PLANT 83 PLUME DELINEATION PROGRAM GROUND WATER …

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Groundwater Flow Model

Final Report

Document Control No. P8301515.DOC

9049739

-I-GCL Environmental Scientists

and Engineers

010422


Final Report

Document Control Na P8301515.DOC

November 24, 1993

Prepared for:

General Electric Aircr^ Engines 336 Woodward Road, SE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

Prepared by:

H*GCL

ALBUQUERQUE OFFICE 505 Marquette Avenue, NW

Suite 1100 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

(505) 842-0001 FAX (505) 842-0595

010423

Final Report


SUBMITTED BY:

-.-r:^

Joanf Newsom, RPG Project Hydrogeologist Author

^Z/**^~'^C^t/V^~

Mike Sanders, CPG Project Manager

DATE:

Z3 /ii

/(I94/93

Valda Terauds Quality Assurance Officer

// l<si^k'S

010424

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Site History 4 1.2 Model Objectives 6 1.3 History of Groundwater Flow Model Development 6

2.0 Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model . . . , 16 2.1 Terminology 16 2.2 Conceptual Model 18

3.0 Model Design 20 3.1 Numerical Code 20 3.2 Model Construction 20

3.2.1 Model Grid 20 3.2.2 Model Layers 20 3.2.3 Modeled Aquifer Parameters 23 3.2.4 Boundary Conditions 25 3.2.5 Punning Rates 26 3.2.6 Recharge 30

4.0 Model Calibration 31 4.1 Model Calibration, One-Month Simulation (July 1992) 31 4.2 Model Calibration, April 1987 Aquifer Test of WeU SJ-06 36 4.3 Model CaUbration, 15-month Simulation from July 1991 through

September 1992 36 4.4 Model Calibration Results 39

5.0 Model Evaluation 41 5.1 Relationship between the Conceptual Model and Numerical Model 41 5.2 Reliability of the Calibration 41 5.3 Groundwater Flow/Contaminant Transport Mechanisms 43 5.4 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis . 44

6,0 Conclusions 51

7.0 References 53

010425

l ist of Figures

Figure

1 South Valley Superfund Site Regional Location Map 2 2 Plant 83 Site Location Map 3 3 Total VOCs in Groundwater, 4,830-4,900 feet AMSL 7 4 Total VOCs in Groundwater, 4,730-4,830 feet AMSL 8 5 Total VOC Concentrations in Samples CoUected Between January and

May 1993 from Selected South VaUey Superfund Site Monitor WeUs 9 6 Location Map of Model Area 11 7 Aquifer Parameters Assigned to each Model Layer 12 8 Elevations of Model Layers 13 9 Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model for the Plant 83 Contaminant Plume, 1992 . . . . 17 10 Relation of Model Layers to WeU Screen Midpoints 21 11 Water Levels in City Observation Well No. 1 27 12 The Effect of Pumpage on Water Levels 28 13 Variations in Municipal Pumping Rates and Water Levels 29 14 Comparison of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-01, July 1992 32 15 Comparison of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-02, July 1992 33 16 Comparison of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-04, September 1992 34 17 Comparison of Measured and Modeled Heads (Refined Model) in

Observation WeUs, July 1992 Simulation 35 18 Comparison of Observed and Modeled (Refined Model) Drawdown in

Observation Wells, April 1987 Aquifer Test of WeU SJ-06 37 19 Location of 10 Monitoring WeUs in 15-Month Simulation 38 20 Difference Between Simulated and Measured Drawdown for Sensitivity

Analysis Runs, . ^ " 1 1987 Aquifer Test of WeU SJ-06 46 21 Statistical Error for Sensitivity Analysis Runs, 15-Month Simulation

(July 1991 through September 1992) 47

List of Tables

Table

1 List of Abbreviations 5 2 Hydrogeologic Parameters of Groundwater Flow Model 14 3 Water Balance 42 4 Sensitivity Analysis Conditions and Results 48

010426

List of Appendices

Appendix

A Data Compilation to Support Model Development B Model Input Calculations C Model Simulation Results D Sensitivity Analysis Runs

010427

General Electric Aircraft Engines Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program

Groundwater Flow Model Final Report

H*GCL noamaa Control No. P8301515J)OC

1.0 Introduction

H*GCL has been conducting a hydrogeological investigation to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination in the deep aquifer zone east of Plant 83, owned and operated by General Electric Aircraft Engines (GEAE) in Albuquerque, New Mexico (figures 1 and 2). At the request of GEAE, H*GCL is submitting an integrated final report on the groundwater flow model developed for the Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program. This three-dimensional groundwater flow model is being used to guide and evaluate the site characterization program and a remedial pump-and-treat system. This document summarizes into one report information that has been submitted in several previous reports during development of the caUbrated model These reports include the foUowmg:

• Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program, Progress Report for May and June 1992 (H*GCL, 1992a)

• Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program, Progress Report firom July 1 through August 15, 1992 (H*GCL, 1992b)

• Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program, Model Design/CaUbration and Response to Reviews of October 20, 1992 Version of Model (H*GCL, 1993a)

• Remedial Design Model Assessment, Deep Zone Ground Water Remediation System, Plant 83/General Electric Operable Unit (Canonie, 1993a)

• Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program, Sensitivity Analysis of the Groundwater Flow Model (H*GCL, 1993b)

• Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program, Deep Zone Hydrogeologic Data Evaluation Report (H*GCL, 1993c)

H*GCL, 1993c summarizes the field data collected from May 1992 to July 1993 as part of the Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program. This final model report and H*GCL, 1993c summarize the results to date of the Plant 83 Plume DeUneation Program, whose objective was to define the extent of the volatile organic compound (VOC) plume in the deep aquifer zone.

010428

FIGURE 1

SOUTH VALLEY SUPERFUND SITE REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

Modi f ied From EPA lSS8b

010429

010430



H*GCL Document {Umtrol No. P8301515JX)C

This report documents the various stages of model development including model design, model caUbration and refinement, and the sensitivity analysis of the caUbrated model. Hiis calibrated model has been accepted for use in remedial design at this site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 6, and the New Mexico Environment Department and has been peer-reviewed by GEAE, U.S. Air Force, Canonie Environmental Services Corp., Tetra Tech, Inc., U.S, Department of Energy, and Chem Nuclear Geotech (for the sensitivity analysis). A Ust of abbreviations used in the report is included as table 1.

1.1 Site History

In 1979, chemical analyses of water samples revealed chlorinated solvent contamination in the City of Albuquerque municipal wells San Jose-6 (SJ-06) and San Jose-3 (SJ-03), located near the Broadway Boulevard—Woodward Road intersection in the San Jose area of Albuquerque's South Valley. The wells were shut down that same year (H*CJCL, 1993a). Subsequent environmental investigations from 1980 to the present identified multiple potential sources of contamination in the general vicinity of SJ-06. Beginning in 1988, the USEPA wrote several Records of Decisions (RODs) that generaUy established several operable units within the South VaUey Superfund Site. One ROD addressed issues at the former USAF Plant 83 aircraft engine manufacturing faciUty presently owned by GEAE.

The Plant 83 ROD (USEPA, 1988) requires the investigation and cleanup of known soU and groundwater contamination on and around Plant 83 in the San Jose area. A CERCLA 106 Order was issued and environmental investigations designed to address these problems began in 1990 in response to this order. Field investigation activities included installing groundwater monitor wells, monitor well sampling, soU vapor surveys, and soil sampling. In 1991, GEAE began preliminary design of a remediation system to address soU and groundwater contamination identified as a result of the investigatory work. Both the contaminant investigation program and the remedial system design/operation program continue to the present

The Plant 83 ROD specifies, in part, that groundwater is to be recovered to a depth of at least 160 feet beneath the southeastem portion of Plant 83 (figure 2) and treated by air stripping and carbon adsorption. This depth was thought to be the base of the groundwater contamination east of Plant 83 at the time the ROD was written. The ROD also stated that the eastem extent of containination in deep groundwater southeast of Plant 83 must be further defined through the installation and sampling of additional monitoring weUs, some of

010431

Table 1

List of Abbreviations

amsl Above mean sea level CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and LiabUity Act ft Feet GEAE General Electric Aircraft Engines ghb General head boundary GPM GaUons per minute K HydrauUc conductivity Kt, Horizontal hydrauUc conductivity Kv Vertical hydraulic conductivity K/Kt, Ratio of vertical and horizontal hydrauUc conductivities ppb Parts per billion Q Pumpage RMS Root mean squared ROD Record of Decision S Storage coefficient SCL Silty clay layer SJ-Ot Municipal weU San Jose-1 SJ-03 Municipal well San Jose-3 SJ-06 Municipal well San Jose-6 Ss Specific storage Sy Specific yield TVOC Total volatile orgamc compounds USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VOC Volatile organic compound WB-02 (6) Multi-level weU WB-02, screen #6 (screen #1 is highest screen)

0459/P8301515.TBL

010432



H*GCL Doaiment Qmtni No. P8301S1SJX)C

which are shown on figure 2. The majority of the Plant 83 groundwater investigation activities have been designed to identify and define the horizontal and vertical extent of the volatUe organic compound (VOC) plume southeast of Plant 83. The investigation has shown that the plume center of mass is located at the southern portion of the Chevron property, approximately 1,500 feet east of Plant 83 (figures 3 and 4). The base of the plume is at approximately 4,650 feet above mean sea level (amsl), based on samples fi-om single completion and multi-level monitor wells (figure 5). As part of the ongoing plume delineation investigation, a groundwater flow model was developed to assist with the field investigation and a remedial pump-and-treat system design for the deep zone VOC plume.

1.2 Model Objectives

The goal of the model (H*GCL, 1993a) is to provide a means for integrating the hydrogeologic data in order to better design a remedial action and to understand the flow regime and how it affects dissolved phase transport The caUbrated model wiU subsequently be used to evaluate and optimize a remedial pump-and-treat system design. The objectives of the groundwater flow model design and caUbration are as foUows:

• Design a model consistent with the conceptual model of the aquifer.

• Explain how the model input values relate to observed data and the conceptual hydrogeologic model.

• Compare the water balance from the model simulation with the water balance developed from field data.

• Calibrate the model to transient flow conditions for a one-month period (July 1992), an aquifer test (the >^ril 1987 aquifer test of weU SJ-06), and a 15-month period (July 1991 to September 1992).

1.3 History of Groundwater Flow Model Development

Model development l)egan with compUation of data (H*GCL, 1992a,b), as summarized in appendix A. The data H^GCL used to design and evaluate the caUbrated model include the foUowing:

010433

MULTIPLE PLUMES LIKELY PRESENT IN THIS AREA

e GM-14D ND

600'

SCALE: 1" = 600'

KEY TO

5000

4900 _

SAMPLING INTERVAL

SHALLOW ZONE

1:° ? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ R ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ *600

+500

+400

+300

+200

4100

4000

J900 -

3800

t X > ^

DEEP ZONE

SAMPLING INTERVAL

LEGEND

a DEEP ZONE MONITOR WELL

A WUNICIPAL PRODUCTION WELL

A INACTIVE MUNICIPAL WELL

8 TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATION IN ppb

NO NOT DETECTED

, LIMIT OF TOTAL VOCs ABOVE Sppb (DASHED WHERE UNKNOWN)

FIGURE 4 PLANT 83 PLUME DELINEATION PROGRAM

TOTAL VOCs IN GROUNDWATER 4730-4830 FEET AMSL

MARCH-MAY 1993 CUENT: GEA£

AUTHOR: BL

DRAWN BY: HCC

CHECKED BY: BL

DATE: n - 1 7 - 9 5

REV. NO.: 1

RLE: V0CGWZ2.DWG

010434

GM-01 355 [ 1 - 2 0 - 9 3 ]

1-01 1299

$GM-oa 164 [ 1 - 2 0 - 9 3 ]

0 6Q0'

SCALE: r = 600 '

KEY TQ SAMPLING INTERVAL

5000 SHALLOW ZONE

+900

+700

4BD0

45D0

4400

4300 DEEP ZONE ' ^^ ''^^^^

+200

4100

4000

39D0

3800

SAMPLING INTERVAL

MULTIPLE PLUMES LIKELY PRESENT IN THIS AHEA

LEGEND

a DEEP ZONE MONITOR WELL

A. MUNICIPAL PRODUCTION WELL

A INACTIVE MUNICIPAL WELL

8 TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATION IN ppb

ND NOT DETECTED

. - LIMIT OF TOTAL VOCs ABOVE Sppb (DASHED WHERE UNKNOWN)

IHGCL FIGURE 3

PLANT 83 PLUME DELINEATION PROGRAM TOTAL VOCa IN GROUNDWATER

4 8 3 0 - 4 9 0 0 FEET AMSL MARCH-MAY 1993

CUENT: GEAE

AUTHOR: BL

DRAWN BY: JTN

CHECKED BY: BL

DATE: 1 0 - 6 - 9 3

REV. NO.: 1

FILE: V0CGWI1J3WC

010435

Figure 5

!

In 1

c !

> 1 0) i

•^ 1 C

S 1 % ! ii 5 ^^ " u (0

4000 -

C

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Total VOC Concentrations in Samples Collected between January

and May 1993 from Selected South Valley Superfund Site Wells

• j M - ^ • - ,- ,- -, . : -, -, -r 1- ^ r- ^ - - M -! _ , . i

u 1 fc 1 ^ ^ 1

1 l_ _ _p j.-„

I I I 1 1 1

i i i

' I I I T T T -

1 1 1 " i l i

i"r""r"r

—1—[- 1 —

—•' 1

J 1 _ J J — 1 _ ^ ^

1 1 J

I 4 1 1 1 T

1 „ 1 1 _ — t t t

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1

. _ i L 1 t r r

' 1 1 1

) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Total voc Concentration (ppb)

D:\GEWORK\GE-XLS\DR-TVOCD.XLC

010436

X J I J I U U J I J t : ? 3 t J > « * I 4 > V

( t I 1 in 1111 U K t i l l IT I I i t B i m u u M w i T i a u jg u u n i ' u H 4< U H U

SCALE: 1

tECEMD 9 UONITOR WELL

A PRODUCTION WELL

A INACTIVE PRODUCTION WELL

X INACTIVE CELL-

CH CONSTANT HEAO CEU IN L^YER 1

riHGCL CLIENT: GEAE

DATE: 1 0 - 6 - 9 3

AUTHOR: JN

CK'D BY: JN

REV. NO.: 1

DRAWN BY: JTN

FILE: MDLaSI l

FIQURE 6 LOCATION MAP OF

MODEL AREA

010437

CO

4900 _

4670 _

4840 _

4790 _

4740 _

4660 ..

4600 .

MODEL LAYER

1 2

3

4

5

6

K H

50

50

30

30

30

10

( f t /d)

^

Kv (ft/d)

0.167

0,167

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.05

S

.0003

.0003

.0005

.0005

.0008

.0006

Sy

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

UJ 4500

O

I LlJ

4200

3900

9

10

10

10

0.05

0.05

0.05

.001

.003

.003

.001

.001

.001

GCL CUEMT: GEAE

DATE: 8 - 1 2 - 9 3

AUTHOR: JN

CK'D BY: JN

REV. NO.: 1

DRAWN BY: JTN

RLE: MLAYERS

FIOURE 7 PLANT 93 PLUIIE DELINEATION PROQftAM

AQUIFER PARAMETERS ASSIGNED TO EACH

MODEL LAYER

010438

4900

4870

4340

4790

4740

4660

4600 CJ*

<

UJ 4500

o

REFINED MODEL UYER ORIGINAL MODEL L^YER

_! UJ

4200

3900

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

GCL CUENT: GEAE

DATE: 8 - 1 2 - 9 3

AUTHOR: JN

CK'D BY: JN

REV. NO.: 1

DRAWN BY: HCC

RLE: MU\YERS

FIQURE 8 PLANT es PLUUE DEUNEATION PHOORAM

ELEVATIONS OF MODEL LAYERS

010439



H*GCL Document Controi No. P8301S1SJXX:

• Water level data from monitor wells completed primarily from 4,800 to 4,900 feet amsl

• Water level data and VOC concentration data from multi-level monitor wells WB-01, WB-02, WB-04, WB-05, WB-06, and WB-07 at various completion depths ranging from 4,900 to 3,900 feet amsl

• Geophysical borehole logs and lithologic logs

• Aquifer test data

• Monthly pumpage rates for municipal wells

• Water quality data from monitor wells in the site area

The overall approach to model calibration was to simulate known historical conditions. The model area h shown in figure 6 and hydrogeologic parameters of the November 19, 1992 caUbrated model are listed in table 2 and displayed in figures 7 and 8 (H*GCL, 1993a).

Calibration of the model was accomplished by matching water levels for three scenarios: July 1992, April 1987 aquifer test and 15-month simulation from July 1991 to September 1992 (apendices B and C). The four original calibration criteria included the following (H*GCL, 1993a):

• Simulate the general flow field in the aquifer measured in July 1992

• Simulate the vertical gradient distribution, as represented in the pressure profile data of the multi-level wells

• Simulate the hydraulic effects of the apparent low permeability zones seen in WB-01 and WB-02

• Produce an appropriate general aquifer response to induced stress

The low permeability zone was modeled as a permeability transition subsequent to analysis of data from WB-04 through WB-07. The combination of a relatively large field data set and successful achievement of the calibration criteria indicate that the model can adequately simulate past conditions at the site.

10

010440

Table 2

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Hydrogeologic Parameters of Groundwater

Flow Model

Refined Model Layer*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Original Model Layer*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Model Layer Thickness

(ft)

30

30

50

50

SO

60

100

300

300

(60)^

(100)^

KH (ft/day)

50

50

30

30

30

10

10

10

10

KyK„

1/300

1/300

1/200

1/200

1/200

1/200

1/200

1/200.

1/200

.0003

.0003

.0005

.0005

.0008

.0006

.001

.003

.003

S

(.0006)^

(.001)2

s.

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

.001

KH = Horizontal hydraulic conductivity K , = Vertical hydraulic conductivity S = Storage Coefficient Sy = Specific Yield

Report references: 'Canonic, 1993a ^*GCL, 1993a

0459/P8301515.TBL

010441



H*GCL Document Controi No. P830I515J)OC

At GEAE's request in December 1992, H*GCL evaluated the effect of weighing the pumpage according to transmissivity of distinct model layers. H*GCL found that the model with pumpage distribution weighted for hydraulic conductivity (K) adequately met the criteria for model acceptability. In December 1992, GEAE, Canonie, and H*GCL agreed that the sensitivity analysis could proceed using the original model because little change in model results was expected from calibration runs using the changes incorporated in the refined model. The results of the sensitivity analysis on H*GCL*s original model provide the same results as if the sensitivity analysis would have been performed on the refined model (H^GCL, 1993b).

In January, 1993, Canonie made some minor modifications to the original model for use in evaluating remedial design alternatives. The results obtained from the refined model were not significantly different from tbe results obtained from the original model (Cl^nonie, 1993a). The changes Canonie made to the original model were also measiu^ed successfully against the criteria for model acceptability stated above.

The refined model is presently being used to design a pump-and-treat system to remediate the VOC plume in the deep aquifer zone (Canonie, 1993b) and to continue the evaluation of the horizontal and vertical extent of the plume and the potential for mixing with other plumes.

15

010442

i f

I!'

I

General Electric Aircraft Engines Piant 83 Plume Delineation Program


H*GCL Document Control No, PS302S15J)OC

2.0 Conceptual Hydn^eolo^c Model

( I The conceptual hydrogeologic model is a representation of mechanisms of groundwater flow

' and advective dissolved-phase transport in the area of interesL It is based on an evaluation of the hydrogeologic data for the site area. The conceptual model is used as a basis for the

J ^ design of the numerical model.

2.1 Terminology

This section describes the terms that are used in this report to describe the aquifer as iUustrated in figure 9. The conceptual hydrogeologic model in figure 9 shows a single aquifer, which extends from the water table to approximately 1,0(X) feet below ground surface, the bottom of the modeled aquifer. The shaUow zone is the saturated unit above the silty clay layer (SCL) and is generally less than 10-feet thick. The shallow zone is not defined as an aquifer because it is less than 10-feet thick, discontinuous, and therefore, is not expected to transmit significant quantities of water (see Freeze and Cherry, 1979).

The deep zone is defined to extend from below the silty clay layer to approximately 4,(KX) feet amsl to encompass the completion depth of nearby municipal wells. The deep zone, as used herein, includes the units that were previously referred to as the "intermediate" and "deep" aquifers. The intent is to replace the terms "intermediate" and "deep" aquifers with a term that does not imply two distinct aquifers. The "intermediate" and "deep" aquifers are not two aquifers because they are hydraulically connected. TTiere is no confining layer that divides the "intermediate" and "deep" aquifers (H*GCL, 1992a, 1993c).

^ , Most of the deep zone data is derived from wells completed from 4,900 to 4,740 feet amsl. I Data from deep zone wells screened within the interval from 4,830 to 4,910 feet amsl were * corrected to a datum of 4,870 feet amsl, the interval midpoint. The observed average

downward vertical gradient of 0.022 was used to correct observed water levels to this datum

I (H*GCI-^ 1992a), This correction allows water level elevation contour maps to be generated using water levels measured in wells screened at different elevations. Likewise, data from wells screened within the interval from 4,730 to 4,830 feet amsl were corrected to

[ a datum of 4,780 feet amsl, the interval midpoint. These horizons are merely arbitrary

16

010443

General Electric Aircraft Engines Plant S3 Plume Delineation Program


H*GCL Document Control No. P83015I5DOC

elevations within the deep zone. The permeability transition is defined as the depth at which the bottom of the dissolved-phase contaminant plume has been observed throughout the site, namely 4,650 feet amsl. Although permeabiUty decreases wilh depth due to sediment compaction, the small change in permeabiUty that is inferred at this depth appears to be enough to provide a "floor" for fijrther downward contaminant migration.

2.2 Conceptual Model

eyeful examination of site-wide hydrogeologic data clearly indicates that a single hydrostratigraphic unit comprises the aquifer beneath the site. TTiis unit is heterogeneous due to variations in sediment size and paleogeographic features associated with fluvial deposition, and anisotropic due to sedimentary layering. The hydrogeological characteristics of the alluvial fan deposits of the mesa are diflicult to separate from the fluvial deposits of the inner valley; therefore, these deposits were not defined as separate hydrostratigraphic units for this model.

The deep zone is bounded above by the SCL. The SCL, which divides the shaUow from the deep zone at approximately 4,900 feet amsl, appears to represent a local lacustrine or overbank deposit that contains abundant organic debris and fresh-water gastropod sheU fragments. The sediments of the deep zone from approximately 4,9(X) to 4300 feet amsl are primarily ancestral Rio Grande-related, braided fluvial deposits that intertongue with piedmont-alluvial fan (basin floor-margin) sands and gravels and locaUy, eoUan (wind-blown) sands (H*GCL, 1993c). These sediments contain sporadic lenticular deposits of finer-grained, relatively lower conductivity, facies (sands, silts, and clay) that do not persist laterally for any appreciable distances (compared, for example, to the SCL). Compaction of sediments with depth is assumed to account for a decrease m hydrauUc conductivity below approximately 4,650 feet amsl.

Based on weU WB-04 and well SJ-06 geophysical logs, below approximately 4,3(X) feet amsl the alluvial-braided channel facies become interbedded with more distal basin floor fluvial-lacustrine facies. At this depth, there is an increased proportion of finer-grained facies (sUts and clays) with moderate to thick-bedded lenses of sands, silty sands, and gravels.

Sources of water to the modeled aquifer include infiltration from the Rio Grande, through flow, and niinor recharge from the shallow zone to the deep zone. Flow out of the system is through pumpage and discharge on the east side of the model domain.

18

010444



H*GCL Document Omtrol No. M3QlSlSJ)OC

Only dissolved-phase contamination is considered at this site, based on total VCXD (TVOC) concentrations below 1,0(X) ppb (figures 3 and 4) and no reported findings of immiscible phases of WOCs (H*GCL^ 1992b). Approximately 90 percent of the plume volume of the contamination is less than 100 ppb TVOC (figures 3 and 4). The contamination generaUy extends from 4,900 to 4,650 feet amsl or over 250 feet (figure 5).

19

010445

Figure 10

3900

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Relation of Model Layers to Well Screen Midpoints

3 8 0 0 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I 1 1 I M I i I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I n I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 3 8 0 0

3900

S Z S ? S9SS §8? £ S S £ S e £ S 8 S S S £ © R S S S G e E § S S S ? ?

l i % i

Well Name

D:\GEWORK\GE-XLS\DR-WELLS.XLC

010446


Groundwater Flow Model Final Report H*GCL

Document Controi No. P8301515J)OC

OriginaUy seven layers were used to model the system (H*GCI^ 1993a). The original model's seven layers were replaced by nine layers in the refined model by dividing each of the top two layers in half (figure 8). Hiis change was made to increase the resolution of the upper layers for design of the remedial system. The thicknesses of the original model layer 1 (60 feet) and layer 2 (100 feet) were chosen to aUow comparison of simulated to measured water levels required for model caUbration. The elevation of the mid-point of original model layer 1 was the same elevation as the corrected water level datum of 4,870 feet amsl. Similarly, the mid-point elevation of the original model layer 2 was the same elevation as the corrected water level datum of 4,790 feet amsL Canonie divided these layers in half in order to evaluate with increased resolution the effect of remedial pumping on water levels. Refined model layers 1 and 2 are 30 feet thick each and layers 3 and 4 are 50 feet thick each.

Refined model layer 5 is 80-feet thick. Hie base of layer 5 was defined as the bottom of the observed VOC plume based on analytical and Uthologic data available in early 1992. Lithologic and geophysical logs from weUs WB-01 and WB-02 indicated clay-rich lenses in layer 6. The clay-rich lenses in these two wells seemed to correlate with the base of the v e x : plume. Therefore, the conceptual model includes a permeabiUty transition, which is represented in the numerical model by a sUght decrease in permeabiUty between layers 5 and 6.

Refined model layer 6 is 60-feet thick. Logs from weUs WB-01 and WB-02 were used to define this layer. Refined model layer 7 is 100-feet thick. The base of layer 7 was defined based on a change in hydraulic gradient in WB-02. Layers 8 and 9 are 3(X)-feet thick and were not modeled for high resolution because they are below the main mass of the known plume. Monitor well SJ6-08D and Westbay weUs WB-02 screen numbers (6)(7)(8). WB-04 (7)(8)(9), WB-05 (7)(8)(9), and WB-06 (6)(7)(8) are completed in layer 8. Monitor weU SJ6-07D and Westbay weU WB-04 (10)(11) are completed in layer 9. Monitor well WB-04 (12) is below the bottom of the lowermost layer, layer 9. In weU WB-04, the interval fixim zones 11 to 12 (at a depth below the screened interval of the nearby municipal wells) shows a reversal of the predominant downward vertical gradient during the summer months. The hydraulic gradient between zones 11 and 12 changes from upward in summer to downward m winter. This gradient reversal correlates with higher municipal pumping rates in summer versus decreased pumpage in winter.

22

010447



H*GCL Document Control No. PS30151SJXX:

3.2.3 Modeled Aquifer Parameters

Aquifer parameter values were selected based on an evaluation of data provided in previous reports (American Ground Water, 1983; Bjorklund and MaxweU, 1961; CHjM HiU, 1988; Geraghty and MiUer, 1989; Hart, 1986, 1989). Most of the avaUable data describes the shaUow zone and the upper four model layers of the deep zone (appendix A). Model input calculations are included in appendix B.

3.2.3.1 Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (KJ

The model is based on the assumption that the aquifer is horizontaUy isotropic. WhUe the inferred depositional environment is consistent with variations in the horizontal hydrauUc conductivity K , we did not incorporate variations in Kj, into the model due to the lack of data to support a reasonable distribution. Evaluation of facies maps and the regional stratigraphy (Hawley and Haase, 1992) suggest difficulties in resolving issues of scale. Horizontal heterogeneity cannot be modelled because the smaUest block m the model is 50 feet wide, whereas lithology changes on the order of feet or inches. The hydraulic gradients and depositional environment and hydrauUc gradients indicate strong vertical anisotropy, which is incorporated into the model in the vertical conductance term.

The hydraulic conductivity chosen for each model layer is an effective hydrauUc conductivity that represents an average due to layer heterogeneity. The horizontal hydrauUc conductivity values are held constant for each layer. However, heterogeneity is characteristic of the depositional environment at this site. This may account for substantial difi^erences between measured and predicted water levels at such wells as monitor weU SJ6-02D.

Facies maps were developed based on geologic interpretations of Uthologic and geophysical logs of monitor weUs, including the multi-level monitor weUs WB-01, WB-02, WB-04, >^^-05, and WB-06 (appendix D). These were used to identify zones of simUar sand thickness. Facies in areas beyond the center of the model grid were extrapolated based on best geologic judgement. These maps were developed as a part of the sensitivity analysis of heterogeneity (H*G(X, 1993b). For the most part, the sediments within the upper 600 to 700 feet of the deep zone are characterized by high proportions of sands and gravels that form extensive, high-conductivity units across the site. SUts and clays within this interval do not form widespread, competent confining units (with the exception of the SCL). However, the cumulative effect of many of these lower conductivity layers appears to limit the downward rate of contaminant movement through tortuous flowpaths in the vertical direction.

23

010448



H*GCL Document Control No. P8301S1SJ)OC

The assigned K values for layers 1 to 9 are 50, 50, 30, 30, 30, 10, 10, 10, and 10 feet/day respectively. The hydrauUc conductivity data used to assign the model values are given in appendix A.4. The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values for layers 1 to 4 are based on the compilation of aquifer test data (H*GCL, 1992a). Horizontal hydrauUc conductivify values for layers 5 to 9 are estimates based on Uthologic information coUected during weU instaUation. The hydrauUc conductivity values are assumed to decrease with depth due to increasing consoUdation and cementation. The horizontal hydrauUc conductivity ranges from 10 to 50 feet/day. This variation is small compared to that found in geologic materials, wllich can be up to approximately twelve orders of magnitude (Freeze and Cherry, 1979)

The historical hydraulic conductivity data for the aquifer appear to be unreUable (references given in H*GCL, 1992a). For example, H*GCL found errors in conversion between metric and English systems and inconsistencies between different types of single-weU aquifer tests within the same hydrologic unit Given the uncertainties in the hydrauUc conductivity data, contouring the hydraulic conductivity data would probably not be meaningful ITie data were evaluated using the kriging interpolation method to look for trends in the data, but no meaningful trends were observed.

3.2.3.2 Ratio of Vertical to Horizontal HydrauUc Conductivity (KJKfJ

The ratio of vertical hydrauUc conductivity K to horizontal hydrauUc conductivity K is 1/300 for layers 1 and 2, and 1/200 for layers 3 through 9. These hydrauUc conductivity ratios reproduce the vertical hydrauUc gradients measured in the Westbay multi-level weUs WB-01 and WB-02 m July 1992 and WB-04 in September 1992.

Since then, the measurements of water levels over more than a year have shown a seasonal variation in the vertical hydraulic gradient attributable to nearby municipal pumping. The vertical hydraulic gradient decreases during the winter months as a result of the decrease in the nearby municipal pumping rates. The model was caUbrated usmg a vertical hydrauUc gradient of 0.02 at the boundaries, based on July 1993 measurements for WB-01 and WB-02 and September 1992 water levels for WB-04. A year's worth of multi-level weU data indicates that the calibrated model KJK^ ratio of 1/300 for layers 1 and 2 and 1/200 for layers 3 through 9 adequately simulates a year's worth of water levels from multi-level wells within the acceptable caUbration criteria (appendix D.7).

24

010449



H*GCL Docume^ Control No. P8301S1SJX)C

3.2.3.3 Storage Coefficient

The storage coefficient values are based on a specific storage value of 10"' foofV This value is consistent with the average storage coefficient value of 0.0085 based on available data (appendix A). A specific storage of 8.5 x 10"' foot"' results from dividing the storage coefficient (0,0085) by 100 feet, which is the combined thickness of refined model layers 3 and 4 (original model layer 2). However, a lower specific storage value, 1 x 10"' foot"', was chosen for the model based on the range of values presented in Anderson and Woessner (1992). Analysis of model mass balance results suggest that aquifer storage accounts for less than one percent of groundwater flow. Changing the storage coefficient values would not significantly affect model results, because storage is not important to the overall water balance as was shown in the sensitivity analysis.

3.2.3.4 Specific Yield

An unconfined aquifer storage coefficient, or specific yield, of 0,(K)1 was used. The value of 0.(X)1 in the deep zone for the caUbrated model appears to be marginal for unconfined conditions (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). However, the site stratigraphy and the model caUbration runs indicate that aquifer field conditions are not truly unconfined but leaky-confined (H*(jrCL, 1992b). Therefore, the basis for usmg a value of 0.001 is the given range of specific yield for leaky-confined conditions (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Confirmatory data of specific yield are not avaUable based on a compilation and review of aquifer test data (H*GCL, 1992b). Using values more typical of unconfined conditions of specific yield between 0.01 and 0,25 in the sensitivity analysis runs, the model did not simulate the fluctuations in head in the 15-month run nor the drawdown m the April 1987 aquifer test (H*GCL, 1993b).

3.2.4 Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions control the direction of flow within the model domain. All four sides of the model were assigned general head boundary (ghb) cells that aUow flow at the boundary to respond to an imposed stress within the model domain, such as pumping. The ghb cells aiso provide for flow through the sides of the model, which generaUy is from west to east The assigned ghb head values are based on a horizontal hydrauUc gradient of 0.(K)45 oriented N 75°E, based on July 1992 water level contours for the uppermost model layers (appendix A), The head values at the ghb cells are lowered one foot per year to account for documented regional declines in the water table throughout the Albuquerque

25

010450



H*GCL Document Control No. P8301515J)OC

basin, including the model area (H*GCL^ 1992a). Figure 11 shows a one foot decline per year in water levels recorded in the USGS City Observation WeU Number for over 30 years. WeU CVD-01 has the longest record of water level measwements at the site and also shows a one foot per year decline in water levels over the last 5 years (figure 12).

VerticaUy, the assigned ghb head values are based on a downward hydrauUc gradient of 0.02. The average downward hydraulic gradient for the ghb cells was based on the July 1992 water levels in WB-01 and WB-02 and September 1992 water levels in WB-04 (appendix A). Since the model was caUbrated, a year's worth of water level data from the multi-level wells faas been coUected. In winter 1993, the difference in water levels between layer 1 and layer 9 was approximately one third of the difference measured in summer 1992.

Infiltration from the Rio Grande can have significant impact on the flow field in the Plant 83 site area (Newsom and Wilson, 1988). InfUtration from the Rio Grande was simulated using constant head cells for the west side of model layer 1. Constant head cells in layer 1 were used to model the Rio Grande because infiltration rates vary from the river to the water table, depending on the head in the aquifer.

The upper boundary of the model was assigned an elevation of 4,9(X) feet amsl, the approximate elevation of the SCX over much of the site area. Boundary conditions in the topmost layer are discussed in the recharge section (section 3-2.6). The lower boundary was modeled as a no-flow boundary because upward leakage was not expected to be significant and MODFLOW does not allow other options for the lower boundary.

3.2.5 Pumpmg Rates

Pumping rates control water levels in the site area and therefore mfluence the direction of groundwater flow. As shown in figure 13, pumping of municipal wells causes water levels to vaiy by several feet within one week. The pumping rates for individual municipal wells, as opposed to weU field rates, are especially useful for examining different remedial designs because individual wells influence the configuration of the water table and the gradients which control plume geometiy. However, the only published records of municipal wells are compiled by weU field (City of Albuquerque, 1989). This includes the San Jose well field, where the monthly volume of water produced is reported as a total for the field.

26

010451

Figure 11

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Water Levels in City Observation Well No. 1

4950

4945

4940 -

4935

I 4930 UJ

>

J 4925

IS

4920

4915

4910

oo OJ O ^ CM CO tn u> in t O < D t f > o ^ CM CO

t ^ h " ^ oo 00 oo 00 s »0 CD f ^ oo 0> O * -oo oo oo oo oo o> o>

c c: c c c: CZ CQ n CO n n CO CO CQ c

CO CO CD Q (0

C C C C C C C C C C O C O C Q C Q C Q C O C D C Q C Q

C C C C C C C C C C c o c o c o c D c o n o j c o a i c o

Reference: H+GCL. 1992a D:\GEW0RK\GE-XLS\CTY0BS1 .XLC

010452

Figure 12

The Effect of Pumpage on Water Levels

2000 -r-

1800 - -

1600 - -

1400

1200 - -

4> 1000 (0 a E I 800

600 - -

400

200 Miles - 1 = Production Well

ll I" III l'l ' i ' 11 ll III III ll, " III il

CVD - 01 = Monitor Well

i

ll ' I ' 'II l'l 'I ll III II' III l'l l'l III ll ' ll ll ll ' III ' i ' 'I ll III l l ' l'l 'I

LJ ll III III III II

U

'I 'll III l'l ' I ' ' I ' ' '

4911

- - 4910

- f 4909

t - - 4906 5

I 4907 m

+ 4906 §

11

4905 S (A

-~ 4904

4903

4902

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 > 0 ) 0 » 0 > a ) O O O O O O T - f - T - f - ^ ^ W C « | N C M C M C M C 0 o o o o o o a o a o ( o o o c o o o o o a o a > o > o > a > a > o > ( 3 i o ) o > o i o > o > o i a > a > a > ( 3 > a > o i

. 5 a > 0 ( Q £ c Q . ^ v o c a ^ c Q . 5 a } O c a ^ a i . ^ v o ( o a c Q ^ Q j Q Q I i (0

Reference: H+GCL, 1993a D:\GEWORKU)02AMAF\CVDMILES.XLC

010453

Figure 13

5000

4500

4000 --

3500 --

E CL ^ 3000 + o O) (0

I 2500 -0.

« 2000 + V

1500 --

1000 -

500

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Variations in Municipal Pumping Rates and Water Levels

Well D - 02

0 > 6

4899

9-0 D-D g-Q-D

- - 4898

4897 I r o <

m 4896 S

4895 3

4894

I- 4893

8/1 /92 8/8/92 8/15/92 8/22/92 8/29/92 9/5/92 9/12/92 9/19/92 9/26/92

Reference: H+GCL 1993a D:\GEWORK\D02AMAF\D02PUMP.XLC

010454



WGCL Document Control No. P8301S1SJX)C

H*GCL obtained monthly pumpage data from 1980 to 1993 for individual wells in the Atrisco, Burton, MUes, San Jose, and Yale weU fields from files in storage at the City of Albuquerque. This information was entered into a database and is tabulated in appendix A3. Average monthly pumping rates were assigned in the model based on data obtained from the City of Albuquerque for wells San Jose-1 (SJ-01), SJ-02, SJ-03, and MUes-01. Pumping rates for weU UNM-06 are based on information obtained from Joe Griffenburg at the University of New Mexico (Griffenburg, 1992).

3.2.6 Recharge

Downward leakage from the shaUow to the deep zone was simulated with recharge cells in layer 1 to account for the fiow of water from the shaUow zone to the deep zone in areas where the shaUow zone is hydraulicaUy cormected to the deep zone. A recharge rate of 6.0 X 10" feet per day was assigned to the layer 1 cells where the water table is higher than the top of the model (4,9(X) feet amsl). This area covers approximately the westernmost 19 model columns of layer 1. The assigned recharge rate of 6.0 x 10"* feet per day is based on a decUne in head of one foot per year and a specific yield of 0.2 in the shallow zone and SCL (Anderson and Woessner, 1992).

Recharge rates can also be calculated based on vertical hydrauUc conductivity and vertical hydrauUc gradient Using values for a vertical hydrauUc conductivity of 8.0 x 10^ feet per day (appendix A) for the SCL and a vertical hydrauUc gradient of 0.1 between the shaUow and deep zone, the recharge rate is 8.0 x 10"' feet per day. This hydrauUc conductivity-based recharge rate is an order of magnitude lower than that estimated based on water level decline. The difference may be due to laboratory-measured vertical hydrauUc conductivity values of clays that are not necessarily representative of field conditions. Therefore the water-level based recharge rate of 6.0 x 10" feet per day was used in the model. Where the water table is lower than 4,900 feet amsl, recharge was not assigned because the depth to water from land surface to the water table is over 100 feet

A recharge rate of 6.0 x 10" feet per day is also assigned to the cells beneath the unlined portion of the AMAFCA South Diversion chaimel to simulate recharge from the channel to the water table. Monitoring of water levels in the AMAFCA channel and adjacent weU D-02 did not show correlation over the period of record from September 1 9 ^ to May 1993. Recharge from the channel appears insignificant based on measurements in the AMAFCA channel and the water table beneath the chaimel and is not expected to affect model results.

30

010455


Groundwater Fiow Model Final Report

H*GCL Document Control No. P8301S15J)OC

4.0 Model Calibration

Model calibration increases confidence in the model's ability to simulate future conditions under different hydrauUc stresses. The overaU approach to model caUbration was to develop a groundwater flow model consistent with the hydrogeologic conceptual model and to simulate known historical conditions. Historical water level fluctuations do not support an assumption of steady-state conditions (appendix A l ) . Therefore, the groimdwater flow model was first caUbrated for transient conditions for a one-month period (July 1992). Second, the model was caUbrated against an aquifer test (the weU SJ-06 five-day aquifer test of April 1987) to simulate aquifer response to an imposed stress. An additional cahTiration was performed for a 15-month period to simulate the aquifer's response to cycUc trends in municipal pumping rates. The 15-month simulated aquifer response wiU be useful in evaluating design parameters for remedial recovety wells.

The model caUbration showed that the numerical model is sensitive to changes in pumpage. Figure 12 depicts pumping rates at municipal well MUes-01 versus water levels at observation weU CVD-Ql. Water levels at the observation weU CVD-01 vary from 3 to 8 feet within a year in response to changes in municipal pumpage. There is a direct relation in pumping versus water level through September 1991 (figure 12), Seasonal impacts and other pumping makes the relationship less obvious in 1992. The hydrographs presented in H*GCL, 1992b show approximate seasonal fluctuation of 4 feet per year for the wells completed in layers 1 and Z Figure 13 shows the variation in MUes-01 pumpage on a 12-hour basis and water levels in observation weU D-02 on a 30-minute basis. There is a slight lag in water level response m weU D-02 to pumpage from MUes-01.

4.1 Model Calibration, One-Month Simulation (July 1992)

The model was caUbrated to July 1992 water levels because water level data were more plentiful for July than for previous months. Ideally, calibration would have also been performed using data collected for a winter month, when water levels are more stable, but the avaUable data coverage was not adequate. Nine figures in appendix C l show water level contours for layers 1 through 9. TTie dkection of groundwater flow is-generaUy sUghtly to the north of east. Tlie figures show that the Bowlines bend around the cells that contain the municipal wells. Figures 14 through 16 show a comparison of modeled heads versus measured values. Figure 17 shows a comparison of measured and modeled heads in monitor wells. The difference is generaUy within ±2 feet.

31

010456

FIGURE 14

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-01 July 1992

4906

CO

4904 --

4902 --

4900 --

4898 --

4896 --

4894 --

•o 4892 + (0

^ 4890 --

4888 --

4886 --

4884

4882 +

4880 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600

Model Layer Mid-point and Screen Mid-point Elevation, ft. MSL

4700 4800 4900

REFINED MODEL OBSERVED

010457

FIGURE 15

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-02 July 1992

4906

CO

4904 --

4902 -

4900 --

4898 --

4896

4894 +

^ 4892 + CO

<u

^ 4890 --

4888 -~

4886 -

4884 --

4882 -~

4880 \ \ \ 1 1 \ \—

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600

Model Layer Mid-point and Screen Mid-point, ft. MSL

4700 4800 4900


010458

FIGURE 16

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-04 September 1992

4906

CO

4904 --

4902 --

4900

4898

4896 --

4894 --

E 4892 + Qi

^ 4890 --

4888

4886 +

4884

4882

4880 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600


4700 4800 4900

REFINED MOOEL OBSERVED

010459

o>

Mea

sure

d -

Mod

eled

Hea

d, ft

. N

J i*

. O

-i

. to

oa

1-06

DM

W-0

1

IMW

-05

D-0

3

t-09

W7

DW

A-d

SJ6

-04M

DW

B-0

3

P83

-10M

P83

-08M

P63

-07M

P83

-11M

SJ6

-02M

SJ6

-03M

SJ6

-05M

SJ6

-01M

1-02

CV

I-01

CV

I-02

P83

-09M

CV

I-04

1-06

1-03

CV

-291

CV

-441

1-04

CV

-231

CV

-22

CV

-431

DM

W-0

2

DM

W-0

3

DM

W-0

4

SJ6

-02D

P83

-10D

SJ6

-01D

D-0

4

D-0

1

P83

-08D

HL-

02

D-0

2

CV

D-0

1

Pe3

-09D

P83

-11D

P83

-07D

O

o 3 -o

Ql

3.

(A

o"

3 CD

Q

>

<i)

C

I at

rs

Q.

«> z

z to

I

cog

S^

CD

9 ^

3 2.

CD

2.

(5'

010460




4,2 Model Calibration, April 1987 Aquifer Test of WeU S J ^

For a second caUbration check, H*GCL simulated an aquifer test to determine if the model can simulate the response to Icjcal pumping stress. The AprU 1987 aquifer test ( C H ^ Hill, 1988) was selected because observation weU coverage was sufficient and because the pumping rate of 1,8(X) gaUons per minute (gpm) was sinular to the pumping rate proposed for the Plant 83 deep zone groundwater remediation system. The mcxlel's response to the aquifer test should be simUar to responses of the aquifer during short-term remedial pumping.

Figure 18 shows a comparison of measured and model heads for this time period. For wells completed in layers 1 and 2, the difference between measured and modeled heads is less than 1 foot. For wells completed in layers 3 and 4, the difference, with the exception of well D-01, is less than 2.0 feet. Given the relative Icx^ations of the weU screens within each layer, actual weU locations with respect to model cells, and the averaging of drawdown due to the model discretization, the model has closely simulated the 5-day aquifer test. The mcxiel can be expected to adequately predict short-term responses due to pumpage.

The figures in appendix C.2 show that the cone of depression appears sUghtiy steeper to the east than to the west of weU SJ-06. This difference is attributed to the direction of ambient groundwater flow, which is from west to east Layers 6, 7, and 8 exhibit the largest drawdown because pumpage is highest from these layers.

4.3 Model CaUbration, 15-month Simulation from July 1991 through September 1992

As a third calibration check, the model was run for the 15-month period from July 1991 through September 1992. Measured and mcxleled water levels were compared at monitor wells that have an adequate amount of water level data prior to June 1992, when monthly water level measurements began. The IcKation of these monitor wells is shown in figure 19. Hie figures of the 15-month simulation in appendix C.3 show sinular trends between measured and mcxiel water levels. For the weUs completed in layers 1 and 2, (CV-22, CV-421, CV~43l, and SJ6-01M) the measured water levels are generally 1 to 2 feet higher than the mcxieled water levels. However, the mcxJel matches the fiuctuations in measured water levels over the 15-moDth pericxL For the weUs completed in layers 3 and 4 (CVD-01, D-01, D-02, D-04, P83-10D, SJ6-02D), this general trend is also apparent The difference between measured and mcxieled heads varies from 0 to 2 feet for weUs CVD-01, D-01, D-04, and P83-10D, 0 to 3 feet for well D-02 and 0 to 4 feet for weU SJ6-02D. The

36

010461

FIGURE 18

Comparision of Observed and Modeled (Refined Model) Drawdown In Observation Wells, April 1987 Aquifer Test of Well SJ-06

2.50 -r

-1.00 -L C>J o > O

CO o 6

T -

o CM o

CO o

• *

o m o s 1

N. O

1

OO o 1

cn o 1

OJ o ^

a

CM O dl

Q

o 6

CM O

6 o 6

o

CD

Well No.

010462

0 800'

SCALE: r = 800'

0 DEEP MONrrOR WELL

• MONrrOR WELL USED IN MOOa CAUBRATION

FIQURE 19 LOCATION OF 10 MONITORINO

WELLS IN 15-MONTH SIMULATION

010463



H*GCL Document {Jontrol No. P830151i

comparison of measured and modeled water levels in the 15-month simulation shcnv that the mcxiel is able to simulate the variation in water levels due to pumpage. The observed and predicted response at aU 10 wells, CV-22, DV-42I, CV-43I, CVD-01, D-01, D-02, D-04, P83-10D, SJ6-01M, and SJ6-02D, m the 15-month run are in gcxxl agreement, indicating the municipal well stresses are propagated adequately across the mcxiel area.

4.4 Mcxiel CaUbration Results

The heads predicted by the calibrated model are generaUy within ±2 feet of monitor weU measured heads (appendix C). The ±2 foot difference is sinular to the water level fluctuations that are observed in as little as a one-week pericxi (see figure 13).

At this site, the observed variation in water levels occurs for the foUowing reasons:

• As shown on figure 13, water levels can vary daily in response to pumpage. Within a single week, water levels at individual monitor wells may vary up to 2 feet Monthly water levels for a select group of monitoring wells were measured once a month within a four-day period. Therefore, water levels recorded during the monthly monitoring program could be as much as 2 feet different than values used for the numerical simulation. Furthermore, pumping rates used in the mcxJel are monthly averages, not the actual daily pumping rate. Thus, it is not presently possible to account for significant, short-duration fluctuations in groundwater elevations due to municipal pumping in the modeling process. The use of a monthly average pumping rate imports an unavoidable minor error in short-term calibration runs.

• In addition to the difference between monthly averages of pumpage versus point-in-time measurements of water levels, there is a dcx^umented yearly regional decUne in water levels on the order of approximately one fcx)t per year as measured in the monitor wells at the site. Seasonal variations of approximately 4 feet are also measured in the monitor wells at the site (H*GCL, 1992b).

• Discretization errors may also be intrcxiuced due to the size of the grid cells. This grid-induced error is approximately the prcjduct of the horizontal hydraulic gradient and the width of the grid ceU perpendicular to the direction of groundwater flow. For the 50-fcx)t cells, this product is 0.25 feet, based on a horizontal hydrauUc gradient of 0.0045 feet

39

010464



H*G€L Document Control No. P830151SJ)OC

• Error may also be introduced by the large vertical hydrauUc gradient observed during the summer peak pumping season at the site. The measured water levels were corrected to a datum that corresponded to the mid-point of original mcxiel layers 1 and 2. This correction is based on.a vertical gradient of 0.02. To the extent that this assumption is incorrect, errors to the baseline measured water levels may be introduced.

• The effect of pumpage outside the mcxiel area is accounted for by reducing the water levels in the general head boundary cells by one Coot per year. We also orient the mcxiel in a direction of N75*'E towards the Yale and Burton weU fields. At present, the mcxiel size does not account for pumpage outside model boundaries. One solution which was considered was to utilize a larger mcxiel area; however, H*GCL (1992a) discusses why using a larger mcxiel area would not be helpful to resolve this problem.

The current mcxle! does not predict water levels precisely for a given point because of the degree of variability in water levels with time asscxiiated with municipal pumping variations. However, the mcxiel is able to adequately simulate areal head distributions under three different transient conditions to ±2 feet which is acceptable based on the scale of the mcxiel and the objectives of the project.

40

I 010465



H*GCL Document Control No. P8301S1SJXX:

5.0 Model Evaluatioa

5.1 Relationship between the Conceptual Mcxiel and Numerical Mcxiel

The conceptual mcxiel water budget and the July 1992 simulated water budget are summarized in table 3. The water balance is the distribution of water flowing into and out of the aquifer. As table 3 shows, the two water budgets are consistent with each other indicating that the numerical mcxiel adequately represents the conceptual mcxiel.

For the July 1992 simulation, stream infUtration accounts for 16 percent, throughflow (flow across the boundaries) accounts for 82 percent, and recharge for 2 percent of flow into the system. Pumpage accounts for approximately 61 percent and throughflow accxiunts for approximately 39 percent of flow out of the aquifer system. Storage accx>unts for less than 1 percent of fluxes into or out of the aquifer system. Therefore, storage coefficients and recharge rates should not be sensitive parameters to the mcxiel as a whole. TTie water balance of the hydrogeologic conc:eptual mcxiel has been cx}mpared with that of the July 1992 simulation (table 3). The general agreement of the two water balances confirms that the numerical mcxiel is consistent with the mechanisms of flow in the hydrogeologic conceptual mcxiel.

5.2 Reliability of the Calibration

The mcxiel was evaluated to determine whether it met the objectives stated in section 1.2. The mcxiel was designed in a manner consistent with the conceptual mcxiel of the aquifer. The description of the mcxiel design provides an explanation of how the model input values relate to field data and the conceptual mcxiel. There is general agreement between the water balances calculated for the conceptual and numerical models.

The model was caUbrated to transient conditions for a one-month pericxi, a 15-month pericxi, and an aquifer test The mcxiel adequately simulates aU three transient conditions, as demonstrated by mcxieled versus measured head values (appendix C).

41

010466

Tables

Water Balance

Flow Rate Flow Rate (10* fe/day) (10* ff/day)

Conceptual Model July 1992 Simulation

Flow into Aquifer

Row through west boundary 5.85 10.0 (E,N & S)

Flow through north and south boundary

Rio Grande

Recharge

Total In

Flow out of Aquifer

Flow through east boundary

Pumpage (6/92)

Total Out

7.4

1.35

0.2

14.8

7.2

7.6

14.8

2.3

0.3

12.6

5.0

7.6

12.6

Calculation of throughflow for the conceptual mcxiel is based on a hydraulic gradient of 0.0045, the hydraulic conductivities assigned to the mcxiel layers, an aquifer thickness of 1,000 feet and width of 10,000 feet Flow through the north and south boundary is the difference between total outflow and the other fluxes into the aquifer. Flow from the Rio Grande is based on a hydrauUc conductivity of 50 feet/day, a hydrauUc gradient of 0.0045, and mcxiel layer thickness of 60 feet Recharge is based on a water level decline of one foot/year and a specific yield of 0.2.

Report Reference: H*GCL, 1993a 0459/P8301515.TBL

010467

Genera] Electric Aircraft Engines Plant S3 Plume Delineation Program



The model was evaluated to determine whether it met the caUbration criteria detailed in section 1.3.

• Figures 14 to 16 demonstrate that the mcxiel can prcxluce the vertical hydrauUc gradient distribution as represented in the water level data of the multi-level monitor wells. Tlie mcxiel can prcxluce the hydrauUc effects seen in the multi-level wells during the summer peak pumping season by employing vertical to horizontal hydrauUc conductivity raticis on the order of 1/300 and 1/200.

• The nine figures of July 1992 water levels in appendix C l and figure 17 demonstrate that the mcxiel adequately reproduces the general flow field at this site.

• The nine figures of the aquifer test m appendix C.2 and figure 18 demonstrate that the mcxiel can simulate the general aquifer response under imposed pumping stresses as shown by the results of the simulation of the AprU 1987 aquifer test.

In accordance with the objectives, the mcxiel can be used in remecUal design and has provided a means to integrate the hydrogeologic data coUected during site characterization, advancing our understanding of the flow regime and dissolved VOC transport This caUbration of the mcxiel to three different situations, coupled with the consistency in water balance, provides confidence that the model can be used to reasonably evaluate pump-and-treat designs. Based on the stated criteria for acceptability stated in section 1.3, the mcxiel is clearly useful in supporting remedial design efforts.

5.3 Groundwater Flow/Contaminant Transport Mechanisms

Calculation of groundwater velcx;ity provides a measure of the rate of contaminant transport due to advection. Mcxleling results incUcate a velocity of approximately 0.9 feet/day for layers 1 to 5 and 0.3 feet/day for layers 6 to 9 (H*GCL, 1993a). Ratios of vertical to horizontal conductivity of 1/200 and 1/300 were used because these ratios were able to match the measured water level data from WB-01, WB-02 and WB-04 during the summer peak pumping season. The effect of these low ratios of vertic^al to horizontal hydrauUc conductivity combined with the measured hydrauUc gradients would result in advective hydraulic migration to depth. With a vertic^al to horizontal hydrauUc conductivity ratio on the order of 1/200, the angle of groundwater flow is about one degree below horizontal for

43

010468



H*GCL Document Omtrol No. P8301515JX)C

the measured hydrauUc gradients of approximately 0.02. Mcxiel results for the angle of groundwater flow is less than one degree below horizontal for layers 1 to 5; 1.6 degrees for layers 6 and 7; and less than one degree for layers 8 and 9.

Tlie mcxiel was caUbrated using a vertical hydrauUc gradient of 0.02 at the boundaries, based on July 1992 measurements for WB-01 and WB-02 and September 1992 water levels for WB-04. A year of multi-level data indicates that the vertical hydrauUc gradient at the boundaries changes seasonaUy and is greatest at the time wben the data for the mcxiel were coUected (summer peak pumping).

The occurrence of the dissolved chlorinated solvent plume at depth, 100 to 250 feet below the water table, suggests that smaU-scale heterogeneities in the aquifer also contribute to the vertical migration at a rate higher than that predicted by the K/K,, ratios used herein. Small-scale heterogeneities which induce mechanic^al dispersion may also play a role in the downward migration of the plume at this site based on numerical simulation and geophysical logging. Furthermore, historical pumping Icx^tions and rates may also influence the current vertical distribution of the plume.

As part of this investigation, we have used multi-level monitoring data to study the response of the aquifer to daily and seasonal variations in pumping at a nearby municipal weU. This information wiU aUow the effect of pumping to be separated from that of other influenc^es on the vertical component of contaminant migration. Therefore, the role of other infiuences can be better examined with an improved understanding of the effect of the driving force of vertical migration.

5.4 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis

There is a degree of uncertainty asscwiated with the input parameters to any hydrogeologic mcxiel. The purpose of the sensitivity analysis performed was to determine how sensitive the model was to changes in each of these hydrogeologic parameters. For example, if a three-order of magnitude change in recharge prcxluces the same water level as original recharge values, then recharge is not a parameter that must be known with precision. This impUes that the mcxiel is not sensitive to changes in recharge values. TTie purpose of the sensitivity analysis performed on the mcxiel (H*GCL, 1993b) was to identify those input parameters to which the model results were most sensitive, and therefore most significantly affected by uncertainties in the input data asscxiiated with the parameter.

44

010469



H*GCL Document Control No. PS301S1SJ>OC

The sensitivity analyses were performed by changing one mcxiel parameter value per mcxiel run. The hydrogeologic and model parameters varied in the sensitivity analysis runs are summarized in figures 20 and 21 and table 4; RMS m these figures and table denotes "rcx)! mean squared." The parameters varied include: mcxiel grid spacing, discretization of simulation times, horizontal anisotropy, horizontal hydrauUc conductivity, ratio of vertic^al to horizontal hydrauUc conductivity, municipal pumpage rate, specific yielci, recharge, and specific storage and the effect of distributing the pumping rate at municipal production weUs according to layer transmissivity (i.e., the prcxiuct of hydrauUc conductivity and thickness) rather than model layer thickness only.

In general, the original model was not sensitive to model grid spacing, time step length, horizontal anisotropy, changes in horizontal hydrauUc conductivity for individual layers, specific yield, recharge, and the distn'bution of pumping rates among mcxiel layers. The mcxiel is sensitive to changes in the followng:

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity for aU layers

The ratio of vertical to horizontal conductivity for aU layers

Municipal pumping rates

Specific storage (short term)

Changes in regional flow as a boundary condition

The mcxiel values of horizontal hydrauUc conductivity for aU layers are fairly weU constrained by field data, especially in the upper layers, where field data are more plentiful The model values for Ky/Kt for aU layers are constrained by calibration against field water level data during the peak summer 1992 pumping pericxi from multi-level weUs WB-01, WB-02, and WB-04, and smgle-screen monitor wells such as SJ6-07D. The model was tested against Ky values that range across three orders of magnitude because values of Ky from field data are not readUy obtamable. The range of three orders of magnitude for Ky was based on the range in sediment size (clay to gravel) and distribution of sediments (heterogeneous).

Municipal pumpage and specific storage are less weU constrainect H*GCL (1993b) shows that measured water levels are sensitive to changes in mimicipal pumpage. In addition, shifts in municipal pumping center legations would also affect the direction of groundwater flow.

45

010470

Figure 20

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Difference Between Simulated and Measured Drawdown

for Sensitivity Analysis Runs April 1987 Aquifer Test of Well SJ-06

Reference: H+GCL, 1993b D:\GEW0RK\SENSTVnDATA\GE8PTSAJ<LC

010471

Figure 21

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Statistical Error for Sensitivity Analysis Runs

15-Month Simulation (July 1991 through September 1992)

(0

^•»-<M'»-CMf0^iO<pr»-000>O^CMCO^tf><0^-a>COO*-CM o i < o Y t f ) « D r - * - ( V T - f « i f o * - C M < o ^ f W T ^ r I - r i i ^ i i i ^ i i i ^ r i ' T T T T V T T T f l & « A < A c i ( i i . r^ i s . r« - r -h - r^h -Sensitivity Analysis Run Number

Reference: H+GCU 1993b D:\GEWORK\GEMODEL\SNSTVr©ATA\RMS.XLC

010472

Table 4 Sensitivity Analysis Conditions and Results

Run Number Description

Run 1-1 Decrease horizontal cell widths three times (e.g., from 250 to 88.33 feet). Run 2-1 Increase TJme Steps from 5 to 10 and Decreaao Multiplier ftom 1.5 to 1.2. Run 4-1 Horizontal Anisotropy = 0.75 Run 4-2 Horizontal Anisotropy = 1.25 Run 6-1 Kh = 16 fleet/day for an 7 Layers Run 6-2 Kh = 30 leet/day for all 7 Layers Run 6-3 Kh = 50 feet/day Ibr all 7 Layers Run 6-4 Increase K values for each Layer t)y 25% Run 6-5 Increase K values for each layer by 50% Run 6-6 Increase K values for each layer by 100% Run 6-7 Decrease K values tor each layer by 25% Run 6-8 Decrease K values fbr each layer by 50% Run 6-9 Increase K value for layer 1 by 25% Run 6-10 Increase K value Ibr layer 2 by 25% Run 6-11 Increase K value for layer 3 by 25% Run 6-12 Increase K value for layer 4 by 25% Run 6-13 Increase K value for layer 5 by 25% Run 6-14 Increase K value for layer 6 by 25% Run 6-15 ItKrease K value Ibr layer 7 by 25% Run 6-16 Decrease K value for layer 1 by 25% Run 6-17 Decrease K value for layer 2 by 25% Run 6-18 Decrease K value Ibr layer 3 by 25% Run 6-19 Decrease K value for layer 4 by 25% Run 6-20 Decrease K value for layer 5 by 25% Run 6-21 Decrease K value fbr layer 6 by 25% Run 6-22 Decrease K value tor layer 7 by 25%

Diflerence in RMS Error between Simulated and Measured Drawvdown Apn) 1967 Aquifer Test oTWell SSS (feeO

0.099 0.015 0.058 0.352 0.035 0429 0154 0.306 0.539

-0.056 0.371 0.009 0.088 0.019 •0.005 -0.003 -0,005 -0.006 -0.003 -0.119 -0.029 -0.007 -0010 •0.008 •0.007

RMS Error fbr Simulated Heads from Sensitivity Analysis Runs Compered to November 19. 1992 Calibrated Model 15 - Month Simulation (feet).

0.036 0417 O300 3.494 5. OOI 7.673 1.719 3.163 5.520 2.160 5.226 0493 0427 0.364 0231 0278 0537 Q510 0.517 0448 0393 0.263 0.353 0,724 0672

Model Output tile name far April 1987 Aquifer test

Ge8-1-1.out Geft-2-l.out Gee4-t.out Ge8-4-3.out Ge8«-1.out Ge8-6-2.o«Jt Ge8-6-3,out Ge8*-4.out Ge8-6-S.out Ge8*^.out Ge8-6-7.out Ge6*8.out Ge8^9.out Ge8-6-10out Ge8-6-11.out Ge8-6-12.out Ge6-6-13.out GeS-S-14.0ut C5ee-6-15.out Ge8-6-16.out Ge8-6-17.out Ge8-6-18.out Ge&«-19.out Gee*20.out Ge8-6-21.out GeS-e-22.out

Model output lite name for IS^nontti Simulatioa

N/A Ge6-2-1.out Ge6^1.out Ge6+2.out GeW^l.out Ge6S-2.oiA Ge6*3,out Ge6-6-4.out Ge&&5.out Ge&€-6.out Ge6*7.out Ge&&8.out Ge6-6-9,Out Ge6-6-10out Ge&«-11.oul Ge6-6-12,out Ge6*13out Ge6-6-14.out Ge6^15.out Ge6-6-16.out Ge6*17.out Ge6-6-18out Ge&^19out Ge&€-20.out

- Ge6-6-21.out Ge6-6-22.0ut

Please see Table 1 for t«se values for runs 6-4 through 6-22. Please see Table 3 for explanatiorw of abbreviations. No njn 3 or 5 was perlbrmed, these were intentionally omitted as described In the text. • H*GCL did not calculate RMS errors fbr Runs 1-1, 2-1 (l&flwnth Simulation), and Run 6-3 fOr reasons oivwi in the text N/A = not applicabie

R«rw«nc«; H*OCL. 1993b DX3EWORK\SENSTVTYMTAV3E8TAB1 M.9

010473

Table 4 (cent) Sensitivity Analysis Conditions and Results

Run Number Description

Run 7-1 Kv/Kh =1/20 tor aD layers Run 7-2 KWKh = 1/500 tor aH layers Run 7-3 KWKh « 1/2000 for aH layers Run 7-4 Increase the ratio 25% far layer 1 Run 7-5 Increase the ratio 25% lor layer 2 Run 7-6 Increase the ratio 25% for layer 3 Run7-7 Increase the ratio 25% for layer 4 Run7-8 Increase the ratio 25% for layer 5 Run 7-9 Increase the ratio 25% far layer 6 Run 7-10 Increase the ratio 25% for layer 7 Run 7-11 Decrease the ratio 25% for layer 1 Run 7-12 Decrease the ratio 25% fbr layer 2 Run 7-13 Decrease the ratio 25% for layer 3 Run 7-14 Decrease fhe ratio 25% for layer 4 Run 7-15 Decrease the ratio 25% far layer 5 Run 7-16 Decrease the ratio 25% far layer 6 Run 7-17 Decreese ttw ratio 25% for layer 7 Run 8-1 Increase pumpaoe rates by 25% Run 8-2 Decrease pumpaoe rates by 25% Run 6-3 Extrapolate 1992 pumpaoe for 40 years. Run 9-1 Specific Yield » 0.01 for Layer 1 Run9-2 Specific Yield = 0 1 fbr Layer 1 Run 9 ^ SpecifioYleW = 0 2 5 fbr Layer 1 Run 10-1 Recharge • 0.05 feet/year for area west of Amo and 0 fOr area east of Amo Street Run 10-2 Recharoe«0.1 feet/year for area west of Amo and 0 for area east of Amo Street Run 10-3 Rect iaroe"0.25leet/yearfOrareawestof Amo and OfOr area east of Amo Street Run 11-1 Specific Storaoe = 10*-4 feet for all 7 Layers Run 11-2 Specific Storage = 10*-6 feet for all 7 Layers Run 12-1 Pumpage iMighted fbr transmissivity per layer

DilTerence in RMS Enor bet<ii«en Simulated and Measured Drawdcwn April 1987 Aquifer Test of Well SJ-6 flfeet)

0680 O012 0401 -0.02S -0.034 0.001

-0.001 •0.005 •0.007 -0.007 0.017 0.033

-0.014 •0.012 -0.006 -0.006 -0.006 0.112 0384

• 0.059 0.264 0324 OOOO OOOO 0.000 1.374 1.195 O004

RMS Enor tbr Simulated Heads from Sensitivity Anatysis Runs Oxnpered to November 19.1992 Calibrated Model 15 • Month Simuiatior) (feet).

4.628 1.649 3,427 O031 O103 0.078 0.147 0145 0255 0081 0.053 0141 0132 0201 0.180 0.281 0063 1.802 1.800

• 0.061 0,374 0485 0179 0119 0.040 0969 0171 1.040

Model output file name fbr April 1967 Aquifer test

Ge8-7-1.out Ge8-7-2.out CSe6-7-3.out Ge8-7-4.out Ge6-7-5.out Ge8-7-6.out Ge6-7-7.out Ge8-7-8.out G©8-7-9.out Ge6-7-10.out Go8-7-11.out Ge6-7-12.out (5e6-7-13.out Gee-7-T4.oot Ge6-7-15.out Ge8-7-16.out Ge8-7-17.0ut Ge8-8-1.out Ge8*2 .ou t 40yrwop.out (40 year run) Ge8-9-1.out C>e8-9-2,out Ge6-M.out Ge8-10-1.out Ge8-10-2.out Ge8-10-3.out Ge8-11.1.out Ge8-11-2.out C»e8-12-1.out

Model output file name tor 15-rrKxith Simulation.

Ge6-7-1.out Ge6-7-2.out Ge6-7-3.out Ge8-7-4.out

Ge6-7-5.out (3e6-7-6.out Ge6-7-7.out Ge6-7-8.0ut Ge6-7-9.out Ge6-7-iaout Ge6-7-11.out Ge6-7-12.out Ge6-7-13.out Ge6-7-(4.oift Ge6-7-15.out Ge6-7-16.out Ge6-7-17.0ut Ge6-8-1.out Ge6*2 .ou t N/A Ge6-9-1.out Ge6-9-2.out Ge6-&J.out Ge6-10-1.out Ge6-10-2.out Ge6-1(K}.out Ge6-11-1.out Ge6-11-2.out Ge6-12-1.out

Please see Table 1 for base values fOr runs 7-4 through 7-19. Ptease see Table 3 for explanations of abbreviations.

No run 3 or 5 was performed, these were iritentionally omitted ss described In t tw text. * H*GCX did not calculate RMS errors fbr Runs 1-1, 2-1 (15-month Simulation), and Run 8-3 for reasons given in the text. N/A = not applicabie

R«rgrWM«: H*OCL. 19S3b D:OEWORK«EN8TVT>OATA>OE8TAB1ja.8

010474



H*GCL msisj)OC

specific storage is sensitive in the short term because water supplied to pumping wells initially comes out of storage in a confined system. With time, the amount of water released from storage declines as groundwater flow from other soiu"ces increases. Specific storage in the long term may be sensitive to boundary conditions because the assumed one fcx5t per year decline in head in the regional water table is presumably associated with a ICKS in storage. The model results indicate that the effects of storage loss and dewatering on groundwater hydrauUcs could affect the long-term ability of the model to predict groundwater levels.

The results of the sensitivity analysis mdicate that the caUbrated mcxiel wiU adequately predict short-term future conditions related to remedial actions at the site. Boundary conditions may require modification for long-term predictions, as mcxieled stream infiltration and throughflow acrcount for a significant amount of water supplied to the aquifer in response to prolonged pumping. The water balanc:e c^alculations (table 3) show that the principal cximponent of flow in the mc del is flcDw through the west and east sides of the mcxiel (throughflow). The regional head is assumed to decline one foot per year based on future projection of historical trends. In this sc:enario, the Rio Grande is assumed to supply an increasing amount of water as groundwater levels decline. The model results indic:ate that the rates of stream infiltration and regional head decHne affect the water levels, flow direction, and rate of dewatering in the model area. The long-term stabiUty run indicates the need to evaluate data coUected over time for purposes of incorporating more certainty in boundary conditions applied in the mcxiel. This information wiU improve the mcxlel's usefulness for planning purposes and for predicting plume capture imder simulated remedial conditions.

Overall, the model is useful in predicting aquifer response to pumping stresses cjver the short-term. The accuracy of long-term predictions will be dictated by the accuracy with which boundary conditions and extemal stresses (i.e., municipal pumpage) are known. These future conditions that affect long-term runs can be added to the mcxiel as t h ^ becxjme better known.

50

010475



H*GCL Document Control Nb. P8301S15JX)C

6.0 Conclusions

The mcxiel c^aUbration and sensitivity analysis results clearly indicate that the mcxiel is acceptable and useful for the purposes of remedial design. The mcxiel performed adequately in satisfying aU four original perfonnance criteria (section 1.3):

• Reprcxlucing the general flow field

• Reproducing the vertical hydrauUc gradient distribution

• Reprcxlucing the hydrauUc effects of the apparent permeability transition seen in WB-01 and WB-02

• Reproducing the general aquifer response to an imposed stress

In addition, the mcxiel c^n reprcxluce the general variation in head over a pericxi of up to 15 months. This indicates that the model's treatment of municipal pumpage is appropriate. FinaUy, the mcxiel is consistent with the hydrogeologic conceptual mcxiel.

The mcxiel is currently being used in several ways: to assist with the Geld investigation, to design a remedial pump-and-treat system, to track dissolved contaminant migration, to assist with field evaluation of remediation effectiveness, and for planning purposes. The model was caUbrated against a data set which is more plentiful than is usuaUy available for the design and construction of groundwater fiow mcidels. This data set includes:

• Water level data from monitor wells, completed primarUy from 4,800 to 4,900 feet amsl

• Water level data and VOC concentration data from multi-level monitor wells WB-01, WB-02, WB-04, WB-05, WB-06, and WB-07

• Borehole geophysical and lithologic logs

• Aquifer test data

• Monthly pumpage rates for municipal wells

• Water quality data from monitor wells in the site area

51

010476



H*GCL No. P8301S1SJXX:

Based on the sensitivity analysis, the model '^ sensitive to variations tn tbe following parameters (figures 20 and 21 and table 4):

Changes in municipal pumpage Changes in the Rio Grande as a boundary condition The ratio of vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity for aU layers Horizontal hydraulic conductivity for aU layers Changes in regional flow as a boundary condition

Overall, the mcxiel is very useful in predicting aquifer response to pumping stresses over the short-term. The accuracy of long-term predictions wiU be dictated by the accuracy with which boundary conditions and extemal stresses (i.e., municipal pumpage) are known. Future boundary conditions, average YiJYi ratios, and extemal stresses c^n be mcxiified in the mcxiel as they become better known. As data continue to be coUected to monitor the rate of progress of deep aquifer remediation, the mcxiel has the flexibUity to be updated io reflect new conditions in the aquifer.

H*GCL has used the mcxiel to help lcx:ate new multi-level weU Icx^tions, track dissolved contaminant movement due to advective flow, and to simulate historical groundwater flciw conditions. Canonie (1993b) has used the mcxiel to develop a preliminary extraction weU layout for a pump-and-treat remedial system and to track dissolved contaminant movement due to advective flow. In the future, the mcxiel can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a remedial pump-and-treat system, for planning purposes, and to assist with locating monitor wells to monitor the progress of aquifer remediation.

52

010477



H*GCL Document Control No. P8301S1SJ)OC

7.0 References

American Ground Water, 1983, Hydrogeology of the Amerigas Property, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 1983.

Anderson, M.P. and Woessner, W.W., 1992, AppUed Groundwater Mcxleling, Academic Press, 381 pp.

Bjorklund and MaxweU, 1961, Availability of Groundwater in the Albuquerque Area, BemalUlo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico, New Mexico State Engineer Technical Report 21.

Canonie Environmental Services Corp., 1993a, Remedial Design Model Assessment, Deep Zone Ground Water Remediation System, Plant 83/General Electric Operable Unit, Document Control No. 89-225-12,

Canonie Environmental Services Corp., 1993b, Extraction and Discharge Altematives Evaluation Deep Zone Ground Water Remediation System, Plant 83/General Electric Operable Unit, Project 89-225-12, April 1993.

CHjM Hill, 1985, Draft Technical Report Offeite Remedial Investigation, South Valley Site, Albuquerque, NM, April 1985.

CHzM HUl, 1988, Remedial Investigation Report, SJ-6 Superfund Site, South VaUey Area, Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 1988.

City of Albuquerque, 1989, Effects of Albuquerque's Pumpage on the Rio Grande and the Rate at Which Albuquerque WiU Have to Release San Juan-Chama Water to Offeet Them.

Freeze, AR., and Cherry, J.A, 1979, Groundwater, Prentice-HaU.

Geraghty and Miller, Inc., 1989, Remedial Investigation Report, 3301 Edmonds Street, S.E., Albuquerque, New Mexico, January 1989,

Griffenburg, Joe, 1992, Personal communication with Burton A Schippers of H*GCL during investigation of University of New Mexico pumpage data, UNM, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 8, 1892.

53

010478

General Electric Aircraft Engines Plant H3 Plume Delineation Program


H*GCL Document Control No. P830IS1SJ)OC

H*GCL, 1992a, Plant 83 Plume DeUneation Program, Progress Report for May and June 1992, Document Control No. P8300951,DOC.

H*GCL, 1992b, Plant 83 Plume DeUneation Program, Progress Report from July 1 through August 15, 1992, Document Control No. P8301018.DOC.

H*GCL, 1993a, Plant 83 Plume DeUneation Program, Model Design/CaU*bration and Response to Reviews of October 20, 1992 Version of Mcxiel, Document Control No, P8301144.DOC.

H*GCL, 1993b, Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program, Sensitivity Analysis of the Groundwater Flow Model, Document Control No. P8301246.DOC.

H*GCL, 1993c, Plant 83 Plume DeUneation Program, Deep Zone Hydrogeologic Data Evaluation Report, Document Control No. BOT01520.DOC.

Fred C. Hart AsscKiates, Inc., 1986, InstaUation Restoration Program, Phase II -Confirmation/Quantificiation, Stage 1 InstaUation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Remedial Investigation/FeasibiUty Study, September 1986.

Fred C. Hart Asscwiates, Inc., 1989, InstaUation Restoration Program, Phase II -Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 1 InstaUation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, June 1989.

Hawley, J. and Haase, C , 1992, Hydrogeologic Framework of the Northern Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico Bureau of Mines Open File Report 387.

McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, AW., 1988, A Mcxlular Three-Dimensional Fmite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Mcxiel, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations 06-Al, United States Geological Survey, p. 576.

Newsom, J. and Wilson, J., 1988, Ambient How Direction on Flow of Groundwater to a WeU Near a Stream: Effect of Ambient Groundwater Row Direction, Ground Water, v. 26, pp. 703-711.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Record of Decision - Former Air Force Plant 83/General Electric Operable Unit, South Valley Superfund Site, September 1988.

54

010479


Final Report Volume II — Apppendices


+. GCL Environmental Scientists

and Engineers

010480

/i//^;/^ " P*^ 7<-/s s s ' j ^


Final Report Volume II — Apppendices


November 24, 1993

Prepared for:

General Electric Aircrqft En^nes 336 Woodward Road, SE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

Prepared by:

WGCL

ALBUQUERQUE OFFICE 505 Marquette Avenue, NW

Suite 1100 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

(505) 842-0001 FAX (505) 842-0595

010481

Appendix A

Data Compilation to Support Mcxiel Development

A l Water Levels, Horizontal and Vertic^al HydrauUc Gradients A 2 Groundwater Velcx;ity Calculation A 3 Albuquerque Municipal Pumpage from 1980 to 1993,

San Jose and Miles Well Fields A-4 Aquifer Parameters A.5 Summary of Results from Data Compilation

010482

Appendbc A includes data used to support mcxiel development. Appendix A l contains July 1992 water level contour maps. They are the basis for one of the model calibration scenarios, July 1992. Appendix A l also includes water level plots for the multi-level wells WB-01, WB-02, WB-04, WB-05, and WB-06, which show seasonal changes in water levels and provide verticral hydraulic gradients in the deep zone. A calculation of groundwater velocity (appendix A2) provided a simple analytical mcxiel of contaminant transport due to groundwater flow prior to constructing the three-dimensional mcxiel. The pumping rates (appendix A3) were obtained from storage files at the City of Albuquerque public works department and were the basis for distribution of pumpmg rates among wells in the model area. The aquifer parameter data (appendix A4) were compiled from several previous reports and were the basis for choice of mcxiel values. Appendbc A6 summarized the work in the two reports devoted principally to data compilation (H*GCL, 1992a,b).

010483

Appendix A.1

Water Levels, Horizontal and Vertical Hydraulic Gradients Reference: H*GCL, 1992b, 1993c

010484

-Re ('^re ..cc : \-\-' GO., fl ^ ^ b

010485

/fl/r "

'Re^^rcAces: H^^CL, [9^Zt

FIGURE 5 PLANT 83 PLUME

DELINEATION PROGRAM

WATER LEVEL ELEVATION MAP,JULY 1992

WATER LEVELS CORRECTED TO A DATUM OF 4790 FEET

ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL

WATER LEVEL DATUM CORRECTION IS BASED QN A

VERTICAL HYDRAUUC ORADtENT OF 0.02

WATER LEVELS MEASURED JULY 1«-1B, i v » 3

e«u-i

|FRrwn 0 liOHITO* VCL

r J KtVlStO •^t3

010486

Piant 83 Plume Delineation Program WB-01

4910

4908 -

4906

(0 4904

<

£ 4902 c o

> 4900 01 m

I 4898

I 4896

4894 -

4892 -

4890

Ol I

c ro

CNJ CJ> A 

ro

CM o> O. <

O)

ro

CM

c eg o>

<

CM OJ 6. o eo

CM O)

O

CM o> > o Z

CM O)

6 0}

o

<o O l c ro - J

CO O l

i> a> l i .

(O

o> iL ro >

<o Oi

<

rt Ol

>. 5

rt 0 1

c - i

D:\GEWORK\WEST8AY\WB1WL.XLC

010487

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program WB.02

D:\GEWORK\WESTBA Y\WB2WL.XLC

010488

4872

4870

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program WB-04

4900

4898

4896

4894 -

^ 4892 -1 V) S 4890

£ 4888 -c •s 4886 ra

I 4884

I 4882 u 4880 • J ro ^ 4878

4876 -

4874 -

CM O l

I c ro

CM O l

o LL

CM

o>

ro a. <

CM

o> I

ro

CM

cn c 3

CM O l

CM O)

I

o> n <

CM O l

6. 

i o z

CM O l

6 01

Q

CO 0> c ro ->

rt (3) i) 0}

u.

rt Ol ro

rt o> l l a. <

rt OJ

ro

rt Ol

- 3

D:\GEV\/0RK\W/ESTBAY\WB4WLXLC

Reference- H"^GO, W ^

010489

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program WB-05

CM OJ

c ro - 1

CM OJ Jti o U-

M OJ

ro

CM OJ

Q. <

CM OJ

ro

CM cn c

CM cn "5 —>

CM cn

<

CM cn

o CO

CM C l

T5 O

CM OJ

o Z

CM OJ

6 OJ

a

rt O l

c ro

- >

rt cn

o

rt o ro

5

rt cn

<

rt OJ

ro

rt cn c - 5

D:\GEW0RK\WESTBAY\WB5WL.XLC

Reference; M'^GOL, l ^ ^ ^ c

010490

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Progran WB-06

4905

4903

4901

(0 4899

<

£ 4897 c o

> 4895 Qi

UJ

I 4893

g 4891

4889

WB-06#1

WB-06#2

-• WB-06#3

•<^ WB-06#4

-* WB-06#5

•^ \NB-0&ife

- • WB-06#7

WB-06#8

4887 -

4885

CM

cn c ro

CM OJ

u .

CM O l

ro

CM

cn a <

CM

cn ro

CM O J

I c 3

CM

cn CM

cn 3 <

CM

cn 6 . CO

CM

cn t i O

CM

cn > o Z

CM cn 6 o O

rt cn c: ro -^

rt cn i l OJ

l i .

rt cn i L

S

rt OJ iZ. c <

rt cn ^ ro S

rt OJ c 3

~)

D - . \ G E W O R K S W E S T B A Y \ W B 6 W L . X L C

010491

Appendix A.2

Groundwater VelcKity Calculation Reference: H^GCL, 1992b

010492

Groundwater Velocity

Calculation of groundwater velcx:ity provides a measure of the rate of contaminant transport due to advection. The groundwater velcx;ity (v) is calculated as 1.0 ft/day. Selection of the horizontal hydrauUc conductivity (KJ and vertical hydraulic conductivity (K ) is based on a review of the data presented later in section 2.5. Selection of the horizontal hydraulic gradient is based on the contoured map of water level elevations in figure 5 and selection of the vertical hydrauUc gradient is based on water level measiu"ements in monitor wells completed in the deep zone. Selection of effective porosity (n ) is based on the results of bulk density logs for WB-01 and WB-02 (H*GCL, 1992c). The net bedding orientation is assumed to be horizontal based on results of borehole geophysical and lithologic logs (H^GCL, 1992c).

V =

1_ X 50 0 .004 1.00 ft/day

n. ( K ) (vh) = .2 [ 0 1 ] [ .02 ] = [ .1 ft/day ]

where K = hydraulic conductivity tensor (ft/day) h = head (ft)

The net direction of groundwater velcx;ity is sub-horizontal, 6 degrees from horizontal, based on these values.

Reference: H' GCL, 1992b O459/P8301515.APX

010493

Appendix \ 3

Albuquerque Municipal Pumpage from 1980 to 1993, San Jose and Miles Well Fields

Reference: H*GCL, 1992b

I 010494

Albuquerque Municipal WeU Pumpage San Jose Well Field

Well Number

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6


WPl WP2 WP3 WP4 WPS WP6


WPl WP2 WP3 WP4 WPS \VP6


Date Year

80

80

80

80

80

80

Month

1

2

3

4

5

6

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

0.67 0.00 0.25

13.31 214.52 190.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

141.13 67.74

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00

0.67 0.00

14.78 29.70 0.00

12.90

26.21 0.00 6.59

88.71 63.58

557.73

178.09 0.00

215.46 330.65

1244.15 1694.35

Monthly Total Run

Plours

1 -0 (14 min) 9

114 101

_ ---

75 36

, ---1 "

1 0

10 10 0

12

39 -7

60 22

193

265 -

229 246 561 764

Acre Rated

Capacity Feet Comments (GPM)

0.09 0.00 0.03 1.82

29.38 26.03 57.36

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19.33 9.28

28.61

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06

0.09 0.00 Z03 4.07 0.00 1.77 7.95

3.59 0.00 0.90

12.15 8.71

76.39 101.75

24.39 0.00

29.51 45.29

170.42 232.08

500.00 .

800.00 1100.00 1400.00 1400.00

500.00 _

800.00 1100.00 1400.00 1400.00

^ . . .

350.00

500.00

1100.00 2210.00

800.00

500.00

700.00 1100.00 2150.00 2150.00

500.00

700.00 1000.00 1650.00 1650.00

G:\GEWORK\ABOWELSJ.WQl

010495

Albuquerque Municipal Well Pumpage San Jose Well Field

WeU Number






WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

Date Year

80

80

80

80

80

80

Month

7

8

9

10

11

12

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

217.74 0.00

323.59 579.03

1405.24 1248.19

38.31 0.00

67.20 241.94 813.17 875.27

51.75 0.00

80.65 387.10

0.00 807.26

20.83 0.00

23.66 67.20

858.87 471.77

17.34 0.00

14.78 53.76

918.75 381.05

5.3S 0.00 0.00

354.50

Monthly Total Run

Hours

324 -

321 359 510 453

57 -

50 120 275 296

77 0

60 192

0 273

31 0

22 50

355 195

43 0

22 50

651 270

8 0 0

211

Acre Rated


501.70

29.83 0.00

44.32 79.31

192.48 170.97 516.91

5.25 0.00 9.21

33.14 111.38 119.89 278.86

7.09 0.00

U.05 53.02

0.00 110.57 181.73

Z85 0.00 3.24 9.21

117.64 64.62

197.56

2.37 0.00 2.03 7.36

125.85 52.19

189.80

0.74 0.00 0.00

48.56

500.00

750.00 1200.00 2050,00 2050.00

500.00

1000.00 1500.00 2200.00 2200.00

500.00

1000.00 1500.00 2200.00 2200.00

500.00

800.00 1000.00 1800.00 1800.00

300.00

500.00 800.00

1050.00 1050.00

500.00

800.00 1250.00

G:\GEWORK\ABQWELSJ.WQl

010496


WeU Number

WPS WP6






WPl WP2

Date Year Month

81 1

81 2

81 3

81 4

81 S

81 6

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

144^00 0.00

29.57 0.00 0.00

226.81 1443.48

0.00

13.44 0.00 0.00

262.90 1072.72

0.00

9.41 0.00 0.00

141.94 615.19

0.00

120.97 0.00 0.00

524.19 1369.49

0.00

98.32 0.00 0.00

458.67 1058.47

0.00

355.51 0.00

Monthly Total Run

Hours

499 0

44 0 -

135 457

"

20 --

163 347

" •

14 --

88 199

"

180 --

325 443

-

133 0 0

273 315

0

529 -

Acre Rated


197.52 0.00

246.81

4.05 0.00 0.00

31.07 197.72

0.00 232.84

1.84 0.00 0.00

36.01 146,93

0.00 184,79

1.29 0.00 0.00

19.44 84.27

0.00 105.00

16.57 0.00 0.00

71.80 187.59

0.00 275.96

13.47 0.00 0.00

62.83 144.98

0.00 221.28

48.70 0.00

2150.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1250.00 2350.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1200.00 2300.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1200.00 2300.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1200.00 2300.00 2150.00

550.00

800.00 1250.00 2500.00 2150.00

500.00


010497

Albuquerque Municipal WeU Pumpage San Jose WeU Field

WeU Number

WP3 WP4 WPS WP6






Date Year Month

81 7

81 8

81 9

81 10

81 11

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

0.00 958.06

1856.85 0.00

35484 0.00 0.00

1590.73 1796.37

0.00

202.96 0.00 0.00

476.08 1227.15

0.00

338.71 0.00 0.00

670.97 1527.15

0.00

147.85 0.00 0.00

406.59 1168.01

0.00

224.80 0.00 0.00

514.11 1061.29

0.00

Monthly Total Run

Hours

594 614

-

176 --

263 297

-

302 --

322 415

-

336 --

416 494

-

220 --

275 395

-

223 --

306 336

-

Acre Rated


0.00 131.23 254.34

0.00 434.27

48.60 0.00 0.00

217.89 246.06

0.00 512.55

27.80 0.00 0.00

65.21 168.09

0.00 261.10

46.39 0.00 0.00

91.91 209.18

0.00 347.48

20.25 0.00 0.00

55.69 159.99

0.00 235.93

30.79 0.00 0.00

70.42 145.37

0.00 246.58

800.00 1200.00 2250.00 2150.00

1500.00

800.00 4500.00 4500.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1100.00 2200.00 2150.00

750.00

800.00 1200.00 2300.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1100.00 2200.00 2150.00

750.00

800.00 1250.00 2350.00 2150.00


010498


Well Number

Date Year Month

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

Monthly Total Run

Hours Acre Feet Comments

Rated Capacity (GPM)


81 12 30.91 0.00 0.00

324.19 1149.19

0.00

46

201 380

4.23 0.00 0.00

44.41 157.41 0.00

206.05

500.00

800.00 1200.00 2250.00 2150.00


82 4.70 0.00 0.00

445.23 1023.39

0.00

265 324

0.64 0.00 0.00

60.98 140.18 0,00

201.81

500.00

800.00 1250.00 2350.00 2150.00


82 95.36 0.00 0.00

464.78 777.02

0.00

129

266 246

13.06 0.00 0.00

63.66 106.43 0.00

183.16

550.00

800.00 1300.00 2350.00 2150.00


82 68.01 0.00 0.00

306.72 582.86

0.00

92

163 177

9.32 0.00 0.00

42,01 79.84 0.00

131.17

550.00

800.00 1400.00 2450.00 2150.00


82 69.56 0.00 0.00

323.52 635.08

0.00

69

166 189

9.53 0.00 0.00

44.31 86.99 0.00

140.83

750.00

800.00 1450.00 2500.00 2150.00


82 227.82 0.00 0.00

477.15 948.39

0.00

226

284 294

31.21 0.00 0.00

65.36 129.90 0.00

750.00

800.00 1250.00 2400.00 2150.00

G:\GEWORK\ABQWELSJ.WQ 1

010499


WeU Number






WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

Date Year

82

82

82

82

82

82

Month

6

7

8

9

10

11

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

329.97 0.00 0.00

813.17 1813.04

0.00

243.95 0.00 0.00

607.66 1509.81

0.00

74.60 0.00 0.00

161.29 603.29

0.00

102.76 0.00 0.00

243.55 530.65

0.00

114.58 0.00 0.00

277.42 612.77

0.00

186.49 0.00 0.00

367.94

Monthly Total Run

Hours

491 --

550 574

"

363 --

411 478

-

74 --

100 191

"

139 --

151 168

-

155 --

172 194

"

185 --

219

Acre Rated


226.47

45.20 0.00 0.00

111.38 24834

0.00 404.92

33.42 0.00 0.00

83.23 206.81

0.00 323.46

10.22 0.00 0.00

22.09 8Z64

0.00 114.95

14.07 0.00 0.00

33.36 72.68

0.00 120.12

15.69 0.00 0.00

38.00 83.93

0.00 137.63

25.54 0.00 0.00

50.40

500.00

800.00 1100.00 2350.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1100.00 2350.00 2150.00

750.00

800.00 1200.00 2350.00 2150.00

550.00

800.00 1200.00 2350.00 2150.00

550.00

800.00 1200.00 2350.00 2150.00

750.00

800.00 1250.00


010500

Albuquerque Municipal Well Pumpage San Jose WeU Field

WeU Number

WPS WP6






WPl WP2

Date Year Month

82 12

83 1

83 2

83 3

83 4

83 5

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

734.34 O.OQ

146.37

0.00 0.00

346.10 650.67

0.00

204.30 0.00

0.00 372.58 668.48

0.00

179.57 0.00 0.00

329.37 559.81

0.00

235,82 0.00 0.00

369.02 503.90

0.00

192,94 0,00

0.00 258.06 840,19

0.00

219.76

0.00

Monthly Total Run

Hours

223 "

198 --

206 206

-

190 --

198 203

"

167 --

169 170

• ^

319 --

323 326

• •

261 --

160 266

-

327 -

Acre Rated


100.59 0.00

176.53

20.05 0.00 0.00

47.41 89.13 0.00

156.58

27.98 0.00 0.00

51.03 91.56

0.00 170.58

24.60 0.00 0.00

45.12 76.68 0.00

146.39

32.30 0.00 0.00

50.55 69.02

0.00 151.87

26.43 0.00 0.00

35.35 115.08

0.00 176.86

30.10 0.00

2450.00 2150.00

550.00

800.00 1250.00 2350.00 2150.00

800.00

800.00 1400.00 2450.00 2150.00

800.00

800.00 1450.00 2450.00 2150.00

550.00

800.00 850.00

1150.00 2150.00

550.00

800.00 1200.00 2350.00 2150.00

500.00


010501


Well Number

WP3 WP4 WPS WP6






Date Year Month

83 6

83 7

83 8

83 9

83 10

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

0.00 371.10 769.76

0.00

427.42 0.00 0.00

798.39 887.10

0.00

334.68 0.00 0.00

753.63 1195.70

0.00

215.05 0.00 0.00

66Z37 1002.69

0.00

183.47 0.00 0.00

521.24 924.33

0.00

162.10 0.00 0.00

379.17 623.92

0.00

Monthly Total Run

Hours

251 249

-

265 --

270 264

*

498 --

534 556

"

320 --

308 373

"

273 --

277 299

-

402 --

403 422

-

Acre Rated


0.00 50.83

105.44 0.00

186.37

58.55 0.00 0.00

109.36 121.51

0.00 289.41

45.84 0.00 0.00

103.23 163.78

0.00 31Z85

29.46 0.00 0.00

90.73 137.34

0.00 257.53

25.13 0.00 0.00

71.40 126.61

0.00 223.14

22.20 0.00 0.00

51.94 85.46

0.00 159.60

800.00 1100.00 2300.00 2150.00

1200.00

800.00 2200.00 2500.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1050.00 1600.00 2150,00

500.00

800.00 1600.00 2000,00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1400.00 2300.00 2150.00

300.00

800.00 700.00

1100.00 2150.00


010502


WeU Number






WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPS WP6

Date Year

83

83

84

84

84

84

Month

11

12

1

2

3

4

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

121.64 0.00 0.00

377.02 467.20

0.00

88.71 0.00 0.00

305.38 503.23

0.00

100.13 0.00 0.00

378.49 668.68

0.00

248.39 0.00 0.00

380.65 493.95

0.00

167.34 0.00 0.00

42Z58 621.77

0.00

167.34 0.00 0.00

435.08 782.93

0.00

Monthly Total Run

Hours

181 --

187 158

-

132 -.

142 144

-

149 --

176 199

-

154 --

177 147

-

249 _ -

262 257

-

249 --

249 233

-

Acre Rated


1666 0.00 0.00

51.64 64.00

0.00 132.30

12.15 0.00 0.00

41.83 68.93

0.00 122.91

13.72 0.00 0.00

51.84 91.59 0.00

157.15

34.02 0.00 0.00

52.14 67.66

0.00 153.82

2Z92 0.00 0.00

57.88 85.17

0.00 165.97

22.92 0.00 0.00

59.59 107.24

0.00

500.00

800.00 1500.00 2200.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1600.00 2600.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1600.00 2500.00 2150.00

1200.00

800.00 1600.00 2500.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1200.00 1800.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1300.00 2500.00 2150.00

G:VGEW0RK\ABQWELSJ.WQ1

010503


WeU Number

'






WPl WP2 W P 3

WP4

Date Year

84

84

84

84

84

84

Month

5

6

7

8

9

10

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

241.94 0.00 0.00

603.23 1227.28

0.00

241.26 0.00 0.00

359.14 858.06

0.00

603.49 0.00 0.00

1105.65 945.56

0.00

135.75 0.00 0.00

720.97 1028.23

0.00

0.67 0.00 0.00

552.69 837.77

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

399.19

Monthly Total Run

Hours

360 --

374 397

"

359 --

334 399

"

449 --

457 335

"

202 --

298 300

-

1 --

257 271

"

_ -.

165

Acre Rated


189.76

33.14 0.00 0.00

82.63 168.11

0.00 283.87

33.05 0.00 0.00

49.19 117.53

0.00 199.77

82.66 0.00 0.00

151.45 129.52

0.00 363.63

18.59 0.00 0.00

98.75 140.84

0.00 258.19

0.09 0.00 0.00

75.70 114.75

0.00 190.55

0.00 0.00 0.00

54.68

500.00

800.00 1200.00 2300.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 800.00

1600.00 2150.00

1000.00

800.00 1800.00 2100.00 2150.00

500.00

800.00 1800.00 2550.00 2150.00

500.00 --

1600.00 2300.00

-

1200.00 --

1800.00


010504


WeU Number

WPS WP6






WPl WP2

Date Year

84

84

85

85

85

85

Month

11

12

1

2

3

4

Averse Pumping

Rate (GPM)

574.60 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

563.71 803.09

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

336.02 737.63

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

437.63 884.88

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

335.62 707.90

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

340.05 760.69

0.00

0.00 0.00

Monthly Total Run

Hours

171 -

_ --

233 239

—

_ --

200 224

-

_ --

296 285

-

_ --

227 228

-

_ --

230 245

-

. -

Acre Rated


78.71 0.00

133.38

0.00 0.00 0.00

77.21 110,00

0,00 187.22

0.00 0.00 0.00

46.03 101.04

0.00 147.06

0.00 0.00 0.00

59.94 121.21

0.00 181.15

0.00 0.00 0.00

45.97 96.96

0.00 142.94

0.00 0.00 0.00

46.58 104.19

0.00 150.77

0.00 0.00

2500.00 -

490.00 --

1800.00 2500.00

-

500.00 --

1250.00 2450.00

"

490.00 --

1100.00 2310.00

"

490.00 --

1100.00 2310.00

"

490.00 --

1100.00 2310.00

'

490.00 -


010505


WeU Number

Average Pumping

Date Rate Year Month (GPM)

Monthly Total Run


Rated Capadty (GPM)

WP3 WP4 WPS WP6

0.00 675.67 315.36

0.00

457 99

0.00 92.55 43.20

0.00 135.75

1100.00 2370.00


85 0,00 0.00 0.00

748.12 0.00 0.00

506

0.00 0.00 0.00

102.47 0.00 0.00

102.47

490.00

1100.00 2370.00


85 0.00 0.00 0.00

1002.42 15.93 0.00

678 5

0.00 0.00 0.00

137.31 2.18 0.00

139.49

490.00

1100.00 2370.00


85 0.00 0.00 0.00

690.46 1490.81

0,00

467 468

0.00 0.00 0.00

94.58 204.20

0.00 29&78

490.00

1100.00 2370.00


85 217.34 0.00 0.00

566.26 1290.12

0.00

330

383 405

29.77 0.00 0.00

77.56 17671

0.00 284.05

490.00

1100.00 2370.00


85 142.26 0.00 0.00

327.96 596.37

0.00

216 0 0

244 261

0

19.49 0.00 0.00

44.92 81.69 0.00

146.10

490.00

1000.00 1700.00

I G:\GEWORK\ABQWELSJ.WQl

010506


WeU Number







Date Year

85

85

85

86

86

86

Month

10

11

12

1

2

3

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

91.55 0.00 0.00

220.30 554.27

Q.OO

152.80

0.00 0.00

347.45 790.00

0.00

99.45 0.00 0.00

251.34 560.65

0.00

144.89 0.00 0.00

303.09 672.14

0,00

121.18 0.00 0.00

245.43 560.65

0.00

182.43 0.00 0.00

415.46 962.02

0.00

Monthly Total Run

Hours

139 --

149 174

"

232 --

235 248

~

151 --

170 176

-

220 --

205 211

-

184 --

166 176

-

277 --

281 302

-

Acre Rated


12.54 0.00 0.00

30.17 75.92

0.00 118.64

20.93 0.00 0.00

47.59 108.21

0.00 17673

13.62 0.00 0.00

34.43 7679

0.00 124.84

19.85 0.00 0.00

41.52 92.07 0.00

153.43

1660 0.00 0.00

33.62 7679

0.00 127.01

24.99 0.00 0.00

5691 131.77

0.00

490.00 --

1100.00 2370.00

•

490.00 --

1100.00 2370.00

•

490.00 --

1100.00 2370.00

•

490.00 --

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 --

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 --

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00


010507


WeU Number

Average Pumping


Monthly Total Run



213.67






WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

86

86

86

86

86

86

79.69 0.00 0.00

353.36 65621

0.00

150.16 0.00 0.00

348.92 710.36

0.00

71.13 0.00 0.00

424.33 933.35

0.00

121.18 0.00 0.00

277.96 672.14

0.00

131.72 0.00 0.00

362.23 821.85

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

292.74

121 --

239 206

-

228 --

236 223

-

108 --

287 293

-

184 --

188 211

-

200 --

245 258

-

--

198

10.92 0.00 0.00

48.40 89.88 0.00

149.20

20.57 0.00 0.00

47.79 97.30 0.00

165.66

9.74 0,00 0.00

58.12 127.84 0.00

195.71

16.60 0.00 0.00

38.07 92.07 0.00

146.74

18.04 0.00 0.00

49.62 112.57 0.00

180.23

0.00 0.00 0.00

40.10

490.00

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00

1100.00


010508


WeU Number

WPS WP6






WPl WP2

Date Year

86

86

86

87

87

87

Month

10

11

12

1

2

3

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

656.21 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

208.47 458.71

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

75.40 165.65

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

63.58 140.16

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

125.67 296.25

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

143.41 245.28

0.00

0.00 0.00

Monthly Total Run

Hours

206 -

, . .

141 144

"

_ --

51 52

"

.

. -

43 44

-

. -.

85 93

-

. _ -

97 77 0

_

-

Acre Rated


89.88 0.00

129.98

0.00 0.00 0.00

28.55 62.83

0.00 91.39

0.00 0.00 0.00

10.33 22.69

0.00 33.02

0.00 0.00 0.00 8.71

19.20 0.00

27.91

0.00 0.00 0.00

17.21 40.58 0.00

57.79

0.00 0.00 0.00

19.64 33.60

0.00 53.24

0.00 0.00

2370.00 2210.00

490.00 . .

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 --

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 . -

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 . .

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 -.

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 -


010509


WeU Number

Date Year Month

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

Monthly Total Run



WP3 WP4 WPS WP6

0.00 198.12 449.15

0.00

134 141

0.00 27.14 61.52

0,00 88.66

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00


87 77.06 0.00 0.00

419.89 777.26

0.00

117

284 244

10.55 0.00 0.00

57.51 10646

0.00 174.53

490.00

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00


87 0.00 0.00 0.00

505.65 382.26

0.00

342 120

0.00 0.00 0.00

69.26 5Z36

0.00 121.62

490.00

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00


87 0.00 0.00 0.00

659.41 1471.69

0.00

446 462

0.00 0.00 0.00

90.32 201.58

0.00 291.91

490.00

1100.00 2370.00 2210.00


87 0.00 0.00 0.00

908.60 1614.92

0.00

520 534

0.00 0.00 0.00

124.46 221.20

0.00 345.66

490.00

1300.00 2250.00 2210.00


87 0.00 0.00 0.00

348.92 898.31

0.00

220 282

0.00 0.00 0.00

47.79 123.05

0.00 170.84

490.00

1180.00 2370.00


010510

I 'i i 1 ik A • J

t it 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V ^ f i

1 1 1 1 i

1 t t

Well Number


WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2

Date Year

87

87

87

87

88

88

88

88

Month

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

0.00 0.00 0.00

526.56 767.70

0.00

0.00 444.09 85690

0.00

0.00 417.12 465.08

0.00

0.00 386.99 465.08

0.00

115.26 501.18 503.31

0.00

179.80 509.11 592.50

0.00

236.44 542.61 949.06

0.00

231.17 515.99


Albuquerque Municipal Well Pumpage

Monthly Totai Run

Hours

--

332 241

0

_

280 269

-

,

263 146

-

-244 146

"

175 316 158

"

273 321 186

"

359 367 307

-

351 349

San Jose WeU Field

Acre Feet Comments

0.00 0.00 0.00

72.13 105.16

0.00 177.28

0.00 60.83

117.37 0.00

178.20

0.00 57.14 63.70

0.00 120.84

0.00 53.01 63.70 0.00

116.71

15.79 68.65 68.94

0.00 153.38

24.63 69.74 81.16

0.00 175.52

32.39 74.32

130.00 0.00

236.71

31.66 70.68


490.00 . -

1180.00 2370.00

"

490.00 1180.00 2370,00 2210.00

490.00 1180.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 1180.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 1180.00 2370,00 2210.00

490.00 1180.00 2370.00 2210.00

490.00 1100.00 2300.00 2210.00

490.00 1100.00

010511


Well Number

Average Pumping


Monthly Total Run


Rated Capadty (GPM)

WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

88

88

88

1130.16 0.00

317.45 720.03

1555.52 0.00

141.60 650.54

1390.97 465.76

259.49 612,10

1313.84 0.00

364

482 487 501

215 440 448 415

394 414 425

154.80 0.00

257.15

43.48 98.63

213.07 0.00

355.17

19.40 89.11

190.53 63.80

362.83

35.54 83.84

179.96 0.00

299.35

2310.00 2210.00

490,00 1100.00 2310.00 2210.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2300.00 835.00

m

1 f f 1 t 1 1

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

88

88

88 10

88 11

172.55 446.51 1024.60

0.00

222.61 550.00 1210.89

0.00

171.24 446.51 953.19

0.00

122.50 301.61 664.44

0.00

262 302 330

338 372 390

260 302 307

186 204 214

23.64 61.16 140.34 0.00

225.14

30.49 75.34 165.86 0.00

271.69

23.46 61.16 130.56 0.00

215.18

1678 41.31 91.01 0.00

149.10

490.00 1100.00 2310.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00 835.00


010512

I i I I I t I I a

i

I I I I


Well Number

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

Date Year

88

89

89

89

89

89

89

89

Month

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

84.96 236.56 540.24

0.00

102.74 303.09 686.17

0.00

143.58 368.15 822.78

0.00

479.03 795.97 309.14

74.07

274.60 691.94

1468.41 0.00

306.25 708.20

1726.17 0.00

18L12 675.40

1477.02 0.00

194.29 507.39

1103.23 0.00

Monthly Total Run

Hours

129 160 174

•

156 205 221

"

218 249 265

*

324 329

92 66

454 468 475

"

465 479 481

"

275 402 407

-

295 302 304

-

Acre Rated

Capadty Feet Comments (GPM)

11.64 32.40 74.00 0.00

118.04

14.07 41.52 93.99 0.00

149.58

19.67 50.43

112.70 0.00

182.79

65.62 109.03 42.34 10.15

227.13

37.61 94.78

201.14 0.00

333.53

41.95 97.01

236.44 0.00

375.39

24.81 92.51

202.31 0.00

319.63

26.61 69.50

151.11 0.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00 835.00

1100.00 1800.00 2500.00 835.00

450.00 1100.00 2300.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2670.00

835.00

490.00 1250.00 2700.00

835.00

490.00 1250.00 2700.00

835.00


010513

I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I


Well Number

Average Pumping


Monthly Total Run


Rated Capadty (GPM)

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3 WP4

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

89

89

89 10

89 11

89 12

90

90

90

256.20 589.92

1266.77 0.00

240.39 575.13

1241.18 0.00

138.31 348.92 793.33

0.00

129.74 331.18 774.14

0.00

5Z03 209.95 484.35

0.00

44.78 190.73 45641

55.32 198.12 437.78

13.17 144.49

1011.42

389 399 396

365 389 388

210 236 248

197 224 242

79 142 156

68 129 147

84 134 141

20 86 86

247.23

35.09 80.80

173.52 0.00

289.41

3293 78.78

170.01 0.00

281.72

18.94 47.79

108.67 0.00

175.40

17.77 45.36

106.04 0.00

169.17

7.13 28.76 66.34

0.00 102.23

613 26.12 62.52 94.78

7.58 27.14 59.97 94.68

1.80 19.79

138.54 160.14

490.00 1100,00 2380.00

835.00

490.00 1100.00 2380.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2380.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2380.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00 835.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00

490.00 1250.00 8750.00


010514


WeU Number

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

Date Year

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

Month

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

149.50 406.02 689.27

333.33 853.23

1548.79

320.74 965.89

1900.16

299.01 882.66

1636.25

269.37 754.03

1564.84

262.12 736.29

1491.16

169.26 518.63

1001,03

103.40 125.30 573.29

83.64 236.32 518.23

Monthly Total Run

Hours

227 256 222

496 529 501

487 609 612

454 597 527

409 510 504

398 498 502

257 327 337

157 79

193

127 149 162

Acre Rated


20.48 55.61 94.41

170.51

45.66 11687 212.14 374.67

43.93 132.30 260.27 436,51

40.96 120.90 224.12 385.98

36.90 103.28 214.34 354.52

35.90 100.85 204.25 341.01

23.18 71.04

137.12 231.34

14.16 17.16 78.53

109.85

11.46 32.37 70.98

114.81

490.00 1180,00 2310.00

500.00 1200.00 2300.00

490.00 1180.00 2310.00

490,00 1100,00 2310.00

490.00 1100.00 2310.00

490.00 1100.00 2210.00

490.00 1180.00 2210.00

490.00 1180.00 2210.00

490.00 1180,00 2380.00


010515


WeU Number

Averse Pumping


Monthly Total Run



WPl WP2 WP3

91 82.98 277.55 585.40

126 175 183

11.37 38.02 80.19

129.57

490.00 1180.00 2380.00

WPl WP2 WP3

91 98.79 30610 630.19

150 193 197

13.53 41.93 86.32

141.78

490.00 1180.00 2380.00

WPl WP2 WP3

91 183.75 48642

1036.45

279 329 324

25.17 66.63

141.97 233.76

490.00 1100.00 2380.00

WPl 91 WP2 WP3

223.27 625.40

1359.92

339 423 438

30.58 85.66

186.27 302.52

490.00 1100.00 2310.00

WPl 91 5 209.44 318 WP2 646.10 437 WP3 1415.81 456

28.69 88.50

193.93 311.12

490.00 1100.00 2310.00

WPl 91 WP2 WP3

232.49 632.80

1406.25

353 428 465

31.84 86.68

192.62 3U.14

490.00 1100.00 2250.00

WPl WP2 WP3

91 171.24 592.88

1236.90

260 401 409

23.46 81.21

169.42 274.09

490.00 1100.00 2250.00

WPl WP2 WP3

91 175.19 487.90

1131.05

266 330 374

24.00 66,83

154.92 245.75

490.00 1100.00 2250.00

WPl 91 WP2 WP3

148.84 394.76 940.77

226 267 303

20.39 54.07 128.86 203.32

490.00 1100.00 2310.00

WPl 91 10 145.55 221 19.94 490.00


010516


WeU Number

WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2

Date Year

91

91

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

Month

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

450.43 984.23

84.30 291.83 617.86

57.96 394.92 841.41

96.16 426.64 884.88

14126 48Z1S

1033.91

113.28 417.12 782.42

175.19 561.45

1148.79

226.56 179.22

1139.48

182.58 181.88

1265.81

297.42 1034.54

Monthly Total Run

Hours

284 317

128 184 199

88 249 271

146 269 285

216 304 333

172 263 252

266 354 370

344 113 367

283 93

432

461 529

Acre Rated

Capadty Feet Comments (GPM)

61.70 134.81 21645

11.55 39.97 84.63

136.15

7.94 54.09

115.25 177.28

13.17 58.44

121.21 192.82

19.49 66.04

141.62 227.15

15.52 57.14

107.17 179.82

24.00 76.90

157.36 258.26

31.03 24.55

15608 211.66

25.01 24.91

173.38 223.30

40.74 141.71

1180.00 2310.00

490.00 1180.00 2310.00

490.00 1180.00 2310.00

490.00 1180.00 2310.00

490.00 1180.00 2310.00

490.00 1180.00 2310.00

490.00 1180.00 2310.00

490.00 1180.00 2310.00

480.00 1455.00 2180.00

480.00 1455.00


010517


Well Number

WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

Date Year

92

92

92

92

92

93

93

93

93

Month

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

1561.75

297.42 1034.54 1561.75

423.39 1191.94 1258.20

192.88 438.71 998.52

119.62 243.55 615.19

101.48 28X26 627.55

91.40 325.81 711.02

96.10 45654 817.20

106.41 476.03 800.85

183.47 857.53

1305.78

Monthly Total Run

Hours

533

461 529 533

630 739 407

287 272 323

178 151 199

151 175 203

136 202 230

149 226 267

165 240 261

279 419 444

Acre Feet

213.92 396.36

40.74 141.71 213.92 396.36

57.99 163.26 172.34 393.60

26.42 60.09

136.77 223.28

1639 33.36 84.27

134.01

13.90 38.66 85.96

138.52

12.52 44.63 97.39

154.54

13.16 62.53

111.94 187.63

14.58 65.20

109.70 189.48

25.13 117.46 178.86

Comments

4290 20380 36480

4750 21250 35750

8190 38280 58290


2180.00

480.00 1455.00 2180.00

500.00 1200.00 2300.00

500.00 1200.00 2300.00

500.00 1200.00 2300.00

500.00 1200.00 2300.00

500.00 1200.00 2300.00

479.87 1502.95 2277.15

479.80 1475.69 2282.89

489.25 1522.67 2188.06


010518


WeU Number

WPl WP2 WP3

WPl WP2 WP3

Date Year

93

93

Month

5

6

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

215.50 885.53

1483.65

207.89 851.93

1429.88

Monthly Total Run

Hours

334 421 515

323 425 502

Acre Feet

321.45

29.52 121.29 203.22 354.03

28.47 11669 195.86

Comments

9620 39530 66230

9280 38030 63830

Rated Capadty (GPM)

480.04 1564.92 2143.37

478.84 1491.37 2119.19

341.02


010519

Albuquerque Municipal Well Pumpage Miles Well Field

Well Number

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

Date Year Month

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

81

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

9.68

80.65

0.00

38.71

129.03

1316.13

1454.84

293.55

490.32

541.94

687.10

0.00

0.00

3.23

21613

398.39

668.35

1551.08

735.48

596.51

908.87

1351.08

306.45

Monthly Total Run

Hours

3

25

-

12

40

408

451

91

152

168

213

-

-

1

67

152

255

577

228

317

483

359

95

Rated Acre Production Feet Comments (GPM)

1.33

11.05

0.00

5.30

17.67

180.28

199.28

40.21

67.16

74.23

94.11

0.00

0.00

0.44

29.60

5457

91.55

212.46

100.74

81.71

124.49

185.06

41.98

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2.400

2,400

1,950

1,950

2,000

2,400

1,400

1,400

2,800

2,400

G:\GEW0RK\ABQMILES.WQ1

010520

Albuquerque Municipal Well Pumpage Miles Well Field

WeU Number

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

Date Year

81

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

82

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

83

Month

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

0.00

0.00

861.83

1477.02

1682.26

1829.03

2118.82

1539.25

823.79

968.95

1121.37

831.05

921.77

1131.05

908.20

767.54

1211.83

1317.20

1590.05

1352.82

1533.33

1428.29

1071.10

Monthly Total Run

Hours

-

-

229

407

447

486

563

409

227

267

309

229

254

330

233

423

322

350

338

610

496

401

613

Acre Rated

Production Feet Comments (GPM)

0.00

0.00

118.05

202.31

230.43

250.53

290.22

210.84

U2.84

132.72

153.60

113.83

126.26

154.92

124.40

105.13

165.99

180.42

217.80

185.30

210.03

195.64

146.71

2,400

-

2.800

2.700

2.800

2.800

2,800

2,800

2,700

2,700

2,700

2,700

2,700

2,550

2,900

1.350

2.800

2,800

3.500

1,650

2300

2,650

1300

G:\GEWORK\ABQMILESWQl

010521

Albuquerque Municipal Well Pumpage Miles Wdl Field

Wdl Number

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

Date Year Month

83

83

84

84

84

84

84

84

84

84

84

84

84

84

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Averse Pumping

Rate (GPM)

1153.76

1110.89

990.73

964.38

102419

1135.48

1557.59

1877.69

1902.15

1336.02

1343.55

782.80

1102.69

1031.18

819.35

935.48

1012.90

1612.90

1725.81

1777.42

1687.10

1587.10

1267.74

Monthly Total Run

Hours

296

285

273

287

381

352

539

508

488

355

357

208

293

274

254

290

314

500

535

551

523

492

393


158.04

152.16

135.70

132.10

140.29

155.53

213.35

257.20

260.55

183.00

184.03

107.22

151.04

141.25

112.23

128.14

138-74

220,93

236.39

243.46

231.09

217.39

173.65

2,900

2,900

2,700

2300

2,000

2.400

2,150

2,750

2,900

2.800

2.800

2,800

2.800

2,800

2,400

2,400

2.400

2.400

2.400

2,400

2,400

2.400

2,400

G:\GEWORK\ABQMlLES.WQl

010522

Albuquerque Municipal WeU Pumpage Miles Well Field

Wdl Number

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

Date Year Month

85

85

85

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

1032.26

1048.39

925.81

938.71

870.97

131613

1219.35

1261.29

1325.81

1158.06

1341.94

1212.90

1016.13

851.61

858.06

935.48

861.29

1083.87

1222.58

1351.61

1835.48

2159.68

965.26

Monthly Total Run

Hours

320

325

287

291

270

408

378

391

411

359

416

376

315

264

266

290

267

336

379

419

569

618

271

Rated Acre Produdion Feet Comments (GPM)

141.39

143.60

126.81

128.58

119.30

180.28

167.02

172.76

181.60

158.63

183.81

166.14

139.18

116.65

117.53

128.14

117.97

148.46

167.46

185.14

251.41

295.82

132.22

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2.400

2.400

2,400

2.400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,600

2,650

G:\GEWORK\ABQMILES. WQl

010523

Albuquerque Municipal Well Pumpage MUes WeU Field

WeU Number

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

Date Year Month

87

87

87

87

88

88

88

88'

88

88

88

88

88

88

88

88

89

89

89

89

89

89

89

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

1574.33

1235.95

861.96

780.04

873.66

1181.18

1418.95

1360.69

1494.35

730.04

1416.13

1103.23

1119.35

974.19

658.06

600.00

667.74

841.94

1006.85

1519.35

1842.47

1633.06

1380.65

Monthly Total Run

Hours

442

347

242

219

250

338

414

397

436

213

439

342

347

302

204

186

207

261

227

471

596

405

428


215.64

169.29

118.07

106.85

119.67

161.79

19436

186.38

204.69

100.00

193.97

151.11

153.32

133.44

90.14

82.18

91.46

115.32

137.91

208.11

25X37

223.69

189.11

2,650

2,650

2,650

2,650

2,600

2.600

2350

2350

2350

2350

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

2,400

3300

2,400

2300

3,000

2,400

G:\GEWORK\ABQMlLES. WQl

010524

Albuquerque Municipal Well Pumpage Miles WeU Field

Wdl Number

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

Year

89

89

89

89

89

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

90

91

91

91

91

91

91

Date Month

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

1233.94

1089.45

757.12

624.19

381.99

393.01

410.35

196.77

617.20

1357.53

1706.25

1606.32

1313.10

1365.52

919.96

581.85

623.79

588.71

561.83

887.10

0.00

487.37

840.59

Monthly Total Run

Hours

427

377

262

216

98

136

142

61

224

SOS

651

629

501

521

351

222

238

219

209

330

-

148

236

Acre Rated

Production Feet Comments (GPM)

169.02

149.23

103.71

85.50

52.32

53.83

56.21

26.95

84.54

185.95

233.71

220.02

179.86

187.04

126.01

79.70

85.44

80.64

76.96

121.51

0.00

66.76

115.14

2,150

2,150

2,150

2,150

2,900

2,150

2,150

2,400

2,050

2,000

1,950

1,900

1,950

1,950

1,950

1,950

1,950

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,450

2,650


010525

Albuquerque Munidpal WeU Pumpage Miles Well Field

WeU Number

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

WPl

Date Year Month

91

91

91

91

91

91

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

92

93

93

93

93

93

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

1834.68

1785.75

1182.53

344.76

1266.53

1288.31

115484

1209.68

1225.81

1019.35

1258.06

1502.35

1322.07

1201.88

1184.48

783.33

555.91

511.69

958.11

927.64

849.69

1352.60

1446.46

Monthly Total Run

Hours

525

511

332

95

349

355

358

375

380

316

390

425

374

340

375

248

176

162

250

264

242

388

416

Acre Feet

251.30

244.60

161.98

47.22

173.48

176.47

158.18

165.69

167.90

139.63

172.32

205.78

181.09

164.63

162.24

107.30

7615

70.09

131.24

127.06

116.39

185.27

198.13

Comments

42770

41410

37930

60380

64570

Rated Production

(GPM)

2,600

2,600

2,650

2,700

2,700

2,700

2,400

2.400

2,400

2.400

2,400

2,630

2,630

2,630

2350

2350

2350

2350

2,851

2,614

2,612

2394

2387

G:\GEWORK\ABQMILES.WQl

010526

Albuquerque Municipal Well Pumpage Miles WeU Field

Well Number

Date Year Month

Average Pumping

Rate (GPM)

Monthly Total Run


Rated Production

(GPM)

WPl 93 1950.94 531 267.23 87090 2,734


010527

AppendK A4

Aquifer Parameters Reference: H^GCL, 1992b

010528

Aquifer Parameters

The attached table shows the distribution of transmissivity (T) and storage coefficient (S) horizontal hydraulic conductivity (K^) and vertical hydraulic conductivity (KJ) data. Each horizontal hydrauUc conductivity value was calculated by converting transmissivity values to ftVday and dividing by the length of the well screen in feet. Statistical terms for the values are summarized as follows:

Harmonic #VaIues Minimum Maximum Median Average Mean

T (gpd/ft)

S

K, (ft/day)

K.(ft/day) silty clay layer

K.(ft/day) deep zone

88

20

88

28

12

239

0.00012

1

0.00019

0.004

112640

0.062

441

0.91

7.8

12501

0.0017

21

0.00135

0.035

22208

0.0085

53

0.00078

0.017

Reference: H^GCL, 1992b 0459/P8301515JU*X

010529

Appendix A,4 Plant 83 Plume Delineation Prc^ram

Aquifer Parameters

WeU# A-01 A-01 A-02 CV-06 CV-07 CVD-01 CVI-01 CVI-01 CVI-01 CVI-01 CVI-02 CVI-04 D-01 D-02 D-02 D-02 D-02 D-03 D-03 D-03 D-03 D-04 DMW-01 DMW-03 DMW-04 DWA-01 DWB-01 DWB-01 DWB-01 DWB-01 DWB-02 ESI-01 ESYALE GM-07 HL-01 HL-01 HL-02 HL-02 HL-03 HL-04 HL-05 HL-OS 1-03 1-03 1-03 1-03

T (gpd/ft) 36,000 2,983

112,640

696 550 800

5,760 561

860 850

1,204 240 239 299

2,005 464 300

2,812

17,369 2,214

19,451 4,250

4,264 1,490

5,012 6712

486 3,890 4,937 3,292 1,960

17,805 374

2,618 4339 1,550

10,773 1,571 2320

Storage Coef.

0.01

0.00023 0.0005

0.00014

0.0003

Reference(l) 6 8 8 2 2

3,2 3 3 2

2,3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1

2,3,7 3 7 2 3 7 8 8

2,3 2,3

4 2,3 2,3 2 ,3 2,3 2 ,3 2,3

3 2 2 3

TypeofTest(2) D G G V V A V D D A B,V V V A D A D C C A D,V D A,V V A,V A A V D V C D V G G A A B B A A A B A D A B D

K (ft/day) 267.3

8.67 32.77

9.3 7.4

10.7 77 7,5

11.5 11.4 16.1 3.2 3.2

4 26 6.2

4 37.6

8.59 1.1 87

28.4

28 10

12 15.74

6.5 26 33 22 13

238 5

35 SO 21

144 21

33.8

Kv (ft/day)

0.22 0.0015

0.91

0.016 0.022

0.0012 0,085

0.00026

0.00031 0.0003 0.0004

0.0007

0.006

0.004

Unit/ Obs. WeU

Clay Clay Clay

Clay Clay Clay Silt

Clay

Qay Silt Clay

Silt

Silt

Sill

010530

Appendix A.4 Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program

Aquifer Parameters

WeU# 1-04 1-05 1-05 l-OS l-OS 1-06 1-06 1-06 1-07 1-07 1-07 1-07 1-08 1-09 1-09 1-09 IMW-05 IMW-06 S-01 S-02 S-04 S-OS S-06 S-07 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06 SJ-06

T (gpd/ft) 21345 25,809 25,780 14,230 9,725

31,719 27,410 31,690 24,238 9,052 9,790 9,020

21,542 23,650 27,080 27,081 52315 34,938

7,600 33,000 9,700 1,800 2300

940 78,550 38,901 36,000 26,184 54,611 59,100 71,070 75358 20,200 78,551 22,443 21,695 45,634 44,138 52,367 26,184 51,619 59,848

Storage Coef,

0.00034 0.00012

0.0015 0.0008 0.002

0.0019 0.053

0.0009 0.0017 0.0023 0.0018 0.0025 0.0017 0.027 0.062

Reference(l) 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3

2,3 3 3 2 1 1 3 3

3,2 3 3 3 2 5 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

TypeofTest(2) A B D D A B D D A B,V D D A D D B A A A A A V A A A F D E F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

K (ft/day) 288 lis 115

63.4 43

212 184 212 108 40

43.6 40.2

96 191.5

181 181

25.99 17.29

101.59 441,11 129.66 24.06 30.74 25.13

14.3 7.1 6.6 7.1 15 16 19 21

5.5 21

6.1 5.9 12 12 14 7

11 16

Kv (ft/day)

0.00019

0.014

0.12 0.01

0.007 0.004

0.04

0.012 0.06 0.03

0.2 2.34

7.8 0.66

Unit/ Obs. Well

Clay

Clay

SJ-03 SJ-03 SJ-09 SJ-09 CVD-01

SJ-03 SJ-03 SJ-09

HL-02 HL-02 CVD-01 CVD-01

010531

Appendix A.4 Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program

Aquifer Parameters

WeH# SJ-09 SMW-09 SMW-10 SMW-11 SMW-12 SMW-13 SMW-14 SMW-15 SMW-17 SMW-18 SW-01 SW-02 SW-06 SW-07 SW-08

T (gpd/ft) 37,405

86,832

2,106 34,938 17361

69,876 69,876

Storage Coef. Reference (1)

5

/

7

TypeofTest(2) C V A V V A V A V A V A A V V V V V V

K (ft/day) 8.7

43

1 17.3 8.6

34.6 34.6

Kv (ft/day)

0.0009 0.0009 0.0007 0.0009

0.2

0.002

0.003 0.01

0.00045 0.0002

0,02 0.001

Unit/ Obs. Wdl

Silt Silt Clay Silt Sand

Silt

Silt Clay Qay Silt Clay Silt

(I) References: 1 - Hart 6/89 V. 1/5 2 - CH2MHiU 5/88 V. 1/4 3 - CH2MHiU 5/88 V. 2/4 4 - CH2MHin 4/85 V. 1/2 5 - Bjorklund & MaxweU 1961 6 - Geraghty & Miller 1989 7 -Hart9/86 8 -AGW 1983

(2) Type of Test: A B C D E F G V

-Slug - Single well recovery - Single well pump - March 1987 Aquifer Tests - April 1987 Aquifer Test -1984 Aquifer Test -1982 Aquifer Test - Laboratory determined vertical

hydraulic conductivity.

Reference: H+GCL, 1992b GEWORK/AQUIFER. WQ 1

010532

Appendix AS

Summary of Results from Data Compilation Reference: H*GCL, 1992b

010533

Summary of Progress Report for May and June 1992

H^GCL submitted a Progress Report for May and June 1992 to GEAE (H*GCL, 1992c). The report summarized H^GCL's progress in data compUation, field activities and groundwater flow mcxiel development. In compUing data, H*GCL addressed steps 1 to 3 of Phase I of the work plan (H*GCL, 1992a, p. 2-4), which include an evaluation of lithology and stratigraphy, all available plume data over time and distance, the direction and rate of groundwater flow, well pumpage data, and other data that may affect the migration of the plume. Field activities included water quality sampling of selected wells, water level measurements in June, drilling of WB-04, and geophysical logging of 23 wells. For model development, H*GCL collected and compiled data and submitted a 10-step mcxleUng protocol, as called for in the work plan (H*GCL, 1992b, p. 5). The Progress Report for May and June 1992 included the following conclusions based on a preUminary assessment of the data:

• Borehole geophysical logs, Uthological logs, water quality data, and water level data indicate that the uppermost 200 feet of basin fiU comprise one aquifer rather than three.

• The shallow zone is not defined as an aquifer because it is less than 10 feet thick and because it is possibly discontinuous. Therefore, some other term, such as silty clay layer, may be more appropriate than silty clay aquitard because aquitard implies that the shallow zone is an aquifer.

• Results of borehole geophysic:aI logging in June 1992 confirm that the silty clay layer is less than 1.5-feet thick or is missing under a portion of the southem Plant 83 area. It also feathers out to the east, as indicated by the logs of monitor wells D-01, D-02, and CV51-I. The silty clay layer can be identified across most of the rest of the site.

• The water table has dropped an average of one fcx)t per year across the site area for the last five years that water levels have been measured. Regionally, water levels in the BIA WeU and City Observation Well # 1 (see figure 1) show that the water table has declined a fcx>t per year for the last 30 years.

• As long as water levels continue to decline approximately one fcxjt per year, much of the shallow zone above the silty clay layer will become desaturated. The decline is attributed to municipal pumpage and reduced recharge due to the decline in irrigation and the paving of the arroyos and other surfac^es,

• Municipal pumping of the deep zone appears to be the principal cause of seasonal fluctuations in water levels. Water levels in the deeper wells in the aquifer show a greater response to pumping than the shallower wells because the pumpage is at depth. Water levels above the sUty clay layer do not exhibit the variations induced by seasonal changes in municipal pumpage that are seen in the wells screened below the silty clay layer.

010534

Water level measurements in June show that the direction of groundwater flow below the silty clay layer is from west to east The direction of groundwater flow above the silty clay layer varies, and water level elevations in the shallow zone (xarrespond with elevations of the top of the silty clay layer.

The vertical hydraulic gradient appears to be larger where there is a fine-grained unit, as shown by water level measurements and borehole geophysical and Uthologic data in WB-01 and WB-02.

VOC sampling from the summer of 1991 to May 1992 show that the VOC plume below the silty clay layer, as presently known, is centered under the southem portion of Chevron, east of the Plant 83 site. 1,1-DCA concentrations extend over a larger area than the rest of the plume, elongated to the north, based on quarterly sampling (from the end of 1990 to spring 1992) of monitor wells to the north. The concentrations range from non-detect to 25 parts per billion (ppb), which is no higher than the New Mexico Water Quality Cbntrol (Commission (NMWQCC, 1988) groundwater standard of 25 ppb.

The VOC data do not exhibit clear trends because there is a three-year data gap in measurements (January 1988 to July 1991) and because results from sampling in December 1987 and January 1988 are inconsistent.

SampUng of WB-01 in April 1992 ahd WB-02 m April and May 1992 show that VOC contamination extends to 4,700 feet amsl in WB-01 and 4,400 feet amsl in WB-02, which are approximately 250 and 600 feet below the surface, respectively.

Summary of Progress Report for Juty 1 through August 15, 1992

H^GCL's efforts from July 1, 1992 to August 15, 1992 have been focused towards model constmction, as stipulated by the work plan (H*GCL, 1992b, p. 5) and compilation and evaluation of site-related hydrogeologic data, as stated in steps 1, 2, and 4 of Phase I (p. 2-5) of the work plan (H*GCL, 1992a). These steps include the following:

• Data Evaluation - Ijthology/stratigraphy, all available current plume data (constituents, concentrations over time and distance, horizontal and vertical extents), and data vaUdation

• Groundwater flow - hydraulic heads and gradients, past and present groundwater flow direction and magnitude, and hydrologic boundary conditions

• Development of groundwater elevation maps

• Determination of recharge influences

010535

Based on the data compilation completed in this reporting pericxi, H*GCL has formed several preUminary conclusions conceming the extent of contamination of the deep zone.

• Water level measurements in July showed that the direction of groundwater flow in the deep zone is from west to east.

The sUty clay layer appears to delay the downward migration of dissolved contaminants from the shallow zone to the deep zone. The downward vertical hydraulic gradient from the shallow zone to the deep zone is on the order of 10"\ TTie downward vertical gradient within the deep zone is on the order of 10' to 10" . Where the silty clay layer is absent at the southem end of Plant 83, the vertical gradient is 10' based on the elevations that correspond to the shallow and deep zones.

• Preliminary calculations show that prcxluction welk up to 3 miles distant hom the site area influence the direction of groundwater flow. Drawdown depends on the pumpage rate and the distance of the weU from the center of the preUminary mcxiel area.

• In the upper part of the aquifer the horizontal conductivity is on the order of 10s to 100s of feet/day. In the lower part of the aquifer, the horizontal conductivity is on the order of 1 to 10s of feet/day and the vertic:al cxinductivity of the silty clay layer is on the order of 10"* to 10^ feet/day, based on a preliminary assessment of past reports.

• The effect of San Jose well field pumpage wUl not be seen downstream in the Rio Grande bec:ause flow in the river is on the order of 50,000 cubic feet per secx>nd (cfs) compared to pumpage out of the San Jose weU field, which is less than 10 efe.

• The 1,1-DCA plume has a different composition than the plume centered beneath the southem portion of Plant 83 and a separate source is suggested by the different paths of degradation for single-bond (1,1-DCA) and double-bond (PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE) v o a .

• The total VOC levels are greater than 100 ppb between 4,700 and 4,800 feet amsl. A zone of lower hydrauUc conductivity, 4,500 to 4,100 feet amsl, seems to serve as a barrier to downward migration of contamination.

• Calculation of retardation factors indicates that 1,1-DCA 1,1-DCE, and 1,2-DCA are more mobile than 1,1,1-TCA PCE, and TCE. Therefore, sorption alone does not explain the elongated l.l-DCA plume perpendicular to the direction of groundwater flow.

Reference: H*CKX, 1992b 04S9/P8301515.APX

'1

010536

Appendix B

Mcxiel Input Calculations

B.l Vertical Conductance Calculation B.2 WeU Pumpage Distribution by Layer B.3 Calculation of Boundary Conditions

010537

Appendix B include the calculation used to design the model. Appendix B.l describes how the vertical conductance among mcxiel layers was cx)mputed based on values of vertical hydrauUc conductivity and mcxiel layer thickness. Appendix B.2 describes how pumping rates for each is distributed among individual model layers based on values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity and mcxiel layer thickness, y^pendix B.3 includes values of head and conductance for each cell in the model that is a general head boundary cell.

010538

Appendix B.l

Vertical Conductance Calculation Reference: Canonie, 1993a

010539

4 ^ 3

Canonie Environmental By JWS Date 11011B3 Subject Vertical Conductance Calculation Sheet / of ^ Chkd ByJSl_Date4^^^^ for Groundwater Flow Model Proj No 89-225-12

VERTICAL CONDUCTANCE CALCULATION

Purpose. The purpose of this calculation brief is to compute the vertical conductances between layers in the groundwater flow model of the General Electric Aircraft Engine (GEAE) plant in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Vertical conductance Is a required input parameter of the Block Centered Flow Package of the MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh 1988) computer program.

Results. Vertical conductances are provided in the table below:

From Laver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

To Laver 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Vertical Conductance, f t /dav/ f t 0 .0056 0,0039 0 .0030 0.0023 0.0015 0.00063 0.00025 0.00017

Methodoloqv. The vertical conductance between two layers depends on the vertical hydraul icconduct iv i tyof the two layers and the vertical grid spacing. H + GCL (1992) has estimated vertical conductivity as a ratio to horizontal hydraulic conductivi ty to reflect the vertical gradients measured in the westbay weiis. For layers 1 and 2 the ratio is 1/300 and 1/200 for the remaining layers. In developing and calibrating the original groundwater flow model of 7 layers, H-i-GCL(1992) used the fol lowing horizontal hydraulic conductivities and vertical grid spacing or layer thickness:

Laver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hvdraulic Conductivitv, f t /dav 50 30 30 10 10 10 10

Thickness, ft 60 100 80 60 100 300 300

010540

Canonie Environmental By JWS Date 1 /Q7/93 Subject Vertical Conductance Calculation Sheet*^ of S Chkd B y J ^ D a t e ^ / / / ? ^ for Groundwater Flow Model Proj No 89-225-12

Given the vertical hydraulic conductivity and vertical thickness, vertical conductance is computed using equation 49 of the MODFLOW manual (see Attachment A for this excerpt f rom the manual):

V, cont, Uk'MZ DELV^, OELV^,^,

KV. U.k KV, IJ,k^-^

where DELVjj^ is the vertical thickness of cell i,],k, L DELVjj^^.! is the vertical thickness of cell i , i ,k- i -1, L K^UA is the vertical hydraulic conductivity of cell i,i,k, L/T '^^u.k+i is the vertical hydraulic conductivity of cell i , j ,k - i -1 , L/T Vcontiik+1/2 is the vertical conductance between nodes i,j,k and i j ,k - f -1

Nodes i,j,k and i,j,k + 1 are shown in the sketch below for two model cells and vertical conductance calculations are provided on the fol lowing sheet.

OfiVi,,,/c

I 010541

CanonieEnvironmental 0 ^ ^ Bvd W-^ Date / ^ ' O Subiect V^^Y/C ^r. ( î7</o-rA^rr Sheet No. ^ of ^

Chkd. By J lÔate z / 9 / 9 ^ Proj. No. ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^ - ^ 2 -

1/4 " X 1/4

^ /^/^ T/^c êsy ^^<^

0 ' ^ ' ^ " ^ . . . . ' '

(S> . ^ o " -' 2 ^ r S ^ ''

0C

% p ^ Z-**C>

(P

P

& >

(P

6>

91C&

' T ' ^ ^ O

9S-ô

' ^ 2 ^ ^

3 9 0 ^ • ? ^ o

• 0 ^ ^ o S

010542

Canonie Environmental By JWS Date 1/07/93 Subject Vertical Conductance Calculation Sheet 4^ of_-3' Chkd By^fr^ DaXQ^/9/9^ for Groundwater Flow Model Proj No 89-225-12

REFERENCES

H-f GCL, 1992, Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program, Model Design/Calibration and Response to Review.

McDonald, M.G. and A.W. Harbaugh, 1988, "A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite Difference Groundwater Flow Model" , Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 6, Chapter A l , United States Geological Survey, Washington, D . C , page 144

010543

Canonie Environmental By JWS Date 1/07/93 Subject Vertical Conductance Calculation S h e e ^ ^ of S Chkd B y J ^ D a t e z S ^ 3 for Groundwater Flow Model Proj No 89-225-12

ATTACHMENT A

Excerpt for McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988

010544

1 /f-^

• 1/2 OELVij^k 1/2 D £ L V , j , „ ^ l

P Equating the right hand side of equation 46 and the right hand side of

• equation 48 and rearranging yfelds

1/2 OELVi^j^, 1/2 OELV,,j,k^, CVj i k^-i/s » - JLI (48)

VcOnt< i ^ + \ /9 » ~

I I I

I I

1 I I I I I

2

^^LV i , j . k+ l /2 + (*9)

If tha contrast fn hydraulic conductivity is large between the two layers-

say, * V J^IQ i s mich smaller than *^V^^j^ij4.i"then equation 49 can be

approximated as

Vcont •2KV^j.v:/0ELVij^k. (50)

That t s , the Tow Vcont of a canftntng bed may dominate the calculat ion so

tha t Vcont of the aquifer can be ignored.

A t h i r d way to calculate Vcont cones from further s lB^ l l f i ca t lO f l of

ve r t i ca l d i sc re t i za t i on * Figure 28 shows two aquifer layers separated by a

conf ining bed. I f storage In the conf in ing bed and horizontal flow In

the conf ining bed can be Ignored* there I s no need to have nodes wi th in

the confining bed« The storage condit ion w i l l be met i f the sinwlat lon

fs steady state or i f the conf ining bed Is t h f n . Horizontal f low in the

confining bed can be ignored when the t ransmiss iv i ty of the bed is much

lower than e i ther aquifer layer . Using equation 38 to wr i te the Inverse

142

010545

Appendix B.2

Well Pumpage Distribution by Layer Reference: Canonie, 1993a

010546

Canon ie Env i ronmenta l 4-/^

By JWS Date 1/19/93 Subject Well Pumoaoe Chkd BvJgrC Date ^ ^ / ^ j - Distribution bv Laver

Sheet_/_of_i=51_ .Proj No 89-225-12

Purpose. The purpose of this calculation brief is describe how total weli pumpage is distributed to individual layers of the groundwater f low model, Pumpage distribution for well SJ-6 for the April 1987 aquifer test and for the July 1992 steady state simulation are included as part of the calculation brief.

Assumptions. To distribute the f l ow to individual layers, these main assumptions are made:

1 . Flow is parallel to the layers. 2. Each layer is homogeneous. 3. The horizontal hydraulic gradient is a constant.

Methodoloov. Darcy's law is used to express the total wel l discharge as a sum of discharges from individual layers. The equation is then simplified by combining hydraulic conductivit ies and screened lengths for each layer into a single effective hydraulic conductivi ty and defining the hydraulic gradient. Darcy's law is then applied to Individual layers using the effective hydraulic conduct iv i ty and hydraulic gradient. The step by step derivation is shown here. Consider the fol lowing general wel l cross section:

V - \4eLi. RACJUS • fizyJ^LL ^^SS'fscTUA' 1 H ^

tCr LAireP^Q)

x-,

K;

Y r ® kr

K. © K 7

^3

k. ®

( R£A

% ^

•V

L 7

010547

^ Canonie Environmental / / V /

By JWS Date 1/19/93 Subject Well Pumoaae Sheet ^ of ^ Chkd Bv/J7 Date:?/4/>? Distribution bv Laver Proj No 89-225-12

The f low through all layers can be described wi th Darcy's law:

= ^iA = l:i2nrL to cai

= i 2 n r {K^L^+K2L2+K2L^ +

NO. OF LAYERS

Where the effective hydraulic conductivity is

NO. O F LAYERS j ^ r

This equation for bulk hydraulic conductivity is well documented for f low through parallel layers (McWhorter and Sunada, 1985; Bear and Verruijt 1987, Todd 1980, and many others)

The hydraulic gradient may be defined in terms of the effective hydraulic conductivi ty as:

K Z T Z I L

For an individual layer, Darcy's law is:

OJ = K j i 2 n r L j

010548

C a n o n i e E n v i r o n m e n t a l

By JWS Date 1/19/93 Subject Well Pumpaoe Sheet"? of S Chkd Bu/^/l Date3/pA?, Distribution bv Laver Proj No 89-225-12

And substituting the expressions for effective hydraulic conductivi ty and hydraulic gradient into Darcy's law for an individual layer, the f low per layer is:

^ K2nrL

and simplifying.

QJ = ^ - f O , o t a i

Using this final equation, the total well discharge may be distributed to individual layers. The attached sheets summarize the pumpage distribution per layer for well SJ-6 when the total well discharge is 1800 gpm. Also summarized is the pumpage for the municipal wells SJ-1 , SJ-2, SJ-3, MILES-1, and UNM-06 for July 1992 pumping rates. Attachment A contains an excerpt f rom CH2MHILL, Appendix K, "1987 SJ-6 Pump Test and Sampling Technical Memorandum" showing the SJ-6 well profile f rom which beginning and ending screen elevations were obtained. Also contained in Attachment A is a FAX sent by H-l-GCL providing beginning and ending screen elevations for municipal wells SJ-1 , SJ-2, SJ-3, MlLES-1, and UNM-06. Well UNM'06 is screened in 5 locations. The top screen is above layer 1 which has an elevation of 4900 ft . MSL and is not considered in the pumpage distribution.

010549

CanonieEnvironmentdl 4^/3

B v ' - l l V ^ Date / V / / ^ ^ Subiect -Cl ^ ^ f^^/^4r£^ Sheet No. ^ a\ S

Chkd. By - i f ^Da te ^ / ^ A l C/I^1^/^/1 V / ^ ^ Proj. No. ^ f - ^ Z ^ ^ / Z

1/4 'X 1/4"

S J - -6 /^ /^ '^ /Ay^^ <^ ^ f i f / ^ T ^

A t f ^ { ^

CZ^rf^f l^fZ-i^zY--- î^ p ) . l Yf -

z

- / / , • ^ J '

^ - 4 - -/ , : ^ ^ ' ^

y . /y r^M// i7).ly

^ t ? o o

± ! ^? h J

(S) 'J ± A

A ' r / .

S e e /^Tr/ÂJffi T^^c c ô/2 ^CSC^L rV,

M^^ :^^^VA^

9 ^ o

a

o ^~-/^> ^VA r y '

'^S~^>o

\-^'^VAj,

f2^'

_1 yf '

010550

^ei^f/(/4c

f j ^ ^ A^^^/ l^y- ' ^^ '^ ^^"^

LAYER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SUM

K avg =

L,F 0

23 80 60

100 300 69

632

K,

13

F/D 50 30 30 10 10 10 10

.26

LK 0

690 2400 600

1000 3000 690

8380

/vr Q, FT"3/DAY

0 2 8 5 3 2 . 4 9 9 2 4 3 . 2 2 4 8 1 0 . 8 41351.3 124054.0 28532.4

346524.0 = 1800 GPM OK

010551

^v^ PUMPAGE DISTRIBUTION FOR JULY 1992 SIMULATION

UNM-06 SCREEN ELEVATIONS, FT. AMSL WELL NO. UNM-0612) UNM-06(3) UN M-O 6 (4) UNM-06 (5)

TOP 4 8 4 7 4 7 0 5 4 4 9 5 4 4 0 6

BOT 4 7 3 9 . 0 4 5 9 7 . 0 4 4 5 9 . 0 4 1 9 0 . 0

Pumpina Rate, aom 8 0 4

-

WELL LAYER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

S U M

LAYER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Tota l U N M - 0 6 L,F 0 7

50 5 0 4 6 6 0

3 2 4 2

10

4 6 8

TOP

ELEV

4900

4 8 7 0

4 8 4 0

4 7 9 0

4 7 4 0

4 6 6 0

4 6 0 0

4500

4 2 0 0

S U M ~ >

K,F/D 50 50 30 3 0 30 10 10 10 10

UNM-06(2)

0

7

5 0

50

1

0

0

0

0

108

y< 0

3 5 0 1500 .1500 1380

6 0 0 3 0

2420 100

7 8 8 0

SCREENED PORTION

UNM-06 (3)

0

0

0

0

45

60

3

0

0

108

Q^

NM-06 (4)

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 ,0

3 6 . 0

0 .0

3 6 . 0

UNM-06 (51

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2 0 6

10

2 1 6

PUMPING RATE = F T - 3 / D A Y

0 .0 6 8 7 8 . 0

2 9 4 7 7 . 3 2 9 4 7 7 . 3

2 7 1 1 9 . 1 11790 .9

5 8 9 . 5 4 7 5 5 6 . 7

1 9 6 5 . 2 1 5 4 8 5 4 . 0 t =

Tota! UNM-06

0

7

50

50

4 6

60

3

2 4 2

10

4 6 8

8 0 4 GPM Q/Qtotal

0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 4 4 4 0 . 1 9 0 4 0 . 1 9 0 4 0 . 1 7 5 1 0 .0761 0 . 0 0 3 8 0 .3071 0 . 0 1 2 7

8 0 4 GPM

K avg 12.40

WELL SJ-01 LAYER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

S U M

L.F 0 0 0

10 8 0 10

0 0 0

100

K,F/D 50 50 30 30 30 10 10 10 10

LK 0 0

0 3 0 0

2400 100

0 0 0

2 8 0 0

PUMPING RATE = Q F f 3 / D A Y

0.0

0 .0 0 .0

3 7 6 5 . 4 3 0 1 2 3 . 4

1255.1 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

3 5 1 4 4 . 0

183 GPM Q/Qtotal

0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 1 0 7 1 0 . 8 5 7 1 0 . 0 3 5 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0

183 GPM

K avg 28.00

1 / 1 8 / 9 3 QMUN1.XLS

010552

/ ' / ^

WELL SJ-02 LAYER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

S U M

L.F 0 0 0 0

16 60

100 3 0 0

2 5 6 7 3 2

K,F/D 50 50 30 30 30 10 10 10 10

LK 0 0 O 0

4 8 0 6 0 0

1000 3000 2560 7640

PUMPING RATE = Q, FT-3/DAY

0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

2213.2 2766.4 4610.7

13832.2 11803.5 35226.0

183 GPM Q/Qtotal

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0628 0.0785 0.1309 0.3927 0.3351

183 GPM

K avg 10.44

WELL SJ-03 LAYER

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 3

S U M

L.F 0 0 0

20 8 0 60

100 3 0 0 2 8 0 8 4 0

K,F/D 50 50 30 30 30 10 10 10 10

LK 0 0 0

6 0 0 2400

6 0 0 1000 3000 2800

10400

PUMPING RATE = Q, FT'3/DAY

0 .0 0 . 0 0 .0

14056.9 56227.6 14056.9 23428.2 70284.5 6SS9S.9

243653.0

1266 GPM Q/Qtotal

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0577 0.2308 0.0577 0.0962 0.2885 0.2692

1266 GPM

K avg 12.38

WELL LAYER

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8

9 S U M

MILES-01 L.F 0 0 0

10 8 0

60 1 0 0 3 0 0

199 7 4 9

K,F/D 50 50 30 30 30 10

10 10 10

LK 0 0 0

3 0 0 2400

600 1000 3000 1990 9290

PUMPING RATE Q, FT-3/DAY

0.0 0.0 0.0

9349.1 74792.7 18698.2 31163.6 93490.9 62015.6

289510.0 =

1504 GPM Q/Qtota)

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0323 0,2583 0.0646 0.1076 0.3229 0.2142

1504 GPM

K avg 12.40

1 / 1 8 / 9 3 QMUN1.XLS

010553

Canonie Environmentai

By JWS Date 1/19/93 Subject Well Pumpaoe Sheet V of Chkd B v j f d - Date Z / f / ^ Distribution bv Layer Proj No 89-225-12

REFERENCES

Bear and Verruijt, 1987 "Modeling Groundwater Flow and Pollution", D. Reidei Publishing Company, Holland

McWhorter D. B. and Sunada D. K, "Ground-water Hydrology and Hydraulics", Water Resources Publications, 1985

Todd, D. K., "Groundwater Hydrology", 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, 1980, New York

010554

Canonie Environmental

By JWS Date 1/19/93 Subject Well Pumpage Shee€5~ of j T Chkd B y j £ L D a t e _ g ^ ^ j Distribution bv Laver Proj No 89-225-12

ATTACHMENT A

Excerpt f rom CH2MHILL, Appendix K, "1987 SJ-6 Pump Test and Sampling Technical Memorandum"

1/7/93 FAX from H-hGCL on screen depths.

010555

I^-I^ DEPTH IN

FE£T

0

180

310

3S0

400

iTO

490

510-

5*0

570

650

670

710

750

ei2

t t t 7.

I t t l_i_L

TTT

n i i

^ ; V 3

• GSCJ.NCwATH^ fLOVi

V7<;3

^ C l 3

^ ^Sf3

/ . HB¥2>

A UlZZZ. ^ ^ ^ S

W/?7/ VZ7J

- V233

V / 3 /

j l / j /' H')0 / '? / ' >'>'

FIGURE K-7 SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF DYNAMIC FLOW CONDITIONS IN WELL SAN JOSE 6 S-- : £'_P£nFUNDSiTE

010556

GCL (S0S)S4i'OOOi 'MX.- {506} O e-OSOS ^ ' ^fO( h _ ...^- r i {

January 7, 1993

!)oC»mi«t Conti-ol Na P«301197.LTll

Mt. David Kurz Canonic Environmental Servioe« Corp. 94 lavernesB Terrace East - Sute 100 Englewood. CO 80112

RE: SCREEN DEPTHS AND COORDINAIBS FOR CTTY OF ALBUQUERQtJE ACTTVE MUNIOPAI. WELL5 SJ-2 AND SJ-3

Dc«r David:

I have confirmed that thc screen depth informatioa I Oaxed to you soveml wecka ago (enclosed) applies to (he gcliyc municipal welb SJ'2 and SJ-3. and not the inactive SJ*2 and SJ-3 welk. We have ?lso iwed onr CAD program to generate N.M. State Plane Coordinate System northing and eatting coordinatct based on map locations for the active wttlU SJ^2 and SJ-3, We have nut been able to find actual surveyed coordinates for SJ-2 and SJ-3 bui we bave verified the actual ground localion for these wcUi, so the CAD-generated coordinatct should be close to the actual coofdinaics. The CAO-generated coordinates are as follows;

Wgll Northing Coordinate EagUny Coonlimitf;

SJ-2 1,477,658 382,904 SJ-3 1,478,120 380.101

I am also enclosing a roap from the second modeling progress report which shows thc location of the active SJ-2 and SJ-3 wdU.

Sincerely, H*GCL

MikeSandcTB, CPG Program Manager

MMMM/raaoi ivr.un

Enclosures

cer Alberto Gutienrez, H*GCL, w/o enclosurea

010557

HJ 1 1 I tfl. II

WELL ELEVATION AND SCREENED IJ: E : R V A L S

MZUJ ID

ATRISCO-01 Arai5CO-02 ATRIBCO-03 ATR1SCO*-04 BC»TON*01 BORl'OK-02 BURTOH-03 BURTOS-04 MTL^-01 SAN JOSE-01 fiAN JOSE-Oa SAN JO&E-03 UNM-06 (1) UHM-06 {2) DNH-06 (3) UNM~D6 (4} UKN-06 (5) USAF-12 USAF-13 (1) U5AF-13 (2} U6AP-14 YAU-01 yAT^-02 yATJ.-03

TOr or CASINaj SCREEN INTERVAL EI.KV. (FT)

ELEV. (rr) |TOP • 1 BOTTOM

4945 4949 4950 4950 5315 5284 5215 5275 5154 4950 4940 4952 5182 5182 5182 5182 51B2 5320 5303 5303 5322 5159 5128 5080

4665 4837 4770 4852 4639 4859 4857 4639 4750 4750 4676 4760 4962 4847 4705 4405 44 06 4832 4908 4702 4042 4623 4777 4760

3662 4695 4146 4475 4023 4439 4221 3969 4001 4650 3944 3920 4926 4739 4597 4459 4190 4321 4749 4363 4322 4199 3949 4088

7V^

lOg

010558

I I

Appendix B 3

Calculation of Boundary Conditions Reference: Canonie, 1993a

010559

GHB conditions 1992 / ^ //^A Hydraulic Conductance

Laver Row 1 2 1 3 1 A 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 U 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 25 1 26 1 27 1 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 1 32 1 33 1 34 1 35 1 36 1 37 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 B 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 25 1 26 1 27 1 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 1 32 1 33 1 34 1 35 1 36 1 37 2 2

Column Head,ft. 3 4961.80 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 3

4962.10 4962.30 4962.60 4962.80 4962.86 4962.91 4962.97 4963.02 4963.08 4963.13 4963.19 4963.24 4963.30 4963.30 4963.36 4963.41 4963.47 4963.52 4963.58 4963.63 4963.69 4963.74 4963.80 4963,80 4963.86 4963.91 4963.97 4964.02 4964.08 4964.13 4964.19 4964.24 4964.30 4964.40 4965.00 4861.80 4862.10 4862.30 4862.60 4862.80 4862.86 4862.91 4862.97 4863.02 4863.08 4863.13 4863.19 4863.24 4863.30 4863.30 4863.36 4863.41 4863.47 4863.52 4863.58 4863.63 4863.69 4863.74 4863.80 4863.80 4863.86 4863.91 4863.97 4864.02 4864.08 4864.13 4864.19 4864.24 4864.30 4864.40 4865.00 4961.80

f t ' / d a y 144.6 125.3 115.7 115.7 77.1 24.1 24.1 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27,7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

113.6 170.5 213.1 213,1

- 184.7 170,5 170.5 113.6 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.S 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

113.6 170.5 213.1 144.6

010560

/'A/ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

2 3

3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 3 3

4962.10 4962.30 4962.60 4962.80 4962.86 4962.91 4962.97 4963.02 4963.08 4963.13 4963.19 4963.24 4963.30 4963.30 4963.36 4963.41 4963.47 4963.52 4963.58 4963.63 4963.69 4963.74 4963.80 4963.80 4963.86 4963.91 4963.97 4964.02 4964.08 4964.13 4964.19 4964.24 4964.30 4964.40 4965.00 4861.80 4862.10 4862.30 4862.60 4862.80 4862.86 4862.91 4862.97 4863.02 4863.08 4863.13 4863.19 4863.24 4863.30 4863.30 4863.36 4863.41 4863.47 4863.52 4863.58 4863.63 4863-69 4863.74 4863.80 4863.80 4863.86 4863.91 4863.97 4864.02 4864.08 4864.13 4864.19 4864.24 4864.30 4864.40 4865.00 4959.80 4960.10

125.3 115.7 115.7 77.1 24.1 24.1 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

113.6 170.5 213.1 213.1 184.7 170.5 170.5 113.6 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

113.6 170.5 213.1 144.6 125.3

010561

/'A^ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 2 3 4

3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

• 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 3 3 3

4960.30 4960.60 4960.80 4960.86 4960.91 4960.97 4961,02 4961.08 4961.13 4961.19 4961.24 4961.30 4961.30 4961.36 4961.41 4961.47 4961.52 4961.58 4961.63 4961.69 4961.74 4961.80 4961.80 4961.86 4961.91 4961.97 4962.02 4962.08 4962.13 4962.19 4962.24 4962.30 4962.40 4963.00 4859.80 4860,10 4860.30 4860.60 4860.80 4860.86 4860,91 4860.97 4861.02 4861.08 4861.13 4861.19 4861.24 4861.30 4861.30 4861.36 4861.41 4861.47 4861.52 4861.58 4861.63 4861.69 4861.74 4861.80 4861.80 4861.86 4861.91 4861,97 4862.02 4862.08 4862.13 4862.19 4862.24 4862.30 4862.40 4863.00 4959.80 4960.10 4960.30

115.7 115.7 77.1 24.1 24.1 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

113.6 170.5 213.1 213.1 184.7 170.5 170.5 113.6 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

113.6 170.5 213.1 144.6 125.3 115.7

010562

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

2 3 4 5

3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

3 3 3 3

4960.60 4960.80 4960.86 4960.91 4960.97 4961.02 4961.08 4961.13 4961.19 4961.24 4961.30 4961.30 4961.36 4961.41 4961.47 4961.52 4961.58 4961.63 4961.69 4961.74 4961.80 4961.80 4961.86 4961.91 4961,97 4962.02 4962.08 4962,13 4962.19 4962.24 4962.30 4962.40 4963.00 4859.80 4860.10 4860.30 4860.60 4860.80 4860.86 4860.91 4860.97 4861.02 4861.08 4861.13 4861.19 4861.24 4861.30 4861.30 4861.36 4861.41 4861.47 4861,52 4861.58 4861,63 4861.69 4861.74 4861.80 4861.80 4861.86 4861.91 4861.97 4862.02 4862.08 4862.13 4862.19 4862.24 4862.30 4862.40 4863.00 4957.80 4958.10 4958.30 4958.60

115.7 77.1 24.1 24.1 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

113.6 170.5 213.1 213.1 184.7 170.5 170.5 113.6 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

113.6 170.5 213.1 231.4 200.5 185.1 185.1

4 1 3

010563

5 6 3 4958.80 123.4 5 7 3 4958.86 38.6 5 8 3 4958,91 38.6 5 9 2 4958.97 44.2 5 10 2 4959.02 44.2 5 11 2 4959.08 44.2 5 12 2 4959.13 44.2 5 13 2 4959.19 44.2 5 14 2 4959.24 44.2 5 15 2 4959.30 44.2 5 16 2 4959.30 44.2 5 17 2 4959.36 44.2 5 18 2 4959.41 44.2 5 19 2 4959.47 44.2 5 20 2 4959.52 44.2 5 21 2 4959.58 44.2 5 22 2 4959,63 44.2 5 23 2 4959.69 44.2 5 24 2 4959.74 44,2 5 25 2 4959.80 44.2 5 26 2 4959.80 44.2 5 27 . 2 4959.86 44,2 5 28 2 4959.91 44.2 5 29 1 4959.97 56.8 5 30 1 4960.02 56.8 5 31 1 4960.08 56,8 5 32 1 4960.13 56.8 5 33 1 4960,19 56.8 5 34 1 4960,24 56.8 5 35 1 4960.30 181.8 5 36 1 4960.40 272,7 5 37 1 4961.00 340.9 5 2 45 4857.80 340.9 5 3 45 4858.10 295.5 5 4 45 4858,30 272.7 5 5 45 4858,60 272.7 5 6 45 4858.80 181.8 5 7 45 4858.86 56.8 5 8 45 4858.91 56.8 5 9 45 4858,97 56.8 5 10 45 4859.02 56.8 5 11 45 4859.08 56.8 5 12 45 4859.13 56.8 5 13 45 4859.19 56.8 5 14 45 4859.24 56.8 5 15 45 4859.30 56.8 5 16 45 4859,30 56.8 5 17 45 4859.36 56.8 5 18 45 4859,41 56.8 5 19 45 4859.47 56.8 5 20 45 4859,52 56.8 5 21 45 4859.58 56.8 5 22 45 4859.63 56.8 5 23 45 4859.69 56,8 5 24 45 4859.74 56,8 5 25 45 4859.80 56.8 5 26 45 4859.80 56.8 5 27 45 4859.86 56.8 5 28 45 4859.91 56.8 5 29 45 4859.97 - 56.8 5 30 45 4860.02 56.8 5 31 45 4860.08 56.8 5 32 45 4860.13 56.8 5 33 45 4860.19 56.8 5 34 45 4860.24 56.8 5 35 45 4860.30 181.8 5 36 45 4860.40 272.7 5 37 45 4861.00 340.9 6 2 3 4956.80 57.8 6 3 3 4957.10 50.1 6 4 3 4957.30 46.3 6 5 3 4957.60 46.3 6 6 3 4957.80 30.8

// 'A/

010564

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7

7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

- 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 3 3 3 3 3 3

4957.86 4957.91 4957.97 4958.02 4958.08 4958.13 4958.19 4958.24 4958.30 4958.30 4958.36 4958.41 4958.47 4958.52 4958.58 4958.63 4958.69 4958.74 4958.80 4958.80 4958.86 4958.91 4958.97 4959.02 4959.08 4959.13 4959.19 4959.24 4959.30 4959.40 4960,00 4856.80 4857.10 4857.30 4857.60 4857.80 4857.86 4857.91 4857.97 4858.02 4858.08 4858.13 4858,19 4858,24 4858.30 4858.30 4858.36 4858.41 4858.47 4858.52 4858.58 4858.63 4858.69 4858.74 4858.80 4858.80 4858.86 4858.91 4858.97 4859.02 4859.08 4859.13 4859.19 4859.24 4859.30 4859.40 4860.00 4954.80 4955.10 4955.30 4955.60 4955.80 4955.86

9.6 9.6

11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11,1 11.1 11.1 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 45.5 68.2 85.2 85.2 73.9 68.2 68.2 45.5 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 45.5 68.2 85.2 96.4 83.5 77.1 77.1 51.4 16.1

/'/'^S"

010565

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 • 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4955.91 4955.97 4956.02 4956.08 4956.13 4956.19 4956.24 4956.30 4956.30 4956.36 4956.41 4956.47 4956.52 4956.58 4956.63 4956.69 4956.74 4956.80 4956.80 4956.86 4956.91 4956.97 4957.02 4957.08 4957,13 4957.19 4957.24 4957.30 4957,40 4958.00 4854.80 4855.10 4855.30 4855.60 4855,80 4855.86 4855.91 4855.97 4856.02 4856.08 4856.13 4856.19 4856.24 4856.30 4856.30 4856.36 4856.41 4856.47 4856.52 4856.58 4856.63 4856.69 4856.74 4856.80 4856.80 4856.86 4856.91 4856.97 4857.02 4857.08 4857.13 4857.19 4857.24 4857.30 4857.40 4858.00 4950.80 4951.10 4951.30 4951.60 4951.80 4951.86 4951.91

16.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18,4 18.4 18.4 18,4 18.4 18.4 18.4 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23,7 75.8 113,6 142,0 142,0 123.1 113.6 113.6 75.8 23.7 23.7 23.7 23,7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 75.8 113.6 142.0 289.2 250.6 231.4 231.4 154.2 48.2 48.2

/y^^

010566

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

4951.97 4952.02 4952.08 4952.13 4952.19 4952.24 4952.30 4952.30 4952.36 4952.41 4952,47 4952,52 4952.58 4952.63 4952.69 4952.74 4952.80 4952.80 4952.86 4952.91 4952.97 4953.02 4953.08 4953.13 4953.19 4953.24 4953.30 4953.40 4954.00 4850.80 4851,10 4851.30 4851.60 4851.80 4851.86 4851,91 4851.97 4852.02 4852.08 4852.13 4852.19 4852,24 4852.30 4852.30 4852.36 4852.41 4852.47 4852.52 4852.58 4852.63 4852.69 4852.74 4852.80 4852.80 4852.86 4852.91 4852.97 4853.02 4853.08 4853.13 4853.19 4853.24 4853.30 4853.40 4854.00 4945.80 4946.10 4946.30 4946.60 4946.80 4946.86 4946.91 4946.97

55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55,3 55,3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 71.0 71.0 71,0 71.0 71.0 71.0

227.3 340.9 426.1 426.1 369.3 340.9 340,9 227.3

7 U 0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71,0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

227.3 340.9 426.1 289.2 250.6 231.4 231.4 154.2 48.2 48.2 55.3

4i^^

010567

/ > ^

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 • 45 45 45 45 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

4947.02 4947.08 4947.13 4947.19 4947.24 4947.30 4947.30 4947.36 4947.41 4947.47 4947.52 4947.58 4947.63 4947.69 4947.74 4947.80 4947.80 4947.86 4947.91 4947,97 4948.02 4948.08 4948.13 4948.19 4948.24 4948.30 4948.40 4949.00 4845.80 4846,10 4846,30 4846.60 4846.80 4846.86 4846.91 4846.97 4847.02 4847.08 4847.13 4847.19 4847.24 4847.30 4847.30 4847.36 4847.41 4847.47 4847.52 4847.58 4847.63 4847.69 4847.74 4847.80 4847.80 4847.86 4847.91 4847.97 4848.02 4848.08 4848.13

• 4848.19 4848.24 4848.30 4848.40 4849.00 4921.40 4919.92 4918.44 4916.97 4915.49 4914.01 4912.53 4911.06 4909.58

55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 55.3 71.0 71.0 71.0 71,0 71.0 71,0

227,3 340.9 426.1 426.1 369.3 340.9 340,9 227,3 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

227.3 340.9 426.1 213.1 170.5 113.6 71.0 71.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

50

I 010568

/Y^f

1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38 1 38

13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

4910.10 4910.10 4909.46 4908.81 4908.17 4907.53 4906.89 4906.24 4905.60 4904.96 4904.31 4903.67 4903.03 4902.39 4901.74 4901.10 4901.10 4900.20 4899.30 4898.40 4897.50 4896.60 4895.70 4894.80 4893.90 4893.00 4892.10 4891.20 4889.66 4888.12 4886.58 4885.04 4861.50 4931.41 4930.16 4928.90 4927.64 4926.39 4925.13 4923.88 4922.62 4921.37 4920.11 4918.86 4917.60 4917.60 4916.96 4916.31 4915.67 4915.03 4914.39 4913.74 4913.10 4912.46 4911.81 4911.17 4910.53 4909.89 4909.24 4908.60 4908.60 4907.70 4906.80 4905.90 4905.00 4904.10 4903.20 4902.30 4901.40 4900.50 4899.60 4898.70 4897.80

35.5 35.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 35.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 35.5 55.5 35.5 35.5 55.5 55.5 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

284.1 284.1 213.1 170.5 113.6 71.0 71.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 55.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

10

010569

I I 1

1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

38 38 38 38

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

42 43 44 45 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Z7 28

4896.90 4896.00 4895.10 4894.20 4921.40 4919.92 4918.44 4916.97 4915.49 4914.01 4912.53 4911.06 4909.58 4910.10 4910.10 4909.46 4908.81 4908.17 4907.53 4906.89 4906.24 4905.60 4904.96 4904.31 4903.67 4903.03 4902.39 4901.74 4901.10 4901.10 4900,20 4899.30 4898.40 4897,50 4896,60 4895.70 4894.80 4893.90 4893.00 4892.10 4891.20 4889.66 4888.12 4886.58 4885.04 4861.50 4931.41 4930.16 4928.90 4927.64 4926.39 4925.13 4923.88 4922.62 4921.37 4920.11 4918.86 4917.60 4917.60 4916.96 4916.31 4915.67 4915.03 4914.39 4913.74 4913.10 4912.46 4911.81 4911.17 4910.53 4909.89 4909.24 4908.60

71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 213.1 170.5 113.6 71.0 71.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 284.1 284.1 213.1 170.5 113.6 71.0 71.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

/y/^

11

E 010570

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

4908.60 4907.70 4906.80 4905.90 4905.00 4904,10 4903.20 4902.30 4901.40 4900.50 4899.60 4898.70 4897.80 4896.90 4896.00 4895.10 4894.20 4919.40 4917.92 4916.44 4914.97 4913.49 4912.01 4910.53 4909.06 4907.58 4908.10 4908.10 4907.46 4906.81 4906.17 4905.53 4904,89 4904.24 4903.60 4902.96 4902.31 4901.67 4901.03 4900.39 4899.74 4899.10 4899.10 4898,20 4897.30 4896.40 4895.50 4894.60 4893.70 4892.80 4891.90 4891.00 4890.10 4889.20 4887.66 4886.12 4884.58 4883.04 4859.50 4929.41 4928.16 4926.90 4925.64 4924.39 4923.13 4921.88 4920.62 4919.37 4918.11 4916.86 4915.60 4915.60 4914.96

35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

213.1 170.5 113.6 71.0 71.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35,5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

284.1 284.1 213.1 170.5 113.6 71.0 71.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

/ ' / / /

12

B 010571

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

38

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4 5 6 7 S 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

2

4914.31 4913.67 4913.03 4912.39 4911.74 4911.10 4910.46 4909.81 4909.17 4908.53 4907.89 4907.24 4906.60 4906.60 4905.70 4904.80 4903,90 4903,00 4902,10 4901.20 4900,30 4899.40 4898,50 4897.60 4896.70 4895.80 4894.90 4894.00 4893.10 4892.20 4919,40 4917.92 4916.44 4914.97 4913.49 4912.01 4910,53 4909.06 4907.58 4908.10 4908.10 4907.46 4906.81 4906.17 4905.53 4904.89 4904.24 4903.60 4902.96 4902.31 4901.67 4901.03 4900.39 4899.74 4899.10 4899.10 4898.20 4897,30 4896.40 4895.50 4894.60 4893.70 4892.80 4891.90 4891.00 4890.10 4889.20 4887.66 4886.12 4884.58 4883.04 4859.50 4929.41

35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35,5 35.5 35.5 35,5 35,5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71,0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71,0 71.0 71.0

213.1 170.5 113.6 71.0 71.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

-35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

284.1

/ ' / / 2 -

13

010572

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

38 3B 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

4928.16 4926.90 4925.64 4924.39 4923.13 4921.88 4920.62 4919.37 4918.11 4916.86 4915.60 4915.60 4914.96 4914.31 4913,67 4913.03 4912.39 4911.74 4911.10 4910,46 4909.81 4909.17 4908.53 4907.89 4907.24 4906.60 4906.60 4905.70 4904.80 4903.90 4903.00 4902,10 4901.20 4900.30 4899.40 4898.50 4897.60 4896.70 4895.80 4894.90 4894.00 4893.10 4892.20 4917.40 4915.92 4914.44 4912.97 4911.49 4910.01 4908.53 4907.06 4905.58 4906.10 4906.10 4905.46 4904.81 4904.17 4903.53 4902.89 4902.24 4901.60 4900.96 4900.31 4899.67 4899.03 4898.39 4897.74 4897.10 4897.10 4896.20 4S95.30 4894.40 4893.50

284.1 213.1 170.5 113.6 71.0 71.0 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35,5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35,5 35.5 35.5 35.5 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

340.9 272.7 181.8 113.6 113.6 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8

113.6

/y/^

14

010573

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2 3

• 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4892.60 4891.70 4890.80 4889.90 4889.00 4888.10 4887.20 4885.66 4884.12 4882.58 4881.04 4857.50 4927.41 4926.16 4924.90 4923.64 4922.39 4921.13 4919,88 4918.62 4917,37 4916,11 4914.86 4913.60 4913.60 4912.96 4912.31 4911.67 4911.03 4910.39 4909,74 4909,10 4908.46 4907.81 4907.17 4906.53 4905.89 4905.24 4904.60 4904.60 4903.70 4902.80 4901.90 4901.00 4900.10 4899.20 4898.30 4897.40 4896.50 4895.60 4894.70 4893.80 4892.90 4892.00 4891.10 4890.20 4916.40 4914.92 4913.44 4911.97 4910.49 4909.01 4907.53 4906.06 4904.58 4905.10 4905.10 4904.46 4903.81 4903.17 4902.53 4901.89 4901.24

113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 454.5 454.5 340.9 272.7 181.8 113.6 113.6 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56,8 56.8 56.8 56,8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.6 85.2 68.2 45.5 28.4 28.4 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2

/'//y

15

010574

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 33 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

1 1 1 1

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

4 5 6 7

4900.60 4899.96 4899.31 4898.67 4898.03 4897.39 4896.74 4896.10 4896.10 4895.20 4894.30 4893.40 4892.50 4891.60 4890.70 4889.80 4888.90 4888.00 4887.10 4886.20 4884.66 4883.12 4881.58 4880.04 4856.50 4926.41 4925.16 4923,90 4922.64 4921.39 4920.13 4918.88 4917.62 4916.37 4915.11 4913.86 4912.60 4912.60 4911.96 4911.31 4910.67 4910.03 4909.39 4908.74 4908.10 4907.46 4906.81 4906.17 4905.53 4904.89 4904.24 4903.60 4903.60 4902.70 4901.80 4900.90 4900.00 4399.10 4898.20 4897.30 4896,40 4895,50 4894,60 4893.70 4892.80 4891.90 4891.00 4890.10 4889.20 4914.40 4912.92 4911.44 4909.97

14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4

113.6 113.6 85.2 68.2 45.5 28.4 28.4 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4

142.0 113.6 75.8 47.3

/Y/r

16

010575

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

4908.49 4907.01 4905.53 4904.06 4902.58 4903.10 4903.10 4902.46 4901.81 4901.17 4900,53 4899.89 4899,24 4898,60 4897.96 4897.31 4896.67 4896.03 4895.39 4894.74 4894.10 4894.10 4893.20 4892.30 4891.40 4890.50 4889.60 4888,70 4887.80 4886.90 4886.00 4885.10 4884.20 4882.66 4881.12 4879,58 4878.04 4854.50 4924.41 4923.16 4921.90 4920.64 4919.39 4918.13 4916.88 4915.62 4914.37 4913.11 4911,86 4910.60 4910.60 4909.96 4909.31 4908.67 4908.03 4907.39 4906.74 4906.10 4905.46 4904.81 4904.17 4903.53 4902.69 4902.24 4901.60 4901.60 4900.70 4899.80 4898.90 4898.00 4897.10 4896.20 4895.30

47.3 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23,7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23,7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23,7 23,7 23,7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47,3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 189.4 189.4 142.0 113.6 75.8 47.3 47.3 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23,7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3

/YA

17

010576

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

a 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

4894.40 4893.50 4892.60 4891.70 4890.80 4889.90 4889.00 4888.10 4887.20 4910.40 4908.92 4907,44 4905.97 4904.49 4903.01 4901.53 4900.06 4898.58 4899.10 4899.10 4898.46 4897.81 4697.17 4896.53 4895.89 4895.24 4894.60 4893.96 4893.31 4892.67 4892.03 4891.39 4890.74 4890.10 4890.10 4889.20 4888.30 4887.40 4886.50 4885.60 4884.70 4883.80 4882.90 4882.00 4881.10 4880.20 4878.66 4877.12 4875.58 4874.04 4850.50 4920.41 4919.16 4917.90 4916.64 4915.39 4914.13 4912.88 4911.62 4910.37 4909.11 4907.86 4906.60 4906.60 4905.96 4905.31 4904.67 4904.03 4903.39 4902.74 4902.10 4901.46 4900.81

47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3 426.1 340.9 227.3 142.0 142.0 71,0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71,0 71.0 71.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 568.2 568.2 426.1 340.9 227.3 142.0 142.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

/ ' / / ^

010577

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 36 38 38 38 38 36 36 38 38

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10

4900.17 4899.53 4896.89 4896.24 4897.60 4697.60 4896.70 4695.80 4894.90 4894.00 4893.10 4892.20 4891.30 4890.40 4569.50 4888.60 4887.70 48R6.80 4885.90 4885.00 4884.10 4883.20 4905.40 4903.92 4902.44 4900.97 4899.49 4898.01 4896.53 4695.06 4693.58 4694.10 4694.10 4893.46 4892.81 4892.17 4891.53 4890,89 4690.24 4889.60 4888.96 4888.31 4887.67 4887.03 4886.39 4885.74 4885.10 4565.10 4684.20 4883.30 4882.40 4881.50 4880.60 4879.70 4878.80 4877.90 4877.00 4676.10 4675.20 46n.66 4872.12 4870.58 4869.04 4845.50 4915.41 4914.16 4912.90 4911.64 4910.39 4909.13 4907.88 4906.62 4905.37

71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142,0 426.1 340.9 227.3 142.0 142.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 568.2 568.2 426.1 340.9 227.3 142.0 142.0 71.0 71.0

/ / ' / / /

19

010578

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

38 38 38 38 38 36 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

4904.11 4902.86 4901.60 4901.60 4900.96 4900.31 4899.67 4899.03 4898.39 4897.74 4697.10 4696.46 4895.81 4895.17 4894.53 4893.89 4893.24 4892.60 4892.60 4891.70 4890.80 4889.90 4889.00 4888.10 4687.20 4686.30 4885.40 4884.50 4883.60 4882.70 4881.80 4880.90 4880.00 4879.10 4878.20

71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 7U0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0 71.0

142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142.0 142,0 142.0 142.0 142.0

/'//f

20

010579

Appendix C

Model Simulation Results

C l July 1992 Simulation Water Level Contours for Layers 1 to 9

C,2 1987 Aquifer Test of WeU SJ-06 Drawdown Contours for Layers 1 to 9

C.3 15-Month Simulation (July 1991 to September 1992) Well CV-22 Water Levels (Measured vs. Model) Well CV-421 Water Levels (Measured vs. Model) Well CV-43I Water Levels (Measured vs. Model) Well CVD-01 Water Levels (Measured vs. Model) Well D-01 Water Levels (Measured vs. Model) Well D-02 Water Levels (Measured vs. Model) Well D-04 Water Levels (Measured vs. Model) Well P83-i0D Water Levels (Measured vs. Model) Well SJ6-01M Water Levels (Measured vs. Model) Well SJ6-02D Water Levels (Measured vs. Model)

010580

Appendix C includes model results for the three calibration scenarios: July 1992 (appendix Cl ) , 1987 aquifer test of SJ-06 (appendix C.2), and the 15-month simulation from July 1991 to September 1992 (appendix C.3). The results of the original (H*GCL, 1993a) and refined model (Canonie, 1993a) results have been combined in each figure.

010581

Appendix C l

July 1992 Simulation References: Canonie, 1993a and H^GCL, 1993a

010582

JULY 1992 REFINED MODEL HEAD DISTRIBUTION FOR LAYER 1 - GHB INTERPOLATED

10000 1000 2000 3000 -=1000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1 12000

0000

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 12000

MODEL

010583

1 . .


10000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000

5000 -

1 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000 10000

= 9000

4000 -

3000 -

2000 -

1000 -

- 8000

7000

- 6000

- 5000

- 4000

- 3000

- 2000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 0000 0

12000

1 000 '—' ORieiNAL rAooEL REFINED Mo&eu

n 010584


0 0000

1 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000

5000 -

4000

3000

2000 -

1000 -

0000

9000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1 1000 12000

- 8000

- 7000

6000

- 5000

- 4000

3000

2000

1000 ---OftieiNAL

DEFINED MOJ>EL

010585


0000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

1000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000 10000

- 9000

5000 -

4000 ~

3000 =

2000

1000 -

1 1000 1 2000

- 8000

7000

- 6000

- 5000

- 4000

- 3000

- 2000

1000 — -ORIGINAL

MODEL

MOb£L

n

010586

JULY 1992 REFINED MOOEL HEAD DISTRIBUTION FOR LAYER 5 - GHB INTERPOLATED

1 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000 10000

- 9000

- 8000

= 7000

- 6000

= 5000

- 4000

- 3000

2000

1000 --i__^~-ORIGINAL MODEL REflM6E>

2000 VI

010587

I J


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 10000

9000 0000 1 1 000 1 2000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000

5000 -

4000 -

3000

2000 -

1000 -

1 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 0000 1 1000 12000

0000

- 9000

- 8000

= 7000

- 6000

5000

- 4000

3000

- 2000

1000 . i : : . . „ -—ORie iNAL

MODEU — ReFtNEj>

MODEL

010588

^^* Ji91^


0 10000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 =

2000 -

1000 =

7000 8000 9000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000 10000

- 9000

8000

r 7000

- 6000

5000

- 4000

3000

- 2000

1000 2000 9000 10000 1 1 000 12000

000 - - OT ItoKNA'L

MOi>SL

n 010589

JULY 1992 REFINED MODEL HEAD OISTRIBUTION FOR LAYER g GHB INTERPOLATED

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 0 0 0 0 I \ 1 1 It—'S\ lX^^^^i^tKv^ • l y—i^ . L>—; r m 1 1—i rm 1 n - r n 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 -

2000

1000 -

1 000 2000 4000 5000 6000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000

= 9000

- 8000

= 7000

6000

5000

- 4000

- 3000

- 2000

1000

6ft.l6lA/Al

^ MotiEL n

010590

U ^ l ^

0 0000

JULY 1992 REFINED MODEL HEAD DISTRIBUTION FOR LAYER 9 GHB INTERPOLATED

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 "

2000 -

1000 -

1 000 1 2000 10000

- 9000

1000

- 8000

- 7000

= 6000

- 5000

4000

3000

- 2000

1000

0 MObEL 2000

010591

Appendix C^

1987 Aquifer Test of Well SJ-06 References: Canonie, 1993a and H*GCL, 1993a

I 010592

\ 1 I I \ I L.,.J 1 ./ I - J <.. ' «-- - •' J I «

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1 000 2000 1987 SJ-6 TEST REFINED MOOEL DRAWOOUNS FOR LAYER 1

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1 1 000

0

12000 10000

0 1 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 SCALE 1 U c h = 1500 f e e l

8000 9000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

- 2000

1 000 - - - o R l e i N A L

AAOD EL

0 M O D E L

X

010593

L • t_J

0 10000

1 000 2000

9000 -

8000 -

7000

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 =

2000

1000 -

1987 SJ-6 TEST REFINED MODEL DRAUJDOUNS FOR LAYER 2 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 0000 1 1 000 12000

1 0000

- 9000

- 8000

7000

- 6000

- 5000

- 4000

- 3000

- 2000

1000 ORilblWAL MObEL

0 1 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 SCALE 1 Inch = 1500 fse L

8000 9000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000 ^ MObEL

X

010594

ul

0 10000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 "=

2000 -

1000

1987 SJ-6 TEST REFINED MODEL DRAUIDOWNS FOR LAYER 3 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1 1000 12000

10000

- 9000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 SCALE 1 Inch = 1500 feeL

9000 10000 11000 12000

- 8000

7000

- 6000

- 5000

- 4000

- 3000

- 2000

1000 ORIGINAL

RBFlNEl) 0 MODEL

X

010595

u ^ u: L . Z T ^ I- J i i I., i I — J t i I i

10000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

000 2000

4000 -

3000 =

2000 -

1000 -

1987 SJ-6 TEST REFINED MODEL DRAWDOWNS FOR LAYER 4 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1 1000 12000

10000

- 9000

0 1 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 SCALE 1 I n c h = 1500 f e e l

8000 9000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000

- 8000

- 7000

- 6000

- 5000

4000

- 3000

- 2000

1000 ORIGIWAL

REPlHED MODEL 0

X

010596

10000

9000

1987 SJ-6 TEST REFINED MODEL DRAWDOWNS FOR LAYER 5 0 1 000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1 1 000 12000

10000

8000 h

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

S C A L E 1 I n c h = 1 6 0 0 f e e L

000 1 2000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

H 1000 " - " OftlGIWAL

^AObeL REFINED MODEL 0

010597

>_-J 1 I I I L- l I J L_ J 1 1 i I L.._.J I I L . ../ L. ...J L .J L / ' /

0 0000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 =

2000 -

1000

1987 SJ-6 TEST REFINED MODEL DRAWDOWNS FOR LAYER 6 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 1 1000 12000

10000

- 9000

000 2000 4000 5000 6000 7000 SCALE 1 Inch = 1500 feeL

1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000

- 8000

- 7000

- 6000

- 5000

- 4000

- 3000

- 2000

~ 1000

MODEL — (^eFiN£D 0 ^ODEL

X 010598

000 2000 1 0000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

5000

4000

3000 =

2000 -

1000 -

1987 SJ-6 TEST REFINED MODEL DRAWDOWNS FOR LAYER 7 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000

10000

- 9000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 SCALE 1 Irvch = 1500 feeL

0000 1 1 000 1 2000

- 8000

- 7000

- 6000

- 5000

- 4000

- 3000

- 2000

1 000 - - - 0R I6^A /AL

M O D E L

— ' ReFlM£D ® MODEL

X.

010599

v _ : ^ V...T- L 9" tJ'r L!P IJT* L_!f* I J!? iJ?" iJHF L ? " ( T

0 1 000 2000 10000

1987 SJ-6 TEST REFINED MODEL DRAWDOWNS FOR LAYER 8 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000

5000

4000 -

3000 =

2000 -

1000 -

1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000 10000

- 9000

- 8000

- 7000

- 6000

- 5000

4000

- 3000

- 2000

1000 ORIGINAL M O D E L

I EFiNED 0 MODEL

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 SCALE 1 I n c h = 1500 f e e l

9000 1 0000 1 1 000 1 2000 I

010600

L?r L 9 * iEP L 1 ? L 5 "

0 1 000 2000 10000

1987 SJ-6 TEST REFINED MODEL DRAWDOWNS FOR LAYER 9 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1 0000 1 1

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 =

2000 -

1000 -

1 2000 10000

- 9000

- 8000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 SCALE 1 Inch = 1500 f e e l

0000 1 1 000 1 2000

7000

- 6000

- 5000

- 4000

3000

- 2000

1000 Of^lfel/VAL Mot>BL ^EF)ME[> Mo&EL

I

010601

Appendix C3

15-Month Simulation (July 1991 to September 1992) References: Canonie, 1993a and H+GCL, 1993a

010602

4905

4904

<

c c .9 (0 > 03

LU

c

4903

4902

4901

4900

4899

4898

" 4897

4896

4895

Comparison of Groundwater Levels Between Original and Refined Model for Welt CV-22

,_ r -

1^

r .

^ CO

f -

01

o n <n

r -

a i

o ro o

r -

tn

o « -

r -

0)

^ n N

cs tn r~

n

»-

N 0)

^ n

CM

^ p)

N

21 ^ m

w 0) r *

r> l f l

w ffl

^ r-

M ff)

* rt f^

M ffl r" rt CD

w 0) O rt ffl

Date

Refined Model Original Model treasured

1/15/93 GE15.XLS Chart 1 ?

010603

i m i r • ' - ' " • t m--f^^T\ -i-WSih n^^r jiBS^ J i S y i^^T J'waff, . L^^^ '';

Comparison of Groundwater Levels Between Original and Refined Model for Well CV-421

4905

4904

4903 CO

< C c .9 '•-> UJ

C 3 O

4902

4901

4900

4899

4898

^ 4897

4896

4895

s JO rt

Date

Refined Model Original Model Measured

1/15/93 GEI 5.XLS Chart 1 SL3

010604

Comparison of Groundwater Levels Between Original and Refined Model for Wel) CV-431

4905

4904

21 o

Date

Refined Model Original Model • M e a s u r e d

1/15/93 GE15.XLS Chart 1

010605

m

Comparison of Groundwater Levels Between Original and Refined Model for Well CVD-01

Date

Refined Model Original Model Mea&t^red

1/15/93 GE15.XLS Chart 1 S^ -^

010606

Comparison of Groundwater Levels Between Original and Refined Model for Well D-01

4905

4904

Date

Refined Model Original Model • Measafed


010607


05

4905

4904

4903

4902

c o

UJ k

•*

C

o

4901

4900

4899

4898

a 4897

4896

4895

Date

Refined Model Original Model • MeOLsared

VI5 /93 GE15.XLS Chart 1 3

010608

I _ . I 9 !_, §S^B^j


4915

4900 ,_ 21 ^ ro r

^ 21 ^ £2 00

ff)

o rt at

r -

21 o 2> o

r>

g> o Q •-

,-21 r"

Q CM

CM 21 ^ £2 «—

C>*

e ^ n

CM 0) ^ m

Q rt

CM 21 ^ IO

CM 0)

^ rj U)

CM m ^ r-.

CM m ^ Q h-

CM 0)

" Q CO

CM Oi

O rt ff)

Date

Refined Model Original Model • MeflL&areci


010609

Comparison of Groundwater Levels Between Original and Refined Model for Well P83-10D

4915

4914

4913

4912

4911

4910

4909

4908

4907

4906

4905

4904

4903

4902

4901

4900

c .9 TO

> UJ

y ^

^ ^

^

-"w

in

CM

2! CM

C rt CO

Date

Refined Model Original Model » MecLsured


010610

ISK^ i^ST itefti iTT^r tgga:r laalsr js=s-r i^aacr litefei

Comparison of Groundwater Levels Between Original and Refined Model for Well SJ6-01M

4905

4904

4903

4902 05

= ^

^

g 4901

I 4900 UJ

I 4899 I 1 4898 o CJ

4897

4896

4895

"v

?) CM

rt

Date

Refined Model Original Model Meousured


010611

f^'*«r-,;

Comparison of Groundwater Levels Between Original and Refined Model for Well SJ6-02D

4910

c .9 '•3 m >

LD

fl)

• a c 3 o

Date

Refined Model Original Model • Measarecl

1/15/93 GE15.XLS Chart 1 ^

010612

Appendix D

Sensitivity Analysis Runs

D.l Time Step D.2 Grid Size D.3 Horizontal Anisotropy D.4 Ratio of Vertical to Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity D.5 Distribution of Pumping Rates Among Model Layers D.6 Notes and Maps Supporting Facies Mapping for Model Layers D,7 October 27, 1993 Letter Comparing Measured Water Levels from

Multi-Level Wells with Calibrated Model Water Levels

I 010613

Appendix D includes graphical results from the sensitivity analysis. The effect on model results of variation in the following parameters include: time step (appendix D.l), grid discretization (appendix D.2), horizontal anisotropy (appendix D.3), the ratio vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity (appendix D.4) and the distribution of pumping rates among model layers (appendix D.5).

010614

Appendix D.l

Time Step Reference: H+GCL, 1993b

010615

Figure 4

3.00

2.50 -

2.00

1 1-50 •a

(0

1.00

0.50

0.00

" • — 10 Time Steps

- * — 5 Time Steps

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Time Step Sensitivity Analysis: Well GM-07

April 1987 Aquifer Test of Weil SJ-6

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Days

4.00 5.00

D:\GEWORK\GEMODEL\GP2GM07.XLC

010616

Figure 5

3.00

2,50

2.00

I 1.50

(0

1.00

0.50

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Time Step Sensitivity Analysis: Well 1-02

April 1987 Aquifer Test of Weil SJ-6

10 Time Steps

5 Time Steps

0.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

Days

4.00 5.00

D:\GEWORK\GEMODEL\GP2I02.XLC

010617

Figure 6

3.00

2.50

2.00

I 1-50 o

e Q

1.00

0.50

0.00

O.OQ

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Time Step Sensitivity Analysis: Well 1-08

April 1987 Aquifer Test of Well SJ-6

10 Time Steps

5 Time Steps

1.00 2.00 3.00

Days

4.00 5.00

D:\GEWORK\GEMODEL\GP2I08.XLC

010618

Appendix D.2

Grid Size Reference: H^GCL, 1993b

010619

Layer 1; July 1992; Regular &: Fine Grid Head Contour

IOOOO 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 BOOO 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000

9000 -

8000 -

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Regular Grid Fine Grid -

IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

- 4000

3000

2000

^ 1000

o UJ to

tooo 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 BOOO

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000

010620

Layer 2; July 1992; Regular & Fine Grid Head Contour

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 10000

9000 -

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000


IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet

010621

Layer 3; July 1992; Regular k Fine Grid Head Contour

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000 IOOOO , 1 1 1 ^ M l H i I n^ I-I r—TT n rm m 1 : 1 IOOOO

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 -

2000

1000 -

- 9000

- 8000

- 7000

6000

- 5000

- 4000

- 3000

- 2000

- 1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000


010622

Layer 4; July 1992; Regular &c Fine Grid Head Contour

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000 IOOOO I , , , 1 w IV n ^ ,r. ^ -1 X > — 1 r - ) — , T T — n , , n-n , IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

Regult Fine

3000 -

2000 -

1000

9000

8000

7000

6000

6000

4000

- 3000

2000

1000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet

0 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010623

Layer 5; July 1992; Regular k Fine Grid Head Contour

IOOOO 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000

9000 -

8000 -

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000 -

1000


IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000


010624

Layer 6; July 1992; Regular &c Fine Grid Head Contour

IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000


IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

- 2000

r 1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet I —"••'] 1 •'• 1 1

010625

Layer 7; July 1992; Regular &; Fine Grid Head Contour

IOOOO

9000

8000

7000 -

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO

9000

BOOO

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

- 1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet

0 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010626

Appendix D3

Horizontal Anisotropy Reference: H*GCL^ 1993b

010627

Layer 1; April 1987; Calibrated and Run 4 - 1 Drawdown

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO I— , 1 ^ ^ , r—l . r .—1 1 n , 1 1 IOOOO

9000

8000

7000 ~nori2. Anisotropy = 0.75 (Run 4-1)

6000 -

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Horiz. Anisotropy = 1.0 (Calibrated Model)

UNM-06 ^ — ^

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010628


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO , , , , , ,—, ^ , ,—, , n 1 ^ 1 IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000 -

1000

"Horix. Anisotropy = 0.75 (Run 4-1) - - - - -

Horiz. Anisotropy = 1.0 uonz. Anisotropv (CalibraUd Model)

UNM-06 — * I : \ X

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000


' '

010629


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO I \ 1 1 1 ,-n i i n-i 1 n 1 1 1 IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

"Horiz. Anisotropy = 0.75 (Run 4-1)


9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet

9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010630


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO 1 1 — T 1 1 t-n ^ • r-T 1 n 1 1 1 IOOOO

9000 -

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0



9000

8000

7000

6000

- 5000

4000

3000

- 2000

- 1000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet

0 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010631


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO 1 i \ 1 , r-T 1 1 i—i i n \ 1 1 IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

"Horiz. Anisotropy = 0.75 (Run 4-1) - - - - -


9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

•^ 2000

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000


010632


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO I 1 1 1 1 r-r— -1 1 1—1 1 n 1 \ 1 IOOOO

9000

8000 -

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

"Horiz. Anisotropy = 0.75 (Run 4-1) - - - - -


9000

BOOO

7000

6000

5000

4000

- 3000

2000

1000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 SCALE 1 irch = 1500 feet

0 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010633

Layer 7; April 1987; Cal ibrated and Run 4 - 1 Drawdown

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO I 1 1 ^ ! m 1 1 n-1 1 n 1 \ 1 IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

"Horiz. Anisotropy = 0,75 (Run 4-1)


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet

9000

BOOO

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010634


IOOOO

9000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

8000 -

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

—Horiz. Anisotropy ~ 1.25 (Run 4-2) •

Horiz. Anisotropy = 1.0 (CaUbrated Model)

1

1

IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

- 3000

2000

1000

UNM-06

0 0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010635


IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

"Horiz. Anisotropy = 1.25 (Run 4-2) -


IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

- 6000

5000

4000

- 3000

2000

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010636


IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

Horiz. Aniaotroi (Calibrated 1

"Horiz. Anisotropy

IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

- 4000

3000

2000

- 1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010637


IOOOO 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

7 -

UNM-06 X /

IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010638


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO r \ 1 1 1 1—1 1 1 nn 1 n 1 ^ 1 IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 -

Horiz, Anisotropy = 1.0 (CaUbrated Model)

~^oriz. Anisotropy =: 1.25 (Run 4-2)

UNM-06

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010639


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO , , , 1 , n-T ^ ^ nn 1 n 1 1 . IOOOO

9000

8000 -Horiz. AnisotroT (Calibrated ]

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

9000

BOOO

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

- 2000

- 1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010640


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000 IOOOO I ] 1 ) ^ r-T 1 1 r—J 1 n 1 J 1 IOOOO

9000

8000 -

7000

6000

5000

4000


Horiz. Anisotropy = 1.0 (CaUbrated Model)

3000 "

2000

1000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

- 2000

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010641

Appendix D.4

Ratio of Vertical to Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Reference: H^GCL, 1993b

010642

Row 16 July 1992 Kv/Kh ra t io = 1/20

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

800 -

tu 400 Ul

0

1

_

i

1 1 ' / ; u i ( ll \ \ \i 1 1 1 1 I II 1 1 M 1 11 1 ] 1 1

W/JjlJllllllllllWf'fM i/J J / JJ 1 IJ 1 IJ 1U1 l l 1 l l 111 IJ / f-

BOO

400

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 BOOO 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

•FeeT

010643

Row 16 July 1992 Kv/Kh ratio = 1/500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

I

800 -

400 -

^ BOO

- 400

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

1=6 E T

010644

Row 16 July 1992 Kv/Kh ra t io = 1/2000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

= BOO

- 400

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO UOOO 12000

010645

Appendix D.5

Distribution of Pumping Rates Among Model Layers Reference: H^GCL, 1993b

010646

Figure 8

4908

4906

4904

W 4902

<

5 4900 c _o I 4898 o Ul

? 4896

^ 4894

4892

4890

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Comparison of IVIeasured and Modeled Heads in WB - 01

July 1992 Simulation

Model: Weighted Pumpage

4888

Model; Unweighted Pumpage

Measured

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500

Elevation (ft. AMSL)

4600 4700 4800 4900

D:\GEMODEL\GE5WB1w.XLC

010647

Figure 9

4904

4902

4900

« 4898

<

£ 4896 ' c o ra > UJ

> Qi

4894

4892

g 4890

4888

4886

4884

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Comparison of IVIeasured and Modeled Heads in WB-02

July 1992 Simulation

ModeliWeighted Pumpage

Model: Unweighted Pumpage

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500

Elevation ( f t . AMSL)

4600 4700 4800 4900

D:GEMODEL\GE5WB2w.XLG

010648

Figure 10

«

<

c _o n > Q>

U "3 > Qi -1

4900

4898

4896

4894

4892

4890

4888

X 4886

4884

4882

4880

3800

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Comparison of Measured and Modeled Heads in WB-04

September 1992 Simulation

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700 4800 4900

Elevation ( f t . AMSL)

D:\GEMODEL\GE6WB4w.XLC

010649

Appendix D.6

Notes and Maps Supporting Facies Mapping for Model Layers

010650

I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O

TO:

FROM:

SUBL:

Date:

JOAN NEWSOM

LOU MAZZULLO

PERMEABILUY ^ Update

5 February 1993

At your request, I have attempted to broaden my log-derived permeability mapping over the South Valley Superfund site by including data from the Miles #1, San Jose 9, and SJ6-10D wells. In my previous study, dated 12/22/92, I omitted the two City wells because of my concem that strict application your elevation-based model layers would have made data from these wells meaningless, because your model did not account for structure. Since that time, we have acquired a NM Bureau of Mines Report (#387) on the geology of the Albuquerque Basin sediments which help me to use a Httle more geologic "license" in extending my permeability mapping towards the City wells. In addition, we now have data through model layer #3 provided by the new SJ6-10D well.

It appears that the Miles #1 well is about 150 feet low to the Westbay #4 in the deeper horizons, which may be explained by the presence of a fault between the two wells. The NMBM report shows faults in this area to be down to the west, not to the east as is suggested by the dip reversal between the Miles #1 and WB-4 wells. However, stratigraphic correlations from well logs and the NMBM geologic model for the area more strongly favor the presence of a down-to-east fauU. I correlated model layers between these two wells but compensated for the structural effects of the faulting. No significant dip corrections were necessaiy in correlating model layers to the San Jose #9 and SJ6-10D wells.

I revised the permeability layer maps I drew previously to include whatever data I was able to glean from the three new well control points. Each map is shaded green where net permeable sand is 50% or greater. The NMBM report shows that the site area is approximately located near the transition between dominantly alluvial fan facies and distal fluvial facies in the upper Santa Fe Group sedimentary sequence. Permeability trends in layers #1 through #3 are primarily lobate in shape, which are meant to reflect the dominance of overlapping alluvial deposits, although trends in layers #2 and #3 may also show some influence by fluvial facies. Trends in model layers #4 through #6 are shown to be more lenticular, and are meant to coincide with the reported location of the study site where middle Santa Fe sedimentation was dominated by fluvial-lacustrine (and eolian) deposition. Although I show continuous lenticular trends through the lower model layers, these may actually be segmented into discontinuous lobes within the green shaded areas, due to infilling of some channel segments by fluvial muds.

010651

The transition from largely alluvial to dominantly fluvial deposition between layers #3 and #4 seems to coincide with the occurrence of the "low permeability" layer which is often cited in our model studies. Geophysical log correlations and the geologic model in the NMBM report, however, show a high degree of variability in permeable sands below layer #3. These data do not support the presence of a uniform, site-wide low-permeability layer. Rather, the change under layer #3 is simply a change in depositional style and the attendant scattering of permeability "pods" that result from the fluvially-deposited sediments.

c c : Mike Sanders Alberto Gutierrez

g:\gework^ermmod.lou

010652

y

IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

eooo

5000

4000

3000

2D00

1000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 BOOO OOOO IOOOO 11000 12000

MILES-01

. v ; ^ -v

dui6 lijK-'k Cca-'y ^

1-25 \ <

- ir o

UNM-06 I * I

- O R /

IOOOO

9000

6000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000,

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000


010653

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000 IOOOO

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 -

IOOOO

9000

flOOO

7000

\6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

I R VV'^J 0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 6000 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000


010654

IOOOO

9000

6000

7000

eooo

5000

4000

3000

2000 -

1000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO 11000 12000 IOOOO

- 9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

R W f > 4 0 0 0 s ^ ^ _5pflT) *'0000 7000 8000

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet 9000 IOOOO u o o o 12000

010655

2000 3000 4000 9000 IOOOO 11000 IOOOO

9000 -

8000

7000 -

6000 -

5000

4000 -

3000 -

2000 -

iOOO

12000 IOOOO

9000

6000

7000

SOOO

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

R V^/f 3 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 BOOO

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet 9000 IOOOO n o o o 12000

010656

1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO IOOOO

9000

eooo

7000

6000

QOOO

4000

3000

2000

1000

ilOOQ 12000 IOOOO

9000

- 8000

7000

6000

6000

4000

3000

2000

1000

fz. % h h 4000 6000 6000 7000 8000

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet 'IOOOO nooo 12000

010657

lOODO

aooo -

aooo -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 -

2000 -

1000 -

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO nooo 12000 IOOOO

9000

6000

- 7000

eooo

- 5000

- 4000

- 3000

- 2000

- 1000

L i./5/f3

4000 600^ \ 600T) 7000 8000

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet 9000 IOOOO nooo 12000

010658

M E M O

TO: JOAN NEWSOM

FROM: LOU MAZZULLO

SUBJ.: PERMEABILITY M(MDELING - GEAE PLANT 83

Date: December 22, 1992

At your request, I have evaluated log-derived relative permeabilities for your hydrologic model layers over a portion of the South Valley Superfund site. This evaluation involved all of the Westbay wells and the SJ6-7D, which provided data for model layers 1 through 6, and several other deep and intermediate depth monitor wells which provided additional data for layer 1. Layer 1 computations for the Westbay wells were estimated from lithology logs because they were generally cased off and not geophysically logged over most of that layer.

The purpose of this evaluation was to see if some kind of permeability parameter could be mapped that would depict changes in hydraulic conductivity across the model area. As I understand it, your model assumes an average conductivity value for each of the layers you have modeled, and the layers vary in thickness from 60 to 300 feet. Upper and lower layer boundaries are picked from structural, not stratigraphic datum, and are as follows:

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 Layer 7

Top, ft. AMSL

4900 4840 4740 4660 4600 4500

Base, ft. AMSL

Insufficient data;

4840 4740 4660 4600 4500 4200

not mapped

Total Footage

60 ft. 100 80 60

100 300

My evaluation involved analysis of electric log responses. Specifically, 1 used the spontaneous potential (SP) log as a measure of relative permeability; the technique I used was to firet establish a clay base line on the SP based on lithologic interpretation from the resistance, resistivity, and gamma ray logs. I then used the amount of negative deflection on the SP along with the amount of separation between the shallow and deep resistivity logs to estimate relative permeability of the various sand units that comprised each layer (see attached figure). The total footage of permeable sand below the clay base line for each layer was divided by the total footage of each layer to arrive at an isolith (percentage permeable sand) value for each layer in each well.

I OlGCL

010659

The table lists the average isolith values for each layer in each well, along with a visual estimate of average relative permeability in eachlayer (low, moderate, high). These data are plotted on permeabie sand isolith maps for each layer, each of which is shaded red where permeable sand exceeds 50%. The maps show considerable variation in percentages of permeable sands in most layers over the area of study. These maps, however, simply show changes in the average amount of permeable sand within each layer, which may or may not directly correspond to changes in average hydraulic cotuiuctivity across each layer. Where possible (i.e., layere 2, 3 and 5), I have indicated areas where relative permeability increased on average across layers, which in all three cases is in the direction of lower net permeable sands (more channelized units?). For layer 6, I only computed isolith values for the upper 125 feet of your 300 foot layer because that is the depth limit common to the Westbay wells and SJ6-7D.

The isolith method is the only way to depict or average permeability changes within each layer in the study area, and provide a meaningful series of maps that could be used with the hydrologic model. Relative permeability values, however, are not quantifiable because we have no calibration to core data. Comparisons among wells are also not quantifiable because of (1) log scale changes from well to well, and (2) varying amounts of formation invasion by drilling fluids (which is also true within individual wells). However, visual permeability estimates did not vary appreciably within a given layer in any one well, so the computed isolith values should serve as a good estimate of actual, average formation characteristics within each of the layere.

We have a limited number of deep wells which could be utilized in this analysis, and they are all confined to the area east of Plant 83. I elected not to include data from city wells SJ-9 and Miles #1; because of the excessive structural dip towards both those wells and the fact that the model layers are based on structural datum, inclusion of the city wells would have introduced meaningless data unless the layere were correlated stratigraphically (i.e., I would be mapping across stratigraphic boundaries by using those wells). The wells that were used, which are listed on the accompanying table, show negligible structural dip changes within the study area.

cc: Alberto Gutierrez Mike Sandere

GCL

010660

I I I

rSQuTH YAUJ(r —4-9/60= 0-61 ; I • I I ! • I I I I I . — ^ • ^ i ^ ^ » » . ^ i . I I 1 ^

010661

GEAE-P83

Relative Permeability Isolith Values

Percent permeable sand in each model layer, based on SP-derived shale base line estimated from resistance, resistivity, and gamma ray logs.

WeU No.

WB-1

WB-2

WB-4

WB-5

WB-6

SJ6-7D

P83-7D

P83-8D

P83-9D

P83-10D

P83-11D

SJ6-2D

SJ6-3M

SJ6-6M

Layer 1*

0.75-H

.75-1-

0.50-i-

0.80-H

0.75-H

0.40h-l

0.5Sh-m

0.63h

0.47h-m

0.55h-m

0.52h-m

0.62h-m

0.42h-m

0.35h

T^yer 2

0.60m

0.481-m

0.28m-l

0,62l-m

0.491-m

0.39m-l

lAyer 3

0.60m-l

0.34 m

0.34m-h

0.51m-l

0,40m-h

0.60m

T^yer 4

0.581-m

0,521-m

0.57m-l

0.511

0571

0.42m

Layer 4

0.39m

0.521-m

0.56m-I

0.45h-I

0.60m

I^yer 6'

0.661, m at top

0.57m

0.61m-l

0.52i-m

0.49m-l

^Includes coaree, "intermediate zone" gravel at top Tsolith calculated for upper 125 feet of layer only. Coaree gravelly zone that is present in

WB-4, WB-5 and SJ6-7D is lower in section within layer 6.

Relative permeabilities: I = low m = moderate h = high

GEWORK/PERMMOD.MEM

010662

y

0\ii

IOOOO

9000

6000 IOOOO nooo 12000

eooo I-

7000

eooo

6000

4000

3000

2000

1000

1000

IOOOO

-I 9000

-I eooo

7000

-I eooo

H 5000

-I 4000

-I 3000

2000

-1 1000

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000. 8000

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet 900D IOOOO nooo 12000

010663

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 6000 9000 IOOOO n o o o 12000 10000

9000 -

aooo -

7000 -

6000 -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 -

2000

1000 -

SJ-03

T

DMfcfi3 Pla

Woodward Ra.

(%RlAi=AaJE: Sl^ i^ TSOUTH CoKTDori MAP

Plant 0 1-08

MILES-01

UNM-06

J oooo

9000

aooo

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet 9000 IOOOO n o o o 12000

010664

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 6000 IOOOO

9000 -

8000 -

7000

6000 -

6000 -

4000 -

3000 -

2000 -

1000 -

9000 IOOOO nooo 12000 10000

9000

6000

7000

eooo

5000

4000

- 3000

2000

1000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

SCALE 1 i n c h = 1500 fee t 9000 IOOOO nooo 12000

010665

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 aooo 9000 IOOOO

9000

IOOOO

eooo -

7000 -

eooo

5000 -

4000 -

3000 -

2000

1000 -

T

S J - 0 3

DMIflNiOS, Pla?it 83)

SJ-O

SJG^02D (s)

\

^^Qdiwd^RdT^}' i^^fh

Plaht 88 f i/Vw^Sl'-'*'^

( 0 \

ffeRJAisABtET S f ^ T S O U T H Cot4TtX)R MAP

ex.^5%

o

= \

O"

T nooo 12000

IOOOO

1-25

UNM-06

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 8000 7000 6000

SCALE 1 i n c h = 1500 fee t 9000 IOOOO

MILES-01

9000

6000

7000

6000

SOOO

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 nooo 12000

010666

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 IOOOO IOOOO

9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

6000

6000 -

4000 -

3000 -

2000 -

1000 -

SJ-03

DM Plafet 83

>Voodward Rd.

Pla 1-08

?£RmA&i£ SJ>^ Tsou-m CottTDori MAP

nooo 12000 IOOOO

UNM-06

MILES-01

9000

6000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

- 2000

1000

1000 2000 aooo 4000 eooo eooo 7000 aooo SCALE 1 inch = 1500 feet

9000 10000 nooo 12000

010667

1000 2000 aooo 4000 5000 aooo 7000 aooo 9000 10000 10000

9000

eooo -

7000 -

eooo -

5000 -

4000 -

3000 -

2000 -

1000 -

nooo 12000 IOOOO

9000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 6000


8000

7000

eooo

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 9000 IOOOO nooo 12000

010668

I I I I ' Appendix D.7

I October 27, 1993 Letter Comparing Measured Water

i I

I I I I f t I I • I

Levels from Multi-Level Wells with Calibrated Model Water Levels

010669

505 Marquette NW, Ste. 1100'Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-0001 • FAX: (505) 842-0595

GCL Environmental Scientists

and Engineers

October 27, 1993

Document Control No. P8301576.LTR

Mr. David Mayerson CERCLA Facility Coordrnator General Electric Aircraft Engines 336 Woodward Road S.E. Mail Drop A-26 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

RE: MEETING - PLANT 83 PLUME DELINEATION PROGRAM GROUNDWATER FLOW MODEL

Dear David:

As requested in your letter of October 15, H*GCL has prepared the following letter in anticipation of the November 1, 1993 meeting conceming the Plant 83 Plimie Delineation Program groundwater flow model for the deep aquifer zone.

Statement of Problem: Tlie dissolved chlorinated solvent plume bas been measured at a depth of about 100 to 250 feet below the water table. The calibrated model has a ratio of vertical hydraulic conductivity (K ,) to horizontal hydraulic conductivity (K ) of 1/300 for layers 1 and 2, and 1/200 for layers 3 through 9. With this KJK^ ratio and the modeled hydraulic gradient, the angle of groundwater flow is approximately one degree below horizontaL At this shallow angle, the dissolved contaminants in the model runs do not migrate to the depth observed in the field.

Introduction: The model was calibrated using a vertical hydraulic gradient of 0.02 at the boundaries, based on July 1992 water level measurements for WB-01 and WB-02 and September 1992 water levels for WB-04 (appendix A). A year's worth of multi-level well data indicate that the vertical hydraulic gradient at the boundaries changes seasonally. The vertical hydraulic gradient decreases during the winter months as a result of decreases in nearby municipal well pumping rates (appendix B). Changing the vertical hydraulic gradient at the boundaries may result in a ratio of K/Kt, that is greater than that of the model calibrated using the summer multi-level well water level data.

Objective: The objective was to detennine if the KJKt, ratio of the model caUbrated using the summer multi-level data adequately reproduces multi-level well water level data obtained over the past year.

Method: Model calibration included a 15-month simulation from July 1991 through September 1992. H*GCL ran the model from September 1992 through September 1993 and compared the simulated water levels with the measured water levels from the multi-level wells during this same period.

I 010670

I

I i

Mr. David Mayerson October 27, 1993 Page 2

Results: The simulated water levels from July 1991 through September 1993 are shown in appendix C for multi-level wells WB-01, WB-02 and WB-04. Simulated water levels increase in the winter months and decline in the summer months. Ihe vertical hydraulic gradient increases in the summer months. H*GCL selected a winter month, December 1992, and a summer month, August 1993, to compare model results with measured water levek in the six multi-level wells (appendbt D).

Discussion: As shown in appendix D, the modeled and observed water levels match within the range of calibration criteria. The modeled water levels tend to be lower than the observed water levels in the winter month, December 1992 and match more closely in the summer month, August 1993. This difference may be due to the model calibration using a vertical hydraulic gradient of 0.02 at the boundaries that was based on summer water levels (July 1992 measurements for WB-01 and WB-02 and September 1992 water levels for WB-04). A hydraulic gradient of less than 0.02 at the boundaries in the winter months may improve the winter water level match. However, this change in boundary conditions is not justified given the goals of the modeL The water level match tends to be better for the upper layers than the lowermost layers. The area of interest, the location of the plume, and the proposed remediation system, are all in the upper layere of the model

Conclusion: The calibrated model KJK , ratio of 1/300 for layere 1 and 2 and 1/200 for layere 3 through 9 adequately simulates a year*s worth of water levels from multi-level wells within the acceptable calibration criteria. Therefore, the model does not require recalibration using a higher Kv/K ratio.

The observed vertical location of the dissolved chlorinated plume, 100 to 250 feet below the water table, caimot however be reproduced solely with advective flow under present model conditions. It is possible that small-scale heterogeneities, on the order of inches and feet, induce mechanical dispereion and cause downward migration of the plume. Different historical pumping locations and rates may also influence the observed vertical distribution of the plume.

Sincerely, H*GCL

/i6(AP^6-?7V-

jan Newsom Project Hydrogeologist 0459/P8301576.LTR

cc: Bob Johns, Tetra Tech John Billiard, Canonie A Gutierrez, H*GCL M. Sandere,H*GCL V. Terauds, H*GCL

GCL

010671

Appendix A

Comparison of Observed and Modeled Water Levels at Multi-Level Wells, Summer 1992

010672

'^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i I iMII~##

FIGURE 14

Compar is ion of Observed and Modeled Heads In WB-01 July 1992

4906

4904 -

4902 --

4900 "

4898 "

_j 4896 4-

^. 4894 +

•o 4892 + ra

^ 4890 --

4888 --

4886

4884 -

4882 --

4880 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600

Model Layer Mid-point and Screen Mid-point Efevatfon, ft. MSL

4700 4800 4900


010673

FIGURE 15

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads In WB-02 July 1992

4906

4904 --

4902 --

4900 --

4898 --

_j 4896 +

^ 4894 -\-

^ 4892 -f 0)

^ 4890 "

4888 --

4886 --

4884 --

4882 --

4880 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600

Model Layer Mid-point and Screen Mid-po(nt, ft. MSL

4700 4800 4900


010674

FIGURE 16

Compar is ion of Observed and Modeled Heads In WB-04 September 1992

4906

4904 --

4902 --

4900 --

4898 --

_j 4896

^. 4894 -t-c: •o 4892 -\-C3 O

^ 4890 --

4888 - -

4886 --

4884 --

4882

4880 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600


4700 4800 4900


010675

Appendix B

Measured Water Levels for Multi-Level WeUs

010676

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program WB - 01 Measured Water Levels

CM o> C CD

CM o> Qi

U-

Cs| o> tl. ra

CM at (L CL <

| S CM a> c:

Csl o> 3 -5

CM Ol

<

OJ o> 6.

CO

CM a>

o

CM a> fS

O

<o o> c ra

—>

CO CD

(S C =J ->

CO o> - i .

CO c»

) O) 3 <

(0 o> (L (D (0

10/27/93 WB1WL1.XLC

010677

Plaht 83 Plume Delineation Program WB - 02 Measured Water Levels

4910

4908

4906

4904

^ 4902 CO E 4900 <

£ 4898 -c • | 4896 ra >

15 4894

I 4892 _i 5 4890 ra

5 4888

4886 - -

4884 -

4882

4880 CM Ol c - i

CM Ol A UL

CM Ol xL. ra ^

CM Ol

^ <.

ra Si ^ Ol

CM O l

c

CM O l

"5 —i

CM O l

O l

<

CM tn 6. 01

CO

CM at

o O O)

CM O l

6 o a

CO CD

C ra

to Ol

s.

CO

<» tL ra 5

xL 5 o > CL 2 <

to tn c 3

to tn

to tn

I o> 3 <

CO O l

6. 01 CO

10/27/93 WB2WL1JCLC

010678

CM O l

I c ra

o>

Qi

eg o> tL ra

CM cn xL CL <

^ ^ C M

5 cn

eg CD C 3

OJ

cn CM O) CO 3 <

O l

C!L

CO

CM o>

o O Ol

CM <n 6 O

(O

cn c ra

CO Ol

u.

to cn

ra

CO O l tL CL <

is <0 O l

c: 3 - J

to cn "3 - >

CO CD

• 3 <

to cn dL 01

CO

10/26/93 WB4WL1 .XLC

010679

to

<

c , o

ra > Qi

LU "QJ > - I

« 4-1

ra

5

cn tz ra

CM

cn l b cu

CM O l LL 03

CM cn tL O . <

raf^ eg cn

2 cn c *= 3

eg cn

CM

cn Ol 3 <

eg cn dL 01 CO

CV o> ts O

eg Ol

6 01 Q

CO O l { =

ra

to cn A o

11.

CJ a> iL CD

5

CO O l tL CL <

to CO O l Ol i

3

CO O l

to tn

<

CO

cn 0)

CO

10/27/93 WB5WL1.XLC

010680

(0

4910

4908

4906

4904

4902 -

4900

£ 4898 c •| 4896 Q > S 4894

I 4892 -J « 4890 ra

^ 4888

4886

4884

Plant 83 Plume DeUneation Program WB - 06 Measured Water Levels

4882

4880 eg o>

to

CM

cn 01

u.

CM

tn ra

CM O l

CL <

ts

1 , 1 1 1 f

eg O l c: 3

—>

eg O l

—3

eg O)

O) 3 <

CM O l dL 01

eg cn Tl O

CM tn

01

O

to Ol

c ra

- 5

to cn i> 0) U-

to cn tL ra

to t31 (L a . <

ra to Ol

I c 3

to O l

CO O l

6) 3 <

to tn

i. OJ

CO

10/27/93 WB6WL1 .XLC

010681

Appendix C

Measured Water Levels for Multi-Level Wells

010682

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Well WB-01, Model Simulation

4910.00

4905.00

cf 4900.00 .2 ra > UJ •fli

? 4895.00

B ra <:

4890.00 -x~

4885.00

T - T - ^ T - T - ' « - r g e g c M C M e g c M C M C M C M C M C M C M t o t o t o t o t o t o t O ( 0 ( 0 o i o i o i o > a > < n t n o > o i o } O > o i c n o > c n o > o > o > o o > c n o > c n t x > c n 0 > a > • 5 o . d L ^ i 6 ( ! : i l ^ ^ i , i • ^ 6 ) ( ! L ^ i 6 d : i ! l ^ i i ^ i 3 A . d L . ^ 3 o > i < o 01 TOa>"$-ra 3 . 3 3 < D i ; o a j r a " 0 - r a 3 4 3 a i

10/22/93 91-93WB1.XLC

010683

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Well WB-02, Model Simulation

4905

4900

£ 4895 o *.5 ra > Qi

Ul

£ 4890

01 ra

5

4885

4880

•«- eg eg eg 0 1 0 1 0 > 0 1 0 l 0 1 0 > O l O > -k a 6L ty

< CO O > o 6 c

« OJ « 0 ) ™ 2 - r a 3 . 5 Z Q - > L L 5 < 5 - 3 ^

cn 3 < CO O

O) 3

<

dL

CO

10/22/93 91-93WB2.XLC

010684

Plant 83 Plume Delineation Program Well WB-04. Model Simulation

4900

4895

c 4890 o "ra > Ci

UJ

H S 4885 01

^~> ra

4880

4875 C M t M C M C M C M C M C M C N C M C M C M e g c O c O O C O t O t O t O c O c O

C D O l d l O l O l O l O l O l O l O l O l O l O l O O l O l O l O l O l O l O l

• i cn i . •« S-^ zs Ql X O ^ < CO O 2

03 ra Q -1

i) 01 u.

9- ra < 5

•5 6) 6. •« > (i " 3 Qi X O Q

< CO O Z Q ra 01 -3 U-

ra cn tn cn Ol 01 tn ^ i . ti: i 6) dL 9- ra 3 . 5 3 < 5 -5 ^ <

01 CO

10/22/93 91-93WB4.XLC

010685

Appendix D

Comparison of Observed and Modeled Water Levels at Multi-Level Wells, December 1992

and August 1993

010686

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-01 December 1992

4908

4906

4904

4902

4900

4898 CO

E 4896 Qi X

4894

4892

4890

4888

4886 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700

Model Layer Mld-poInt and Screen Mid-poInt Elevation, ft. MSL

4800 4900


10/22/93 D:\GEWORK\GEMODEL\WBP\WB1DEC92.XLC

010687

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-01 August 1993

• ^

4908

4906

4904

4902

4900

4898 CO

^ 4896 0) X

4894

4892

4890

4888

4886 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ \

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600


4700 4800 4900


10/22/93 D:\GEWORK\GEMODEL\WBP\WB1AUG93.XLC

010688

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads In WB-02 December 1992

4908

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700


4800 4900


10/22/93WB2DEC92.XLC D:\GEWORK\GEMODEL\WBP\WB2DEC92.XLC

010689

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads In WB-02 August 1993

4904

4902

4900

4898

4896

4894 CO

"S 4892 01 X

4890

4888

4886

4884

4882

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600

Model Layer Mid-point and Screen Mid-point Elevalion, ft. MSL

4700 4800 4900



010690

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads In WB-04 December 1992

4908

3800 4000 4200 4400 4600


4800 5000



010691


4898

3800 4000 4200 4400 4600

Model Layer Mid-point and Sc:reen Mid-point Elevation, ft. MSL

4800 5000



010692

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-OS December 1992

4908.0

4888.0

4886.0

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700


4800 4900



010693


CO

4906

4904

4902

4900

4898

4896

"S 4894 01 X

4892

4890

4888

4886

4884

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700


48Q0 4900



010694

Comparision of Observed and Modeled Heads in WB-06 December 1992

4908.0

4906.0

4904.0

4902.0

4888.0

4886.0

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700

Model Layer Mid-point and Screen Mld-polnt Elevalion, ft. MSL

4800 4900


10/22/93 D:\GEWORK\GEMODEL\WBP\WB60EC92.XLC

010695


4902

4900

4898

4896

4894 - J CO

5 4892

^ 4890 01 X

4888

4886

4884

4882

4880

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600

Model Layer Mid-point and Screen Mld-polnt Elevation, ft. MSL

4700 4800 4900


10/22/93 D:VGEWORKVGEMODEL\WBP\WB6AUG93.XLC

010696


4910

3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600


4700 4800 4900


10/22/93 D:\GEWORK\GEMODEL\VVBP\WB7AUG93.XLC

010697

PLANT 83 PLUME DELINEATION PROGRAM GROUND WATER …

Documents

Transcript of PLANT 83 PLUME DELINEATION PROGRAM GROUND WATER …