DSHW-2015-005179 - 0901a068805231f1

April23,2015
8200-FY16-0012
Mr. Scott T. Anderson, Director
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
Div~s!on of
Solid and Hazardous Waste
APR 2 3 2015
Orbital AT~fl>
zo l5-00 s 17 ~
Re: ATK Launch Systems Inc., Promontory M-136 and M-225 Storm Water
Management Plan Revision Promontory EPA ID #UTD009081357v-
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The Promontory M-136 and M-225 Storm Water Management Plan has been revised and
is included with this letter. A March 14, 2013 letter from your office included comments
on the Storm Water Management Plan, a response to these comments is attached and
these comments have been incorporated into the revision. Please note that a response to
the March 14letter regarding perchlorate concentrations in groundwater at M-136 was
submitted in a December 3, 2013 letter to your office.
If you have any questions regarding this plan please contact Paul Hancock at (435) 863-
3344.
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties
for submitting false information, including the possibility of fme ~nd imprisonment for knowing violations.
Sincerely,
k~Gtc~ ~rge E. eooch
Manager, Environmental Services
ATK Launch Systems
Orbital ATK, Inc. • P.O. Box 707 Brigham City, Utah 84302 •
DIVISION OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE COMMENTS
AND ATK -PROMONTORY RESPONSES TO THE
M-136 and M-225 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
1) Storm Drainage Design Calculations (M-136 and M-225)): It appears that the rational method
is used in Section 2 and the pertinent calculations for the rational method are also documented at
the beginning of Appendix A. However, at the end of Appendix A, the US Soil Conservation
Service TR-55 method is being presented without any introduction in the main text. Please
clarify. We also suggest presenting maps for areas M-136 and M-225, augmenting the existing
Figures 2.12 and 2.2.1, clearly identifying with different colors the areal extents ofthe run-on
and run-off catchment areas and the accompanying ditches (run-on) and infiltration areas
(run-oft).
Response: ATK has revised the storm drainage calculations for M-136 and M-225 using
the Curve Number Method as this is believed to more accurately predict storm water
run-on and run-off. The Storm Water Management Plan has been revised to incorporate
these new calculations. The maps have been revised to include different colors to better
delineate the run-on and runoff areas.
2a) Run-On for M-136, Rational Method: Please explain what the Time of Concentration (T_C)
is for the 25-year storm event. For bare-packed soils and sparsely vegetated soils, as observed at
the site, the literature recommends using a run-off coefficient between 0.2 and 0.4. Please
explain your choice of 0.5 for the run-off coefficient.
Response: As noted above, the plan has been revised using the Curve Number Method
for run-on calculations.
2b) Run-On for M-136: A field visit revealed that at least one culvert entry was "squashed" and
also blocked by vegetation, and did not appear to meet the minimum diameter opening
requirement for a 25-year storm event. Please make sure the run-on control system is in good
operating condition at all times.
Response: The run-on and run-off culverts have been cleaned and repaired and the
ditches have been re-graded as part of an ongoing maintenance program.
3) Infiltration Modeling using HYDRUS (M-136): While depth to groundwater is greater than
200 feet, bedrock appears to be closer to the surface in areas where groundwater monitoring well
data is available (e.g., A-4, A-5, and D-6 with bedrock at a depth of about two feet at well A-5).
In addition, it appears that bedrock in this area may be significantly fractured. This observation
appears to invalidate the assumptions of the 1-D HYDRUS model, which assumes isotropic
sandy loams, loamy sands, and sandy clays to 65 m bgs. The Richards equation, as implemented
in HYDRUS, does not seem to be applicable for macropore flow conditions.
Response: The appropriateness of using the HYDRUS model in fractured bedrock was
researched and provided to the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste in a December 3,
2013 letter from ATK. In summary, this research found that fractured bedrock acts as a
barrier to water movement from vadose zone soils, and therefore HYDRUS modeling is
more conservative in this application. This research is also provided in the revised Storm
Water Management Plan.
2o \5-oos t?9
Storm Water Management Plan for M-136 and
M-225 Treatment Facilities
DrbitaiATK
ATK Launch Systems
Promontory Facility
Revised April2015
ZO!S-005\l\
Storm Water Management Plan for M-136 and
M-225 Treatment Facilities
OrbitaiATK
ATK Launch Systems
Promontory Facility
Revised April2015
DTbital ATK) Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1
2.0 Run-on /Run-off Control. ...................................................................... 1
3.0 Potential for Storm Water to Infiltrate to Groundwater. ................................... 3
4.0 Soil and Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................ 5
References ............................................................................................ 9
Figures
Figure 2.1 M-136 Approximate Run-On Drainage Area
Figure 2.2 M-225 Approximate Run-On Drainage Area
Figure 2.1.1 M-136 Area Run-Off and Run-On Drainage Plan
Figure 2.1.2 M-136 Burning Area Run-Off Drainage Channel A Cross Sections
Figure 2.1.3 M-136 Burning Area Run-OffDrainage Channel B Cross Sections
Figure 2.1.4 M-136 Burning Area Run-OffDrainage Channel C Cross Sections
Figure 2.2.1 M-225 Burning Grounds run-On and Run-Off
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Run-On and Run-Off Calculations for M-136 and M-225
APPENDIX B HYDRUS Modeling
APPENDIX C Additional M-136 HYDRUS Modeling and Hydrus Modeling in
Fractured Bedrock Research
APPENDIX D M-136 Well Perchlorate Concentrations Statistical Trends
APPENDIX E M-136 Refined Groundwater Modeling
Orbital AT'tl> Storm Water Management Plan
A TK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April2015
Storm Water Management Plan for M-136 and M-225 Treatment
Facilities
1.0 Executive Summary
This plan is written to fulfill requirements associated with the September 30,
2010, ATK Launch Systems Promontory Part 8 Permit, Module IV, Thermal
Treatment of Energetic Wastes, section IV.H.4 for managing run-off
precipitation.
Storm water run-on and run-off is controlled by a combination of soil grading and
drainage ditches. The terrain around M-136 and M-225 has been graded and
drainage ditches surround the areas in order to minimize storm water run-on and
run-off.
The combination of controlling run-on and run-off, containing waste in water-tight
burn trays, lack of precipitation, high evaporation rate and depth to groundwater
(M136, 260 feet; M-225, 607 feet) prevents waste constituents from being
released to the groundwater and or subsurface environment.
Ongoing soil and groundwater monitoring are used to verify these controls are
effective in preventing adverse effects to human health and the environment.
2.0 Run-on/Run-off Control
2.1 M-136
Run-on
M-136 is located in the lower end of a major drainage, as shown on Figure
2.1 (Google Earth image). The run-off area contributing to the flow at the
upper end of the burning ground is approximately 413 acres.
In 1991 and 1992 extensive modifications were made to the M-136 burn
grounds. This included a diversion ditch system at the upper end of M-
136. This system intercepts the run-off from above then channels it
around the north side of the area where it then discharges into the natural
channel of the adjacent drainage to the north of the burning ground. This
system is shown on the drawing set in Figure 2.1.1
liP age
Orbital AT'fl> Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April2015
Flows were calculated at the inlet end of the new ditch system (sta 0+00)
for the 25, 50, and 100 year storms, each with a duration of 6 hours, using
the Curve Number Method. Using a run-off curve number of 79 for the
undisturbed area, the maximum flows were found to be 114, 168, and 234
cfs, respectively (see appendix A).
The ditch dimensions are shown in the previously-cited Figures, and are
adequate to handle this 0 100 of 234 cfs, as are the two culvert system
(designated #1 and #2) shown.
Run-off
The M-136 burning ground run-off area comprises an area of about 55
acres. ATK elected to control this run-off by capturing it along the North
and lower west side of the burning ground in a series of ditches and
embankments. This ditch and embankment system is shown also in
Figure 2.1 .1. The location of the main storm water accumulation area is
designated as the "evaporation area" with potential overflow into the
"infiltration area" on the figure.
The run-off ditch system contains two culverts (designated #3 and #4).
The ditch dimensions and the culvert dimensions are shown in the
drawing set, and are of adequate size to carry the intended flows, based
on the 100 year, 6 hour rainfall event which is 2.18 inches.
The run-off calculation is conservative, since the steep side hill area to the
southeast (about 20 of the 55 acres) was included in the run-off
calculation. However, in reality, flow from this area will mostly follow an
unimproved ditch along the south side of the burning ground, and not flow
through the active portion of M-136.
The storm drainage design confirmation calculations for M-136 are
included in appendix A
2/Page
Orbital AT'fl>
2.2 M-225
Run-on
Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April2015
M-225 is located near the top of a drainage area, and consequently has
only a small run-on area above it, as shown on Figure 2.2 (Goggle Earth
image). This undisturbed area is approximately 18.4 acres.
ATK has installed a diversion ditch across the uphill side of the burning
ground, which connects to a ditch draining going downhill along each side
of M-225, as shown in Figure 2.2.1.
The peak run-on flow was calculated at the uphill side of the burning
ground and found to be11.9 cfs, 17.2 cfs, and 23.8 cfs, respectively, for
the 25, 50, and 100year, 6 hour precipitation events. The ditch sizing as
designed will convey a flow of 21.0 cfs (See confirmatory calculations in
Appendix A). Thus, the ditch will safely handle the peak flow from the 50
year event and nearly convey the peak flow resulting from the 100 year
event.
Run-off
M-225 is a very small site (approximately 2.49 acres). The site itself is
relatively flat and a large portion is covered with large gravel rip-rap, plus
an additional shallow depression area has been graded along the downhill
side of the active area inside the fence.
The confirmatory calculations (see Appendix A) show that maintaining the
shallow site depression at an average depth of 2.5 feet will be sufficient to
contain all of the runoff resulting from the 100 year, 6 hour precipitation
event. The entire area is subject to routine soil sampling. Consequently, it
is concluded that run-off from the site will be adequately contained.
3.0 Potential for Storm Water to Infiltrate to Groundwater
Waste is treated in water tight trays as described in Attachment 11 of the
Permit. This section reviews the unusual scenario where waste would be
in contact with the soil and then leach into the subsurface as a result of
storm water with the potential to reach groundwater.
3IPage
Orbital AT'fl> Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April 2015
3.1 Depth to Groundwater at M-135 and M-225
Based on Wells within the M-136 burn grounds, D-2, D-3, D4, D5,
D6, the average depth to groundwater in the area is 260 feet.
Depth to groundwater at M-225 is 607 feet based on well X-4
located at the south west edge of M-225.
3.2 Climate at the ATK Promontory Facility
41Page
The climate at the ATK Promontory Facility is considered arid.
The ATK Promontory North Plant weather station has manually
recorded weather data since 1962 (48 years). The station shows
the mean annual precipitation is 14.05 inches and the record daily
precipitation is 2.45 inches. Another onsite weather station at
M-245 maintains an electronic data base that meets EPA quality
assurance criteria. Data from M-245 for the past 6 years (2005-
201 0) shows an average annual precipitation of 11.6 inches, and a
maximum daily precipitation of 1.4 inches. Most precipitation
occurs in the spring and fall. The average daily high temperature is
62.1 oF and the average daily low temperature is 32.6° F. The Pan
Evaporation Rate is 67.9 inches per year. There are approximately
70 -80 'frost-free days in the area (WRCC 2011 ).
3.3 Infiltration Modeling Using Hydrus
The finite-element model HYDRUS v4.14 was used to evaluate the
potential for storm water to percolate to groundwater at the M-136
and M-225 burning grounds. This model is recommended by the
U.S. EPA for use in these situations. (U.S. EPA) This modeling
report is found in Appendix B.
The run-off containment systems were designed to contain a 25
year storm event for both M-136 and M-225, which is equivalent to
2.4 inches in 24 hours. This is also equivalent to the Promontory
record daily precipitation of 2.45 inches. A HYDRUS model run
was conducted for both locations using the 25 year storm amounts.
Other conservative simplifying assumptions were used, including
365 days with no evaporation, and no hysteresis.
Orbital AT1> Storm Water Management Plan
A TK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April 2015
Results of the modeling demonstrate that even with conservative
assumptions, water from a 25 year storm event after 368 days
would not migrate beyond 14.4 feet at M136 and 4.6 feet at M-225.
Given the actual high evaporation rates, arid conditions, and depth
to groundwater, the potential for storm water to leach into the
groundwater at M-136 and M-225 is highly unlikely.
Another HYDRUS model run was conducted assuming that all
water from an average yearly rainfall for M-136 would be able to
percolate into the subsurface. Results of this modeling
demonstrate that with these very conservative assumptions it would
still require 17.5 to 21 years for this wetting front to reach
groundwater. Additional research was conducted on the
applicability of the HYDRUS model to locations with relatively
shallow fractured bed rock as found at M-136 and M-225. Earth
Fax Engineering found a published study that demonstrate that
fractured bedrock actually acts as a barrier to water moving from
fine grained soils. Therefore, the HYDRUS model is more
conservative in this application. This research and the additional
HYDRUS modeling report are found in appendix C.
4.0 Soil and Groundwater Monitoring
Monitoring of the soil and groundwater at M-136 and M-225 is conducted
on a routine basis. The ATK Promontory L TTA Post Closure Permit,
reissued in 2007, requires semi-annual monitoring of the Groundwater
Management System at Promontory. The wells at M-136 and M-225 are
part of this management system and are therefore sampled according to
conditions in the permit.
4.1 M-136 DWell Monitoring
SjPage
The well system within the M-136 facility, (wells D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5,
D-6) monitor constituents that are a result of wastewater disposal in
the old Liquid Thermal Treatment Areas ( L TTAs). This is the
primary source area for groundwater contamination at the
Promontory facility. Therefore, contamination levels in these wells
are typically much higher than wells at other locations at the facility.
DTbital AT'tf> Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April2015
61Page
Due to these high levels, the potential of detecting slight increases
in concentrations that might be attributed to ongoing treatment is
not practical. For example, perchlorate containing waste is the
largest waste category treated at M-136. Perchlorate is also the
most water soluble and also has the highest potential to leach to
groundwater. However, there are already high levels of perchlorate
found in the D wells. Being able to infer that changes seen in these
high levels are significant and a result of ongoing treatment is
problematic. Ultimately, the Post Closure Permit is managing this
contamination and its impact on human health and the environment
through the required Human Health and Ecological risk
assessments. Additionally, as demonstrated with the HYDRUS
modeling it is very unlikely that perchlorate resulting from normal
ongoing treatment operations could reach groundwater.
There is also a lack of reliable perchlorate data for these wells.
Sampling of the D wells within the M-136 burn grounds began in
1985, with several additional sampling events between then and
1987. This provided sufficient information for the source areas and
sampling was then focused on new wells being drilled to monitor
the extent of the contamination. Therefore, after 1987, no
groundwater samples were collected from the Dwells until2007.
This recent sampling was in conjunction with a pilot test of a
vegetable oil injection to treat the perchlorate and VOC
contamination. As a result, there are two sets of data with a span
of 24 years between them. This data is found in Table1. There are
inherent problems in comparing the two data sets primarily because
analytical methods have greatly improved over the years. This is
particularly true for perchlorate which during the 1985-1987 time
frame was not even a contaminant of concern. It was only
analyzed due to its high water solubility and as an indicator or
tracer of contamination movement.
The problem is that the only method at the time that could detect
perchlorate was based on an lon Select Electrode (ISE). The ISE
instrument was intended for use in quantifying perchlorate in a
laboratory setting with reagent grade water, not environmental
samples with higher levels of additional ions in water and soils.
These other ions, especially chloride, are known to cause
Orbital ATK.} Storm Water Management Plan
A TK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April 2015
71Page
interferences with the method and as a result detection limits were
high and precision and accuracy were low. These analytical
problems are evident with a review of the old analytical data from
1985 to 1987. Perchlorate levels could vary almost over an order
of magnitude in the same well from one month to the next and the
variability was seen in all the wells. So the wells appear to be
uniform in their variability and also reported at similar levels making
it difficult to define any trend over this short time frame. The
reported detection limit for this old data was apparently based on
the instrument stated limits in clean water and not calculated for
these samples.
It was not until around 1994 that an ion chromatograph method was
developed specifically for perchlorate which helped eliminate many
of the problems inherent to the IS E. This method was then adopted
by the EPA as drinking water method 314. Since that time the
method has been improved for higher TDS water as found at ATK
Promontory. Therefore, if comparing the two perchlorate data sets,
it is important to realize that the IC method is best suited to quantify
perchlorate values with precision and accuracy in ATK
groundwater.
Due to the lack of valid historic perchlorate values, since 2007 ATK
has continued to monitor wells of interest including Dwells at the
M-136 burn grounds through the Post Closure Permit sampling
program to better quantify perchlorate and to track trends in
groundwater below the M-136 burn grounds. The additional data
and statistical trends for these wells through May 2014 are found in
appendix D.
The UDSHW requested additional groundwater modeling of theM-
136 area to better predict perchlorate movement and connections
between wells. This modeling was completed by creating smaller
grid spacing in the modeled zone to refine the modeling predictions.
The results of the modeling predict a travel time and directions
between wells and that water does tend to pool in the M-136 area
and that contaminant slug flow would be anticipated. The refined
groundwater model results are included in appendix E.
Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April2015
4.2 M-225 Monitoring
8JPage
At M-225, due to the great depth to groundwater (607 feet), and the
difficulty in drilling wells in the highly fractured formations, only one
up gradient well, X-4, has been successfully installed; this was
completed in 1991. This well has seen slowly increasing levels of
contamination over the years, but based on flow directions, it is
coming from an up gradient source.
Additionally, to determine the impact after many years of operation,
soil samples were collected using deep soil borings at M-225 in
1991. These samples were collected within the old historic unlined
burn pits and trenches. Results demonstrate that contamination in
the soil was low and quickly attenuated at less than 8 feet. These
results were submitted to the DSHW in a 1991 report entitled the
M-225 Partial Closure Plan Report. This report was reviewed by
the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste and the no further
action closure of these historic sites was approved in a April 3,
2012 letter. The data in the report supports the HYDRUS modeling
conclusion that potential contamination from the routine operation
of the M-225 burn grounds would not move far into the soil column
with storm water and therefore not contaminate groundwater
beneath the facility.
DTbital ATK)
References
Storm Water Management Plan
A TK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April 2015
WRCC 2011. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2011.
Accessed website on March 17, 2011.
http://www. wrcc.d ri .ed u
U.S. EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Soil Screening
Guidance: Technical background Document. EPA/540/R-95/128. Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
91Page
., ca· c ;
tn
8 7 6
H
G
I F
l ... ~·
E
D
c
' ·I
B
A
8 7 6
5
/ _,., ... )
...-"" .
BURN STATION #4 .-,,/'
-BURN STATI N #3 _fl .. ~·/ :'~•/
;r ..-----
0
4
EVAPORATION
AREA
DRAINAGE
AREA
EXCAVATED EMBANMENT FOR
RUN-OFF DRAINAGE CONTROL
BURN STATION #2
2
REVISION HISTORY
ZONE REV. DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED
f/0 J ADDEO RIP RAP AND EVAPORATION AREA B BOWCUTT 25 MAR 15
------------------
5
M-255 BURN GROUNDS
SCALE: SEE GRAPHIC SCALE
LEGEND
-----CULVERT
0 WEll
RUN-ON CONTROL
RUN-OFF COtlfROl
-X-X-FENCE
! t.IXXX.X.XKX I REFERENCE DWG.
4
DRAWING REFERENCE DRAWINGS
X X
THIS PRINT, AND THE INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY HEREON, IS THE PROPERTY OF ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS
INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED. OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. PERMITIED REPRODUCTIONS IN WHOLE OR PART, INCLUDING BORROWER'S SHOP DRAWINGS, SHALL BEAR OR
REFER TO THIS NOTICE. RETURN OF THIS PRINT SHALL BE MADE UPON RE EST.
3 2
30' 0 30' 60' 90' 120' w
GRAPHIC SCALE
DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING FOR DIMENSIONS NOT GIVEN
SEE EPIC fOR COMPLDE
APPROVAL RECORD A TU-ATK Launch Systems Inc. ~!_!!) ~~~~;~!r~~~~s~IJRING DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING
APPROVALS DATE
13 OCT 05
8rlghllm City, Utah 84302
M-225 BURNING AREA
RUN-OFF AND RUN-O N
DRAINAGE PLAN
FIGURE 2-2,1
REV
3
SHEET: 1 OF 1
Released 2015/03/26
H
G
F
E
D
c
B
8 I
H
4530
4528
4526 -.,,.
Ji522
4520
4518
G 4516
4514
4512
4510
4508
-
<535
F 4531
4529
4527
4525
4523
4521
4519
4517
E
4544
4542
4540
r--4538
4536
4534
4532
4530
D 4528
4526
4524
4522
r--
4551
4549
4547
c 4545
45.(3
4541
• 4539
4537
4535
4533
4531
4529
B
A
8 I
7
35 25 15
35 25 15
35 25 "
35 25 15
+ -
5~~5
5~~5 ~.
5~~5
0
15 25 35
15 25 35
15 25 35
15 25 35
-EXISTING -
7
I
4>21
4519
4517
4515
4513
4511
4509
4507
4505
4503
45<>1
6 I 5 I 4
U IT
0
35 25 15 15 25 35
NEW CONSTRUCTION
6 5 I 4
I 3 I
'
DRAWING REFERENCE DRAWINGS
X
2
ZONE REV.
F /0 2 UPDATED ATK FORI.lAT
ROBERTS &
ENGOO!ZRS AND CONTRACTORS
CHICAGO-SALT LAKE CITY
I
REVISION HISTORY
DESCRIPTION
sdti.EFER I ~
SEE EPIC FOR COMPLETE
APPROVAL RECORD
DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING
APPROVALS DATE
DATE N'PROVEO
8 BOWClll'T 25 MAA 11 2011/03125 BE BowciJit
A TIC Launch ~Inc.
FACIUTEB ENCiiNEERIH(J
THIS PRI/ff, AND THE INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY HEREON, IS THE PROPERTY OF ATK LAUNCH SYSTEMS INC. AND' MAY NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED, OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
PERI.!m£0 REPRODUCTIONS IN WHOLE OR PART, INCLUDING BORROWER'S 1~gr DRAWINGS, SHAI.l BEAA OR "E' 107 7"o 3 1 M1'36 G 3 2 I"EVz
REFER TO THIS NOTICE. RETURN Of THIS PRINT SHALL BE MADE UPON RE UEST. SCALE: NOTED FED: X SHEEr: 1 OF 1
I 3 I Released 2011/03/25
H
-
G
-
F
-
E
-
D
-
c
-
B
8
H
4586
4584
-4582
4580
4576
457-4
G 4572
4570
4568
4566 35 25. 15
4593
4591
F 45119
4587
4581
r--4579
<577
4575
4573 35 25 15
E
-4601
4599
r---4597
4595
4593
4591
4589
0 4587
4585
4583
4581 35 25 15
-
4608
4606
c 4604
4602
4600
4598
4596
4594 -
4592
4590
4588 35 25 15
B
r--
A
0
A 2 0
0
5 .5
0
5 ~~~5
+
I
15 25 35
15 25 35
15 25 35
7
4551
4549
4547
4545
4543
4541
4539
4537
4535
4533
.4582
4560
4558
.4556
<554
4552
4550
4548
4546
4544
4542
""
""
"'
"'
4577
.4575
4573
4571
4569
4567
4565
4563
4561
""'
4557
35 25 IS
35 25 15
35 25 15
-EXISTING --
I 6 I
4537
4535
4531
4529
4527
4525
4523
4521
4519
15 25 35 4517 35 25 15
4531
4529
4527
4525
4523
4521
4519
4517
4515
4513
4511
15 25 35 35 25 15
4539
4537
4535
4533
4531
4529
4527
4525
4523
4521
.4519 N
35 25 15 5 5
4543
-4541
4539
4 4537
4SJ5
4533
4531
4529
4527
452!>
4523 •
15 25 35 35 25 15
1.5 25 35
s-RIP RAP
SEE PLAN FOR
LIMITS (TYP)
15 25 35
15 25 35
s ' N 0
15 25 35
5 I
4527
4525
4523
4521
4519
4517
4515
4513
4511
4509
4507
J5 25 15
4527
4525
4523
4521
4519
4517
4515
4515
4511
4509
4507 35 25 15
4528
4526
.. 524
4522
4520
4518
4516
4514
4512
4510
4508 35 25 15
45:SD
4528
4526
4524
4522
4520
4518
4516
4514
4512
.4510
35 25 15
NEW CONSTRUCTION
4
4521
4519
.4517
4515
4513
4511
4509
4507
.4505
4503
15 25 JS 4501
4525
4523
4521
4519
4517
4515
4513
4511
4509
4507
4505 15 25 35
4526
4524
.4522
.4520
4518
.4516
4514
4512
4510
4508
4506
5 •5 15 25 3S
4526
4524
4522
4520
4518
4516
4512
4510
4508
15 25 35 4506
HORZ sc.o.L£: 1" '" 20'
I
35 25 15
35 25 15
35 25 15
35 25 15
ON
5. 5
3 I
15 25 35
15 25 35
15 25 35
15 25 35
ORAMNGS
2
HbiUKT
ZONE I REV. OAJI I APPROVED
F /D 2 UPDATED ATK FORMAT 8 BOWCUTT 25 MAR 11 2011ro»61BE Bowoo1
4520
4518
4516
""
4512
4510
4508
4506
4502
4500
4520
4518
4516
""
4512
4510
4508
4506
.4502
4500
4520
4518
.4516
451<
4512
4510
4508
4506
4504
4502
4500
4520
4518
4516
""
4512
4510
4508
.4506
4504
4502
4500
35 25 15
35 25 15
35 25 15
35 25 15 5 •5
15 25 35
0 ER L
15 25 35
15 25 35
p
LOW UP
08.00
E 1:4 AT riRE BREAK
M T FILL
15 25 35
ROBERTS & SCifAEFER I ~ ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS
CHICAGO-SALT LAKE CITY
Sf:\~~R~J~R ~~~:FE
DO NOT SCALE THJS DRAWING
APPROVALS DATE
JUL 91 M 136 BURNING AREA
RUN-OFF DRAINAGE CHANNE L B
CROSS SECTIONS
H
G
F
E
0
c
B
-
A
H
G
E
0
A
( __
8
RIP-RAP
8
1l = 35'07'28R
R = 300.00'
l = 183.91'
I . I I!
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
7
CXJ
()"j
I
I I 1/ II
II
II II II II II II II II II II II II
II
II II
II II
II
I ; CULVERT jl \0 I I 18"111 GAL\1 METAL
6
II
I I RUN-ON DRAINAGE CHANNEL "A"
/ ALIGNMENT ALONG NATURAL CHANNEL
I I I
\ I \ I
\ I
\ I
' I ' I '\ I
' I
' I ' A '< \ \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \ \ \
\ \
\ \
-=~' '--='"""'~
\ \ \ \
\ I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
M-136 BURN GROUNDS
SCALE: SEE GRAPHIC SCALE
7 6
12 GA~UtXt~T cf~
DOUBLE 36R DIA X 50 FT LONG
INVERT IN 4577.50 INVERT OUT 4574.50
I;
5
5
,,
4 3 2
I I
RUN-ON RUN-OFf DRAINAGE B BOWCUTT 05 NOV 1 J
I
I I
I
I
I
I
(
\
\
\
I
\
,------
RUN-ON DRAINAGE: CHANJEL "A" ALIGNMENT ALONG NATURAL CHANNEL
\
\
' ' ' RIP RAP
4" THICK ASPHALT
BOTH SIDES OF
SLOTIED DRAIN
8" DEEP ROAD BASE
OVAL CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
CULVERT, 42" x 29" x .30' LG.
LE GEND
-----CULVERT
0 WEll
SECTION
SCALE• NONE
\
RUN-Off DRAINAGE CHANNEL
GRAOEO PIT RUN EMBANKMENT APPROX \8-HIGH
/ , ......... ,..........,
// ~
CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CULVERT
1 2"~ x JO' LG. x 16 GA. SLOITEO
DRAIN W/ 6" TALL SLOT
A
& G28
EARTH, UNDISTRUBED
OR COMPACTED
------
---.... -.... ---_ .... ---
..... ./:/.... --
/ / ,....--::::.-' / / / /
/ .... ,.., .... _/.,., .... ___ ...,.
-----~-::~:::::::::.-------::--------
DRAINAGE CHANNEL "c-
NOT ES
I. All CHANNEL EXCAVATION AND EMBANKMENTS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM 3, I SIDE SLOPES.
2.
3,
4.
s,
6,
CHANNEL BANKS SHALL BE LINED WITH 6• Or 2-lNCH MINIMUM SIZE RIP-RAP AT
ALL LOCATIONS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE R!P RAP MATERIAL.
EXCAVATION MATERIAL fR(]t~ THE DRAINAGE CHANNELS SHALL BE PLACED IN
EMBANKMENTS ADJACENT TnJ THE CHANNEL ON THE SIDE Of THE CHANNEL SHOWN
BY A SHADED LINE ON THIS DRAWING. AT ANY LOCATION WHERE THE EXIST ING ROADWAYS
OR SITE TOPOGRAPHY DO ~OT ALLOW AN EMBANKMENT, THE EXCAVATED MATERIAL
MUST DE DEPOSITED AT T~E SPOIL SITE DESIGNATED ON THIS DRAWING.
BACKfiLL fOR ALL CULVE~TS SHALL BE NATIVE MATERIAL, fREE Of ROOTS OR OTHER ORGANIC MATERIAL HAXIIMUM ROCK SIZE SHALL BE 6 INCHES. BACKfiLL SHALL
BE PLACED IN MAXIMUM HB INCH LifTS, AND EACH LifT COMPACTED TO 90%
ASTM Dl557-70. MINIMUIM COVER FOR THE CULVERTS SHALL BE 12 INCHES.
ALL DISTURBED AREAS CCWT AND fiLL) Of RUN-ON DRAINAGE CHANNEL 'A'
SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED l¥l.CCORDING TO THE fOLLOW ING SPECifiCATION$:
SEEDING MIXTURE BASED ON PURE LIVE SEED C PLS>•
PURITY X GERMINATHON = PLS
OI?TION »>
LUNA PUBESCENT IJHEATGRASS
HYCREST CRESTED W~EATGRASS
NORDON CRESTED WHEATGRASS
RANGER AlfALfA
YELLOW SWEET CLOVER
TOTAL SEEDS c PLS Ill/AD
TIME Of SEEDING:
METHOD Of SEEDING•
2 3
6 6 s s 3 2
2 3 1/2 112 1 112 1/2 112
12 t2 11 l/2
PLANTING AfTER OCT 15
BROADCAST SEED AND SET IN
CHAIN OR SPIKE TOOTH HARROV
SET AT STEEP ANGLE WORKED UP
HILL
DISTURBED AREAS Of THE RUN-OfF DRAINAGE CHANNEL SHALL NOT BE RE-VEGETATED
ROBERTS & n sc~
GRAPHIC SCALE
ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS
CHICAGO-SALT LAKE CITY 6130
sc.olE: 1" • 100'
DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING
M-136 BURNING AREA
H
G
F
E
0
c
B
RUN-ON CONTROL
RUN-OFf CONTROL
FENCE
RUN-OFF AND RU N-ON A DRAI NAGE PLAN
t MXXX.X.XXX I REFERENCE DWG.
4
)>
"C "C CD ::I c. ;c·
)>
Orbital AT«)
Appendix A
Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April2015
Run-on and Run-off Calculations for M-136 and
M-225
EARTHFAX ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERS I SCIENTISTS
PROJECT V{.[-)02'; -n PAGE l OF \2-
COMPUTED ')B'IJ DATE 7 Jp_.. J1JJf
CHECKED DATE
M -1 ;,e::, Slb'i'-M w 1\-'T€ g_
MI\-N A:~t: M FrJT s ~STEM
l)(~~~ ~n CbZI2c*~-ho { Gh~~ A)
Nez ~ 4 r3 zc.. c >a p;J z. cf t:4s ~, .)
~{) ~ ---> L¥-cf 100-ft: ~to v.r ~ r.'t~.N.J ~0 .t~5 ~ 55 40oft ·-o ,--. ,
\fl.~ hi -{ 55,4oo ft-) { tOO M] G )
P VVO -~@13 i!c.Y t/-)
1
go ft.~-/zc /Ob
L.-
~ 3o ,8 i)/o
~ hN+-f W,r~ h..V.W\h-..r : J ~£;~ ~ h ~i-~~ cs;o4k;-~
S.U ih~-J,..~ { ~ ~ ~cs Wtb siJ Surv~)
0tJ;> 7'1 (~~ -\,:> r~~1 -f~v ~~-
---~ ~tt-~>o' };ell_ 'tJ).
11~ i ~~~ = /.(p7 l {wke l::-k;s..J;I"N.[hr]) J. 0,% {S-t l)o.?
L ~ l'}oo y •.r
CN =-r \A. V\D tt CM Ne. rvJ. m 1...cr
'/ ~ Bli3 wkrht.f ~ {y.')
E ~ OF \Z-IIl -j02.1-f7 AG J
V\ p 7 J~ .l)i) '+ PROJECT ...le.~~:o-DATE_.:_.::::..._----"'-.-
COMPUTED
PROJECT tAl..-)O;l)-J7 PAGE J OF }2.
COMPUTED 1!Si" DATE '1 J~ dn J/-EARTHFAX ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERS I SCIENTISTS
CHECKED DATE
ell~~ ~z_1c.. ~j' v.JrrJ ~J (0 Cftp' venl (\-. I 0. 0 0
1
•
;2S-'r b~hr = ) )tf c-b (
50-y,' &-h< o J bB-ch \ w ~ ... c.LJ o.J.f-4
/Oo~y, 6-hl : ;).34 ch
Ch~~ ~uis~ { t{t.."ZI11N.l.. A)
MAI'\·1 vvv, Y'-chZAA J cmrr ~ Jw-~
~sv..~ ~ Mz..v~~<f's to v/-r-..t/1 (.(je_{, tlf (), D3o
C. h.,,_.} '-1)''" C:-la ~ o2.1o I cJr {-ex~! I 00 -f 1 6-hr s-/.r..-. F lJ
ChZ1'1~ ·,r ~~. {So-)'S 7 ot ~ czDc,)
M-136 Runoff
Prepared by {enter your company name here}
Type II 6-hr 25-yr, 6-hr Rainfa/1=1.66"
Printed 1/9/2014
HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 03900 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 15: M-136 Watershed
Runoff = 113.88 cfs @ 3.44 hrs, Volume= 11.572 af, Depth= 0.34"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 1.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type II 6-hr 25-yr, 6-hr Rainfall=1.66"
Area (ac) CN Description
* 413.000 79
413.000 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsee) (cfs)
39.0 10,600 0.3080 4.53 Lag/CN Method,
Page 1
M-136 Runoff Type II 6-hr 50-yr, 6-hr Rainfa/1=1.91"
Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 1/9/2014
HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 03900 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2
Summary for Subcatchment 15: M-136 Watershed
Runoff = 167.83 cfs@ 3.43 hrs, Volume= 16.199 af, Depth= 0.4 7''
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 1.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type II 6-hr 50-yr, 6-hr Rainfall=1. 91"
Area (ac) CN Description
* 413.000 79
413.000 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ftlft) (ftlsec) (cfs)
39.0 10,600 0.3080 4.53 Lag/CN Method,
M-136 Runoff
Prepared by {~nter your company name here}
Type II 6-hr 1 00-yr, 6-hr Rainfa/1=2. 18"
Printed 1/9/2014
HydroCAD® 10.()0 s/n 03900 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 15: M-136 Watershed
Runoff = 233.70 cfs @ 3.42 hrs, Volume= 21.714 af, Depth= 0.63"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 1.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type II 6-hr 1 00-yr, 6-hr Rainfall=2.18"
Area (ac) CN Description
* 413.000 79
413.000 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ftlft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
39.0 10,600 0.3080 4.53 Lag/CN Method,
Page 3
Project Description
Worksheet
Flow Element
Method
Solve For
Input Data
Channel A
Trapezoidal Cha
Manning's Form
Discharge
Mannings Coeff1c 0.030
Slope 073400 ftlft
Depth 4.50 ft
Left Side Slope 3 00 V : H
Right Side Slope 3.00 V : H
Bottom Width 2.00 ft
M-136, Channel A
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel
': Results
DISCharge
Flow Area
(~q~(j exc..uJs Jat;/OV' ~~
Wetted Perim1 11.49 ft
Top Width 5.00 ft
Cntical Depth 5.87 ft
Critical Slope 0.027170 ftlft
Velocity 16.56 fils
Velocity Head 4.26 ft
Specific Ener~ 8.76 ft
Froude Numb• 1.65
Flow Type lupercritical
g:l .. 117\burning ground surface runofflm-136 fm2
01122/14 03:03 08 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc.
EarthFax Engineering Inc
37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA
Project Engmeer. Richard White
FlowMaster v6.0 [614b]
[phone] Page 1 of 1
EARTHFAX ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERS I SCIENTISTS
PROJECT 1.,{(,-jOl~-17 PAGE g OF I'}_
COMPUTED 1i'VJ DATE dJ-J2-\.-dQ/f
CHECKED DATE
Pe2-\~ ~ Czlv~zl-t_;.,._t (ChZM~S 'iS~ c._)
015-y, w -he = Lf~.l c:A
b1J-,~-, h-~ bi-.-6--G-~-
/00 -o.r, {o-h-r .. 7'1 f 2 c_-h,
drzMJ ~z:~Jo::. 8'l. ~ c-fs {-.&u..vl~ IOO-y1 {r~r shr~ fU!z.l:)
Cl,z;v,M ·,s ¥--~zi{ { ~ f J /L of2 ~ czfc_,) J
M-136 Channel A runoff
Prepared by {enter your company name here}
Type II 6-hr 25-yr, 6-hr Rainfa/1=1.66"
Printed 1/22/2014
HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 03900 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 15: M-136 Channel 8/C Watershed
Runoff = 46.11 cfs@ 3.14 hrs, Volume= 2.549 af, Depth= 0.56"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 1.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type II 6-hr 25-yr, 6-hr Rainfall=1.66"
Area (ac) CN Description
* 55.000 85
55.000 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ftlft) (ftlsec) (cfs)
19.4 2,300 0.0730 1.97 Lag/CN Method,
Page 1
M-136 Channel A runoff
Prepared by {enter your company name here}
Type II 6-hr 50-yr, 6-hr Rainfa/1=1.91"
Printed 1/22/2014
HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 03900 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 15: M-136 Channel 8/C Watershed
Runoff = 61.56 cfs @ 3.14 hrs, Volume= 3.345 af, Depth= 0. 73"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 1.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type II 6-hr 50-yr, 6-hr Rainfall=1.91"
Area (ac) CN Description
* 55.000 85
55.000 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
19.4 2,300 0.0730 1.97 Lag/CN Method,
Paqe2
M-136 Channel A runoff
Prepared by {enter your company name here}
Type II 6-hr 1 00-yr, 6-hr Rainfa/1=2. 18"
Printed 1/22/2014
HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 03900 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 15: M-136 Channel 8/C Watershed
Runoff = 79.24 cfs@ 3.14 hrs, Volume= 4.260 af, Depth= 0.93"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 1.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type II 6-hr 1 00-yr, 6-hr Rainfall=2.18"
Area (ac) CN Description
* 55.000 85
55.000 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ftlft) (ft/sec) ( cfs)
19.4 2,300 0.0730 1.97 Lag/CN Method,
Page 3
Project Description
Worksheet
Flow Element
Method
Solve For
Input Data
Channel 8/C
Trapezoidal Cha
Manning's Form1
Discharge
Mannings Coeffic 0.030
Slope 018000 fUft
Depth 3.50 ft
Left Side Slope 3.00 V : H
Right Side Slope 3.00 V : H
Bottom Width 2.00 ft
Results
Discharge C~_)
Flow Area 11.1 ft2
Wetted Perim1 9.38 ft
Top Width 4 33 ft
Critical Depth 3.13 ft
Critical Slope 0.026666 tUft
Velocity 7.43 fUs
Velocity Head 0 86 ft
Specific Ener~ 4 36 ft
Froude Numb• 0.82
Flow Type 3ubcritical
M-136, Channel B/C
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel
g:l ... 117\burning ground surface runoff\m-136 fm2 EarthFax Engineering Inc
01/22/14 03:47:00 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA
Project Eng1neer: Richard White
FlowMaster v6.0 [614b]
[phone] Page 1 of 1
41° 41'4S"N
41° 40' 3" N
379800
N
A
Soil Map-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
(M-136 Drainage Area)
380300 380800 381300 381800
Map Scale: 1:22,200 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
0~----~3~00~====~~~--------------1~200~=============1~8~
0~-----1~000~====~2~000~-------------~~=============~~~
Map projection: Web Mercator Comerroordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: VTM Zone 12N WGS84
382300 382800
uSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey ~iiiii Conservation Service
383300 383800 384300
~ 41° 41'45"N
'!j
1/6/2014
Page 1 of 3
Soil Map-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
(M-136 Drainage Area)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
CJ Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
~ Blowout
~ Borrow Pit
~ Clay Spot
(\ Closed Depression ~ •. •
X, Gravel Pit . Gravelly Spot
0 Landfill
A .. Lava Flow
~ Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
@ Miscellaneous Water
0 Perennial Water
'··.{' Rock Outcrop
+ Saline Spot
.. Sandy Spot
-6· Severely Eroded Spot
<> Sinkhole
~) Slide or Slip
.f!i Sodic Spot
U5DA Natural Resources
=::za=i Conservation Service
§ Spoil Area
(• Stony Spot
f1:. Very Stony Spot
\? Wet Spot
{\ Other
~-Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
+-+-+ Rails
-Interstate Highways -US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :20,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area:
Survey Area Data:
Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
Version 6, Apr 7, 2011
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 2, 2011-Sep 24,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
1/6/2014
Page 2 of 3
Soil Map-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
ABE
BUG
HpD
MIE
MIG
MJG
PwD
ReA
SGG
SJG
SvB
ThB
Totals for Area of Interest
USDA Natural Resources
"'iii Conservation Service
Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part (UT602)
Map Unit Name Acres inAOI
Abela gravelly loam, 10 to 20
percent slopes
Broad-Middle association.
steep
Hupp gravelly silt loam, 6 to 10
percent slopes
Middle cobbly siltloam, 10 to 30
percent slopes
Middle cobbly silt loam, 30 to 70
percent slopes
Middle-Broad association,
steep
Pomat silt loam, 6 to 10 percent
slopes
Red Rock silt loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes
Sandaii-Promo association.
steep
Sandaii-Rozlee association,
steep
Stingalloam, 1 to 6 percent
slopes
Thiokol silt loam, 1 to 6 percent
slopes
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
76.8
70.7
72.7
136.0
55.3
225.5
60.4
9.8
29.2
1,307.1
59.9
74.2
2,177.5
M-136 Drainage Area
Percent of AOI
3.5%
3.2%
3.3%
6.2%
2.5%
10.4%
2.8%
0.5%
1.3%
60.0%
2.7%
3.4%
100.0%
1/6/2014
Page 3 of 3
41° 41'45"N
41° 40' 3" N
379800
N
A
Hydrologic Soil Group-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
(M-136 Drainage Area)
380300 380800 381300 381800 382300 382800
Map Scale: 1:22,200 if printed on AlandSGlpe (11" x 8.5") sheet
------~~====~---------------=============~Mffeffi 0 300 600 1200 1800
------~~====~--------------~~============~~! 0 1000 2000 4000 600:)
Map projection: Web Men::ator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: VTM Zone 12N WGS84
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey '5iii Conservation Service
383300 383800
~ 41° 41' 45" N
~
384300
1/6/2014
Page 1 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
(M-136 Drainage Area)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
D A
D AID
D B
D B/D
D c
D C/D
D D
D Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
" A
~ " AID
,....,; B -B/D
~ " c
... C/D
·-" D
~ " Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
[J A
0 AID
B
B/D
USDA Natural Resources
~iiiii! Conservation Service
[J
[J
c
C/D
D
0 Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
-1-++ Rails
-Interstate Highways -US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :20,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area:
Survey Area Data:
Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
Version 6, Apr 7, 2011
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 :50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 2, 2011-Sep 24,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
1/6/2014
Page 2 of4
Hydrologic Soil Group-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part M-136 Drainage Area
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic Soli Group-Summary by Map Unit-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part (UT602)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating
ABE Abela gravelly loam, 10 B
to 20 percent slopes
BUG Broad-Middle c
association, steep
HpD Hupp gravelly silt loam, 6 B
to 1 0 percent slopes
MIE Middle cobbly silt loam, c
10 to 30 percent
slopes
MIG Middle cobbly silt loam, c
30 to 70 percent
slopes
MJG Middle-Broad c
association, steep
PwD Pomat silt loam, 6 to 10 c
percent slopes
ReA Red Rock silt loam, 0 to B
1 percent slopes
SGG Sandaii-Promo c
association, steep
SJG Sandaii-Rozlee c
association, steep
SvB Stingalloam, 1 to 6 B
percent slopes
ThB Thiokol silt loam, 1 to 6 B
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest
USDA Natural Resources
"'fiij Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Acres lnAOI
76.8
70.7
72.7
136.0
55.3
225.5
60.4
9.8
29.2
1,307.1
59.9
74.2
2,177.5
Percent of AOI
3.5%
3.2%
3.3%
6.2%
2.5%
10.4%
2.8%
0.5%
1.3%
60.0%
2.7%
3.4%
100.0%
1/6/2014
Page 3 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (AID, 8/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impeNious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, 8/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
USDA Natural Resources
"1iiiiii Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
M-136 Drainage Area
1/6/2014
Page 4 of 4
Precipitation Frequency Data Server http:/ /hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds _printpage.html ?lat=4 1.6856&1.
1 of4
® .
'
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 5
Location name: Tremonton, Utah, US*
Coordinates: 41.6856, -112.4131
Elevation: 5101 ft*
• source: Google Maps
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica. Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic,
lshani Roy. Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Mchael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel
Brewer, U-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan
NOM National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aenals
PF tabular
L _ PDS-based_ point precipitation frequency estimates with 90<yo confid~nce ~ntervals (in_ in~hes) 1 _ c=:l _ Average recurrence interval (years) _ _ _ __ _
IUUI:liUI.'.I _ 1 -_I _ -2 l 5 [ 10 I 25 I_ 50 __ [ ___ 1 0~ --I _20_0 -I -500 --_il 1000
~; 0.121 0.155 0.212 0.264 0.347 0.422 0.510 0.614 0.777 I 0.926 l '-'~I-IIII I _: (0.106~0 139)' (0.1_36_-0.178) (0.185-0.244) (0.229-0.304) (0.295-0.401 ), (0.350~0.491 )_ (0.4 13-0.599) (0.480-0.731) (0.580-0 947)i (0.663~1.15)
,~' 0.184 0.235 0.323 0.402 0.529 0.643 0.777 0.934 1.18 ; 1.41 I 'v-mm i (0.161-0.212) (0.207-0.271) (0.282-0.372) (0.349-0.463) (0.450-0.611) (0.533-0.747) (0.629-0.911) (0.7~0-1.11) (0.883-1 .44) I (1.01-1.75):
~ . 0.229 -0.291 Q.400 -0.499 0.655 0.797 0.963 1.16 1.47 -: .... 1.75 .
I __ ·~~~'"'_ I (0.199-0.263) (0.257-0.336) (0.349-0.461) (0.433-0.574) (0.557-0.757) (0.661-0.926) (0.779-1.13) (0.905:1.38) (1.09-1.7_9) J (1:2~-2-~7):
r:~: -0.30B O.J92 0.539 .. 0.672 .. -0.882 - --1.07 1.30 1.56 1.97 : 2.35 I .:>V"IIIIII ' (0.268-0.354) (0.346-0.453) (0.470-0.621) (0.583-0.773) (0.751-1.02) (0.890-1.25) (1 .05-1.52) : (1.22-1.86) (1 .47-2.41) i (1 .69:_2.93)'
~ 0.381 0.486 : 0.667 0.831 . 1.09 1.33 1.60 1.93 2.44 ' 2.91
l_uv·'"''' ; (0.332-0.438) (~.428-0.5~0) (0.582-0.768) (OnH.957) (0.929-1.26) (1.10-1.54) (1.30-1.88) (1.51-2.30) (1_ 82~2:98) i _(2.09~3.63):
·~ 0.488 0.614 0.804 0.977 1.25 1.50 1.79 2.13 2.67 :1 3.15 ·I. """r _: (0.438-0_.551) (0.548-0.694); (0:71_6-0.907) (0.862-1.10) (1.08-1 .42) (1 .27:1.72) ' (1 .48-2.D7) . (1.71:2.50) _ (2.03-3.2!J}__i (2.3_1_-3:87) i
~~ 0.574 0.716 : 0.907 1.08 1.36 1.60 1.89 2.23 2.76 ' 3.24 ' 'I .,.,. I (0.519-0.644) (0.649-0.805); (0.816-1.02) (0.968-1.22) (1.19-1.53) (1.38-1.82) (1.59-2.18) (1.82-2.60)_ (2.17-3.31 ); (2.45-3.96) j
~I 0.769 0.949 . 1.17 1.37 1.66 1.91 2.18 2.49 3.02 I 3.49 ~l O"lll -· 1(0.703-0.845) (0.866-1.05). (1.07-1.29) (1.24-1.52) (1 .48-1.85) (1.68-2.13) (1.89-2.46) (2.1 1-2.85) (2.49-3.53) i (2.80-4.15):
~I 0.986 . 1.22 1.49 1.73 2.07 2.34 2.64 2.96 I 3.44 i 3.83 ' I '"_~:·-:, (0.9?6-1.08), (1.12-U3) --(U~-1-~3) ' (1.57-1.89) ' (1.87-2.27) _(2.09:2.60) (2.32-3.95) _(2.55-3 34) : fZ-~9:3.95) .! (3.15:4.4~):
~ 1.21 1.50 1.83 2.11 2.50 2.81 3.13 3.47 I 3.93 i 4.29 ·I -''+"II'-I (1.11-1.32) (1_.37-1.64) (1.68-2.00) (1.93-2.31) (2.27-2.74) (2.54-3.08) (2.82-3.43) • (3.10:3.81) (3.48-4.33) I (3.76-4!5):
~I -1.37 -1.69 2.05 2.36 2.79 3.14 3.50 3.87 4.38 i 4.79 : ~.~-~~~--i (1.25-1.50) (1.55-1.85) (1 .88-2.25) (2.16-2.58)_ (2.54:3.05) -(2.8~-3-~3) : (3.:4-3.82)--(3.45-4.24) : _(3:86:4.82) j (~-~ 8-5 29)
~~-. 1.5o -. 1.85 :,II 2.25 2.59 3.o6 3.44 3.84 4.25 4.81 i 5.26 t ~~u_:'y _ : _ (1.37:1.64) (1.70:2:92) (2.06-2:46) (2.37-2.83) (2.78-3.34) (3: ~1-3.75) (3.45-4.19)_, (3.79-4.6~) 1 • (4.24-_~·?8)_) ~4.6!J·5.7!1)_f
:l .~~day _l (1.5~~1378) (1.82~~2120) . (2}~~568) (2.52~~;08) (3_;;~3463) (3.33~~4508) (3.7~~4856) (41~~5304) (4.65;~5473! I (5.051·~:30)!
[_ 7 -day_ :,' 1.95 2.41 2.94 3.39 4.01 4.49 5.00 5.52 ' 6.24 6.81
(1.77-2.15) (2.20-2.66)' (2.67-3.25) (3.07-3.73) (3.61-4.41) (4.02-4.94)' (4.46-5.50) .' (4.89-6.08) (5.47-6.89) j(5.?2-7.54);
'
1 1o.-day ___ ;:· 2.20 2.73 3.34 3.83 4.50 5.03 5.57 6.13 6.88
1
. 7.46 :
(2.01_-2:4?)-(2.49-3.00) (3.04-3.66) (3._48-4.20) . (~.08-4.94) -(4.54-_5.52) . J5.00-6.12) _(~.47-6.73) ; (6.08-7.57). (6.54-8.23):
1 20-day i: 2.84 3.51 4.24 4.82 5.57 6.13 6.69 7.25 7.98 'I 8.52
. (2.60-3.09) • (3.21-3.82)_ (3.89-4.62) (4.40-5.24) (5.07-6.05) (5.57:_6.67)-. (6.06_-~.30)_ (6.53-7.92) . (7.14-8.7~)__) (7.58_-9.36):
1 30-day : 3.37 4.15 5.00 5.68 6.57 7.25 7.93 8.60 9.48 : 10.1
(3.08-3.67) (3.81-4.53) (4.58-5.45) (5.19-6.19) (5.99-7.17) (6.59-7.91) (7.18-8.66) (7.77-9.41). (8.50-10.4): (9.03-11 .2):
1._45_-d_ay_ ;. 4.17 5.14 6.13 6.90 7.88 8.60 9.31 10.0 10.9 : 11.5
(3.83-4.53) (4_.73-5.59) (5.63-6.65) (6.32:7.48) (7.20-8.55) (7.84-9.34) (8.45-10.1) (9.05-1 0.9) (9.78-11.9) ](10.3:12.6)_
1 60-day .. 4.87 5.99 7.09 7.91 8.97 9.72 10.4 11.1 12.0 ' 12.6
(4.49-5.26) (5.53-6.48) (6.53-7.65) (7.28-8.54) (8.23-9.68) (8.90-10.5) (9.53-11.3) (10.1-12.0) (10.9-13.0) ! _(11.4-13.7)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates
(for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds
are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
1/6/2014 4:24 Pl\
Precipitation Frequency Data Server http:/ /hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds _printpage.html ?lat=41.6856&1.
14
12
c: 10
.!:; ...,
Cl. QJ 8 "0
c: 0 ·.;::; 6 r1l ..., a.
u ~ 4 c..
0 c: c: E E .;., 0 ,.,
14
~ 10
.c. a. QJ 8 "0
c: 0 ·.;::; 6 r1l ...... a. ·u
QJ 4 .... c..
NOAA/N WS/OH D/HDSC
(
2 of4
PDS-based depth-duration-frequency (DDF) curves
Coordinates: 41.6856, -112.4131
c: c: c: .... .... .... .... .... >->->. >. >.
E E -~ .!:; .!:; .!:; -7 .!:; r1l r1l r1l r1l r1l r-!J rA ..0 N
"'"
"0 "0"0 "0 "0 .;., 0 0 ,., N r-!J rfl"'" ,.:. 0 ,., ,.., \0 ,.,
Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
>. >. >.>. r1l r1l ruru "0 "0 "0"0 0 0 ~0 N ,.., '<t\0
Average recurrence
'merval
tyoars)
2
5
10
25
50
100
200
500
1000
Duratton
5-Hlln -2-<Jay
tO-m1n -3-<lay
15-mln -4-<Jay
30-rmn 7-day
00-111111 -10-oay
-Ill -20-aay
J-111 JG-day
6-hr 45--0ay
12-tu -cO-oay
24-hr
Created (GMT): Mon jan 6 23:26:46 2014
Twin Falls , Burley.
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
Blackfoot ,a
Pocalello n
)1
Roc Spnn• -~
lvlap data ©2014 Google, INEGI
1/6/2014 4:24 PJ\.
Precipitation Frequency Data Server http:/ /hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds _printpage.html ?lat=41.6856&1..
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
~~ ....
12km
2mi rv\lp da!a ©2014 Google
3 of4 116/2014 4:24PM
Precipitation Frequency Data Server
4 of4
http:/ /hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds _printpage.html ?lat=41.6856&1 ..
Back to TQP
l&~rtrn~_Qf Commerce
l',lsillonal Ocean1c andAtmosphenc Admm1strat1on
Nat1ona1 Weather Servl(;_e
QlfJS&_QIHydrologiC J&~t
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: HOS_G.Q\le.~l![e-mail]
1/6/2014 4:24PM
EARTHFAX ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERS I SCIENTISTS
PRoJECT _tu-~~-jo_J.)_-_17 _ PAGE I oF f
COMPUTED~ DATE 4 .JZ-_ :J-o/Y,.
CHECKED DATE
/VI-;l-~5 5TD~M W A-~
M /hl A4 e-M. 6JT S. '/SiEM
l)r?-1~ ']2-?1V'\ Ch~Mlc.S ( 11ws;~ Chzm~)
A-rez ~ 19-, ~ ?c. { w_ f2 2 of tl:t cJc -:')
Av . JYt~. :::}4oo ft:)(1aa ft) 1 (,oa) 0 --o--~8-. 4zc )(£/-1,~ ftz(zc. ~
-; 17,5~h
CN~71' (~iv r~~,~r~4-~ Nt-M~fc3~ 1 T~ 'i.J).
T1 t--€-cJ C€r'-~~ === I, I.e> 7 L
L=-
~ o .a-( S-r l) o,1
=-o. )0 ht
T ;:; !9, n hf L
EARTHFAX ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERS I SCIENTISTS
~h ~~ ot1°/u
Mt-v~~rt's "'-~ o. 030
PROJECT 0L-)02S-1/ PAGE ) OF g
COMPUTED 7!?d DATE q Jv,__ J-o-,~':'--
CHECKED DATE
C~z.v,~ t:zt~Jo ~ d-1, 0 ch , TM s {?:J.. <..t.-Js ~ F"-f,_ (vw.df
~ fL,_ SJ~r, 1 h-~~ -eveJ-~ ~~ ~JJ ~~of ~ 1\Ju-y,w-hr~. l).;s ,s ~s,JJ/.e.J ~~
C'!.b 01 ot-tt;..t Die J
M-225 Runoff
Prepared by {enter your company name here}
Type II 6-hr 25-yr, 6-hr Rainfa/1=1.63"
Printed 1/9/2014
HydroCAD® 1 0. 00 s/n 03900 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 15: M-225 Watershed
Runoff = 11.88 cfs @ 3.04 hrs, Volume= 0.492 af, Depth= 0.32"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.10-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type II 6-hr 25-yr, 6-hr Rainfall=1.63"
Area (ac) CN Description
* 18.400 79
18.400 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsee) (cfs)
9.7 1,300 0.1750 2.24 Lag/CN Method,
Page 1
M-225 Runoff
Prepared by {enter your company name here}
Type II 6-hr 50-yr, 6-hr Rainfa/1=1.87"
Printed 1/9/2014
HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 03900 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 15: M-225 Watershed
Runoff = 17.20 cfs@ 3.04 hrs, Volume= 0.687 af, Depth= 0.45"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.10-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type II 6-hr 50-yr, 6-hr Rainfall=1.87"
Area (ac) CN Description
* 18.400 79
18.400 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (tUft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
9.7 1,300 0.1750 2.24 Lag/CN Method,
Page 2
M-225 Runoff
Prepared by {enter your company name here}
Type II 6-hr 100-yr, 6-hr Rainfai/=2.14JJ
Printed 1/9/2014
HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 03900 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC
Summary for Subcatchment 1 S: M-225 Watershed
Runoff = 23.78 cfs@ 3.03 hrs, Volume= 0.930 af, Depth= 0.61"
Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.10-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Type II 6-hr 1 00-yr, 6-hr Rainfall=2.14"
Area (ac) CN Description
* 18.400 79
18.400 100.00% Pervious Area
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
9.7 1,300 0.1750 2.24 Lag/CN Method,
Page 3
M-225 Diverson Channel
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel
Project Description
Worksheet
Flow Element
Method
Solve For
M-225
Trapezoidal Cha
Manning's Form•
Discharge
Input Data
Mannings Coeffic 0.030
Slope 029000 ft/ft
Depth 1 . 50 ft
Left Side Slope 1.30 V : H
Right Side Slope
Bottom Width
Results
Discharge
Flow Area
Wetted Perim•
Top Width
Crit1cal Depth
1.30 V: H
1.00 ft
~
3.2 ft2
4.78 ft
3.31 ft
1.62 ft
Cntical Slope 0.021372 ftlft
Velocity 6.49 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.65 ft
Spec1fic Ener~ 2.15 ft
Froude Numb· 1.16
Flow Type iupercritical
~~~
g:\ ... \17\burnmg ground surface runoff\m-136.fm2
01/22/14 04:11:48 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc.
EarthFax Engineering Inc
37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA
Project Engmeer. Richard White
FlowMaster vS.O [614b]
[phone] Page 1 of 1
EARTHFAX ENGINEERING, INC.
ENGINEERS I SCIENTISTS
PROJECT u ( -I Ol3-17 PAGE t OF _t---r-_
COMPUTED 1li}J DATE J_ff j""~ d/t) 1J
CHECKED DATE
GN ::.-g1)
~1.,\l''-off ~ ~ iJh~ ~h-rf"Y\1 { oVf£ &-Z/ez.-c! ;<.l/-0 ec) :
..).-5-Qf) lo-hr {r= u~3"~--=:> Q:: &.3r·,~
:: 3d-a\\ f.t J
5o-tr j (o-hr ( r; " 8-7 ") ~ ~ ~ 0 I q.g
~ i.f.""Soo ft'
1w-r, b-hr (I':: o1. 't./ '') __...,.. &. = o. bs-;"'
:: 51 Do ft '3
)0.A't"v0ff ~ .-lte. ~a-d<oi"'s h ~ sou.._+f._-c.t.J<~ pct-r~ ~
M-;;.)..r-, ·,rr.~~ 5 v Vt +h wes+-of t/-.L ~kg gzti . A-ss u~ a
o--~z of ~D I~ 4o,) m~ Yi 1u nA ~ 2. rn-Jc) Zle? w"l~ ?r.-2!-J.ef~
~ft-ot ;l.S \";,P /u ~~ )o ~~~n ftt_ r111~.ft ~ ~
/OO -~1 0-hr S~rn..
41° 38'28"N
41°3739"N
384500
;::
N
A
Soil Map-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
(M-225 Drainage Area)
384700 384900 385100 385300 385500
Map Scale: 1:10,500 if printed on A landscape {11" x 8.5") sheet
o~------1~50~====~3~00~--------------~~==============~~ereffi
0~----~500~=======1000~--------------~2~000~==============~3~
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: VWI Zone 12N WGS84
385700 385900
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey ~riiiiii" Conservation Service
386100 386300 386500 386700
1/9/2014
Page 1 of3
Soil Map-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
(M-225 Drainage Area)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
0 Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
w Blowout
l&l Borrow Pit
X Clay Spot
(> Closed Depression
X. Gravel Pit
.. Gravelly Spot
0 Landfill
fl Lava Flow
'*' Marsh or swamp
"it Mine or Quarry
@ Miscellaneous Water
0 Perennial Water
..... / ... Rock Outcrop
+ Saline Spot
' . Sandy Spot
~-Severely Eroded Spot
Q Sinkhole
i~ Slide or Slip
tJ Sadie Spot
USDA Natural Resources
~iii' Conservation Service
~ Spoil Area
0 Stony Spot
63 Very Stony Spot
\{ Wet Spot
,\ Other
#. Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
+++ Rails -Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :20,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area:
Survey Area Data:
Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
Version 6, Apr 7, 2011
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 2, 2011-Sep 24,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
1/9/2014
Page 2 of 3
Soil Map-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
SGG
SHE
SID
Totals for Area of Interest
USDA Natural Resources --za Conservation Service
Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part (UT602)
Map Unit Name Acres lnAOI
Sandall-Premo association,
steep
Sandaii-Rock outcrop complex,
3 to 30 percent slopes
Sanpete gravelly silt loam, high
rainfall, 6 to 10 percent slopes
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
324.6
119.1
1.6
445.3
M-225 Drainage Area
Percent of AOI
72 .9%
26.8%
0.4%
100.0%
1/9/2014
Page 3 of 3
41°3739~N
384500
"
N
A
Hydrologic Soil Group-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
(M-225 Drainage Area)
384700 384900 385100 385300 385500
Map Scale: 1:10,500 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet
o~------1~50======~300~--------------~~~===============?~ere~
o~----~soo======~l~ooo~------------~2~ooo==============~~
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer roordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
385700 385900
1 !iDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey · -· .. <>tion Service
386100 386300 386500
~ 41° 38' 28" N
~
386700
1/9/2014
Page 1 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
(M-225 Drainage Area)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
DA
D ND
D 8
D 8/D
D c
D C/D
D D
D Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
" A
.. " ND
8 -8/D
.. " c
C/D
·-" D . " Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
D A
D ND
8
8/D
US!JA Natural Resources
'iii Conservation Service
D c
D C/D
D
D Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
+++ Rails -Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were rnapped at 1:20,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area:
Survey Area Data:
Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
Version 6, Apr 7, 2011
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 :50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 2, 2011-Sep 24,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
1/9/2014
Page 2 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part M-225 Drainage Area
Hydrologic Soil Group
Hydrologic Soil Group-Summary by Map Unit-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part (UT602)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres inAOI Percent of AOI
SGG Sand all-Promo c 324.6
association, steep
SHE Sandaii-Rock outcrop c 119.1
complex, 3 to 30
percent slopes
SID Sanpete gravelly silt B 1.6
loam, high rainfall, 6 to
1 0 percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 445.3
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (AiD, BID, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AiD, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
USDA Natural Resources
'7iiiF Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
72.9%
26.8%
0.4%
100.0%
1/9/2014
Page 3 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group-Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
USDA Natural Resources
"Eiii Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
M-225 Drainage Area
1/9/2014
Page 4 of 4
Precipitation Frequency Data Server http:/ /hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds _printpage.html ?lat=41.63 35&1 ..
1 of4
~ \ml
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 5
Location name: Corinne, Utah, US*
Coordinates: 4 1.6335, -112.3732
Elevation: 4860 ft*
• source: Google t.laps
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu t.laitaria. Deborah t.lartin, Sandra Pavlovic,
lshani Roy, Carl Trypaluk. Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan. Mchael Yekta. Tan Zhao. Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel
Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen. Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan
NOM National Weather Service, Silver Spring. t.laryland
PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aenals
PF tabular
,l_ _ PDS-based point_precipitation frequency estima!es with 90% confidence intervals (in _inches)1 __ _
r:==:l __ Average recurrence interval (years) _ _ _
[UI_""~":I 1 _I _2 1 s _ 1 10 1 2s [ __ so __ l __ 1o~ _ l 20~---_[ __ s~o_ [~1o=_o~o_= __ l S-min ; 0.120 0.153 0.210 0.261 0.344 0.419 0.507 0.610 · 0.774 I 0.923 ,
_ _ ___ j (~.10~:0.138) (0.1_35-0:176) (0.18_3-0.242)' (0.227-0.~01) (0.292-0.398) (0.34H.488) (0.409-0.596) (0.476-0.729). (0.576-0.946) (0.659~1.15)'
~ 0.182 0.232 0.319 0.398 0.524 0.637 0.772 0.929 1.18 ! 1.41
I I U"l'llll : (0.159-0.210) (0.204-0.268) (0.278-0.367) (0.345-0.458) (0.445-0.606) (0.528-0.743) (0.623-0.907) (0.725:1 :11) (0.877-1.44)! (1.00-1.75)
~ o.226 o.2s7 o.39s ·· .. o.4s3 . . o.649 . o.791 -o.9s7 -1.1s 1.46 , 1.74
L 1 "="1 "_~ i ~~-1~7~0.260) (0.253-0.332). (0.34_5-o.455J (0.428-0.568) (0.552-0.751 > (0.655-0.921 > (o.112-1 :12). (0.898-1.38). (_1 o9-1.7~) ~ (1_.24-2:1.?>
~: 0.304 0.387 0.532 0.664 0.874 1.06 1.29 1.55 1.97 i 2.35
l_.>u•ruur _: (0.265-0.349) {0.341-0.447): {0.464-0.613) {0.576-0.766) __ (0.7_43-1.01) (0.882-1.24): _ (1.04-1.51) (1.21-1.85) (1.47-2.40) ! (1.68-2.93) J
~ 0.376 0.479 ' 0.659 0.822 1.08 1.32 1.59 1.92 2.44 ' 2.90
Luu-111111
_ ! <?·3~8:0.432) (0.422-0.?53)~ (~.575_:~·7?9) (~:713:0.948( (0.920-1.2~) . (1.0~-1.53) . (1.29-1.87) (1.50-2.29) (1.81-2.98) l {2.07~3:63) ~
~ 0.480 ' 0.604 0.791 0.962 1.24 1.48 1.77 2.11 2.64 3.13
1. """I . : (0.43o-o.5_4_3>. (0.538:0.685)' (0.703~0.894) (0.847-1.09) (1_.07-1.40) (1.26-1 .70) (1.46-2.0?> (1.69-2.48) (2.01-3.1~} ! (2.28-3.85),
~I 0.564 0.703 . 0.892 1.06 1.34 1.58 1.87 2.20 2.73 I 3.21 '
1 ., ... 1
: (o.5o9-0.633)(0.636:o.792)~ (0.8o2-1.oo) (0.951-1.20) (1.17-1.51) (1.36-1.80) (1.57-2.15) (1.80-2.58) . (2.1 4-3.28): (2.42-3.93):
~ o.754 o.93o 1.15 1.34 1.63 1.87 2.14 2.44 :I 2.97 ! 3.44 i
I u·rrl : (0.690-0.829) (0.849-1.03): (1.05-1.27) (1.21-1.49) {1.45-1.81) (1.65-2.09) (1.85-2.42) : (2.07-2.8~) '1. (~.45-3.48) J (2.76_:-4.11)!
·~ 0.960 1.18 1.45 1.68 2.01 2.28 2.57 2.87 3.35 i 3.73 . '[ IL"Irf 1 (0.883-1.05) (1.09-1.29) ' (1.33-1.59) (1.5~-1.84) (1.81-2.21) (?.03-2.52) (2._25-_2.87) (2.48-3.25) (2.81 -3.85) ! (3.06-4.37);
I 24_hr !.1 1.18 1.46 1.77 2.04 2.42 2.71 3.02 3.34 3.78 : 4.12
(1.08-1.29) (1.33-1.60) (1.63-1.95) (1.87-2.24) (2.19-2.65) (2.45-2.97) (2.71-3.31) (2.98-3:67) (3.33-4: 16) j (3.61-4.56)'
I _2-da_ Y .~ 1.34 1.65 2.00 2.29 2.70 3.02 3.36 3.71 4.18 j 4.55 ,
-(1.23-1.47). (1 :51:~ .81 )__ (1.83:2.1_9) (2.09-2.51) . (2.4_5:2.95) (2.73-3.31) (3.02-3.68) ' (3.31-4.07) : -(3.6~-4:61) ' (3.98-5.0~)-:
.1 ___ 3-da. y _II 1.46 1.79 2.17 2.49 2.94 3.29 3.65 4.03 4.55 , 4.95
_ _ (1.33-1.60) , (1.64-1.97) .: (1.99-2.38) · (2.28-2.73) (2.67-3.21) (2.97-3.~9). (3.28:4.00) (3.59-4.42) (4:01 :5.00) I (4.33-5.46) ~
'~d : 1.58 1.94 2.35 2.70 3.18 3.56 3.95 4.36 4.91 i 5.35 : -ay I I 1 ' ' (1.45-1.73) (1.78-2.13) ' (2.15-2.58) (2.46-2.95): (2.88-3.46) (3.21<3:88) (3.55_-4.31 )_ . (3.88:4.76) (4.33-5.38) J (4:6_8-5:89)
I ;_~~y 1,1·. 1.87 2.31 I 2.81 3.21 3.78 4.22 4.67 5.13 5.76 i 6.25
(1.71-2.07) (2.11-2.56) (2.5_5-3.10) (2.92-3.54) · (3.42-4.16} (3.79-4.64) (4.18-5.15) (4.57-5.67) (5 09-6.38) 1 (5 48-6.9~)
1
1o-_day !. (1 :9~:;_32) · (2:;~~2\7) _,. (2.83~:;48) (3.33~~3297) (3.8~_~4464) (4.~~51 17) (4.65~~5° 70) (5.05~~6924) , (5.:~~64~8) I (6.06~~7454)
1_2~-d~y-j (2.:;~;93) (3.;~~:.6!) (3.:;~4°34) (4.1~~4391) . (4.75~~1.66) (5.2~-~6221) (5.66~~62
76) (6.~6;~7\1) (6.:~~8402) ; _(6.:~~8°54):
1 30-day .
1
3.21 3.96 4.75 5.38 6.19 6.80 7.41 8.01 8.78 1 9.36
(2.96-3.50) (3.64-4.31) (4.37-5.16) (4.94-5.84) (5.68-6.72) (6.22-7.39) (6.76-8.06) (7.28-8.72) (7.92-9.58) .: (8.39-10.2)_'
1 4s-~ay : (3.63~~4629) _(4.~~5828) (5.35~~6\5) (5.96;~78oo) (6.:~~:.96) {7.38~~8\6) (79~-~9335) (8.:;~1~.0). (9.;~~1~.8)1 (9.:7~-1~.4)_·
1 60-day !, 4.66 5.73 6.75 7.52 8.49 9.18 9.83 10.4 11.2 1 11.7
(4.31-5.03) (5.30-6.18) (6.24-7.27) (6.95-8.10) (7.83-9.15) (8.45-9.88) (9:03-10.6) (9.57-11.3) (10.2-12.1) ' (10.7-12.7)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates
(for a given duration and average recurrence interval} will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound} is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds
are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
1/9/2014 9:36 A:tv
Precipitation Frequency Data Server http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds__printpage.html?lat=41 .6335&l.
2 of4
~
.c a. QJ
"0 c 0 ·.;::;
ttl ... c..
u QJ ~
u QJ .... c..
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 c c E ·~ .;, 0 ....
12
10
8
6
PDS-based depth-duration-frequency ( DDF) curves
Coordinates: 41.6335, -112.3732
c c c .... .... .... .... .... >->->. >->-E E ·~ .c .c ..c -7 ..c ttl ttl ttl ttl ttl N "" oD N ~ "0 -o-o "0 "0 .;, 0 0 .... N ,~ ,.:. 0 ...... (Y) \D ...... Duration
2 5 10 25 50 100 200
Average recurrence interval (years)
>->->.>-ttl ttl ttl ttl "0 "0 -o-o 0 0 LAO N (Y) v\0
500 1000
A'lerage recurrence
onterval
(years I
1
2
5
10
25
50
100
200
500
1000
Durat1on
5-mon
10-mon
15-mon
JO-mln
60-m1n
2-tu
3-tll
6·tll
12-tlr
24-hr
--
2-<Jay
:-<Say
4-<Jay
7 -<lay
10-oay
20-ddy
JO-Oay
45-oay
60-<Jay
NOAAJNWS/OHD/HDSC Created (Gr-IT): Thu jan 9 16:40:14 2014
Twin Falls Burley _
C Ut}' l~ ~,_o_o_kr_n __ .,...-.J' J.,~ SOml
Back to ToJ>
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
D IO'-'t'.IVVt
Q
Pocatello
Q
, J J
Map data il:>2014 Google, INEGI
1/9/2014 9:36AM
Precipitation Frequency Data Server
3 of4
http:/ /hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds _printpage.html ?lat=4 1.633 5&1.
Large scale terrain
h: 1
2 krn
( J' J( )'} J ~-~-. ---'----,
'J 2ml
( / d ~r ~· 12 krn 2mi
Large scale map
z
~
Map data <tl20 14 Google
(~
Map data ~2014 Google
119/2014 9:36AM
Precipitation Frequency Data Server
4 of4
http:/ /hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds _printpage.htm I ?lat=41.633 5&1.
Back to Top
US Department of c_ommerce
Nal!Qmll. O,;~n1c and Atmosoheru;; P.dmJru.S.tfiltiOn
Nat1onal Weather Secv!ce
~~ Hydrologic Deve!QP._~Qt
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: HDSCw~nS@_nQ<~a.gQv
119/2014 9:36AM
Orbital ATK.)
Appendix B
Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised Apri12015
M-136 HYDRUS Modeling
Infiltration Modeling at the M136 and M225 Areas of the
ATK Promontory Facility Utilizing HYDRUS
1. Model development
The finite-element model HYDRUS v4.14 was used to evaluate the potential for
perchlorate to percolate from the surface to the groundwater table. This model, which is
recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1 for use in these situations,
is based on standard soil physics concepts and is capable of modeling both flow and
contaminant transport in the unsaturated zone. Version 4.14 of this public domain model
was used, as downloaded from the Internet at http://www.pc-
proqress.com/en/Default.aspx?h 1 d-downloads .
1.1 Rainfall infiltration model
To increase the conservative nature of this estimate, it was assumed that all
contaminants would travel at the same rate as water (i.e., no retardation of contaminants
would occur). Under this assumption, only moisture flow was modeled.
According to well logs from D-4 and D-6, the native soils in the area M-136
consist predominantly of sandy gravel. Groundwater occurs in the area at a depth of
228-272 feet. To simplify the simulations, a 20-meter thick unsaturated zone was
assumed. The water table was assumed to be present below the bottom of 228 feet
depth. The initial moisture profile was taken to be in equilibrium with the initial ground
water level at 228 feet. The soil was modeled using a van Genuchten-Mualem single
porosity model. As a conservative measure, hysteresis in the moisture response curve
was ignored. A bottom boundary condition of deep drainage was assumed as the
vertical drainage flux depended on the position of groundwater level.
For the M-225 area, well log X-4 indicates that the native soils consist
predominantly of silty sand from the ground surface to 70 feet. Groundwater occurs in
the area at a depth of 607 feet. As used in the model for M-136, a 20-meter thick
unsaturated zone was simulated for moisture infiltration. The ground water table was
assumed to be present at a depth of 607 feet. The initial moisture profile was taken to
be in equilibrium with the initial ground water level at 607 feet. Other options for soil
structure and groundwater boundaries were the same as the M-136 model.
A 25-year rainfall was modeled that consisted of a 24-hour event with a total
rainfall depth of 2.4 inches during the storm. The 24-hour event rainfall event was
followed by 364 days of infiltration (i.e., a model period of 365 days). Evapotranspiration
was ignored both during the rainfall event as well as for the 365-day modeling period
after the rainfall event, thereby resulting in a very conservative estimate of the depth to
which rainfall would percolate in the soil profile.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document.
EPN540/R-95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
In summary, assumed conditions were as follows:
(1) 20 m unsaturated soil profile;
(2) 365 days of modeled duration;
(3) van Genuchten-Mualem single porosity model without hysteresis;
(4) Soil type is sand;
(5) Atmospheric boundary condition allowing for overland flow applied for upper
boundary condition (see the above discussion);
(6) Deep drainage at bottom boundary condition;
(7) Initial moisture profile to be in equilibrium with the groundwater level.
1.2 Perchlorate penetration model
Most literature observations suggest that the perchlorate ion may not be sorbed
to soils due to its thermodynamic stability. To increase the conservative assumptions
concerning the penetration depth of perchlorate from surface, it was assumed no
absorption occurred between perchlorate and soil particles.
Both chemical nonequilibrium and physical nonequilibrium can cause a large
retardation of contaminants moving from the source zone, so that it takes a longer time
to remove the contaminant from the source zone by infiltration. However, this study is
focused on the penetration front. These two options do not have an effect on the
penetration depth, so they were not considered in the model. The default setting for, soil
bulk density was set to 1.65 g/cm3 and longitudinal dispersivity was set at 10 em. No
change was made for flow computation.
2.0 Model results
The result of the modeling effort is presented in the attached figures. Each figure
contains two lines that depict the predicted depth of the wetting front after 1 day of rain
and on the other figure after 365 days. These results are discussed below.
Under the extreme condition of rainfall scenario with constant seepage through
sandy soil followed by 368 days of infiltration without evapotranspiration, it is predicted
that the wetting front will attain a maximum depth of 4.4 meters (about 14.44 feet) in the
M-136 area. With a depth to groundwater of at least 228 feet, it is predicted that water
infiltrating through the contaminated soil will not reach the water table. Due to finer sand
in the M-225 area, the wetting front will only go to a maximum depth of 1.4 meters (about
4.6 feet). Compared to the groundwater depth at 607 feet, the model result shows that
the contaminant at the ground surface could not reach to the ground water due to the
25-year storm event. Since the moisture will not reach the water table, neither will
residual contaminants. In reality, water will percolate even less than predicted, since
evapotranspiration will consume the vast majority of the moisture in the unsaturated
zone.
The conclusion is also proved by perchlorate transport models. The minimum
concentration of perchlorate is predicted as 2.586x 1 o-7 j..Jg/L at the depth of 1.6 meter
(about 5.25 feet) in M-225 area and no perchlorate can reach below that depth. At the
same time, the minimum concentration of perchlorate is computed at 3.857x10-9 j..Jg/L at
a depth of 4.6 meter (about 15.1 feet) in M-136 area. Hence, no significant potential
exists for the soil-to-groundwater pathway to be complete at the two modeled areas
under these conditions.
Figures
HYDRUS printout
Figure 1. Profile information of soil moisture at the end of rain day and 365 days in M-136
0 +--,-------+----------~--------~----------4----------+----------+----------~------·~
E' ~
-200
-400
-600
-BOO
£ -1000 15.. Q) 0
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
·------
At the end of rain day
365 days
-2000 +-~-------+----------~--------~---------4----------+-----------+--------·--r---------~
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Water Content[-]
0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Figure 2. Profile information of soil moisture at the end of rain day and 365 days in M-225
0+-----------~+-------------+-------------+--------------... ~--.---------~~~--~--------~
E'
£.
-200
-400
-600
-800
..c -1000 Q_
Q)
0
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800 -
At the end of rain day
365 days
-2000 +-------------~------------r-------------~------------~------------~----------~
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Water Content[-]
0.20 0.25 0.30
Figure 3. Profile information of Perchlorate concentration at the end of rain day and 365 days in M-136
0 +-------~---------+--------~--------+-------~-----.--~A~tt=here=n~do=.f.=rn=in~da~y-.. ~.~~~~.~_=+~------~
'E .2..
-200
-400
-600
-800
..c. -1000 0.
~
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
365 days
-2000 +-------~---------+--------~--------+-------~~-------+--------~--------+-------~
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000
Perchlorate Concentration [ug/cm3]
Figure 4. Profile information of Perchlorate concentration at the end of rain day and 365 days in M-225
'E ..2.
0 +-----------~-----------r-----------+----~~~~~=---------+---~==~==4-----------~ _At th,~"E!Il!l.:.l?!raln .day_-_
_ 200 365 days
-400
-600
-800
.J::. -1000 15.. Q) 0
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000 +-----------,_-----------r-----------+----------~r-----------+-----------~----------~
0 50 1 00 150 200 250 300 350
Perchlorate Concentration [ug/cm3]
)>
"0 "0 CD ~ c. )("
0
Orbital AT«/>
Appendix C
Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April 2015
Additional M-136 HYDRUS Modeling and
HYDRUS Modeling in Fractured Bedrock
Research
May 8, 2013
Mr. Paul Hancock
A TK Space Launch Systems
PO Box 707
Brigham City, Utah 84302-0707
Subject: Potential for continued leaching of perchlorate
from the surface to groundwater at M -13 6
Dear Paul:
-------_.. .....
FI'-"'W r1 ,, • • ~~J .::-.:..
Earth Fax
EarthFax
Engineering, Inc.
Engineers/Scientists
7324 So. Union Park Ave.
Suite!OO
Midvale, Utah 84047
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.earthtax.com
Pursuant to your request, we have evaluated the potential for continued leaching of perchlorate
from the surface to groundwater at the M-136 burning ground. Our investigation involved
modeling of flow in the unsaturated zone and an assessment of perchlorate concentration trends
in groundwater at M-136. The results of this evaluation are presented below.
HYDRUS Modeling
We modeled flow in the unsaturated zone using the one-dimensional, finite-element model
HYDRUS. In this model, we assumed that the underlying bedrock could be modeled as a
continuous layer of either silt, loam, or sand. We did not model that portion of the site that has a
clay cap, since those results would be more conservative than the remaining models.
Under each of the modeled soil conditions, we assumed that the site would be subjected to
rainfall for 60 days from each ofthe following events:
• 50-year, 60-day event:
• 1 00-year, 60-day event:
• 1 000-year, 60-day event:
8.80 inches
9.44 inches
11.3 inches
We obtained the appropriate precipitation amounts from the online National Weather Service
Hydrometeorological Design Studies Center Precipitation Frequency Data Server for Utah
(http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds map cont.html?bkmrk=ut). We assumed that
precipitation would fall at a constant rate during the 60-day period and modeled the advance of
the wetting front for a period of 1 year thereafter. The minimum depth to groundwater at M-136
is approximately 230 feet (70.1 m), which depth was set as the lower limit of the HYDRUS
model.
The results ofthis modeling effort are presented in Attachment A and summarized in Table 1.
As indicated, the maximum depth of the wetting front under the modeled conditions is 12.6 m
(41.3 ft) under both the silt and sand assumptions one year after the beginning of the 1000-year,
60-day precipitation event. The maximum depth of moisture change (indicating some water
movement in the unsaturated zone) is 19.6 m (64.3 ft) under the silt assumption one year after
the beginning of the 1 000-year, 60-day precipitation event. With a minimum depth to
groundwater at the site of230 feet, it is reasonable to conclude that leaching of perchlorate from
the surface to groundwater at M-136 is not currently occurring.
Paul Hancock
May 31,2013
Page 2
Trends in Perchlorate Concentrations
Groundwater samples are periodically collected by your staff from monitoring wells installed at
the M-136 burning ground. Trends in perchlorate concentrations at those monitoring wells were
evaluated using Sen's slope estimator, a method that selects the median slope among all lines
through pairs of sample points. In this case, the samples pairs consisted of perchlorate
concentration versus time.
The resulting Sen's slope evaluation is presented in Attachment B. These data indicate that
concentrations of perchlorate in groundwater are generally decreasing (wells C-2, D-2, and D-6)
or not statistically trending (wells A-5, A-6, and D-5) in wells that are upgradient or cross
gradient from the majority ofthe burning ground. Wells that are immediately downgradient
from the burning ground (C-1 and D-4) are exhibiting increasing trends in perchlorate
concentrations.
With particular reference to data collected from wells D-6 and C-1, these data suggest that
perchlorate is moving through the area as a slug. At D-6, perchlorate concentrations have
generally decreased from a range of about 120,000 to 140,000 ug/L to a range of about 40,000 to
80,000 ug/L during the period of October 2007 through October 2012. During the period of May
2000 through October 2012, concentrations at C-1 (located about 500 feet downgradient from D-
6) have increased from a range of about 5,000 to 10,000 ug/L to a range of about 20,000 to
25,000 ug/L.
In the past, perchlorate-contaminated water was disposed of at the burning ground. During the
time that this water remained in surface sumps prior to burning, it infiltrated the underlying
fractured bedrock and impacted the groundwater. However, disposal of contaminated water at
the burning ground was ceased several years ago. Thus, the above-noted data (together with the
HYDRUS model results presented above) indicate that groundwater has not received any direct
inputs of perchlorate during the period of evaluation. It is therefore reasonable to conclude from
the groundwater monitoring data that perchlorate is migrating beneath the burning ground as a
slug of contamination rather than through the input of additional perchlorate from the surface.
Please feel free to contact me or Kris Blauer of our office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard B. White, P.E.
President
Attachments
Paul Hancock
May 31, 2013
Page 3
Modeled
Structure
Silt
Loam
Sand
TABLE 1
Summary ofM-136 HYDRUS Model
60-Day Precipitation Percolation Depth After 1 Year
Return Period Amount Wetting Front Moisture Change
(yr) (in) (m) (m)
50 8.80 11.2 18.2
100 9.44 11.9 18.2
1000 11.3 12.6 19.6
50 8.80 11.2 15.4
100 9.44 11.2 16.1
1000 11.3 11.9 16.8
50 8.80 10.5 11.9
100 9.44 11.2 12.6
1000 11.3 12.6 14.0
ATTACHMENT A
HYDRUS Model Results
0.35
-10
-1010
-2010
--3010
E ~
.s::
Q.
Q)
0 -4010
-5010
-6010
-7010
,---
r--
1--· --
~ .....
Figure 1. Water content change with depth at different time periods
(Silt; 50-yr, 60-day storm event}
0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4
-
------~
~
0.41 0.42 ---____., --
--
·-··--------
-----·--------·-
·----·---
~DayO ~
---.-After 60 days
-tr-After 1 year
-··---
Water content (theta)
-E ~
.c
Q.
0.35 0.36
Figure 2. Water content change with depth at different time periods
(Silt; 1 00-yr, 60-day storm event)
0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43
-10 +-~~----~-------+--------~--------~--------~------~------~~~+-------~
~ --~~
-1010 1--------et---------------=::....:;Q,___ __ ·------------·--------------------·-------1
__._ ~
~ ~·___........
-2010 ·----
-3010 -'----
~ -4010 +---lii----------------------------
-5010 +---l~-------------------------·-----------r::::,:O_d_a-ys ____ 1-
, ----.-After 1 year
-6010 ~-------------------------------·-------------------
-7010 L_~~---------------------------------------------------------------------J
Water content (theta)
E
.£-
..c: .... c.. Cl) c
0.35
-10
-1010
-2010 -
-3010
-4010
-5010
-6010
-7010
~
~
··-
~
-
-
0.36
Figure 3. Water content change with depth at different time periods
(Silt; 1 000-yr, 60-day storm event)
0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4 0.41
... -
~ -------
·-·----
------·
---
0.42
~
--------·-..
-----·-----
..
-~-·----
-+-Day 0
-
{-_ ------After 60 days
--.-After 1 year
--
Water content (theta)
0.43
--
---
}
0
Figure 4. Water content change with depth at different time periods
(Loam; 50-yr, 60-day storm event)
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
-10 +---------~~---------+----------~----------,_--------~+---------~r-~~~----~
---1\.P_.f-_-____ -_:-~~~~--------~
-1010 +----------
-2010 ----···-----------
--3010 ----------------
E
-----------·--------------·----
~
..c: ..... c.
Cl)
Cl -4010 -------
-5010 ----------------------------------f------
--+-Day 0
-·------After 60 days
--~~s;--After 1 year '----------------
-6010 +-------------------------------------f-----------------1
-7010
Water content (theta)
E E.
.t: -Q.
0 0.05
Figure 5. Water content change with depth at different time periods
(Loam; 1 00-yr, 60-day storm event)
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
-10 +---------~--------~--------~---------+------~~----------~~~-~----~
-1010 -t-------K
-2010 -----------·--··------------£1------------·-
-3010 +--------·--------···----------
~ -4010 -t--------------·---------------·---
-·--··---·----.,
-5010 +---------------------------·-----·---·---111-~DayO -
-After 60 days
-..-After 1 year
-6010 +---------------------·-·----------~----------·-------j
-7010 ~---------------------------------------------------~----------------------~
Water content (theta)
E ~
.c ~ Q)
Figure 6. Water content change with depth at different time periods
(Loam; 1000-yr, 60-day storm event)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
-10 ~--------~--------~------~-----------~---------~~---------------+-----~1~--~
K v-------1010 ----·-----------
-2010 -····------------------------------------11-------------·---··----1
-3010 ~--------
Cl -4010 +-------------------·---
-5010 -1--------------------------·------------I--G
-·
-+-Day 0
--fill-After 60 days
--..--After 1 year --
-6010 f---·-----------------------·----·---------11---·--------
-7010 L------------------------------------------------------4._ _________________ ~
Water content (theta)
0
Figure 7. Water content change with depth at different time periods
{Sand; 50-yr, 60-day storm event)
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
-10~------+-------+---~=~~-------+------~~-~--~------~ -~ ~~
-2010 1--------··--------------J------------------· -------------------------
--3010 +---------------------llft-----
E
-----------·----------·--------
~
£i c. Q)
0 -4010 1-----------------------u------------------------------------------1
-5010 1-----------------------f<l-----------------
·------
[
-=.--~::r060 days
---l!r-After 1 year
-6010 +----------------------filii----·--------------------
-7010
Water content (theta)
E ~
.r:. c.
0 0.02
Figure 8. Water content change with depth at different time periods
(Sand; 100-yr, 60-day storm event)
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
-10 +-----------~--------~----~~~~-----------+-----------r--~~~----~----------~ ~-
-1010 -----------
-2010 -------------------------------------------
-3010 -1------------------------------------------------
~ -4010 --------------------lfl----------------------·----------------------
,----------------
-5010 ---------·-----------u---------+----Day 0
-a-After 60 days
-t-After 1 year
'---·----~--
-6010 --------------------------
-7010 ~---------------------------&---------------------------------------------------~
Water content (theta)
E ~
..c ~ Q)
0
Figure 9. Water content change with depth at different time periods
(Sand; 1000-yr, 60-day storm event)
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
-10 +---------+---------~---ft-=~~--------~--------~--~0~~~.-r--------~ ~
-1010 +--------------------------~ ---·------------·----··-----~~
-2010 +----·--------------; f------------------·------·-
-3010 +-------·--------0-·· ·--------------------------
0 -4010 f-------------------------·-·----------------------------.j
-+-Day 0
-5010 ~----------------n------------------m-After 60 days
~After 1 year
·-------
-6010 ~------
-7010 L----------------------~~----------------------------------------~
Water content (theta)
ATTACHMENT B
Results of Sen's Slope Estimator Evaluation
HAZARDOUS
A-9 s
s
A-3
WASTE ! _ ___:.: __ AREA
LEGEND
S MONITORING WELL
M-136
s A-4
~-5 s C-3 s
A-8
s
~
EaiiAix
----~~~-~
Sample Date
412612000
9/20/2000
Concentration (mgll ) Groundwater Levels A-5 Perchlorate Sen's Slope" No Trend ·-------
4/1912001
10/16/2001 ----511312002
912512002
4/30/2003
---~ 511012004
5/3/2005
518/2006
91612007
10118/2007
11/15/2007
6113/2006 ----9/2412008
6/22/2009
6128/2011
61712012 ____ ._. __ _
10/3012012
2300 4291.46
3100
3800
3790
4180
4160
4780
6210
4360
3830
4720
3340
3290
2210
2310
2500
4291.21
4290.76
4290.22
4290 03
4289.75
4289.58
4289 03
4290.26
4291.21
429396
4293.96
4293.96
4292.91
4292.45
4292.03
4291.9
---------------
Sample Concentration Groundwater
Date (!1.9/L) Levels ----·---9/27/2000 22000 4292.67 ----·---·------·· 4/26/2001 21000 4292.17
-----~ 10/18/2001 17000 4291 .94
5/15/2002 15000 4291.39
------·--·~--···~~·~~·~ 4/2812003 13000 4291.48 ---" 5/12/2004 15500 4290.51
------~~~-~~~-----~~•
5!312005 11800 4291.6 ----5/8/2006 32700 4295.08 ------10/8/2008 23100 4294.26
10/25/2011 21000
•
-" --------
• •
• •• -------•--
••
,_ .
·f''it'l l.l i i ll l o,\~ ~~~ ~,'~ .. r "f ~li' ... ~\ ......... i · .;~· ~:"
S;mp~Oilt:
A-6 Perchlorate Sen's Slope· No Trend
iDX ,
•
~""" -------~-------------_-_--t "" ~ ----------~
-~ :~»:
~ :: " c ::.:.x
8
" ~ !~X.: 0 ~ .
.--• ----
--" ---.--
---I ~" •
• t
• • Q.. ;.::« ~-------------------------+: 4:~.)
------""
_,;,_ ._,
Sample Concentration Groundwater 1 C-1 Perchlorate
Date (m~) Levels
511012000 6050 4290.01
9/19/2000 7800 4289.83 ·------------~~----------· 4/2412001 7300
~---------------10/1512001 6430
5/15/2002 5770
4/30/2003
5/1212004 I
4/13/2005
4930
4670
6340
4289.17
4288.72 ____ , __
4288.33
4288.22
4287.46
4288.41
6/14/2006 4293.76
.. 1011612007 '
11800
14900
4293.18
4292.34
' 11/15/2007 --14700 4292.34
·----~--------6/16/2008 14900 4291.57
9123/2008 13800 4291.08 ----10/1412008 12600 4291.08
· 6116/2oo9r -195oo --429o:G3-
~-------· --------·-· ~ ---612812011 26300 9129/1911 ·--·-· 10127/2011 20800 ---------------------5130/2012 21500 ---·------10/30/2012 20600 4290.32
--------~~-----
L__
Sample
Date
Concentration
(m~) Groundwater Level , C-2 Perchlorate (fi) ·-----------5/11/2000
9/2512000
---~-·-· 412412001
1012512001
5113/2002
9/2612002 ·----4/2812003
5/1012004
300
500
400
397
361
371
392
103
51312005 462 -------~---~-51812006 278
7/1912007 72
10/1812007 50
1111512007 44
6i131200B--20
9/2312006
6/1912009
38
64
6!28120 11 93
61712012 93
1013012012 84
4291
4290
4290
4289
4289
< ~
;::
4290
4288
4289
4293
4294
c ;::
I 5 ------~--v
4293 ~
4291
4292
0 :E ~
Sen's Slope -Increasing Trend
•
.l ,,.fJ ·"I' l ll' ll if .l ''""£,"" "l. ~--.· .. \\> -.~" ' .. ~\..... ,,\':" V" "'(> ...... ~··" ,., ... -..$'! \ll\'' .;.• ,f!,..-
iln;rli:uate
Sen's Slope-Decreasing Trend e C:~~tU')::t,~ k
____ -------~~~.en -s~:: l:t'"''te
• . .:.;::
• •
• •.4!1
·.:.:::
Sample Date Concentration (ug!L) Groundwater Level
--------------I 711912007 1260 4295.32
10/18/2007 ·---··-11112/2007
5110/2008 ----
6/12/2008
9/12/2008
6/16/2009
6/28/2011
10/25/2011
61712012
235
888
706
588
4294.27
4294.27
429154
4293.54
476 4293.2
387 4292.9
731 4291.86
411 -L ~~~
662 4292.27
Sample Date
07131/2007
10/15/2007
Concentration (mg/L) Groundwater Level
10/07/2008
·----·· 108000
112000
115000
5/13/2009 124000
612/2010 135000
12/112010 130000 ----·----~--
7/7/2011 150000 ·-----·-10/25/2011 139000 -----· 5/30/2012 149000
~--·----10/30/20t2 157000
4297.43
4297.06
4295.19
4294.69
4293.44
4293.25
4294.65 -·----
4294.45
D-2 Perchlorate
0 :2
jo))j -·----
•
0 -
l ,:"' ~"'' ·' ,,
D-4 Perchlorate
•
,,
\ ... ,~r::-,,
Sen's Slope-No Trend
--------------· '"'
• --·-•
·""'
,·--""'
I i•t l # ~.:':'' .'\c.'' .s-if"' ~· ,,~ ., ~·" .f: .;l " .. ' i~mp!oc (l.;lc
Sen's stope-Increasing Trend
.;:c:: ·----·----------------''"
.ex:
-~ >OOOC: •
0 0
,. ln::----
o .
0 0 u . . :. ~ • 0.
i;.x:---
:::x:.
. .-' -~· ,, '\'• :Y ,<
-------------,,,,,
-·------·----------------..J
--------------· "" .l .. ;~·,# _, ..
... ~ ... '
GflliUb·l~d.etl
I (/;;IICutlltiOI!II;l
-Su:f;1il.tttc
-95'.UIIflb-
-9S'•<.uf.lld
Sample Date Concentration (mgiL) Groundwater Level , D-5 Perchlorate ------10115/2007 174000 4296.01 -----1010712008 206000 4294 02
511312009 162000 4293.48 ------612/2010 200000 4292.51 -----12/112010 168000 10/111911 -6/2812011 155000 4293 21 • ------10/2512011 244000 ------5130/2012 181000
1013012012 162000 4293.16 -----
,¥ ! ~-<' ,,, , .. ,,
Sample Date Concentration (mg!L) Groundwater Level D-6 Perchlorate --------·----· 10/1612007 128000 4294.83 ----12/11/2007 135000 4293.65 -----3/1012008 129000 4292.69 ___ .,
6112/2008 112000 4292.69
912412008 108000 4292.35 ---------511412009 91600 429184 ----------~~--------8/2312010 73400 429128 ---------·-----612812011 124000 429197
----·~--------1012512011 104000
5130/2012 67600
10130/2012 41400 4291.72
•
.,"·'~
-------·-----------·------
Sen's Slope-No Trend
•
•
-·-------
~----
,. ,, ,, ~-f"' ~"''' ~··S~ ~~ ·' ,~· .. ~~ l .,,.
Slm~tDll~
Sen's Slope Decreasing
-----------. , .. ~.-r
•
,,,1''
May 8, 2013
Mr. Paul Hancock
A TK Space Launch Systems
PO Box 707
Brigham City, Utah 84302-0707
Subject: Appropriateness of HYDRUS to model flow in the
unsaturated zone at M 13 6
Dear Paul:
----_.,_ ........ ....... ,. ,, ,, • • l'-1~ ...... ~:A
Earth Fax
EarthFax
Engineering, Inc.
Engineers jSc1en tists
7324 So. Union Park Ave.
SUlte!OO
Midvale. Utah 84047
Telephone [phone]
Fax BOl-56l-lB6l
www.earthiax com
In comments received from the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, the agency has
raised a concern regarding the appropriateness of using HYDRUS to model flow in the
unsaturated zone at the M136 burning grounds at ATK's Promontory facility. In particular, the
agency raised the concern of whether or not HYDRUS (which models flow in unsaturated soil)
would be applicable in an area of fractured bedrock. The purpose of this letter is to address that
concern.
With respect to flow in unsaturated, fractured media, Preuss and Wang 1 refer to the "role reversal
between fractures and matrix." These authors point out that "although the saturated permeability
ofthe rock matrix is several orders of magnitude smaller than the saturated permeability ofthe
fractures, it is likely that during desaturation, the effective permeability of fractures will become
smaller than that of the matrix. An interesting consequence of this role reversal between
fractures and matrix in transporting liquid is that water will tend to flow across the fractures at
asperity contacts from one matrix block to another instead of flowing along the fractures. The
flow lines may be expected to circumvent drained portions of the fractures .... The flow lines
bypass the drained portions of the fractures, going from one matrix block to another normal to
the fracture planes." This occurs due to the fact that the suction pressure (or capillarity) of the
matrix is more negative than that of the fracture. As a result, the water cannot enter the fracture,
effectively causing the fracture to serve as a barrier to flow in the unsaturated zone rather than a
conduit of flow. Since the opposite condition occurs in the saturated zone, this may seem
counterintuitive (and therefore has been termed as a "role reversal" by Preuss and Wang). This
fact of soil physics is the reason that capillary breaks have been used to successfully isolate fine-
grained waste from its overlying cover soil in some waste-isolation designs.
Air also serves to block the flow of liquid in an unsaturated fracture. According to Preuss and
Wang, "within a partially saturated fracture, the remaining water is held in sections with small
apertures near the contacts, and the liquid phase may be surrounded by air. The presence of a
relatively continuous air phase produces an almost infinite resistance to liquid flow parallel to the
1 Preuss, K. and J .S. Y. Wang. 2001. Numerical Modeling of Isothermal and Non isothermal Flow in
Unsaturated Fractured Rock: A Review. pp. 19-32 in Flow and Transport Through Unsaturated Rock,
Second Edition. Geophysical Monograph 42. American Geophysical Union. Washington, D.C.
Paul Hancock
May 8, 2013
Page 2
fracture plane. Therefore, as the fracture begins to desaturate, its effective permeability declines
abruptly by many orders of magnitude as the pressure head decreases."
It could be argued that the conservative assumptions ofthe M136 HYDRUS model (a 25-year,
24-hour precipitation event without the benefit of evaporation) would result in ponding that
would cause the fractures to become saturated, thereby negating the "role reversal" ofthe
unsaturated zone. However, citing Travis et al.,2 Preuss and Wang point out that under
conditions of intense infiltration events, "slugs of water injected into fractures will penetrate into
the [bedrock] only over short distances before being sucked into the matrix."
Citing modeling work performed by Wang and Narasimhan3 in a fractured, unsaturated tuff,
Preuss and Wang noted that "fluid flow in the fractured tuff column was nearly identical to
simulation results for the same column without taking the fractures into account. As soon as the
fractures are drained, the transport of fluid will be through the matrix and will be controlled by
the characteristic curves of the matrix. At a given elevation, the pressure values in the fractures
are nearly equal to the pressure values inside the matrix blocks. If the fracture pressures are the
same as the matrix pressures, there is no need to model separately the fractures and the matrix."
Given these factors, it is my opinion that the HYDRUS model adequately simulates flow in the
unsaturated zone at Ml36. In fact, these factors point to the added conservativeness ofthe
predictions made using HYDRUS.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this information.
Sincerely,
Richard B. White, P.E.
President
EarthFax Engineering, Inc.
2 Travis, B.J., S.W. Hodson, H.E. Nuttall, T.L. Cook, and R.S. Rundberg. 1984. Numerical Simulation of
Flow ad Transport in Fractured Tuff. Materials Research Society, Symposium Proceedings. 26: I 039-
1047. Elsevier. New York.
3 Wang, J.S.Y. and T.N. Narasimhan. 1985. Hydrologic Mechanisms Governing Fluid Flow in a Partially
Saturated, Fractured, Porous Medium. Water Resources Research. 21 ( 12): 1861-1874.
,..
"C "C CD ::::s c. )('
0
Orbital AT'fl>
Appendix D
Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April2015
M-136 Well Perchlorate Concentrations
Statistical Trends
Orbital AT'tl> Storm Water Management Plan
A TK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April 2015
C-1 Perchlorate Sen's Slope-Increasing Trend e Concentration (ug/l)
30000 --Sen's Estim.ate
-95% Coni. Max
25000
20000
c 0 ~ c 15000 1J c 0 u
~ 10000 .2 .c ~ .. Q. • 5000
0 -·-# # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # # v v y ~ ~ ~ //~~////~~~f#~'l~~~~~///
Sample Date
A-5 Perchlorate Groundwater Level Sen's Slope-No Trend 9S%Conf. Min.
-Sen'sEstimate
-95%Conf. Max
-95%Conf.Min.
10000 4295
• 9000 4294
8000 4293
c 7000 0 -~
c 6000
g
4292 Qj > !l .. "' c 4291 ..
1;j
8 5000
.!l I! 4000 .!l .c
• • " .,
4290 c " !:! ---·---!!)
~ • .. 3000 Q.
•
4289 _._ .. • • • 4288
• •
2000
1000 4287
0 4286
r5> r5> ~., rS>" ~" &" &~ # .,~ .,.. ~ ~ <»' &> r!J> <!'> y ~.,, ~.,, ·"' ~~ ~//~#~,~###/#////~/// bo ~ 1), ~<;) " C) 1), " ....,.... '\.'Y -, -..;
Sample Date
Orbital AT~
D-5 Perchlorate
300000
250000
200000 •
c 0 ·~
150000 c ~ c 0 u .. ~ 100000 0 :c ~ .. 0.
50000
D-6 Perchlorate
160000
140000
120000
100000 c 0 -~
80000 c .. " c 0 u .. 60000 ~ 0 :c ~ 40000 ~ .. 0.
20000
Sen's Slope-No Trend
•
·~ -~
Sample Date
Sen's Slope-Decreasing
Sample Date
Storm Water Management Plan
ATK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April2015
y' 3723 3:.:. 205233
e Concentration (uBfl)
-Sen's Estimate
-95% Conf. Max
-95%Conf. Min.
I ~~l
I • Concentration {ug/l) I
I
-Sen's Estimate
-95% Conf. Max
-95%Conf. Min.
y · .S371x 1-155511
-•-
Orbital AT'[/>
,----
C-2 Perchlorate
600
500
400 • •
c • 0 -~
c 300 • :!: c
8 .. i! 200 0 :;:
~ .. Q.
100
0
Sen's Slope-Decreasing Trend
•
-,~
.,~
'~,
--...~
•
•
Storm Water Management Plan
A TK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April 2015
----------------,
• Concentration {ug/l)
-Sen's Estimate
-95% Cont. Max
-9S%Conf.Min.
• • • '{ U./31"11.• ')J~ 4r
•
########~~~~~~~~~~~~ //~~~~~~~~~~~~#~#~~~
Sample Date
f-----~----------
D-4 Perchlorate
c 0
180000
160000
140000
12.0000
·~ 100000 g c
:!:
8 .. i! 0 :;:
~ ~
80000
60000
40000
20000
0 ---
,,-s>' ,~~ ~'
.s>' ~.;:; ~~~ '
,,-s>"' ,~' ~~
Sen's Slope-Increasing Trend
,,_~-s> ,~ ,~ ~\'\o""'" ~"'c...,....., '"' ,,~ ,,~ ""~ '-J, .... ,.., ~''"' §• ,I ,,~ ~<::P ~ ~~
Sample Date
y=-4326h .. l12866
' 1':5
• Concentration (ug/l)
-Sen's Estimate
-95% Conf. Max
-95%Conf. Min.
~0...,'\ ,;? ""~ ~~~ ~o\...,ro ~"'
/
)>
"0
"0 CD :I
Q. ;c·
m
Orbital AT'fl>
Appendix E
Storm Water Management Plan
A TK Launch Systems Promontory
M-136 and M-225 Treatment Facilities
Revised April 2015
M-136 Refined Groundwater Modeling
M-136 Groundwater Modeling
At the request Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste, ATK tasked EarthFax
Engineering to complete a refined modeling effort at the M-136 (burning grounds) area of the
Promontory Utah facility. The request was for additional groundwater modeling predictions at
the M-136 site. The existing model grid at the Promontory facility was set at a uniform spacing
of200 ft by 200ft. This refined modeling included reducing the grid spacing in the M-136 area
only to 25 feet by 25 feet. The intent of this change in grid spacing was to gain a more accurate
portrayal of groundwater movement within the burning grounds and specifically between wells.
The M-136 area is approximately 1,000 feet by 1,200 feet and would be covered by
approximately 30 grids. The new grid spacing would put approximately 478 x 497 grid cells in
the M-136 area. Grid spacing is shown on the attached Figure 1.
The calibration goal for the refined model was to achieve similar results as the original
model. In the original site model, the maximum acceptable Mean Average Error (MAE) was
defined to be 10 feet. The maximum acceptable Root Mean Squared (RMS) goal was to be less
than 5 ft. Both of these criteria were met. The Normalized Root Mean Squared value was higher
than the target of 5%. This was caused by modeling the perched aquifer with the regional aquifer
and it presented some challenges trying to achieve model convergence during calibration.
Calculated vs. Observed Head for the model is shown in Figure 2. Figures 3 and 4 show
calculated vs. observed concentrations of perchlorate and TCE.
Following calibration of the tighter grid spacing at M-136, the model was allowed to run
to determine a travel time from well D-5 to well D-4. At 100 days, the particles start to move
from the D-5 region. At 390 days, they reach D-4. So the travel time is about 290 days from D-5
to D-4.
Similarly, the water particles at D-6 begin to move at 290 days into the simulation. They
quickly travel through the fractures toward C-1 and can reach there at 460 days. (The tracking
particles would presumably not actually pass through well C-1 because fractures in the limestone
would intercept the flow). The final particle track shows no particles at C-1. The travel time
ATK Launch Systems
Promontory UT M-136 Model Summary
should be around 170 days.
A particle track exercise was undertaken with the model to show flow paths in the M-136
area. The attached map shows the particle track for particles from the two aforementioned areas
only with an overlay ofthe 2012 water surface showing flow paths.
A TK Launch Systems
Promontory UT M-136 Model Summary
A TK Launch Systems
Promontory UT
FIGURE 1
M-136 Model Summary
Calculated vs. Observed Head: Steady state
•
-
,·
/ • /
/
/ -
/
//
/
' /
/ /
/
I
-4 .4351838E14 9.55648162E15
Observed Head (ft)
Max. Residual: 2 .217592E16 (ft) at F -4!1
Min. Residual: 0.256 (ft) at EVV-511
Residual Mean : 3.400547E14 (ft)
Abs. Residual Mean : 3.400547E14 (ft)
/
FIGURE 2
ATK Launch Systems
Promontory UT
• Layer #1 • Layer #2
a Layer #3 fi' v Layer #4 ' -*--95% confidence interval
----95% interval
/;
I
1 .95564816E16
Num. of Data Points : 97
standard Error of the Estimate : 2.532854E14 (ft)
Root Mean Squared: 2.50487E1 5 (ft)
Normalized RMS : 7 .2941 09E14 ( % )
Correlation Coefficient : -0.076
M-136 Model Summary
Calculated vs. Observed Concentration: Time= 18980 days
" //~
~//
~//
,.,"
·~·
' .
--~--------------, Layer #2 : Conc001
• Layer #3 : Conc001
A Layer #4 : Conc001
95% confidence interval
95% interval
-4.2 95.8 195.8
Observed Concentration (mg!l)
Max. Residual: -16.144 (mgll) etA-S/CONCENTRATION
Min. Residual: 0 (mgll) et FISH SPRING/A
Residual Mean : -0.348 (mg!l)
Abs. Residual Mean : 1 .546 (mg!L)
ATK Launch Systems
Promontory UT
FIGURE 3
Num. of Deta Points : 84
Standard Error of the Estimate: 0.415 (mg!L)
Root Mean Squared: 3.799 (mg!l)
Normalized RMS : 1 .844 ( % )
Correlation Coefficient : 0.992
M-136 Model Summary
Calculated vs. Observed Concentration : Time= 18980 days
-0.42 9.58
Observed Concentration (mg!l)
Max. Residual: 3.853 (mg!l) at A-2/A
Min. Residual: 0 (mg!l) at M-63681/A
Residual Mean : 0.031 (mg!l)
Abs. Residual Mean : 0.394 (mg!l)
ATK Launch Systems
Promontory UT
Figure 4
/
/
;!'
--~--------------, Layer #2 : Conc001 • Layer #3 : Conc001
8. Layer #4 : Conc001
95% confidence interval
95% interval
19.58
Num. of Data Points : 84
standard Error of the Estimate : 0.09 (mg!l)
Root Mean Squared: 0.817 (mg!l)
Normalized RMS: 6.333 (%)
Correlation Coefficient : 0.905
M-136 Model Summary
------!-1--. • c -8
o· 6 . 293
POTENTIOM
FIGURE 5
-I>
fl.)
.,_()
fl.)
"' EL PARTICLE TRACK
A-3 • A D-1· • •B-9 -4 • C-4
B-10
• B-1