I05/04/204 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 02/39

Evaluation ofPotential Groundwater Impacts by the

WCS Facility in Andrews County, Texas

by

Ken Rainwater, PhD.. P.E.4208 65th Sureit

Lubbo&, Tcxas 79413

Pmparod for

The Andrews Industial Foundiaton204 NEL Frst Street

AndzcwsTo= 79714

D ecznber, 1996

.05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-952S IADI8PAlE 03/39

I s

Executive Summary

Tc Andtws Industial Foundation retained Dr. Ken Rainwaetr to evaluate the suitabilityof the Waste Control Spocialists, lInc. waste reatrunnt, storage, and disposal facility crentlyunder comStction in westemn Andrews County with respect to Its potential impact on local andregional groundwater resources. 'hc site was alvady pemidtted for acceptance of hazrdouswastes, and a new permit for low-level radioactive wastes is sought. Special concern was placed

on thc possible presence of the Ogallala aquifer at te site location. The idendfucation of the.presence or absence of the Ogallala aquifer at the site was based on the definition of an aquifer as

containing sufficient saturated pereablc material to yield water to wells. The study approach

included revcw of permit documents, site visits, public meeting auendance, inspection of cosamples. evaluation of water quality sampling, and rcview of published descriptions of local and

Tegional hydrogeologic information.A report was dclivered to the Foundation in Deccmber, 1996. with these conclusions:[1l The presence of a thick TWiassic clay layer near the ground surface at dhe site makes it an

excellent location for a properly designed and constructed landfill.

121 A thin stram att the site was originally idcntified as the Ogallala fonation, but it doesnot contain sufficient water for classification of the formation as an aquifer.

[3] Previous publicatiqos and rccnt field satdy of the local hydrogeologic conditions inAndrews County show that the Ogullala aquifer is not present, wad fth shallow pemeablfonration is actually the Andcrs Sandstone.

[41 Publications about th regional hydrologic conditions In the Southern High Plainsimplied the presence of water in the Ogallala formdon hrughout Andrews County. but theassed saturated thicknesses in the wester portion are not well suppored by field data.

(51 The siltstone layers in the Doclai group appear to be the uppemost water-beoingzone and may be acceptable for monitoring, but thei low permabiility and possibly limited Ceten

do not meet fte traditional definition of an aqufer.6] If properly constructed and operated, the landfill should have no Impact on usable

groundwater in Andrews County.It is reco enmded that the Foundation continue to pursue the use of fdts site as a waste Ueatment,storage, and disposal facility. Prper design construction, and opeation should allow the site toserve its purpose without damage to groundwater resources.

OVWM4 07:16 505-81fl-q59A AMMJA

_PAGE 04/39

Evaluatidn of Potential Groundwater IMpactsby the VWCS Facility in Andrews County. Texas

baM AmmtThe priuxy objective of tbis report is to evaluate the suitability of hke western Andrews

County site for the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) facilywith specific concetn to the Siterg

impact on groundwater resourc his report was oomiufisdoned by the Andrews Indastrl

Foundation. Inc. (AIF), as an independent, Impartial review of the suitability of the site for.

development as a hazardous waste treatt and disposl facility. Drs. Uoyd Urban and Ken

Rainwater originally collaborated in this study beginning in 1993. and cach produced mports based

on data available at that dme. The site received its pemit in 1994, and constctdon began in 1996.

During 1996. Drs. Tom Lehman, Harold Gurrola, and Priyantha Jayawicvkama were brought In to

addss related geological and geotechnical issues as the site owners pwued a permit for low-level

radioactive waste disposal t his site. Dr. Rainwater composed tiis report as an update of the

1993 document, while the- other scientists and engineers provided their own documents as

appropriate to the AIP. The WCS site is located at the western boundary of Andrews County.

north of state highway 176 and cast of the Texas-Nrew Mexico border. Due to the lack of

dependable ftesh surface water, groundwater resources are precious in this county. The major

watcr-bearing aqufer In the Southern HIgh Plains of Texas is the Opiala formation, which

supplies water for agricultral and domestic purposes for twuch of dth region. Site selection for

landfill installations for safe, long-term disposal of hazardous materials in this rcgion, must

uinimize cc completely prcvcnt future deteioration of this water resource. c state agency wih

regatory jurisdiction for this project Is the Texas Natztural Rcwrcc Conservation Cnmission

(FNRCC), and this agency actively cnforces waste managenient regulations with intent of

groundwatcrprotec on.

A special concern of ts repoxt is detrna:6on of the local characteristics of the Ogallala

formation and other shallow permeable strata, as expressed in ex geologic seting and the storage

and Unsmission of water. Many citizens are concerned vwith te protection of the Ogallala aquifer

in the High Plains of Texas as he primary water sourc for Irrigation. nur families, and nany

I

05/e4/2804 87:16 505-830-9528 AMIAPAGE 05/39

municipalities. Some use the presencc or the Ogallala aquifer as a reason to oppose any indutri

wad/or waste disposal projects that involve hazardous chenicals that may somehow enter the

aquifer. Te is debate as to whether the Ogallala aquifer is actually physically prsnt at thc

WCS site. 'he definition of an aquifer is givcn by Ficeza and Chery (1979) as "'a saturated

permeable geologic unit that can trnit significant amounts of water under ordinary hydrulic

gradients." and also states that "an aquifer Is permeable enough to yield economic quantities of

water to wolls" (p. 47) Todd (1980) defined an aquifer as 'a formation that contains sufficicnt

saturated prmneable material to yided significant quantities of water to wells and springs" (p. 25).

The operative words In these two definitions am "saturated" and "perneable," implying water wustbe present in adequate amounms to movc though the geologic stratum. his Investigation of the

subsufac hydrogeologic conditions at the proposed WCS site specifically considers whether the

formation, whether or not it is the Ogallla, at this location fits both thes citeria for definition as

an aquifer.

th approach taken in this study can bc described as a series of tasks. Thes tasks ax=

umrized in the following list:

t1 Review of the 1993 permit documents and rmcnt site-specific bydrogedogic data;

[2J Visits to the WCS site,

(31 Attendance at TNRCC public eeting In Andrews to hear local concers

(43 Inspection of core samples collee during subsuface investigation;

S5) Recommdation and evaluation of water quality samling and analyses; and

163 Review of regional and local hydrogeologic Infornatio

In this report, the efforts and results associated with each task arm briefly presented in separate

sections. It should be noted that this updated report benefits greatly from the recent woik by Dr.

Tom Lcblman on the desciiption of the local geologic setting (Lehman, 199). Ile last ston of

the report sumizes the major conclusions and rocomncndatons appropriate to the information

revitwed.

2

05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 06/39

Revicw 91 Permit Vmmn andRecet Moni~dng pailL

Copies of Volumes U, [V, and V of the "RC2RA Permit Application For A Hazardous

Waste Storage, Treatment, and Disposal Facility" (AME, 1993) were provided by thc design fum,

AM Environmental, Inc, (AME), of Austin, Texas. The material of concern to the groundwater

evaluation in these volumes included the landfill engineering design documents (Vol. ID,

geotchnical investigation results and groundwater monitoring plan (Vo. IY), and local geologic

and hydrqgeologic descriptions (Vol. V). These documents were submitted to the TMRCC for

regulatory review, This repot does not constitute another form of wiulatory approval. but does

provide additional expert evaluation of the environmental suitability of the site for the proposed

facility. The rmglatory agency is also interested in protection of groundwater resoures, and the

permit application contains much useful site-specific normadon for tvaluation of the possble

impacts. if any, of the site on the 0lcal and rcgional groundwater.Te principal pornts associated

with the local groundwater are suwniarized in this section. MAE also provided su cs of the

results of groundwater monitoring cvents since 1993 (Messenger, personal communcatin). The

regional geologic evaluadon by Lehran (1996) was also used in evaluation of this infoado.

Ike main strength of this specific location for a hazardms waste landfill is the presce o£ a

thick natural clay (or claystonc) layer at less than 30 ft below the ground surface. his red cy

ateial is referred to as the upper portion of the Tdassic Dockum Croup, mcsei cs referred tp

sepasatdy as the Chinc fornation. Tlh upper surface of this formation has a local topograpbc

high direcdy beneath the proposed site as shown in Figure 1 (AE, 1993). Lehman (1996)

deuonsuated that this local high Is actually part of rgional 'd Bed Ridge" that extend frm

eastern New Mexico through western Andrews County southward to Wmikler and Ector Couities.

At th WCS sit, the day aycr is over 200 ft thic ith te to four patlntrbdded

sitstonc/sandstone layers. The hydraulic conductivides of the clay and siltstone were measured In

the laboratory at 1.76x104 cifsec (5.0x0-5 ftAM or 3.7x ID4 gpd/ft2) and 3.20xtO16 cmfsec

(9.1x10f3 fr/d or 6.8xlO2 gpdOft 2), respectively. The natural permeability of the clay is in therange

of design hydraulic conductivity for enginecoed landfidl liner materials The selection of the landfill

3

K'AS

11 r

s softewrom

S t Vw~ 4C u'

gmoe e osw"

04-* S t~s4o o d6~s

a es . a~ qma 4 -" Vzo i" woawwmB

io row to Cemi0" O*W" Wfl

a sg"A ee~ 9 oq

1-tVA49(lqMlW"%ft

Figurc 1. TogMphic CtO map of the upper surfae of the Dlocknm gp p beneath the WCS site[Sour=c AIM~ (1993))

05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 08/39

dimensions takes advantage of the shallow depth to this low permeability rnateial by locating the

bottom of the landfill excavation within the Trassic clay. completely pcnctating the worz

pameable materials above the top of the Dockum grup. 'Me constructed landfill double linr

system will rest atop the Triassic clay. The conventional double liner system includes two

geoemblxanes, two compacted clay layers, and one Icachatc collection layer and one leachate

detection layer. Unless the Triassic clay has significant facturcs. it should provide a good

foundation for the landfill constuution.

Tbc gcotechnical investigation of the proposed sihe included ollecdon of cores from a large

numnber of borings and installation of several monitoring wells in suspected water-bearing zoncs.

As previously stated, the Ogalla aquifer is the prncpal regional freshwater aquifer. In dte

geologic descriptions in the permit application, the geologic maierial above the Tnassic clay was

refred to as the typical Ogallala formation, with a caliche caprock overlying a layerof permeable

allevial sands and gravels, but the thickness of the permeable sands and gravels vas usually less

than 15 ft. Based on close exanination of the gravels in the exposure of the formatIon at the WCS

site and other outcrops in Andrews County, Lehman (1996) identifed this material bencath the

caprock as the Antlers Sandstone, not the Ogallala formation. The Antlers Sandstone has sufficient

sand and gravel content with lirited cementation to have sigificant permeability, but the thin

formaidon apparently is not continuously saturated over significant areal extent in this vicinity.

Due to the low average ainFall amounts, hie local high In di elevation of fte top of thc

Dock= group, and the undulating shape of the top of the Dockum group, the permeable

sediments atop the Tiassic clay do not store signiflcant amounts of water in this western part of

Andrews County. Satuated sediments were only encountered bencati a local depression referced

to as a "buffalo wallow," and it was concluded that a smilardczsslon exlsted in the top of the

Dockum beneath the surface depression, trapping the water in a small volumc. Domestic and

windmill wcLs that eWIst In the ama do not produce much water during dry periods. Although the

Ogallala formation was initially identified at the site, tat identification was in error. No matter

what the shallow permeable formation is named, it apparendy does not hold and transuit sufficient

S

05/04/2004 07:16 505-630-9528 AREVA PAGE 09/39

amounts of water for developmnt of wells. Control of stormwater drainage at the site may affact

the storage of water in the formation beneath the "buffalo wallow," other natural depressions, or

constructed impoundments if the collected unoff is kept on site and allowed to infiltrate.

Wathin the Dodkwn group, three or four separate siltstonc laycrs were enoountrd in the

gnid of borings These matcrials werc found to hae tory-neasured hydraulic conuctivities

two orders of magnitude higher than the claystone. Screened monitoring wtlls wcre established In .

these zones at several locations within the grid. The water levels in these wels we meaurd

several es between November, 1992 and April, 1995. A comwlete listing, Table A-1, Is

provided in the Appendix summafizing the well identities (based on odgil boring grid locations),

top-of-casng elevations, screened intervals, depths to watcr, and water surface elevations for

monitoring events by AME (Messenger, personal communication). Table I was derived by

grouping tonitoring wells with approximately similar scrcened interval locations. Thes groups

roughly align with the Identification of three possibly continuous siltstone layers. Groups A and B

are most likely the first siltstone, while groups C and D roughly correspond to the second and third

siltstone layers. respectively. Mre lateral and vertical extents of these yers ar not completely

known.

Lupection of Tables A-I and I allows several important conclusions. First, when aied to

dryness, the water levels in the wells typically took several weeks to return to static levels. This

delay Indicated iher low local permeability, little water volume in storage. or both controlled the

return of water to the sasened interval. Second, the equilibrated water surface elevations at most

of the monitoring wells with similar depths of sceen were not close enough to imply hydtaulic

continuity. For example, only well pairs 4-C and 5-C in group B. 4-G2 and 9-G2 in group C, and

4-03 ad 9-03 in grwp D had water surface elevations within a few feet of each other. Wtrd, the

height of the water columns above the tops of the screens at wells 7-G. 2-0, 1 I-D. 6-BI, and 6-

B2 were 44.3, 67.4, 107.13.41.7. and 98.75 ft. respectivcly. These values indicate that the water

in the siltstones at those locations was under pressurized confined conditions. yet the pemeabliy

or discontinuity still rcstricted the flow.

6

.. 05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AFEVA PAGE 10/39

Table 1. Wdll Screened Intervals and Water Level Elevatons Observed on April 19,1995

Group 'with Well ScreenTop Screen Bottou WaterSufaceSimiarbntervals Elevation (s) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft)

A 9-G1 3330.17 3325.17 dry

S S-E 3312.28 3302.28 ty

5-C 3307.94 3287,94 3288.12

4-C 3307.55 3285.55 3288.79

4-G1 3294.56 3264.56 3260.65

6-BI 3295.66 3285.66 3337.36

C 7-0 3262.72 3232.72 3307.15

ll-D 3241.07 3216.07 3348.20

4-02 3249.69 3219.68 3245.16

9-G2 3248.99 3238.99 3242.36

_6BZ 3220.26 3210.26 3319.01

D 2-0 3214.93 3189.93 3282.33

4-G3 3202411 3197.11 3194.10

9-03 3197.02 3187.02 3193.06

The total dissolved solids (TES) contents of the water samples taken from these wells were

significantly higher (>1,800 mg/L) than typical regional values for tie Ogallala aquifer (-500

mr/). In addition, the TDS values varied signiicantly between the wells in these 1a"ys possibly

indicating little if any flow between the well locations. The upper siltstone layer was identified as

fte "uppermost aquifer for inoniztoing purposes. Due to the difficulties In static water level

equilibration and development, dedicated sampling pumps were itcommended for future

monitoring well installations Further discussion of the hydrgcologic and geocherical data will

bc givca in a latcctiscton of this rport.

SiteVisits

On July 28. 1993, Drs. Lloyd Urban and Ken Rainwater visited the proposed site. Allen

Messenger and Andy Wittcvcld of AM conducted the tour. The site is currently part of the Fying

W Diamond Ranch, a short distance east of Eunice, New Mexico. The property is used as a

working ranch, with limited development for oil and gas wells. Thc grid of soil borings was still

7

05/04/2804 07:16 505-838-9528 &REVA PAGE 11/39

evident at the surface, as were the exisdng monitor wells. Mr. Wittcvcld described the bailer-

developmcnt procedure he was using to encouragc increased flow in the scmened intervals of the

Wells. He aso provided prelUninay waterquality data from sampling cvcnts sinc rthe prparation

of the permit documents. Wr. Bill Vance, ranch manager, took tie voup over to the Monuaent

Drawamea on Om oth side of the stae line for viewing of the 20- to 3O-fz high cutbankof the

draw. He also identified the Baker Spring location within the draw. No recent flow was evident at

the spring.

During 1996, several visits to the site were made by Dm Rainwater, Urban, Lehman,

Gurrola, and Jayawickrama. On July 17, 1996. Drs. Rainwater, Urban, and Lehman visited the

WCS site for theu first view of the initial cell excavation, hosted by AME. Over the next three

months, various combinations of the five scientists and engineers made additional visits to the site

to gather geological and geophysical infornnation about the vicinity.

At fth request of the AIF. DMs. Urban and Rainwater attended a public neeting held by the

TNRCC at the High School Auditorium in Andrews, Texas, on the evening of September 3O,

1993. 7te purpose of CMi public mceting was to give local residents opportunity to ask questions

of the TNRCC about the 1andfill and the permitting process. It was apparent that civic group

support for the project was quite high, and that the ATF and AME baW spent considerableeffort

describing the facility desig to the esidents. The TNRCC staffraLsed no quesdons at time.

On October 4,1993, Dr. Rainwater visited the offuce of Jack t. Holt PhD, and

Associatms, Inc. (1HA) with Mr. Witteveld to visually examine core samples frown selected

borings. Cores 6"B and 9-G, which are shown in Figurm 1, represent locations in which mst all

of the different lithological were penetrated. Of particular conoemn in this examination was the

condition of the red claystone. In the samples fiom both cores, the red claystone core was

typically continuous (few fracture planes not attributable to the sampling process), solid, and tight

As indicated by the results of the laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests, the claystone was

S

e5/04/2884 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 12V39

probably nanurlly compacted by the weight of overburden duming deposidon. The zones idcatified

as siltstonc and sandstone were tpically rayish or white oohesive mataials with finc grains of sgt

or sand visible on the outside of the cores. Tem prese=nc of the sand and silt apparently accounts

for the higher hydraulic conductivities of these matarials relative to that of the claystone. However,

dte siltstone and sandstone did not appear to have enough porosity to alow significant flow under

typical natural gradients.

AME provided the results of the analyses of water samples coUected on July 23, 1993,

from wells 2-G. 7-G, I I-D, and 6-B 1. Thc surface locations of these wells are shown in Figame

1. The samples were analyzed for several water quality pameters, including some major ions,

pH, and TDS. The major ion analyses are of piimary concern to this report since ionic

composition of groundwater somnetimes provides clues about hydraulic connections in the local

subsurface. Por example, water quality in an aquifer genrally detiorats with distancce othe-

point of recharge, as more materials ame dissolved Also, the nature and amount of dissolved

species can indicate the rock types through which the. water moved. Table 2 summarizes the

results of the analyses. The concenmrations of the ionic species were given by the lboratwry iz

znglL, and then converted to mnillicquivalents/L (mcqL) to check for electroneutrality. The

condition of etectroneutrality in a water solution requires that the sum of the rqfL of cations iust

equal the sum of he- mq&f of anions. The "ion W* column lists the poron that each i

constituent compiscs in the major cations or anions as appropriate. Th analyses for this saple

set included all of the typical major Ions In natual waters except for bicabotnate (HCO03).

Table 2 shows that thcr was little similarity in the waters from the four wells. The

measmed TDS varied from 1800 to 5500 mgJL In each sample, sodium (Na) was the dominant

cation and sulfate (SO4) was the domirant anion, but the relative concentratios varied by a factor

of almost 3. It is possible to check a major ion analysis by comparing the measured and calculated

TDS values. The measuredI TDS is normally done with a conductivity meter basod on the ionic

strength of the solution. h calculatd TDS is found by sumring the total rng/L of die cations

9

Table 2. Water Quality Analyses for Samples Collected 7/23/93

WeU - 2- 70- 11-D 6B.1 26-4 (Ogallala)

Constituent mgtL - e/L ion% m9/L 3 ion %0 gMt ion % mgrL m ion % M meq/L ion-%Cations

Ca 28 1.40 4.1 64 3.20 4.2 60 3.00 6.1 7 0.35 1.3 78 3.90 53.3

Mg 20 1.65 4.8 58 4.77 6.3 51 4.20 8.5 11 0.91 3.3 21 1.73 23.6

Na710 30.87 90.5 156 67.83 88.8 960 41.74 84,7 590 25.65 94.0 36 1.57 21.4

K 8 0.19 0.6 22 0.56 0.7 13 0.32 0.6 15 0.37 1.4 5 0.13 1.7

Tofl 766 34.1 100.0 1704 76.36 100.0 1014 49.26 100.0 623 27.8 100.0 140 7.32 100.0

Anionsa 200 5.63 17.1 1157 32.59 38.6 290 8.17 24.4 200 5.63 23.1 39 1.10 15.3

S04 1300 27.08 823 2460 51.25 60.7 1200 25.00 74.7 900 18.75 76.9 39 0.81 11.3

HC03 nr nr nr nr 304 4.98 69.4

N03 12 0.19 0.6 33 0.53 0.6 19 0.31 0.9 0 0.00 0.0 18 0.29 4.0

Total 1512 32.91 100.0 3650 84.37 100.0 1509 33.48 100.0 1100 24.38 100.0 400 7.19 100.0

NeutralSiO2 II - - 13 - 13 43

TDS(meas) 2 5S00 400- 1800 431

TDS(sumn) 2289 5367 2604 1736 583

S Erro(%) 6.4 1.2 21.1 1.8 15.0

ron Egror(%) 1.8 5.0 19.1 5.6 0.9

_

..

A

o %.

c

-J0

0coJ

*0

laILnNJ0

Well 2440602 (Ogatllal) - FIying W Diamond Ranch well, sampled by TWDB on 10110/1990. included for comparison

TDS Erro(%) =100 ITDS(stm) - TDS(meas)l / (TDS(sum) + TDS(meas)JIon Eror(%) 100 ITotal Cadons(meqQ-).Total Anions(meqlL)l I/ Total Cations(meq/L)+Total Anions(meq/L)]

nr a not run

05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-5528 AREVA PAGE 14/39

(Ca, Mg, Va, and K), thc anions (CI, SO4 , N0 3), and neutral compounds (SiO2 ). Te IDS

(meas) and TDS (sum) should agree within 5 percent. as shown for wells 7-G and 6B-I.

Elecutonwraulity is checked by conparing the total nxq/L of dhc cations with the total aneq/ of the

anions in what is called the ion balance eror. 'he ion balance cmr should also be less than 5

percent for an acceptable analysis, as it is for wells 2-0 and 7-0. When these two cheeks are not

consistent for all the analyses, especially when the TOS (sum) is less than the TDS (mmas) for all

the samples, it is quite possible that one or morc other significant ions should be analyzed in the

sanplcs. Other carors could have taken place in one or mott of the analyses which wcre

performed on the samples. Dr. Rainwater suggested to Mr. Witteveld that bicarbonate should be

added to the list of analyses for the next round of samples. A fifth water sample is Included in

Tablc 2 for comparison of typical local shallow groundwater quality to that in the Doeakur group.

Well 26-40-602 is located on fte Flying W Diamond Ranch near state hdghway 176, and this well

Is occasionally monitored and sampled by the Texas Water Developmcnt Board (TWDB). The

well is referred to as an '40galAlala" wc by the TWDB.

A second set of samples was collected by AME on September 21, 1993. from wells 2-G,

7-G, ll-D, 6B-l, and 63-2. Table 3 summarizes the results of the ion analyses. Comparison of

Tables 2 and 3 show limited agreement between the two sets of analyses of wells 2-G, 7-0, 1 I-D,

and 6B-I. Tils disagreement is not surprising, consideing the difficulty of purging and sampling

the wells in thews siltstone laycrs. It is possible that thenr were sampling, handling, or analytical

errors between the two sample sets, but it is also possible that the chemical composidon of the

water in the vicinity of each well has not been homogenized by wechanical miilng due to flow.

This question would hopefully be resolved as additional samples were collected from these wells in

subsequent monitoring events. The TDS values for well 2-0 were similar, while the TDS values

were higher in September for wells 7-G, ll-D, and 6B-1. Well 6B-2 showed very poor

agreement between IDS (nrcas) and TDS (sun,), and only well 7-G had acceptable agreement

between TDS (meas) and TDS (sum),

Whh the addition of HCO3 to the ion analyses, it was hoped that the ion balance ens

11

Table 3. Water QU(lity Analyses for S=ples Collected 9/21R3

Well 2-0 7-G 110 - _8 1 68-2 26-40 2alaa)Cosdnt m L ion mgfL ion %o fnwi iei ion % mNLMeL ion % Im/L_ meq/L ion % mL meq/L SIion to

Ca 53 2.6S U2 170 8.0 IOA 156 7.80 16.0 2t 1.40 8.4 33 1.65 11.5 78 3.90 53.3Ms 25 206 9.5 55 453 5.5 33 2.72 5.6 11 0.91 5.5 12 0.99 65.9 21 1.73 23.6Na 387 16.83 77A4 1560 67.3 2.6 870 37.83 77.8 324 14.09 84.9 264 1 IA8 80.2 36 1i57 21AK 8 020 0.9 49 1IM 5 1.5 III 0.28 0.6 8 0.20 1.2 8 020 1.4 5 0.13 1.7

TOW 473 21.74 I10.0 1834 811 100.0 1070 48.62 100.0 371 16.60 100.0 317 14.32 100.0 140 7.32 100.0Anons

a 200 5.63 15.6 1700 47.89 45.7 59 16.62 32.1 210 5.92 16.6 200 5.63 21.8 39 1.10 IS3S04 1300 27.08 75.0 2600 54.17 51.7 1600 33.33 64.4 1200 25.00 70.1 740 15.42 59.6 39 0.8! 11.3HC03 190 3.11 8.6 lSO 2.46 243 100 1.64 3.2 290 4.75 13.3 290 4.75 18.4 304 4.98 69AN03 18 0.29 0.8 12 0.19 0.2 10 0.16 0.3 0 0.00 0.0 4 0.06 02 18 0.29 4.0

Total 1708 36.12 C100. 4462 104.71, 100.0 2300 51.75 100.0 1700 35.61 100.0 1234 2.5.7 100.0 400 7.19 100.0

Sfi2 10 22 - 10 -- 12 43-TDS(Meas) 2700 6900 43l4_

(smm) 2191 6318 3380 2082 1563 583MS Er(%) 10.4 4.4 153 4.6 24.9 15.0

-on Etu(%) 249 12.1 3.1 36.5 28.7 0.9

Well 244602 (Ogallah) - Flying W Dilmom Ranch wel, snmpled by TWDB on 10/1011990. included for comparisonTDS Eto(%) 100 rt"DSvrnm).TDS(m=s)t/ S(um)+TDS(ma)JIon Ervr(%) a 100 rrotl Co qs(m1L)-TOa Anfns(meql)/ I[Tuol Clons(meq/)fTot Ardons(fmeq/L)

05/04/21004 07:16 550-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 16/39

would bereduced. In this sample set, however, only the analyses from weL I -D met the 5

pecent liLt It is difficult to identify a specific explanation for the larger ion balance wrors.

Analytcal laboratories someimcs havc difficulty with thesc balances In saline waters due to the

differing concentatiton anges measurable in the different ion procedures. The cations arc cmally

quantified in elememtal analyses by atomuc specxrophotomery, which requires dilution of the

sample, while anions nay be analyzed by ion chromatography, tiradtons, colorirnetry, or Ion

specific dlectrode methods which may or may not require dilution. The different mrethods are

somefirnes interfered with by high concentrations of other compounds. In any case, the accuracy

of these analyses is in question. However, it is poible to make somc useful comparisons. The

ion percentages were used to visually compare ion grouping among these water samples using a

trilinear, or Piper. diagram (Freeze and Cherry. 1979) in Figure 2. From this figure, the waters at

all o~fthe Dockcum group wels art classified as Na-S04+Cl dominated solutions. Note that the

sample from wll 26-40-602 plots far away from the Dockum samples, as a Ca+Mg-H00 3 water.

The 26-40-602 water is essentially a much "younger" water, more recently recharged from the

atmosphere. Although ffie Dockum water samples show somewhat similar ionic distributions, the

large differences in their Tt)S values cannot be directly correlated to a reasonable flow

phenomenon in the siltstone.

Three more monitoring events occurred in October, 1993, January, 1994, and March,

1994. The results of these sampling events ar summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6, respectively.

The results fiorn these three cvcnts compare somewhat more closely overall than the fiust two

sampling events. The ion and 7DS balance errors often exceeded the 5 percent target, but the TDS

values arc much more comparable across events. In addition, the concentratios of the Ionic

constituents in each well ame mtuch moe sim lar across events. When plotted on trilinear diagrams,

the results amr practically identical to those in Figure 2 ithin the scale of that configuration. so

additional figues ar not provided. The Improved consistency Is cncouraging, and does not

change the conclusions drawn in the previous paragraph.

In summary, the ionic analyses of the sampled wells were useful in describing the potential

13

05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 1 7/39

2 .

o 6-BC

@Q 7-G WVn11 -D

® 2640-GO?

20

caions Anions

- gurc2. Tdlinear Rqpzsentaton of Major Ion Analyses

14

Table 4. Water Quality Anslyss for Samples Collected 10/20=93

Well 2G 70 - - -6B 6B-2 2(:allala|Cotuent meRit SL ion % mVL ioI n mi mewL 9 - _mr m cql L ion%

Ca 72 3.60 10.4 126 630 63 158 7.90 12.6 42 2.10 8.5 33 1.65 4.4 78 3.90 53.3Mg 36 2J6 8.6 106 8.72 8.7 68 5.60 9.0 17 1.40 5.7 IS 1. 3.3 21 1.73 23.6Nt 640 27. 80.4 194 84.35 84.0 1120 470 77.9 480 20.87 84.9 800 34.78 91.9 36 1S7 21.4K 0.20 0.6 41 IOS 1.0 11 028 0.5 0.20 0.8 7 0.18 0.5 5 0,13 1.7

Total 756 34.59 100.0 2213 100.42 100.0 1357 62.47 100.0 547 24$? 100.0 855 37.85 100.0 140 732 10.0

a 1 5.07 11.2 1300 36.62 34.4 S50 15.49 21.1 190 S.35 18.9 20 5.63 15.3 39 1.10 15.3S04 17 35.42 78.1 320 6667 2. 2700 56. 76 880 133 64.7 1260 26.25 71.3 39 0.81 11IHCO3 19 3.11 69 150 2,46 2.3 100 164 2.2 280 4.59 16.2 300 4.92 13A 304 4.98 69.4N03 1 1.77 3.9 52 0.84 0.8 10 0.16 02 3 0. 02 1 0.02 00 18 0.29 4.0

lbt 218 45.38 100.0 470.10 8 100.0 3360 73.54 100.0 13 28.32 100.0 1761 2682 10.0 400 7.19 1.0Neuta

SiO2 10 - 12 - 11 13 12 43 -

_mw 6700 - a8a I . 431(sum) 2946 67 4728 1913 2628 583ExrfT(%) 82 1.7 3.6 3.0 2.5 15.0

ton ErrOO) 135 3.0 8.1 7.1 1.4 0.9

Well124.40.2 (OgWds)- ngW DimndR h well, wnpled byTWB o 1on M l990. included forcomparismTDS Erwr(%) t100 rDS(su)-TDS(rn)lI [TDS(sM)+TDS(rnc)jton Ezror(%)i 100 rroml C s(uorz])-'bW AnWaeqfL)1 I (Total CsdonsgmeiL)+TotAl AzIons(mQL)J

N.

Table S. Water Quality Anadyss for Samples Collected 1/2627194

Well 2-0 7_0 I I-D 6B-1 66-2 - 26-4 06 la0a)

OrltCmdtue mztL MN Ion % mmL moJ ion%« mfti meaL ion % mvLIW meqlL rion n eoYL ion Sb'mVL I meqtLin

Ca 94 4.70 7.7 18 9.30 83 194 9.70 13.7 46 2.30 4.9 34 1.70 2.9 78 3.90 53.3

Ms 42 3.46 5.7 104 8.56 7.6 19 1.56 2.2 9 0.74 1.6 9 0.74 J.2 21 1.73 23.6

Na 1200 52.17 85.9 2150 93.48 83.1 1350 58.70 83.2 1000 43.48 92.7 1300 S652 95.3 36 1.57 21A

K 17 0.43 0.7 44 1.13 1.0 24 0.61 0.9 1S 0.38 0.8 13 0.33 0.6 5 0.13 1.7

TOl 1353 M077 t00.0 2484 112.6 100.0 1587 7057 100.0 1070 46.90 100.0 1356 59.29 100.0 140 732 100.0

AnionsCa 2M 5.63 11.5 150 42.25 37.0 730 20.56 .7.2 230 6.48 21.9 230 6.48 13;2 39 1.10 15.3

S04 1900 39.58 80.8 3300 68M75 60.2 2500 52.08 68.8 890 18.54 62.6 1300 37.50 76.6 39 0.81 11.3

HCO3 190 3.11 6.4 150 2A6 2.2 130 2.13 2.8 280 4.59 15.5 300 4.92 10.0 304 4.98 69.4

N03 41 0.66 1.3 42 0.68 0.6 56 0.90 1.2 0 0.00 0.0 5 0.08 02 18 0.29 4.0

TOa 2331 48.99 100.0 4992 114.14 10.0 3416 75.68 100.0 1 29.61 100 2335 4.98 100.0 400 7.19 100.0

S102 11 12 _ 12 - 14 - -12 - 43 -

2(e) 270 7100 1900 2700 431T m) 369S 7488 s015 2484 3703 583

Exror(%) 15.6 2.7 5.4 133 15.7 15.0

onErrorM) _ 207 0.7 3.5 22.6. 9.5 0.9

'We 24-40-602 (O lAds) -Flying W Dlemon Ranh well, sampled by TWDB1 on 10/10/1990, Included for comparisonTDS Fmo(%) a 100 StstmS.TDSts)lt DStmm}DS(wm )1on Form(%)= 100 dTotal COMe MIe)ON tOW MOM*41TI DbW C mcq>+TobW Andons(meQ)]

to(JJto

Table 6. Water Quallty Analyses lbe Samples Collected 3/17- 184

Well - 2-G 7-0 1 I-D 66'1 6B.2 2640-602(0 allatCondoten m?/L I m!Lg ion% m mmLon% mg L io mmg ion %e

Ca 84 4.2 8 200 10.00 7.6 180 9.0 9.3 31 1.55 3.7 30 1.50 3.0 78 3.90 53.3Mg 26 2.14 4.5 93 .7 6.1 56 4.61 4.8 19 1.56 3.7 12 0.99 1.9 21 1,73 21.6N 930 40.43 35.6 260 113.04 85.5 1900 3261 853 38.70 91.6 1100 47.83 94.2 36 1.57 2AK 19 0.49 1.0 45 1.15 09 23 0m 0.6 17 0.43 1.0 17 0.A3 0.9 5 0.13 1.7

TOl 1059 47.26 100. 2943 132.26 10.0 2159 96.81 100.0 957 42.24 100.0 1159 50.75 100.0 140 7.32 10.0

Ca 220 6.20 15.0 1640 46.20 40.7 610 17.18 25.5 230 6.48 23.7 230 6.48 17.8 39 1.10 15.3S04 150 31.25 75.6 3100 64M 56.9 2300 4792 71.0 780 16.25 59.6 1200 25.00 68.7 39 0.81 I13HCO3 191 3.13 7.6 148 2A3 2.1 123 2. 3.0 278 4.56 16.7 293 4S9 13.4 304 4.9 69AN03 48 0.77 1.9 13 * 021 02 22 035 0.5 0 0.00 0.0 0 0. 0.0 1i 0.29 4.0

Totl 1959 4135 10.0 4901 t13A2 100.0 3057 67.50 100.0 1288 27.29 100.0 1728 306. 100.0 400 7.19 10.0

02 = -=-= = - 11 - 14 12TD(incas 260 79 h 431

TDS(su) 3029 7856 527 2259 2899 583EDnux(% 6.5 3.7 5.8 11.6 3.6 15.0

1anEtror(%) 6.7 .7.7 17.8 21.5 16.5 09

Wel2440-602 (Opfls) Flytng W Dimond Rach welL smpled by TWDB OD 101101990, Included fr comparisonTDS Fro,) a tOO trl (wt)-TDS(mea)l/ ITDS(im)+TDS(maes)jlon Drr(%) a 10 IOWu C sn(meeA)4 l Aflots(meq/L)l Ifl6 meqQ+Tota1 Anlons(meq&)I

Cn

t-

N9

0\

05/04/2004 67:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 21/39

for fow and mixing in the sampled siltstone. Although the TDS and ion error values arc higer

than those ypically accepted in fresh water analyses, they ame not uncommoan h MOM saline waters

with high ion concentrations that can cause interferences for so=c of the analytical techniques.

These results are sufficicnt to verify the large difference in quality between the shallow fresh

groundwater and the Dockum waters. In addition, the large differences in composition of the

Dockurn water samples indicate little wixing due to Dow in the siltstone.

Review of Gceologic and HMdro Slogc Infonation on Andrews CQunty

As stated previously in this report, protection of exlsting groundwaterresources is of

utmost concern in siting and design of hazardous waste facilities. The major high quality

groundwater source in the Southern High Plains of Texas is the Ogallala aquifer. In this section,

the direct impacts of the WCS facility on the Ogallala aquifer in both the local and regional scale are

considered. The site investigation results from the permt application (AME, 1993) and the

historical findings published in the profession literature combined in ts evaluation.

As stated previously, the shallow permeable formation in the site vicinity is evaluated under the

two aquifer criteria of [11 presence of geologic media that easily transmit water flow and (2]

presence of sufficient volume of water for flow to production wells. This section includes

discussion of geologic and hydrogcologic information from the AME (1993) peMit documents,

existing literature dscriptions, and the most recent fild work by Lehman (1996). Please note that

all of the fcrcnces prior to Leuman (1996) refer to the shallow permeable formation in wtn=

Andrews County as the Ogalala formation. Lchman's (1996) clarification is presented at the end

of tis section.

As reported In the hydrogeologic section in the permit application (AME, 1993), the

borings drilled In the subsurface invcstigation enrcountered permeable sands and gravels identified

as the lower portion of the Ogalala fornadoaL Saturated conditions in these sedirents were ordy

rarely encountered, and then only beneath a surface depression. The saturated zone beneath the

"buffalo wallow" was not sufficient to allow water to collect in the borehole. 'Me conclusion of

the site characterization was that dth Ogallala formation is present beneath the site, bat dh

18

DA-F 1121F405/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AREYA

fonnation does not contain an extensive, continuous volume of water suitablc for development.

The experience of Mr. Vance with the shallow Oga.lUa well at the Flying W Diamond Ranch

coorated uhis view, since the well was known to produce water only sporadically after sizable

rainfall events. Ike mounded shape, as shown in Figurc 1, of the top of the Dockum grup,

apparendly encourages water that infiltrates into the shallow permeable formation from the surface

to flow away from beneath the WCS site. It is also possibl that rainfall may be so low in Ois

location that soil and vegetation combinations in the area may prevent infilrationof sigdificant

amounts of water.

Documents describing the Ogallala aqWfer conditions in the Andrews County iicinity waer

obtained from the TWDB and the holdings of the Texas Tech liibces. Six documents direcdy

addressed the groundwater resourecs in the county, but, as will be shown in the following

discussion. little accurate historical information exists that describe the conditions in the western

portion of the county.

In 1940. the Texas Board of Water Engineers published a report on the groundwater

development In Andrews County (CMWE, 1940). This report was a compilation of drillers' logs,

well and test hole reports, and chemical a=alyss from wells in existence prior to 1940. The

reports r rcedw toafew hunded weUs in thecounty, with mostof the pumpig wcs i &the

eastern two-thirds of the county near the city of Andrews. No wells were shown in the, vicinity of

the WCS site.

Conin (1961) prcsented a report on the occurrence and use of gondwater in the Southern

High Plains as part of a joint cffort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USG5), TBWE, and e

11igh Plains Underground Water Conservation DistricI The report included a dtorough discssion

of the regional lithology as understood at that time and a number of contour maps that showed the

elevation of the water table In the Ogallala aquifer, the elevation of the base of the Ogala, and Uth

saturated tickness of fth aquifer across the region. Figure 3, which shows dte elevation of die

base of the Ogallala, provides no irsolution of that quantity in the western one-fifth of Andrews

County. implying that acceptably accurate records were iot available to the author. Figurm 4.

ws, ),

19

Lfl

CD

cn

-W

CD

Ln

V. Go

ofU'

it.J

Vot t" s"

P$6 -9 N &NW"

Figur 7. ~tw lp o Boa f ognallpormjon. So e Crotin 1960

a

Figmie 4. Contour Mapof Water~evci~evamon inOgral~atorcmation. (Source: Cronin (1961)J

(Jlw.

05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 &REVA PAGE 25/39

whIch shows the elevation of the water table in 1958. only indicates measured values in the

northeast corner of Andrews County. Figure 5, the contour map of satated thickness in the

Ogallala, is directly related to the limited information in Figures 3 and 4. Figure S displays the

estimated satuaed thickness at the intersection of state highway 176 and the state line, near the

WCS site, to bC 0 (zero) fL T'he method used to derive this estimate was not explained in the

report. Apparently, the only appreciable Ogallala water storage In Andrews Cotiy was belieted

to b in the eastern portion of the county.

Thc TWDS is now the state agency that manages the database descibing the state's surface

and groundwater resources. Within this responsibility. the TWDB monitors groundwater levels

and water quality at selected locations around the stae. This data Is en used in modeling efforts

for projections of groundwater usage and storagc for periods 20 to 50 years in the future Thre

TWDB wells were identified within 2 nules of ihe WCS site (AME, 1993, Plate VI.A.1). A visit

was made on October4. 1993 to the TWDB office in Austin to obtain the records for these three

wells. Well 26-40-201, owned by Mr. Ed Tinsley, is located approximately 1.2 miles northeast of

the WCS site. Wells 2640-601 and 26-40-602 (about 1200 ft cast of 26-40-601), both associated

with the Flying W Diamond Ranch, are located about 1.4 Wiles cast-souhicast of the WCS aitm

Table 7 summarizes the reported water depth mcasurements at these wells. Without a site-speific

value of the elevation of the base of the Ogallala at wells 2640-201 and -601, it is impossible to

cstinatc the local saturated thickness. Also, it appears that no water depth measurement was made

by the TWDB at well 26-40-602. lhercforz, the wells monitored and r=ported by the TWDB

provide no assistance In estimating loa stotage in the Ogallala aquifer. A total of four water

sampcs have been collected from the three wells since 1974, with the most mcent at well 2640-

602 (Table 2). The water quality at wells 26-40-601 and -602 have been quite similar, as wold be

expected due to their proxmity. Wel 2640-201 has about twicc the TDS of thc other two els,

due to larger concentrations of calcium, sulfate, and chloride.

Ashworth and Florcs (1991) of the TWDB published a set of two maps that delineated the

areal extents of the major and minor aquifers in Texas, along with a report which described the

Figure S. Contour Map of Saturated Thckkess in Ogallala FofmatIon. (Source: Croani (1961)] A

Nww.

05/84/2a04 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA

0

Table 7. WatcrDepth Measuremnts at WDB Wedls Near WCS Site(na = information not available)

PAGE 27/39

Well Depth of Date Depth to WaterSurface-- Wel (t) Measured Water (f) Elevation (fti)

26-40-201 Ina 1 2579 82.47 3408.531/13t93 87.14 3403.86

26-40-601 ua 12/10/69 78.55 3411A5. U13fl3 80.03 3409.97

26.40-602 80 na na na

criteria used to define the aquifer locations on the maps. Figure 6 is a color copy of their mAjor

aquifer map, which identifies the presence of the Ogallala aquifer in virtually ali of Andrews

County. The primary reference for this map was Cronin (1961). According to Ashworth

(pcrsonal communicadoin). this classification was based on the presence of the geologic formation,

with only secondary consideration of the amount-of water in storage at any given location. The

fact that the westen portion of Andrews County Is identified as underlain by thc Ogallala aquifer

does not mean that the formation hoids sufficient, if any, water for production. The publication of

the maps was intended to show regional distribution of the formations that serve as aquifers across

the statc, not to defiue site-specific representation of available water.

Ashworth and others (1991) published an 'Evaluation of the Ground-Water Resources in

the Southern High Plains of Texas under the direction of the state legislature as part of a state-

wide effort to identify arcas with potentially critical problens of groumdwater quantity or quality in

the next 20 years. Ths rport was supported by the TWDB's on-going computer modeling of the

aquifer's response to recharge and withdrawal, later published by Peckham and Ashworth (1993).

Ashworth and others (1991) included data describingUistorical gSundwater usage in Andrews

County for municipal, agricultural, and industrial purposes as well as contour waps of water Ivel

changes and storage in the aquifer. Of particular interest to this study of the WCS site is Fig=ie 7.

a mgional contour mnap of the water table elevation Oat shows that the approximate altitude of the

water table in the Ogallala at the WCS location as of 1990 was 3400 ft This value of 3400 ft

cannot be accurate in the site-specific sense for the WCS site, since the elevation of the base of the

24

PAGE 28/39AREVA05/04/2004 07:16

.

505-830-9528

MAJOR AQUIFERSOF TEXAS

EXPLANATIONMAJOR AQUIFERS

Supp~es lrge quon tius or' sor n bgk.rtal C , litstdei

GWf Coan V tgy,

E Cavae-WEic CWZ1CEd ward AIlvigfrs

Gwgurd E. Hajor o-)JeS5 icta[

Temity

Figure 6. Major Aquifers in TexCas. (Source: Ashworth and VW=TC (1991)]

41.

.19A0

25

05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 ARva PAGE 29/39

GARZA i

X !

I

IEXPLANATION

time sbowr g cpprosirnae EtIitudev-5 r wate kidl ScalleContur stenrw b 100 fat

tums nea sea lad

Figure 6

APPROXIMATE ALTITUDE OF WATER LEVELSIN THE OGALLALA AOUIFER. 1990

Figuse 7. Contour Map of Water Lcvels in O Ih a Fosunzioa, 1990Source: Peckham and Ashworth. 1993)

26

05/B4/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 30/39

0

Ogallala at the.WCS site sanges frorn 3400 to 3450 ft as shown in Figure 1. In addition, Figure 8,

a contour map of regional saturated thickness, shows an approximate saturated thickness for 1990

at the WCS site location of 50 ft. This thickness is also not possible at the WCS location since the

thickness of the shallow peumcable formation is less than 40 ft. most-of which is caliche AgaIn, it

is not surprising that the regional information in the report by Ashwoonh and others (1991) does not

accurately represent the conditions at the WCS site. The publication was intended to show regionaI

distribution of the water in the Ogallala formation, not to define she-specific desaiprion of starage.

The deailed subsudface investigation reported in the pemit application (AlE, 1993) provides the

necessary spatial resolution for description of the site-specific conditions for the proposed WCS

facility.

Two very recent publications of the TWDB also included Andrews County within their

study aras. Peckhlam and Ashworth (1993) dscribed their efforts to calibrate a computer 0odd

for the behavior of the Ogallala aquifer in terms of changes in storage from 1980 to 1990. The

intent of the effort was to align the model's output with the observed changes in water levels

during that decade by maunipulation of the input to the model, especially local aquifer recharg. lThe

initial 1980 conditions assumed a saturated thickness of approximately 50 ft near the WCS sitc.

The report did not detail how the initial saturated thicklesses were assigned at specific points In the

region. It is interesting that the simulation of the 50-yr period from 1990 to 2040 with the

calibrated model showed no appreciable change In saturated thickness in the western half of

Ahdrmws County. hIs result implies litte withdrawal activity relative to hat predicted for counties

with more irigated acreage. Hopldns (1993) suum mized regional water quality information for

the Ogallala aquifer in Texas. Samples were collected and analyzed over a 6-yr period. The only

point of interest in this repot is that only 4 wells were sampled in the wester dd of Andrews

County. The scarcity of wells in this poorly productive area linited tie numnber of wells available

for analyscs.

Lehrnan (1996) evaluated the literature and field evidence in westem Andrews County as a

direct anttept to determine th prcsence or absence of the Ogallala formation at the WCS site. His

27

05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 31/39

, . .

......... ... ... .. .. . . . .. . .. . .

.. .. ......... .

.....- . . -_ .. . . .___ . ~ . - -..

~~~ ~.W\.'AODE..4.

seN~s~slser-sl. .-....-..... . ............... -.- mM ��Iltt ....................................................................

.................. ...i _ ants__.HO-WA.......

i. . . . .. . ... . . .. . HOWARD

. .- ..... 4--f ...... .............

...... t......... ....

i IIECTOR MIDLAND GLASSCOCK- - - - .--- -

EXPLANATIONEj Les Ibh 50 fset

[] 50 to 100 filt

moyvur 100 IctI

s0 WlesI qz:��

Scet

contour kItoryd h 50 feel

APPROXIMATE SATURATED THICKNESSOF HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER. 1990

VUadWcd *wmI N~ckhm. umwiputtd

Figurc &- Contour Map of Saturated TIdckness in Ogallala Fbnnaton, 1990Souzv: Peckliam and Ashworgh 1993)

28

065/04/2004 07: 16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 32/39

study indicated that the "Red Bed Ridge" that makcs the WCS site so desirable is a regional feature

over 160 km in length and 5 to 10 km in width. His map of the ridge extent is not included with

this report due to its large size- The ridge runs from the northwest to the southeast frm the state

line through Andrews County into Wrinkler and Ector Counties. It serves as a palco-drainage

divide that separates the Ogallala aquife on the northeast from ithe Cenozoic basin flU aquifer to the

SOUthWCSL Dretdy above the ridge, the shallow permeable sediments amt the Cretaceous Edwards

Limestone. Comanche Peak formation, or the Antlers Sandstone. These formations may be

overlain by a caprock caliche, which in turn may have a thin venecrof youn ger sediments. The

Ogallala likely pinches out near the line defined by Monument Draw In northern Andrews Coanty.

and it may be hydraulically connected to the Crecaceous sediments. However, the lack of

developable groundwater resources in western Andrews County south of Monument Draw ankcs

it unlikely that significant flow could move from the WCS site northward to the producing aras in

Gaines County. At the WCS site, the shallow permeable formation was positively identified as the

Anters Sandstone by its characteristic gravels and absence of Cretaceous Gryhaca shces that

occur In the Ogallala formation. The exposure of the Antlers Sandstone at the WCS excavation and

other locations in Andrews County show that this formation is permecable. but it does not have

significant water storage for development of dependable water we1s other than low-flow

vjdrnilils. In light of these findings, the water wells nitored by the TWDB in the vicinity may

also not be in the Ogallala formation. Groundwater colects in the Antlers Sandstonc only wh=

the Tiassic surface relief allows storage volume. hc combination of low rainfall and high

evapotmnspiration likely lmit recharge to tNis formation in the site vicinity.

In summary, the TWDB and TBWE generated several repotsover the years that have

included descriptions of die groundwater resources of Andrews County. In all cases, the vast

rajority of the water in storage was located in the eastern portion of tie county. aoso

examination of the contour maps in these reports results in cstimated saturated tzickness of the

Ogallala at the WCS site to be 0 (ze) ft. The shallow permeable formation at the site was

odginaly identified as the Ogallala in the subsurface investigation. Lehman (1996) showed that

29

D2At-- ~ 205/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA

he Ogallala formation is not present at the WCS site. nor is it present in a significant portion of

Andrews County. No matter what the name of the local shallow permeable fornation Is, the local

high in the upper surface of the Dockumn group apparently encourages water that infiltrates, if there

is enough forrecharge, into this formation to flow away from the site. According to typical

definitions of an aquifer. both sufficient permeability and saturated conditions arm necessary for a

suarnm to be an cconoical water soce. The shallow permeable formadon at the WCS sitede

not meet both rcquirment&s

Qndufsi and Rrorrendagons

Aftcrreview of the permit documents and available information about the local

hydrogeology, the operaton of the WCS facility should have no significant impact on local

groundwater resources. The installation of the landfill with its bottom excavated through the

Antlers Sandstone formation Into the red clays of the Dockum group should prevent tanport of

cor inams into ftat shallow permeable formation. The conventional double liner system

coupled with the thick Triassic clay foundatdon provide multiple banier to contamin ant migration.

Careful operation of the facility during construction and over its useful life as controlled by state

and federal regulations should meet the objectives of safe disposal and proection of the

environment.

The Opallala aquifr does not exist at the site. The shallow permeable formation is more

correctly Identified as the Antlers Sandstone. This formation does not meet both criteria for

classification as an aquifer at this location. The presence of the 'Red Bed Ridge" in the Dockim

group apparently enoomrages water that infiltrates into the sands and gavels in the basc of the

formation to wove away to the northeast and soUthwest The shallow pcrmeable formation does

not contain sufficient water at this location for development with pumping wells. Low rainfall and

high evapotranspiration In tdis area limit the potential for groundwater rechage.

It is rmcommended that questions about the Ogallala aquifer as this site bc considered be put

aside as irrelevant based on the available information and landfill design. Emphazis should be

placed on the positive fcantres of the site, Primarily the proximity of the Triassic clay as the

.JIW Jw_

30

05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 34/39

foundation for the landfill bottom, In presentation to ngulatozy and public groups.

The siltstone layers in the Dockum group. identified as the "uppermost aquifer " for

monitoring purposes, also do not fit the two critexia for an aquifcr in the water resource

devclopment sense. The monitoring wells established in the siltstone arc the only alternative for

detection of leachaic in the remote possibility ht the landfill's multiple liner systems fail. The lack

of a typical productive aquifer beneath the proposed site is an advantage, since that type of meiurn

could easily transport contaminants if the double liner system faNWd.

Refirens

AM Environmental. 1993. RCRA Pecrit Applicadon ForA Hazardous Water Storage. Treaent,and Disposal Facility, Vols. IH. IV, and V. Subnitted to the Texas Natural Resource ConservationCommission.

Ashwotl2, LB., Christian. P., and Watcrreus, T.C., 1991. Evaluation of Ground-WaterResources in the Southern High Plains of Texas. Report 330. Tcxas Water Development Board,Austin, Texas. 39 p.

Ashwort, L.B. and Flores, R.R.. 1991. Delineation Criteria for the Major and Minor AquiferMaps of Texas. Report LP-212, Texas Water Development Board, Austin. Texas, 27 p.

Cronin, L.O.. 1961. A Summary of the Occurrence and Development of Ground Water in theSoutiern High PlaIns of Texas. Bulletin 6107. Texas Board of Water Engineers. Austin, Texas,104 p.

Frceze, R.A. and Cherry. J.A., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey, 604 p.

Hopkdns, J, 1993. Watcr-Quality Evaluation of the OgalHa*a Aquifer. Texas. Report 342, TexasWater Development Board, Austin, Texas, 41 p.

Lehman, TI.M 1996, Gcolop of the WCS Facility. Andrews County, Temas, Repon to theAndrews Industrial Foundation, 17 p.

Peeilam, D.S. and Ashwoh, JLB., 1993. The High Plains Aquifer System of Texas, 1980 to199 Oveniew and Projectionu Report 341, Tcxas Water Developcent Board, Austin, Texas 34P-

Texas Board of Water Engineers, 1940. Andrews County, Texas: Records of WeUs, Test Wl$s,Drillers' Lo, Cerical Analyses of Water and Map Showing Locations of Wells. Report, StatBoard of Water Engineers, Austin, Texas.

Todd, DM, 1980. Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New Yoruc, NewYork, 539 p.

31

* 05/04/2004 07:16 505-830-9528 AREVA PAGE 35/39

., '

Appendix

Water Level Measurements Provided by AME (Messenger, personal communication)

32

.. %

*~ ,, 1%

Table A-1. Water LerelMeawirments t ,(Sou=. AM Eniw mental (Measenser, persnal commrnlestaonD ,D

W1ELL tOJ_.CORDLO. 1.0 4(1 402 e .0 90a3l a 2 9.0L 0., 1 6.02 3.8 S.C

DATE PWAILED t % t m -2nim smen i uwoi Iswf m Imm- :nvs lmT.O.C. ELEV. ED sZi7 -i sfl m. s, snm 34.6 m s "A . 1 1 341s" 34MA 16 3'2*U MM 3457.25 34_ "

SCRMED - misls 21,i m20 MM 341.375 1*220 l S2 12. M3t5 21421 261.273 I320 262.27 H44135 Mil"

DMAflVAL DmPfls - - -

TOP-BOTTOM SCREENED 322 MAIM 3 .2 324.. 3 .34 319*.^ 302.=11. 3'33. 2M9 3197.02. 2146. 33204. 3 t312. 30.94.2317 A1ONWS m s 2ns. s jm.a sn.tmn Jmai ,m2 7.e mu 22n02 230121 Im.,

DATft I128

omn: "am*~- -tirfit t - - - - - - -- - -

DAM 12r0Mf.dOV41"aw 260.35 1 _ _ _ _ _ - - -

ww- - - - - - - - - - --m-

DAMh Ivi038wmtffe fm1ewi m3v. ?2 ..7_

VATR 111l0Mdepiw I.. 17.S10 _ _ _-_-_n .a_ _ _

_ b227. t2290 _

- -w a - - -- - - - - - -

OATM "MM38

14_.4 111OtP .4 - . . _ _ . _ - _ __ ..

- -"I - - a.--DAT& 1=9Md[" U,40 , an-t _ 2_. .a _. _~. _. ._ _ _.. .n.. _ . .**

- t~ - - - - - - -- _

rN 1. 137.0 21. 9 _ _. . _. - 2.0

pwatwf**%4ke. 52904 122.97 3n.13 MR2, SMA."DAMt 11fl _dim- 131I.41 11711 121,M 164.0 -- _ .. -.. _ . .. _ _ m... i39

nsw onow I.8M" 11m IA1n3290.27 121170 22513 1.47 33.21_ _._OA f 311482a ew~ sf .n

1 49l~ m. 7 ff .7 1 1 3 3 6 . 2-------- 7 4" e.n.rstawz Tleby4 32_7. _ _217 522.9 _ 72 mir~s_

_ - - m. -- s S m5 f fl~ _ a n

ac.s

wPage I

- -J - ---- - - - -WELL 4O./GRIDLO. I .0 4C t1-0 44O1 401 402 9.01 93 6.1 M.12 .!_ C

'roC. ELEV. W47.72 245.5 S42.9 247101 24196 149.41 3429.12 fl 3461.27 49W.9 14401 41m 31.2 34 2 47.21 14.4

DATE 1117ffd6"" pow0 14211t 117.1 11215 15.3 - - m - 110 .

womrdo~leftn M.43~MAI misti 214.49 2-DATh IrIA_JqphwUW 1410 127.72 It0 14.7 - -_ .. 47.3 __

,.urwfw ,liwdo 3229.72 32854 M211 214 3 .22.d

_S- - -l - - -- - - -s - -

1"4"""10 170 111. 25 1. _ __ 41 - _ 164. -

~wwutaae~v46m "M2 -11.41I22 .95 21.2 ""21.d -I - .~!D.

wt " 1 1797 IKIO 1O_.47 - - 340.10Mm~feiv~h 211 322213 22031 ""A. 29~DAM! V"J?

~ -nes - - -- - -- -t - - - - -

1*_ 5105 1*1.2 11443 156.15 -_ _ _ . - ._. - -

_WwsfYm 329541 3 --"no s45 n 9- ATMh WM3.

156.2n 11125 119 ._ _ _ . . - -_,awbe s.mg 1291A2 2221.1 220.2 1.79

DATM 2WM22.dq1memi" 135.9 1f7.75 17.7 in"a 27.20 MY V23. MY 24 7 1. MY [MY MY

2217l12 i211.10 3AM=_ 2219.17 32BM 319_ 9 27 2119.72 22231. - ---- ---

oAT& 2171M

&plb4fPlvowrimon

154.21 I .95s I11".101mS 3211 nnn

2MD

22m3MIS.

22 .41

DRY 45.45

?mm

2mt2 I m"mI" Il11.13

Ix.71n2l1.

2319 onr MY

o maol s ins7 216M. D"Y1I 24s3 O2Y Mt 21 ISL69 1.20 oRr DOYtp tle I 2295.34 3219.o 220.41 227.0 21756 __ &i 197.22 m21. 24.06_

VAT& 2119day0 M du 149.1 I1A6 VW9 14196 MRY CRY 2412 DRY 243 29.75 1S.75 27A DRY DRY

wuA w-o L" tleI . 97734 22M5 219 0.2 7 3114J 2275.2$

VATh 21109

6"15e" 1I"4 10 4.70 m90 792 MY 245.3 DRY 2211 28.1 i"$. 11t1 DRY DAYWgee *to w _ i32299.2 21.72 s223.1 _mm, S.72 _"10 3191m.41 ms4s4

;A4NS

(AJ

WwPage 2

A

WELL ?OJ ].

GRIDLOC. ' 4 2 :t- 4.01 4_0 403 9Cl 9Z 602 90 &1 &.1 3.3 S A

T.o.C. ELEV.EFfl ML 47.72 347611 3M." m "A 34 19. 39 X39.11 ".17? 14.99 WA 341_ 4 341.2 4.21 V4.94

DATM 3I3n97." 1174.3 M7O m2.2 m7-.t0 DMTY 2W DRY M"76 2.0 1t71 1l3.2 MYr DMrY

TAM 2ue e .2I0. 124.? 122n.94 319".74 122. 1190.42 23211 322

OA' 2fl:d91 I .. i

4lewla 145.12 IVA 109.11 W.S 179.1 23.77 2434 DRY 22.24 269.41 1i30 1791 DRY DRY L

_32.5 2310 , 0? 1323 12.49 291 21713. 1sL.t 23.n m

DATE 41)nsf.te_ 141.4 117 147.3t 121.11 1729 20290 24149 DRY 221.70 209.41 m0o 121 DRY In"9.

cnWmfsft**ysm 2.24? 2219.7 3270 34t9.9 7 22?.7 21MA.2 232.9 110 36.61 11101 2C3.00

DA0M 4IW!34 Ww" 141.* 17. 4O.7 129.C4 179L21 20225 2410 DRY 221.01 29.21 1465 164.92 DRY 194.44

wwwftc*"mfl 3609 =o $2?1t.2 T-144.01 7.O 22o" mu4) s114 223e 11.7 .t 2217.4 22m.3n0

DAMt J _

& _et 4 17.32 11o190 1241.7 1.791 2M.4 24345A DY 219.349. 0 M 149.D 7. DRY 1912

____________ ____ 127. 1 SW" 2t 2 224 1114f22 34.09 314M94 1mt 25 23.61DATh OM1

i 11A 1.2 4n 1n.0 It1.n1 13.11 19.97 USlAS JAY 219.14 20.93 149.14 tS4S Dtr 191.7towpmaee.*eb,. 2309.1 211.07 12102 210025 229.7 314144 32040. 2191.07 Jrn3 3127.1 1.1

d4"llwaw l4050 337. 119.5 MM4* 19.30 191.20 2m2 [MY 291.3 262*1 149.3 15110 1m 19111 1

*tWw*w.s 10.5 2.05 5I11"47" J 3241.1 21" . 1241.10 2191.54 221.13 ,M122211.7

_ *- - me ?, - - - m - . mm3DAM'nlMM

DATh 7A9619t91t" 223.19

___ _ _ __ _ _ _ 224394 52 l7.1

- -R-I - - - - - - - - -PATh WM

ISO.0 117.80 1 47.30 973-.2 1W0 in"O 2432 DRY 216W.0 24150 130.10 14m OMY 192122

2912 M2" 1141 2" 22W2 1241 21927 24t1 219.2 .16* 514.01 3217m meme m me e - -- m

Page 3

a a41 n

A-a

G

..45-£ - ° - - _ - . --

WEILLN I'lOJ6G( D LAX. 7.0 dc 20 _ 14D A4t1 40 4-1 9.0 92 1 1 4 C

T.Q c. 1 lLv. OM '447.72 $753 41n. 347102 3439 34294 3429.1t w4517 34399 34m 541A VM2 3417.21 3454".

d 141.29 11.90 144 MIS 171.2 19M0 2w1i1 DRY 2530. 11.1t t49.90 S632 OXY 19229

*2 43 32914 3179.45 32492 175 39 3 4121 319m u 449 3m91 33" .76 3115.9 221to63

DAMI KVIM#

"awder 1q71 I17t5 1614 2ID 2790 1t 2 24110 DRY 2tf4 27." 151.14 ISS DmY Mo.t

__ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 3 0 . 32 19.70 2 4.1.93 11 12 45.79 31 93.1 2 3 15. 33 7 1 3211 3

DATBt IMtlI93t t144.71 917.65 14.4 129.1# 179.30 19128 vim DRY 2t4.2 W." I5L14 95US TMY 192.1

'a w r ? MEa3 0 9 4 3 21 .70 32 77.5 1 3419? 125 .2 32444 2 1 911 21 1 7 9 31 9121 3 3 3 1 5 2 If27.321.1

DAM SnW4" .l 5 63.745 15* 2n^ 1.10 2M 9 34.45 DRY 21.1 2n7.01 t4m 0 tan IMY 9N.

-w in *"*a 9M SV1. nneI MU 34.49 3M144 - - - - - _12.4

O A7 1 h 1 1 1 7 1 3.6" o w" 1t 7 11.10 l 1.3 124.90 173o 19441 245401 DAY 217A 2519 14942 t41.21 Dl? 979

ML_ J mA I ! : fl L 2t4.2 I st -c*a 31T.19 WI0 " 7.23 3 31905 .2m .15

d"q w 1"03M 117.76 197. 12 3 M9m 1943 2451m MY 21749 2696 1^.0 14125 DRY M992

wSga ul3 5 3m" 1 n2 4l2 M 16- 3 klo_ 31 m 1217.36 311".01 32m .2

Cwywoktwum 74.43 3.24 92A4 U3213 m00 25.45 Om 0.00 3.37 6.04 51.70 101.75 0.00 0.1t

--- AM ENM4ROM At. RESPOMLE FOR WATER LRVEL M SASURE

3 row rFROMOPWBORP HOLE

?o4itor wets 6-B1 a 20 wi vde.pMd lo dzyrm oen 7114193Mamwol: 740 aid 11-D wesroded1pedtodz7enon 715)93Melimor weDt 5.fl sAd &E2 wem deyeoped to drpe"an MSi993MOeMweIh 7.0 aid 11-D Wer dloped to dyut an S/101

Mondow wedl M4i.6 B- 112V .-44 An S.C " dvlape to udrus an 10/12193Maw1 dbh MZ 7.4 04. ld 2a0 wm keveloped to dAy an 10/JMAppbindmts aemdomS4.75 ft

Page 4