ML13309B623
Text
ENCLOSURE 2 ATTACHMENT 23 SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSES JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN REVISION 3, AUGUST 3, 2012 192 pages follow
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSES HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN PRELIMINARY Submitted To: Dr. Gregory Piefer/CEO SHINE Medical Technologies 8123 Forsythia St., Suite 140 Middleton, WI 53562 Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc.
4438 Haines Road Duluth, MN 55811 USA Distribution: Katrina Pitas, SHINE Medical Technologies Golder Associates Inc.
Project No. 113-81051 Report No. Golder Report 7, Rev 3, August 3, 2012
August 2012 i 113-81051 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Work Scope .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 HYDROLOGIC ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Surface Water Features ............................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 General Setting and Site Description ....................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Rivers and Streams ................................................................................................................. 3
2.1.3 Dams ........................................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Stormwater Information ................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 FEMA Flood Insurance Studies ................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Flood Issues ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.3.2 Recurrent Rock River Flows .................................................................................................... 5
2.3.3 Flood Magnitudes..................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Probable Maximum Precipitation and Probable Maximum Flood ................................................ 6
2.4.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates ............................................................................ 7
2.4.2 Probable Maximum Flood Estimates ....................................................................................... 8
2.5 Flood Related Consequence........................................................................................................ 8
3.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER.......................................................... 9
3.1 Hydrogeological Setting ............................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Evaluation of Hydrogeological (Slug) Tests ................................................................................. 9
3.3 Preliminary Hydrogeological and Solute Transport Analysis for Surface Leak Events ............. 14
3.3.1 Boundary Conditions .............................................................................................................. 15
3.3.2 Subsurface Seepage Analysis - SEEP/W ............................................................................. 17
3.3.3 Contaminant Transport Simulation - CTRAN/W ................................................................... 19
4.0 OTHER HYDROLOGIC RISKS ..................................................................................................... 20
4.1 Tsunamis .................................................................................................................................... 20
5.0 USE OF REPORT .......................................................................................................................... 21
6.0 CLOSING ....................................................................................................................................... 22
7.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 23
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 ii 113-81051 List of Tables Table 2.2-1 Design Precipitation 24-hour Storm Accumulations ........................................................... 4 Table 2.3.3-1 Summary of FEMA Flood Information for the Rock River................................................... 6 Table 2.3.3-2 Summary of FEMA Flood Information for the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River...... 6 Table 2.4.1-1 Summary of NOAA and USACE (1978) Regional Greatest Average Precipitation ........................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2.4.1-2 NOAA and USACE (1978) Calculated PMP Values for Similar Basin Size........................ 7 Table 3.2-1 Slug Test Results for Monitoring Wells SM-GW1A, SM-GW2A, and SM-GW3A ............ 10 Table 3.2-2 Permeabilities Evaluated from Bouwer and Rice (1976) Method, AQTESOLV, and the Average, Standard Deviation of the Results for All of the Tests and Slug-in, Slug-out Tests. ................................................................................................................................ 12 Table 3.2-3 Hydrobench Analysis Parameters..................................................................................... 13 Table 3.2-4 Permeability Values Retrieved from Numerical Inversion of Slug Test Time Histories using Hydrobench '......................................................................................................... 14 Table 3.3.1-1 Water Table Implementation ............................................................................................. 16 Table 3.3.2-1 Hydrogeological Parameters used in SEEP/W Groundwater Modeling .......................... 18 Table 3.3.2-2 SEEP/W Verification Simulation Results .......................................................................... 18 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map Figure 1-2 Project Site Location Map Figure 2.3.2-1 USGS Flows for the Rock River at Afton near the Site Figure 3.1-1 Hydrologic Features Figure 3.1-2 Generalized Geologic Cross Section of Rock County, West - East Figure 3.2-1 Combined Slug Tests for GW1A-MW1 Figure 3.2-2 Combined Slug Tests for GW2A-MW2 Figure 3.2-3 Combined Slug Tests for GW3A-MW3 Figure 3.2-4 Effective Radius Coefficients A, B, and C (Bouwer and Rice, 1976)
Figure 3.2-5 Schematic E-W Cross Section.
Figure 3.2-6 AQTESOLV Solution to the Slug-in Test in the Monitoring Well GW1A, First Trial.
Figure 3.3.1-1 Surface Topography Contours from the Measurements at the Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Geotechnical Borings.
Figure 3.3.1-2 E-W Geologic Cross-Section Figure 3.3.1-3 N-S Geologic Cross-Section 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 iii 113-81051 Figure 3.3.1-4 Smoothed Water Table Elevation Contours and the Water Table Sections used for the 2D SEEP/W Seepage Analysis.
Figure 3.3.1-5 Surface Topography Level and Water Table Profile of the E-W Section (A-A) and N-S Section (B-B)
Figure 3.3.1-6 Water Tables in the Monitoring Wells Figure 3.3.2-1 Model Geometry and Boundary Condition Figure 3.3.2-2 Volumetric Water Content Function for Dense Sand (center), Suction Function (right),
and Conductivity of Unsaturated Zone Figure 3.3.2-3 Evaluated Total Head (top) and Pore Pressure (bottom) Contours after SEEP/W Analysis Figure 3.3.3-1 Contaminant Particle Tracking from SHINE Site, Janesville, to Rock River in the Critical E-W Pathway Appendices Appendix A FEMA Flood Insurance Studies Appendix B Map of Dams along the Rock River in Rock County Appendix C Abbreviated Version of the City of Janesville Report on the 2008 Flood Appendix D FEMA Flood Area Map from Rock County, FEMA FIRMs through Janesville and near Site Appendix E Figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and US Army Corps of Engineers (1978) Report No. 51 PMP Study East of the 105th Meridian Appendix F Hydrobench Slug Test Visualization Appendix G AQTESOLV Slug Test Analysis 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 1 113-81051
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This analysis report presents preliminary hydrology assessments and review in support of the proposed SHINE Medical Technologies (SHINE) isotope production facility at Janesville, Wisconsin.
SHINE proposes to construct a manufacturing plant for production of Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) at a site located south of the community of Janesville in Rock County, Wisconsin (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). SHINE has contracted Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) to provide a range of technical services in support of the environmental impact assessment, site application process for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and geotechnical engineering analysis. To date, Golder has completed a range of subsurface boreholes, soil testing, hydraulic testing, and geotechnical analyses at the Janesville site.
This current report is a draft document for development of the Safety Analysis Report chapter.
Hydrogeologic analyses for the Safety Analysis Report chapter will be carried out using the full year of hydrogeologic data monitoring. Therefore, the flow and transport simulations reported here will be superseded and replaced by base case simulations and sensitivity simulations to be carried out and included in the Safety Analysis Report chapter. However, it is not anticipated that conclusions provided from the Safety Analysis Report chapter will be materially different from the results from this report.
1.1 Location The proposed SHINE Medical Technologies facility project site (Site) is located at 4021 U.S. Highway 51 South, in Janesville, Wisconsin. Specifically, the building site is located in south Janesville about 0.75 miles south of East Avalon Road between North Riverside Drive and Prairie Street. This is directly east of the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (see Figure 1-1).
1.2 Work Scope The full extent of professional services and associated tasks contracted by SHINE from Golder are set out in Golders proposal to Shine Medical Technologies on October 6, 2011 (Golder proposal P113-81051).
An important aspect of both the site safety assessment process and engineering design is the assessment of hydrologic conditions at the Janesville site. Three types of hydrology conditions are considered in this report:
Flood risk from Rock River and its tributaries Stormwater and runoff management and related risks Groundwater flow and transport NUREG (NUREG 1537, 1996) requires an assessment of all applicable hydrologic, hydrogeologic, and solute transport risks to nuclear facilities, both during operation and post-closure. The Hydrologic 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 2 113-81051 Scoping Assessment was carried out as a preliminary site hydrologic and hydrogeologic risk evaluation.
The analysis included identification of hydrological processes that could contribute to radioactive releases, and characterization of those processes and the resulting hydrogeologic pathways. The analysis was built upon information provided by the SHINE project, together with data collected during the geotechnical assessment tasks. Specific tasks considered in the Hydrologic Assessment include the following:
Qualitative assessment of surface and groundwater features, such as rivers, streams, reservoirs or impoundments (i.e., ponds) that have potential hydrologic and/or hydrogeologic effects on the facility.
Flood frequency, magnitude, and consequence estimation.
Probable maximum flood assessment.
Preliminary hydrogeologic and solute transport analysis for surface leak events.
Assessment of other hydrologic risks such as floods or tsunamis, as well as other events that could indirectly lead to hydrologic and hydrogeologic risks.
For the present report, Golder has undertaken the following specific office-based tasks:
Acquisition and review of available regional and site data, including information pertaining to precipitation (i.e., NOAA), stormwater, flow controls in the Rock River, floods (i.e.,
FEMA), hydrogeologic, and meteoric within approximately 40 kilometers of the project site.
Evaluation of the peak flood levels (100-year and 500-year events) for the Rock River, based on Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) studies (Appendix A), in order to review flood frequency and magnitude and thereby understand potential consequence impacts at the site.
Search of online databases of historical flood accounts in the area to assess the potential impacts to the site.
Review of the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event at the site, with discussion regarding how the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) would be determined.
Preliminary surface and groundwater solute transport analysis for surface leak events.
Preparation of this report, including discussion of the results, figures, maps, tables, and databases.
1.3 Limitations This report was prepared using available information and provides preliminary analyses only. As of the date of this report, there is not 12 months of groundwater elevation data, which is required by NUREG standards for licensing purposes. This report relies on geological information and site description provided in Golder 2012a, Preliminary Geotechnical Report. Golder 2012b, Golder Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD), provides a description of the quality assurance program under which this work was performed.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 3 113-81051 2.0 HYDROLOGIC ASSESSMENT This preliminary Hydrologic Scoping Assessment uses available information to identify and review potential surface water and flood related hazards that may impact the site.
2.1 Surface Water Features The following provides a summary and discussion of the surface water conditions and potential corresponding hazards at or near the site.
2.1.1 General Setting and Site Description The area around the site in Rock County experiences long cold winters and warm humid summers.
Temperatures range from -27 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to over 100 degrees F. The County records show an average annual precipitation of approximately 33 inches, which includes winter snowfall accumulations. Annual snow accumulations range from less than 65 inches to as much as 109 inches.
Approximately 60 percent of the accumulated precipitation occurs within the 5-month period from May to September, and can include an average of up to 40 thunderstorms per year (FEMA, 2008; see Appendix A).
The Site is presently an agricultural field with a center-pivot irrigation system. The fields are cultivated with corn and soybeans. Generalized surface topography of the area slopes gently to the southwest.
The ground surface across the development area slopes gently to the northwest with grades dropping about 7 feet from the southeast to the northwest (i.e., from corner-to-corner). The Sites ground elevation ranges from approximately 811 to 827 feet above sea level (Figure 1-2).
2.1.2 Rivers and Streams The central and southeastern portions of Rock County are characterized as flat glacial outwash plains.
The majority of the Countys rivers and stream valleys are filled with thick deposits of alluvial sand and gravel. The alluvial sediments and upland plains are the result of glacial activity. Surface soils include silt loam and are underlain by glacial till or stratified sand and gravel outwash units, which then serve as the source sediments to rivers and streams (FEMA, 2008).
The County is drained entirely by the Rock River and its tributaries. Major tributaries include the Yahara River, the Sugar River, Raccoon Creek, and Turtle Creek. Turtle Creek drains the southeastern portion of the County, to its confluence with the Rock River near South Beloit, located approximately 8 miles south of the site.
The site is located in a bend of the Rock River, The Rock River flows through Janesville, north of the site, then flows generally southward through land west and south of the site (Figure 1-1); it is approximately 2 miles from the site at its closest point. Elevations along the Rock River channel during normal flow 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 4 113-81051 conditions range from approximately 760 feet at Janesville, directly north of the site, to approximately 750 feet to the west and south of the site. The Rock River has a tributary area of approximately 3,340 square miles, as measured from the Afton U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gauge located just west of the site (FEMA, 2008). An un-named creek is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the site, and is referred to as the Un-Named Tributary in this analysis report. This tributary stream flows east-to-west to where it meets the Rock River approximately 2 miles south of the site. The stream has a tributary area of approximately 18.4 square miles (FEMA, 2008).
2.1.3 Dams The Rock River has two dams in the vicinity of Janesville, the Monterey Dam and Centerway Dam, both located upstream of the site (Appendix B). These dams are not designed or operated as flood control structures, and therefore have limited impoundments (FEMA, 2008). As such, the dams do not represent a potential hazard to downstream reaches of the river channel from increased releases or modification to flood flows. There are several upstream dams on the Rock River and its tributaries. However, these dams do not produce impoundments that pose any significant risk of cascading dam failures.
2.2 Stormwater Information The Rock County Storm Water Management Ordinance (Rock County 2004) provides guidance on the planning and design of surface water control structures. Section 28.07, (2), (B) of the ordinance addresses stormwater peak discharge rates and volumes, and provides the design rainfall runoff depths for characteristic 24-hour duration storms, as shown in Table 2.2-1 (Rock County).
Table 2.2-1 Design Precipitation 24-hour Storm Accumulations PrecipitationAccumulation
ReturnInterval
(inches)
2Year 2.9 10Year 4.1 100Year 6.0 These design storm precipitation depths should be used to support any continued analysis of surface run-off, as well as to support design of stormwater mitigation structures at the site. The Rock County ordinance provides detailed guidance to establish long-term post-construction run-off management measures that require the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the amount of post-construction stormwater and associated pollutants that may reach waters of the State or other adjacent properties (Rock County). This guidance is consistent with Wisconsin NR 216 and NR 151.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 5 113-81051 2.3 FEMA Flood Insurance Studies The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed a flood hazard assessment for Rock County in August 2008 that looked at existence and severity of flood-related hazards, including the areas around the site. The study included the Rock River where it passes by the site, and the Un-Named Tributary stream located just to the south of the site.
2.3.1 Flood Issues The Rock River and the Un-Named Tributary stream are subject to flooding throughout the year; however, the majority of potential flooding occurs during the spring run-off. These floods are the result of combined precipitation and rain-on-snow events. Peak flows occurring during the winter months when temperatures are low can also often result in ice jam events. Based on available USGS flow data, March is the most common month for floods in the Rock River (USGS 2012a; FEMA, 2008).
2.3.2 Recurrent Rock River Flows Golder reviewed the USGS web-based flow data for the gauge site near Afton, located just across the river from the airport and just southwest of the site (see note on Figure 1-1). As shown in Figure 2.3.2-1, the peak stream flows range from approximately 10,000 to 17,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) over the approximate 100-year period of record for the gauge.
Based on this record, flows of 10,000 to 13,000 cfs correspond approximately to the 10-year to 50-year events. The notable peak flow of 16,700 cfs in June 2008 is generally consistent with the 100-year flood levels along the Rock River (Janesville, 2008; see Appendix C, p 3-4). The flood level at the USGS gauge at Afton during the 2008 flood was approximately 755 feet. The 2008 flood is discussed in more detail in a summary report prepared by the City of Janesville (Janesville 2008) (Appendix C), which provides a comprehensive summary of the events leading up to the flood as well as emergency response and clean-up efforts.
2.3.3 Flood Magnitudes FEMA completed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the Rock River and the Un-Named Tributary stream to estimate flow magnitudes for various recurrence interval flood events, and to estimate the water surface elevations for corresponding flood events (Appendices A and D). Table 2.3.3-1 provides a summary of flows for the Rock River for the reach from Janesville to Afton near the USGS gauge, located just across the river from the site and the airport. Elevations are reported as an approximate range, based on the FEMA (2008) flood profiles, with the higher elevation corresponding to the upstream end of the reach at Janesville and the lower elevation at the downstream end near the USGS gauge at Afton.
Table 2.3.3-2 provides a similar summary for the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River for the reach between Highway 51 and the Prairie Road just to the south of the site. The range of reported elevations 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 6 113-81051 is similarly derived from the FEMA (2008) flood profiles. Channel bottom elevations are based on surveys that supported the FEMA (2008) studies.
Table 2.3.3-1 Summary of FEMA Flood Information for the Rock River R P PeakDischarge(cfs) BottomofChannel(ft) WaterSurfaceElevation(ft) 10 0.10 10,900 Approx.758.5to752 50 0.02 14,500 Approx.760to754 Approx.738to748 100 0.01 16,000 Approx.761to755 500 0.002 19,000 Approx.762to756 Note:Elevationsareapproximate.ChannelbottomelevationsarebasedonFEMA(2008).
ResultsreportedforthereachfromJanesvilletoAftonneartheUSGSgauge.
Table 2.3.3-2 Summary of FEMA Flood Information for the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River R P PeakDischarge(cfs) BottomofChannel(ft) WaterSurfaceElevation(ft) 10 0.10 2,255 Approx.758.5to774.5 50 0.02 3,473 Approx.759.5to775.5 Approx.753to770 100 0.01 4,205 Approx.760to776 500 0.002 5,813 Approx.761to777 Note:Elevationsareapproximate.ChannelbottomelevationsarebasedonFEMA(2008).
ResultsreportedforthereachbetweenHighway51andPrairieRoad.
The FEMA (2008) estimated flood level of approximately 755 feet, estimated for the 100-year event near the location of the USGS gauge at Afton (refer to Table 2.3.3-1), correlates well with the gauge flows and corresponding observed flood levels during the 2008 flood at the same location. The results show that the approximate 500-year floodwater surface elevations for the Rock River are well below the site ground elevation of approximately 830 feet, for the full reach of the Rock River extending from Janesville downstream and around the site through Afton. Similarly, the approximate 500-year floodwater surface elevations for the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River, for the reach just south of the site, are well below the sites approximate ground elevations.
2.4 Probable Maximum Precipitation and Probable Maximum Flood Estimates of the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event for the site have been developed for areas east of the 105th Meridian (NOAA and USACE, 1978; see Appendix E). These estimates are not specific to the site, but provide typical precipitation values for the regional area. The PMP is defined as the theoretically greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically possible over a particular drainage area at a certain time of year (AMS, 1959). Because of the limited data available for this extreme definition event, PMP results are typically considered to be estimates. PMP results are commonly used to support corresponding estimates of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), which is 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 7 113-81051 defined similarly as the theoretically greatest possible flood event at a given site location. The following provides a discussion and summary of the available PMP and PMF information pertaining to the site.
2.4.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates Estimates of the PMP were developed based on available meteorological data (NOAA and USACE, 1978). These PMP results are only estimates that allow for determination of average accumulated results for defined durations or storm events on a regional scale, and not specific to the site. Table 2.4.1-1 summarizes regional estimates for greatest precipitation values for monthly, weekly and 24-hour duration scenarios. Note the various databases used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Table 2.4.1-1 Summary of NOAA and USACE (1978) Regional Greatest Average Precipitation Period PeriodofRecord Precipitation(inches)
Greatest Monthly 1931-1960 Approx. 10-12 Average Greatest Weekly 1906-1935 Approx. 5-7 Average Greatest 24-hour through 1970 Approx 14-16 Further NOAA and USACE (1978) analysis of the available data developed estimates of PMP values (see Table 2.4.1-2) for various durations and for contributing basin areas of approximately 5,000 square miles, which is similar to the Rock River basin area (i.e., approximately 3,340 square miles). Since the PMP values of Table 2-4.1-2 are higher than those specified in the Rock County Storm Water Ordinance (Chapter 28), it is recommended that this PMP should conservatively be used for future PMF estimation.
Table 2.4.1-2 NOAA and USACE (1978) Calculated PMP Values for Similar Basin Size Duration Precipitation(inches)
6 Approx. 8-9 12 Approx. 10-11 24 Approx. 12-13 48 Approx. 15-16 72 Approx. 17-18 These PMP results would be used to support continued hydrologic and hydraulic assessments of the PMF.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 8 113-81051 2.4.2 Probable Maximum Flood Estimates The hydrologic and hydraulic studies to support development of PMF estimates specific to the site were not included in this study. The technical work required to develop PMF flows and corresponding water surface elevations relative to the site would incorporate the PMP results discussed above into a hydrologic model to generate recurrence interval flood magnitudes and hydrographs, and then route those flows along the Rock River in a hydrodynamics simulation model to estimate water surface elevations (USACOE, 1984). Additional analysis and detailed topographic and bathymetric information for the Rock River and the Un-named Tributary to the Rock River would be needed to complete the assessment. These PMF calculations will be provided in the SAR Chapter.
2.5 Flood Related Consequence Based on review of the available information discussed herein, it appears there is little or no likelihood for flood-related hazards from the Rock River or the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River to impact the site for events up to the 500-year recurrence interval flood. Stormwater run-off impacts need to be assessed once preliminary facility design documents are available, using the local planning and design criteria (Rock County). Additional studies are needed to confirm conditions for the PMF. That said, the separation of more than approximately 50 feet in vertical elevation from either the Rock River or the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River suggests the likelihood will be similarly low.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 9 113-81051 3.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines for preparing and reviewing applications for the licensing of non-power reactors (NUREG-1537, Part 2) states that the facility design must consider leakage or loss of primary coolant to groundwater. The project is a series of linear accelerators that do not use primary coolant, as a reactor would. Therefore, coolant spill is not a credible scenario for this project. Therefore, the spill scenario considers the effects of accidental releases of unspecified liquid effluents in groundwaters. Release scenarios will be described in other sections of the SAR.
We also discuss the plausible pathways of the contaminant that may result in the most severe impact to the groundwater resources and to the closest potable water source, the Rock River. The river flows more than 2 miles away from the proposed site both in west and south directions as the river changes its direction from North-South to East-West (Figure 1-1).
3.1 Hydrogeological Setting The SHINE Janesville site is located in a glacial deposition subjected to post-glacial erosional and depositional processes (Figure 3.1-1). The top soil is under-drained by a relatively clean, fine to coarse grained sand extending to depths of 180 to 185 feet. Below this is a 10- to 18-foot layer of sandy silt, which is underlain by silty sand to the borehole termination depth of 221 feet. Bedrock was not encountered during drilling, although sampler refusal was experienced in all three of the deep boreholes at depths between 170 and 180 feet. The density increases with depth as the soils became dense to very dense below depths of about 60 to 100 feet. Depth to bedrock at the Janesville site may be as deep as 300 feet and it consists of Cambrian and Ordovician sedimentary bedrock (conglomerate, dolomite, limestone, sandstone, shale) (Figure 3.1-2). The carbonate bedrock is susceptible to dissolution (WGNHS, 2009). The Rock County Hazard Mitigation Plan (Vierbicher, 2010) indicates that the County has karst potential, particularly in the eastern third of the County.
The monitoring well and remaining geotechnical boreholes terminated at depths between 60 and 71 feet.
Groundwater was encountered in all of the boreholes during drilling at elevations ranging from about 754 to 766 (about 60 to 65 feet below grade) (see Table 3.3.1-1). Groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and annually with changes in precipitation patterns.
3.2 Evaluation of Hydrogeological (Slug) Tests Golder performed slug tests at monitoring wells SM-GW1A, SM-GW2A and SM-GW3A. At each well, static water levels were measured, and then a LevelTROLL 500 data logger was placed in the well. After ensuring that the water level had recovered to the static water table, Golder performed in-situ hydraulic conductivity (slug) tests, which involved near-instantaneous introduction (or removal) of a solid object of known volume into the water column. Both falling- and rising- head tests were conducted. For the 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 10 113-81051 falling-head (slug-in) test, the slug was inserted into the well displacing a volume of water equal to the volume of the slug causing the water level in the well to rise. Once the well returned to static conditions, a rising-head (slug-out) test was performed by rapidly removing the slug. A visualization of each of the four slug tests carried out in the three wells is provided in Figures 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3. Tests are summarized in Table 3.2-1. Test data are provided in Golder 2012a. Note that these test results reflect simple, short duration testing procedures. More accurate results could be obtained using single and multi-well pumping tests. However, since these tests primarily confirm generic, published ranges of hydraulic properties for site geologic materials, more advanced testing procedures are not justified.
Table 3.2-1 Slug Test Results for Monitoring Wells SM-GW1A, SM-GW2A, and SM-GW3A Well Test Test Initial Well Well Aquifer Depth Length Transducer
Head1 Head2 Coordinates3 Coordinates3 thickness totop ofwell Depth(ft)
Ho H(ft) Easting(ft) Northing(ft) 3,4
ofwell screen5
(ft) b(ft) screen3 L(ft)
d(ft)
GW1A SlugIn#1 7.540 7.110 W492655.35 N248568.86 100+ 50 20(6.94) 69 GW1A SlugOut#1 6.866 7.110 W492655.35 N248568.86 100+ 50 20(6.94) 69 GW1A SlugIn#2 7.610 7.110 W492655.35 N248568.86 100+ 50 20(6.94) 69 GW1A SlugOut#2 6.857 7.110 W492655.35 N248568.86 100+ 50 20(6.94) 69 GW2A SlugIn#1 6.539 5.695 W492635.32 N246973.23 100+ 50 15(8.51) 66 GW2A SlugOut#1 5.284 5.695 W492635.32 N246973.23 100+ 50 15(8.51) 66 GW2A SlugIn#2 6.467 5.695 W492635.32 N246973.23 100+ 50 15(8.51) 66 GW2A SlugOut#2 5.151 5.695 W492635.32 N246973.23 100+ 50 15(8.51) 66 GW2A SlugIn#3 6.662 5.695 W492635.32 N246973.23 100+ 50 15(8.51) 66 GW2A SlugOut#3 5.335 5.695 W492635.32 N246973.23 100+ 50 15(8.51) 66 GW3A SlugIn#1 5.843 5.346 W493372.93 N247753.86 100+ 55 15(5.50) 70 GW3A SlugOut#1 5.108 5.346 W493372.93 N247753.86 100+ 55 15(5.50) 70 GW3A SlugIn#2 6.188 5.346 W493372.93 N247753.86 100+ 55 15(5.50) 70 GW3A SlugOut#2 5.092 5.346 W493372.93 N247753.86 100+ 55 15(5.50) 70 1
HeadmeasuredinTrolldataloggerduringtestconductedon12/22/11.TestheadHoisthedisturbedheadduetoslug
insertionorremoval.
2
HeadmeasuredinTrolldataloggerduringslugtestconductedon12/22/11.InitialHeadHistheheadbeforetesting,
andalsodepthfromthephreaticsurfacetopiezometer.
3 Well coordinates, aquifer thickness, depth to top of well screen and length of well screen were determined from well
completionrecords.
4
Totalthicknessofaquiferisexpectedtobeover100feet,includingaquiferbelowbottomofwell.
5
Lengthofwellscreen:TotalLength(SaturatedLength).
6 HydraulicconductivityestimatedusingAQTESOLVdiscussedinSection3.2andsummarizedonTable3.22.
TestHeadHo,InitialHeadH,andTransducerDepth(inbold)aretestresultsmeasuredorcalculatedbasedon12/22/11
slugtests.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 11 113-81051 Golder used the empirical/analytical method of Bouwer and Rice (1976) for analysis using AQTESOLV (Hydrosolve, 2011):
Where Re is the effective radius, rw and rc are the radii of the well and the casing, respectively, H is level of the static water table (at equilibrium), D is the aquifer thickness, A and B are empirical functions of L/rw (Figure 3.2-4), L is the perforation length of the well and y is the rise (or fall) of water table in the well.
The method is based on the Theim equation of steady state flow and is an approximate solution for a transient slug test. The term ( ) is obtained from the best fitting straight line in a plot of ln yt versus t. In test cases, Bouwer and Rice (1976) found the equation is accurate to within 10-25 percent depending on how the well below the water table is perforated (or open).
AQTESOLV aquifer test analysis software (Hydrosolve, 2011) was used to analyze slug test results. The depth of the aquifer was assumed to be 120 feet considering only the body of sand above the sandy silt and below the groundwater table (Figure 3.2-5). AQTESOLV plots the head data against time in semi-log plots and estimates the hydraulic conductivity (K) based on a best fit line. AQTESOLV analyses are presented in Appendix G. Figure 3.2-6 provides an example analysis. AQTESOLV results are summarized in Table 3.2-2. Appendix G reports the analyses for the other tests, and the corresponding permeabilities are summarized in Table 3.2-2. The slug-in tests result in a slightly higher average permeability estimate (0.0051 ft/sec) than the average permeability of slug-out tests (0.0039 ft/sec).
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 12 113-81051 Table 3.2-2 Permeabilities Evaluated from Bouwer and Rice (1976) Method, AQTESOLV, and the Average, Standard Deviation of the Results for All of the Tests and Slug-in, Slug-out Tests.
K Borehole Test Number Test Type (ft/sec)
GW-1A 1 In 0.0029 GW-1A 1 Out 0.0037 GW-1A 2 In 0.0037 GW-1A 2 Out 0.0027 GW-2A 1 In 0.0078 GW-2A 1 Out 0.0034 GW-2A 2 In 0.0041 GW-2A 2 Out 0.0030 GW-2A 3 In 0.0038 GW-2A 3 Out 0.0020 GW-3A 1 In 0.0053 GW-3A 1 Out 0.0081 GW-3A 2 In 0.0083 GW-3A 2 Out 0.0043 Average In 0.0051 Stdev In 0.0021 Average Out 0.0039 Stdev Out 0.0020 Average 0.0045 Stdev 0.0021 Median 0.0037 Golder verified AQTESOLV results using Hydrobench (Golder, 2011). Hydrobench is an inversion tool which optimizes the free parameters of the transient flow equations to match the well tests results of different kinds of tests with multiple boundary conditions. Although designed for confined aquifers, Hydrobench provides a valuable verification for AQTESOLV solutions. Rather than using an analytical solution, Hydrobench uses optimization of aquifer properties to match the time histories of slug-in and slug-out tests. The input values used for the inversion are:
Well diameter (5 cm)
Aquifer thickness (120 ft)
Density (1000 kg/m3), compressibility (2E-09 1/Pa), and viscosity (1E-03 Pa.s) of water Lithology (Coarse sand, porosity 20 percent, see Golder, 2012a)
Hydrobench analysis parameters are summarized in Table 3.2-3.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 13 113-81051 Table 3.2-3 Hydrobench Analysis Parameters Top of Bottom of Interval Ref Point Transducer Perf Perf Length Elevation Depth Test (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
GW-1 50 72 22 825.8 71.5 GW-2 50 71 21 819.3 69.0 GW-3, Shell 1 55 70 15 827.3 71.5 GW-3, Shell 2 55 70 15 827.3 71.5 The numerical inversions were performed for all the tests within each well in two different cases. For the first case, all slug test pressure responses were simulated together for each well and for the second case, each slug test within each well was simulated individually. The inversions optimize well skin, storativity, transmissivity, and the shell radius (distance away from well that head is being affected) to match the slug test time histories. Well test type-curve matches are provided in Appendix H.
Figures 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3 present the full time histories of the tests performed on GW1A, GW2A, and GW3A wells, respectively. Magenta lines illustrate the fit from the inversions. The resulting permeability values from the full time histories and also the individual slug test pressure spikes are summarized in Table 3.2-4. We confirm that the AQTESOLV empirical-analytical solution of Bouwer and Rice is less than 20 percent different from the Hydrobench result. Golders Hydrobench simulations result in a mean permeability of 0.0038 with a lower standard deviation than the empirical method.
The permeabilities from the two methods are compatible and the results confirm high conductivity of the poorly-graded sand (SP) as the average permeability from the 14 slug tests is 0.0045 ft/sec from the Bouwer-Rice method and 0.0038 ft/sec from numerical inversions. Considering the observation that the sand deposits get denser (and less conductive) by depth and the observation wells do not extend more than 10 feet below the water table (Table 3.2-4), the permeabilities inferred from the slug tests are upper bounds for the sand deposits. Based on the calculated data and engineering judgement, a permeability of 0.004 ft/sec (1.2 mm/sec) is considered to be an appropriate estimate for the sand deposit over the sandy silt and silty sand (Figure 3.2-5).
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 14 113-81051 Table 3.2-4 Permeability Values Retrieved from Numerical Inversion of Slug Test Time Histories using Hydrobench '
Combined Slug Tests Inversions Well K (ft/s)
GW1A 0.0037 GW2A 0.0054 GW3A,Shell1 0.0024 GW3A,Shell2 0.0024 Average 0.0035 Individual Slug Test Inversions Well Test Trial K (ft/s)
GW1A Slugin 1 0.0037 GW1A Slugout 1 0.0057 GW1A Slugin 2 0.0039 GW1A Slugout 2 0.0041 GW2A Slugin 1 0.0055 GW2A Slugout 1 0.0053 GW2A Slugin 2 0.0055 GW2A Slugout 2 0.0054 GW2A Slugin 3 0.0061 GW2A Slugout 3 0.0058 GW3A,Shell1 Slugin 1 0.0023 GW3A,Shell1 Slugout 1 0.0022 GW3A,Shell2 Slugin 1 0.0007 GW3A,Shell2 Slugout 1 0.0014 GW3A,Shell1 Slugin 2 0.0027 GW3A,Shell1 Slugout 2 0.0028 GW3A,Shell2 Slugin 2 0.0019 GW3A,Shell2 Slugout 2 0.0028 Average 0.0038 Standarddeviation 0.0017 Median 0.0038 3.3 Preliminary Hydrogeological and Solute Transport Analysis for Surface Leak Events Golder carried out a preliminary evaluation of groundwater transport pathways from the SHINE medical facility to the closest potable water body, the Rock River. Geoslope SEEP/W' 2D finite element 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 15 113-81051 groundwater flow software (Geoslope, 2011) was used to verify these calculations. The Rock River was selected as the closest potential surface water receptor. If additional potential receptors are identified by SHINE, these will be included in the update to this analysis to be reported in the SAR.
3.3.1 Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions for flow simulations were estimated from data available at the 4 monitoring wells and 10 geotechnical exploration boreholes (Table 3.3.1-1). The highest measured elevation is at the groundwater monitoring well at the far east (827 feet) and the lowest point is the monitoring well at the far west (811 feet) delineating a 1 percent east-west drainage slope for the site (Figure 3.3.1-1). The ground surface was derived from these 16 measurements for a 1500-ft. x 1500-ft. area encompassing the measurement points by Kriging to a 50-ft. x 50-ft. grid space (Figure 3.3.1-1). East-West (A-A) and North-South (B-B) cross sections used for SEEP/W simulations are provided in Figures 3.3.1-2 and 3.3.1-3.
East-West and North-South 15,000-foot cross sections from the construction site to the Rock River are shown in Figures 3.3.1-2 and 3.3.1-3.
Water table levels have been measured at 10 geotechnical testing boreholes and 4 monitoring wells.
Water table elevations in three boreholes could not be well identified (G11-05, G11-06, and G11-09).
Fitting a smooth water table surface to the monitoring wells and boreholes, we identify the local water table elevation as shown in Figure 3.3.1-4. Due to variability in the water table elevations in the geotechnical boreholes, the residual errors to the best fit are noted in Table 3.3.1-1. Table 3.3.1-1 indicates that the water table elevation at the construction site is at 763 to 764 feet with a 0.21 percent East-West and 0.1 percent North-South gradient.
Cross sections in the East-West direction and the North-South direction (A-A and B-B, respectively in Figures 3.3.1-2 and 3.3.1-3) are depicted in Figure 3.3.1-5.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 16 113-81051 Table 3.3.1-1 Water Table Implementation Surface Water Smoothed Water Residual Borehole Elevation Elevation Table Elevation Error Number (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
G11-01 819.1 754.1 763.5 9.4 G11-02 822.32 763.8 763.8 0 G11-03 824.92 765.9 764.0 -1.9 G11-04 821.87 763.4 763.4 0 G11-05 824.55 (759.6)* 763.5 3.9 G11-06 825.87 (725.9)
- 767.3 41.4 G11-07 826.35 761.4 763.8 2.4 G11-08 824.74 765.7 763.2 -2.5 G11-09 824.99 (765)
- 763.5 -1.5 G11-10 826.18 761.2 763.7 2.5 SM-GW 1A 825.78 763.8 763.8 0 SM-GW 2A 819.23 762.2 762.2 0 SM-GW 3A 827.31 764.8 764.8 0 SM-GW 4A 811.72 761.7 761.8 0.1 Measurements are obscured by drilling fluids. Values cited are estimates only. Residual error of the estimates made for these boreholes is not significant to the development of a smoothed phreatic surface..
The subsurface flow rate and direction can be estimated using the average permeability and head drop between the monitoring wells (Figure 3.3.1-5).
Where E-W and N-S refer to flow in the East-West and North-South directions respectively, K refers to hydraulic conductivity, i_ refers to the hydraulic gradient, and h and l refer to difference in height and coordinate respectively. The Rock River is located at about the same distance from the site in North-South and East-West directions. The seepage hydraulic gradient can be calculated from the difference between the groundwater table at the SHINE site and the Rock River. Rock River heads estimates are shown in Figure 3.3.1-5. Gradients iE-W and iN-S are estimated using the following formulae:
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 17 113-81051 Based on these gradients, the advective groundwater can be estimated as:
Where tE-W and tN-S refer to travel time in the East-West and North-South directions, respectively.
Uncertainty in travel time results from both seasonal head variations and uncertainty in hydrologic properties.
Winter time water table elevations in the four monitoring wells (Figure 3.3.1-6) indicate up to approximately 3 feet of variation in head. The average water table elevation based on Figure 3.3.1-5 and Table 3.3.1-1 is 763.4 feet while the October 26, 2011 measurements indicate a 765.1-foot elevation, which dropped to 764.7 on January 9, 2012 (Golder, 2012a). This results in seasonal variation in hydraulic gradient, assuming that the Rock River surface elevation is approximately constant, the hydraulic gradient in the East-West direction will increase to 0.14 percent, and the travel time decreases to 63 years (14 percent decrease). This seasonal variation can be compared to the uncertainty in estimates of permeability from the slug tests. The highest hydraulic conductivity estimates in Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-4 are twice the mean value, and correspond to a groundwater travel time of 36 years. Based on the permeability evaluations shown in Table 3.2-4, and considering the maximum observed water table level (October 2011), the average seepage travel time to the Rock River will be 77 years with a standard deviation of 39 years. These analyses will be updated for the SAR report chapter when a full year of groundwater monitoring data is available.
3.3.2 Subsurface Seepage Analysis - SEEP/W The scoping calculation of seepage velocity presented in Section 3.3.1 was verified using a SEEP/W groundwater flow simulation (GeoSlope, 2011). The simulation mesh is illustrated in Figure 3.3.2-1. The model implements a 15,000-foot-long East-West cross section from the site to the Rock River.
Model stratigraphy is based on Figure 3.2-5. The water table is based on information in Figure 3.3.1-5.
The water table is extended from the site to the Rock River. Material properties assumed in the model are provided in Table 3.3.2-1. The hydraulic conductivity for the upper (sand) layer is based on slug test results, and are at the upper end of the reference range. Values for silty sand and sandy silt were also selected near the upper end of the reference range.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 18 113-81051 Table 3.3.2-1 Hydrogeological Parameters used in SEEP/W Groundwater Modeling Reference Range of Material Porosity Density Compressibility Hydraulic Hydraulic Conductivity (m3/m3) (gr/cm3) (1/MPa)
Conductivity (m/year)
Sand 1x1021x105 (1) 38,500m/yr(.004ft/s) 0.32 (1)
1.6 (2)
1/140 (2)
1 4 (1) 4 (1) (2) (2)
SandySilt 1x10 1x10 5,000m/yr(5.2x10 ft/s) 0.35 1.6 1/140
2 2 (1) 5 (1) (2) (2)
Silt 1x10 1x10 100m/yr(1.04x10 ft/s) 0.35 1.6 1/140 1 2 USDOE, 1993 Domenico and Mifflin, 1965.
GeoSlope' SEEP/W includes a capability to model a moving phreatic surface using a Volumetric Water Content function (VWC). VWC describes the volume of water that a material can store as a function of the pore-water pressure. As the pore-water pressure moves from a positive to a negative state, the soil begins to desaturate, and water content decreases. The water content must be specified as the volumetric water content, which is defined as the porosity multiplied by the degree of saturation.
The reference VWC used for SHINE flow verification modeling is provided in Figure 3.3.2-2, which illustrates the variation of pore pressure (psf) and Total Head (ft) together with the total flux (ft3/Day) at the specified cross sections after the steady state seepage analysis.
SEEP/W simulation results are provided in Table 3.3.2-2 and Figure 3.3.2-3. Results verify the calculations presented in Section 3.3.1. The maximum velocity of 0.38 ft/sec corresponds to an approximate travel time of 79 years for contaminants to reach the Rock River by advective groundwater transport, consistent with the values obtained in Section 3.3.1.
Table 3.3.2-2 SEEP/W Verification Simulation Results Advective
Thickness Flux
SoilLayer Velocity
(ft) (ft3/day)
(ft/day)
Sand 118 45.3 0.38
SandySilt 15 <0.01 <0.01
SiltySand 126 5.2 0.04
Total 259 50.5 0.19
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 19 113-81051 3.3.3 Contaminant Transport Simulation - CTRAN/W Preliminary groundwater travel time estimates provided in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 are for advective transport only. The finite element program CTRAN/W (Geoslope, 2011) was used to add dispersion to the groundwater travel time estimates.
Anderson (1984) suggests a dispersivity of 10% of the model dimension in the direction of the flow. We specify dispersivities of 1,100 feet and 30 feet for the longitudinal and transverse directions for all of the materials.
Preliminary advection/dispersion transport simulations were carried out with CTRAN/W. An example simulation result is shown in Figure 3.3.3-1. In this simulation, the first solute at breakthrough was 37.6 years at the Rock River.
CTRAN/W and SEEP/W simulations verify the scoping groundwater transport travel times presented in Section 3.3.1. These values are for design support scoping purposes only. Detailed simulations in support of the SAR will be carried out as a future task.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 20 113-81051 4.0 OTHER HYDROLOGIC RISKS 4.1 Tsunamis Other hydrologic hazards that may impact the site include tsunamis. Tsunami hazards would originate from Lake Michigan, located approximately 63 miles to the east of the site (GoogleEarth). The elevation of the lake in the Kenosha area is approximately 580 feet (USGS 2012b), which is approximately 230 to 250 feet below the elevation of the Shine site of approximately 811 to 827 feet. While the possibility of a large wave being generated in Lake Michigan is possible, there is a low probability of it being greater than 230 feet and then maintaining any appreciable height over the more than 60 miles to the Shine site. This very low probability suggests the risk of tsunami is correspondingly very low. Additional study and investigations would be required to further quantify the tsunami hazard and evaluate the risks to the site.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 21 113-81051 5.0 USE OF REPORT This analysis report was prepared for the exclusive use of SHINE Medical Technologies to support design of the proposed Mo-99 production facility. Analyses will be refined for use in preparation of NUREG licensing documents. This report is not to be used directly for NUREG purposes.
This analysis report was based on available information. Golder is not responsible for the accuracy of documents sited, and the analyses presented here may not represent a comprehensive survey of available literature.
The work program for this project followed the standard of care expected of professionals undertaking similar work in the State of Wisconsin under similar conditions and adhered to the quality requirements in Golder 2012b, Golder Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD). No warranty expressed or implied is made.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 22 113-81051 6.0 CLOSING This report is respectfully submitted to SHINE Medical Technologies. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Golder at (218) 724-0088.
Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
Bill Dershowitz, Ph.D., P.G., R. Hg. Amy Thorson, P.E.
Principal Associate, Duluth Operations Manager Washington Registration No. 1577 Wisconsin Registration No. 35963-006 Thomas G. Krzewinski, P.E. D.GE, F. ASCE Principal Geotechnical Engineer Wisconsin Registration No. 24946-006 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 23 113-81051
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1. AMS, 1959. American Meteorlogical Society. Boston, Massachusets. 638 p.
- 2. Anderson P.A., 1984. Movement of Contaminants in Groundwater: Groundwater Transport --
Advection and Dispersion in Groundwater Contamination, Geophysics Study Committee, Geophysics Research Forum, National Research Council, Chapter 2. (37-45), National Academy Press.
- 3. Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice, 1976. A slug test method for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells, Water Resources Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 423-428.
- 4. Domenico, P. A.; Mifflin, M. D., 1965. Water from low permeability sediments and land subsidence. Water Resources Research 1 (4): 563-576.
- 5. FEMA, 2008. Flood Insurance Study: Rock County, Wisconsin and Incorporated Areas. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study Number 55105CV001A. August 19, 2008. Two volumes.
- 6. Geoslope, 2011. SEEP/W and CTRAN/W Software Documentation and Theory. Website:
[www.geoslope.com]
- 7. Golder, 2011. Hydrobench User Documentation. Golder, Celle Germany.
- 8. Golder, 2012a. Golder Report 6, Revision 3, August 3, 2012, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report. Prepared for SHINE Medical Technologies by Golder Associates, Inc.
- 9. Golder, 2012b. Golder Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD), January 12, 2012 (RL1).
- 10. Hydrosolve Inc., 2011. AQTESOLV User Documentation. Website: [1]
- 11. Janesville, 2008. Report on the 2008 Rock River Flood. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, Engineering Division.
- 12. LeRoux, 1963. Geology and Ground-water Resources of Rock County, Wisconsin: US.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1619-X. 50 p.
- 13. NOAA and USACE, 1978. Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the 105th Meridian; Hydrometeorological Report No. 51. US Department of Commerce, National 113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
August 2012 24 113-81051 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; US Army Corps of Engineers. Washington D C. June 1978.
- 14. NUREG 1537, 1996. Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
- 15. Rock County, 2004. Rock County Storm Water Management Ordinance. Chapter 28 of the Rock County Code of Ordinances, Rock County, Wisconsin. Adopted March 2004.
- 16. USACOE, 1984. Probable Maximum Flood Estimation - Eastern United States, TP-100. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. September 1984.
- 17. US DOE, 1993. Data Collection Handbook to Support Modeling Impacts of Radioactive Material in Soil, Environmental Assessment and Information Sciences, Division Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, Sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/data_collection.pdfNUREG 1537, Part 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria.
- 20. WGNS, 1983. Thickness of Unconsolidated Material in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin-Extension Geological and Natural History Survey. Website:
[4], accessed 12/16/2011.
- 21. WGNHS, 2009. Map data. University of Wisconsin-Extension Geological and Natural History Survey. Website: [5]
- 22. Vierbicher, 2010. Rock County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Prepared by Vierbicher in cooperation with the Rock County Emergency Management and Rock County Planning Economic and Community Development Agency, 145 p.
[6], accessed 1/20/2012.
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
FIGURES PROJECT LOCATION ROCK RIVER PROJECT LOCATION J:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\VICINITY_MAP_WI_hYDRO.dwg l 4/3/2012 12:57 PM l AGarrigus l JANESVILLE UN-NAMED TRIBUTARY 1 TO THE ROCK RIVER 1 0 1 SCALE MILES
/(*(1' 5()(5(1&(
1.) 1:250,000 SCALE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PRODUCED BY PROJECT LOCATION USGS AND DISTRIBUTED BY TERRASERVER (5 KM NE OF ROSCOE, ILLINOIS, UNITED STATES).
SCALE AS SHOWN TITLE DESIGN ---- ----
9,&,1,7<0$3 CADD AG 4/3/12 SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES CHECK BD 4/3/12 JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN FILE No. VICINITY_MAP_WI_hYDRO.dwg REVIEW TK 4/3/12 FIG.
PROJECT No. 113-81051 REV. 0 ---- JANESVILLE / SHN / WI
3RLQW7DEOH
- 5281'
'(6&5,37,21 1257+,1* ($67,1* (/(9$7,21
)7 G11-01 229143.33 2230824.06 819.1 G11-02 229146.03 2230954.95 822.3 FAA ZONE C BOUNDARY G11-03 229145.94 2231085.65 824.9 PROPOSED G11-04 229017.94 2230826.22 821.9 PROPERTY BOUNDARY G11-05 229017.01 2230913.86 824.6 G11-06 229019.68 2230996.02 825.9 SM-GW1A G11-07 229018.48 2231083.35 826.4 G11-08 228887.34 2230829.93 824.7 G11-09 228890.59 2230958.33 825.0 G11-10 228890.37 2231084.76 826.2 SM-GW1A 229871.84 2230854.43 825.8 SM-GW2A 228276.10 2230852.17 819.2 SM-GW3A 229064.89 2231581.03 827.3 G11-02 PROPOSED G11-01 G11-03 DEVELOPMENT SM-GW4A 229051.61 2230112.60 811.7 AREA VSP-01 229016.11 2230956.34 825.1 SM-GW4A G11-06 G11-04 G11-07 SM-GW3A G11-05 G11-08 G11-10 G11-09 /(*(1' VSP-01 G11-08 BOREHOLE LOCATION AND DESIGNATOR VSP-01 BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH 2 INCH PVC INSTALLED FOR SEISMIC TESTING AND DESIGNATOR SM-GW2A SM-GW2A WELL LOCATION AND DESIGNATOR 400 0 400 SCALE FEET 127(6 5()(5(1&(
SCALE TITLE 1.) BOREHOLE AND WELL LOCATION COORDINATES AS SURVEYED BY AYERS ASSOCIATES 1.) AERIAL IMAGERY DISTRIBUTED BY CITY OF AS SHOWN ON NOVEMBER 11, 2011. JANESVILLE AND PROVIDED BY CLIENT. DESIGN ---- ---- 352-(&76,7(/2&$7,210$3 2.) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS A SQUARE, MEASURING 316 FEET ON EACH SIDE. 2.) ADDITIONAL AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY NAIP AND DISTRIBUTED BY U.S.G.S. CADD APG 6/18/12 SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES 3.) CENTER OF BUILDING OUTLINE PLACED WITHIN PROPOSED SITE POLYGON AS DIRECTED BY CLIENT. 3.) FAA ZONE C BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHERN CHECK JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN BD 6/18/12 4.) NORTHING AND EASTINGS PROVIDED IN WISCONSIN STATE PLANE, SOUTH ZONE, WISCONSIN REGIONAL REPORT LAND USE PLAN AND AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE FILE No. SITE_MAP_HARN-W-WI-SG.DWG REVIEW TK 6/18/12 NAD1983/91 HARN, US SURVEY FEET. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 (2007) GEOID09. FIG.
WAS PROVIDED BY CITY OF JANESVILLE ON 10/4/11. PROJECT No. REV. JANESVILLE / SHN / WI 113-81051 1 6/18/12
J:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\Janseville_Site_map_HARN-W-WI-SF.dwg l 6/18/2012 9:13 AM l AGarrigus l JANESVILLE
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 Figure 2.3.2-1 USGS Flows for the Rock River at Afton near the Site 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
Wisconsin River Lake Butte des Morts Lake Winnebago Rynearson Flowage Lake Michigan Neshonoc Lake Castle Rock Lake Rush Lake Sheboygan Lake Wisconsin River Green Lake Little Green Lake Wisconsin River Mason Lake Lake Emily Lake Redstone Fox Lake Mirror Lake Mud Lake Cedar Lake Lake Wisconsin Sinissippi Lake Pike Lake Crystal Lake Pine Lake Lake Mendota Lake Monona Rock Lake Pewaukee Lake Lake Waubesa Rome Pond Lake Kegonsa Lake Koshkonong Muskego Lake
/(*(1' Tichigan Lake PROJECT LOCATION Yellowstone Lake Whitewater Lake Eagle Lake LAKES (REGIONAL)
Lake Como WATER (REGIONAL)
Lake Geneva Elizabeth Lake 100 MILE RADIUS Lake Marie STATE BOUNDARY Fox Lake Wonder LakeLong Lake Crystal Lake Lake Zurich MILES 0 20 SCALE 20 Spring Lake 5()(5(1&(
1.) LAKE (REGIONAL) DATA DEVELOPED AND DISTRIBUTED BY ESRI BASED ON THE U.S. NATIONAL ATLAS WATER FEATURE AREAS AS DEVELOPED BY NATIONAL ATLAS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE Lake Calumet UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AS PUBLISHED ON 11/09/1999.
Orland Lake Lake Holiday 2) WATER (REGIONAL) DATA DEVELOPED AND DISTRIBUTED BY ESRI BASED ON THE U.S. NATIONAL ATLAS WATER FEATURE LINES AS DEVELOPED BY NATIONAL ATLAS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AS PUBLISHED ON 11/09/1999.
SCALE TITLE Mississippi River AS SHOWN Cedar Lake DESIGN ---- ---- +<'52/2*,&)($785(6 CADD APG 6/18/12 SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES Spring Lake CHECK BD 6/18/12 JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN Goose Lake FILE No. REVIEW JanesvilleHYDRO_WITM.dwg TK 6/18/12 a FIG.
PROJECT No. REV. 1 6/18/12 JANESVILLE / SHN / WI 113-81051
J:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\JanesvilleHYDRO_WITM.dwg l 6/15/2012 2:34 PM l AGarrigus l JANESVILLE
Figure 3.1-2 Site Location
AppendixH:SimulatedSlugTestswithinHyrobench
Figure 3.2-1 Combined Slug Tests for GW1A-MW1 CombinedSimulatedSlugTestsforEachWell
6RXUFH:HOO7HVW7HVW3UHVVXUHV 3UHVVXUH N3D
KUV 7LPH
GW1AMW1
Figure 3.2-2 Combined Slug Tests for GW2A-MW2 0:7HVW7HVW3UHVVXUHV 3UHVVXUH N3D
KUV 7LPH
GW2AMW2
Figure 3.2-3 Combined Slug Tests for GW3A-MW3 6RXUFH:HOO7HVW7HVW3UHVVXUHV 3UHVVXUH N3D
KUV 7LPH
GW3AMW3(containsShells1and2)
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 Figure 3.2-4 Effective Radius Coefficients A, B, and C (Bouwer and Rice, 1976) 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 Figure 3.2-5 Schematic E-W Cross Section Note: Water table is assumed to vary linearly from GW-4A monitoring well to the Rock River. The vertical scale is 10 times the horizontal.
113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 Shine Medical Technologies 1.
Obs. Wells SM-GW1A Aquifer Model Unconfined Solution Bouwer-Rice Parameters K = 0.002908 ft/sec y0 = 0.4066 ft 0.1 H/H(0) in ft 0.01 0.001
- 0. 1.4 2.8 4.2 5.6 7.
Figure 3.2-6 AQTESOLV Solution to the Slug-in Test in the Monitoring Well GW1A, First Trial 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 Figure 3.3.1-1 Surface Topography Contours from the Measurements at the Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Geotechnical Borings 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
GROUND SURFACE bh Name= G11-04 ROCK RIVER A bh Name= G11-05 A'
1000 bh Name= SM-GW4A 950 bh Name= G11-0 bh Name= SM-GW3A 900 bh Name= G11-07 850 800 750 700 ELEVATION (FT) 650 600 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500 12000 12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT)
LEGEND 1000 0 1000 SCALE TITLE AS SHOWN HORIZONTAL SCALE FEET DESIGN
---- E-W GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 100 0 100 CADD APG 6/18/12 SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES VERTICAL SCALE FEET CHECK JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN BD 6/18/12 FILE No. REVIEW Proposed_building_layout.DWG TK 6/1812 FIG.
PROJECT No. REV. JANESVILLE / SHN / WI 113-81051 0 ---- 3.3.1-2 J:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\Janesville Site Map_ELEV_ROCK CO.dwg l 7/9/2012 10:16 AM l AGarrigus l JANESVILLE
bh Name= G11-08 GROUND SURFACE bh Name= G11-04 ROCK RIVER B bh Name= SM-GW2A bh Name= G11-01 bh Name= SM-GW1A B'
1000 950 900 850 800 750 700 ELEVATION (FT) 650 600 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500 12000 12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT)
LEGEND 1000 0 1000 SCALE TITLE AS SHOWN HORIZONTAL SCALE FEET DESIGN
---- N-S GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 100 0 100 CADD APG 6/18/12 SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES VERTICAL SCALE FEET CHECK JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN BD 6/18/12 FILE No. REVIEW Proposed_building_layout.DWG TK 6/18/12 FIG.
PROJECT No. REV. JANESVILLE / SHN / WI 113-81051 0 ---- 3.3.1-3 J:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\Janesville Site Map_ELEV_ROCK CO.dwg l 7/9/2012 10:36 AM l AGarrigus l JANESVILLE
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 Figure 3.3.1-4 Smoothed Water Table Elevation Contours and the Water Table Sections used for the 2D SEEP/W Seepage Analysis 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 Figure 3.3.1-5 Surface Topography Level and Water Table Profile of the E-W Section (A-A) and N-S Section (B-B) 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
June2012 ProjectNo.11381051 766.50 766.00 SMGW1A 765.50 SMGW2A SMGW3A SMGW4A 765.00 WaterTableElevation(ft.) 764.50 764.00 763.50 763.00 October11 November11 December11 January12 February12 March12 April12 May12 June12 Figure3.3.16 WaterTablesintheMonitoringWells 11381051SHINEHydrologyReport_Figures
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 Figure 3.3.2-1 Model Geometry and Boundary Condition The red lines are the predefined head boundary conditions.
113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 0.35 0.35 1000 0.3 0.3 100 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2 10 Vol. Water Content (ft³/ft³) Vol. Water Content (ft³/ft³) X-Conductivity (ft/days) 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 1
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Pore-Water Pressure (psf) Matric Suction (psf) Matric Suction (psf)
Figure 3.3.2-2 Volumetric Water Content Function for Dense Sand (center), Suction Function (right) and Conductivity of Unsaturated Zone 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051
\
Figure 3.3.2-3 Evaluated Total Head (top) and Pore Pressure (bottom) Contours after SEEP/W Analysis The total flux values for the control sections are also reported.
113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
- Wroject No. 113-81051 Figure 3.3.3-1 Contaminant Particle Tracking from SHINE Site, JaQHsville, to Rock River in the Critical E-W Pathway 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures