DSHW-2006-001697 - 0901a0688013a379

HAND DELIVERED
FEB 0 9 2006
UTAH DIVISION OF
C;QL1D& HAZARDOUS WASTE
GROUNDWATER FLOW AND
CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL REPORT
FOR THE
ATK THIOKOL PROMONTORY FACILITY
ATK Thiokol, Inc.
Promontory Facility
Promontory, Utah
December 2005
Prepared by
EarthFax Engineering, inc.
7324 South Union Park Ave.
Suite 100
Midvaie, Utah 84047
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.earthfax.com
EarthFax
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1
CHAPTER 2 - SITE HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK 2-1
2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 2-1
2.2 STUDY AREA STRATIGRAPHY 2-1
2.2.1 Manning Canyon Shale 2-1
2.2.2 Oquirrh Formation 2-2
2.2.3 Quaternary Units 2-2
2.3 MODEL GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK 2-3
2.4 STUDY AREA GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 2-4
2.4.1 Mapped Faults 2-4
2.4.2 Faults Identified by Geophysical Survey 2-5
2.5 STUDY AREA HYDROGEOLOGY 2-6
2.6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 2-9
CHAPTER 3 - GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL 3-1
3.1 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 3-1
3.2 FLOW MODELING SOFTWARE 3-3
3.3 MODEL EXTENTS AND GRID 3-3
3.4 MODEL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 3-4
3.5 PARAMETER ZONATION 3-5
3.5.1 Specific Storage and Specific Yield 3-5
3.5.2 Hydraulic conductivity 3-5
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.5.3 Recharge 3-6
3.5.4 Discharge 3-7
3.6 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CALIBRATION 3-8
3.6.1 Calibration Process 3-8
3.6.2 Calibration Targets 3-10
3.6.3 Calibration Results 3-12
CHAPTER 4-CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL 4-1
4.1 LOCATION AND BACKGROUND 4-1
4.2 TRANSPORT PARAMETERS 4-1
4.3 SOURCES AND SINKS 4-2
4.4 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODELING SOFTWARE 4-4
4.5 GRID 4-5
4.6 INITIAL CONDITIONS 4-6
4.6.1 Time Period 4-6
4.6.2 Source 4-7
4.7 PARAMETER ZONATION 4-7
4.8 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEEL CALIBRATION 4-8
4.8.1 Methods 4-8
4.8.2 Results 4-9
CHAPTER 5-SIMULATION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 5-1
5.1 SIMULATIONS 5-1
5.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 5-1
5.3 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL SENSITIVITY 5-2
5.4 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL SENSITIVITY 5-3
iii EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES 6-1
TABLE 2-1
TABLE 3-1
TABLE 3-2
TABLE 4-1
TABLE 4-2
TABLE 4-3
TABLE 4-4
TABLE 5-1
TABLE 5-2
LIST OF TABLES
Monitor Well Sampling Results
Summary of Representative Hydraulic Conductivities
Differences in Observed and F'redicted Water Levels
Differences in Observed and F'redicted Concentrations for Perchlorate
Differences in Observed and Predicted Concentrations for TCE
Differences in Observed and Predicted Concentrations for TCA
Differences in Observed and Predicted Concentrations for DCE
Results of Groundwater Flow Model Sensitivity Analysis
Results of Contaminant Transport Model Sensitivity Analysis
FIGURE 1-1
FIGURE 2-1
FIGURE 4-1
FIGURE 4-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Site Location Map
Generalized Geologic Cross-Section
Calibrated TCA Plume Layers 2 and 3
Calibrated DCE Plume Layers 2 and 3
APPENDIXA
LIST OF APPENDICES
VLF Survey
IV EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
PLATE 1-1
PLATE 2-1
PLATE 2-2
PLATE 2-3
PLATE 2-4
PLATE 3-1
PLATE 3-2
PLATE 3-3
PLATE 3-4
PLATE 4-1
PLATE 4-2
LIST OF PL/VTES
Model Setting and Well Locations
Geologic Setting
Potentiometric Surface 2003/2004
Total Dissolved Solids Concentration
Contaminated Area and Contamination Sources
Model Domain, Grid and Boundary Conditions
Model Layer 2 Hydraulic Conductivity Zones
Model Layer 3 Hydraulic Conductivity Zones
Calibrated Steady State Potentiometric Surface
Calibrated Perchlorate Plume Layers 2 and 3
Calibrated TCE Plume Layers 2 and 3
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL REPORT
FOR THE
ATK PROMONTORY FACILITY
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The ATK Thiokol Inc. (ATK) Promontory facility is located approximately 90 miles
northwest of Salt Lake City, Utah and 30 miles v/est-northwest of Brigham City, Utah (see
Figure 1-1). The facility was first established In 1956 to develop rocket propulsion systems.
Shortly thereafter, the Air Force Plant 78 (Strategic Operations) and the High Performance
Propellant Development Area (Plant 3) were built. The facility has operated continuously since
its establishment. During the first 20 to 30 years of the facility's existence, wastes such as
spent solvents and off-spec propellants were disposed of in unlined ponds and sumps or simply
dumped on the ground, as was the common practice at the time. As a result of these disposal
practices, groundwater became contaminated at various locations within and adjacent to the
plant boundaries.
ATK began conducting detailed groundwater quality assessments in 1985, with initial
investigations focusing on the Burning Grounds area (M-136). Subsequent investigations
focused on groundwater contamination emanating from the leach field west of the
Administration Building, from the motor cleanout facility northeast of the Manufacturing Area,
and from other areas of the site. Since beginning groundwater investigations, ATK and its
predecessors have installed over 120 monitoring wells, observation wells, and piezometers.
Additionally, some off-site privately owned wells and springs have been monitored to assist in
delineating the extent and magnitude of groundwater contamination in the area.
Monitoring results indicate the presence of chlorinated solvents and perchlorate at
concentrations of potential concern within groundwater beneath the ATK facility. These
contaminants have also been detected beyond the facility boundaries. To assist in determining
the fate of groundwater contaminants in the area, and to provide input data for future
remediation decisions, a groundwater flow and contaminant transport model has been
1-1 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
developed for the ATK Promontory facility (see Plate 1-1 for the model setting). This report,
which was prepared to present the methods and results of this modeling effort, is divided into six
chapters, including this introduction. Chapter 2 discusses the hydrogeologic framework that
served as the physical basis of the flow and contaminant transport models. The development
and calibration of the groundwater flow and contaminant transport models are presented in
Chapters 3 and 4, respectively. Chapter 5 discusses the model sensitivity analyses.
References cited in this report are listed in Chapter 6.
1 -2 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
CHAPTER 2
SITE HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK
2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The area surrounding and adjacent to the ATK Promontory facility lies within the
Cenozoic Basin and Range physiographic province, which is characterized by north-trending
block-faulted mountain ranges separated by broad valleys (Miller et al., 1991). The exposed
strata ofthe area lie in the hanging wall of the Wlllard and Absaroka thrusts (Crittenden, 1988).
Blue Creek Valley, in which much of the Promontory facility is located, was formed prior
to Pleistocene time. Alluvium was deposited within the valley and its tributaries in the form of
alluvial fans and piedmonts along the valley margins and alluvial plains in the valley floor. Lake
Bonneville subsequently covered the valley during Quaternary time, leaving unconsolidated
lacustrine sediments in the valley bottom and shoreline features in the adjacent hills. General
geologic conditions within the study area are shown on Plate 2-1.
2.2 STUDY AREA STRATIGRAPHY
2.2.1 Manning Canyon Shale
The Manning Canyon Shale outcrops in the eastern portion of the study area within the
Blue Spring Hills. In this area, the formation is divided into a lower member and an upper
transitional member. The lower member is of Pennsylvanian and Upper Mississippian age and
consists mainly of medium- to coarse-grained sandstone, erosionally-resistant quartzite, and
interbedded shale and siltstone. The overlying transitional member is of lower Pennsylvanian
age and consists predominantly of interbedded siltstone, quartzite, and limestone. This member
transitions upwards into the Oquirrh Formation (Miller et al, 1991). The thickness of the
Manning Canyon Shale is probably greater than 3000 feet within the study area.
2-1 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
2.2.2 Oquirrh Formation
Within the study area, the Oquirrh Formation is divided into a lower limestone member of
Middle to Lower Pennsylvanian age, a middle bioturbated limestone member of Lower Permian
to Upper and Middle Pennsylvanian age, and an upper thinly bedded member of Lower Permian
age. The lower limestone member is exposed in; the Blue Spring Hills on the east side of the
study area, the Engineer Mountain on the west side of the study area, and the northern
Promontory Mountains on the southwest side of the study area. Fine- to medium-grained
calcarenite predominates in this member, but quartzose (and less commonly arkosic) sand is
intermixed with limey sand locally and in places forms calcareous sandstone beds. Cherty
limestone is common, as are coarse bioclastic beds containing crinoid debris, bryozoans,
fusulinids, corals, gastropods, and brachiopods. The limestone member is exposed in the
hanging wall of the Blue Springs thrust, where it has an erosional top. The limestone member's
estimated thickness is greater than 2700 feet at Engineer Mountain (Miller et al., 1991).
The bioturbated limestone member of the Oquirrh Formation lies in the footwall of the
Blue Springs thrust. It consists of arenite containing quartz and feldspar detrital and calcite
grains. Beds commonly show burrows, with non-burrowed beds having parallel and cross
lamination. The member grades upward into thinner limestone beds with an increasing
proportion of detrital grains. The bioturbated limestone member is estimated to be 5500 feet
thick in the study area (Miller et a!., 1991).
The thinly bedded member of the Oquirrh Formation is exposed along the eastern flank
of the Blue Spring Hills and consists primarily of silicified siltstone. It is about 4500 feet thick in
the study area (Miller et al., 1991).
2.2.3 Quaternary Units
Quaternary deposits are exposed on the surface of low-lying portions throughout the
study area. These deposits are primarily alluvial and lacustrine, consisting of fine- to coarse-
2-2 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
grained sediments that include marl, sand, silt, and gravel that originated in the adjacent
mountains (Miller et al., 1991).
2.3 MODEL GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK
Approximately 125 well logs covering areas within and south of the facility (Plate 1-1)
were used to develop the geologic framework of the model area. Most of these wells were
installed by ATK and its predecessors to collect data from specific points of interest (e.g., areas
of past waste disposal, etc.). A limited number of wells were installed by ATK with the objective
of filling data gaps to better understand general hydrogeologic conditions within the study area.
Other wells in the area were installed by local landowners or resource developers.
The groundwater flow model uses "layers" to represent vertical zones of similar
subsurface conditions. Data collected from wells and outcrops in the area indicate that four
easily identifiable layers exist in the study area (see Figure 2-1):
• Unconsolidated fine-grained sediments,
• Unconsolidated coarser-grained sediments,
• Fractured bedrock, and
• Unfractured bedrock
These data also indicate that two aquifer systems occur in the area. A "regional aquifer" exists
uniformly through the area, flowing in both unconsolidated alluvial/lacustrine deposits and
fractured bedrock. While this regional aquifer is unconfined through most of the area, it
becomes confined near the southern portion of the facility due to the presence of fine-grained
sediments near the surface (see Figure 2-1).
In addition, one or more "perched aquifers" exist beneath the eastern side of the facility,
where static water level differences are approximately 100 to 300 feet higher than would be
expected based on adjacent data collected in the regional aquifer. Groundwater is perched in
these areas either because fractures here do not extend vertically to the regional aquifer or
2-3 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
because flow barriers exist where less permeable units are situated (due to faulting or initial
deposition) beneath more permeable units.
Available well logs were reviewed to determine the depth to bedrock at each well.
These data, combined with surface elevations in areas of bedrock outcrops, were contoured to
delineate the elevation of the bedrock contact (i.e., the boundary between Layer 2 and Layer 3)
throughout the facility. In areas where wells are too shallow to encounter competent bedrock,
the depths ofthe wells were noted to ensure that the estimated bedrock elevation in those areas
was appropriate. Cross sections generated during previous investigations (Sergent, Hauskins &
Beckwith, 1988; Chen Northern, 1992a) were also utilized to visualize and define the depths
and approximate horizontal location of bedrock contacts. Professional judgment was used in
some areas to establish the slope of the bedrock surface and the thickness of unconsolidated
materials due to the absence of wells in the area.
Many wells in the southern portion of the model area are known to be under confined
conditions (see Plate 2-2). In this area, a layer of very fine-grained material (clay and silt)
overties the coarser unconsolidated deposits and hinders groundwater in the regional aquifer
from rising to its potential (or head). The bottom of this fine-grained layer (i.e., the boundary
between Layer 1 and Layer 2), known as an aquitard, was delineated from the well logs and
cross sections. The aquitard was assumed to continue south toward the Great Salt Lake.
2.4 STUDY AREA GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
2.4.1 Mapped Faults
As indicated on Plate 2-1, the study area is highly faulted and fractured. Geologic
structures in the area include three main types of faults: thrust faults, high-angle normal faults,
and low-angle normal faults. Thrust faulting occurs in the eastern portion of the study area
within the Blue Springs Hills. The Blue Springs Thrust dips gently westward at most locations
and is marked by silicified and brecciated sandstone that may be as much as 60 feet thick
(Miller etal., 1991).
2-4 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
High-angle normal faults have been identified throughout the eastern portion ofthe study
area, based on stratigraphic offsets noted on the surface and recorded in the lithologies of
onsite wells. Within the study area, these high-angle normal faults are found primarily west and
south of the Blue Springs Thrust fault. These steeply-dipping faults are pooriy exposed and are
probably linked kinematically with underlying low-angle normal faults (Miller et al., 1991).
Miller et al. (1991) identified at least two low-angle normal faults on the west flank of the
Blue Springs Hills in the eastern portion of the study area. The approximate normal stratigraphic
separation on these westward-dipping faults is 3000 feet. East-striking segments of the faults
may represent lateral ramps or dismemberment by younger, east-stnking faults (Miller et al.,
1991).
2.4.2 Faults Identified by Geophysical Survey
EarthFax conducted a very-low frequency C^'LF) electromagnetic survey in the eastern
and southern portions of the study area to help better define local fracture patterns that may
influence groundwater flow and contaminant transport. This survey method measures the
characteristics of electromagnetic fields generated by long-distance navigation transmitters in
the VLF band, and draws conclusions based on spatial variations in those characteristics.
Since conductive structures near the ground surface affect the direction and strength of the
electromagnetic field associated with the transmitted radio signal, these structures can be
located by measunng changes in the properties of the field. Additional information regarded the
theory and interpretation of VLF data is provided by Klein and Lajoie (1980), Paterson and
Ronka (1971), and Phillips and Richards (1975).
Field measurements within the study area were made by means of an Abem Wadi VLF
receiver tuned to the Seattle, Washington and Annapolis, Maryland transmitters. Fifteen VLF
traverses were conducted at the locations shown on Plate 2-1. Traverse lines OOOON, 0200N,
0400N, 0600N, 0800N, and 1200N are located north of Highway 83, near Shotgun Spring and
Pipe Spring at the southern portion of the Promontory facility. These lines were positioned to
2-5 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
determine the location of north-south fracture systems that have been inferred and that may be
avenues for the transport of contaminants to these: off-site springs. Additional traverse lines
(0200W and OOOOW) were oriented north-south through the same area of the facility above the
springs to identify east-west trending faults. The traverse locations were placed to avoid
electromagnetic interferences due to power lines, steel pipelines, railroad tracks, etc. Stations
were spaced every 100 feet along each traverse line.
Traverse lines were also run through an area east of the central portion of the
Promontory facility to verify faults inferred by Sergent, Hauskins & Beckwith (1988) and Miller et
al. (1991). Finally, two traverse lines (OOOOS and 0150S) were run in an area where a perched
aquifer has been identified.
Results of the VLF survey, which are provided in Appendix A, were used to delineate
fault orientations in the evaluated areas of Plate 2-1. Based on this survey and previous
investigations, it is apparent that fault and fracture systems in the area are both extensive and
highly interconnected. As is typical in the region, two sets of essentially orthogonal fracture
systems are evident within the study area: one running approximately north-south and the other
trending approximately east-west. Information discussed subsequently in this report indicates
that these faults act as important conduits for groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the
area.
2.5 STUDY AREA HYDROGEOLOGY
Given the extensive faulting and folding, hydrogeologic conditions in the area are
complex. North-south and east-west trending faults and fractures and the long low-angle
normal fault that passes through the Manufacturing .A^rea appear to have a significant influence
on groundwater flow and contaminant migration. This influence has occurred not only because
of the secondary porosity resulting from fractures and solution cavities, but also the potential
creation of flow barriers as less permeable units have been displaced into zones adjacent to
more permeable units.
2-6 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
A map showing the potentiometric surface within the study area, based on autumn 2004
water-level measurements, is presented on Plate 2-2. This map portrays conditions in both the
regional and the perched aquifers. The existence of the regional aquifer beneath the perched
aquifer(s) was verified at well J-4, which was drilled and completed in a manner that allowed the
perched aquifer to be sealed off while monitoring the underlying regional aquifer. A review of
static water-level data indicates that the potentiometric surface does not exhibit significant
seasonal variation. However, water levels do reflect changes in general climactic conditions,
such as a falling trend dunng periods of extended drought.
Groundwater inflow to the area is primarily from the upper reaches of Blue Creek Valley
as well as recharge in the Blue Spring Hills and Engineer Mountain. As noted previously, site
data suggest that the regional aquifer exists beneath most ofthe facility, while at least one, if not
more, perched aquifers exist in the east-central portion of the study area. Hydraulic gradients in
the regional aquifer west of the Blue Spring Hills range from approximately 0.0006 ft/ft to about
0.1490 ft/ft. The hydraulic gradient of the apparent perched aquifer(s) ranges from about
0.0018 ft/ft to 0.05 ft/ft.
Plate 2-2 and regional data presented by Etolke et al. (1972) indicate that the ultimate
direction of groundwater flow beneath the site is southward towards the Great Salt Lake.
Groundwater discharge from the area is from a combination of underflow towards the lake and
several springs along the southern extent of the Blue Spring Hills. The springs occur at these
locations because (1) groundwater flow in fractured bedrock is forced to the surface when it
encounters lower-permeability valley sediments and/or (2) groundwater discharges to the
surface from deeper high-pressure zones at the edges of the block-faulted mountains. A major
task of the modeling effort was to determine the pathway that contaminated groundwater follows
to reach the springs. There is evidence that adjacent springs are highly influenced by different
primary sources. For example. Pipe Spring and Shotgun Spring are only 400 feet apart but they
discharge at different elevations and have substantially different dissolved solids and
contaminant concentrations, as discussed in Section 2.6.
2-7 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
Groundwater flows beneath the facility primarily in fractured bedrock and unconsolidated
sediments. As noted in Figure 2-1, it is common for groundwater to flow from fractured bedrock
into unconsolidated sediments, and then back into fractured bedrock. For instance,
groundwater In the northern two-thirds of the Manufacturing Area flows primarily through
fractured bedrock. Beneath the west side of the Manufacturing Area, south of well F-1 and
north of well E-3, groundwater flows through unconsolidated alluvial sediments. At well E-3
groundwater again enters fractured bedrock. This variable pattern occurs to some degree in
other areas of the site.
The slope of the potentiometric surface in the vicinity of the Burning Grounds (between
wells C-6/C-8 and B-4/F-1) is significantly less than that in adjacent areas immediately up- and
downgradient. This decrease in slope is likely caused by a combination of a local increase in
the hydraulic conductivity (due to an extremely fractured fault zone or solution cavities) and the
presence of a downgradient groundwater flow barrier. Chen-Northern (1992a, 1992b, and
1992c) and Bolke and Price (1972) suggest that an up-faulted ridge of limestone on the
downgradient edge of this area, trending northeast to southwest across Blue Creek Valley, acts
as a low-conductivity barrier. However, Plate 2-2 indicates that the hydraulic gradient does not
increase until groundwater flows back into the unconsolidated materials at and downgradient
from wells F-1 and E-9. A review of hydraulic conductivity data obtained from site monitoring
wells (discussed further in Section 3.1) indicates that this steepening of the potentiometric
surface occurs in an area of lower conductivity alluvial deposits. Furthermore, the hydraulic
gradient between wells B-3 and B-4, on either side of the up-faulted ridge of limestone, is nearly
flat. Hence, the apparent downgradient "barrier" to groundwater flow is actually an area of lower
conductivity sediments rather than the up-faulted ridge of limestone proposed by others.
Perched zones exist on the east side of the facility as indicated on Plate 2-2. The
farthest north well of this zone (M636-B1) has a static water level that is approximately 300 feet
higher than that of wells completed in the regional aquifer immediately to the west. Moving
south, the static water level of the perched aquifer(s) drops more rapidly than in wells west of
this zone. At well TCC-2, the difference in head between the perched aquifer and the regional
2-8 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
aquifer is approximately 70 feet. At some point south of TCC-2, the perched aquifer intersects
the regional aquifer. Thus, the perched aquifer is a source of recharge for the regional aquifer.
2.6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
Groundwater quality data obtained from wells and springs in the study area provide
valuable insights to groundwater flow patterns and potential contaminant migration pathways.
Plate 2-3 shows total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations of groundwater in the study area,
based on local data collected by ATK and regional data portrayed by Bolke and Price (1972)
and Hood (1972). As indicated, TDS concentrations are lowest beneath the Blue Spring Hills
and Engineer Mountain, while groundwater flowing into the study area from the upper reaches
of Blue Creek Valley contains relatively high TDS concentrations. Bolke and Price (1972)
indicate that these elevated upgradient TDS concentrations occur due to inflow from saline
springs and irrigation return flows in areas north of the boundary of Plate 2-3. The southward
increase in TDS concentrations noted on Plate 2-3 is due to the influence of the Great Salt Lake
and upwelling of warm, saline groundwater along the southern margins of the block-faulted
mountains (Bolke and Price, 1972; Hood, 1972; Murphy and Gwynn, 1979).
Local variations in TDS concentrations may serve as an indicator of the source of
groundwater at a specific location. This becomes an important aid when modeling conditions at
uncontrolled discharge points such as the springs in the southern portion ofthe study area. For
instance, despite their close proximity. Shotgun and Pipe Springs exhibit very different TDS
concentrations (i.e., approximately 7200 and 4500 mg/l, respectively [see Plate 2-3]). As a
comparison, well H-9 (completed in unconsolidated deposits near the two springs) has a TDS
concentration of 8850 mg/l, while monitoring wells J-15 and J-6 (completed in bedrock upgradient
of the springs) have TDS values of 1220 and 2510 mg/l, respectively. The lower TDS
concentrations in wells J-5 and J-6 are considered representative of groundwater near the
springs within the fractured bedrock of the Blue Spring Hills, while that of well H-9 is considered
indicative of groundwater within the unconsolidated fill in the vicinity of the springs. Although
water issuing from both springs is undoubtedly a mixture of groundwater from the Blue Spring
Hills to the north and the unconsolidated fill to the south, the higher TDS concentration of
2-9 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
Shotgun Spring suggests that it is comprised primarily of groundwater in the valley. The primary
source of Pipe Spring, on the other hand, appears to be groundwater flowing through fractures
in the Blue Spring Hills, with a lesser contribution (relative to Shotgun Spring) from the valley
aquifer.
The TDS concentration at Fish and Horse Springs ranges from about 6000 to 7000 mg/l,
while that in the adjacent monitoring well (H-10) has a TDS value of 13,300 mg/l (see Plate 2-3).
Although TDS data are unavailable upgradient of these springs, geologic conditions similar to
those described above suggest that discharge from Fish and Horse Springs is likely composed
of a significant percentage of groundwater from the Eilue Spring Hills.
The distribution of contamination also improves the understanding of groundwater flow
patterns in the area. Plate 2-4 portrays the extent of groundwater contamination based on
recently-measured concentrations of perchlorate, trichloroethylene (TCE), trichloroethene
(TCA), and dichloroethylene (DCE) in the study area. The contaminant data used to generate
this map are provided in Table 2-1. This plate also notes the surface expression of fault
locations from Plate 2-1. Given their dip angles, the low-angle normal faults shown on Plate 2-4
typically intercept groundwater 1000 to 2000 feet west and south of their surface expressions.
Water quality data collected from the site indicate that groundwater contamination
emanates from source areas and generally follows pathways suggested by the potentiometric
surface map. However, the influence of geologic structure on contaminant migration is also
evident. For instance, no source areas are known to exist in areas that would be defined from
the potentiometric surface map as being upgradient of wells G-6 and G-8. However, TCE and
perchlorate contamination occurs at these wells. Thus, it appears that contaminants reach
these locations via flow along high-angle normal faults and the low-angle thrust fault that passes
through areas of contamination northwest of the wells. Similar conclusions can be reached
regarding the influence of geologic structure on contaminant migration in other areas ofthe site.
It was concluded above that groundwater at Shotgun Spring is derived mostly from the
adjacent unconsolidated valley deposits, while Pipe Spring flow is derived primarily from faults
2-10 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
and fractures in the Blue Spring Hills. This conclusion is confirmed by the contaminant data
presented in Table 2-1. The most recently measured perchlorate concentration in Pipe Spring
is 0.343 ppm, while that at Shotgun Spring is 0.0203 ppm. This order of magnitude difference
suggests that a greater proportion of flow in Pipe Spring is comprised of* contaminated
groundwater that flows through faults and fractures in the Blue Spring Hills.
2-11 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
CHAPTER 3
GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL
3.1 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
As previously noted, the Promontory facility exists in an area of relative hydrogeologic
complexity. Groundwater occurs in both consolidated and unconsolidated deposits. Faulting
and fracturing has creating secondary porosity and flow barriers, and both perched and non-
perched conditions as well as confined and unconfined aquifers exist at the site. Hence, an
important initial step in the development of the groundwater flow and contaminant transport
model was to define hydrogeologic conditions sufficiemtly to justify model development.
Uncertainty always exists when defining subsurface conditions. However, within the
constraints of time and budget, the hydrogeology of the model area was characterized through:
• Installation of and evaluation of data collected from multiple monitoring wells;
• Review of data generated from past tests to determine the hydraulic characteristics of the
groundwater system;
• Evaluation of all geochemical data collected from the site; and
• Review of additional hydrologic data available from the area.
Geologic data obtained from all local monitoring wells, observation wells, and other
borings were evaluated, along with similar data from nearby, off-site water wells, oil and gas
wells, etc. Surface outcrops of the various geologic formations were also assessed, including
observations of natural outcrops as well as exposures in road cuts. Results of past geologic
investigations and aerial photographs of the area were also reviewed. Using these data, a
geologic framework for the site and adjacent areas was developed. Assessments were made of
the lateral extent of strata and aquifers, the presence of hydrogeologic boundaries, bedrock
structure, strata and aquifer thicknesses, etc. Conclusions reached in this investigation were
used to define the physical characteristics of the modeled system, including a delineation of the
faults and other conditions that provide preferential pathways or barriers for groundwater flow.
The study of available data also defined the media through which groundwater was flowing (i.e.,
fractured bedrock vs. unconsolidated deposits).
3-1 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
Based on this evaluation, four layers were defined for the model (see Figure 2-1). The
topmost layer (Layer 1) represents the confining layer that exists only in the southern portion of
the model domain where the ground surface is relatively flat. Layer 2 represents the
unconsolidated material in the Blue Creek Valley and in the mouths of the tributary canyons.
Layer 3 represents the fractured bedrock that conveys the majority of groundwater through the
study area. Layers 2 and 3 represent the regional aquifer. Depending on location groundwater
may be conveyed only in Layer 2, only in Layer 3, or in both Layers 2 and 3. Layer 4 represents
unfractured bedrock underiying the model domain. The purpose of this layer is to represent
recharge to the Layer 3 aquifer from the unfractured bedrock and to provide more stability
during model runs.
The bottom of Layers 1 and 2 was defined as discussed in Section 2.3. The top and
bottom of Layer 4 were set at a constant elevation representing the bottom of the model
domain.
All wells that ATK has access to, with a few exceptions, have been evaluated for
hydraulic conditions through the performance of slug and/or pumping tests. This testing
provided data concerning the hydraulic characteristics of the media. Two long-term pumping
tests (greater than 24 hours) have been conducted at the site. One of the pumping tests,
conducted with well B-6 as the pumping well, showed no anisotropy. The other pumping test,
conducted near the M-136 burning grounds with Well T-2 as the pumping well, showed strong
anisotropy. These pumping tests were used to define anisotropic and storage conditions at the
site. A summary of hydraulic conductivity values obtained from the testing program is
presented in Table 3-1.
Groundwater sinks to be accounted for in the model include the springs at the south end
of the Blue Spring Hills. The flows from these springs, which were measured in the fall of 2004,
were used during the development and calibration of the groundwater flow model.
3-2 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
3.2 FLOW MODELING SOFTWARE
The hydrogeologic complexity of the Promontory site limits the available software
packages that can be used to adequately model the area. In many parts of the facility there is
evidence that the bedrock is extremely fractured and behaves more like a porous medium than
fractured bedrock. However, there are also some faults and dominant fractures that behave
more as individual line sources or barriers. Added to this complexity is the need for the model
to handle a water table that crosses multiple model layers (i.e., areas where groundwater flows
from fractured bedrock into unconsolidated sediments and then back into fractured bedrock),
without becoming numerically unstable.
Although a finite-element model may be appropriate in an area of such complex
hydrogeology, there are insufficient data to justify the use of such a model. For instance, there
are no data defining the physical characteristics of individual fractures conveying groundwater.
Hence, the finite-difference model Visual MODFLOW was used for this project (Waterioo
Hydrogeologic, 2004). MODFLOW was originally developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and
is widely accepted and understood. A uniform grid was defined in an effort to minimize
numerical instability associated with steep topographic and potentiometric surface slopes.
3.3 MODEL EXTENTS AND GRID
The model area covers an area approximately 7.6 miles by 10.6 miles. The model
extents can be seen on Plate 3-1 along with the general features of the model area. The model
extents were set to ensure that imposed stresses applied to the interior of the model system do
not reach the boundaries.
On the south, the model extent was set at a distance at least 1 mile beyond the
southernmost spring of interest (Horse Spring). The northern boundary is approximately 2 miles
north of the northern facility boundary. The western model extent was set neariy 2 miles
beyond the western facility boundary while the eastern model extent is approximately 1 mile
3-3 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
east of the easternmost facilities. The model e>;1ents were established to avoid boundary
effects and do not represent any hydrogeologic or physical divide.
The model grid shown on Plate 3-1 consists of 200 columns and 280 rows, with each
grid having a uniform length and width of 200 feet. The regular grid spacing was set to improve
the stability of the model. Given the large area being modeled, the grid spacing used is
relatively small. Although smaller grid spacing may be desired during contaminant transport
modeling, the defined grid is as tight as reasonable given the amount of data available and the
desire to limit model run times.
3.4 MODEL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Two types of boundaries were defined in the* flow model - constant-head boundaries
and no-flow boundaries (also referred to as inactive cells). The boundary conditions defined for
the model can be seen on Plate 3-1. Constant-head boundaries are set to a known head value
to represent sources of recharge or discharge, thus allowing better calibration of the flow model.
In the area of the perched aquifer noted on Plate 2-2, these constant-head cells accounted for
the influence of the perched aquifer on the regional aquifer, without having to separately model
the perched aquifer. Hence, the groundwater flow model discussed herein focuses on the
regional aquifer. Cells defined as inactive represent areas within the model grid where no data
exist and where the area is not of interest or does not affect an area of interest. Limiting the
active area to only areas of interest increases the computational efficiency of the model.
Constant-head cells were assigned along all boundaries of the model. A sufficient
number of wells exist within the vicinity of the Manufacturing Area and Burning Grounds to
accurately allow head values to be assigned to the constant head cells in these areas.
However, the head values outside of these areas are based on fewer wells. Fortunately, in
many cases these constant head cells, whose accuracy is less certain, are over a mile away
from areas of interest. The size of the model area was chosen to minimize the effect of this
uncertainty on the areas of concern.
3-4 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
3.5 PARAMETER ZONATION
The parameter inputs required by the model include hydraulic properties (hydraulic
conductivity and aquifer thickness), recharge values, specific storage and yield, and well or spring
discharge rates. Hydraulic conductivity, specific storage and yield, and recharge were discretized
into zones, while other parameters were input on a cell by cell basis. Since the actual parameter
distributions are far more complex than the model has the power to replicate, and probably far
more complex than can be measured, zones were used to group similar values together
A comprehensive discussion of the model calibration procedure is presented in Section
3.6. It should be noted that the initial input parameters were modified within reason during
calibration using an iterative process until satisfactory results were obtained.
3.5.1 Specific Storage and Specific Yield
The specific storage coefficient of the confined portion of the regional aquifer was
estimated based on the aquifer material. Included with Visual MODFLOW is a program called
Envirobase which is a database of aquifer and chemical properties. Envirobase identifies
publications where aquifer and chemical properties have been published and lists the published
data. Using Envirobase, a range of values for the specific storage in fractured limestone, fine
sand, and clayey silt were identified. The range of values used in the model was from 1.0 x 10'^
to 9.144x10"^, which varied by model layer.
The specific yield used in the model for the unconfined portions of the regional aquifer
ranged from 0.006 to 0.22, as estimated using Envirobase. As with the specific storage
coefficient, the specific yield was varied by layer.
3.5.2 Hydraulic Conductivity
The hydraulic conductivity was determined from well data collected from ATK reports as
well as slug testing conducted for this modeling elTort. The measured hydraulic conductivity
3-5 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
values for the wells are summarized in Table 3-1. Measured hydraulic conductivity ranges from
0.05 to 775 ft/day. These data were used to obtain an initial distribution of hydraulic conductivity
values, which were modified during calibration. The range of hydraulic conductivity values
assigned to various layers was 0.05 to 1600 ft/day. Higher hydraulic conductivities were derived
primarily during calibration to represent fracture zones.
Final hydraulic conductivities for Layers 2 and 3 are presented on Plates 3-2 and Plate
3-3, respectively. Areas of higher hydraulic conductivity are found where faults and/or fracture
zones acts as major conduits of groundwater flow and contaminant migration. The hydraulic
conductivity for Layer 1 was set at 0.05 ft/day and that of Layer 4 was set at 0.1 ft/day.
3.5.3 Recharge
Recharge was modeled by assigning specified flux cells to simulate recharge at rates
ranging from 0 to 20 inches/yr. The majority of the model area has no recharge. This
assumption is based on the low annual precipitation rate and high evapotranspiration rate.
Areas with no recharge are deep unconsolidated materials which typically have low hydraulic
conductivities near the surface. A recharge of 3 inches/yr was used to simulate precipitation
into the uppermost active layer of the model in areas with shallow soils over fractured bedrock.
These areas are typically located on the slopes of the Blue Spring Hills. The value of 3
inches/yr was determined during calibration.
A comparison of the potentiometric surface map presented on Plate 2-2 and the
elevation of Blue Creek indicates that Blue Creek is probably a losing stream for most of its
length in the model area. Thus, Blue Creek is a source of recharge. A recharge rate of 20
inches/yr was determined during calibration for the area immediately under Blue Creek.
Some upward recharge from the deep unfractured bedrock was simulated by the
addition of layer 4 and the use of constant head boundaries. Recharge was kept constant
throughout the calibration time period since a steady state condition was assumed.
3-6 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
3.5.4 Discharge
The only discharge points included in the model were the five springs on the south end
of the Blue Spring Hills. The flow rate from these springs was measured during the fall of 2004
as follows:
• Shotgun Spring 2,570 gallons per minute (gpm);
• Pipe Spring 590 gpm;
• Fish Spring 650 gpm;
• Horse A Spring 300 gpm; and
• Horse B Spring 515 gpm.
The springs were modeled as wells with specified discharge rates based on the
measured flow. This simulation assumed a screened interval beginning at the bottom of Layer 1
and extending down into Layer 4. The long screened interval allowed groundwater from Layers
2 and 3 to supply water in the same manner as the unconsolidated material and fractured
bedrock supply water to the spring. The hydraulic conductivity zones around the wells were
varied during calibration to encourage more or less water to be produced from each layer,
thereby matching flow and contaminant conditions. For example the hydraulic conductivity zone
around Pipe Spring in Layer 2 was reduced to encourage more flow from Layer 3 and thus
directing more of the contamination in Layer 3 tO' discharge to the spring. The hydraulic
conductivity zone around Shotgun Spring in Layer 2 was increased to encourage more flow
from Layer 2.
During calibration of the groundwater flow model the aquifer properties such as hydraulic
conductivity were varied until the potentiometric surface in the vicinity of the springs resembled
the measured potentiometric surface. The discharge rates were not varied with time since the
flow model was calibrated assuming steady state conditions.
3-7 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
3.6 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL CALIBRATION
During calibration of the groundwater flow model, modifications were made to the
initially-assumed aquifer parameters (hydraulic conductivity values, recharge, and hydraulic
conductivity distribution) until the steady-state potentiometric surfaces and fluxes matched field-
measured values within a pre-established range of error. Finding these values is known as the
inverse problem, where the objective is to determine parameter values and hydrologic stresses
from information about the potentiometric surface.
A groundwater flow model can be calibrated for steady-state or transient conditions.
Steady-state flow occurs when, at any point in an aquifer, the magnitude and direction of the
flow velocity are constant with time. Transient flow occurs when, at any point in an aquifer, the
magnitude or direction of the flow changes with time (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). As is typically
the case, this model was calibrated to represent the more simplified steady-state flow
conditions. The initial potentiometric surface represented on Plate 2-2 was considered
representative of steady-state flow conditions since this surface does not appear to change
seasonally.
3.6.1 Calibration Process
Once the model grid, boundaries, and parameters were established, the first objective
was to get the model to converge on a solution. Fortunately, the relatively small grid spacing
initially minimized convergence problems. However, as the calculated potentiometric surface
more closely matched the measured potentiometric surface, convergence was more difficult.
Initially the model converged with a maximum head change between iterations of 0.1 foot.
However, by the final calibration run, the maximum head change between iterations was at least
2.75 feet. These later convergence problems occurred because of the very steep hydraulic
gradients in the Manufacturing Area and in the vicinity of well LF-4 in the northern part of the
model domain. The steep gradient in the Manufacturing Area also occurs in a location where
groundwater flow is transitioning from flow in fractured bedrock (Layer 3) into unconsolidated
deposits (Layer 2) with a much lower hydraulic conductivity. Hence, the target maximum head
3-8 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
change between iterations of 0.1 foot feet stated in the work plan (EarthFax Engineering, 2004)
was not achieved. Nonetheless, multiple simulation runs demonstrated that the flow model
solution was stable and, therefore, acceptable.
After achieving convergence upon a solution, two methods are available to define model
parameters for calibration - manual trial-and-error adjustment of parameters and automated
parameter estimation. The initial predicted potentiometric surface was close enough to the
measured potentiometric surface that the trial-and-error adjustment of parameters was
considered adequate to calibrate the groundwater flow model.
The manual trial-and-error calibration method is an iterative process where the input
data are varied, within a reasonable range, until the goodness-of-fit criteria (Section 3.6.2) are
achieved. If, after a model run, the initial and predicted water levels do not adequately match,
the model input parameters are altered manually, until the error between the measured and
predicted potentiometric surface is acceptable or no more improvement can be made without
significantly increasing the complexity of the model.
The calibration process is time-consuming because parameter values are typically
known only at a few nodes, and even those estima1:65s are uncertain. It is important to note that
individual calibration techniques may produce non-unique solutions when different combinations
of parameters yield essentially the same head distribution (Anderson and Woessner, 1992).
Wide variations in the magnitude ofthe input hydraulic parameters have been measured
at the site (see, for instance. Table 3-1). In addition, while field hydraulic tests provide data
representative of an area within a few feet to a few tens of feet from the well being tested, the
model examines hydrostratigraphic blocks with side lengths of 200 feet (an increase of one to
two orders of magnitude beyond that of the field tests). Also, in most areas outside the
Manufacturing Area and Burning Grounds, the lack of wells results in large areas with only very
limited data. Thus, in making the transition from the localized database of field tests to the
"global" database of the model, direct comparisons with field data from a particular location are
not always possible.
3-9 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
In the case of hydraulic conductivity, care was taken during model calibration to ensure
that the magnitudes of the hydraulic conductivity zones were within the range of values
measured in the adjacent area with the exception of conductivity zones assigned to represent
fractures. Although no wells have been completed directly in a significant fracture, the hydraulic
conductivity of zones representing fractures could be determined from calibration.
To the extent possible, hydraulic conductivities assigned to model grids were within one
order of magnitude of the hydraulic conductivity of any well completed in that grid. However, in
some areas, such as the Burning Grounds, it was not possible to maintain this general rule of
thumb and still achieve the desired calibration target. Such high variability in such a short
distance is further evidence of the hydrogeologic complexity of the site.
3.6.2 Calibration Targets
Four criteria were identified in the work plan (EarthFax Engineering, 2004) as a measure
of the goodness-of-fit achieved by model calibration. These criteria were to:
1. Approximate the shapes of the measured potentiometric surface,
2. Minimize the differences between measured and predicted water levels,
3. Achieve convergence of the modell with a maximum head change between
iterations of less than 0.1 feet, and
4. Achieve an approximate mass balance between inflow to and outflow from the
steady-state model, with a mass balance error of less than ± 1 percent.
Comparisons of the measured and predicted potentiometric surfaces provide a general
idea of the spatial distribution of error in the calibration. This criterion was used only as a
general guide during calibration and as a method for visually verifying predicted flow patterns.
The primary criterion for calibration was to minimize the differences between the initial
and predicted water levels. The average difference was quantified over the model area using
the following methods described by Anderson and Woessner (1992):
3-10 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
The mean absolute error (MAE) is the mean of the absolute value of the
differences in measured and simulated water levels.
MAE = \-}^\{hn,-h.)i\
n —• i=\
where n = number of calibration values
hm = measured water Isivel
hs = simulated water level
The normalized root mean squared (NRMS) error is the average of the squared
differences in measured and simulated water levels divided by the maximum
head difference over the model domain.
NRMS = -\J^{hm-hs)^
0.5
'(Maxhead - Minhead)
where the variables are defined above.
The maximum acceptable MAE was defined in the work plan to be 10 feet. The
maximum acceptable NRMS was defined in the work plan to be less than 5%. Both of these
criteria were easily met. The actual calibration results will be discussed in the following section.
It is important to note that the error equations defined above can only be used to
evaluate the average error in the calibrated model. The spatial distribution of the differences
between the initial and simulated water levels cannot be ignored. Contour maps of this
distribution were prepared during the calibration process to assess its progress. Where large
water-level differences occurred, hydraulic properties were modified, and the model was run
again.
Since the model uses an iterative method to solve the mathematical flow equations, a
source of error known as the iteration residual error is introduced. An error criterion is specified
to judge the model convergence. This error criterion controls the size of the iteration residual
error and influences the number of iterations required to achieve a solution within the error
3-11 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
tolerance. The residual error can be minimized by selecting appropriately small values for this
error criterion.
Anderson and Woessner (1992) suggest that the error criterion for the predicted heads
be one to two orders of magnitude smaller than the level of accuracy desired in the head
results. Based on this recommendation, a conservative closure criterion of 0.1 foot was
identified in the work plan for the model.
The water balance produced by Visual MODFLOW compares the total simulated inflows
and outflows. The water balance is used as a check on solution accuracy and as a way of
identifying errors made during model design (e.g., errors in hydraulic conductivity will affect the
inflow and outflow rates at the model boundaries). An error criterion of less than 1% in the
water balance was selected for the flow model.
3.6.3 Calibration Results
Due to the large number of pages associated with each run of the model, these printouts
are not reproduced in this report; however, model input and output computer files associated
with all runs are available on the disk accompanying this report.
The calibrated steady-state potentiometric surface for the regional aquifer is presented in
Plate 3-4. A comparison of this map with Plate 2-2 (measured potentiometric surface) indicates
that the final calibrated steady-state potentiometric surface reasonably resembles the measured
water levels and flow patterns. Table 3-2 presents the difference between measured and
calculated head values at wells throughout the study area.
Differences between the elevation of the predicted steady-state and measured
potentiometric surfaces are greatest in areas where the natural hydraulic gradient experiences a
rapid change in magnitude and direction within a relatively small area. This condition exists in
the Manufacturing Area and in the vicinity of well LF-4. The shapes of the potentiometric
surfaces and flow directions, however, were generally represented in these areas by the model.
3-12 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
It is difficult to precisely mimic the natural potentiometric surface in areas of steep natural
gradient and rapidly changing flow direction.
The Mean Average Error (MAE) (identified as absolute residual mean in the Visual
MODFLOW statistics package) for the calibrated steady-state model is 2.84 feet. In addition,
the Normalized Root Mean Square (NRMS) error for the calibrated model is 3.84%. These
results are well below the target values of 10.0 feet and 5%, respectively, identified in the work
plan. It can be noted that Ritchey (1996), states that the normalized root mean square should
be less than 5%. The NRMS for this model is 3.84%, which is well below this standard. The
NRMS takes into account the maximum variation in head over the model area. By using the
NRMS as a criterion, the greater difficulty in calibration of a model with steep hydraulic gradients
is taken into account.
The mass balance error of the calibrated model was less than 0.002%. This error was
well within the pre-established error criterion of ± 1% identified in the work plan. The positive
value indicates that slightly more inflow than outflow is predicted by the model. In general, the
majority of the inflow results from underflow across the model boundaries. The majority of
outflow is through the springs at the south end of the Blue Spring Hills, with a lesser quantity as
underflow toward the Great Salt Lake.
The steady-state model converged with a maximum drawdown of 2.75 feet on the final
iteration. This is well above the target identified in tlie work plan, as discussed in Section 3.6.1.
However, the flow model solution was stable and all other calibration targets were achieved
easily. Thus, the calibrated model is considered an acceptable representation of actual
conditions in the study area.
3-13 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
CHAPTER 4
CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL
4.1 LOCATION AND BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of this model is to reliably simulate contaminant migration in
groundwater beneath and downgradient of the ATK Promontory facility. The area of current
greatest interest for the contaminant transport model is the springs at the south end of the Blue
Spring Hills, since discharge from these springs is uncontrolled and flows to off-site areas. The
contaminants of concern are perchlorate, TCA, TCE, and DCE, with perchlorate and TCE having
already been detected in some of the springs. The model will allow future decisions to be made
regarding the efficacy of on-site remediation alternatives and off-site resource management.
To improve computational efficiency, only potentially contaminated areas were evaluated
by the transport model even though groundwater flow was considered throughout the entire model
domain. To minimize the effect of uncertain boundary conditions in the area of concern, the flow
model covered an area much larger than was actually needed for the transport model. All of
Layers 1 and 4 were set as inactive for transport as well as large areas of Layers 2 and 3.
4.2 TRANSPORT PARAMETERS
The following parameters and the range of values appropriate for each parameter, if
applicable, were utilized for contaminant transport modeling:
• Molecular diffusion is the process by which ions or molecular constituents in a solution
(i.e., perchlorate, TCE, TCA, and DCE) move under the influence of molecular activity
from areas of high concentrations towards areas of lower concentration. The range of
values used for the molecular diffusion coefficient during this model calibration was 9.1 x
10"^ ft^/day to 5.0 x 10"^ ft^/day. These values were obtained from a review of published
literature regarding the contaminants of concern.
• The retardation factor is a coefficient that represents how the movement of the plume will
be retarded by adsorption of the contaminant onto the solids within the aquifer. The
retardation factor is calculated in the model based on other model inputs.
• Dispersivity is a factor used to account for the spreading of a contaminant in the aquifer
by mechanical processes. Longitudinal dispersivity accounts for spreading in the flow
4-1 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
direction and horizontal transverse dispersivity accounts for spreading perpendicular to the
flow direction. The acceptable range for longitudinal dispersivity is 1 to 50 ft (Zheng and
Bennett, 1995). The acceptable range of horizontal transverse dispersivity is 0.05 to 0.5
times the longitudinal dispersivity.
• Effective porosity. Porosity is defined as the volume of the voids divided by the total
volume of the medium (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Effective porosity is the percentage of
the total volume that is available for flow. The acceptable range of effective porosities was
determined to be between 5% and 20%, based on data provided by Freeze and Cherry
(1979) and Envirobase.
• Bulk density is the mass of dry soil per unit volume of the soil. The representative bulk
density value used for the model is 48.13 Kg/ft^, as determined from a review of
Envirobase.
• The first-order reaction rate is the rate at which a contaminant is removed from
groundwater by first-order degradation mechanisms (e.g., biodegradation or volatilization).
It has also been referred to as the decay rate. Monitoring has demonstrated that
perchlorate has been degraded in the Manufacturing Area and down-gradient of the leach
field. A decay rate of 0.00065 day'^ was determined through calibration for the area down-
gradient ofthe leach field. Degradation in the Manufacturing Area has been very active in
the past but the substrate providing nutrients to the degrading bacteria has been
exhausted and the rate of degradation is currently reduced. Visual MODFLOW does not
allow the decay rate to be varied with time and a singe decay rate cannot accurately
represent the current condition with respect to degradation. Thus a decay rate was not
used for this area. In an effort to model the changing degradation rate, the source
concentrations were varied with time. Areas outside the Manufacturing Area and leach
field did not have any evidence of perchlorate degradation. The degradation of TCE was
modeled in the same way as was perchlorate. The decay rate determined during
calibration for the area downgradient of the leach field is 0.0003 day"\ The degradation of
TCA was modeled using RT3D (Waterioo Hydrogeologic, 2004) which can model the
degradation of TCA into DCE. The decay rate of TCA into DCE was either 4.5 x 10"^ or
1.5 X 10'^ day"\ depending on location. The higher decay rate was in the area between
the Burning Grounds and Manufacturing Area. The lower decay rate was assigned to all
other areas. Due to the relatively substantial depth to groundwater in the study area, all
degradation was assumed resultfrom bacterial degradation and not from volatilization.
• The fraction of organic carbon is the mass of organic carbon per unit mass of soil. No
soil samples from the aquifer have been analyzed for its organic carbon content. The
fraction of organic content was assumed to be 1% for Layer 2 and 0.1% for Layer 3, based
on professional judgment.
4.3 SOURCES AND SINKS
During calibration, all contaminants were assumed to enter the model from constant
concentration cells. Constant concentration cells were set near sumps, surface impoundments,
septic systems, and buried waste sites identified to be significant sources of contamination. The
identified sources and the contaminants typical of those sources are noted on Plate 2-4. These
4-2 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
sources were identified based on a review of plant records and the results of groundwater
monitoring.
Four sources of perchlorate were defined in the model. The sources at Plant 78 and Plant
3 are sumps. The source at the Burning Grounds resulted from waste disposal in unlined ponds.
The leach field source results from disposal of perchlorate in sinks, toilets, etc. in the
Manufacturing Area.
One site (the Burning Grounds) was identified as the primary source of TCA contamination
within the model domain. TCA entered the groundwater at this location from the disposal of
solvents in unlined ponds. Since the source of DCE is the degradation of TCA, ultimately the
DCE source is also the Burning Grounds.
Seven sites were modeled as the primary sources of TCE contamination. The site with
the highest source concentration is the Burning Grounds, followed by the leach field and sumps at
Plant 78. Lower concentration sources include an old landfill, a barrel storage area in the
Manufacturing Area, a sump in Plant 3, and a sump for the E585 laboratory.
Another source of perchlorate (and possibly TCE) contamination is an area west of
Building M115/M174 where off-specification boosters-, were washed out. Contamination from this
source initially occurs in a perched aquifer east ofthe Manufacturing Area, and flows from there to
the regional aquifer. When calibration of the transport model began, a constant concentration
source was defined to represent the contamination from the perched aquifer. However, during
calibration it was noted that the source concentration for the perched aquifer was orders of
magnitude lower than the contaminant concentrations originating in the Burning Grounds. Since
constant concentration cells can add or remove mass from the model, this difference in constant
concentration values between resulted in the unreasonable situation of removing contaminant
mass from the Burning Ground source rather than allowing this mass to migrate downgradient.
Thus, although the perched aquifer is a source of contamination, it was not included in the model.
The impact ofthe contaminated perched aquifer on the overall situation is limited in comparison to
that which originates within the Burning Grounds and elsewhere at the site.
4-3 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
The model has five mechanisms to remove contaminant mass from solution -
biodegradation, discharge at springs or wells, volatilization, sorption, and discharge at model
boundaries. Biodegradation removes contaminant mass by transforming the contaminant into
other compounds. The model accounts for biodegradation and volatilization through the first-
order reaction rate. Due to the depth of groundwater, volatilization is likely not occurring. It was
assumed that the decay rate is first-order process since no data are available to show othenvise.
The decay rate was discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.
Contaminated groundwater that flows to a spring is removed from the model.
Furthermore, any mass reaching a model boundary will flow from the model and be removed.
Contaminant mass in solution, which is adsorbed onto organic matter in the aquifer, becomes
immobile. The first four above-mentioned mechanisms all remove mass permanently. However,
ifthe contaminant concentration in the aquifer gets sufficiently low, the contaminants sorbed to the
organic matter will re-enter solution, thus becoming mobile again and becoming a source of
contamination. The model accounts for both sorption and re-solution of contaminants.
4.4 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODELING SOf-TWARE
Contaminant transport in groundwater within the study area was modeled using
MT3DMS and RT3D Version 2.5 (Waterioo Hydrogeologic, 2004). MT3DMS is a modular,
three-dimensional transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical
reactions of dissolved constituents in groundwater. MT3DMS estimates the behavior of a
groundwater contaminant plume by numerically solving the partial differential equation that
describes transport of contaminants in groundwater. The MT3D users manual (Zheng, 1994)
presents this partial differential equation and defines terms found in the equation. RT3D is
similar to MT3DMS, but specifically evaluates the degradation of a contaminant into other
compounds. RT3D was used to model the degradation of TCA into DCE.
MT3DMS and RT3D offer six solution techniques to solve the advective-dispersive-reactive
partial differential equation. The six solution techniques are:
4-4 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
• The method of characteristics (MOC);
• The modified method of characteristics (MIMOC);
• The hybrid method of characteristics (HMOC), which combines the strength of MOC
for eliminating numerical dispersion with the computational efficiency of MMOC;
• Upstream finite difference;
• Central finite difference; and
• Third-order-total-variation-diminishing.
The solution technique used is dependent on the conditions that MT3DMS and RT3D
are to be run under. For example the MOC, MMOC or HMOC are better for problems where
advection is the dominant transport mechanism. The upstream finite difference solution
technique was used for this model because it minimi2:ed numerical instability.
MT3DMS and RT3D are written with a modular structure similar to that used by
MODFLOW. They include a main program and several independent subroutines called modules.
The modules are grouped into packages that deal with certain features such as advection,
dispersion, and reaction. MT3DMS and RT3D must be run in conjunction with a block-centered
finite-difference flow model such as MODFLOW. MT3DMS and RT3D retrieves groundwater flow
information from the groundwater flow model output and incorporates these flow data into the
contaminant transport model.
As with the flow model, the software package Visual MODFLOW was used to create the
input files needed by MT3DMS and RT3D. Visual MODFLOW includes features that were also
used to aid in interpreting the model results. Visual MODFLOW generates contours from the
saved the concentration data from the MT3DMS or F?T3D run, which allows visual comparison of
model results with measured values.
4.5 GRID
The flow model grid was used for the contaminant transport model with the exception
that the area evaluated for the contaminant transport model is significantly smaller than the area
covered by the flow model. The larger area for the flow model is required because the flow
model boundaries were set far enough away from the area of interest to minimize boundary
influences. The area covered by the contaminant transport model is not limited by these
4-5 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
conditions so a smaller area was modeled to promote computational efficiency. The grid
spacing (200 ft x 200 ft) remained the same for the transport model as was used for the flow
model.
4.6 INITIAL CONDITIONS
The contaminant transport model was run in transient mode to allow predictions of
changes in concentrations with time. Hence, it was necessary to specify the initial or starting
conditions, including the time period to be modeled, the source cell locations, and initial cell
concentrations. A contaminant plume can be modeled from the time of the spill or from
intermediate stages of plume development. If the model begins at the time of the spill, only the
concentration of the source cells needs to be specified. If the model begins at an intermediate
stage of plume development, the concentration of the cells which define the plume at that time
need to be specified. This model assumed a starting point at the estimated time of the release.
4.6.1 Time Period
No specific information is available concerning the exact time when a contaminant was
entered groundwater at a source. However, some general information indicates when processes
that produced the wastes were started. Solid rockejt production began at this facility in 1956.
Since perchlorate is a component of solid rockest fuel, it was assumed that perchlorate
contamination of groundwater began at approximately the same time as production of solid rocket
motors. The transport model for perchlorate was calibrated for a time period between 1956 and
the forth quarter of 2004, which is approximately 48 years or 17,520 days.
The time period that TCE was first used is not well defined. However, the assumption was
made that groundwater contamination by TCE began in the mid to late 1950s. The transport
model for TCE was calibrated assuming a time period of 17,520 days (48 years) for three sources
(Burning Grounds, leach field, and drum storage). A time period of 16,790 days (46 years) was
assumed for the remaining sources.
TCA was first used at the site in 1974. The transport model for TCE/DCE was calibrated
assuming a time period of 10,950 days (30 years).
4-6 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
4.6.2 Source
As mentioned above, sources of perchlorate, TCE, and TCA contamination were modeled
using constant concentration cells. The location and concentration of constant concentration cells
was determined based on the location of sumps, surface impoundments, bulk waste sites, and
septic systems known or expected to have handled the contaminants. The concentrations
assumed for these cells were determined based on results of groundwater sampling in
downgradient wells. The source concentration was assumed to be slightly higher than the
adjacent groundwater concentration to account for dilution.
The concentrations of most constant concentration cells were generally held steady over
the calibration period. However, the constant concentration cells for the Burning Grounds were
varied to reflect increasing and decreasing degradation rates as discussed in Section 4.2.
4.7 PARAMETER ZONATION
MT3DMS and RT3D allow the user to define zones for porosity, bulk density, retardation
factor, first order degradation rate, and dispersivity. The other model parameters, such as
molecular diffusion and the ratio of longitudinal and horizontal transverse dispersivity, can oniy be
specified for an entire model layer. Although MT3DMS allows bulk density to be varied spacially,
a single value was used for entire model area. The decision to not vary bulk density spacially
during calibration was made because no data were available to justify any spatial variations. The
other parameters were varied spacially. Generally, spatial variations were limited to distinctions
between the unconsolidated and consolidated layers ofthe model. For example the dispersivity in
the Layer 2 was set at 4 feet while that in Layer 3 was set to 60 feet. Some exceptions were
made in localized areas of the facility where contaminant behavior suggested increased
degradation of the contaminant was occurring.
4-7 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
4.8 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL CALIBRATION
4.8.1 Methods
During calibration of the contaminant transport models, initially-assumed transport and
aquifer parameters were varied until the desired results were achieved. MT3DMS and RT3D
were run for the above-noted calibration periods and parameters were varied until the models
predicted roughly the same plume extents as seen in the forth quarter of 2004. During calibration,
five transport parameters and one hydraulic parameter were varied. Transport parameters which
were varied were the decay rate, the source concentrations and locations, the retardation factor,
dispersivity, and effective porosity. The groundwater flow model was refined by varying hydraulic
conductivity values during calibration of the contaminant transport models. The general
discussion in this section can be applied to the calibration of all of the transport models unless
noted otherwise.
The objective of contaminant transport model calibration is different than for groundwater
flow model calibration. For the groundwater flow model, the predicted potentiometric surface is
matched as closely as possible to the measured surface while maintaining an approximate mass
balance between groundwater inflow and outflow. The primary objective of the contaminant
transport model calibration is to match the measured concentration in the springs and secondarily
to approximate the extent of the contaminant plumes with a mass balance discrepancy of less
than 1.0%. Since a primary focus of this modeling exercise was to determine future impacts on
the springs, the greatest effort was made to match measured concentrations in the springs.
Another goal of contaminant transport model calibration was to approximate the plume's interior
concentrations as close as possible to measured values.
In the eariy phases of model calibration, it became evident that it would not be possible to
match the concentrations measured at all of the obseivation points. With limited knowledge about
the size and orientation of fractures, only a few geologic structures affecting groundwater flow
could be modeled. It should also be noted that although a 200-ft x 200-ft grid is small relative to
the area being modeled it is still orders of magnitude larger than the fractures controlling
groundwater flow. Thus, the transport model will predict contamination spreading farther laterally
than is measured in some areas while underestimating the spread of the plumes in other areas
due to unidentified structures.
4-8 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
The flow model had the greatest effect on the behavior of the contaminant plumes. In
areas that the potentiometric surface could not be matched well, the contaminant plumes were
predicted to travel in areas known to be clean or predicted to have a much higher concentration.
Fortunately these problems were encountered in interior areas of the model domain and not in the
vicinity of the springs.
4.8.2 Results
The calibrated plumes are presented on Plates 4-1 and 4-2, as well as Figures 4-1 and 4-
2, with each plate or figure representing a different contaminant. Note that the plume on the
correct layer must be viewed when comparing measured to predicted concentrations. For
example, the concentration in Layer 3 around well E-1 is much higher than measured. However,
this well is completed in unconsolidated material (Layer 2) where the concentrations are lower.
Tables 4-1 through 4-4 present the measured and calculated concentrations at the wells.
The concentrations of the measured and modeled plumes agree well at the springs.
However, the measured and modeled concentrations at the wells in interior areas do not match
neariy as well due to problems previously discussed.
The assumptions made during calibration resulted in more contaminant mass being
estimated to be in the aquifer than measured values would suggest. The larger amount of
contaminant mass at the beginning of simulations results in a more consen/ative estimate of
future plume behavior.
The primary focus of matching the concentrations at the springs has been achieved to
an acceptable level. The secondary goal of matching plume extents and interior concentrations
was met to a lesser extent. The mass balance errors were 0.01% and -0.02% for the perchlorate,
and TCE models, respectively. A negative mass balance error denotes that more mass is leaving
the system than is entering. All of these mass balance errors are well below the acceptance
criterion of 1.0%. Hence, the contaminant transport models are considered reliable indicators of
conditions within the model domain.
4-9 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
A mass balance error is not available for the TCA/DCE model due to the use of RT3D to
model the degradation of TCA into DCE. RT3D does not create a mass balance output file due to
the difficulties in estimating the mass of degradation daughter products. For example, the
degradation of TCA produces not only DCE but also other compounds. Depending on the type of
degradation (i.e., aerobic or anaerobic), carbon dioxide and water may be produced during
degradation as well. Thus, a mass balance error cannot be produced for the TCA/DCE model.
4-10 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
CHAPTER 5
SIMULATION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
5.1 SIMULATIONS
Once the model is calibrated, it can be used to predict groundwater and plume behavior
in the future based on various management strategies. One of the primary reasons these
models were developed was to provide data to be used to evaluate those management
alternative, which have not yet been determined. Thus, no simulations have been run at this
time. When they are run, they will be discussed in separate report.
5.2 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
The purpose of a sensitivity analysis is to quantify the uncertainty in the calibrated model
caused by uncertainty in estimates of aquifer parameters, stresses, and boundary conditions
(Anderson and Woessner, 1992). Sensitivity analyses on the models were performed by varying
the magnitude of the hydraulic conductivity, recharge, longitudinal and transverse dispersivity,
porosity, bulk density, molecular diffusion coefficient, decay rate, and the activity coefficient. The
parameter values were increased and decreased to determine the effect on the model results.
Sensitivity analyses were perfonned on the calibrated steady-state groundwater flow model and
the TCE contaminant transport model. Sensitivity was not performed on the calibrated TCA/DCE
or perchlorate models since the sensitivity of the TCE- model was assumed to be representative of
the other models.
The sensitivity analysis was first run on the parameters affecting the groundwater flow
model. Following the sensitivity analysis for the groundwater flow model, a sensitivity analysis
was run on the parameters affecting the TCE contaminant transport model. Since the flow model
results are an input to the contaminant transport model, the parameters that the flow model was
most sensitive to were also tested to see their effect on the contaminant transport model.
5-1 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
The sensitivity of the models to variations in the parameter values was determined by
numerically comparing the calibrated model output with the output following parameter variation.
The RMS, normalized RMS, water balance, and miaximum residual over the model area were
used for comparison purposes for the groundwater flow model. The RMS, normalized RMS,
standard en-or of the estimate, and maximum residual over the model area were used for
comparison purposes for the contaminant transport model. The standard error of the estimate
and RMS were determined using the difference between the observed and calculated heads or
concentrations. The magnitude of the change betv;een the modified and calibrated statistics
indicates the relative sensitivity of the model to changes in that parameter.
5.3 GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL SENSITIVITY
A summary of the sensitivity analysis of the giroundwater flow model is contained in Table
5-1. As expected, the groundwater flow model is most sensitive to changes in hydraulic
conductivity and recharge. The flow model is least sensitive to changes in storage. The Visual
MODFLOW package does not readily allow the thickness ofthe aquifer to be varied. Therefore, a
check of sensitivity to aquifer thickness was not conducted.
The sensitivity of the flow model to changes in the hydraulic conductivity appears to be
greatest when the conductivities are decreased (see Table 5-1). Hydraulic conductivities modified
between 50% and 150% of the calibrated values produce minimal changes in the maximum
residual of the predicted head. During calibration of the flow model, it was observed that the
model was not as sensitive to changing all of the hydraulic conductivity zones by the same
proportion as it was to changing the hydraulic conductivity of one or two zones in the
Manufacturing Area. It appears that the relationship between the hydraulic conductivity zones is
more important than the actual value of the hydraulic conductivity within the zone.
As indicated previously, the calibrated hydraulic conductivities fall within the range of
values determined from the field tests performed for this investigation, with exception of the zones
defined to represent faults and/or fractures. In addition, the goodness-of-fit criteria for the
modeling effort were met during calibration. This indicates that, although the model is sensitive to
5-2 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
variations in the hydraulic conductivity, there is a high degree of confidence in the calibrated
results.
The flow model has a moderate sensitivity to the rate of recharge, being slightly more
sensitive to an over-estimation of recharge than an under-estimation of that parameter (see Table
5-1). No field data are available for comparison ofthe recharge values. However, in comparing
the degree of resemblance between the calibrated and initial potentiometric surfaces, the
calibrated magnitudes ofthis parameter are considered appropriate for the model.
5.4 CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL SENSITIVITY
A summary ofthe sensitivity analysis ofthe contaminant transport model is presented in
Table 5-2. The mass balance for the contaminant transport model is not discussed in Table 5-2
because it does not provide information on the sensitivity.
As indicated, the transport model is highly sensitive to source concentrations and porosity.
This was expected since a large portion of the contaminated groundwater is in the immediate
vicinity of the constant concentration cells. Concentrations within these cells were reduced or
increased by up to 50% during the sensitivity analysis. Hence, the large error seen can partially
be attributed to the mere presence of the constant concentration cells. The sensitivity to changes
in porosity can be explained by the significant impact porosity has on groundwater flow velocities.
This model is an advection-dominated model and, as such, changes in porosity would be
expected to have a large impact.
The calibrated source concentrations are considered reasonable when taking into account
the goal of this model. The assumed source concentrations are equal to or higher than
concentrations measured in adjacent wells. Hence, the model is considered to be a reasonably
conservative indicator of existing and simulated conditions. The porosity values used are also
considered reasonable based on a comparison ofthe assumed values with published literature.
5-3 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
The contaminant transport model is not as sensitive to hydraulic conductivity as the
groundwater flow model. As discussed in Section 5.3, the hydraulic conductivities are within the
range of measured values for the area with the exception of zones representing faults and/or
fractures. This indicates that, although the transport model is somewhat sensitive to hydraulic
conductivity, there is a high degree of confidence in the calibrated values. As discussed in
Section 5.3, experience during calibration indicates that the model is far more sensitive to
changing the hydraulic conductivity value within individual zones than to changing all of the zones
by the same proportion.
The transport model is not substantially sensitive to changes in bulk density and activity
coefficient. Thus, sorption does not appear to have a significant impact on plume behavior.
The transport model is somewhat sensitive to changes in the reaction rate (decay rate).
The model is more sensitive to decreases in the reaction rate than to increases. The decay rate is
a minor part of this model since it is being applied only in areas where degradation of the
contaminant is expected. The areas where the decay rate was used are limited to the
Manufacturing Area and downgradient of the leach field. Since this parameter does not affect a
large area, it is expected that the model would be only minimally sensitive to its variation.
The transport model is moderately sensitivity to longitudinal dispersivity. The calibrated
dispersivites are consistent with research results presented in the literature and, therefore,
considered appropriate.
The transport model is not sensitive to changes in molecular diffusion. Variations of plus
and minus 50% caused no changes in model predictions.
When looking at the sensitivity analysis results for the contaminant transport model, it
should be noted that, in many cases, there were little or no site-specific data on which to base
parameter estimates. In some of these cases, values from the literature were used. In others,
parameter values were estimated based solely on calibration. To counteract this potential
deficiency, parameters estimated during calibration were valued to give conservative results.
5-4 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
CHAPTER 6
REFERENCES
Anderson, M.P. and W.W. Woessner. 1992. Applied Groundwater Modeling. Academic Press,
Inc. San Diego, California.
Bolke, E. L. and D. Price. 1972. Hydrologic Reconnaissance of the Blue Creek Valley Area,
Box Elder County, Utah. Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication
No. 37. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Chen-Northern, Inc., 1992a. M-136 Ground Water Modeling Study Blue Creek Valley Model.
Submitted to Thiokol Corporation. Salt Lake City, Utah
Chen-Northern, Inc., 1992b. M-136 Ground Water Modeling Study Data Review and Model
Calibration. Submitted to Thiokol Corporation. Salt Lake City, Utah
Chen-Northern, Inc., 1992c. M-136 Ground Water Modeling Study Evaluation of Remedial
Alternatives. Submitted to Thiokol Corporation. Salt Lake City, Utah
EarthFax Engineering Inc., 1991. Results of Long-Term Pumping Tests Associated with the M-
136 Burning Grounds. Submitted to Thiokol Corporation. Salt Lake City, Utah
EarthFax Engineering Inc., 2001. Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Model,
Bacchus Works. Submitted by ATK to the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste.
Salt Lake City, Utah
EarthFax Engineering Inc., 2004. Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Model
Workpian for the ATK Promontory Facility. Submitted by ATK to the Utah Division of
Solid and Hazardous Waste. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Hood, J.W. 1972. Hydrologic Reconaissance of the Promontory Mountains Area, Box Elder
County, Utah. Utah Department of Natural Resources Technical Publication No. 38.
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Klein, J. and J.J. Lajoie. 1980. Electromagnetic Prospecting for Minerals. Chapter 6 in R. Van
Blaricom (ed.). Practical Geophysics for the Exploration Geologist. Northwest Mining
Association. Spokane, Washington.
Miller, D.M., M.D. Crittenden, and T.E Jordan. 1991. Geologic Map of the Lampo Junction
Quadrangle, Box Elder County, Utah. Map 136. Utah Geological Sun/ey. Salt Lake
City, Utah.
6-1 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
i&
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
Murphy, P. and J.W. Gv^nn. 1979. Geothermal Investigations at Selected Thermal Systems of
the Northern Wasatch Front, Weber and Box Elder Counties, Utah. Report of
Investigation No. 141. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Paterson, N.R. and V. Ronka. 1971. Five Years of Surveying with the Very Low Frequency
Electro Magnetics Method. Geoexploration. V. 9, no. 1, pp. 7-26.
Phillips, W.J. and W.E. Richards. 1975. A Study of the Effectiveness of the VLF Method for the
Location of Narrow-Mineralized Fault Zones, Geoexploration. V. 13, no. 4, pp. 215-226.
Ritchey, J. D. and J. O. Rumbaugh. 1996. Subsurface Fluid Flow (Ground-Water and Vadose
Zone) Modeling. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Sergent, Hauskins and Beckwith. 1988. Report for Geohydrologic Investigation M-136
Facilities Area Morton Thiokol, Inc. Box Elder County, Utah. Submitted to Morton
Thiokol, Inc.
Waterioo Hydrogeologic Inc. 2004. Visual Modflow Suite. Ontario, Canada.
Zheng, C. and G.D. Bennett. 1995. Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling. Van Nostrad
Reinhold. New York, New York.
6-2 EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
TABLES
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 2-1
MONITOR WELL SAMPLING RESULTS
Well
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8 .
A-9
A-10
B-1
B-2D
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
C-1
C-2
C-3
0-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
Perc.
Conc.
(mg/e)
ND
0.027
0.516
1.500
4.790
13.000
ND
18.500
4.220
0.139
1.140
32.700
48.000
57.000
0.201
36.900
0.290
0.687
0.014
3.020
4.930
0.392
50.800
ND
24.000
0.0094
0.050
ND
ND
ND
ND
23,000
49.000
40.000
11.700
22.000
0.239
0.058
0.056
Sample
Date
06-28-94
04-22-03
04-24-03
11-21-00
04-30-03
04-28-03
05-08-03
10-24-01
05-13-02
05-07-03
05-29-03
10-08-02
05-10-01
05-08-01
10-17-02
10-17-02
10-16-02
10-17-02
04-24-03
11-06-02
04-30-03
04-28-03
11-12-02
08-05-89
11-01-99
05-01-03
11-12-01
05-12-03
12-08-88
06-23-88
08-27-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
05-14-01
10-09-02
10-21-02
10-21-02
TCE
Conc.
(mg/£)
3.300
0.0033
3.530
7.100
1.660
0.068
ND
5.900
1.830
0.0044
5.020
2.800
3.630
1.170
0.325
1.990
0.120
0.044
0.990
0.027
0.974
1.140
3.880
0.0041
2.210
0.0068
0.0071
ND
0.057
13.020
12.000
5.900
ND
0.330
4.400
0.820
0.037
0.129
0,172
Sample
Date
06-28-94
04-22-03
04-22-03
11-21-00
04-30-03
04-28-03
05-08-03
10-24-01
05-13-02
05-07-03
05-29-03
10-08-02
05-10-01
10-17-02
10-17-02
10-17-02
10-16-02
10-16-02
04-24-03
11-06-02
04-30-03
04-28-03
11-14-02
11-28-90
10-24-01
05-01-03
11-12-01
05-12-03
08-16-89
06-23-88
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
10-22-03
10-09-02
10-15-03
10-14-03
TCA
Conc.
(mg/£)
1.500
ND
0,482
2.450
1.140
ND
ND
2.530
1.340
ND
1.910
1.240
1.070
0.122
0.266
0.223
0.0037
0.0042
0.079
ND
0.475
0.198
1.850
ND
1.070
0.0042
0.0016
ND
ND
7.000
6.700
ND
ND
0.013
7.700
0.123
0.006
0.015
0.010
Sample
Date
06-28-94
04-22-03
04-23-03
11-21-00
04-30-03
04-28-03
05-08-03
10-24-01
05-13-02
05-07-03
05-29-03
10-08-02
05-10-01
10-17-02
10-17-02
10-17-02
10-16-02
10-16-02
04-24-03
11-06-02
04-30-03
04-28-03
11-14-02
11-28-90
10-24-01
05-01-03
11-12-01
05-12-03
08-16-89
06-23-88
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
10-22-03
10-09-02
10-15-03
10-14-03
DCE
Conc.
(mg/e)
0.130
ND
ND
0.686
0.165
ND
ND
0.673
0.154
ND
0.735
0.380
0.536
0.089
0.503
0.135
0.0053
0.0019
0.050
ND
0.130
0.061
0.209
ND
0.267
ND
0.0006
ND
ND
0.117
ND
ND
ND
0.002
ND
0.066
0.0023
0.0083
0.019
Sample
Date
06-28-94
04-22-03
04-22-03
11-21-00
04-30-03
04-28-03
05-08-03
10-24-01
05-13-02
05-07-03
05-29-03
10-08-02
05-10-01
10-17-02
10-17-02
10-17-02
10-16-02
10-16-02
04-24-03
11-06-02
04-30-03
04-28-03
11-14-02
11-28-90
10-24-01
05-01-03
11-12-01
05-12-03
08-16-89
06-23-88
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
08-18-87
10-22-03
10-09-02
10-15-03
10-14-03
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
MONITOR WELL SAMPLING RESULTS
Well
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
F-1
F-3
F-4
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
BC-2
BC-3
LF-1
LF-2
LF-3
LF-4
P-1
P-2
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
H-9
H-10
Perc.
Conc.
(mg/e)
0.030
0.230
35.600
0.0903
3.380
14.300
49.200
2.260
0.030
0.207
48.3
ND
0.024
0.021
0.0831
ND
0.020
ND
ND
0.532
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0047
ND
2.240
0.0042
0.0069
ND
ND
ND
0.0678
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sample
Date
10-21-02
10-23-02
10-09-02
10-26-04
09-22-04
06-02-03
11-06-02
10-24-02
11-06-02
09-28-04
09-28-04
09-28-04
05-28-02
09-28-04
10-13-04
06-06-02
06-09-03
08-20-01
10-10-02
10-13-04
10-13-04
10-13-04
06-07-94
05-21-03
05-20-03
05-20-03
05-21-03
05-21-03
05-28-03
09-30-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
09-30-04
09-30-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
TCE
Conc.
(mg/e)
0.027
0.079
1.630
0.020
2.370
1.110
2.420
0.077
0.018
0.0135
2.140
0.0882
0.012
0.0586
0.0162
ND
0.0072
ND
ND
0.0471
0.0025 J
0.0027 J
0.003
0.183
0.0077
0.213
0.487
3.640
0.562
0.0338
0.0154
0.0076 J
0.0064 J
0.0202
0.0385
0.0040
0.0039
0.0230
0.0338
Sample
Date
10-14-03
10-14-03
10-09-02
10-26-04
09-22-04
06-02-03
10-22-03
10-15-03
11-06-02
09-28-04
09-28-04
09-28-04
10-13-03
09-28-04
10-13-03
06-06-02
06-09-03
08-20-01
10-10-02
10-13-04
10-13-04
10-13-04
06-07-94
05-21-03
05-20-03
05-20-03
06-05-03
05-21-03
05-28-03
09-30-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
09-30-04
09-30-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
TCA
Conc.
(mg/e)
ND
0.0023
0.179
ND
0.0168
0.599
0.344
0.0094
ND
0.001 J
0.257
0.0048 J
ND
0.0116
ND
ND
0.0048
ND
ND
0.0075 J
ND
ND
ND
0.0079
ND
0.0042
0.372
0.110
0.011
0.0016
0.0007 J
ND
ND
0.0008
0.0015 J
ND
ND
0.0012 J
0.0016 J
Sample
Date
10-14-03
10-14-03
10-09-02
10-26-04
09-22-04
11-12-02
10-22-03
10-15-03
11-06-02
09-28-04
09-28-04
09-28-04
10-13-03
09-28-04
10-13-03
06-06-02
10-29-02
08-20-01
10-10-02
10-13-04
10-13-04
10-13-04
06-07-94
05-21-03
05-20-03
05-20-03
06-05-03
05-21-03
05-28-03
09-30-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
09-30-04
09-30-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
DCE
Conc.
(mg/e)
ND
0.0053
0.167
0.0014 J
0.342
0.136
0.170
0.0073
ND
ND
0.230
0.0038 J
ND
0.0186
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0066
ND
ND
ND
0.012
0.019
0.162
0.598
0.399
0.022
0.0019 J
0.0011 J
ND
ND
ND
0,0019 J
ND
ND
0.0014 J
0.0019 J
Sample
Date
10-14-03
10-14-03
10-09-02
10-26-04
09-22-04
06-02-03
10-22-03
10-15-03
11-06-02
09-28-04
09-28-04
09-28-04
10-13-03
09-28-04
10-13-03
06-06-02
10-29-02
05-01-02
10-10-02
10-13-04
10-13-04
10-13-04
06-07-94
05-21-03
05-20-03
05-20-03
06-05-03
05-21-03
05-28-03
09-30-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
09-30-04
09-30-04
10-11-04
10-11-04
10-12-04
10-12-04
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
MONITOR WELL SAMPLING RESULTS
Well
J-1
J-2
J-3A
J-3
J-4
J-5
J-6
J-7
J-8
EW-6
X-4
M-114B1
M39-B1
M-5081
M-5082
M-5083
M-5084
M-508B1
M-636B1
TCC2
TCC3A
TCC6
TCC8A
Fish Spring
Shotgun Sp
Pipe Spring
Horse Spr
Perc.
Conc.
(mg/e)
0.495
0.00706
ND
ND
0.014
0.0067
0.0104
0.182
0.0583
9.710
0.190
0.0499
2.740
ND
0.0158
0.0492
0.0168
0.0128
0.0858
0.851
0.038
ND
ND
0.00471
0.0203
0.343
ND
Sample
Date
11-02-04
11-08-04
10-26-04
10-26-04
01-13-05
05-09-05
05-09-05
05-18-05
01-13-05
11-14-02
10-10-02
10-19-04
10-19-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-19-04
05-19-03
10-30-02
05-13-03
05-13-03
10-15-04
10-15-04
10-15-04
10-15-04
TCE
Conc.
(mg/e)
0.221
0.0012 J
0.0259
ND
2.540
0.0049
0.0038
0.0359
0.0439
0.092
0.040
0.0289
0.0451
0.0343
0.362
2.670
4.900
0.637
0.0136
0.422
0.0087
ND
0.0012
0.0048 J
ND
0.005 J
ND
Sample
Date
11-02-04
11-08-04
10-26-04
10-26-04
01-13-05
05-09-05
05-09-05
05-18-05
01-13-05
10-27-03
11-03-03
10-19-04
10-19-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-19-04
06-05-03
10-30-02
05-13-03
05-13-03
10-15-04
10-15-04
10-15-04
10-15-04
TCA
Conc.
(mg/C)
0.0085 J
0.0009 J
0.0004 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0026
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0147
ND
0.006 J
0.0168
0.0155
0.008 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sample
Date
11-02-04
11-08-04
10-26-04
10-26-04
01-13-05
05-09-05
05-09-05
05-18-05
01-13-05
10-27-03
11-03-03
10-19-04
10-19-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-19-04
06-05-03
10-30-02
05-13-03
05-13-03
10-15-04
10-15-04
10-15-04
10-15-04
DCE
Conc.
(mg/e)
0.0119
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0025
ND
0.031
ND
ND
0.0063 J
ND
0.0161
0.0553
0.068
0.0241
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sample
Date
11-02-04
11-08-04
10-26-04
10-26-04
01-13-05
05-09-05
05-09-05
05-18-05
01-13-05
10-27-03
11-03-03
10-19-04
10-19-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-18-04
10-19-04
06-05-03
10-30-02
05-13-03
05-13-03
10-15-04
10-15-04
10-15-04
10-15-04
Notes:
1)
2)
3)
"ND" indicates no detection.
A "J" in the concentration column indicates that the contaminant was detected below
the minimum qualification limit. This indicates that the contaminant is present but
that the reported concentration may not be accurate.
The reported concentration represents the sampling results from the most recent
representative sampling event.
EarthFax Engmeering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES
Well No.
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-8
A-9
A-10
B-1
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
C-1
C-2
C-3
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
730
27
54
410
190
360
775
145
15
33
2.73
39.82
0.75
470
4.85
3.11
2.6
52
510
30.5
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Range (ft/day) '^^
23-31
42-75
350-470
120-260
310-410
650-900
120-170
13-17
26-41
2-3.4
35.28-44.35
0.3-1.1
4.2-5.5
37-70
26-35
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES
Well No.
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
Hydraulic
Conductivitv
(ft/day) •
560
4.3
18
250
3.45
54
552.5
2.93
0.55
0.26
92.4
39.2
89.55
114.05
14.45
23.15
4.95
0.55
10.9
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Range (ft/day) <'^
470-650
15-30
210-290
1-5.9
445-660
36.2-42.2
87.0-92.1
100.9-127.2
13.0-15.9
22.2-24.1
4.9-5.0
0.5-0.6
10.7-11.1
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES
Well No.
E-9
E-10
F-1
F-2A
F-2B
F-2C
F-3
F-4
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
BC-2
BC-3
BC-4
BC-5
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/day)
0.5
30.7
16.37
2.31
2.07
0.07
3.73
63.73
16.69
41.38
2.05
40.58
29.43
62.76
7.01
0.34
12
10
1
92
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Range (ft/day) <"'
30.2-31.2
16.13-16.60
2.20-2.41
1.68-2.46
0.052-0.087
3.67-3.79
62.15-65.30
16.26-17.12
38.61-44.14
1.91-2.18
37.96-43.19
27.62-31.23
57.82-68.44
6.85-7.16
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES
Well No.
BC-6
LF-1
LF-2
LF-3
LF-4
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(ft/min)
9
4.66
1.6
5.07
21.25
0.3
17
63.5
6
24
37.5
38
32
0.66
1.38
4.17
298.73
6.78
1.41
55.43
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Range (ft/day) <"'
3.08-6.23
4.80-5.33
16-18
62-65
29-46
0.62-0.69
1.29-1.46
269.86-327.60
5.21-8.35
54.79-56.07
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES
Well No.
H-8
H-9
H-10
J-1
J-3
J-4
J-5
J-6
J-7
J-8
EW-1
EW-6
X-4
M-508-1
M-508-2
M-508-3
M-508-4
M-508-B1
TCC-2
Hydraulic
Conductivitv
(ft/day) •
1.39
0.11
0.05
0.4
0.05
10.36
311.69
149.4
0.11
0.11
7
108.66
11.5
5.6
3.15
3.4
3.29
0.45
0.9
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Range (ft/day) <"'
0.34-0.46
5.14-15.58
203.76-419.62
138.66-160.13
0.06-0.15
0.06-0.15
5.45-5.75
3.38-3.42
2.74-3.83
0.45-0.46
0.46-1.33
(a) The hydraulic conductivity range identifies the results of all testing of the well i.e. the
results of a slug and bail test conducted at the same time.
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 3-2
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED WATER LEVELS
Well
ID
A-1
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
BC-1
BC-2
BC-3
BC-4
BC-5
BC-6
Initial
Water Level (ft)
4290.16
4288.71
4290.20
4290.48
4290.27
4290.29
4288.76
4289.40
4289.93
4288.41
4272.94
4266.24
4265.82
4274.44
4241.57
4263.88
4264.55
4262.83
4258.24
4262.60
Predicted
\'^/ater Level (ft)
4287.16
4287.78
4288.07
4287.83
4287.03
4287.32
4288.30
4286.77
4286.47
4285.54
4277.85
4266.16
4265.68
4275.13
4241.92
4263.56
4265.74
4260.64
4262.73
4260.64
Difference
(ft)
-3.00
-0.93
-2.13
-2.65
-3.24
-2.97
-0.16
-2.63
-3.46
-2.87
4.91
-0.08
-0.14
0.69
0.35
-0.32
1.19
-2.19
4.49
-1.96
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN INITIAL AND PREDICTED WATER LEVELS
Well
ID
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
EW-1
Initial
Water Level (ft)
4287.19
4287.40
4289.22
4290.47
4290.21
4289.29
4290.15
4289.43
4291.49
4291.58
4290.23
4288.68
4275.76
4269.44
4265.41
4264.41
4262.76
4262.79
4265.60
4290.21
4287.97
4260.42
Predicted
Water Level (ft)
4286.89
4286.87
4287.03
1287.08
4289.36
4290.56
4292.85
4287.83
4287.00
4287.17
4287.20
4286.84
4284.08
4266.46
4265.10
4264.33
4263.80
4263.31
4268.38
4281.77
4287.47
4254.36
Difference
(ft)
-0.30
-0.53
-2.19
-3.39
-0.85
1.27
2.70
-1.60
-4.49
-4.41
-3.03
-1.84
8.32
-2.98
-0.31
-0.08
1.04
0.52
2.78
-8.44
-0.50
-6.06
EarthFax Engmeering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN INITIAL AND PRIEDICTED WATER LEVELS
Well
ID
EW-3
EW-4
EW-5
EW-6
F-1
F-3
F-4
G-1
G-2
G-3
G^
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
H-1
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
Initial
Water Level (ft)
4262.32
4267.05
4263.99
4265.49
4288.21
4277.40
4266.04
4266.11
4265.72
4262.79
4262.89
4259.62
4258.98
4258.05
4268.34
4263.77
4264.24
4265.02
4265.73
4263.71
4263.76
4266.53
Predicted
V\/ater Level (ft)
4264.57
4267.30
4263.70
4265.66
4285.37
4280.55
4266.82
4266.37
4265.80
4260.08
4259.43
4259.24
4257.33
4257.38
4260.32
4266.67
4268.31
4269.6
4270.70
4263.18
4263.27
4273.39
Difference
(ft)
2.25
0.25
-0.29
0.17
-2.84
3.15
0.78
0.26
0.08
-2.72
-3.46
-0.38
-1.65
-0.67
-8.02
2.90
4.07
4.58
4.97
-0.53
-0.49
6.86
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 3-2 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN INITIAL AND PREDICTED WATER LEVELS
Well
ID
H-8
J-1
J-4
J-5
J-6
J-7
J-8
LF-1
LF-2
LF-3
LF-4
M-508-1
M-508-2
M-508-3
M-508-4
M-508-B1
P-1
P-8
P-9
X-4
Initial
Water Level (ft)
4278.04
4346.87
4269.01
4258.18
4257.70
4330.91
4327.69
4297.83
4301.76
4296.65
4297.00
4344.41
4344.22
4345.43
4346.09
4345.39
4341.77
4349.91
4343.99
4253.93
Predicted
Water Level (ft)
4281.57
4332.74
4267.81
4256.01
4258.91
4323.95
4325.75
4300.40
4301.65
4299.47
4316.94
4339.64
4340.17
4340.97
4341.66
4340.67
4343.10
4343.89
4343.26
4255.52
Difference
(ft)
3.52
-14.13
-1.20
-2.17
1.21
-6.96
-1.94
2.57
-0.11
2.82
19.94
-4.77
-4.08
-4.46
-4.43
-4.72
1.33
-6.12
-0.73
1.59
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 4 1
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
PERCHLORATE
Well
ID
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
BC-2
BC-3
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
4.79
13.00
0.00
18.50
4.22
1.14
32.70
48.00
50.30
0.201
36.90
0.29
0.687
0.0038
0
Predicted
Concentration
(ppm)
57.0039
0.0531
0.2349
12.1530
0.0036
0.0389
18.1771
68.1312
46.0962
0.1816
36.2159
0.8818
0.5142
0.0118
0
Difference
(ppm)
52.2139
-12.9469
0.2349
-6.3470
-4.2164
-1.1011
-14.5229
20.1312
-4.2038
-0.0194
-0.6841
0.5918 .
-0.1728
0.0080
0
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
PERCHLORATE
Well
ID
C-1
C-2
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
EW-6
F-1
F-3
F-4
G-1
G-2
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
4.93
0.392
24.40
0.0094
0.05
0
22.00
0.239
0.059
0.066
0.029
0.181
0.0903
3.38
14.30
10.90
55.50
0
0.03
0.207
48.30
Predicted
C:oncentration
(ppm)
19.4757
6.7519
4.1573
0.0001
0
0
20.7877
0.3909
1.0412
0.1359
0.0115
0.0009
55.5696
0
0
0.0837
39.5793
5.6318
49.9971
0.5138
42.6721
Difference
(ppm)
14.5457
6.3599
-20.2427
-0.0093
-0.0500
0
-1.2123
0.1519
0.9822
0.0699
-0.0175
-0.1801
55.1793
-3.3800
-14.30
-10.8163
-15.9207
5.6318
49.9671
0.3068
-5.6279
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
PERCHLORATE
Well
ID
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
J-1
J-4
J-5
J-6
J-7
J-8
LF-1
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
0
0.022
0.0121
0.034
0
0.025
0
0
0.0678
0
0
0
0
0.495
0.014
0.0067
0.0104
0.182
0.0583
0.532
Predicted
C/oncentration
(ppm)
0
0
0.0567
0.0002
0
0.0076
0
0
0
0.0050
0.0013
0
0
0.5337
1.1437
0.1203
0.1425
0.0135
0.0590
0
Difference
(ppm)
0
-0.022
0.0446
-0.0338
0
-0.0174
0
0
-0.0678
0.0050
0.0013
0
0
0.0387
1.1297
0.1136
0.1321
-0.1685
0.0007
0.5320
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
PERCHLORATE
Well
ID
LF-2
LF-3
M-508-1
M-508-2
M-508-3
M-508-4
M-508-B1
P-1
P-8
P-9
X-4
Fish Spring
Shotgun Spr.
Pipe Spring
Horse Spring
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
0
0
0
0.0158
0.0492
0.0168
0.0128
0
0.0042
0.0069
0.179
0.0047
0.0203
0.343
0
Predicted
Concentration
(ppm)
0
0
0.0198
0.0066
0.0082
0.0037
0.0051
0
0
0
0.0798
0.0076
0.1070
0.3398
0.0029
Difference
(ppm)
0
0
0.0198
-0.0092
-0.0410
-0.0131
-0.0077
0
0.0042
0.0069
-0.0992
0.0029
0.0867
-0.0032
0.0029
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 4-2
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
TCE
Well
ID
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
BC-2
BC-3
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
1.66
0.068
0
5.90
1.83
5.02
2.80
3.63
1.17
0.325
1.99
0.12
0.044
0.0011
0
Predicted
eaoncentratlon
(ppm)
0.9155
0.0134
0.1802
4.0011
0.0030
0.0009
0.8580
4.1763
1.7669
0.9645
0.3022
0.1023
0.0084
0.0168
0
Difference
(ppm)
-0.7445
-0.0546
0.1802
-1.8989
-1.8270
-5.0191
-1.9420
0.5463
0.5969
0.6395
-1.6878
-0.0177
-0.0356
0.0157
0
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
TCE
Well
ID
C-1
C-2
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
EW-6
F-1
F-3
F-4
G-1
G-2
Observed
Concentration
L (ppm)
0.974
1.14
2.21
0.0068
0.0071
0
0.82
0.037
0.129
0.172
0.027
0.079
0.022
2.37
1.11
0.092
2.42
0.077
0.018
0.0135
2.14
Predicted
Concentration
(ppm)
0.8838
0.3803
1.6109
0
0.0201
0.0104
0.7975
0.0074
0.0052
0.0060
0.0007
0.0002
1.2388
0.0007
0
0.0162
0.5187
0.0915
0.6226
0.0075
2.1723
Difference
(ppm)
-0.0902
-0.7597
-0.5991
-0.0068
0.0130
0.0104
-0.0225
-0.0296
-0.1238
-0.1660
-0.0263
-0.0789
1.2168
-2.3693
-1.1100
-0.0758
-1.9013
0.0145
0.6046
-0.0060
0.0323
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
TCE
Well
ID
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
H-6
H-7
H-8
J-1
J-5
J-6
J-7
J-8
LF-1
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
0.0882
0.0012
0.0586
0.0162
0
0.0072
0.0154
0.0076
0.0064
0.0202
0.0385
0.004
0.0039
0.221
0.0054
0.0038
0.0125
0.0439
0.0471
Predicted
Concentration
(ppm)
0
0.0001
0.0012
0.0002
0
0.0003
0.0003
0.0109
0.0135
0.0172
0.0066
0
0.0007
0.1912
0.0020
0.0018
0.0102
0.0357
0.0496
Difference
(ppm)
-0.0881
-0.0011
-0.0574
-0.0160
0
-0.0069
-0.0151
0.0033
0.0071
-0.0030
-0.0319
-0.0040
-0.0032
-0.0298
-0.0034
-0.0020
-0.0023
-0.0082
0.0025
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
TCE
Well
ID
LF-2
LF-3
M-508-1
M-508-2
M-508-3
M-508-4
M-508-B1
P-1
P-8
P-9
X-4
Fish Spring
Shotgun Spr.
Pipe Spring
Horse Spring
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
0.0025
0.0027
0.0343
0.362
2.67
4.9
0.637
0.183
3.64
0.562
0.04
0
0
0.005
0.0048
Predicted
(Concentration
(ppm)
0
0
1.3676
2.1818
0.9410
2.4015
2.3409
0
2.9439
0.0005
0.0361
0.0002
0.0019
0.0053
0.0028
Difference
(ppm)
-0.0025
-0.0027
1.3333
1.8198
-1.7290
-2.4985
1.7039
-0.183
-0.6961
-0.5615
-0.0039
0.0002
0.0019
0.0003
-0.0020
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 4-3
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
TCA
Well
ID
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
B-1
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
BC-2
C-1
C-2
C-5
C-6
C-8
E-1
E-2
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
1.14
0
0
2.53
1.34
0
1.07
0.122
0.266
0.223
0.004
0.0042
0
0.475
0.198
1.07
0.004
0
0.123
0.037
Predicted
(Concentration
(ppm)
4.6276
0.0027
0.0010
0.0444
0.0015
0.0007
9.7097
1.6311
0.1043
0
0
0
0
1.4706
0.6610
0.0152
0
0
0.1081
0
Difference
(ppm)
3.4876
0.0027
0.0010
-2.4856
-1.3385
0.0007
8.6397
1.5091
-0.1617
-0.223
-0.004
-0.0042
0
0.9956
0.4630
-1,0548
-0.0040
0
-0.0149
-0.0370
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
TCA
Well
ID
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
EW-6
F-1
F-3
F-4
G-1
G-2
G-4
G-5
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
0.015
0.01
0
0.0023
0
0.043
0.599
0
0.344
0.0094
0
0.001
0.257
0
0.0116
0.0007
0
0
0.0008
Predicted
Cioncentration
(ppm)
0
0
0
0
0.0298
0
0
0
0.0742
0.0015
0.0089
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Difference
(ppm)
-0.0150
-0.0100
0
0.0023
0.0298
-0.0430
-0.5990
0
-0.2698
-0.0079
0.0089
-0.001
-0.257
0
-0.0116
-0.0007
0
0
-0.0008
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
TCA
Well
ID
H-6
H-7
H-8
Pipe Spring
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
0.0015
0
0
0
Predicted
Concentration
(ppm)
0
0
0
0.0007
Difference
(ppm)
-0.0015
0
0
0.0007
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 4-4
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
DCE
Well
ID
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
B-1
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
BC-2
C-1
C-2
C-5
C-6
C-8
E-1
E-2
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
0.165
0
0
0.673
0.154
0.735
0.536
0.089
0.503
0.135
0.005
0.002
0
0.13
0.061
0
0
0
0.066
0.0023
Predicted
Concentration
(ppm)
0.7382
0.0003
0.0002
0.0072
0.0002
0.0003
0.9957
0.4382
0.0907
0
0
0
0
0.2248
0.0312
0.0016
0
0
0.0750
0
Difference
(ppm)
0.5732
0.0003
0.0002
-0.6658
-0.1538
-0.7347
0.4597
0.3492
-0.4122
-0.135
-0.005
-0.002
0
0.0948
-0.0297
0.0016
0
0
0.0090
-0.0023
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
DCE
Well
ID
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-8
E-9
E-10
EW-6
F-1
F-3
F-4
G-1
G-2
G-4
G-5
H-2
H-3
H-4
H-5
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
0.0083
0.019
0
0.0053
0
0.0342
0.136
0.031
0.17
0.0073
0
0
0.23
0
0.0186
0
0
0
0
Predicted
Concentration
(ppm)
0
0
0
0
0.0480
0
0
0
0.0439
0.0019
0.0109
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Difference
(ppm)
-0.0083
-0.0190
0
-0.0053
0.0480
-0.0342
-0.1360
-0.0310
-0.1261
-0.0054
0.0109
0
-0.23
0
-0.0186
0
0
0
0
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
TABLE 4-4 (Continued)
DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED CONCENTRATIONS FOR
DCE
Well
ID
H-6
H-7
H-8
Pipe Spring
Observed
Concentration
(ppm)
0
0
0
0
Predicted
Concentration
(ppm)
0
0
0
0.0006
Difference
(ppm)
0
0
0
0
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Faciltiy
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 5-1
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL SENSITIVITIY ANALYSES
Parameter
Multiplier
RMS
(ft)
Normalized
RMS
(%)
Water Balance
(%)
Maximum
Residual
(ft)
STORAGE (Sy/Ss)
0.5
0.8
0.9
i.o<^)
1.1
1.2
1.5
4.161
4.161
4.161
4.161
4.161
4.161
4.161
3.841
3.841
3.841
3.841
3.841
3.841
3.841
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
19.934
19.934
19.934
19.934
19.934
19.934
19.934
RECHARGE
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.0<^>
1.1
1.2
1.5
4.143
4.132
4.127
4.161
4.120
4.117
4.107
3.825
3.814
3.810
3.841
3.803
3.800
3.791
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
20.067
20.167
20.200
19.934
20.266
20.299
20.399
(a) Water balance discrepancy for the calibrated flow model provided for reference.
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Faciltiy
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 5-1 (Coinitinued)
RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL SENSITIVITIY ANALYSES
Parameter
Multiplier
RMS
(ft)
Normalized
RMS
(%)
Water Balance
(%)
II
Maximum
Residual
(ft)
HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
0.5
0.8
0.9
i.o(^)
1.1
1.2
1.5
7.424
4.532
4.261
4.162
4.130
4.160
4.380
6.853
4.532
3.933
3.841
3.812
3.840
4.043
0.003
0.003
0.010
0.003
0.010
0.003
0.003
20.495
19.867
19.910
19.938
19.967
19.990
20.039
(a) Water balance discrepancy for the calibrated flow model provided for reference.
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 5-2
RESULTS OF CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL SENSITIVITIY ANALYSES
Parameter
Multiplier
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
Normalized
RMS
(%)
RMS
(ppm)
HORIZONTAL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
18.822
17.491
17.241
17.208
17.371
18.421
1.111
1.032
1.017
1.015
1.025
1.087
Maximum
Residual
(ppm)
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
MOLECULAR DIFFUSION
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
17.165
17.165
17.165
17.165
17.165
17.165
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
BULK DENSITY
17.165
17.165
17.165
17.165
17.165
17.165
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 5-2 (Continued)
RESULTS OF CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL SENSITIVITIY ANALYSES
Parameter
Multiplier
Normalized
RMS
(%)
RMS
(ppm)
Maximum
Residual
(ppm)
ACTIVITY COEFFICIENT (FRACTION ORGANIC CONTENT)
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
17.165
17.165
17.165
17.165
17.165
17.165
SOURCE CONCEh
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1 ''•^
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
1.013
JTRATION
20.055 1.183
17.847
17.418
17.096
17.212
18.618
REACTION RATE (D
17.374
17.185
17.168
17.171
17.184
17.246
1.053
1.028
1.009
1.016
1.098
EECAY RATE)
1.025
1.014
1.013
1.013
1.014
1.017
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
-5.02
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December, 2005
TABLE 5-2 (Continued)
RESULTS OF CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT MODEL SENSITIVITIY ANALYSES
Parameter
Multiplier
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.5
Normalized
RMS RMS
(ppm)
POROSITY
21.092
17.767
17.292
17.259
17.461
18.175
LONGITUDINAL DISPEF?SIVITY
17.568
17.307
17.233
17.101
17.043
16.896
1.037
1.021
1.017
1.009
1.006
0.997
Maximum
Residual
)m)
1.244
1.048
1.020
1.018
1.030
1.072
-5.011
-5.018
-5.019
-5.019
-5.020
-5.020
-5.019
-5.019
-5.019
-5.019
-5.019
-5.018
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
•
ATK Thiokol Inc.
Promontory Facility
Groundwater Model Report
December 2005
FIGURES
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
Bear Lake
Miles
H h
0 10 20 30
•
iS
FIGURE 1-1. SITE LOCATION MAP EarthFax
'^-
Ground Surface
Potentiometric Surface
Layer 1
Confining Cloy
i[^ ^
Layer 5
Fractured Bedrock
Layer 4
Unfractured Bedrock
^over /
Uhconsolidated Deposits
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 2-1. GENERALIZED HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
• •
EarthFax
G: \UC954\05\DWG\FIG4-1.DWG
/ BASE "MAP TAkEN/^OM^v^SGS 7.5 MtKy-fE MAp SERIE'^EAWPO
JUNqjfoN (jt'972^THATCHeR-M.pUNTAIN"^'SW4lSg6), THATCHER
MOUfsiTAIN il972)rAND, PUBUC "^OOTING GRc|uND^^1T9?2)^
LEGEND
Y///////X INACTIVE AREA
PREDICTED TCA IN LAYER 2 (mg/l)
A-10
MEASURED TCA PLUME EXTENT
(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
0' 2000'
MONITORING WELL
PREDICTED TCA IN LAYER
3 (mg/l)
kwJ
FIGURE 4-1. CALIBRATED TCA PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
G: \UC954\05\DWG\FIG4-2.DWG
BA^ MAlf TAkBLH
JUNCJION t!l?72), "
.FROM USG^7.5 MINUTE MSP-^RIK LAMPO
THATCHER MOqNTAH^ SW (1966)r THATCHER
AfcinX Dl IDI ir* eiir»rtiTif>r> /^oru ikino /•imo\ ._^ MOUNVAIN (1*3(72). AND\PUBUC ShtQatf^g Gt^OUNDS (1972).
LEGEND
\///////A INACTIVE AREA
PREDICTED DCE IN LAYER 2 (mg/l)
A-10 MONITORING WELL
PREDICTED DCE IN LAYER 3 (mg/l)
MEASURED DCE PLUME EXTENT
(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
0' 2000" • •
FIGURE 4-2. CALIBRATED DCE PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
APPENDIX A
VLF SURVEY
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
South Test Area E-W
Profile: 0200N
I
Q.
80 T
70-
60-
50
40
ao-
ao-
10-
Filter depth = 60 ft
-30-L
In-phase
Quadrature
X J" inn
v^
Distance (m)
South Test Area W-E
Profile: OOOON Filter depth = 60 ft
30-
*—1—I
300
-50
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
South Test Area S-N
Profile: OOOOE Filter depth = 60 ft
30
4 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 -1^^—I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
-50-'
200 250 300
.^^
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
South Test Area N-S
Profile: 0210W
50 T
<D W W I-
£ -50
H 1 1 1-
Filter depth = 60 ft
<—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I
300
-40--
-50-^-
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
South Test Area E-W
Profile: 0600N
20-
-I—(—I I
Filter depth = 60 ft
-I—'—I soo C^-100
(0
Q.
-20--
-30-L
In-phase
Quadrature
400
Distance (m)
South Test Area W-E
Profile: 0400N
20T
10--
>p I—I—I—I—t-C^-ioo
Filter depth = 60 ft
H I—I -•r H ' 1 1 1 1 1 ^T 1 1 1 1 I—I 1 1 1 ' 1-
a
a.
c
400 500
-30-^-
In-phase
Quadrature
Distance (m)
Burn Area W-E
Profile: OOOOS
40-
30
Filter depth = 60 ft
/' ' / ""v 'i
TOO <D (0 (0
-40
-SO-"
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
Burn Area E-W
Profile: 01508 Filter depth = 60 ft
40-
-10
-20-"
-I 1 1 1 1 1 1—rl 1 ^
100 200 300 400 -I ' •;—' ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1
^ - - 700
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
Test Area S-N
Profile: OOOOW Filter depth = 60 ft
1100
-30
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
Test Area N-S
Profile: 0200W Filter depth = 60 ft
40 T
30-- r'
20--
10--
\—I—I—:rl—I 1 1 1—I 1000 1100
(D in (D
a.
-10--
-20--
-30--
-40--
-50--
-60-L
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
Radio Tower S-N
Profile: 1000W Filter depth = 60 ft
10x
H—I—I—I—I I I—I I I I I I I I 1, I—I I I—I I I—I I I—I I I I I I I I I—I—h-l—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I I I I I I I I—l-H
380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480
a>
M
ro -10
Q.
-30-L
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
Radio Tower N-S
Profile: 0800W
40-r
30--
20--
g,
w
ro 0
OL I
c
-10--
-20-1-
-30--
-40 J-
Filter depth = 60 ft
-I—I—1—1——I—^ 240
In-phase
Quadrature
380
Distance (m)
Radio Tower S-N
Profile: 0400W
30 T
20
^ 10--
Filter depth = 60 ft
-10--
-20-L
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
250
Radio Tower N-S
Profile: 0200W Filter depth = 60 ft
20-r
10--
iS 0 <—I
300
s
-10--
-20--
-30-^-
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
Radio Tower S-N
Profile: OOOOW Filter depth = 60 fl
40
(D (0
ro
.c
\—I—' 1 1—I
300
-40
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
South Test Area E-W
Profile: 1200N Filter depth = 60 ft
20x
10--
100
Distance (m)
-50 J-
In-phase
Quadrature
Test Area W-E
Profile: 0800N Filter depth = 60 ft
40
i 1 1—I 1 1 1-
800 900
-40
Distance (m)
In-phase
Quadrature
ATK Thiokol Inc. Groundwater Model Report
Promontory Facility December 2005
PLATES
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
31 /
/
1-;
.,.--1
V
V S
33 34 ] '-•--^l
) / ! ,.p \ (;:/ /
V '1 TV
t '•::
l
,j—-
V - '\-r -^., ^ ; \ V:.V
V \_:.
• /<f
"•A CH
V^ ,1!
\ \
^
:y^-
\ I
!' —
./'
o
I, ,Tr !?•>
{'•SQ^il
s^fpp/xp • -p^^p'i(p--' .••'>''?'^^•'^"^/
CisDosa' M-^fepfeEj ..-.. I "-I *-
'^'iA-/ \ P
< )
r
M50i.? •'iJSO© "^^QM.
W508-^ M508-21
/
^
7
/
vyyp
/ f
'-.y
P A :. •• \
'^^^^^•'\p.y \:--' y
/ \ \ \ ^^•' p •
/ V .' •^'
' I
•V !
pp 1%.
{ P
~~MJ^~
.y
r"--n
N
_^ V
D '. rn
U), '
TCC8A
TcfcB PLAISH78
J.1 J. l/''. "A -I
.>'-i'i ,' •
?:T Pt
./'
./ .&^' .A
•^-
^
A.
~^5'6 >^y—
ip ['
) I f
!•<•
Pi
4
v; ' PP )<<'{ \ \
P
.J-7
J ^••5...
•-ir^^;;— 1^—iif^-''' ~'''-p: "^ •-•••• .Pl
1 / ^•
r :
\ /•'.'
/
y iPi.9 4
'/•' I ',' '<.. /'• ll ..' I
,'/ \ /r-p il "' '• JM.
~-^.L '/ II
V-'N-^ II iV
' ->.// 11
/ I
\^ / J
•^VCyfavcl I
'^•J'
/•'
'U^'«4
(1,
.';•' /?
' ••'• ^^* ^^ / ...,.^'11'.'
*£/^-Water"f^nk NT_: -y
••'/:-.
\
-\,
.''
. • —
- •• ?.
-j"
•-
1. ':•
\ 1
'^^.-..^^'""^^^"^
- "•"••+...
. '-U9ia«
I
1
-.,
'^'•'•••:^..
^"-' -
A--^U
.^•'
-v., -. r.
C
\P
'''•-pyu pwy \
•^-" /*: \ / / 'V-, P ^
k-:):i-^ ' \ ,/ VM^ ^^Ay vn:
y
-Y
«
I- 1>- V \ • tl LF-1
'¥
<y
o\ ..p y I m \ '.
> v. '"•• .''^' .LF-2
i If 'f*
I t
\ 51
' .y y \ \y^^
\ III/,, ..-.c.. -.. -v, yi
',x- fl
t-^^ .^C-8
1..,) 'I
[ \L
-•il fh ! H-,
. ^^""^ \
/
I /•
1 ,' ?
J' ^~^.'-
"•--. --'V.
r ( 5.?.?^ >•
f \
s I
-•\
•^••>.-.
'^// '«>.
11. f'
li p i \ '^-;--- ^--"---, '"-H •'••-••, ~i-.A ^
;•••
Gr^ve; ,^lt .1^36-81 or^,, \
J I p^^t'
p'* :^ ^•• -•4^, / " \
':>
1 (-• I
/i-
r
•VY
i ,1
kaj/
r.-.
r •-.
•Vl-
Fads t
Valtey,
%
'5/79 .+-^^
(
ij>
f
• ^\
I-. ^ 1
i3«vel, _;\
Pit *"-,>,
J
..]
f. /
---- S=s3r:
I
---1
/ Ji ,' ,.-
b.,..a. -. /--^ \'p iy~v
\ --
'pA 1. yy
-^
\ ^ (
,f
/ 'Jyi,-:
^-. . -•' /
I L. y{ ,/'v: \:y^.—v.v..
_/: :pp-
/'/ p'^ px.^'
\ i • [ y
-y^h V •K -^ I:
yy> 11 '
\p
p ('•
"••X \
-.\ JI
\
V. ( Urpy-Nf
•'•^:i
90^^ P^ ",'\B4.-' 16 • -yy -... ^--t-.^;-
11 '..'
vi-.
•^^i5^^iz.:u—^^^^p---^^
_ ^
V
\.
A-o->-.
J p' / y V
- . I
._. .^jrk.
hr
-it
r
. ^^p y
0^ _ [^
A-7'; c-l- Ifiici:
I
^1 (
(
(
'" y^py J L.
X • 'f^^-^•''
^l
/ / ' I'-
^ • i *.
\ ' / / / / xy
I
•fV' ,-' 7 -v.^ \\--^.
C-5 >!
- • y^c.
\ •••••
\ •
:pyy ypyp y.
1//fy.-.Jp<( (
QL
V - • N , „ .1,1-' / J . \ yy :^4l y-y<m .1 - / u_
' •' ] \. yjl.) \ i'f'
•7 li
rl • ';
y - '^ / ^'' '•
/^/
\
/ P ' >'
Hr-- /
\
^'\ny>P^
.yy AXr --
P::A-
i }•
'I I
:>ii \ k -X. ,
' ' ^1 ^y
Kil I A' ••>
" ^'•^- P.- Jfe
Vpy---
'/ f' nvixH .
1/
t\/ .yppJizA..-pj ^.pp {{\ ..,..,-' :' .•--'^py:'..p--.'-p
I •y^^diPPP^ Xyr::r.^>9P^'Pi^^' 'v,A \ < x.;^Il];.^-... "l^^..
mm . \i:yps^^.. '•'/•"^; ?-^ J^ T^?^^^ ..--• ' ....^,.-^.^WD. .4....^
J) / <•
C) ( C.C
(' ('.
.f ''
'^^ J /,? y •'•/•• • '
..' '; \ 1 I .'.\ ik>Hji{fs'^ .••-•'
/.p'..' ,i -v^^i ^y:yp / V
(' c'
/ —
''•., <5%Sii
-^
-"i/ {y
'^\
r-^ 700-. i- ''
vV;v-( r •• •/' P-. ^'4
• ' ^.y JJy. ^ ..y.-.;)::/;
"-—'' ' • .y ' r>
•ll ••} I .«.,y /( '
WXypyMyy
-, \-y^/yyy^^ py- ^l^
• / • i/ .-^ ,,- v. \- ^^- '••• y^ ^^ '-.
^ • / -- ) .. : A. . . ,1 ,.. .,
"}
j ..-.J \ 'P \ ,, _^] ( \ ,. H
' -JU^ '' p .••• p •] s ^^ ^1--' • -^
•' y • p y
' j$ngin,^.rP
'^ X> //'/ .Mm
-V — v T—r+\ ..^- J / M:'•.•:• ^•.'
Illlllll I I I 'I I 1 l.l' I III J I !'l| III '|l 1 II III llll::'l .1.1 llll l.l I i|IL I 'III nil I .|iril|l|i|.l||
llllinilldl •IllHliniirmiilllllirillllll mi' llllllllll imnminFii miiii;iirir-iiiiiiiii-inii:iii-nrrii»iii.i™iiTir~••.••P.™.«.M,...-.H.r.n™-..—....
—y '/fi 'VJbl -19 1 \
SCM-
u*« /,=
.---'T-'' *-'K' I H.H, *•«;
4400 ., J i"i'ii iiifii" ^^
I'lii'ii 111,11"/
-A •'P:,
25 Tiiil-j^'-;"(|l|| ,||,|f(l(
= "'|l||f Illlllll It
Tll|l'||l lllllll* _
-----f' II ii/^iiiiNi I
'/I
^:i/y:,i.
?5
J.. "Ill
- ^ - • :.^ -4380- •__ _ / J;|l|M' I I [ll|lV I
: L
W.W
•h
• — ^ r4370
_ j^ ,__ _ji
\ ^- ^^ * ^
;j)i/n i|(ii|ivL,
Oi'ii"/ 'f|i'|i
/lii;i//n (ill ll
,..:^^_.
>^
.4370
•173
> ^ 1
.•f4fi.i» t-
• I
I .<5v,i»
S^U
•I [
••.tl.
i««t.
5b
-4360
4350 ^
»»w
•Spring I --5.-;/*.
(/)
-\
'v---..;,^Sprfttf
Silt
(' T^k
**^>,»V.'a1et Turik ^^w,
;.?v.
.^i^.y
• ^^j
•t^(o
-, I
:-,4290;2 4570'
A-1
! 13
i I
'' ~)
• • <^
' »•''' ••'
U/
e ."•
0
V 1
1 >-
1 •
1
I
1
( •
1- 1
290.
.A-2
B-g
y. •• ' 4290.a'».'>i ^,^„ ,
; ,; 4290,5 p-l 4289:2 ^*
4290J - a--i ^
•4560'
^A-10
- ^[ \.-,1b'
•.«>43
^;
I ;
I . I? --i-^^ ••
•I V
kr Pr
\ {
t •
: y . c-5 .:
N. •BURNlhTC GROUNDS
\ 4288
4290
i4287.97/
4289.93 . ' $^:
«?«*
5»?<
c/>
Apriitfi
/^C-7
; ..: / / •4289.29
0^:^>.. i .7" •'-•'..
iiprinffs.
'.<'.S.?
"J»fr 1
./,-*--l^fl«n^/ ..d;^
5«5»'
4280
>
X
/
/
/
' •.•—-•-.^iV-L ._/ -•:-! U/
Li: -.'«-:,\;/,' M' •-
•'\ • :-. ^yy:•--.:••••'-.'
}4 0?
:'' ,'' /
•18 .
r—'
**4».-' '(..-/r'
r;^«>'^^
JSEfj
I 1.
,1 I
MANUl=ACTURING AREA SltritX(f
1 <•:•'
• lypy:-'-^-'.'PPP
I,
19 ?''*'•
• r: r
1 1
1
••• f -'
'' •--• ^'^
1 "_ '•...'
•
.^'•^••'
V
••1
r <
1
•'S(A<
s»»«
J£E£,-
TCC6 (D
G.2
t265.72'
..5H-4
4265.73'
^ tVilCr
IdEJ.. •,SmE''S..
•.-(
^^T-^im,g]^'
S3
I
f
•- O ( -
'• • y-' \--- ' •' ..'^
I
^^'
I 11 N
r-^7^
"V^;,.^-.
•'?»-•^^ .* •^^-'^
-,-' r r
,//
25 30
S*'» .'•
*7<a
ib: 3i
.^^
<SM<
-///
/'.'',// ''/// ''././/
>;^
•^/:
LEGEND
H-5
4263.71
C-8
4290.2
y ^^M wyi
EQUIPOTENTIAL LINE OF REGIONAL AQUIFER
EQUIPOTENTIAL LINE OF PERCHED AQUIFER
MONITORING WELL COMPLETED IN UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL (WITH WATER LEVEL ELEV., IN FEET)
MONITORING WELL COMPLETED IN BEDROCK (WITH WATER LEVEL ELEV., IN FEET)
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF CONFINED AQUIFER (LAYER 1)
0" 2000'
NOTE
BASE MAP TAKEN FROM USGS 7.5 MINUTE MAP SERIES
LAMPO JUNCTION. THATCHER MOUNTAIN SW, THATCHER MOUNTAIN.
AND PUBLIC SHOOTING GROUNDS.
REVISION
DATE BY a^ra EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
'^ \^ Engineers/Scientists
EarthFax
PLATE 2-2
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
2003/2004
ATK THIOKOL INC.
DRAWN BY: KHB
APPROVED BY: RBW
CHECKED BY: LDJ | DATE: 10/26/05
DWG DATA:UC954\05\clwg\PLATE 2-2.DWG
.,..:. A \.
ypmyp
y'yypkypyy 'm yyy
my-p'ppm
mmmmypppywipmmyppP'p^
....^mpppyyppppppppspyix^^ : pmmyymyyyym^Bm^mymypp mmm^ •^yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy^^
mm-»m..tmpPmKPmys«msimmpmYLPtMs
:"••..• '<•: • ''>..:-•-. •:•:•/'''!/ •••'••.•'••.•:-.'•-•:•• ^. v
VKO^ 5^^^Q^ )^\^^
^^
A^^^
>0^-&^' K^t^
AO^ NV ^' )\S0^^
^^
soO' y^^ co^' ,ct^" v^^^' .^NO^
(?' i^\^
^^00
0
<c ^ooO P9' >ro
^0
..M^O :ir<^
34 )
..^i
_.. -t \ '^
rrig.-?
SDosa
.-1' . ' •
\ I I
; /'•
--i^T M33B LANDFltt'
^./^W (TCE) ... •-., ] .,.^.,
..,-" •. ' I ' . I . • . ,. ---'•'-'
.yi.y
•'.. i
y
.5^ ^
/'
~\' - 1 .-•
I F-
1 >
r . 'i I •• •
i ' I,
DRUM
I. 'I
.//: • I
iGE AREA
• '' ,'••'. ••-"'' / .. -'-
-U E519 LABQRATQRY SUWlPi^
I (PERCHLORATE AND TOE) \ H I \
\ I
•'y^.6^0' '*07P ;•' " • -.1''. '\ • '' , '
'SpHng^
I /
\
i y- \(/) / ' ? '
E585 LAPORATORYSqWIRn •
(P^OWLORAlfAimTCE)'^^ /\[\ i i' \
^ ^^
•- ^'.' Z^'''
^ < ^- - ^ ) \ m
^ )
•\
3
\ ^ y \ I !••
/
py / .•••'- - -^ '•;• 'y^. y>v
; / ^ p/py^.' ^ __ ,/ p ypy .,
-1- k >• i"< ll VT-
•X
• ^. yyy
(LM-2\ \'''>.. .py\
I • • )••;. I \
yy^^s^;^
.'•i'"'Gravel
•'•••'•^•p^i
- \ ,''^\
•Water Tank '1<
'"- s
^ I.
"- J-\
,(' (
•TT> \ KT
!\A'^ :v
(ft \
1 n /' y
X"
- 5( -l.J' --T
""•- ;^
^jyji
'P \ 7 (/ '' • .
-ypyp yi tyy y pyypp:yy'^ y,,
-BUItDI^TG 115\A/AStiQUT
.^F^ERChyjDf^TE)/ . - V^ \ \
I I
(PEFiCHLORA[r£: TQg ANO^GAJ
' ,' I
'•'-'-'-^ ^ ^^' J y
\p-\
] ;•
' I
1 w
^[Spring
. ''^\
^F
y"f^:' P'
•'.' //J
3C
>x
lilikDRAINFIELD-
(iPEReaiDRATE AND JC
• m-
y yM
.^.^
y P-
'-•r—
,^,«/ell
F a u s t
Valley.
fll-/a
^'•1
.G*»v«l;- "•:;
•Pit''*
h 1 -^-^ ".
. ^
\2
Vl
•- . I'. '
- ) I
y^ss^y^ —
\ \ p' \ \
A,p:.yy \-.^
> ^ wiy •
/.^
^
:.)
\
I .^'' • • ' y { y.y .-1 -v y
P \ } • - / I h r- -
y
V
-ypp:)') y'))'-ry-p
< y ry yyy pyy
y -• \ ^ I y • y. .^' y-y^
.xy/i- 'v>o,-.(,f /" "•••" ,.' .:'^.::••-'<-.-^ ,
^; ) y-y )• \y:p^y:y--y-p \ '
) ;/-yyj \ r
\ (• -— -^ -
y \ w %
\_.. .p-p
p
\ •
sa/j-
I 'i jy' f •;
^••<-
1 ^.
•"•
iU^yyAAA-r'^
'•• "--P ' "~~^. "'••/'•.'----, ^^ I i r-^ •• '' y"'
^-ypsypyp^pip'• p-'---y
•pp-yy\y.^i!j! Y r
PLANT
SHOTGUN
• 4
'Ti.
("~-^
,' - -'
L,
y ; y< r
•'a-. » \
\ • \1
"^i'Ciii
r
^
EW-3,
• H-g
Tl—J *-
•Vv..^^ fe
c
,,,-fr ; '3
'Areli
V^^o
Well
-Storage
• Sin
,•'^sl
<s.
i-*''
o „i»'
^*''
• -.. BM
* ^
\
4251"-
"»,
V
'•^ ^St • -^ ^^
*JST ,->y^-y^'
-'••i,..-"^-
j Substation~v <^.ci
•'ll
•FT' x\ 1
^«i<»5 O .i\ ID-FISH SPF^IfiG'^i^'i
1 ,j^-A.?<.Y
.•f \-
'<: •/'
• I
,.#'
•\>
..- *•&* •V^Jd
^<ij5
V —
l*;>J*
4^J*
•V
'^J/
)
IT
.1^/^-
/ . . travel .-f*"
._. '•''.•.y /. I .)^' -^Pit^- • "' •
i y <-/, ^«|:-" • • • •
i->^J^ y y-'-
y ^^.
,*<i
"VJ
LEGEND
A-10
m
MONITORING WELL
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF CHLORINATED SOLVENT AND
PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION PLUMES
APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF PERCHED AQUIFER 0' 1500'
HIGH ANGLE NORMAL FAULT (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
-9 y- LOW ANGLE NORMAL FAULT (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
f f— THRUST FAULT (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
NOTES:
BASE MAP TAKEN FROM USGS 7.5 MINUTE MAP SERIES LAMPO
JUNCTION (1972), THATCHER MOUNTAIN SW (1966), THATCHER
MOUNTAIN (1972). AND PUBLIC SHOOTING GROUNDS (1972).
REVISION
DATE BY
s^^s EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
'ff' ^^ Engineers/Scientists
EarthFax
PLATE 2-4
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
PLUMES AND POTENTIAL
SOURCE AREAS
ATK THIOKOL INC.
DRAWN BY: SWF
APPROVED BY: KHB
CHECKED BY: LDJ I DATE: OCT 2005
DWG DATA: G: \UC954\05\DWG\
PLATE2-4.0WG
1. ..y
.f'-.H.' '.-'
^"i '^--r^' '
.y^^^;:^_^,
y • '^ .^
[I.L .<& I.L li. . UJI.I :i l.l. .III. Jll .III III:.. I. ..I llll 1.11 III llli.ll.llM 1,1 I •!!!. il|:l. 1 L.I.J|i:.|l|l.| I ' I ... ' 11,.. IH I [1 .IUI
'miilllllNFUll'TiriiPiililMlilimilllfr lIlllllHlnilfiimiiTrnrinmiinrranrTmnTTrpTrMmmrnriiT-ii •iiiiTi"niiii I'.i n-nrmntTr TUPWMMPWIIPHWII
liimnrninrinm Tm-mnininiiiiir-miii n»rriiiriiiin»ii.ii!iii •rmmi
rr'' " iii'i nn imi" -i HII-T n i --n
-.•j...iiiiuinin^Minii •miiiiiiiiiii'—'illHi""' iidiuui-iuiui I1.11LI1*. uiii.LiniMiJiiLiiililJlUJiLtlll.l UU IJI] iiiLI[fflliilll.liJI]l!lililllBlli'liJIIII:lllJtll;lli;'liillll:IIIJiJliU„
.•iiM;n;.rw,i--;iT^i;:,:riirrv;-TiT'7r";rn';-jii,[|«i:|[|f:ilKi[ill-,^^ 'iiIii'i'iMiiMi- iii.ii(iiiii:.ii!i,i'i:i(iii,i;i'iii'j;iii TFJIiJ ••|r''riIi"nriiUll.:iir'I"T'.|-i:,M3rilir"I.Till-|r:ri-nn- iiirrnii-rii-jMii'iTi nr ..nil..-.nun iTi....-n.. •