DSHW-2006-011024 - 0901a06880187db7

Launch Systems Group
P.O. Box 707 P, Brigham City, UT 84302 ITllMIXIL' U
00)-03^^^ www.atl<.com
OCT 10
9 October 2006 UTAH DIVISION OF
8200-FY07-056 SOLID & HAZARDOUS WA^
Mr. Dennis R. Downs, Executive Secretary
State of Utah
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
288 N. 1460 W.
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
Dear Mr. Downs
ATTENTION: Jeff Vandel
Subject: Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Model for the ATK Launch - Promontory
Facility, EPA ID #009081357, Response to DSHW Comments on July 19, 2006
Attached, please find response to comments submitted by your office on July 19, 2006 regarding the ATK
Launch Systems Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Model report for the Promontory Facility.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please direct them to Paul Hancock at [phone].
Sincerely
David P. Gosen, P.E., Director
Environmental Services
I) Comment: Section 2.3, Model Geologic Framework: The text mentions that, based on
well and outcrop data, four easily ident ijiable layers exist in the subsurface ofthe study
area. Is the delineation of layers three and four actually based on well and outcrop data,
or is it a hypothetical boundary, with layer four being created to provide more stability
during model runs (as stated in Section 3.1, page 3-2)7 Please clarify this and provide
more detailed information to support the delineation of layers three (fractured bedrock)
and four (unfractured bedrock).
Geologic cross-sections prepared by Miller et al. (Utah Geological Survey Map 136,
1991) show that the low-angle normal fault, discussed in the report, and a thick package
of Manning Canyon Shale underlie the study area approximately at the elevation of layer
four beneath the burn grounds. This interpretation ofthe geology of the area appears to
be supported by some well logs. What impact would the presence of these features have
on the designation of layers three and four?
What were the eriteria used for the delineation of the unconsolidated fine-grained (layer
one) and unconsolidated coarse-grained (layer two) sediments?
Response: The top three layers of the model were defined by lithologic breaks recorded in
the drilling logs. The uppermost layer is defined as the Aquitard (fine grained sediments or
Layer 1) while Layer 2 is the unconsolidated alluvial material that overlies fractured bedrock.
The fractured layer of bedrock (Layer 3) was defined from information recorded in the
drilling logs. Fractured bedrock was clearly noted in monitoring well X-4, TCC2, TCC3,
TCC4 among other wells.
Layer 4 represents unfractured bedrock underlying 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 top and bottom of Layer 4 were set at a
constant elevation representing the bottom of the model domain because information about
the depth of Layer 4 is not known and the top of Layer 4 was inferred from well logs that
show fractured bedrock units (primarily limestone) underlain by competent limestone,
dolomite, and shale units. Fracturing, however, is not limited to the upper bedrock contact in
Layer 3 but also occurs in Layer 4. For the purposes of this model Layer 4 has been
designated at a more competent unit.
The cross-sections prepared by Miller et. al. show that the depth to Manning Canyon Shale is
approximately 1000 feet beneath the bum grounds. A well log from TCC4 (location within
the bum grounds) shows Oquirrh Formation limestone to a depth of 395 feet below ground
surface. The well log referred to is assumed to be the Adams Fee #1 well which encountered
Manning Canyon Shale at a depth of approximately 2000 feet below ground surface. Since
we are not able to define the depth of Layer 4 and because the model does not require an
exact depth for this layer the presence of Manning Canyon Shale does not influence the
model adversely. Likewise the presence of a low-angle normal fault under the bum grounds
is assumed to be a pathway for contaminant transport.
October 2006
The criteria for delineation of Layer 1 and Layer 2 did not rely solely on the description of
sediments to define the layers. Rather, the approximate boundary between Layer 1 and Layer
2 was defined by the depth at which water was first encountered and the resulting static water
level (indicating confining conditions) and the description of the confining fine grained
sediments (clay) which were generally not seen in Layer 2.
2) Comment: Section 2.3, Model Geologic Framework: The text acknowledges the
existence of a perched aquifer at the eastern edge of the facility. However, it appears
that this perched aquij'er has not been modeled directly (even though the area of the
perched zone is enclosed in the model grid, as shown on Plate 3-1, or is it not?). Please
elaborate. For clarity, we suggest to post all groundwater monitoring wells used for the
calibration of the model onto Plate 3-1. Can constant head cells with specific head
values in that eastern area accurately reflect the injhience of the perched aquifer on the
regional aquifer, especially since Jinxes aren 7 known (and aren V even demonstrated to
exist) ?
Response: MODFLOW is a two-dimensional model and, as such, is not capable of modeling
both the regional aquifer and a perched aquifer at the same time. As a result, the perched
aquifer was treated in this model as a source rather than a separate hydraulic zone. The
perched aquifer exists above (higher in elevation) the regional aquifer that was modeled. This
area is shown on Plate 3-1 as being modeled because the regional aquifer underlies the
perched zone. The monitoring wells used to calibrate the model have been added to Plate 3-
Constant head cells with specific head values can accurately reflect the influence of the
perched aquifer on the regional aquifer because the potentiometric surface of the regional
aquifer is representative of the influence of the perched aquifer on the regional aquifer.
Constant head cells with specific head values are adequate for the area of the perched aquifer
since no additional information is know about any contribution of water from the perched
zone. Due to the lack of data, separate modeling of the perched aquifer will not provide head
or flux data with any more confidence than using constant head cells. Hence, it is our opinion
that modeling the perched aquifer separately would not improve the model.
3) Comment: Section 2.4.2, Faults Idenfified by Geophysical Survey: The results of the VLF
survey are difficult to evaluate based on the information provided in the report. It would
be helpful to provide more discussion on the interpretation of the VLF data.
Profile highs are the anomalies. As long as there are no power lines to interfere with the
readings these profile highs represent faults or ore bodies.
Are anomalies consistent from one projile to the next? This is difficult to determine since
the profile displays can't be correlated to the traverses plotted on the geologic map. The
scale presented on the profiles does not correlate to the map traverses. For example,
Profile OOON in the South Test Area is about 300 meters (985feet) long, but on the map it
October 2006
appears that the traverse is about 1,500 feet long. In addition, the directions of the
profiles are plotted inconsistently.
This may be due to fact that some transects were done from east to west and some were
conducted west to east, but the software was supposed to account for that. Also after some of
the initial transects were conducted, we retumed to the first survey area to add transects when
it was evident that the chosen grid spacing (necessary for this windows 95 software) was not
sufficient to show enough detail. The software is not advanced enough to allow adding
transects at a later date.
The locations of profiles OOOE and 0210W in the South Test Area are not plotted on the
map.
These profiles were inadvertently left off ofthe map. They have been added to Plate 2-1. In
most instances, anomalies are consistent from one profile to the next. The marked anomaly or
fracture shown on Plate 2-1 was taken from the profile generated for each traverse.
Please present the data on the profiles and map so that the locations of anomalies can be
determined. It would also be helpful to label the anomalies on the profiles that have been
interpreted to be faults or fracture zones and label distances on the map traverses that
correspond to the profiles.
In most instances, anomalies are consistent from one profile to the next. The marked anomaly
or fracture shown on Plate 2-1 was taken from the profile generated for each traverse. The
software required to manipulate the profiles was rented from a supplier in Texas. In order to
revise and label the interpreted faults or fracture zones on the figures it would be necessary to
rent the software again. However, the anomalies (inferred faults) can now be correlated by
measuring from the beginning point of the line on Plate 2-1 to the fault and relafing that
distance to the profile.
Was only one filter depth applied to the data? The ease for interpreting geologic
structures from VLF data can be strengthened by applying additional filter depths to see
if anomalies are consistent with depth. How was a depth of 60 feet selected?
Several filter depths were applied to the data and it was determined that a depth of 60 feet
generally showed the anomaly best (i.e. did not overly flatten or sharpen the curve). Since
anomalies found during a VLF survey are areas that show a high reading when compared to
other areas of the in the survey, VLF data are simply a relative measure. The height of the
peak on the cross sections is therefore irrelevant as long as the anomalies are visible. The 60
foot filter depth was the default chosen by the software and showed the anomalies adequately
enough, therefore it was not changed. The intent of the survey was to verify the mapping
work of others as well as to determine if a mapped fault trace extended beyond the end of the
mapped surface trace of a fault.
October 2006
Can any indication of geologic structure geometry be interpretedfrom the VLF data?
The VLF method is an effective tool for mapping conductive fault and fracture zones,
especially water-bearing fracture zones in hard rock environments. The VLF method
identifies anomalies based on electromagnetic fields and may identify ore bodies but is not
used for geometry of the beds and is generally limited to a maximum depth of approximately
100 feet.
VLF sources are most benejicial when aligned with the strike of the structural feature.
The sources used for this project are not located along the projected strike of the
north/south structures. How does this impact the data and do corrections need to be
made?
The best measuring results are obtained when the measuring direction (survey line) is
perpendicular (at least within +20°) to the direction of the transmitter not aligned with the
stmctural feature. The sources used for this project were not directly perpendicular to the
survey line but they were roughly north (Seattle, Washington) and east (Cutler, Maine) which
provided a signal strength sufficient to detemiine anomaly location.
A description of on-site instrument calibration methods and the instrument configuration
should be included in this section ofthe report.
The ABEM Wadi VLF System is not calibrated. Prior to using the instmment a stable and
sufficiently strong VLF signal is found that is perpendicular to the direction of the
transmitter. Depending on the direction of the fracture, the station may have been changed
during the course of the survey as site conditions warranted. The instmment is calibrated "on
the fly" by counting the first 2 or 3 readings as baseline. Anomalies encountered later are
areas that deviate from this baseline. It is therefore important to start a survey in an area
away from potential anomaly producing features such as faults, railroad tracks, and power
lines.
4) Comment: Section 2.5, Study Area Hydrology: The text states that water levels do not
exhibit significant seasonal variations; however, they do refiect changes according to
general climatic conditions. Exactly how was this statement derived (e.g., was a statistic
analysis for seasonality or trend conducted)? Please clarify.
Response:' No stafistical analysis for seasonality or trend was conducted. Observation of
monitoring results provided clear indications of declining or increasing water levels. Wells
exhibited declining static water levels during times of drought and condnued declining static
water levels during brief periods of rainfall.
5^ Comment: Section 2.6, Groundwater Ouality: In the fourth paragraph, page 2-10, it is
stated that "it appeal's 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." This statement is confusing as it is the low-angle normal fault
October 2006
9003 JaqoPO
puo '{-£ siqoj Ul p3((r>idsip so 'isixd sdop ujop Suidwnd '.i3A3MOf{ -sdnjOA d.mjD.4d)ii
uo p3SDq pdiDiui}S9 3J3M. '(udfinbo dqj fo uoiiJod pduifuooun a/// jof ppjA Difiodds
a//; SD //aM SD '(jsfmbD ai/; fo uoiuod pauijuoj dq} AOJ) }U3p]ff303 32D.IO}S oifiodds
3q) }Dqi S31DIS ixdi 3qj -PPIA ^ifP^'^S P"^ dSnuoj^ Jifpdd^ 'I'^T uoijjd^ TfUdumioj (^
•sj3j3uiEJBd SApoafqns [BIJIUI 3qi ucqi
asusq sj[ns3J aqj SAOjduii }ou pip jnq paiBnjBAS SBM 3SB>jDBd uo-ppB iS3d ^Ml :3suods3>i
uiJifuoD dSDdjdmq 'dSDO 3qiusoiw siift loqi s.iosddo // '/ g f uoiiods fo josn-idd o uio.ij
lS3JflAl}lSUdS .t3}dlUDJDd fndUl fo SuipUD}S.I3pim DllDlU3lSl(s 3.IOW U UIVS Ol .Wp.lO ut '/j3M
SD p3sn Mofpop^ pnsiyi fo (g-p UOISJSA qfiM p3iD.iS3iui) dSoyfond ao-ppo j^^^j dqi SD^
ssdooud (dAifDsfqns ((/qnumssud puo) 3AIID.I31I UD Suisn 'uosD3.i unf/iM pdifipoui 3U3M
sjdidmDJod indui iDifiui foq) s3>ois )X3f sqj^ :UOIIDUO2 .t3i3umuDj 'g-£ uoifDS^ IJudiumoj (g
•S3)BJ MOjJ 3UIUU313P 0} B3JB MO]J [BUOipSS SSOJO p31B|n0|B0
sqi qjiM uoipunfuoo ui pasn puB pajnsBSui SBM /Cipo[3A aqx 'm^sp Moy puB '/CjioojaA
'uoipss ssojo [suuBqo sqi SuunsBaui Xq p3]Bino[BD SBM sSuuds sqj UJOJJ MO[j TasuoSss^
Y"a;a 'si3^Dnq 'sdiunjf p3/D.iqiiDJ SuiAoq Alq '•S'3) pduiwjsjdp SOM ojop
3iji Moq Of so oifpdds d.ioui 3q ppioqs }X3} a/// 'p''g'£ uoiiods ui pdisi] si o/op joqi qSnoipjo
'j3A3MOf^ -ppoui 3qj Ul syjuis J3iDA\puno.i3 jof uoijDwixouddD UD dunu.i3j3p OJ pssn
3J3A\ Siwof §uuds iDifi suoi}U3m )X3i 31^ :§upi3^ D!Soj03Sojpi(f{ 7 '£ uoip3^ IJuduaUoj (i
•yQlAISJSdsip 3SJ3ASUBJ] pUB
XdojjosiuB sqj aSuBqo |JIM lasj g SB SB Xq uisjsXs sjrqoBii B UIOJJ XBMB SAOUJ jBuiozuoq
B 'jsjinbB sqj jo SJUIBU pajnpBJj sqj oi snp 'iBip pajou sq pjnoqs )] •uopBjqqBD [spom Suunp
pSUlBiqO 3J3M S3n[BA JBUlj •XjIAISjadsip 3SJ3ASUBJ} JO SSajBA guiJJBlS qsqqBJSS 0} pssn 3J9M
S1J0JJ3 Suippouj snoiASjd UIOJJ BjBp puB S1S31 SuidLund aqi UIOJJ psioajjoo UOIJBIUJOJUI sqx
•(spunojr) Suiujng <)Z\-y^ aqi qiiM pajBioossv s;s9X
Suidumj uu9x-guoq JO sjjnss-^ '1661 ''^^l SuussuiSug xBjqyBg aas) 'sipM uopBAjasqo
Ll /."H s|pM pasn jsaj Suiduind 9-g aqj^ "sipM uoijBAjasqo SB pasn 3J3M J-Q puB
'l"V s||3M i[3M }B )S3i Suiduiud sqj JOj 'sipM Suidoind SB pssn SJSM 'XpAiioadsaj
'Suip[inq uoijBJjsiuiuipB 3qi jo JS3M puB qyou psiBOOj '9-g [pM puB j-l ^PMs. '"OISIAIQ sqi
o\ 'y^xyf Xq psuiuiqns XjsnoiASjd OJSM jsaj Suidumd uuaj Suo] aqi jo sqnsaj aqx TasuMssy
IDdJD JOqj Ul SdlflAlSJddsip 3SJ3ASUD.II SuipUDSdJ S3niDA SUIJJDIS J0fp3Sn UOliDWJOfui
Siqj SDA\ '^-J JpM SuUOlfUOlU Ul p3J33)3p U3dq /(pUdJOddo SDq ((doJlOSlUD 3SnDD3ff
-((dojjosiUD Suiuiuiudjdp uof pssn ASoiopoqi3m a/// djajs puo '(sjpM uoiiDAJ3sqo puo
Suiduind) SJJ3M JJD /(fijudpi dsodjj ^Kdojiosnw fo doudsqo AO 30U3S3jd suniusisp o) SSDO
qoDd Ul pdsn dJ3A\ sjpM uoijDA.idsqo AUDW Awp/ -djis 3qi }D psijnpuoo 3U3M S)S3) Suidumd
uu3i-Suoj OA\i wqi S3JDIS )X3} dqj^ :Suiii3^ 3iSoj03So.ipi(i^ 7'r aoips^ TJuduMoj (g
\^ sassBd }Bqj qnBj [BULIOU 3|SUB-MOI„ pBSJ pjnoqs \\ -snosuojja si )X3i sqj^ TasuMsa^
•i(fi.wp dSDSjj ijnDf fsnjqj
3q) JOU 'g-Q puo g-r) sjpM. fo isdflAqjuou UOIJDUIWDJUOD fo SD3JD 3qi spodiai ^/a:/// joqi
could have been used to numerically estimate specific storage. Why was that data
apparently used only for hydraulic conductivity estimation?
Response: The pumping tests represent two small areas within the facility. An evaluation of
the data from the pumping tests, together with hydraulic conductivity values from over 90
additional slug tests at the site, indicated substantial variations in hydraulic conductivity
across the site. The results for the pumping tests represent conditions in the unconfined
aquifer and fractured bedrock. A single data point for the unconsolidated aquifer (Layer 2)
and fractured bedrock (Layer 3) was not considered representative of the site. Since
sensitivity analyses indicated that the model is not sensitive to change in specific yield or
specific storage as seen in Table 5-1, the decision was made to rely primarily on "typical"
values for these parameters.
10) Comment: Section 3.5.3, Recharge: The text states that 3 inches/year was used to
simulate recharge into the uppermost active layer of the model. Was this value also
double-cheeked with any pertinent, empirical rainfall-infiltration models (e.g., Horton,
Holtan, etc.)?
Response: This value was arrived at by calibration and was not checked against empirical
rainfall-infiltration models. The model is moderately sensitive to the rate of recharge.
//) Comment: Section 3.6, Groundwater Model Flow Calibration: The text states that the
model was not calibrated to any transient conditions, and we agree that the calibration to
assumed steady-state conditions (namely, the potentiometric surface 2003/2004) was
sufficient. However, how exactly were the initial water levels (as listed in Table 3-2)
derived (e.g., are they averages of two separate sampling events)? In addition, if, for
example, groundwater levels from monitoring well TCC6 were available and used for
modeling purposes, why weren 't head isoconlours extended to that area (see Plate 2-2)?
Please clarijy.
Response: The initial water levels used in the model were the latest recorded water levels
from each well. Some ofthe wells had not yet been read for 2004 and therefore, 2003 values
were used. There are no data for TCC-6 and, therefore, it was not used in the model.
12) Comment: Section 3.6.2, Calibration Targets: The lext states that the two statistical
goodness-of-fit models used (namely, mean absolute error (MAE), and normalized root
mean squared error (NRMS)), are represented in Anderson and Woessner (Applied
Groundwater Modeling, 1992). However, we were only able to ver'ify the use of the
MAE, and a non-normalized version of the NRMS, the root mean squared error (RMS), in
chapter 8.4 of that book. We understand that the only difference between RMS and
NRMS is the added division by the term (maxhead-minhead). Why is this term necessaiy,
and does it apply to the actual (observed) or modeled heads? And, strictly speaking, since
the total NRMS value is reported in percent, should (maxhead-minhead) be written as an
absolute value, in order to avoid negative percentages?
October 2006
Response: The normalized RMS takes into account the maximum variation in head over the
model area. Use of the term (maxhead-minhead) takes into account the greater difficulty in
calibrating a model with steep hydraulic gradients. For example, a model with a RMS of 4
and a total head change over the model area of 5 feet is a poorly calibrated model whereas, a
model with a RMS of 4 and a total head change over the model area of 150 feet is well
calibrated. The normalized RMS (NRMS) gives a much better indication of how well the
model is calibrated.
The value of (maxhead-minhead) should not be written as an absolute value. By definition,
the maximum head has to be greater than the minimum head and therefore, has to be positive
or zero if no difference exists.
13) Comment: Section 3.6.3, Calibration Results: Please specify which numerical solver
was used in order to achieve convergence (e.g., WHS, PCG, SIP, SOR, etc.).
Furthermore, it is not clear if during the actual modeling run(s), any re-wetting was
necessary for cells which might have gone dry. Were any oscillations or numerical
instability, which, if present, could shed some light on inadequate grid or nodal spacing,
observed in any aborted, or even the final solution run? Please elaborate in more detail.
Response: The WHS solver was used to achieve convergence. The re-wetting option was
active during the solution and likely did occur. Numerical instability in the flow model did
occur but usually it indicated that a parameter value had been entered incorrectly.
14) Comment: Section 4.2, Transport Parameters: The text states that the acceptable range
for longitudinal dispersivity is 1 to 50 ft, according to Zheng and Bennett (Applied
Contaminant Transport Modeling, 1995). However, we were unable to verify that claim.
For example, in section 9.3 of that book, reliable ranges for longitudinal dispersivity
appear to congregate around 100m (330 ft). Also, is the bulk density used (48.13
kg/ft^3) held constant over the entire model domain? Please clarijy.
Response: Figures 9-3 and 9-4 of Zheng and Bennett appear to have the largest amount of
data between 1 (10*^) and 10 (lO') meters which correlates well with the 1 to 50 feet stated in
Section 4.2 of the text. The bulk density was held constant for the entire model. The
sensitivity analysis shown on Table 5-2 indicate that the model is not sensifive to variations
in bulk density.
15) Comment: Section 4.3, Sources and Sinks: The text states that the area east of the
Burning Grounds (the perched aquifer) was not included for the transport simulation
because cells, modeled as constant concentration cells, actually removed contaminant
mass. Was there no other way of circumventing this problem (e.g., by assigning other
cell types at the boundary in question with assigned fluxes (Neumann or Cauchy-type
conditions))? Also, with TCE concentration above 2,500 ppb TCE in monitoring well J-
4, has the contaminant plume even been delineated? Please elaborate.
Response: It became evident during calibration that the contamination coming from the
buming grounds completely overwhelmed any other sources providing contamination to the
October 2006
springs including any contributions from the perched aquifer. The extents of the contaminant
plume have not been entirely delineated due primarily to the expense of installing deep
monitoring wells.
/ 6) Comment: Section 4.3, Sources and Sinks: The text states that volatilization is likely not
occurring (due to the depth to groundwater). Is this statement also true in the alluvial,
western model domain (layer 2), where groundwater is generally shallower, and
influences from Blue Creek can be observed (based on the hydraulic head, isopotential
patterns along Blue Creek on Plate 2-2)?
Response: The premise that Blue Creek has significant impact on the potentiometric surface
is false. Blue Creek has a minimal impact on the potenfiometric surface as it is a losing
stream. In the contaminated area, groundwater is at least 30 feet below ground surface with
tight soils between the ground surface and groundwater. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that volatilization is unlikely.
/ 7) Comment: Section 4.5, Grid: The text states that the flow model grid spacing (200 ft x
200 ft) remained the same for the transport model. Usually, in order to achieve better
numerical stability (minimize numerical dispersion), the grid is refined for the transport
model. Since this was apparently not necessary, what exactly was the grid Peclet
nuinber? Also, regarding the transport model's temporal discretization, the transport
step Courant number should be listed (perhaps in section 4.6.1).
Response: The grid spacing for the flow model and the transport have to be the same. The
transport model takes information on a cell by cell basis from the flow model. Therefore,
changing the grid spacing is not an option the program allows. The Peclet number is
calculated using an average linear velocity. This velocity will be different for every cell.
Therfore, the Peclet will be different for each cell of the model. The default value of 0.75
(Courant number provided by the Modflow software) was used by Visual Modflow to
estimate transport step.
18) Comment: Section 4.8.2, Results: The text mentions a mass balance error of 0.01% for
perchlorate (presumably 'indicating that more mass enters the system than leaves the
system). Does this really make sense? Please explain. Also, on Plate 4-2, there appears
to be an error in the legend, since both green and red isocontours predict the TCE extent
in layer 2. Please correct.
Response: No model is perfect and, at 0.01%, the mass balance is well within tolerable
limits. The magenta line should represent layer 3 TCE. Plate 4-2 has been modified.
/9) Comment: Section 5.2, Sensitivity Analysis Procedure: The text states that sensitivity
analyses were not performed on the TCA/DCE and perchlorate models, since the TCE
model's sensitivity analysis was deemed representative. Please explain this in more
detail, particularly since the TCA/DCE model run appears to have used the reactive
transport code RT3D. Generally speaking, it is good, common modeling practice to
conduct sensitivity analyses for all relevant transport scenarios.
October 2006
Response: It is agreed that since, TCA/DCE used the reactive transport model RT3D rather
than MT3D used for perchlorate/TCE, that there may be differences in the sensifivity of the
contaminant transport analysis. However, both programs are based upon the same partial
differential equations goveming particle transport. RT3D simply allows tracking of
degradation products whereas MT3D does not. During calibration, it was noted that
significant changes only occurred when modifying the flow parameters and source
concentrations rather than other parameters for all three contaminant transport models. Since
all of the models were based on the same flow model, it was felt that the sensifivity of the
TCE model would be indicative of behavior for the other two transport models. Given that
we don't expect differences between the transport models, the expense associated with
conducting addifional sensitivity analyses for all transport models was not deemed necessary.
20) Comment: Section 5.4, Contaminant Transport Model Sensitivity: On p. 5-4, the term
"activity coefficient" should be explained. We assume you mean the fraetion of organic
carbon, but this is not clear to the casual reader.
Response: The activity coefficient is calculated by Visual Modflow based upon the fraction
of organic content in the aquifer, the octanol-water parfition coefficient, and a constant. This
value indicates how readily the contaminant partitions into the solid phase (sorbs to the
carbon).
21) General comment: Statistical, goodness-of-fit figures, appear to be missing. These
figures, readily available from Visual Modfiow, are patterned after Figures 8.9 and
8.13a/b in Anderson/Woessner, 1992. While all relevant simulation output data is
presented in the Tables of this report (organized by wells), a graphical presentation
would be helpj'ul, as the reader could assess computed vs. observed heads over the entire
model domain at one glance in one figure, or assess head residuals spatially on one map.
Response: Statistical goodness-of-fit figures have been attached to this response showing
calculated vs. observed head and calculated vs. observed concentrafions for all consfituents.
October 2006
Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state
•
Layer #1
• Layer #2
A Layer #3
95% confidence interval
95% interval
4238.35 4288.35 4338.35
Observed Head (ft)
4388.35
Num. of Data Points : 84
Max. Residual: 19.938 (ft) at LF-4/A
Min. Residual: 0.078 (ft) at G-2/1
Residual Mean : -0.658 (ft)
Abs. Residual Mean : 2.838 (ft)
Standard Error ofthe Estimate : 0.451 (ft)
Root Mean Squared : 4.162 (ft)
Normalized RMS : 3.841 ( % )
Correlation Coefficient: 0.988
Company: EarthFax Engineering Fiow Model Calibration Results
Calculated vs. Observed Concentration : Time = 17520 days
Layer #2 : perchlorate
Layer #3: perchlorate
95% confidence interval
95% interval
190.1
Observed Concentration (mg/L)
390.1
Num. of Data Points : 71
Max. Residual: 51.655 (mg/L) at A-5/1
Min. Residual: 0 (mg/L) at BC-3/1
Residual Mean : 1.039 (mg/L)
Abs. Residual Mean : 4.709 (mg/L)
Standard Error of the Estimate : 1.279 (mg/L)
Root Mean Squared : 10.748 (mg/L)
Normalized RMS : 19.365 ( % )
Correlation Coefficient: 0.728
Company: EarthFax Engineering Perchlorate Transport Model Calibration Results
Calculated vs. Observed CQncentration : Time = 10950 days
Layer #2: TCA
Layer #3 : TCA
95% confidence interval
95% interval
-0,194 4.806
Observed Concentration (mg/L)
9.806
Num. of Data Points : 43
Max. Residual: 8.64 (mg/L) at 8-3/1
Min. Residual: 0 (mg/L) at BC-2/1
Residual Mean : 0.2 (mg/L)
Abs. Residual Mean : 0.504 (mg/L)
Standard Error ofthe Estimate : 0.233 (mg/L)
Root Mean Squared : 1.525 (mg/L)
Normalized RMS : 50.262 ( % )
Correlation Coefficient: 0.367
Company: EarthFax Engineering TCA Transport Model Calibration Results
Calculated vs. Observed Concentration : Time = 10950 days
A Layer #2 : DOE
T Layer #3 : DCE
95% confidence interval
95% interval
-0.02 0.48
Observed Concentration (mg/L) 0,98
Num. of Data Points : 43
Max, Residual: -0.735 (mg/L) at B-1/1
Min. Residual: 0 (mg/L) at H-5/1
Residual Mean : -0.028 (mg/L)
Abs. Residual Mean : 0.1 (mg/L)
Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.033 (mg/L)
Root Mean Squared : 0,213 (mg/L)
Normalized RMS : 29,043 ( % )
Correiat'ion Coefficient: 0.351
Company: EarthFax Engineering DCE Transport Model Calibration Results
Calculated vs. Observed Concentration : Time = 17520 days
Layer #2 : perchlorate
Layer #3 : perchlorate
95% confidence interval
95% interval
-1.38 18.62 38.62
Observed Concentration (mg/L)
58.62
Num. of Data Points : 71
Max. Residual: 51.655 (mg/L) at A-5/1
Min. Residual: 0 (mg/L) at BC-3/1
Residual Mean : 1.039 (mg/L)
Abs. Residua) Mean : 4.709 (mgJL)
Standard Error of the Estimate : 1.279 (mg/L)
Root Mean Squared : 10.748 (mg/L)
Normalized RMS : 19.365 ( % )
Correlation Coefficient: 0.728
Company: EarthFax Engineering Perchlorate Transport Model Calibration Results
Calculated vs. Observed Concentration : Time = 17520 days
• Layer #2 : ConcOOl
• Layer#3: ConcOOl
95% confidence interval
95% interval
-0.207 4,793
Observed Concentration (mg/L)
9,793
Num. of Data Points : 70
Max Residual: -5.019 (mg/L) at B-1/1
Min. Residual: 0 (mg/L) at BC-3/1
Residual Mean : -0.254 (mg/L)
Abs. Residual Mean : 0.504 (mg/L)
Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.118 (mg/L)
Root Mean Squared : 1.013 (mg/L)
Normalized RMS : 17.165 ( % )
Correlation Coefficient: 0.678
Company: EanhFax Engineering TCE Transport Model Calibration Results
Well
21
(.
J
' *.4a/
.to
•I! ..^ ^
34 )
Ql
Ql
•t',-Ql
c 4
'7
' • /. •••>•:;;> :11e^..^.-.^^-• .•. .•: :';'-:.W:-:;'S?.;
11
r
Ln V-^,':<•>•••^4^'•,
Qa
--^'-^
\ "1
\
in
,14
Qa
v
Qa
Ql
23
,v /••J<-'f^^^^ '-^'ff- •'^-.^•'^
.V i-- ' :• : •;•/••'^;• :.h.-:.4v :::;
/
- -..v %''':y'yy \v.:\'y^.'''''^- ^'^-^ y-.^c yyyK--v:yye<-y.iy yy:..,„.y • - •^•:-^-;^^.>v-- •' yy^:y::i<y:i r
.•.>-,-.-.••-• 'i-, •'////• yy. • .y yy '^J./ --- •\':i''("V.v-.-.t;..{;i-:;, '>^Ay;^: •:•:•• vi'^- • •y-y.y^-'''yy'.^ ^.y^. -t/y. '. / .i
Qa
Ql
Qa
4V'
1 t'lpi:.
! I u
Ql
Qa
Ql
Qa
A.
\
ti % '
Qa
Lampo Junction'
1286 .r
Qa
^....,.:-V;^..-6p? if
//'.Well
''30C
MOIO SHOTGUN SPRING PIPE SPRING
u.
-rrr-TSfTA
3
LEGEND
-7-
HIGH ANGLE NORMAL FAULT (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
LOW ANGLE NORMAL FAULT (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
THRUST FAULT (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
VLF TRAVERSE/ANOMALY LOCATION
MANNING CANYON FORMATION (Pmc)
OQUIRRH FORMATION (Po)
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qa)
QUATERNARY LACUSTRINE (Ql)
QUATERNARY MUDSLIDE (Qms)
0' 1500'
NOTE:
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).
FAULT LOCATIONS COMPILED FROM S.H.B. (1988). MILLER et al.
(1991), AND 2005 VLF SURVEY BY EARTHFAX ENGINEERING, INC.
FORMATION INFORMATION FROM MILLER et al. (1991).
REVISION EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
'ff' Engineers/Scientists 1
L^^i 1
DATE BY EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
'ff' Engineers/Scientists 1
L^^i 1 10-01-06 KHB
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
'ff' Engineers/Scientists 1
L^^i 1
EarthFax
PLATE 2-1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
EarthFax
PLATE 2-1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
EarthFax
PLATE 2-1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
EarthFax
PLATE 2-1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
EarthFax
PLATE 2-1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
EarthFax
PLATE 2-1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
EarthFax
PLATE 2-1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
EarthFax
PLATE 2-1
GEOLOGIC SETTING
ATK THIOKOL INC. ATK THIOKOL INC. ATK THIOKOL INC.
DRAWN BY: KHB CHECKED BY: LDJ | DATE: 10/25/05 | DRAWN BY: KHB CHECKED BY: LDJ | DATE: 10/25/05 |
APPROVED BY: KHB DWG DATA:UC954\05\dwg\PLATE 2-1.DWG|
24 ^sJtf-19
SOStx
[y
I
/
'WiVi
net
• I
at-.-' •
Well
_ i •
..^„.;,r,
. • 'y/y /yy /
. .'^y ••/.'//
y-'yyyy.^.
•/yy A-, \ •] • •• ' yy\ y y y •: -r-y .yy - .. • v-'. x-v;::..
,56
t- .•••^ ^I'y y^y yy'y y-y yy y..'
rtf'^^v>$ vy/:yv///y y/y
yy -• ':•"/•• 'y%\y
• y.i-y .:y.y-y y yy y-yyyy, r ••'^-.///yy-/'' • .y-y. y- y o •• -'t- • •' 'y 'y • ••'••' •'' • y ' y • • / ' • y-Zy y/ • ' 7 ' - • • ^ ' ',\^, y /y-y y-y '. 'nr^v y y y • ..^ ^y ' /y •
.i y.yyy.%/-y-.-^y^•-•'yyy.'Vvy'y •'.''/-'. ' y-yy^'^
F')'/ %y f0y>yA :1> 5 -
y- \y:wyy> /• 'y/y ''/y-^-, '-^y • K ''4/^
:tM4j'/-/•<
'. Vyy.A-y
y •• .''yy y'.y
'yi'^\
^my^ y$m
•y-. yy/y^yy.
yy<\\
'yyy--y y y -'-y iy/yy/
'•' y y ' y y ^. ' y^'-'-y / / yy
.-1. JM]ABANpgNE^ L.
•V, -'••y y • •V"-j) ^
yXyy<^:'^'yyy\y/ \ y.yy/y:} \
yy'y/.i^< y ' yy.: -yVy. \ yy- • y. 'P ^^h^'
y±y-3.
yy/j^'y-'y yyyyy.\yy\yy
yy .'y./-y . y ' . ; ^/ ,^
y'yyyynypmy
yyy/y'-y'y-yy-y^yy-
5^
yy. %' •^'^yyyyy-'.y y y y
yyyyU-yf 'y/y-iyfyX
•'/yy.y/'-ryy'-yyyy-y y
, .,-:.-/ .-, yyy • y. <<\>2 • r,.
-:;•] Ay' \ yi <
•,VC^- /r'.. yyyyy-y. \ AV y
•"' y'y
:: • ;>• •:yy^'Ay <';y \ y.
yAy-yy-y-'- 'A'^' /.
Ayyyyyy^y -.p..
ymmyyik'-'^-
•'. y'y.yyy yyy yP^---- .yyyy
• / yy V ' I Oi^^yyA-A
yyAAAmAy'
yy'.yiAyypyy'h
y • '-- y "•<• • y A y yA'y '-' '^ '\
x'y z-'A-y-yyA^y^-
• "v •• 'y- y y yyyyAy.y /".>..-', v yy'y--iAyAyr' • ' • 'yy-.' i--.vyAAy •• '^-AyAAA
y. y '''
yy/y •
]yy Xjyetavxi^ yyAA f>*. 'y.
\&Ay ...,..>,. y^
y-'y^yAAyX' yAy/'A^
y • y.yy AyyAyA' ypyyAA'Ayy^y^ y • y^y-yy-yAAyy y , \<y yy.'.y yyyy Ayy y
W yyyymAyyyy
t Vr yy[ '.y'/y • yy/y//. - y-
Vy •:.
yy - Kyyyyy.
A",. yy ar-
A'y^-
y)
y-'<y.
y y'y
• y 'y y y .
y r y • -• • ' yi-yAA-A- y-^y • • ^yAyAAyAA^ /;
J' 'f'o.r-y • •yyyyyyyy
y •'y' --. yyyyy.:'/yyy v- y, ,-' ^
yy 'iAy^A/yyAA-A' •:
•y yy y yyy y^yy/y ,•.<- .-./.
• -/ y
y.
y>
'y'y'-yy i • y
y '••y-yy. I >• •; • V-!-
A.y.yy^ --(•'< '-<••'':< A6(/yA yyiAyyy / '-^ y yy/y-y
fyAy<AA Wi-y'-'4
•y]kriffPy^y<'
:: yy'-'A ''
/•y-y^Ay-.^:
yy'y '^.AAA!^- ' .0Vy
A ':/yyy-ry:y^''yjy - y'Av.' / • ' -• ,'r- :/: :-y'-A.y
, •• • • yy-l/f* A -tiAy'
ryy - y • - 'y --y .'yy .'y iy yy yy..-''- y < • y -v-,-• -.-^y y y' y,, yy/yy i--y '/ y y. y yy. / y yy-y yy y •> •'//.• • ••• - - ^ • ' / y/y/Ay A-yyy'y'yyy' ' -v/K /-''A/yy-.Ay^ y/'Ay'y v^i-••yy ^ AVAA'
AAp.yAyyA yyAy'AAAAAyyA'- y yAAy /- •'^yAA- . 'vC-vM^
A'y'' ^•^7^;'>-*w?^"'*T;'^*"-../. ^^-.^A/.y.P y P-'X-^y ,.; Cr''L.. ^pAP-y''^ y/yy
''fip'ring Ayyy'y. 'y.y- y ', \ •. ./y' p.'.'/:-y'Ay I y yy''-yy y^'AAy'yP^, 'y^ :*^*>y'p-^y„ ^.y'yyPpAy
'•yy •A.y\
' .'T-. .* • • y • 'y • y •
y ' • 'yy p •' ? /
yA/yy ''y' -'yA-^f
^ y J .' •</ y .- .
'yAA'A-yy y AAA'/^ypyy. .'•.'S (j-y/A. •• yy y.- yy' yy,- y.- yy
•"•^yiAAA'AyyA -y-A'A-. • -r.
'J'(y
':'- i ; ' '.'-. A'- y^
p p. ^y yy.y I
• -.yPyA..
'V- )•'• y
•'yy.
-'••A
A'Zf'/AP
y.-'Py.PA.y
U'-k'X
y -y y •' y x- .*, ' y- y y y -y y y y - y yy (y y' -
' .y y
[/ /\.y'7/y.' yyyy. / - - - y.- y-/,.. : - . -•••> -
'y. I
-' yy y 'yy
•y '. yyy xy-pyy
••'yy-y - \c\.://y/7.-
* y .' y y y f • • y / . y
•y y •: yy.'-. ^y yy Ay
V.',
A'
'-':/
yyy - - ' y • -" y - y,': y y y,
yyy'Ap'Ayy.yyAy:PiyApy
•P'yyp. 'P'-p'.yyyA-r'y:
-yyy y A -Pyyyy-' y /
'y>A>yy 'P-'AAP'PP
'y \ \'-'p.y^AyAPPAyyyyyy' A^-yy 'A 'yypy 'yyy A ••''\PA/.'/••-
•• py y-'A- 'yp. A'-yyAyy/y.' y. y y- yyy -y • y y-y A y-y-'y^ ^'/y-'-yy-y
^J^P'-'-AAm'y.yAA A y/.-' -••-:'AA''AAyyvy A^/
-• r'''yP'' y y y- '-Ay. y/'y y'y yyA'-yy y.y '--.^ y'• y y/y' '• y.-'y^'. •• - " "'..
k P/AyPy APypAAAAAAP A- -PPy APA'yyPA y Pyy-APP 'y.y . yy.
\ '"AA p yAAyA'-'pyy'Apyy'-'A • yy'y^y P'- '> yyyy •'' • • y < '
sMylAyyyyyAm'Ayyyy
A • ^ ypyyyyyy^^^ . yyAypy-y-yA
• ^'^y'yy/.--AA}A-.'AA^y'yAyAP/yy'''y-''yy^ y y 'y. ^ - y y. .• -• .• ,4 • yyyy • yy yyyy /-f//.'K.*>- ' ...Ay y y^y/ . • yy y y- • y' y •;:••'•-• Ay yy yy yy/y /y ,y :^y - -'y -' A- y y y y '/y. y-y. • ,••
i^'r.'.y-'yp'ypAyyyy'yppyy^
yy.
y.
'y 'y'y
'.-A'A
P.-P ..P '
-pyy-W'/yy-
^y y yy'^.f /: yyy
y'AA Ayp.
" /f^'^yP^'Py
'yAyy A'Py'y'yyy
"^'p'yyyx
Ayy^'0yAM'4-y'^y'
ATypAP'AyAAy . 'yyp'y 'yPy-y _ yyyp^y-yy-Ayy-y- •'•y -A'/
•yyyy yyyy /y/ yyy
" " yy yyy pPAyyA AA'Ap Ay' I P. Py
'yyyy/yyyy/ Ay y y yy y - -.-/Vx AAyy '/ yy,
-•'AyP '.'--yy'A- /-y'y y-AyPPy-- •' v y ' '••i^'^'' -y
' y y / / A' • y . • ' Ay^ • / . / • L- ' ' -' / • ' ,
'yM- yy^'yy-'' yA 'pAy 'y- - y-y py
/•>'y y y --••/'. -V • • '/ y ' / • y • • y
'////y../.-y<.- y,- yyyy.- '.'/ y y /.. y . \^ - '
'4/A^pypyympyyy'yyyyyy'-A'-''
-yyyyy '. y .yyy ' y-y --/ y . y'-yy ' /. •mpp/AA.''^-:' Am^--ppA\p-y
y-yA/AyAAy-y-A fA'Ayyy/' - ^ ^
'•PyPpA'PP-APyy Ay y'^s:
•'yy yy /y -yyyy • ,'y.y -•. y • .
P
, A-'A
•f y y
yy
-.yy. /,
- y •,
TCC6
• - r ^ y
-.y 5173:
I fees
y.yy
y.iiT •
1,
•;:;f.7-:^;-? /
il
A' \ Wfell
Well • Stor«B«
B.rj
Wall
/ . V P^
-JJLmpo Jvnclion\ ; ' 'y*
^H^TGUN SPRIN
'0 i/-
• '-iHIS
yy-'y '•••/
^•^•Tr^y A yyy'
\
y y
yy
\
35('
SPRISIG
; r
i • •
P-A\ p
i^yihi^^y
» 1
i"
...-•>^«»--.i''
SpTttlff
' .1. -V- •• ^1
*iJ4
,.,d'i;"./v.*
16
Sprtn/f
Will.
LEGEND
yyp/yyy
A-10
INACTIVE AREA
MODEL DOMAIN
PREDICTED TCE IN LAYER 2 (mg/l)
PREDICTED TCE IN LAYER 3 (mg/l)
MEASURED TCE PLUME EXTENT (DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
MONITORING WELL
0' 2000'
NOTE:
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 Sr^B EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
'ff Engineers/Scientists DATE BY
Sr^B EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
'ff Engineers/Scientists
05/11/06 KHB
Sr^B EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
'ff Engineers/Scientists
EarthFax
PLATE 4-2
CALIBRATED TCE
PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
EarthFax
PLATE 4-2
CALIBRATED TCE
PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
EarthFax
PLATE 4-2
CALIBRATED TCE
PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
EarthFax
PLATE 4-2
CALIBRATED TCE
PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
EarthFax
PLATE 4-2
CALIBRATED TCE
PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
EarthFax
PLATE 4-2
CALIBRATED TCE
PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
EarthFax
PLATE 4-2
CALIBRATED TCE
PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
EarthFax
PLATE 4-2
CALIBRATED TCE
PLUME IN LAYERS 2 AND 3
ATK THIOKOL INC. ATK THIOKOL INC. ATK THIOKOL INC.
DRAWN BY: SWF CHECKED BY: LDJ | DATE: OCT 2005 DRAWN BY: SWF CHECKED BY: LDJ | DATE: OCT 2005
APPROVED BY: KHB DWG DATA: G:\UC954\05\DWG\
PLATE4-2.DWG