 1.487E-12 1.308E-12 .8799 11.883 296 H2F2 aq 0 .000000 1.94QE-16 1.948E-16 1.0040 15.710 4 Cl -1 17.000 16.997 4.800E-04 4.800E-04 4.210E-04 .8771 3.376 34 Si02 tot 0 20.000 3.332E-04 23 H4si04aq 0 31.964 3.330E-Q4 3.343E-Q4 1.0040 3.476 24 H3Sio4 -1 .023 2.469E-07 2.172E-07 .8799 6.663 25 H2$i04 -2 .000000 2.155612 1.292E-12 .5994 11.889 124 SiF6 -2 .000000 5.787E-27 3.469E-27 .5994 26.460 86 B tot 0 .110 1.019E-05 35 H3B03 aq 0 .626 1.014E-05 1.018E-05 1.0040 4.992 36 H2B03 -1 .003012 4.959E-08 4.363E-08 ' .8799 7.360 JLGA 20 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1331 1331 X5 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 101 BF(OH>3 -1 .000017 2.146E-10 1.8896-10 .8799 9.724 102 BF2(0H)2 -1 .000000. 1.354E-13 1.1926-13 .8799 12.924 103 BF30H -1 .000000 1.024E-18 9.010E-19 .8799 18.045 104 BF4 -1 .000000 2.457E-23 2.162E-23 .8799 22.665 84 N03 -1 57.500 57.490 9.283E-04 9.283E-04 8.168E-Q4 .8799 3.088 50 At 3 .065000 .000002 2.412E-06 7.3Q9E-11 2.311E-11 .3162 10.636 51 AtOH 2 .000083 1.8S1E-09 1.128E-09 .5994 8.948 52 AL(0H)2 1 .010 1.656E-07 1.457E-07 .8799 6.837 181 AL(OH)3 0 .127 1.6286-06 1.6346-06 1.0040 5.787 53 AK0H)4 -1 .016 1.635E-07 1.439E-07 .8799 6.842 54 AlF 2 .000931 2.027E-08 1.215E-08 .5994 7.915 55 AIF2 1 .008848 1.363E-07 1.2006-07 .8799 6.921 56 AtF3 aq 0 .024 2.866E-Q7 2.8786-07 1.0040 6.541 57 AIF4 -1 .000988 9.602E-09 8.449E-09 .8799 8.073 58 ALS04 1 .000001 8.374E-12 7.369E-12 .8799 11.133 59 AL(S04)2 -1. .000000 2.186E-13 1.924E-13 .8799 12.716 203 AIHS04 2 '.000000 3.227E-19 1.935E-19 .5994 18.713 16 Fe total 2 .028 5.019E-07 7 Fe 2 .000000 2.503E-12 1.500E-12 .5994 11.824 10 FeOH 1 .000000 2.401E-15 2-113E-15 .8799 14.675 79 Fe(0H)2 0 .000000 7.120E-20 7.148E-20 1.0040 19.146 11 Fe(0H)3 -1 .000000 2.455E-23 2.1606-23 .8799 22.666 33 FeS04 aq 0 .000000 7.646E-14 7.677E-14 1.0040 13.115 122 FeHS04 1 .000000 5.951E-20 5.236E-20 .8799 19.281 8 Fe 3 .000000 7.474E-15 2.363E-15 .3162 14.627 9 FeOH 2 .000010 1.313E-10 7.871E-11 .5994 10.104 76 Fe(OH)2 1 .041 4.557E-07 4.010E-07 .8799 6.397 77 Fe(0H>3 0 .004462 4.181E-08 4.197E-08 1.0040 7.377 78 Fe(OH)4 -1 .000526 4.250E-09 3.739E-09 .8799 8.427 179 Fe2(OH)2 4 .000000 1.894E-18 2.4456-19 .1291 18.612 180 Fe3(0H)4 5 .000000 4.808E-22 1.963E-23 .0408 22.707 14 FeS04 1 .000000 6.201E-15 5.456E-15 .8799 14.263 108 Fe(S04)2 -1 .000000 6.445E-17 5.671E-17 .8799 16.246 123 FeHS04 2 .000000 3.456E-21 2.071E-21 .5994 20.684 15 FeCl 2 .000000 3.735E-17 2.2396-17 .5994 16.650 27 FeCl2 1 .000000 6.422E-20 5.6516-20 .8799 19.248 32 FeC13 aq 0 .000000 2.370E-24 2.3796-24 1.0040 23.624 JLGA 21 of 34 May 10, 1990
105 FeF 2 .000000 2.785E-13 1.670E-13 .5994 12.777 106 FeF2 1 .000000 3.475E-13 3.058E-13 .8799 12.515 107 FeF3 aq 0 .000000 2.403E-14 2.413E-14 1.0040 13.617 CIMARRON WELL 1331 1331 XS Mole ratios from analytical molality Log activity ratios Cl/Ca = 1.5499E-01 Log Ca /H2 = 11.1310 Cl/Mg = 2.7560E-01 Log Mg /H2 = 10.8861 Cl/Na - 2.0227E-01 Log Na /H1 = 4.2678 Cl/K = O.OOOOE+OO Log K /H1 = .0000 Cl/Al a 1.9904E+02 Log Al /H3 10.2138 Cl/Fe >> O.OOOOE+OO Log Fe /H2 = 2.0762 CI/S04 a 6.5803E-01 Log Ca/Mg .2450 CL/HC03 a 4.4130E-02 LOS NA/K .0000 ca/Mg = 1.7782E+00 Log Ca/K2 = .0000 Na/K a O.OOOOE+OO Log Diss Fe/H2 a 13.9000 JLGA 22 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON HELL 1331 1331 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 40 Albite -1.358 -19.951 -18,593 140 A10H3 <a) -.805 -.116 -32.713 -31.907 -32.596 471 A10HS04 -3.924 -3.764 -4.084 -7.154 -3.230 -3.390 -3.070 472 AI4(OH)10S04 .786 23.486 22.700 157 Allophane(a) .107 6.083 5.976 158 Allophane(F) .919 6.083 5.164 42 Analcime -3.359 -16.475 -13.116 17 Anhydrite -1.685 -6.236 -4.551 41 Anorthite -3.425 -23.403 -19.978 21 Aragonite .017 .020 -8.267 -8.284 150 Artinite -7.393 2.863 10.256 48 Beideltite 3.564 -43.084 -46.649 52 Boehmite .975 1.488 -32.713 -33.688 -34.201 19 Bruoite -6.508 -17.732 -11.223 12 Caloite .167 .020 .234 -8.267 -8.435 -8.501 97 Chalcedony .153 -3.476 -3.628 49 Chlorite 14A -7.407 6.000 -2.132 -16.131 64.429 71.836 66.561 80.560 125 Chlorite 7A -10.865 6.000 64.429 75.294 20 Chrysotile -7.717 -60.146 -52.429 29 Clinoenstite -4.397 -4.031 -4.691 -21.207 -16.810 -17.176 -16.516 56 Clinoptilolt -25.561 99 Cristobalite .237 -3.476 -3.712 154 Diaspore 2.760 -32.713 -35.472 28 Diopside -5.582 -42.169 -36.587 11 Dolomite .031 -16.780 -16.811 340 Epsomite -4.278 -6.482 -2.204 55 Erionite -21.689 112 Ferrihydrite 1.332 4.666 1.227 6.223 4.891 1.557 4.996 419 Fe3(OH)8 -5.700 -2.590 -9.583 14.522 20.222 17,112 24.105 181 FeOH)2.7Cl.3 6.165 3.125 -3.040 401 Fe2(S04)3 -44.584 -40.354 -39.655 4.929 .699 62 Fluorite -.286 -11.347 -11.062 27 Forsterite -11.133 -38.939 -27.805 51 Gibbsite (c) .923 .200 1.206 .253 10.213 9.290 9.007 9.960 110 Goethite 5.393 .800 6.223 .830 111 Greenalite -21.533 -.723 20.810 18 Gypsum -1.631 -6.237 -4.606 JLGA 23 of 34 May 10, 1990
64 Ha Lite -7.619 -6.058 1.561 47 Halloysite -.685 -34.535 -33.849 108 Hematite 15.751 12.446 -3.304 117 Huntite -4.424 -33.804 -29.380 38 Hydrmagnesit -15.602 -51.782 -36.180 204 Jarosite Na -1.423 1.000 -11.798 -10.375 337 Jarosite H -5.224 -16.066 -10.842 46 Kaolinite 3.508 4.387 2.407 -34.535 -38.042 -38.921 -36.941 128 Lauroontite 1.508 -30.355 -31.864 147 Leonhardite 11.100 -60.710 -71.811 109 Maghemite 6.060 12.446 6.386 10 Magnesite -.624 -.374 -.874 -8.512 -7.888 -8.138 -7.638 107 Magnetite 9.634 10.004 6.776 14.522 4.888 4.518 7.746 339 Melanterite -12.757 -15.292 -2.535 63 Montmoril Ca 3.300 -43,059 -46.359 115 MontmoriL BF 3.980 -30.933 -34.913 116 MontmoriL AS 3.080 -26.608 -29.688 57 Mordenite -23.823 66 Mirabilite -7.286 -8.834 -1.547 58 Nahcolite -4.080 -4.713 -.633 JLGA 24 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1331 1331 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/HinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 60 Natron -9,194 -10.865 -1.670 149 Nesquehonite -3.024 -3.512 -4.099 -8.513 -5.489 -5.001 -4.414 141 Prehnite -3.816 -15.748 -11.932 53 Pyrophyllite 6.828 10.124 4.994 -41.486 -48.314 -51.610 -46.480 101 Quartz .672 -3.476 -4.148 36 Sepiolite(c) -4.632 11.345 15.976 153 Sepiolite(a) -7.315 11.345 18.660 9 Siderite -6.894 -5.340 -17.322 -10.428 -11.982 100 Si02 (a,L> -.356 -3.476 -3,119 395 Si02 (a,M) -.676 -3,476 -2,799 37 Talc -3.701 2.000 -1.533 -5.449 18.755 22.456 20.288 24.204 65 Thenardite -8.666 -8.832 -.166 61 Thermonatr -11.052 . -10.863 .189 31 TremoLite -9.951 -151.435 -141.484 59 Trona -15.192 -15.577 -.384 155 Uairkite -3.051 , -30.355 -27.304 JLGA 25 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1335 1335 X5 550 377 030590 0 0 0 1200 TEMP = 16.000000 PH a 7.000000 EHM = .600000 DOC a .000000 BOX - .000000 CORALK B 0 FL6 a MG/L DENS a 1.000000 PRNT = 0 PUNCH = 1 EHOPT = 0 EMPOX = 0 ITDS = 377.000000 COND = 5 50 ,'000000 SIGMDO a .000000 SIGMEH a .000000 SIGMPH = .000000 Species Index No Input Concentration Ca : 0 74.60000000 Mg : 1 29.20000000 Na : 2 19.60000000 K : 3 .00000000 CL : 4 6.90000000 S04 : 5 12.00000000 HC03 : 6 363.00000000 Fe total ; 16 .01300000 H2S aq : 13 .00000000 C03 : 17 .00000000 Si02 tot : 34 23.50000000 NH4 : 38 .00000000 B tot : 86 .11000000 P04 : 44 .00000000 AL : 50 .06200000 F : 61 1.10000000 N03 : 84 93.00000000 1 CIMARRON HELL 1335 1335 X5 4LGA 26 of 34 May 10, 1990
550 377 030590 0 0 0 1200 ITER S1-AnalC03 S2-AnalS04 S3-AnalF S4-AnalP04 S5~AnalCL S6-AnalH2S S7-AnalFUI_V S8-AnalHUM 1 1.38811SE-04 2.916738E-05 3.658992E-06 O.OOOOOOE+OO 5.265474E-18 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 2 1.209915E-06 3.594084E-07 -4.346303E-08 O.OOOOOOE+OO -1.053497E-20 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO 3 *-2.481303E-08 -9.609331E-09 2.654692E-10 O.OOOOOOE+OO -9.886463E-21 O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO O.OOOOOOE+OO JLGA 27 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1335 1335 X5 Date = 3/27/90 15:31 550 377 030590 0 0 0 1200 D0X = .0000 DOC = .0 INPUT TDS = 377.0 Anal Cond = 550.0 Calc Cond = 698.9 Anal EPHCAT = 6.9890 Anal EPMAN = 7.9564 Percent difference in input cation/anion balance = *12.9452 Calc EPMCAT = 6.7958 Calc EPMAN b 7.7692 Percent difference in caLc cation/anion balance = *13.3667 total Ionic strength (T.I.S.) from input data - .01067 Effective Ionic Strength (E.I.S.) from speciation >> .01030 Sato Calc Input Sigma Fe3/Fe2 Sigma H202/02 Sigma N03/N02 Sigma N03/NH4 Sigma H202/02 Sigma S04/S= Sigma As5/As3 Sigma
.600 . 000 . 600 . 000 9.900 . 000 . 000 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 . 000 9.900 . 000
- ----- PE " -
10.457 .000 10.457 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 100.000 .000 Effective T pH TDS ppm Ionic str p02 Atm pC02 Atm pCH4 Atm C02 Tot Uncom C02 ppm Uncom C02 Ncrb Aik aH20 16.00 7.000 623.1 .01030 3.91E-17 3.07E-02 1.30-117 .00730 5.82E-03 2.S6E+02 6.09E-07 .9998 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Calc Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 0 Ca 2 74.600 70.838 1.862E-03 1.769E-03 1.188E-03 ,6714 2.925 28 CaOH 1 .000087 1.525E-09 1.376E-09 .9022 8.861 31 Ca$04 aq 0 2.052 1.508E-05 1.512E-05 1.0024 4.820 81 CaHS04 1 .000001 8.109E-12 7.316E-12 .9022 11.136 29 CaHC03 1 7.551 7.475E-05 6.744E-05 .9022 4.171 30 CaC03 aq 0 .344 3.442E-06 3.450E-06 1.0024 5.462 100 CaF 1 .027 4.620E-07 4.168E-07 .9022 6.380 1 Mg 2 29.200 27.698 1.2O2E-03 1.140E-03 7.704E-04 .6758 3.113 18 MgOH 1 .000250 6.044E-09 5.453E-09 .9022 8.263 22 MgS04 aq 0 1.031 8.575E-06 8.596E-06 1.0024 5.066 21 MgHC03 1 4.234 4.966E-0S 4.480E-05 .9022 4.349 20 MgC03 aq 0 oCO 1.286E-06 1.289E-06 1.0024 5.890 19 MgF 1 .094 2.171E-06 1.959E-06 .9022 5.708 2 Na 1 19.600 19.539 8.531E-04 8.505E-04 7.682E-04 .9033 3.115 43 NaS04 -1 .032 2.717E-07 2.451E-07 .9022 6.611 42 NaHC03aq 0 .190 2.267E-06 2.272E-06 1.0024 5.644 41 NaC03 -1 .001650 1.989E-08 1.795E-08 .9022 7.746 297 NaF aq 0 .000185 4.410E-09 4.420E-09 1.0024 8,355 JUGA 28 of 34 May 10, 1990
63 H 1 .000110 1.Q95E-07 1.000E-07 .9137 7.000 26 OH -1 .000925 5.444E-08 4.911E-08 .9022 7.309 17 003 -2 .180 2.996E-06 2.013E-06 .6718 5.696 6 HC03 -1 363.000 354.259 5.953E-03 5.810E-03 5.260E-03 .9053 2.279 85 H2C03 aq 0 83.722 1.351E-03 1.354E-03 1.0026 2.868 5 S04 -2 12.000 9.701 1.250E-04 1.O11E-04 6.753E-05 .6681 4.171 62 HS04 -1 .000055 5.680E-1Q 5.124E-10 .9022 9.290 61 F -1 1.100 1.035 S.794E-05 5.453E-05 4.920E-05 .9022 4.308 125 HF aq 0 .000121 6.039E-09 6.054E-09 1.0024 8.218 126 HF2 -1 .000000 1.185E-12 1.069E-12 .9022 11.971 296 H2F2 aq 0 .000000 1.415E-16 1.419E-16 1.0024 15.848 4 Cl -1 6.900 6.899 1.947E-04 1.947E-04 1.754E-04 .9006 3.756 34 Si02 tot 0 23.500 3.914E-04 23 H4$i04aq 0 37.558 3.910E-04 3.920E-04 1.0024 3.407 24 H3S104 -1 .030 3.168E-07 2.858E-07 .9022 6.544 25 H2Si04 -2 .000000 2.877E-12 1.907E-12 .6626 11.720 124 SiF6 -2 .000000 2.985E-27 1.978E-27 .6626 26.704 86 B tot 0 .110 1.018E-05 35 H3B03 aq 0 .626 1.013E-0S 1.015E-05 1.0024 4.993 36 H2B03 -1 .003290 5.413E-08 4.884E-08 .9022 7.311 JLGA 29 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1335 1335 X5 I Species Anal ppm Calc ppm Anal Molal Cate Molal Activity Act Coeff -Log Act 101 BF(0H)3 -1 .000016 2.000E-10 1.804E-10 .9022 9.744 102 BF2(0H)2 -1 .000000 1.077E-13 9.715E-14 .9022 13.013 103 BF30H -1 .000000 6.946E-19 6.267E-19 .9022 18.203 104 BF4 -1 .000000 1.422E-23 1.283E-23 .9022 22.892 84 N03 -1 93.000 92.991 1,501£-03 1.501E-03 1.354E-03 .9022 2.868 50 Al 3 .062000 .000001 2.299E-06 4.243E-11 1.681E-11 .3961 10.775 51 A10H 2 .000061 1.389E-09 9.202E-10 .6626 9.036 52 Al(0H)2 1 .009015 1.479E-07 1.334E-07 .9022 6.875 181 At(OH)3 0 .131 1.676E-06 1.680E-06 1.0024 5.775 53 At(0H)4 -1 .017 1,839E-07 1.659E-07 .9022 6.780 54 AtF 2 .000587 1.277E-08 8.461E-09 .6626 8.073 55 AtF2 1 .005757 8.867E-08 8.000E-08 .9022 7.097 56 AtF3 aq 0 .015 1.833E-07 1.838E-07 1.0024 6.736 57 ALF4 -1 .000589 5.727E-09 5.167E-09 .9022 8.287 58 ALS04 1 .000000 1.176E-12 1.061E-12 .9022 11.974 59 Al(S04>2 ~1 .000000 6.085E-15 5.490E-15 .9022 14.260 203 AIHS04 2 .000000 3.748E-20 2.484E-20 .6626 19.605 16 Fe total 2 .013 2.329E-07 7 Fe 2 .000000 8.431E-13 5.587E-13 .6626 12.253 10 FeOH 1 .000000 9.786E-16 8.829E-16 .9022 15.054 79 Fe(0H)2 0 .000000 3.344E-20 3.352E-20 1.0024 19.475 11 Fe(0H)3 -1 .000000 1.260E-23 1.137E-23 .9022 22.944 33 FeS04 aq 0 .000000 5.648E-15 5.662E-15 1.0024 14.247 122 FeH$04 1 .000000 3.81SE-21 3.442E-21 .9022 20.463 8 Fe 3 .000000 2.221E-15 8.798E-16 .3961 15.056 9 FeOH 2 .000004 4.963E-11 3.289E-11 .6626 10.483 76 Fe(OH)2 1 .019 2.084E-07 1.880E-07 .9022 6.726 77 Fe(0H)3 0 .002353 2.203E-08 2.209E-08 1.0024 7.656 78 Fe(QH)4 -1 .000303 2.447E-09 2.208E-09 .9022 8.656 179 Fe2(OH)2 4 .000000 2.215E-19 4.271E-20 .1928 19.369 CO o Fe3(0H>4 5 .000000 2.106E-23 1.608E-24 .0764 23.794 14 FeS04 1 .000000 4.460E-16 4.024E-16 .9022 15.395 108 Fe(S04)2 -1 ,000000 9.184E-19 8.286E-19 .9022 18.082 123 FeHS04 2 .000000 2.05SE-22 1.362E-22 .6626 21.866 15 FeCl 2 .000000 5.240E-18 3.472E-18 .6626 17.459 27 Fee 12 1 .000000 4.046E-21 3.651E-21 .9022 20.438 32 Fee13 aq 0 .000000 6.388E-26 6.403E-26 1.0024 25.194 JLSA 30 of 34 May 10, 1990
105 FeF 2 .000000 8.984E-14 5.953E-14 .6626 13.225 106 FeF2 1 .000000 1.157E-13 1.044E-13 .9022 12.981 107 FeF3 aq 0 .000000 7.871E-15 7.889E-15 1.0024 14.103 CIMARRON WELL 1335 1335 X5 Mole ratios from analytical molality Log activity ratios Cl/ca = 1.0456E-O1 Log Ca /H2 a 11.0746 Cl/Mg = 1.6204E-01 Log Mg /H2 S 10.8867 Cl/Na = 2.2828E-01 Log Na /H1 =5 3.8855 Cl/K O.OOOOE+OO Log K /HI s .0000 Cl/Al = 8.4697E+01 Log Al /H3 a 10.2255 Cl/Fe & O.OOOOE+OO Log Fe /K2 sa 1.7472 CI/S04 = 1.5580E+00 Log Ca/Mg << .1879 CL/HC03 3.2715E-02 LOG NA/K a .0000 Ca/Mg - 1.5497E+00 Log Ca/K2 c .0000 Na/K S O.OOOOE+OO Log Diss Fe/H2 a 14.0000 JLGA 31 of 34 May 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1335 1335 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/MinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log MaxKT 40 Albite -1.521 -20.114 -18.593 140 A10H3 (a> -.794 -.105 -32.701 -31.907 -32.596 471 AL0HS04 -4.715 -4.555 -4.875 -7.945 -3.230 -3.390 -3.070 472 At4(0H)10S04 .030 22.730 22.700 157 ALlophane(a) .144 6.204 6.060 158 Allophane(F) .964 6.204 5.240 42 Ana lei me -3.591 -16.708 -13.116 17 Anhydrite -2.545 -7.096 -4.551 41 Anorthite -3.320 -23.298 -19.978 21 Aragonite -.337 .020 -8.622 -8.284 150 Artinite -7.803 2.453 10.256 48 Beidellite 3.840 -42.809 -46.649 52 Boehmite .987 1.500 -32.701 -33.688 -34.201 19 Brucite -6.507 -17.731 -11.223 12 Calcite -.187 .020 -.121 -8.622 -8.435 -8.501 97 Chalcedony .222 -3.407 -3.628 49 Chlorite 14A -7.172 6.000 -1.897 -15.896 64.664 71.836 66.561 80.560 125 Chlorite 7A -10.630 6.000 64.664 75.294 20 Chrysotile -7.576 -60.006 -52.429 29 Clinoenstite -4.327 -3.961 -4.621 -21.137 -16.810 -17.176 -16.516 56 Clinoptilolt -25.370 99 Cristobalite .306 -3.407 -3.712 154 Diaspore 2.772 -32.701 -35.472 28 Diopside -5.499 -42.087 -36.587 11 Dolomite -.620 -17.431 -16.811 340 Epsomite -5.080 -7.284 -2.204 55 Erionite -21.818 112 Ferrihydrite 1.053 4.387 .948 5.944 4.891 1.557 4.996 419 Fe3(0H)8 -6.587 -3.477 -10.470 13.635 20.222 17.112 24.105 181 FeOH)2.7Cl.3 5.757 2.717 -3.040 401 Fe2(S04)3 -47.552 -43.322 -42.623 4.929 .699 62 Fluorite -.480 -11.541 -11.062 27 Forsterite -11.063 -38.868 -27.805 51 Gibbsite (c) .935 * .200 1.218 .265 10.225 9.290 9.007 9.960
.110 Goethite 5.114 .800 5.944 .830 111 Greenalite -22.382 -1.572 20.810 18 Gypsum -2.490 -7,096 -4.606 JL6A 32 of 34 May 10, 1990
64 Halite -8.432 -6.871 1.561 47 Halloysite -.524 -34.373 -33.849 108 Hematite 15.193 11.889 -3.304 117 Huntite -5.670 -35.050 -29.380 38 Hydrmagnesit -16.789 -52.969 -36.180 204 Jarosite Na -4.248 1.000 -14.623 -10.375 337 Jarosite H -7.667 -18.509 -10.842 46 Kaolinite 3.669 4.548 2.568 -34.373 -38.042 *38.921 -36.941 128 Laumontite 1.752 -30.112 -31.864 147 Leonhardite 11.587 -60.223 -71.811 109 Maghemite 5.503 11.889 6.386 10 Magnesite -.921 -.671 -1.171 -8.810 -7.888 -8.138 -7.638 107 Magnetite 8,747 9.117 5.889 13.636 4.888 4.518 7.746 339 Helanterite -13.889 -16.424 -2.535 63 Montmoril Ca 3.571 -42.788 -46.359 115 Montmoril BF 3.862 -31.051 -34.913 116 Montmoril AB 2.924 -26.764 -29.688 57 Mordenite -23.667 66 Mirabilite -8.853 -10.401 -1.547 58 Nahcotite -4.761 -5.394 -.633 JIG A 33 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
1 CIMARRON WELL 1335 1335 X5 Phase Log AP/KT Sigma(A) Sigma(T) Log AP/HinKT Log AP/MaxKT Log AP Log KT Log MinKT Log HaxKT 60 Natron -10.256 -11.926 -1.670 149 Nesquehonite -3.321 -3.809 -4.396 -8.810 -5.489 -5.001 -4.414 141 Prehnite -3.698 -15.630 -11.932 53 Pyrophyllite 7.128 10,424 5.294 -41.186 -48.314 -51.610 -46.480 101 Quartz .741 -3.407 -4.148 36 SepioliteCc) -4.423 11.553 15.976 153 Sepiolite(a) -7.107 11.553 18.660 9 Siderite -7.521 -5.967 -17,949 -10.428 -11.982 100 Si02 (a,L> -.287 -3.407 -3.119 395 Si02 <a,M) -.607 -3.407 -2.799 37 Talc -3.423 2.000 -1.255 -5.171 19.034 22.456 20.288 24.204 65 Thenardite -10.234 -10.400 -.166 61 Thermonatr -12.114 -11.925 .189 31 Tremolite -9.508 -150.992 -141.484 59 Trona -16.935 -17.319 -.384 155 Uairkite -2.807 -30.112 -27,304 JLGA 34 of 34 Hay 10, 1990
App endix B EXPOSURE PATHWAY CALCULATIONS Project No. S0S211 May 10, 1990 Page B - 1
Exposure Pathway Analysis Cimarron Facility - Uranium Plant Operations
Reference:
NUREG/CR-5512 "Residual Radioactive Contamination From Decommissioning Technical Basis for Translating Contamination Levels to Annual Dose" Draft Report for Comment, January 1990 Exposure Pathways Considered for Radioactivity in Soil:
- 1. Direct External Exposure to Fenetrating Radiation
- 2. Inhalation of Airborne Materials
- 3. Ingestion of Agricultural Food Products Grown in Contaminated Soil
- 4. Ingestion of Drinking Water from a Groundwater Source
- 5. Ingestion of Drinking Water from a Surface Water Source Concentrations of Uranium in Soil and Water:
Total Uranium in Soil: 70 pCi /g Total Uranium in Water: 10 pCi /I Estimated Isotopic Content: U238 U-255 U234 Soi1, pCi/g 11.28 2.20 58.20 Water, pCi/1 1.61 0.31 8.03
External Exposure to Penetrating Radiation Rip = <Cip> <Up> (Dip) Where: Rip the radiation dose equivalent -from radionuclide i via exposure pathway p, in mrem per year of exposure Cip = concentration of radionuclide i in the media of exposure in pathway p, in pCi/g for soil Up - usage parameter associated with exposure pathway p, in hours per year Dip = dose rate equivalent factor for radionuclide i and exposure pathway p Input Parameters Radi onuclide Cip <pCi/g> Up (h/vr) Dip (mrem/yr / pCi/g) U238 11.28 1800 2.6E-08 U235 2.20 1800 7.2E-05 U234 56.20 1800 5.7E-08 External Exposure Calculation: Rip = 0.29 mrem Page
Inhalati on Hinh,i = (V>(t>(Cd) CCw,i) (DFinh,i) Where: Hinh,i = the committed effective does equivalent -from one year intake of radionuclide i by inhalation, in mrem V = the ventilation rate of the individual, in m3/h (0.97 m3/h assumed - from ICRP 1975) t = the duration of exposure for the individual, in h/yr Cd = concentration of respirable dust in air, in g/m3 Cw,i = the concentration of radionuclide i in the contaminated material, in pCi/g DFinh,i = the committed effective dose from inhalation of radionuclide i, in mrem/pCi Input Parameters: Radionuclide Cw,i (pCi/g) DFinh,i (mrem/pCi) U238 11.28 1.IE-01 U235 2.20 1.2E-01 U234 58.20 1.3E-01 V 0.97 m3/h t 100 h Gardening Cd = 5E-04 q/m3 Gardening Dust 1700 h Outdoors IE05 g/m3 Yardwork Dust 4380 h Indoors 5E05 EF'A Standard (Indoors) Inhalation Calculation: Hinh ,i 2.44 mrem
-Drinking Water Ingestion Hdw,i = (Qdw) <Cdw,i) (DFing,i) Where: Hdw,i = the committed effective dose, equivalent -from a one year intake of radionuclide i by ingestion of drinking water, in mrem Qdw = the quantity of drinking water ingested during a year, in liters <730 17yr) Cdw,i = the concentration of radionuclide i in the drinking water, in pGi/1 DFing,i = the committed effective dose equivalent factor from ingestion of radionuclide i, in mrem/pCi per year of intake Maximum Organ Dose Rate Conversion Factors for Ingestion of Drinking Water: U-238: 1.7E-04 mrem/pCi U-235; 2.0E-04 mrem/pCi U-234: 1.9E-04 mrem/pCi Drinking Water Ingestion Calculation: Hdw,i = 1.36 mrem Page 4
Agricultural Pathways Air Deposition (Direct deposition onto leaves and translocation to the edible parts o-f the plant) Airborne Concentrations o-f Radionuclides; U238; 5.64E-03 pCi/m3 U235: 1.10E-03 pCi/m3 U234: 2.8IE-02 pCi/m3 Agricultural Food Product Ingestion Committed E-ffective Dose Rate Conversion Factors -for Exposure to Residual Radioactive Materials (Air-Deposition): U238: 3.2E-01 mrem per pCi/m3 U235: 3.6E-01 mrem per pCi/<n3 Li234: 3.5E-01 mrem per pCi/m3 Air Deposition Calculation: Had, i = 0,01 mrem Page o
Agricultural Pathways - Soil Uptake (Long-term accumulation in the soil and consequent root uptake) Soil Concentrations of Radionuclides: U238 11.28 pCi/g U-2 2.20 pCi/g U-234 56.20 pCi/g Agricultural Food Product Ingestion Committed Effective Dose Rate Conversion Factors for Exposure to Residual Radioactive - Materials (Soi1
- Uptake)
U-23S: 1.1E-02 mrem per pCi/g U-235: 1.3E-02 mrem per pCi/g U-234: 1.3E-02 mrem per pCi/g Soil Uptake Calculation: Hsup,i = 0.88 mrem Total From Agricultural Products: 0.01 mrem + 0.88 mrem 0.9.0 mrem Page 6
Surface Water Ingestion Concentration of- uranium water entering Res. #3: 7.2 pCjL/l Dilution factor provided by reservoir: 206 Individual consumption of drinking water: 730 1/yr Total Intake {One year): 26 pCi/yr (As total uranium) Isotopic Mix U-23S: 4. 1 pCi U-235: 0.8 pCi U234: 20.5 pCi Maximum Organ Dose Rate Conversion Factors for Ingestion of Drinking Water: U238; 1.7E-04 mrem/pCi U-235: 2.0E-04 mrem/pCi U234; 1.9E-04 mrem/pCi Ingestion Dose form Surface Water; Hsw,i = 0.005 mr em Page 7
Summary of Pathway Evaluation - Cimarron Facili-ty Pathway Dose (H50), mrem Direct External Exposure to Penetrating Radiation 0,29 Inhalation of Airborne Materials 2.44 Ingestion o-f Agricultural Food Products 0.90 Ingestion o-f Drinking Water 1.36 Ingestion o-f Surface Water 0.005 TOTAL COMMITTED EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENT 5.00 Note: H(50) means the committed effective dose equivalent from oneyear intake. Pace 8}}