ML18003A414

Part 03 Environmental Report (Rev. 1) - Part 3 - Er - Chapter 2 - Environmental Description - Section 2.3.1 - Hydrology

ML18003A414
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	12/15/2017
From:	James Shea Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Office of New Reactors
Fetter A
References
TVACLINCHRIVERESP, TVACLINCHRIVERESP.SUBMISSION.4, CRN.P.PART03, CRN.P.PART03.1
Download: ML18003A414 (133)

Text

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report 2.3 WATER This section describes the physical, chemical, biological, and hydrological characteristics of surface water and groundwater in the vicinity of the Clinch River Nuclear (CRN) Site that may affect water supply or that may be reasonably assumed to be affected by the construction and operation of two or more small modular reactors (SMRs). The following lists the Section 2.3 subsections, with descriptions:

• Subsection 2.3.1 provides a detailed description of the surface water bodies and groundwater aquifers that can affect the CRN Site water supply and effluent disposal or may be affected by construction or operation of the SMRs.

• Subsection 2.3.2 describes surface water and groundwater uses in the vicinity of the facility that can affect or be affected by the construction and operation of two or more SMRs.

• Subsection 2.3.3 provides detailed water quality information regarding the surface water and groundwater in the vicinity of the CRN Site.

2.3.1 Hydrology This subsection presents descriptions of the surface water and groundwater resources that could be affected by the construction and operation of two or more SMRs. The physical and hydrologic water resource characteristics of the site and region are summarized below.

2.3.1.1 Surface Water The CRN Site is located on a peninsula created by a bend in the Clinch River arm of Watts Bar Reservoir (Figure 2.3.1-1). The CRN Site is located between approximately Clinch River Mile (CRM) 14.5 and approximately CRM 19.0 and is approximately 10.7 miles (mi) southwest of the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Within the CRN Site, the proposed surface water intake is located at CRM 17.9, and the proposed discharge is located at approximately CRM 15. 5. The Barge/Traffic Area is located between CRN 14.0 and CRN 14.5.

The location of the CRN Site and Barge/Traffic Area with respect to major surface water features is shown in Figure 2.3.1-1. The upstream boundary of the CRN Site is located approximately 4.1 mi downstream of Melton Hill Dam, which is located at CRM 23.1. The CRN Site is located approximately 8.2 mi east of the confluence of the Tennessee and Clinch Rivers, with the downstream boundary of the site about 14.5 mi upstream of the confluence. The confluence of the two rivers is located at CRM 0 on the Clinch River, and at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 567.8 on the Tennessee River (Reference 2.3.1-1). Further downstream on Watts Bar Reservoir, Watts Bar Dam is located at TRM 529.9 or 52.4 mi downstream of the CRN Site (Reference 2.3.1-2). Regulated releases of surface water to Watts Bar Reservoir are made not only from Melton Hill Dam but also Fort Loudoun Dam located at TRM 602.3, and Tellico Dam located near TRM 601.1.

2.3.1-1 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report As shown on Figure 2.3.1-1, a number of creeks located in the vicinity of the CRN Site discharge into the reservoir (Figure 2.3.1-1). Upstream of the CRN Site, between Melton Hill Dam at CRM 23.1 and the intake at CRM 17.9, three streams enter the reservoir. These include: Whiteoak Creek, entering the reservoir from the north at CRM 21.0; Raccoon Creek, entering the reservoir from the north at CRM 19.5; and Paw Paw Creek, entering the reservoir from the south at CRM 19.3. Within the reach of the CRN Site, four streams enter the reservoir.

These include: Caney Creek, entering the reservoir from the south at CRM 17.0; Poplar Springs Creek, entering the reservoir from the south at CRM 16.2; Bear Creek, entering Poplar Creek and subsequently entering the reservoir at CRM 12, and Grassy Creek entering the reservoir from the north at CRM 14.5. One other prominent tributary, the Emory River, enters the reservoir between the CRN Site and the Tennessee River. The Emory River enters the reservoir from the north, at CRM 4.5 (Reference 2.3.1-3).

2.3.1.1.1 Hydrologic Setting Tennessee River Watershed The headwaters of the Tennessee River watershed originate in the mountains of western Virginia and North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and northern Georgia. The Tennessee River is formed by the confluence of the Holston and the French Broad Rivers near Knoxville, Tennessee. The river flows to the southwest and receives water from three principal tributaries:

Little Tennessee, Clinch, and Hiwassee Rivers. As the Tennessee River flows south, west, and then north, two other major tributaries, the Elk and Duck rivers, contribute to the flow that eventually joins the Ohio River at Paducah, Kentucky. (Reference 2.3.1-4)

The Tennessee River and its tributaries have a drainage area of approximately 41,910 square (sq) mi and pass through 125 counties that cover much of Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia (Reference 2.3.1-5). The drainage area from the point of headwater origination to Chattanooga, Tennessee, is approximately 21,400 sq mi; west of Chattanooga to the Ohio River, the drainage area is approximately 19,500 sq mi (Reference 2.3.1-4).

The Tennessee River watershed is subdivided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) into 32 hydrologic units, each identified by a hydrologic unit code (HUC). The USGS divides the Tennessee River Basin into two subbasins: the Upper Tennessee River Basin and the Lower Tennessee River Basin. The boundary between these subbasins is TRM 465 on the mainstem of the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, Tennessee. (Reference 2.3.1-5)

The CRN Site is located in the Upper Tennessee River Basin. The Upper Tennessee River Basin contains some of the most rugged terrain in the eastern United States, including the Great Smoky Mountains range. The Upper Tennessee River Basin encompasses approximately 21,400 sq mi and includes the entire drainage area of the Tennessee River and its tributaries upstream from the USGS gaging station in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It also includes parts of four states: Tennessee, 11,500 sq mi; North Carolina, 5480 sq mi; Virginia, 3130 sq mi; and 2.3.1-2 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Georgia, 1280 sq mi. Parts of three physiographic provinces (Cumberland Plateau, Valley and Ridge, and Blue Ridge) compose the Upper Tennessee River Basin. Elevations range from 621 feet (ft) above mean sea level (msl) at Chattanooga to 6684 ft msl at Mount Mitchell, which is located just northeast of Asheville, North Carolina, and is the highest point in the eastern United States. (Reference 2.3.1-6)

Tennessee River Management The Tennessee River system, managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), is a network of dams and reservoirs that generates power, controls flooding, provides recreational opportunities, and boosts the regional and national economies. The Tennessee River system has approximately 11,000 mi of public shoreline, and under Section 26a of the TVA Act, TVA has the authority to regulate land use and development along the shoreline. TVA owns or operates 49 dams and reservoirs in the mainstem Tennessee and Cumberland watersheds, including nine dams on the Tennessee River (Reference 2.3.1-7). The dams and reservoirs are operated year-round by TVA for the purposes of navigation, flood control, power generation, water supply, water quality, and recreation. Operation of the reservoirs is linked to rainfall and runoff patterns in the watershed. (Reference 2.3.1-8)

Clinch River Watershed The Clinch River originates in Southwest Virginia and flows to the southwest while receiving water from a number of tributaries, including the Powell River, above Norris Dam. The Clinch River is more than 300 mi long, formed by the junction of two forks in southwestern Virginia and flowing generally southwest across eastern Tennessee towards its confluence with the Tennessee River at Kingston, Tennessee. The Clinch River watershed has a drainage area of approximately 4413 sq mi. (Reference 2.3.1-5)

The CRN Site lies within the Lower Clinch River Watershed (USGS HUC 06010207).

Surrounding the Lower Clinch River Watershed are the Powell, Holston, Lower French Broad, Tennessee River (Watts Bar Reservoir), and Emory watersheds. The Lower Clinch River Watershed includes portions of eight counties in East Tennessee including Anderson, Campbell, Grainger, Knox, Loudon, Morgan, Roane, and Union. (Reference 2.3.1-9)

Clinch River Management The CRN Site includes approximately 935 acres (ac) of land on the north side of the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir between approximately CRM 14.5 and CRM 19.0. The upstream boundary of the CRN Site is approximately 4.1 mi downstream of Melton Hill Dam, which is located at CRM 23.1. The portion of the Clinch River below Melton Hill Dam is part of Watts Bar Reservoir, an impoundment created by Watts Bar Dam, located on the Tennessee River at TRM 529.9, approximately 52.35 mi downstream of the CRN Site (Reference 2.3.1-2).

There are four dams upstream of the CRN Site which may affect the hydrology of the site:

2.3.1-3 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report

• Norris Dam located at CRM 79.8

• Melton Hill Dam located at CRM 23.1

• Whiteoak Dam and Whiteoak Creek Embayment Sediment Control Dam, on Whiteoak Creek located near CRM 21.0 (Reference 2.3.1-3; Reference 2.3.1-10)

Norris Dam is located approximately 60.8 mi upstream from the CRN Site, and forms the Norris Reservoir. Norris Reservoir is the confluence of the Powell and Clinch River basins, and it is one of the largest of TVAs 10 tributary storage reservoirs (Reference 2.3.1-11). The dam was completed in 1936 and is 265 ft high and stretches 1860 ft across the Clinch River. It is a hydroelectric facility with two generating units with a net dependable capacity of 110 megawatts (MWe). With normal rainfall throughout the year, the water level in the reservoir fluctuates approximately 29 ft from summer to winter to provide seasonal flood storage. (Reference 2.3.1-12)

Melton Hill Dam is located on the Clinch River at CRM 23.1, approximately 4.1 river mi upstream of the CRN Site, and forms the Melton Hill Reservoir (Reference 2.3.1-3). The dam was completed in 1963 and is 103 ft high and stretches 1020 ft across the Clinch River. Melton Hill Dam is a hydroelectric facility with two generating units. These two generating units are capable of producing a net dependable capacity of 79 MWe. Melton Hill Reservoir has the only dam in the tributary reservoir system with a navigation lock, which has a 75- by 400-ft chamber and a maximum lift of 60 ft. (Reference 2.3.1-13)

Unlike most of TVAs multipurpose tributary projects, Melton Hill Dam does not provide any significant flood damage reduction benefits, nor does it provide any significant seasonal flow regulation because of the little useful storage volume available. The average weekly discharge from Melton Hill Dam over its lifetime (1962-present) is 4832 cubic ft per second (cfs) with a maximum weekly discharge of 25,455 cfs. Figure 2.3.1-3 shows the expected flow frequency of the weekly average flow from Melton Hill Dam based on 100 years (yr) of reservoir and system simulation conducted for the development of the current reservoir operating policy. The minimum discharge requirement for Melton Hill is 400 cfs average daily flow, but the frequency of this minimum flow continuing for as long as seven days is less than 0.1 percent as shown in Figure 2.3.1-3. (Reference 2.3.1-11)

The two dams on Whiteoak Creek are located near its confluence with the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir, near CRM 21.0. The primary dam is Whiteoak Dam, constructed in 1943 to contain radioactive sediment and minimize the spread of contamination from past activities on what is now the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR).

Whiteoak Dam forms the 25-ac Whiteoak Lake, which has a drainage area of 6.0 sq mi.

immediately downstream of the Whiteoak Dam is Whiteoak Creek Embayment, which is separated from the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir by Whiteoak Creek Embayment Sediment Control Dam. The Sediment Control Dam was constructed in 1992 in order to maintain a constant water level and prevent fluctuations in water level in Whiteoak Creek Embayment due to storm flows and TVA power operations. (Reference 2.3.1-14) 2.3.1-4 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Two other dams, neither located on the Clinch River, affect the surface water hydrology of the Watts Bar Reservoir at the CRN Site. These are:

• Watts Bar Dam, located at TRM 529.9 (Reference 2.3.1-2)

• Fort Loudoun Dam located at TRM 602.3.

Watts Bar Dam is located on the Tennessee River at TRM 529.9, approximately 52.35 river mi downstream of the CRN Site (Reference 2.3.1-2). Construction on the Watts Bar Dam began 1939 and was completed in 1942. Watts Bar Dam is 112 ft high and stretches 2960 ft across the Tennessee River. All outflows from Watts Bar Reservoir are controlled by releases at Watts Bar Dam. Watts Bar Dam has one lock that is 60 ft by 360 ft and lifts and lowers barges as high as 70 ft from the Watts Bar Reservoir to the Chickamauga Reservoir. The net dependable capacity at Watts Bar Dam is 182 MWe. In addition to forming the navigable reservoir on the Tennessee River, the Watts Bar Dam also creates a slack-water channel for navigation more than 20 mi up the Clinch River to the Melton Hill Dam, and 12 mi up the Emory River. (Reference 2.3.1-7)

Regulated releases of surface water enter Watts Bar Reservoir not only by releases from Melton Hill Dam but also from Fort Loudoun Dam, located on the Tennessee River at TRM 602.3.

Construction on Fort Loudoun Dam began in 1940 and was completed in 1943. Fort Loudoun Dam is 122 ft high and stretches 4190 ft across the Tennessee River. The Fort Loudoun lock is 60 ft by 360 ft, and raises and lowers river craft approximately 70 ft between the Fort Loudoun Reservoir and the Watts Bar Reservoir. The net dependable capacity of Fort Loudouns four units is 162 MWe. Fort Loudoun Reservoir is connected by a short canal to Tellico Reservoir on the nearby Little Tennessee River. Water is diverted through the canal to Fort Loudoun for power production. The canal also offers commercial barges access to Tellico Reservoir without the need for a lock. (Reference 2.3.1-15)

Just downstream of Fort Loudoun Dam, at approximately TRM 601.1, Tellico Dam also can provide regulated releases to Watts Bar Reservoir from the Little Tennessee River. However, Tellico Dam contains only a spillway (i.e., no hydro capabilities), which is operated very rarely, only in extreme flood events.

Local Site Drainage The CRN Site covers approximately 935 ac and is bounded to the west, south, and east by the Clinch River arm of Watts Bar Reservoir and to the north by the DOE ORR. As stated in Subsection 2.2.1.1 and shown in Figure 2.2-1, a series of roughly parallel ridges of gradually lower elevations stretches from the Chestnut Ridge, near the CRN Site entrance and in the Grassy Creek Habitat Protection Area (HPA), to approximately the center of the peninsula.

In addition to the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir, TVA identified four perennial streams and one intermittent stream on the CRN Site, and one perennial stream and three 2.3.1-5 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report intermittent streams in the Barge/Traffic Area1. Hydrologic flow within all of these streams is affected by precipitation and stormwater runoff. In addition, hydrologic flow within the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir (stream S02) and a tributary to the reservoir (stream S04) are affected by water levels within the reservoir. Hydrologic flow within streams S01, S06, and S08 is also affected by discharge from springs. (Reference 2.3.1-16) Descriptions of these streams are included in Subsection 2.4.2.1.3 and Table 2.4.2-5, and their locations are shown in Figure 2.4.1-2.

TVA also identified 19 ephemeral streams/wet-weather conveyances (WWCs) on the CRN Site, and 15 WWCs at the Barge/Traffic Area (Reference 2.3.1-16). WWCs are natural or constructed drainages that have flow conditions only in direct response to precipitation and stormwater runoff (Reference 2.3.1-17). Descriptions of these WWCs are included in Subsection 2.4.2.1.3 and Table 2.4.2-5, and their locations are shown in Figure 2.4.1-2.

Six man-made ponds were identified on the CRN Site, and two ponds were identified in the Barge/Traffic Area. The ponds on the CRN Site were constructed as part of a stormwater management system, and their hydrology is caused by precipitation and stormwater runoff.

(Reference 2.3.1-16) Descriptions of these ponds are included in Subsection 2.4.2.1.3 and Table 2.4.2-5, and their locations are shown in Figure 2.4.1-2.

Local Wetland Areas TVA identified and delineated 12 wetlands on the CRN Site. Each wetland is described in Subsection 2.4.1.2 and shown on Figure 2.4.1-2. Hydrologic flow within each of these wetlands is affected by precipitation and stormwater runoff. In addition, hydrologic flow within wetlands W003, W005, W007, W008, and W011 is influenced by water levels within the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir. Hydrologic flow within four wetlands (W005, W008, W009, and W010) is also affected by groundwater discharge. (Reference 2.3.1-18) TVA also identified and delineated five wetlands at the Barge/Traffic Area. Hydrologic flow within these wetlands is also affected by precipitation and stormwater runoff. In addition, hydrologic flow within one of these wetlands (W017) is influenced by water levels within the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir (Reference 2.3.1-19).

2.3.1.1.2 Reservoir Characteristics Three separate reservoirs can potentially affect, or be affected, by SMR operations. The impoundments are:

• Melton Hill Reservoir

• Watts Bar Reservoir 1

Surveys were conducted on the portions of the Barge/Traffic Area (101-ac.) with the highest potential for disturbance that had not been previously surveyed.

2.3.1-6 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report

• Fort Loudoun Reservoir Melton Hill Dam, located on the Clinch River 4.1 mi upstream of the CRN Site, impounds Melton Hill Reservoir and releases water into the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir. The Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir is the source and receiving water body for CR SMR plant operations. Fort Loudoun Dam, on the mainstem of the Tennessee River, releases water from Fort Loudon Reservoir into Watts Bar Reservoir. Therefore, operation of the Fort Loudoun Dam can affect water levels and other characteristics of the Watts Bar Reservoir.

Reservoir Description Under flood conditions, TVAs water management objective for Melton Hill, Watts Bar and Fort Loudon Reservoirs and most other dams within the system is to operate the reservoir system to minimize flood damage by timing turbine discharges, gate openings, and spillway discharges as required.

Melton Hill Reservoir is on the Clinch River, extends almost 57 mi upstream from Melton Hill Dam to Norris Dam, and drains approximately 628 sq mi. Figure 2.3.1-1 illustrates the location of Melton Hill Dam and Melton Reservoir relative to the CRN Site. The reservoir provides nearly 193 mi of shoreline and 5470 ac of water surface for recreation. (Reference 2.3.1-13) It is a run-of-river reservoir, meaning water is passed through the reservoir without being stored long-term and allows barge traffic up to Clinton, Tennessee. Melton Hill Reservoir is a multipurpose reservoir providing for navigation, hydroelectric power production, water supply, water quality, and recreation. The average residence time for water in the reservoir is approximately 11 days (Reference 2.3.1-8). Actual elevations of the reservoir immediately upstream of the dam are measured continuously. The elevation range of normal operation fluctuates between 793 and 795 ft msl (Reference 2.3.1-13).

Watts Bar Dam forms the Watts Bar Reservoir. Watts Bar Reservoir is located on the Tennessee River and extends approximately 72.4 mi upstream from Watts Bar Dam to Fort Loudoun Dam (Reference 2.3.1-2). The reservoir drains approximately 17,310 sq mi and has 722 mi of shoreline and over 39,090 ac of water surface. The reservoir has a flood-storage capacity of 379,000 ac-ft. (Reference 2.3.1-7) The average residence time for water in the reservoir is approximately 17 days (Reference 2.3.1-8).

Discharging from Melton Hill Dam, the Clinch River forms only a small portion of the Watts Bar Reservoir. The Tennessee River below Fort Loudoun Dam comprises the main body of the reservoir. The water elevation in Watts Bar Reservoir is controlled by releases from Watts Bar Dam. The water elevation in Watts Bar Reservoir is generally maintained between 735 ft msl and 741 ft msl. (Reference 2.3.1-11)

The CRN Site Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) elevation is 799.9 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). The combined effect maximum flood level is 806.0 ft NGVD29.

2.3.1-7 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Fort Loudoun Reservoir is the uppermost in the chain of nine TVA reservoirs that form a continuous navigable channel on the Tennessee River. The average residence time for water in the reservoir is approximately 10 days (Reference 2.3.1-8). The reservoir has 379 mi of shoreline and 14,600 ac of water surface. It has a flood storage capacity of 111,000 ac-ft. To maintain the water depth required for navigation, Fort Loudoun Reservoir is kept at a minimum winter elevation of 807 ft. The typical summer operating elevation is between 812 and 813 ft.

(Reference 2.3.1-15)

River flow direction at the CRN Site can be upstream, downstream, or quiescent, depending on the modes of operation of Melton Hill Dam, Watts Bar Dam, and Fort Loudoun Dam. Flow reversal may occur from an abrupt shutdown of Melton Hill and Watts Bar Dams and by releasing water from Fort Loudoun Dam. (Reference 2.3.1-11)

Reservoir Operating Rules TVA adopted its current reservoir operating policy in 2004 based upon the comprehensive Reservoir Operations Study (ROS), which was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as well as representatives of other agencies and members of the public. Two of the features of the operating policy pertinent to this discussion are that it was designed to meet the future off-stream water needs in the Tennessee Valley as well as maintain minimum stream flow at critical locations in the Valley. (Reference 2.3.1-11)

The operating policy requires TVA to store water in tributary reservoirs during the spring when there is relatively high surface water flow into the reservoir system for release during the summer when there is relatively little surface water flow into the system. An important requirement of the operating policy is to meet minimum flow targets. Each of the 10 major tributary projects has such a target. There are also system minimum flow targets on main-stem projects. Chickamauga and Kentucky are projects with key system minimum flow targets.

(Reference 2.3.1-11)

The individual tributary project minimum releases provide for instream flow uses such as aquatic habitat in the tailwaters below the projects. These project minimum flows plus additional flow from local tributaries and Chickamauga or Kentucky Dams comprise the system minimum flow.

When the surface water flow from local tributaries is too low to meet the governing system minimum flow target, the tributary project releases are increased until the governing system minimum flow target is reached. (Reference 2.3.1-11)

Because rainfall varies across the watershed from year to year, there are some years when reservoirs on one tributary river have relatively less water in them than reservoirs on another tributary river. The operating policy requires TVA to balance the drawdown from all the tributary projects, which slows the drawdown on reservoirs at relatively low levels and increases the drawdown on reservoirs at relatively high levels. (Reference 2.3.1-11) 2.3.1-8 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report TVA uses Operating Guides for each reservoir to determine the timing and volume of releases from the dams. The Operating Guides are based on decades of operating experience, and are developed to provide seasonal variation in water levels to accommodate flood waters. The Operating Guides provide a daily target for the water elevation in each reservoir. The operating guide for the Headwater Elevation (HWEL) at Watts Bar Dam is shown in Figure 2.3.1-4. In the winter, TVA targets a pool elevation at Watts Bar Dam between approximately 735 ft and 737 ft msl. Between late March and mid-May, the reservoir is filled to the summer operating range, targeting a pool elevation between approximately 740 ft and 741 ft msl. Between late October and early December the pool is returned to the winter operating range.

Intake and Discharge Description As shown in Figure 2.3.1-1, water for the plant cooling system is withdrawn from the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir by an intake structure located near CRM 17.9. Heated water from the plant is returned to the reservoir by a discharge structure located at about CRM 15.5.

Flow To evaluate the hydrothermal impact of the proposed SMRs on Watts Bar Reservoir, TVA conducted a Hydrothermal Task Force study which evaluated the historical data regarding water flow in the reservoir. The following subsection is adapted from the Hydrothermal Task Force Report, and describes the flow information relevant to the analysis of hydrothermal impacts.

The release from Melton Hill Dam is the main source of water for the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir at the CRN Site. The current operating policy of the TVA river system, implemented in 2004, is defined by the TVA Reservoir Operations Study, or ROS (Reference 2.3.1-8). Historical river data used in the hydrothermal analyses was limited to ROS years, beginning in 2004. This is because the operating policy of the TVA river system for the period of operation of the SMRs is expected to be the same as the current ROS operating policy. Under the ROS operating policy, the daily average releases from Melton Hill Dam for 2004 through 2013 are shown in Figure 2.3.1-5. For this period, the overall average release, and consequently the expected approximate average river flow past the CRN Site, is approximately 4670 cfs. The maximum Melton Hill Dam daily average release observed for this period is approximately 21,700 cfs. The minimum single-day average release may be 0 cfs.

The ROS guideline for the minimum daily average release from Melton Hill Dam is 400 cfs.

Shown in Figure 2.3.1-6 is the percentile for the Melton Hill Dam daily average release shown in Figure 2.3.1-5. Approximately 60 percent of the time, the scheduled daily average release for Melton Hill Dam is less than the overall average flow (i.e., less than 4670 cfs). The minimum daily average release of 0 cfs cited above occurred on Monday, December 22, 2008, the day of the coal ash spill in the Emory River at the Kingston Fossil Plant, located approximately 14 mi downstream of the CRN Site. Since the Kingston ash spill, TVA has maintained the 400 cfs minimum daily average release for Melton Hill Dam.

2.3.1-9 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report The powerhouse at Melton Hill Dam contains two hydro generating units. The operation of the hydro units can provide a minimum release of between approximately 4000 cfs and 5000 cfs (one unit at minimum load) and a maximum release of between approximately 21,000 cfs and 23,000 cfs (two units at maximum load). On an hourly basis, Melton Hill Dam releases usually are scheduled in keeping with TVAs desire to provide low cost power. In this context, and due to the high flexibility and low fuel cost for hydropower, the Melton Hill Dam daily allotment of water is usually dispatched during those hours when the price for power is at or near the daily peak. In this manner, little or no releases are made during other hours of the day. This scheduling pattern is known as hydro peaking. Figure 2.3.1-7 shows the percentile for Melton Hill Dam hourly releases for the period 2004 through 2013 (i.e., since implementation of the current TVA reservoir operating policy). Approximately 50 percent of the time there are no hourly releases from Melton Hill Dam (i.e., flow of 0 cfs). When the daily allotment of water from Melton Hill Dam is very low (e.g., when dry conditions dictate a daily average flow approaching the ROS minimum of 400 cfs) the daily allotment can be provided by only one hour of hydro operation per day. If this type of operation is provided in the first hour of one day and the last hour of the following day, there can be up to 46 continuous hours of no releases from Melton Hill Dam. Although this is possible when following the current operating policy, such usually does not occur in practice. Figure 2.3.1-8 shows the average annual frequency of no release events from Melton Hill Dam for the period 2004 through 2013. On the average, the number of no release events per year is approximately 425. The average duration of these events is approximately 11.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> (hr). On the average, the number of no release events lasting more than 24 hr is only approximately 9 per yr. Events with no Melton Hill Dam releases for periods in excess of 36 hr are extremely rare, on the average less than one event per year.

Regional Surface Water Evaporation Mean monthly, seasonal, and annual pan evaporation for the Tennessee River Basin was evaluated using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mean Monthly, Seasonal and Annual Pan Evaporation for the United States technical report. Table 2.3.1-1 lists average pan evaporation based on estimates of monthly evaporation derived from hydrometeorological measurements, using a form of the Penman equation described by Kohler, et. al. in 1955.

Using data from Table 2.3.1-1, average annual evaporation in Tennessee is 52.01 inches (in.),

and average annual evaporation for the Knoxville station near the CRN Site is 50.61 in.

Water Surface Elevation and Current Patterns The water surface elevation (WSEL) for the section of the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir adjacent to the CRN Site, in general, follows the pool elevation at Watts Bar Dam.

The current pattern in the river is usually in the downstream direction. Figure 2.3.1-9 shows the daily average WSEL measured at the CRN Site (at CRM 16.1) and the daily average HWEL measured at the Watts Bar Hydro plant. The data are for 2013. The daily average WSEL at CRM 16.1 varies between 736 and 744.5 ft above mean sea level, a range of approximately 8.5 ft. The WSEL follows the general trend of daily average HWEL at Watts Bar Dam. However, 2.3.1-10 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report differences occur between the WSEL at the CRN Site and WSEL at Watts Bar Dam due to hydraulic conditions between the site and Watts Bar Dam. At the CRN Site, the surface water flow from Melton Hill Dam provides the greatest influence on local variations in WSEL. During periods when the daily average release from Melton Hill Dam was in excess of approximately 5000 cfs (e.g., late January and early February 2013), it was not uncommon for the WSEL at the CRN Site to rise 1.0 ft or more above the HWEL at Watts Bar Dam. This dynamic also occurs at smaller time scales. For example, on an hourly basis, peaking operations at Melton Hill Dam can cause the WSEL at the CRN Site to rise above the HWEL at Watts Bar Dam.

Sloshing of the reservoir from peaking operations at the Watts Bar, Melton Hill, and Fort Loudoun hydro plants also can cause the opposite to occur, with the WSEL at the CRN Site falling below the HWEL at Watts Bar Dam. During these events, the current pattern in the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir is reversed, with flow moving upstream rather than downstream.

Figure 2.3.1-10 shows the maximum, minimum, and average values of the daily midnight HWEL at Watts Bar Dam for the period of record from 2004 through 2013 (the years encompassing the current ROS operating policy). Large rainfall/runoff (flood) events caused the HWEL at Watts Bar Dam to spike above the target operating ranges. Such events are apparent in Figure 2.3.1-10.

Temperature and Water Velocity Measurements For the ROS operating period including 2004 and 2008 through 2013, Figure 2.3.1-11 shows an estimate of the hourly water temperature in the tailwater below Melton Hill Dam. The data is a composite of information from several locations. These include: (1) monitors on the taildeck at Melton Hill Dam, (2) monitors for the generator cooling water inside the dam, (3) a monitor in the tailrace about 0.5 miles downstream of the dam (CRM 22.6), and (4) a monitor in the river about 19.2 mi downstream (CRM 3.9). Composite data are used because no single monitor provides valid data throughout the entire period of record. For years 2005, 2006, and 2007, equipment outages with the Melton Hill Dam taildeck monitors resulted in no usable data for those years.

Composite data from the other locations are used primarily for 2004 and the first part of 2008.

Almost all of the data after May 2008 are from the monitor in the tailrace about 0.5 mi downstream of the Melton Hill Dam.

In general, the water temperature for the portion of the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir immediately below Melton Hill Dam depends not only on meteorology, but also on the manner of operation of TVA facilities located upstream. Norris Dam, located at CRM 79.8, provides significant storage of cold water from winter and spring rainfall/runoff. Therefore, the manner of operation of Norris throughout the summer impacts the arrival of cold water at Melton Hill Dam. The Bull Run Fossil Plant, located at CRM 47.0, adds heat to Melton Hill Reservoir, thereby contributing to temperature stratification behind Melton Hill Dam. With this, scheduling of the number, magnitude, and duration of operation of the two hydro units at Melton Hill Dam affects the character of the withdrawal zone for the hydro intakes, and consequently the temperature of the water released downstream. All of these factors are represented in the 2.3.1-11 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report variability exhibited by the data in Figure 2.3.1-11. Because the basic operating policy of ROS is expected to continue in the future, the data in Figure 2.3.1-11 are considered adequate for estimating the potential range in release water temperature from Melton Hill Dam. The record encompassing 2004 and 2008 through 2013 includes a year of extreme drought (2008), a year of extreme rainfall (2013), a year of extreme summer heating (2010), and a year of extreme winter cooling (2011).

Figure 2.3.1-12 shows the daily maximum, minimum, and average values of the hourly temperature data presented in Figure 2.3.1-11. The data suggest hourly release temperatures from Melton Hill Dam range between approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the winter and 75°F in the summer. The minimum reading occurred in 2010 and the maximum reading occurred in 2012. The proposed discharge structure for the CRN Site is located approximately 7.65 mi downstream of Melton Hill Dam. Depending on meteorology, the surface water in this reach may be cooled or warmed before it arrives at the SMR discharge. To examine the potential magnitude of this cooling and warming, 2013 data were examined for hourly water temperature measurements collected from the Melton Hill Dam tailrace monitor at CRM 22.6 and a temporary monitor installed at CRM 16.1. The percentile for the change in water temperature between the upstream (CRM 22.6) and downstream (CRM 16.1) monitor locations is shown in Figure 2.3.1-13. As shown, the change in hourly temperature generally varied between about -1°F to +3°F. As a result, for examining thermal impacts on the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir, the ambient temperature of the surface water was assumed to range between a minimum of 38°F (winter) and maximum of 78°F (summer).

In 2013, the temperature profile of the reservoir was also measured at CRM 13.0, 16.1, and 19.0, in order to evaluate the thermal regime and the presence of thermal stratification in the reach of the reservoir near the CRN Site. CRM 16.1 is near the proposed discharge location, and CRM 19.0 is approximately 1 mi upstream of the proposed intake location. Data were collected on a 15-minute basis. The profile at CRM 13.0 included measurements at depths of 3 ft, 10 ft, 20 ft, and at a bottom anchor. The measurements at CRM 16.1 were made at depths of 5, 10, and 15 ft. The measurements at CRM 19.0 were made at 3, 10, and 15 ft. At CRM 13.0, the water temperature differences between the 3 ft sensor and the bottom were generally on the order of 2-4°F during the summer months and typically less than a degree during the winter months. The largest temperature gradient at all three locations occurred within the surface layer of the river. At the two upstream locations, the gradient between the surficial and deeper depths was even smaller than at CRM 13.0. The temperature difference at CRM 13.0 from the 10-ft depth to the bottom was minimal, typically on the order of 0.1 to 0.3°F. The temperature gradient in summer often had a typical diurnal pattern, with a temperature peak occurring in the afternoon due to surficial warming during the hottest time of the day. This daily temperature gradient was then either flushed out by daily dam releases, or its heat dissipated with nighttime atmospheric cooling.

2.3.1-12 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Bathymetry In support of the hydrologic evaluation of the CRN Site, TVA performed hydrographic surveys of the Watts Bar Reservoir from CRM 13 to CRM 21. The surveys were performed in June 2013, using an automated sounding system operating at 200 khz. The survey consisted of 762 transects across the reservoir, and an additional 96 transects across the Emory River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir.

A prominent feature of the bathymetry of the reservoir near the CRN Site is the presence of a submerged island near CRM 15.9. The bathymetry at this location is shown in Figure 2.3.1-14.

The conceptual plot plan for the CR SMR Project originally planned for the discharge to be located at CRM 15.9, directly adjacent to this feature. Based on TVAs hydrothermal modeling for the SMR discharge, TVA noted that the presence of this feature would encumber the mixing of the thermal effluent, resulting in a thermal plume hugging the shoreline. As a result, TVA modified the discharge location to approximately CRM 15.5, which is downstream of the island and in a location where the bathymetry would not interfere with mixing.

Erosion and Sediment Transport There are currently no site-specific data available on erosion and sediment transport in the vicinity of the CRN Site as evaluations rely on specific characteristics of the final plant design.

This information is to be developed as the facility design is completed, and is evaluated as part of the combined license application.

2.3.1.2 Groundwater Regional and local groundwater resources that could be affected by the construction and operation of the CRN Site are described in this subsection. Note that all references to elevation given in this subsection are to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) unless otherwise specified.

2.3.1.2.1 Description and Onsite Use This subsection describes the regional and local groundwater resources that could be affected by the construction and operation of the CRN Site.

The hydrogeologic conceptual model presented in this subsection was developed from multiple conceptual hydrogeologic models that vary in scale and hydrostratigraphic framework.

Considerations of the scale and framework were not mutually exclusive, but were intertwined during a series of steps designed to develop a tenable site hydrogeologic conceptual model.

Five steps were involved in the development of the scale-dependent conceptual models, and include:

1. A regional desktop study based on published state, Federal (including TVA and DOE ORR studies) and other sources.

2.3.1-13 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report

2. A review of documentation to address the previously proposed, demonstration Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project (CRBRP) to be constructed at the site, including site-specific studies performed for the purpose of the CRBRP (Reference 2.3.1-20).

3. Review of preliminary SMR plant layout, plot plans and excavation plans for the CRN Site.

4. A site-specific geotechnical, geologic, and hydrogeologic field study conducted for the proposed CRN Site (Reference 2.3.1-21).

5. An evaluation of site-specific data in conjunction with regional and local information.

The first step of site model conceptualization involved formulating an understanding of the hydrogeologic conditions near the CRN Site including the ORR and surrounding areas.

Regional geologic and hydrogeologic information available from the USGS, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), DOE, TVA, and other sources were reviewed to identify the hydrogeologic framework of the area. The second step involved a review of documentation addressing local hydrogeologic conditions such as that available from the DOE and the subsurface studies performed in support of CRBRP previously proposed at the CRN Site. The third step was a review of the preliminary CR SMR plant layout, plot plans and excavation plans developed for the conceptual placement of the SMRs that could be constructed at the CRN Site.

During the fourth step, a site-specific subsurface investigation (SI) was implemented at the proposed CRN Site. The hydrogeologic aspects of the SI were based on the preliminary conceptual model (developed as described above) and were modified when appropriate during the field program (as field data were collected and evaluated), as the understanding of site-specific conditions for SMR construction evolved.

The fifth step involved analysis of the SI field data with the regional and local information. From this effort, site-specific data were integrated with existing CRN Site information and local and regional information to formulate the conceptual site model described in the following sections.

The conceptual model was then evaluated to determine potential changes to the hydrogeologic system as the result of constructing and operating the SMR units.

Physiography and Geomorphology The CRN Site is located in Roane County, Tennessee, within the City of Oak Ridge (Figure 2.3.1-15). The CRN Site is approximately 10.7 mi southwest of the center of the City of Oak Ridge, with the site and the city center separated by the ORR. The City of Kingston is approximately 7.2 mi west of the CRN Site. The closest major metropolitan center is Knoxville, approximately 25.2 mi to the east-northeast of the CRN Site.

The site is located on a peninsula formed by a meander of the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir between approximately river miles 14.5 and 19. Headwaters of the Clinch River are in Tazewell County, Virginia. From its headwater, the Clinch River flows approximately 350 mi in a southwesterly direction to its confluence with the Tennessee River near Kingston, Tennessee, 2.3.1-14 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report approximately 6 mi west of the CRN Site. The Clinch River basin is in an area of comparatively narrow parallel ridges and somewhat broader intervening valleys oriented in a northeast-southwest direction. The northwestern boundary of the basin is formed by the Cumberland Mountains, which range up to 4200 ft in elevation; the southeastern boundary follows Clinch Mountain and Black Oak Ridge with elevations ranging up to 4700 ft. (Reference 2.3.1-20)

Water levels in the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir, which surrounds the CRN Site to the east, south, and west, are regulated by TVA. The water elevation in Watts Bar Reservoir is generally maintained between 735 ft msl and 741 ft msl (Reference 2.3.1-11). Plant grade is at an elevation of approximately 821 ft NAVD 88; placing the SMRs about 80 ft above the water level of the river.

The CRN Site is located in eastern Tennessee near the western boundary of the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province. The Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province is characterized by folded and faulted sedimentary geologic units of Paleozoic age, which produces a series of valleys and ridges. This province extends south through Georgia and Alabama and north to Pennsylvania and New Jersey (Reference 2.3.1-22).

In eastern Tennessee, the processes of folding, faulting, and erosion have resulted in a series of northeast trending ridges and valleys. Compressive forces from the southeast have caused these rocks to yield, first by folding and subsequently by repeated breaking along a series of thrust faults (Reference 2.3.1-22). This successive faulting has resulted in several outcropping units in the area that occur in parallel belts aligned roughly with the topography. The folding/faulting process has produced a repeated sequence of outcropping units. Major units present in the area include, from youngest to oldest, the Chickamauga Group, the Knox Group, the Conasauga Group, and the Rome Formation. All are composed primarily of Ordovician and Cambrian carbonate rocks. The dip of these formations is to the southeast in nearby Melton Valley in ORR (east of the CRN Site). Rock units generally strike between 50 and 60 degrees northeast, while dips vary with proximity to faults (Reference 2.3.1-23). Dips in Melton Valley are more gentle (10 to 20 degrees) away from the fault and steeper close to faults (45 to 90 degrees) (Reference 2.3.1-23). The extent of the Appalachian Ridge and Valley Region in eastern Tennessee is shown in Figure 2.3.1-16.

The topography of the site has been altered by anthropogenic changes. In 1972, the site was selected for permitting and construction of the CRBRP (Reference 2.3.1-24). Site preparation for the CRBRP began in September 1982. A Limited Work Authorization was granted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in May 1983. Excavation for the nuclear island was completed in September 1983. Approximately three million cubic yards of earth and rock were excavated from the site (Reference 2.3.1-24). The Secretary of Energy issued a statement in October 1983 that the department would terminate the project. In November of that year, an agreement was reached by the DOE, TVA, the affected utilities and project stakeholders to begin an orderly termination of the project (Reference 2.3.1-24).

2.3.1-15 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report The topography of the site prior to alteration as the result of the CRBRP site preparation is described in the CRBRP Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) (Reference 2.3.1-20). A representation of the pre-construction topography and site geology is shown in Figure 2.3.1-17.

The site was characterized as a series of parallel ridges separated by long, narrow valleys extending in a northeast-southwest direction. It was reported that there were no perennial streams on the site; however, after a heavy rain, surface water flowed from the ridges into the valleys and subsequently into the river. It was anticipated that construction of the CRBRP would not significantly alter the drainage pattern of the site (Reference 2.3.1-20).

The topography of the approximately 935-ac CRN Site is shown in Figure 2.3.1-18 as a hillshade map based on a recent Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) survey of the site area.

Areas of disturbance as the result of CRBRP site preparation and excavation can be seen by the flattened hillshade areas in Figure 2.3.1-19. The ground surface elevation varies from approximately 740 ft at the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir to over 1100 ft along Chestnut Ridge at the northwestern site boundary. At the CRN Site Powerblock Area (Figure 2.3.1-18), the ground surface elevation is approximately 800 ft with the exception of the CRBRP partially backfilled excavation area.

A more detailed discussion of the regional and local surface water features and geologic descriptions are presented in Subsection 2.3.1.1 and Section 2.6., respectively.

Regional Hydrogeology and Groundwater Aquifers As previously stated, the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province is characterized by a sequence of folded and faulted, northeast-trending Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that form a series of alternating valleys and ridges. The Valley and Ridge Province in the eastern part of Tennessee is underlain by rocks that are primarily Cambrian and Ordovician in age. Minor Silurian, Devonian, and Mississippian rocks also are present in the province. In general, soluble carbonate rocks and easily eroded shale underlie the valleys in the province, and more erosion-resistant siltstone, sandstone, and some cherty dolomite underlie ridges (Reference 2.3.1-22).

The arrangement of the northeast-trending valleys and ridges and the broad expanse of the Cambrian and the Ordovician rocks are the result of a combination of folding, thrust faulting, and erosion. Compressive forces from the southeast have caused these rocks to yield, first by folding and subsequently by repeatedly breaking along a series of thrust faults (Reference 2.3.1-22). The result of this faulting is that geologic formations can be repeated several times across the faults. In eastern Tennessee, the thrust faults are closely spaced and are more responsible than the folds for the present distribution of the rocks. Following the folding and thrusting, erosion produced the sequence of ridges and valleys on the present land surface.

The principal aquifers in the Valley and Ridge Province consist of carbonate rocks that are Cambrian, Ordovician, and Mississippian in age as shown in Figure 2.3.1-20. These aquifers are typically present in valleys and rarely present on broad, dissected ridges; and underlie more 2.3.1-16 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report than half of the Valley and Ridge Province in Tennessee. Most of the carbonate-rock aquifers are directly connected to sources of recharge, such as rivers or lakes, and solution activity has enlarged the original openings in the carbonate rocks. Other types of rocks in the province can yield large quantities of water to wells where they are fractured or contain solution openings or are directly hydraulically connected to sources of recharge (Reference 2.3.1-22).

Groundwater in aquifers primarily is stored in and moves through fractures, bedding planes, and solution openings in the rocks. These types of openings are secondary features that developed after the rocks were deposited and lithified. Little primary porosity and permeability remain in these rocks after the process of lithification. Some groundwater moves through primary pore spaces between the particles that constitute the alluvium along streams and the residuum of weathered material that overlies most of the rocks in the area (Reference 2.3.1-22).

In the carbonate rocks, the fractures and bedding planes have been enlarged by dissolution of part of the rocks. Slightly acidic water, especially that circulating in the upper 200 to 300 ft of the zone of saturation, dissolves some of the calcite and dolomite that compose the principal aquifers. Most of this dissolution takes place along fractures and bedding planes where the largest volumes of acidic groundwater flow (Reference 2.3.1-22).

Groundwater movement in the Valley and Ridge Province in eastern Tennessee is localized, in part, by the repeating lithology created by thrust faulting and, in part, by streams. Major streams are parallel to the northeast-trending valleys and ridges, and tributary streams are perpendicular to the valleys and ridges. Older rocks (primarily the Conasauga Group and the Rome Formation) have been displaced upward over the top of younger rocks (the Chickamauga and the Knox Groups) along thrust fault planes, forming a repeating sequence of permeable and less permeable hydrogeologic units. The repeating sequence, coupled with the stream network, divides the area into a series of adjacent, isolated, shallow groundwater flow systems. Within these local flow systems, most of the groundwater movement takes place within 300 ft of land surface. In recharge areas, most of the groundwater flows across the strike of the rocks. The water moves from the ridges where the water levels are high toward lower water levels adjacent to major streams that flow parallel to the long axes of the valleys as shown on Figure 2.3.1-21.

Most of the groundwater is discharged directly to local springs or streams, but some of it moves along the strike of the rocks, following highly permeable fractures, bedding planes, and solution zones to finally discharge at more distant springs or streams. Although fracture zones locally are present in the clastic rocks, the highly permeable zones, which are primarily present in the carbonate rocks, act as collectors and conduits for the water (Reference 2.3.1-22).

The most important aquifers in the Valley and Ridge Province in eastern Tennessee are the carbonate rocks underlying the majority of the province. The Knox Group is the most important aquifer in eastern Tennessee. Of particular interest, near the CRN Site, are the Chickamauga Group and the Knox Group (Reference 2.3.1-20). Most of the carbonate-rock aquifers are directly connected to surface water such as rivers and lakes. Other types of rocks can yield large quantities of water to wells where they are fractured, contain solution openings, or are hydraulically connected to a source of recharge (Reference 2.3.1-22).

2.3.1-17 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Secondary porosity features, in the form of bedding planes, fractures, and solution openings, comprise the primary flow pathways in the Valley and Ridge Province, as most rocks in the province have low primary porosity. Regolith layers are composed of clayey soils and saprolite.

Typical conceptual cross sections in the province consist of a storm-flow zone near the surface, a less permeable vadose zone, and a groundwater zone consisting of fractured bedrock with fracture density decreasing with depth (Reference 2.3.1-25). Groundwater flow is generally from recharge areas at high elevation (ridges) to local streams and rivers at lower elevations. The repeating geological sequences described above along with the regional stream network can create a series of adjacent, isolated, shallow groundwater flow systems (Reference 2.3.1-22).

Long-term average annual precipitation is approximately 50 in. in the vicinity of the CRN Site, with an estimated long-term average runoff of 25 to 30 in. (Reference 2.3.1-22). Most of the precipitation that percolates downward becomes groundwater recharge to the shallow aquifers; a small portion enters the deep aquifer. Mixing at depth in carbonate formations have also been studied (Reference 2.3.1-26).

Well yields in the Valley and Ridge Province vary from 1 to 2500 gallons per minute (gpm)

(Reference 2.3.1-22). The largest yields are from wells completed in Ordovician and Cambrian carbonate rocks (e.g., the Knox Group). Wells completed in the middle and lower parts of the Chickamauga Group, the Knox Group, and the upper part of the Conasauga Group have reported yields around 500 gpm in some locations. The median yield of wells completed in the principal aquifers range from about 11 to 350 gpm (Reference 2.3.1-22).

Spring discharges also vary greatly across the Valley and Ridge Province, ranging from about 1 to 5000 gpm, with median discharges from the principal aquifers varying from 20 to 175 gpm (Reference 2.3.1-22). The largest spring discharges issue from limestone formations of the Chickamauga Group; springs from the Knox Group have reported discharges as high as 4000 gpm (Reference 2.3.1-22). Spring discharges can be highly dependent on rainfall with some springs discharging as much as 10 times more water during high precipitation events as compared to periods of little rainfall (Reference 2.3.1-22). Wet-weather perched water tables and intermittent springs have been noted to occur (Reference 2.3.1-25).

Groundwater on the ORR, which is adjacent to the CRN Site, occurs in the unsaturated zone as transient, shallow subsurface storm flow as well as within the deeper saturated zone (Reference 2.3.1-27). An unsaturated zone of variable thickness separates the stormflow zone and water table. Adjacent to surface water features or in valley floors, the water table is found at shallow depths where the stormflow and unsaturated zones are undistinguishable. Along the ridge tops or near high topographic areas, the unsaturated zone is thick, and the water table often lies at considerable depths (approximately 50 to more than 150 ft).

Recharge of the groundwater system is reported to be strongly seasonal at the ORR. The amount of water that recharges the groundwater zone is highly variable depending on the shallow soil characteristics, permeability and degree of regolith fracturing beneath the soil, and the presence of dolines and man-made paved or covered areas. Higher recharge is expected in 2.3.1-18 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report areas of karst hydrogeology such as the Knox aquifer. In the ORR aquitards, groundwater is transmitted through fractures (Reference 2.3.1-27).

The chemical quality of water in the freshwater parts of the Valley and Ridge aquifers is similar for shallow wells and springs. The water is hard, a calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate type, and typically has a dissolved-solids concentration of 170 parts per million (ppm) or less. The ranges of concentrations are thought to be indicators of the depth and rate at which groundwater flows through the carbonate-rock aquifers. In general, the smaller values for a constituent represent water that is moving rapidly along shallow, short flow paths from recharge areas to points of discharge. This water has been in the aquifers for a short time and has accordingly dissolved only small quantities of aquifer material. Conversely, the larger values represent water that is moving more slowly along deep, long flow paths. Such water has been in contact with aquifer minerals for a longer time and thus has had greater opportunity to dissolve the minerals. Also, water that moves into deeper parts of the aquifers can mix with saltwater (brine) that might be present at depth (Reference 2.3.1-22).

The chemical characteristics of the groundwater in the ORR aquitards range from a mixed-cation-bicarbonate water type at shallow depths to a sodium-bicarbonate water type at deeper depths, to sodium-calcium-chloride water type as evidenced from very deep wells.

These chloride-rich waters appear to be a zone of dilution on top of deeper saline sodium-calcium-chloride brines, similar to those encountered within the Conasauga Group at depths greater than 1000 ft in Melton Valley (Reference 2.3.1-26). The Knox aquifer is characterized by a calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate water type.

The hydrogeologic conditions at the CRN Site are similar to those observed at the ORR with the exception of land disturbance areas resulting from earlier site work performed for the CRBRP where excavations and fill material are present.

Local Hydrogeology Description of the local hydrogeology is based on information from the adjacent ORR. The hydrogeology of the ORR is defined by two broad hydrogeologic groups: the Knox aquifer consisting of the Knox Group and the Maynardville Limestone and the ORR aquitards, which include the Chickamauga Group, Conasauga Group, and the Rome Formation (Reference 2.3.1-28). In the vertical dimension, the Knox aquifer and the ORR aquitards are subdivided into:

• The stormflow zone, which is a thin region at the surface where transient, precipitation generated flow accounts for 90 percent or more of the water moving through the subsurface.

• The vadose zone is the unsaturated zone above the water table, which varies in thickness from nearly non-existent along stream channels to greater than 100 ft beneath ridges underlain by the Knox aquifer.

2.3.1-19 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report

• The groundwater zone, which is continuously saturated and is the region where most of the remaining 10 percent of subsurface flow occurs. This zone is typically encountered near the top of bedrock.

• The aquiclude is a zone within the bedrock, within which water movement, if it occurs, probably is on the scale of thousands of years or more.

Chickamauga Group The Middle to Upper Ordovician age Chickamauga Group consists of limestone, shale, and siltstone. In eastern Tennessee it is subdivided into upper, middle, and lower parts. The upper part of the Chickamauga consists of 700 to 1000 ft of limestone and shale. The middle and lower parts, together range in thickness from about 2000 to 6000 ft, consisting of limestones, shales, and siltstone (Reference 2.3.1-20). However, due to thrust faulting, the entire Chickamauga Group sequence is frequently not present (Figure 2.3.1-20) The lower and middle parts of the Chickamauga Group are generally considered to be better aquifers than the upper part (Reference 2.3.1-20). Figure 2.3.1-22 presents the subdivisions of the Chickamauga Group based on the stratigraphy of Bethel Valley in the ORR (Reference 2.3.1-29). The unit designations developed by Stockdale were used during the CRBRP investigation (Reference 2.3.1-30). The formation names shown on the figure are the names used in this investigation.

Groundwater in the Chickamauga Group is largely restricted to fractures which have been enlarged by solutioning. The fracturing of the formation by folding has resulted in a system of cavities which are more or less interconnected. The quality of water in the Chickamauga Group is varied and is influenced by local topography, local land-use patterns, depth below ground surface at which the formation is encountered, and small scale geologic considerations (Reference 2.3.1-20). Many springs occur at the shale-limestone contacts and where solution-widened joints or fractures extend to ground surface in topographic lows. In the lower and middle parts of the Chickamauga limestones, small springs are common, and several can yield more than 450 gpm. Wells in these rocks usually have low yields when located on hills or other topographic highs and have larger yields when located near permanent streams. In the upper part of the Chickamauga limestones, some springs can yield more than 100 gpm (Reference 2.3.1-20).

Knox Group The Upper Cambrian to Lower Ordovician age Knox Group is the most important aquifer in eastern Tennessee. The Knox Group consists of 2000 to 3000 ft thickness of dolomites, limestones, and sandstones. The Knox Group in eastern Tennessee is subdivided into five formations:

• Mascot Dolomite

• Kingsport Formation

• Longview Dolomite 2.3.1-20 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report

• Chepultepec Dolomite

• Copper Ridge Dolomite (Reference 2.3.1-29)

The occurrence of water is controlled by the extent of solution enlargement of fractures (that are the result of ancient folding and faulting). Numerous springs are found in these rocks and the water is generally of good quality. The yield of water to wells ranges from small to large.

Generally the largest fractures and thus greatest well yields are found in the first few hundred ft of formation depth (Reference 2.3.1-20).

Conasauga Group The Middle to Upper Cambrian age Conasauga Group shows lithofacies changes along north-south trending belts from clastics in the west to carbonates in the east. The site area falls within the central area of the group, which exhibits an interfingering of clastic and carbonate deposits. Six formations can be identified within the group:

• Maynardville Limestone

• Nolichucky Shale

• Dismal Gap formation (formerly Maryville Limestone)

• Rogersville Shale

• Friendship formation (formerly Rutledge Limestone)

• Pumpkin Valley Shale The Conasauga Group has an average thickness of approximately 1800 ft in Melton and Bear Creek Valleys. The Maynardville Limestone is associated with the overlying Knox Group and functions as a single hydrologic unit known as the Knox aquifer. The remainder of the group is considered to be an aquitard (Reference 2.3.1-29).

Rome Formation The Early Cambrian age Rome Formation is the oldest bedrock unit exposed in the site area.

The Rome Formation consists of mixed siliciclastic and carbonate rocks. The lithologies represented in the formation include sandstone, siltstone, and shale with dolomite and dolomitic sandstone intervals. Studies have suggested that the true stratigraphic thickness of this formation is between 300 and 400 ft. This formation is considered to be an aquitard (Reference 2.3.1-29).

Unconsolidated Deposits The unconsolidated deposits in the CRN Site area typically consist of four types: residuum, colluvium, alluvium, and anthropogenic materials.

2.3.1-21 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Residuum The residuum is composed of the remains of bedrock weathering. In the site area bedrock weathers to a clayey residual soil, which locally contains chert gravel. During the CRBRP investigation, the thickness of the residuum was found to vary from 1 to 78 ft, depending on the type of underlying bedrock (Reference 2.3.1-20).

Colluvium Colluvium is an unconsolidated deposit sometimes found at the toe of a slope, and it represents material that has been moved by gravity. Colluvial deposits are generally identified by a lack of residual rock structure (bedding or joints) with disoriented rock fragments. This material tends to have more rock fragments than either residuum or alluvium. Colluvial deposits may be reworked by surface water action resulting in a hybrid colluvium-alluvium mixture (Reference 2.3.1-29).

Alluvium The alluvium includes deposits by the Clinch River and smaller tributary streams. During the CRBRP investigation, alluvial terrace deposits were identified on the site. These deposits consisted of silty clay with thin layers of rounded quartz, chert, and quartzite gravel. Additionally a sand and clay alluvial layer was found to occur in the Clinch River floodplain, with a thickness of approximately 32 ft (Reference 2.3.1-20).

Anthropogenic Materials Anthropogenic materials are primarily associated with artificial backfill. These materials include overburden and shot-rock (i.e., rock that has been excavated by blasting). Materials were excavated during site preparation for the CRBRP. These materials were moved and placed to facilitate laydown and parking area construction and to implement the site redress plan, when the project was canceled (Reference 2.3.1-24).

Summary of Local Hydrogeology Figure 2.3.1-23 shows the vertical relationship of the bedrock subdivisions for the Knox aquifer and the ORR aquitards. The figure indicates that fracture frequency decreases and the concentrations of sodium and chloride increase in the groundwater with increasing depth.

Numerous groundwater investigations have been performed at the ORR providing hydrogeologic property data for the bedrock units. Testing has included slug tests, packer tests, aquifer pumping tests, and tracer tests (Appendix 2.3-A). Figure 2.3.1-24 summarizes the hydraulic conductivity test results (box and whisker plot and hydraulic conductivity versus depth) by geologic formation and by depth below ground surface. The hydraulic conductivity by depth graph suggests that at approximately 100 ft below ground surface (bgs), hydraulic conductivities decrease with depth, although this trend is less obvious in the Knox aquifer, since both fracturing and solutioning are active in this unit. Figure 2.3.1-25 summarizes the results of 2.3.1-22 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report selected aquifer pumping tests performed on the ORR (presented in Appendix 2.3-A). The statistics presented on the figure indicate a geometric mean transmissivity of 32.5 feet squared per day (ft2/d) and a storage coefficient of 5.9 x 10-4 ft2/d for the Conasauga Group tests.

Additional hydrogeologic parameters for the stormflow and groundwater zones on the ORR are summarized on Table 2.3.1-2. The information presented in Table 2.3.1-2 suggests the transmissivity values for the ORR aquitards are approximately one order of magnitude less than those of the Knox aquifer.

Site Specific Hydrogeology Site specific hydrogeology has been investigated during the CRBRP licensing effort and preparation for the early site permit application.

CRBRP Investigation As part of the licensing activities for the CRBRP, the site was investigated by drilling 129 borings, installing 37 observation wells, installing 11 piezometers, and performing 117 bedrock packer permeability tests in boreholes. The investigation also included collection of groundwater level data and performing a survey of local groundwater users (Reference 2.3.1-20). TVA identified no abandoned wells in the area adjacent to the CRBRP excavation while performing the well drilling associated with the CRN Site subsurface investigation, and based on the information on well locations for the CRBRP, it is likely that the wells were destroyed and/or removed when the excavation and subsequent site redress for the CRBRP was performed.

The CRBRP SI identified four bedrock joint set orientations at the site:

• N52°E 37°SE

• N52°E 58°NW

• N25°W 80°SW

• N65°W 75°NE (Reference 2.3.1-20)

The predominant joint set is oriented N52°E 37°SE, which corresponds with the bedding plane partings in bedrock. The N52°E 58°NW joint set has a joint spacing of between one and six ft (Reference 2.3.1-20).

The results of the CRBRP packer hydraulic conductivity tests are shown on Figure 2.3.1-26 (and presented in Appendix 2.3-B), includes summary plots (box and whisker and hydraulic conductivity vs. depth) of the packer test results. The results can be classified in three groups:

the Chickamauga long interval tests (test section length 40 ft and greater), the Chickamauga discrete interval tests (test section length less than 40 ft), and the Knox Group tests. The CRBRP packer-test-derived hydraulic conductivity results are similar to hydraulic conductivity 2.3.1-23 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report test results from the ORR. Both sets of results indicate a decreasing trend in hydraulic conductivity at depths greater than approximately 100 ft bgs.

Water level measurements on the site indicated fluctuation in water levels as much as 20 ft.

Maximum water levels were observed in January and February and minimum water levels were observed in October and November. Movement of groundwater is described as generally from topographically high areas to topographic lows; however, this pattern is modulated by the extent of weathering in the bedrock. Ultimately, the Clinch River acts as a sink for site groundwater flow. The investigation concluded that major ridges on the site may be regarded as approximate locations of groundwater divides (Reference 2.3.1-20).

CRN Site Investigation The CRN Site field investigation included drilling 82 borings, installing 3 test pits, installing 44 wells, and performing in-situ/ex-situ tests on soil, rock, and groundwater. Groundwater characterization activities included monitoring groundwater levels and performing packer tests in boreholes, slug tests in monitoring wells, an aquifer pumping test, and groundwater geochemical sampling. Groundwater level monitoring is discussed in Subsections 2.3.1.2.2.2 and 2.3.1.2.2.3, aquifer properties are discussed in Subsection 2.3.1.2.2.4, and geochemical results are discussed in Subsection 2.3.3.2.

The locations of observation wells installed during this investigation are shown on Figure 2.3.1-18 and well installation details are provided on Table 2.3.1-3. The figure and table include permanent observation wells (OW prefix) and supplemental wells (PT-OW and PT-PW prefixes) installed for the aquifer pumping test. Well suffixes of U, L, and D were assigned to wells to designate the upper, lower, and deeper monitoring zones respectively. The screened depth intervals for the site observation wells for the upper monitoring zone range from 15 to 105 ft bgs, the lower monitoring zone range from 89 to 178 ft bgs, and the deeper monitoring zone range from 176 to 297 ft bgs.

A three-well cluster was installed east of the OW-101 well cluster, at boring location MP-422 (OW-422 U, L and D). During well completion, groundwater contamination was observed in OW-422L, and TVA notified TDEC and provided it with results of well sampling. The contamination was determined to be non-radiological petroleum products. Due to the contamination in OW-422L, this well cluster (OW-422 U, L and D) was not developed; however, it remains in place, locked and under TVA control. TVA has no plans to perform any additional work in the location, and TDEC will make a determination regarding the disposition of the well.

Because the wells were not developed and monitoring of water levels in these wells was not performed, the OW-422 well series is not included in the discussion of site observation wells.

Well clusters OW-428 and OW-429 (installed north and south of the OW-422 cluster) were installed to provide replacement geological/groundwater data.

Additional as-built information for the site wells is presented in the Data Report for Geotechnical Exploration and Testing (Reference 2.3.1-21). All permanent observation wells at 2.3.1-24 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report the CRN Site were sampled after well development and no evidence of petroleum products was observed in the wells. The contamination seems to be restricted to the immediate well OW-422 area since no evidence of petroleum products were observed before and after the 72-hr pumping test conducted near the OW-423 U, L, and D well cluster (up dip of OW-422L). The hydrogeology of the CRN Site is expected to be similar to the hydrogeology of the ORR as a result of the sites physical proximity and similarity in geology. The primary differences are in the storm-flow and vadose zones at the CRN Site. The extensive excavation and reworking of unconsolidated and weathered bedrock materials associated with the CRBRP site preparation has either significantly modified or obliterated these zones at the CRN Site.

Groundwater Sources and Sinks This subsection describes the regional, local, and site-specific discharge and recharge areas, mechanisms, and characteristics of the different aquifer units.

Groundwater Discharge Natural discharge of the Valley and Ridge Province aquifers is primarily through streams, rivers, springs and evapotranspiration. In the site area, the Clinch River acts as a sink to which all groundwater at the site migrates (Reference 2.3.1-20).

Studies performed by the DOE for the Melton Valley offsite monitoring system, which is located approximately two miles east of the CRN Site, investigated the groundwater flow relationship with the Clinch River (Reference 2.3.1-31). Figure 2.3.1-27 presents a section through the river showing the head distribution. This head distribution suggests discharge to the Clinch River from the surrounding groundwater system.

Groundwater Recharge Groundwater recharge is derived primarily from precipitation. Although periodic recharge from the Clinch River during high stages of the river may also be occurring, this is not considered to represent a significant part of the recharge to the aquifer. Recharge is most effective in those areas where the overburden soils are thin and permeable. Recharge may also occur through sinkholes that penetrate relatively thick and impervious formations (Reference 2.3.1-20).

2.3.1.2.2 Groundwater Sources This subsection contains information pertaining to sole-source aquifers, groundwater flow directions and hydraulic gradients, seasonal and long-term variations of groundwater levels, hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity of the geologic formations. This information has been organized into five subcategories: (1) identification of sole source aquifers, (2) groundwater flow directions, (3) temporal groundwater trends, (4) aquifer properties, and (5) hydrogeochemical characteristics.

2.3.1-25 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Sole Source Aquifers A sole-source aquifer is defined as the sole or principal source of drinking water that supplies 50 percent or more of drinking water for an area, with no reasonable available alternative sources should the aquifer becomes contaminated. Figure 2.3.1-28 shows the location of sole-source aquifers in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4, which encompasses Tennessee. Because surface water is abundant in the area, the EPAs Sole Source Aquifer Program has not identified any sole source aquifers in Tennessee as shown in Figure 2.3.1-28 (Reference 2.3.1-32). The identified sole-source aquifers in EPA Region 4 are beyond the boundaries of the local and regional hydrogeologic systems associated with the CRN Site.

Therefore, the CRN Site will not impact any identified sole-source aquifer.

Temporal Groundwater Trends The USGS maintains a network of observation wells in Tennessee to monitor trends in water levels. The closest permanent observation well is approximately 48 mi southeast of the CRN Site as shown on Figure 2.3.1-29 (Reference 2.3.1-33). This observation well is screened in the Great Smoky Group aquifer and is approximately 220 ft deep. The well indicates typical annual fluctuations of between 1 and 3 ft. The USGS also presents data from a manual water level measurement well located approximately 0.5 mi east of the CRN Site as shown on Figure 2.3.1-30 (Reference 2.3.1-34). This well is screened in the Valley and Ridge aquifer and is approximately 610 ft deep. The period of record is only approximately 3 months; however the hydrograph shows an approximate 5 ft range of water levels fluctuations. Neither of these USGS wells monitor the hydrogeologic units relevant to the site.

During the CRBRP investigation, periodic water level measurements were made in the site observation wells and piezometers. Examination of these measurements suggests an annual fluctuation of 10 to 25 ft with maximum water levels occurring in January and February and minimum water levels occurring in October and November (Reference 2.3.1-20).

The CRN Site hydrogeologic characterization program consisted of two years of groundwater level measurements in site observation wells. This included periodic manual measurements in all wells (except the OW-422 well cluster), beginning September 23, 2013, and continuous measurements from a recording pressure transducer in the following wells, beginning on November 23 and 24, 2013:

• OW-101

• OW-202

• OW-409

• OW-417

• OW-423 2.3.1-26 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1.-31 presents hydrographs for the site well clusters, along with Clinch River (Watts Bar Reservoir) stage and site precipitation data for comparison. Water level responses from wells OW-101D, OW-409U, OW-416U/L, OW-420L, and OW-421D show correspondence to the Watts Bar Reservoir stage with periodic deviations that appear to be associated with precipitation events. All of the site wells show a response to precipitation events, with OW-417L and OW-421U showing the most subdued response to precipitation. The location of well clusters OW-417 and OW-421 in proximity to the Clinch River may explain the subdued responses in these wells.

Observation wells OW-202L, OW-421L, OW-421D, OW-428U, OW-428L, and OW-428D show water level artifacts from well installation, development, and water sampling; these wells are excluded for the purpose of characterizing the range of fluctuation. The range of water level elevation fluctuations in the site observation wells was from approximately 1ft (OW-421U) to 25 ft (OW-409U). These fluctuations appear to be associated with precipitation events. The large magnitude of fluctuation at OW-409U may be further indication that this well is located in a recharge area.

Groundwater Flow Directions Groundwater flow directions in the ORR are generally characterized as from the ridge tops to drainages within the adjacent valley or as a subdued replica of topography. Figure 2.3.1-32 presents conceptual block flow diagrams for Bethel Valley, which has similar geology as the CRN Site (Reference 2.3.1-35). The figure indicates localized influences such as springs, discontinuity orientations (fractures and bedding planes), man-made features (pipelines, tank farms, and building basements), and solution features have an impact on flow directions.

Groundwater flow directions were evaluated during the CRBRP PSAR by preparing two groundwater contour maps, one for December 24, 1973 and one for January 2, 1974 (Reference 2.3.1-20). Both maps indicate a general flow direction toward the southeast or southwest in the area of the proposed nuclear island. An average hydraulic gradient of approximately 0.007 feet per foot (ft/ft) is reported for the two maps (Reference 2.3.1-20). It should be noted that these maps were prepared using water level measurements from observation wells with long screened intervals and thus the equipotentials represent a vertically averaged head.

The CRN Site investigation included synoptic measurements of groundwater levels in the site observation wells. These measurements were used to prepare maximum potentiometric surface maps for the site. The maximum potentiometric surface maps used the maximum groundwater level elevation at each well cluster. Figures 2.3.1-33 through 2.3.1-42 present the potentiometric surface maps. The maps indicate a southwest to southeast flow direction in the area of the proposed CRN Site Powerblock Area. Hydraulic gradients were measured along selected flow lines on each figure. Table 2.4.12-8 in the Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) presents the horizontal hydraulic gradients for the ten potentiometric surface maps. The horizontal hydraulic gradients range from 0.03 to 0.12 ft/ft. Horizontal gradients were also evaluated using just the 2.3.1-27 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report upper site observation wells for the eight quarters (December 2013, March 2014, May 2014, August 2014, November 2014, February 2015, May 2015, and August 2015), resulting in horizontal gradients ranging from 0.05 to 0.17 ft/ft. For comparison the average hydraulic gradient between the maximum water level at OW-101U and OW-202U and the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir is 0.05 ft/ft. This is derived based on a shortest distance of 1400 ft from the power block area to the edge of the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir; lowest stage of the reservoir at 735 ft NAVD88 (during the monitoring period); and the maximum water levels at OW-101U and OW-202U of 798.99 and 800.30 ft NAVD88. Due to the complexity of the subsurface hydrogeologic conditions at the CRN Site, the maximum potentiometric groundwater elevation at each well cluster is used, representing a single hydrogeological unit. Given that the U, L, and D wells generally screened within different hydrogeologic units, the maximum potentiometric surface maps do not represent a true potentiometric surface. These maps can, however, be considered bounding in terms of depicting the maximum groundwater elevations at the site.

Vertical hydraulic gradients were determined at each well cluster to evaluate the potential for vertical movement in the subsurface. The average vertical hydraulic gradients range from -0.69 to 1.03 ft/ft (Appendix 2.3-C). A negative vertical hydraulic gradient indicates an upward flow potential and a positive one indicates a downward flow potential. The upward flow potential would suggest groundwater discharge and the downward flow potential would suggest groundwater recharge. A majority of the wells with upward flow potential are located on the western and eastern sides of the site suggesting discharge towards incised site drainage features or to the Clinch River. The exception to this is well cluster OW-409U/L, which is located near the center of the site. This cluster may be indicating groundwater discharge to the adjacent CRBRP excavation. The cluster with the highest downward flow potential is OW-429U/L, suggesting a recharge area. Figure 2.3.1-43 represents the spatial variation of equipotential in the vertical plane in a cross-section along the strike of the bedding plane based on June 13, 2014 observations. Groundwater discharges from the higher equipotential area (at OW-202) to the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir, with OW-202 at the center of the CRS peninsula as a likely location of the groundwater divide.

Aquifer Properties Aquifer properties at the CRN Site were determined by in-situ testing and from laboratory testing of rock core and soil samples collected during the investigation. The following sections present the results of this testing.

Hydrogeological Parameters The primary hydrogeological properties of interest at the site are the hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity of the bedrock. Hydraulic conductivity was evaluated qualitatively through fracture frequency analysis and quantitatively through in-situ testing. The in-situ tests performed were borehole packer tests, well slug tests, and an aquifer pumping test. Effective porosity is based on a series of studies performed on the ORR.

2.3.1-28 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Fracture Frequency Analysis Fracture frequency analysis was performed by plotting the open fractures identified on the acoustic televiewer borehole geophysical logs. Figure 2.3.1-44 presents the resulting frequency distribution histogram. The histogram shows three general areas: 1) from elevation 812 to 712 ft NAVD 88, a pervasively fractured zone; 2) from elevation 712 to 612 ft NAVD 88, a moderately fractured zone; and 3) from 612 to 487 ft NAVD 88, a slightly fractured zone. It should be noted that the upper elevation of the pervasively fractured zone is somewhat biased, since most boreholes were cased into the top of bedrock prior to performing the geophysical surveys, and thus the number of open fractures at the top of rock is not accurately represented and are likely under-reported. Figure 2.3.1-45 presents an example geophysical log demonstrating this bias.

The fracture distribution identified at the CRN Site is consistent with observations at the ORR. In nearby Melton and Bethel Valleys, the transition from fractured to less fractured bedrock occurs at approximately 150 ft bgs (Reference 2.3.1-28). Figure 2.3.1-24, which is a plot of ORR hydraulic conductivity test results, indicates a generalized decrease in hydraulic conductivity at approximately 100 ft bgs.

Borehole Packer Tests A borehole packer test is a constant head test of an isolated interval in a borehole to determine the hydraulic conductivity. For the CRN Site investigation, a double packer arrangement was used to isolate the test zone. A total of 41 packer tests were performed in 12 open boreholes during the field investigation. Of these tests, 5 exhibited evidence of flow by-passing around the packers and 14 had flow rates less than the quantifiable rate for the test, and thus were not analyzed. Table 2.3.1-5 presents the test results.

The tests were performed and interpreted using USACE method 381-80 (Reference 2.3.1-36).

The borehole packer test results were arranged by geologic unit and are presented in a box and whisker plot on Figure 2.3.1-46. Summary statistics for these tests are included on the figure.

The results were also compared with the packer tests performed during the CRBRP investigation as shown on Figure 2.3.1-46. In general the two data sets agree; however, the CRBRP Chickamauga long interval and CRBRP Knox tests exhibit an order of magnitude, or more, lower range of values. This may in part be due to the deeper test intervals selected during the CRBRP investigation. The upper range of values is similar for both data sets.

The CRN packer results were plotted versus depth below ground surface as shown on Figure 2.3.1-47. The results show a similar pattern as the CRBRP tests (Figure 2.3.1-26) and the ORR hydraulic conductivity tests (Figure 2.3.1-24). The hydraulic conductivities decrease below 150 ft bgs. This is most probably the result of the decreased frequency of open fractures below this depth.

2.3.1-29 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Well Slug Tests The slug test method involves creating a sudden water level displacement in the well and observing the water level change as it returns to the pre-test level. Slug tests were performed in selected site observation wells. Observation wells excluded from testing include OW-202U, OW-402U, and OW-429L because of low water levels in the wells and OW-428D because the well was still recovering from development activities. Slug tests used either a solid slug or pneumatic slug to induce the water level change. Two tests were performed in each well, one where the water level was raised in the well and allowed to fall back to the pre-test level (falling head) and one test where the water level in the well was lowered and allowed to rise back to the pre-test level (rising head). A recording pressure transducer was placed in the well to monitor the water level changes. Slug test results were entered into the AQTESOLV (HydroSOLVE 2007) computer program and the Bouwer and Rice method was used for interpretation (Reference 2.3.1-37; Reference 2.3.1-38).

The slug test solution is a porous medium method and is applied to fractured bedrock. Porous medium slug test method results were compared with discrete fracture interval method results (Reference 2.3.1-39). Their comparison found that using porous medium methods, the results were on the same order of magnitude as the results for the discrete fracture interval methods. A porous medium assumption is appropriate in highly fractured materials and where fluid exchange between the fractures and the rock matrix is either very limited or very rapid (Reference 2.3.1-40). The observation wells were located in the most fractured intervals identified in the borehole logs. Information from the ORR on Table 2.3.1-2 indicates that a matrix hydraulic conductivity of 2.8 x 10-7 ft/d is representative of the ORR Aquitards, which includes the Chickamauga Group. This matrix hydraulic conductivity suggests that the rock matrix is not contributing significantly to flow. These studies suggest that the use of the porous medium assumption is reasonable for the CRN Site tests.

Table 2.3.1-6 presents the results of the slug test interpretations. Examination of the table indicates that the test results from four wells (OW-202L, OW-401D, OW-415U, and OW-421D) could not be interpreted. Additionally, the results from five wells (OW-409U, OW-415L, OW-421L, OW-423D, and OW-429U) had one test (falling or rising head) that could not be interpreted. For those wells with one test, the average hydraulic conductivity is equivalent to the results of the test (falling or rising head) that could be interpreted.

Figure 2.3.1-48 presents the slug test results graphically. The figure includes a box and whisker plot of hydraulic conductivity by observation well monitoring zone and a scatter plot of hydraulic conductivity versus depth below ground surface. The box and whisker plot indicates that the hydraulic conductivities in the upper and lower zones are similar, while those in the deep zone are lower. The scatter plot of hydraulic conductivity versus depth below ground surface in general shows a pattern of decreasing range in hydraulic conductivity with depth similar to plots in Figure 2.3.1-26 and Figure 2.3.1-47. Figure 2.3.1-49 is a box and whisker plot comparing the slug test results with the CRN Site packer test results for the two major geologic units (Chickamauga Group and Knox Group) present at the site. The figure indicates a similar central 2.3.1-30 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report tendency in the results of both tests, but the slug tests have a much broader range of values.

The breadth of this range may be due to the longer test intervals for the slug tests as compared to the packer test intervals.

Aquifer Pumping Test An aquifer pumping test was performed at the CRN Site. The aquifer pumping test array consisted of a pumping well (PT-PW) and nine proximal observation wells (PT-OW-U1, PT-OW-L1, PT-OW-U2, PT-OW-L2, PT-OW-U3, PT-OW-L3, OW-423U, OW-423L, and OW-423D) as shown on Figure 2.3.1-18. The installation completion data for these wells are included on Table 2.3.1-3. The pumping well was screened in the Fleanor and Eidson members of the Lincolnshire formation and the Blackford formation. The upper zone observation wells were screened in the Eidson member of the Lincolnshire formation and the lower and deep zone observation wells were screened in the Blackford formation. The aquifer thickness was taken to be 155 ft, which represents the difference between the static water level in the pumping well and the bottom elevation of the primary flow zone. (A review of the geologic log cores did not identify an overlying confining bed; it is presumed that leakage is derived from an underlying confining bed.) A constant rate pumping test was performed in the pumping well for a period of 72 hr with an average pumping rate of 14.5 gpm.

Pumping and observation well responses were reviewed and diagnostic plots of each well were prepared. Based on a review of the observation well water level responses, a portion of the observation wells were discarded from further analysis, because they were outside the radius of influence of the pumping well or they were completed in different hydrogeologic unit.

Interpretation of the diagnostic plots for the results that were retained indicated that a leaky aquifer model most accurately represents the observed response. The water level response and pumping rate data were entered into the AQTESOLV (HydroSOLVE 2007) computer program for analysis (Reference 2.3.1-38). The solution method used was that presented in Hantush and Jacob (Reference 2.3.1-41).

Table 2.3.1-7 presents the results of the constant rate pumping test interpretation. Examination of the results suggests the maximum transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity is observed at OW-423L, which is oriented with the N52°E strike of the bedding planes relative to the pumping well. The observation wells (PT-OW-U2 and PT-OW-L2) oriented perpendicular (N38°W) to the strike of the bedding planes show approximately an order of magnitude lower transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity. Comparison of the results of this aquifer pumping test with tests performed on the ORR, as shown on Figure 2.3.1-25, indicates that the transmissivities are within the same range, but the storage coefficient values have a greater range for the CRN Site aquifer pumping test.

Effective Porosity Table 2.3.1-8 summarizes the results of petrophysical testing of rock samples to determine the effective porosity of rock from the Conasauga and Knox Groups on the ORR. The test methods 2.3.1-31 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report used include helium, mercury, and immersion-saturation porosimetry. The authors indicate that the immersion-saturation method would produce the results that most accurately approach the true value of effective porosity. The average effective porosity of bedrock determined from these tests is approximately 4 percent.

Geotechnical Parameters During the CRN Site investigation, soil and rock samples were collected and tested.

Interpretation of the test results has resulted in best estimates of properties of the different materials that are present or may be present in the future at the site. Table 2.3.1-9 summarizes the estimates of parameters important to radionuclide transport.

Summary of Aquifer Properties Hydrogeologic testing information for the CRN Site area were obtained from 1) published bedrock aquifer testing from the ORR area; 2) CRBRP investigation packer tests; 3) CRN Site packer tests; 4) CRN Site slug tests: and 5) the CRN Site aquifer pumping test. The Conasauga Group, Knox Group, and the Chickamauga Group are the three major geologic strata in which the hydrogeologic testing were undertaken. Evaluation of these results suggests that hydraulic conductivity, in the bedrock, generally decreases with depth irrespective of the lithology.

Additional petrophysical testing, such as bulk density and porosity testing have been performed at the ORR and at the site. The results of these tests show generally uniform properties in the bedrock units.

Hydrogeochemical Characteristics Site specific groundwater chemical data was collected from selected CRN onsite observation wells and compared to existing hydrogeochemical data from the surrounding area. Results and evaluation of these data sets are presented in Subsection 2.3.3.2.

2.3.1.2.3 Subsurface Groundwater Pathways The CRN Site is surrounded on three sides by the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir, which is interpreted to be the discharge area for site groundwater. The most likely pathway for groundwater flow is recharge in the upland areas of the site with discharge to the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir. An alternate groundwater pathway is recharge in the upland areas with seepage to onsite drainages and surface water discharge into the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir. It is very unlikely that there is shallow groundwater flow underneath the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir and exposure to water users on the opposite side of the Reservoir. This conclusion is based on 1) the absence of cavities and contiguous fractures below elevation 720 ft, 2) the head relationships observed at the Melton Valley Exit Pathway monitoring wells (Reference 2.3.1-31), and 3) the observed vertical hydraulic gradients demonstrate that the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir acts as a hydrologic sink. This is further supported by the following observations:

2.3.1-32 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report

• There is no evidence of contiguous cavities or fractures originating from the power block area and extending below the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir, based on geologic core analysis from subsurface investigations;

• The CRBRP excavation, completed to an elevation of 714 ft NGVD29 and 6 ft below the invert elevation of the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir, showed no evidence of any continuous groundwater flow; this is likely due to an absence of cavities and continuous fractures below elevation 720 ft;

• Only 5 percent of the observed cavities fall below elevation 718.4 ft with the average elevation of observed cavities being 782.6 ft; and

• An analysis of site-specific geologic core analysis, fracture frequency analysis, and groundwater vertical gradient data provides no evidence supporting a pathway for radionuclide transport occurring underneath the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir within the shallow groundwater system.

Advective Transport Advective transport in groundwater is assumed to occur in an equivalent porous medium. This assumption is based on the findings of the aquifer pumping test and other hydraulic conductivity tests and is restricted to the shallow groundwater system. In the deeper groundwater system, that is not pervasively fractured, discrete fractures control the movement of groundwater.

However, as discussed in Subsection 2.3.1.2.1.2 and shown on Figure 2.3.1-23, greater than 90 percent of groundwater flow occurs in the shallow zone.

The porous medium flow is represented by Darcys law, when written in terms of linear velocity is:

v = K/ne x dh/dl Where:

v = linear groundwater velocity [L/T]

K = hydraulic conductivity [L/T]

ne = effective porosity dh/dl = hydraulic gradient (change in head over change in length)

(Reference 2.3.1-42)

The travel time (T) is determined by dividing the distance to the receptor (D) (Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir) by the linear groundwater velocity (v):

T = D/v 2.3.1-33 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-10 presents a summary of these parameters and the linear velocity and travel time determined from these parameters. Using the representative parameter values, a travel time of 359 days is determined (Table 2.3.1-10).

2.3.1.3 References Reference 2.3.1-1. Tennessee Valley Authority, "Watts Bar Reservoir Land Management Plan, Panel 2 Map," February, 2009.

Reference 2.3.1-2. Tennessee Valley Authority, "Watts Bar Reservoir Land Management Plan, Panel 1 Map," February, 2009.

Reference 2.3.1-3. Tennessee Valley Authority, "Watts Bar Reservoir Land Management Plan, Panel 4 Map," February, 2009.

Reference 2.3.1-4. U. S. Geological Survey, "Estimated Use of Water in the Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030," WRI 03-4302, 2004.

Reference 2.3.1-5. Tennessee Valley Authority, "Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 3 & 4, COL Application, Part 3, Applicant's Environmental Report - Combined License Stage, Revision 1,"

ML083100297, 2013.

Reference 2.3.1-6. U.S. Geological Survey, Introduction to the Upper Tennessee River Basin, Website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1205/introduction.htm, 2015.

Reference 2.3.1-7. Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Reservoir Website, Website:

http://www.tva.com/sites/wattsbarres.htm, 2015.

Reference 2.3.1-8. Tennessee Valley Authority, "Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Reservoir Operations Study," May, 2004.

Reference 2.3.1-9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Watershed Maps, Website:

http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/., 2015.

Reference 2.3.1-10. U.S. Geological Survey, Bethel Valley Quadrangle Tennessee 7.5-Minute Series, 2013.

Reference 2.3.1-11. Tennessee Valley Authority, "Clinch River Small Modular Reactor Site Regional Surface Water Use Study - Revision 2," April 24, 2015.

Reference 2.3.1-12. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris Reservoir Website, Website:

http://www.tva.gov/sites/norris.htm, 2015.

Reference 2.3.1-13. Tennessee Valley Authority, Melton Hill Reservoir, Website:

http://www.tva.gov/sites/meltonhill.htm, 2013.

2.3.1-34 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Reference 2.3.1-14. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: White Oak Dam and Sediment Control Structure, Website:

http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/Minutes/FY2010/Presentations/Kopotic%20SSAB%2011-18-09.pdf, November 18, 2008.

Reference 2.3.1-15. Tennessee Valley Authority, Fort Loudoun Reservoir Website, Website:

http://www.tva.com/sites/fortloudoun.htm, 2015.

Reference 2.3.1-16. Howard, Charles S., Henderson, Andrew R., and Phillips, Craig L.,

"Clinch River Small Modular Reactor and Barge/Traffic Site Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats and Protected Aquatic Animals Technical Report - Revision 5," Tennessee Valley Authority, December 22, 2015.

Reference 2.3.1-17. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, "Guidance for Making Hydrologic Determinations," Division of Water Pollution Control, May, 2011.

Reference 2.3.1-18. Pilarski-Hall, Kim and Lees, Britta P., "Clinch River Small Modular Reactor Site - Wetland Survey Report - Revision 4," November 19, 2015.

Reference 2.3.1-19. Pilarski-Hall, Kim and Kennon, R. A., "Clinch River Small Modular Reactor Site - Supplemental Wetland Survey Report Barge/Traffic Area - Revision 1,"

Tennessee Valley Authority, June 17, 2015.

Reference 2.3.1-20. Project Management Corporation, "Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report," Volume 2, Amendment 68, May, 1982.

Reference 2.3.1-21. AMEC Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., "Data Report, Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Clinch River SMR Project," October 16, 2014.

Reference 2.3.1-22. Lloyd, O. B. and Lyke, W. L., Ground Water Atlas of the United States:

Segment 10, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, USGS Hydrological Atlas 730-K, 1995.

Reference 2.3.1-23. Tucci, P., "Hydrology of Melton Valley at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee," U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4131, 1992.

Reference 2.3.1-24. Breeder Reactor Corporation, "Final Report The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project," January, 1985.

Reference 2.3.1-25. Moore, G. K., "Hydrograph Analysis in a Fractured Rock Terrane Near Oak Ridge, Tennessee," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, 1991.

2.3.1-35 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Reference 2.3.1-26. Saunders, J. A. and Toran, L. E., "Evidence for Dedolomitization and Mixing in Paleozoic Carbonates Near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Ground Water 32, No. 2: 207-214, 1994.

Reference 2.3.1-27. Parr, P. D. and Hughes, J. F., "Oak Ridge Reservation Physical Characteristics and Natural Resources," U.S. Department of Energy by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Managed by UT-Batelle, LLC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725, October, 2006.

Reference 2.3.1-28. Solomon, D. K., Moore, G. K., Toran, L. E., Dreier, R. B., and McMaster, W. M., "A Hydrologic Framework for the Oak Ridge Reservation, Status Report," ORNL/TM-12026, U.S. Department of Energy under Contract number DE-AC05-840R21400 by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Services Division, May, 1992.

Reference 2.3.1-29. Hatcher, Jr. R. D., Lemiszki, P. J., Dreier, R. B., Ketelle, R. H., Lee, R. R.,

Lietzke, D. A., McMaster, W. M., Foreman, J. L., and Lee, S-Y., "Status Report on the Geology of the Oak Ridge Reservation," ORNL/TM-12074, U.S. Department of Energy by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400, October, 1992.

Reference 2.3.1-30. Stockdale, P. B., "Geologic Conditions at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10) Area Relevant to the Disposal of Radioactive Waste," ORO-58, U.S.

Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 1951.

Reference 2.3.1-31. Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC, "Melton Valley Exit Pathway and Offsite Groundwater Monitoring Results: July 2010 - March 2011," U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management under contract DE-AC05-98OR22700, June, 2011.

Reference 2.3.1-32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sole Source Aquifers in the Southeast, Website: http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/groundwater/%20r4ssa.html, 2014.

Reference 2.3.1-33. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Information System: Web Interface, Groundwater levels for the Nation: USGS 3539220833345600 SV:E-002, Website:

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gwlevels?site_no=353922083345600&agency_cd=USGS&f ormat=gif, 2014.

Reference 2.3.1-34. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Information System: Web Interface, Groundwater levels for Tennessee: USGS 35332084220301 Ro. M-021, TDEC HD2, Website:

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/tn/nwis/%20gwlevels/?site_no=355332084220301&agency_cd=

USGS&amp, 2014.

2.3.1-36 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Reference 2.3.1-35. Science Applications International Corporation, "Engineering Study Report for Groundwater Actions in Bethel Valley, Oak Ridge, Tennessee," DOE/OR/01-2219&D2, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management under contact DE-AC05-98OR22700, November, 2005.

Reference 2.3.1-36. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Suggested Method for In Situ Determination of Rock Mass Permeability, Rock Testing Handbook Method 381-80,"

Geotechnical Library, Rock Mechanics Branch, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 2016.

Reference 2.3.1-37. Bouwer, H. and Rice, R. C., "A Slug test for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity of Unconfined Aquifers With Completely or Partially Penetrating Wells, Water Resources Research Vol. 12, No. 3: 423-428, 1976.

Reference 2.3.1-38. HydroSOLVE, "AQTESOLV for Windows Version 4.5 User's Guide,"

Reston, VA, 2007.

Reference 2.3.1-39. Shapiro, A. M. and Hsieh, P. A., "How Good Are Estimates of Transmissivity from Slug Tests in Fractured Rock?, Ground Water 36, No. 1: 37-48, 1998.

Reference 2.3.1-40. Butler, Jr. J. J., The Design, Performance, and Analysis of Slug Tests, Lew Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1998.

Reference 2.3.1-41. Hantush, M. S. and Jacob, C. E., "Non-Steady Radial Flow in an Infinite Leaky Aquifer," Transactions, American Geophysical Union 36, No. 1: 95-100, 1955.

Reference 2.3.1-42. Domenico, P. A. and Schwartz, F. W., "Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology," John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 360, 1990.

Reference 2.3.1-43. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Mean Monthly, Seasonal, and Annual Pan Evaporation for the United States," Technical Report NWS 34, December, 1982.

Reference 2.3.1-44. Moore, G. K. and Toran, L. E., "Supplement to a Hydrologic Framework for the Oak Ridge Reservation," ORNL/TM-12191, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Sciences Division under contract DE-AC05-85OR21400, November, 1992.

Reference 2.3.1-45. Dorsch, J., Katsube, T. J., Sandford, W. E., Dugan, B. E., and Tourkow, L. M., "Effective Porosity and Pore-Throat Sizes of Conasauga Group Mudrock: Application, Test and Evaluation of Petrophysical Techniques," ORNL/GWPO-021, U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-96OR22464, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Services Division, April, 1996.

2.3.1-37 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Reference 2.3.1-46. Dorsch, J., "Effective Porosity and Density of Carbonate Rocks (Maynardville Limestone and Copper Ridge Dolomite) within Bear Creek Valley on the Oak Ridge Reservation Based on Modern Petrophysical Techniques," ORNL/GWPO-026, U.S.

Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-96OR22464, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Services Division, February, 1997.

Reference 2.3.1-47. Tennessee Valley Authority, "Preliminary Information on Clinch River Site for LMBFR Demonstration Plant," Atomic Energy Commission, August 23, 1972.

2.3.1-38 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-1 Monthly Means of Estimated Pan Evaporation Computed from Meteorological Measurements Using a Form of the Penman Equation1 Record Latest Station Latitude &

State Station Name May - Oct Nov - Apr Annual Began Data Index No. Longitude Mo/Yr Mo/Yr Tennessee Bristol WB Airport 1094 36° 28', 82° 23' 30.34 14.36 44.70 Nov-59 Dec-70 Chattanooga WB Airport 1656 35° 01', 85° 11' 33.99 15.95 49.94 May-61 Oct-79 Knoxville WB Airport 4950 35° 49', 83° 58' 34.57 16.04 50.61 Dec-41 Dec-79 Memphis WE Airport 5954 35° 03', 89° 58' 41.97 19.40 61.37 May-66 Oct-79 Nashville WB Airport 6402 36° 07', 86° 40' 37.34 16.07 53.41 Oct-36 Nov-48 Average 35.64 16.36 52.01 1

Evaporation measured in inches.

Source: (Reference 2.3.1-43) 2.3.1-39 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-2 (Sheet 1 of 2)

Summary of Hydrogeologic Properties on the ORR Residuum/Stormflow Zone Property Conditions Value Grassland 0.2 to 0.4 m Stormflow Zone Thickness Forest 0.6 to 2.0 m Grassland 1.1 m/d Infiltration rate Forest 8.8 m/d Total Porosity General 0.4 Specific Yield General 0.035 Hydraulic Conductivity General 9.2 m/d Hydraulic Gradient General 0.075 Discharge Rate General 0 to 110 L/sec*km2 Groundwater Zone Property Knox aquifer ORR aquitards Thickness Permeable interval ------ 1.5 m Low-permeability interval ------ 12 m Water table fluctuation 5.3 m 1.5 m Total porosity (matrix) ------- 9.6 x 10-3 Fracture porosity ------- 5.0 x 10-4 Specific yield 3.3 x 10-3 2.3 x 10-3 Fractures Spacing ------- 35 cm Aperture 0.25 mm 0.12 mm Unfractured rock matrix

---

8.7 x 10-8 m/d hydraulic conductivity 2.3.1-40 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-2 (Sheet 2 of 2)

Summary of Hydrogeologic Properties on the ORR Groundwater Zone (continued)

Property Knox aquifer ORR aquitards Low-permeability intervals Transmissivity ------- 1.1 x 10-3 m2/d Hydraulic conductivity ------- 4.0 x 10-4 m/d Permeable intervals Transmissivity 1.0 m2/d 0.12 m2/d Hydraulic conductivity ------- 0.068 m/d Continuum Transmissivity 7.0 m2/d 0.75 m2/d Hydraulic conductivity ------- 0.18 m/d Hydraulic gradient 0.02 0.05 Average recharge 65 mm 20 mm Maximum discharge 1030 L/min*km2 280 L/min*km2 Average discharge 120 L/min*km2 38 L/min*km2 Source: (Reference 2.3.1-44) 2.3.1-41 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-3 (Sheet 1 of 6)

Well Construction Summary Top of Top of Ground Top of Bentonite Seal Casing Concrete Surface Depth Northing Easting Geologic Elevation Well Elevation Elevation Elevation below (NAD 83) (NAD 83) Unit1 (NAVD (NAVD (NAVD (NAVD Ground

88) 88) 88) 88)

(ft)

OW-101U 570235.5 2448339.3 Benbolt 803.72 800.73 800.58 15.0 785.6 OW-101L 570262.0 2448370.8 Rockdell 803.48 800.81 800.66 126.6 674.1 OW-101D 570274.9 2448386.4 Rockdell 803.57 800.82 800.65 219.2 581.5 OW-202U 570946.0 2448081.1 Fleanor 815.38 812.11 811.83 4.3 807.5 OW-202L 570934.2 2448064.9 Fleanor 815.05 812.23 811.97 141.1 670.9 OW-202D 570909.7 2448033.7 Eidson 815.00 812.21 812.10 260.0 552.1 OW-401U 571967.9 2447619.9 Newala 820.48 817.55 817.39 5.2 812.2 OW-401L 571973.8 2447628.0 Newala 820.57 817.47 817.22 126.7 690.5 OW-401D 571941.2 2447589.7 Newala 821.28 818.41 818.17 215.6 602.6 OW-409U 570557.1 2448130.3 Rockdell 809.70 807.12 806.91 44.4 762.5 OW-409L 570570.8 2448143.3 Rockdell 809.51 806.82 806.67 82.7 724.0 OW-415U 569590.2 2448180.2 Bowen/Benbolt 787.22 784.41 784.13 19.5 764.6 OW-415L 569564.4 2448148.1 Benbolt 786.75 783.93 783.65 146.9 636.8 OW-416U 569990.0 2447535.9 Rockdell 812.82 809.82 809.54 67.6 741.9 OW-416L 569965.2 2447504.9 Rockdell 812.73 809.72 809.43 98.4 711.0 OW-417U 569927.1 2446646.9 Fleanor 775.03 772.36 772.20 40.4 731.8 OW-417L 569903.0 2446614.6 Fleanor 775.71 772.78 772.65 81.8 690.9 OW-418U 570526.8 2447065.0 Eidson 812.94 810.30 810.01 78.0 732.0 OW-418L 570506.0 2447038.8 Blackford 814.41 811.80 811.44 124.9 686.5 OW-419U 571283.4 2446716.1 Newala 803.13 800.21 799.98 48.8 751.2 OW-419L 571257.7 2446683.4 Newala 802.72 799.89 799.75 90.5 709.3 OW-420U 572009.6 2446886.0 Newala 805.70 803.10 802.85 15.0 787.9 OW-420L 572021.1 2446902.0 Newala 806.15 803.31 803.07 120.0 683.1 OW-421U 570557.7 2446471.7 Blackford 808.27 805.55 805.36 41.2 764.2 Blackford/

OW-421L 570544.2 2446455.6 807.81 805.05 804.78 92.4 712.4 Newala OW-421D 570520.1 2446424.4 Newala 805.20 802.63 802.49 165.2 637.3 OW-422U 570450.2 2448763.8 Benbolt 804.90 --- 802.40 9.7 792.7 OW-422L 570438.1 2448748.1 Benbolt 803.70 --- 801.70 147.3 654.4 OW-422D 570444.3 2448756.2 Rockdell 805.40 --- 802.10 281.2 520.9 OW-423U 571494.1 2448309.5 Eidson 800.21 797.53 797.41 31.5 765.9 OW-423L 571481.6 2448293.2 Blackford 801.13 798.33 798.02 127.9 670.1 OW-423D 571457.9 2448262.0 Blackford 802.86 800.13 799.89 236.9 563.0 2.3.1-42 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-3 (Sheet 2 of 6)

Well Construction Summary Top of Filter Pack Top of Screen Well Depth Well Screen Depth Casing Well Well below Elevation Casing Slot Size below Elevation Diameter Material Ground (NAVD 88) Schedule (inches) Ground (NAVD 88)

(inches)

(ft) (ft)

OW-101U 21.4 779.2 2 40 PVC 0.020 26.0 774.6 OW-101L 133.6 667.1 2 80 PVC 0.020 138.0 662.7 OW-101D 225.8 574.9 2 80 PVC 0.020 230.5 570.2 OW-202U 11.1 800.7 2 40 PVC 0.020 15.7 796.1 OW-202L 147.0 665.0 2 80 PVC 0.020 150.5 661.5 OW-202D 273.0 539.1 2 80 PVC 0.020 276.4 535.7 OW-401U 10.5 806.9 2 40 PVC 0.020 15.2 802.2 OW-401L 130.8 686.4 2 80 PVC 0.020 135.2 682.0 OW-401D 221.9 596.3 2 80 PVC 0.020 226.6 591.6 OW-409U 52.4 754.5 2 40 PVC 0.020 54.9 752.0 OW-409L 86.6 720.1 2 40 PVC 0.020 89.1 717.6 OW-415U 24.1 760.0 2 40 PVC 0.020 28.1 756.0 OW-415L 151.9 631.8 2 80 PVC 0.020 154.9 628.8 OW-416U 71.8 737.7 2 40 PVC 0.020 75.4 734.1 OW-416L 107.6 701.8 2 40 PVC 0.020 110.6 698.8 OW-417U 46.7 725.5 2 40 PVC 0.020 50.0 722.2 OW-417L 91.5 681.2 2 40 PVC 0.020 95.0 677.7 OW-418U 90.1 719.9 2 40 PVC 0.020 95.0 715.0 OW-418L 133.6 677.8 2 80 PVC 0.020 136.8 674.6 OW-419U 54.4 745.6 2 40 PVC 0.020 57.2 742.8 OW-419L 101.0 698.8 2 40 PVC 0.020 104.5 695.3 OW-420U 21.2 781.7 2 40 PVC 0.020 26.0 776.9 OW-420L 127.4 675.7 2 40 PVC 0.020 130.9 672.2 OW-421U 51.4 754.0 2 40 PVC 0.020 55.0 750.4 OW-421L 101.0 703.8 2 40 PVC 0.020 104.8 700.0 OW-421D 172.8 629.7 2 80 PVC 0.020 175.7 626.8 OW-422U 17.9 784.5 2 40 PVC 0.020 21.0 781.4 OW-422L 155.2 646.5 2 80 PVC 0.020 158.0 643.7 OW-422D 286.2 515.9 2 80 PVC 0.020 290.0 512.1 OW-423U 39.1 758.3 2 40 PVC 0.020 42.2 755.2 OW-423L 136.6 661.4 2 80 PVC 0.020 139.6 658.4 OW-423D 244.2 555.7 2 80 PVC 0.020 248.1 551.8 2.3.1-43 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-3 (Sheet 3 of 6)

Well Construction Summary Bottom of Screen Bottom of Well Cap Bottom of Borehole Depth Depth Depth Well Elevation below below Elevation below Elevation (NAVD Ground Ground (NAVD 88) Ground (NAVD 88) 88)

(ft) (ft) (ft)

OW-101U 46.0 754.6 46.5 754.1 50.0 750.6 OW-101L 158.0 642.7 158.5 642.2 161.0 639.7 OW-101D 250.5 550.2 251.0 549.7 261.5 539.2 OW-202U 35.7 776.1 36.2 775.6 39.0 772.8 OW-202L 170.5 641.5 171.0 641.0 173.0 639.0 OW-202D 296.4 515.7 296.9 515.2 303.0 509.1 OW-401U 35.2 782.2 35.7 781.7 37.5 779.9 OW-401L 155.2 662.0 155.7 661.5 159.3 657.9 OW-401D 246.6 571.6 247.1 571.1 251.7 566.5 OW-409U 74.9 732.0 75.4 731.5 78.0 728.9 OW-409L 109.1 697.6 109.6 697.1 112.0 694.7 OW-415U 48.1 736.0 48.6 735.5 51.1 733.0 OW-415L 174.9 608.8 175.4 608.3 177.4 606.3 OW-416U 95.4 714.1 95.9 713.6 97.5 712.0 OW-416L 130.6 678.8 131.1 678.3 133.0 676.4 OW-417U 70.0 702.2 70.5 701.7 73.1 699.1 OW-417L 115.0 657.7 115.5 657.2 118.0 654.7 OW-418U 105.0 705.0 105.5 704.5 108.0 702.0 OW-418L 156.8 654.6 157.3 654.1 160.0 651.4 OW-419U 77.2 722.8 77.7 722.3 79.6 720.4 OW-419L 124.5 675.3 125.0 674.8 126.5 673.3 OW-420U 46.0 756.9 46.5 756.4 48.5 754.4 OW-420L 150.9 652.2 151.4 651.7 152.4 650.7 OW-421U 75.0 730.4 75.5 729.9 78.0 727.4 OW-421L 124.8 680.0 125.3 679.5 128.0 676.8 OW-421D 195.7 606.8 196.2 606.3 198.0 604.5 OW-422U 41.0 761.4 41.5 760.9 44.0 758.4 OW-422L 178.0 623.7 178.5 623.2 181.0 620.7 OW-422D 310.0 492.1 310.5 491.6 313.0 489.1 OW-423U 62.2 735.2 62.7 734.7 65.0 732.4 OW-423L 159.6 638.4 160.1 637.9 163.0 635.0 OW-423D 268.1 531.8 268.6 531.3 273.0 526.9 2.3.1-44 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-3 (Sheet 4 of 6)

Well Construction Summary Top of Bentonite Seal Top of Top of Ground Northing Easting Geologic Casing Concrete Surface Depth Well below Elevation (NAD 83) (NAD 83) Unit1 Elevation Elevation Elevation (NAVD 88) (NAVD 88) (NAVD 88) Ground (NAVD 88)

(ft)

OW-428U 570781.4 2448710.6 Rockdell 807.78 804.57 804.33 24.4 779.9 OW-428L 570767.9 2448696.6 Rockdell 807.06 804.18 803.86 100.5 703.4 OW-428D 570741.9 2448666.5 Rockdell 807.03 804.02 803.73 172.2 631.5 OW-429U 569989.1 2448606.2 Bowen/ 799.17 796.41 796.21 27.8 768.4 Benbolt OW-429L 569965.3 2448576.5 Benbolt 799.49 796.52 796.26 136.1 660.2 PT-OW-U1 571512.5 2448235.3 Eidson 801.52 798.71 798.55 19.8 778.8 PT-OW-L1 571493.2 2448235.2 Blackford 803.13 800.09 799.77 129.7 670.1 PT-OW-U2 571489.5 2448182.4 Eidson 805.31 802.60 802.19 32.9 769.3 PT-OW-L2 571478.7 2448192.1 Blackford 804.32 801.22 800.89 124.8 676.1 PT-OW-U3 571418.4 2448310.6 Eidson 801.65 799.31 799.17 24.6 774.6 PT-OW-L3 571420.6 2448290.2 Blackford 803.12 800.41 800.07 127.5 672.6 Eidson/

PT-PW 571432.2 2448229.1 804.03 802.41 802.06 29.4 772.7 Blackford 2.3.1-45 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-3 (Sheet 5 of 6)

Well Construction Summary Top of Filter Pack Top of Screen Well Depth Well Screen Depth Casing Well Well below Elevation Casing Slot Size below Elevation Diameter Material Ground (NAVD 88) Schedule (inches) Ground (NAVD 88)

(inches)

(ft) (ft)

OW-428U 34.4 769.9 2 40 PVC 0.020 40.4 763.9 OW-428L 110.2 693.7 2 40 PVC 0.020 115.2 688.7 OW-428D 185.2 618.5 2 80 PVC 0.020 190.2 613.5 OW-429U 31.8 764.4 2 40 PVC 0.020 36.8 759.4 OW-429L 140.1 656.2 2 80 PVC 0.020 145.1 651.2 PT-OW-U1 36.8 761.8 2 40 PVC 0.020 41.8 756.8 PT-OW-L1 134.9 664.9 2 40 PVC 0.020 139.7 660.1 PT-OW-U2 37.0 765.2 2 40 PVC 0.020 42.0 760.2 PT-OW-L2 135.0 665.9 2 40 PVC 0.020 139.8 661.1 PT-OW-U3 34.1 765.1 2 40 PVC 0.020 42.6 756.6 PT-OW-L3 135.5 664.6 2 40 PVC 0.020 140.5 659.6 PT-PW 34.6 767.5 6 40 PVC 0.020 39.3 762.8 2.3.1-46 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-3 (Sheet 6 of 6)

Well Construction Summary Bottom of Screen Bottom of Well Cap Bottom of Borehole Depth Depth Depth Well Elevation below below Elevation below Elevation (NAVD Ground Ground (NAVD 88) Ground (NAVD 88) 88)

(ft) (ft) (ft)

OW-428U 60.4 743.9 60.9 743.4 63.0 741.3 OW-428L 135.2 668.7 135.7 668.2 138.0 665.9 OW-428D 210.2 593.5 210.7 593.0 213.0 590.7 OW-429U 56.8 739.4 57.3 738.9 60.0 736.2 OW-429L 165.1 631.2 165.6 630.7 168.0 628.3 PT-OW-U1 61.8 736.8 62.3 736.3 65.0 733.6 PT-OW-L1 159.7 640.1 160.2 639.6 163.0 636.8 PT-OW-U2 62.0 740.2 62.5 739.7 65.0 737.2 PT-OW-L2 159.8 641.1 160.3 640.6 163.0 637.9 PT-OW-U3 62.6 736.6 63.1 736.1 65.0 734.2 PT-OW-L3 160.5 639.6 161.0 639.1 163.0 637.1 PT-PW 169.3 632.8 171.8 630.3 173.0 629.1 1 Geologic units from Table B.1.2 in the Clinch River Data Report (Reference 2.3.1-21) 2.3.1-47 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-4 (Sheet 1 of 5)

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients September 24, 2013 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient) (downgradient) Gradient (ft)

(ft NAVD 88) (ft NAVD 88) (ft/ft)

Section 1 266 810.0 780.0 30.0 0.11 Section 2 582 810.0 760.0 50.0 0.09 Section 3 162 810.0 798.7 11.3 0.07 Section 4 830 770.0 740.0 30.0 0.04 Section 5 273 790.0 760.0 30.0 0.11 Section 6 700 800.0 750.0 50.0 0.07 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-33; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster December 20, 2013 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient) (downgradient) Gradient (ft)

(ft NAVD 88) (ft NAVD 88) (ft/ft)

Section 1 227 805.0 785.0 20.0 0.09 Section 2 423 795.0 765.0 30.0 0.07 Section 3 332 805.0 795.0 10.0 0.03 Section 4 650 775.0 745.0 30.0 0.05 Section 5 96 775.0 765.0 10.0 0.10 Section 6 351 795.0 765.0 30.0 0.09 Section 7 253 785.0 775.0 10.0 0.04 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-34; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster 2.3.1-48 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-4 (Sheet 2 of 5)

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients January 13, 2014 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient) (downgradient) Gradient (ft)

(ft NAVD 88) ( ft NAVD 88) (ft/ft)

Section 1 266 810 790 20 0.08 Section 2 629 800 760 40 0.06 Section 3 389 810 800 10 0.03 Section 4 646 780 750 30 0.05 Section 5 189 790 770 20 0.11 Section 6 398 780 760 20 0.05 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-35; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster March 16, 2014 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient) (downgradient) Gradient (ft)

(ft NAVD 88) (ft NAVD 88) (ft/ft)

Section 1 401 810 780 30 0.07 Section 2 653 810 760 50 0.08 Section 3 339 810 800 10 0.03 Section 4 707 790 750 40 0.06 Section 5 128 780 770 10 0.08 Section 6 686 810 760 50 0.07 Section 7 306 780 770 10 0.03 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-36; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster 2.3.1-49 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-4 (Sheet 3 of 5)

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients May 15, 2014 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient), ft (downgradient), ft Gradient (ft)

NAVD 88 NAVD 88 (ft/ft)

Section 1 329 810 780 30 0.09 Section 2 564 810 760 50 0.09 Section 3 318 810 800 10 0.03 Section 4 588 780 750 30 0.05 Section 5 85 780 770 10 0.12 Section 6 539 810 760 50 0.09 Section 7 191 780 770 10 0.05 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-37; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster August 18, 2014 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient), ft (downgradient), ft Gradient (ft)

NAVD 88 NAVD 88 (ft/ft)

Section 1 394 810 780 30 0.08 Section 2 696 810 760 50 0.07 Section 3 356 810 800 10 0.03 Section 4 591 780 750 30 0.05 Section 5 97 780 770 10 0.10 Section 6 948 810 750 60 0.06 Section 7 255 780 770 10 0.04 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-38; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster 2.3.1-50 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-4 (Sheet 4 of 5)

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients November 4, 2014 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient), ft (downgradient), ft Gradient (ft)

NAVD 88 NAVD 88 (ft/ft)

Section 1 319 810 780 30 0.09 Section 2 736 810 750 60 0.08 Section 3 275 810 800 10 0.04 Section 4 430 780 750 30 0.07 Section 5 120 780 770 10 0.08 Section 6 841 810 750 60 0.07 Section 7 286 780 770 10 0.04 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-39; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster February 12, 2015 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient), ft (downgradient), ft Gradient (ft)

NAVD 88 NAVD 88 (ft/ft)

Section 1 399 810 780 30 0.08 Section 2 609 810 760 50 0.08 Section 3 335 810 800 10 0.03 Section 4 492 780 750 30 0.06 Section 5 107 780 770 10 0.09 Section 6 609 810 760 50 0.08 Section 7 259 780 770 10 0.04 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-40; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster 2.3.1-51 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-4 (Sheet 5 of 5)

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradients May 19, 2015 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient), ft (downgradient), ft Gradient (ft)

NAVD 88 NAVD 88 (ft/ft)

Section 1 293 810 780 30 0.10 Section 2 693 810 750 60 0.09 Section 3 243 810 800 10 0.04 Section 4 349 780 750 30 0.09 Section 5 208 780 760 20 0.10 Section 6 929 810 750 60 0.06 Section 7 285 780 770 10 0.04 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-41; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster August 10, 2015 Potentiometric Surface Map Elevation at the Elevation at the Horizontal Head Length Well or Contour Well or Contour Hydraulic Direction Difference (ft) (upgradient), ft (downgradient), ft Gradient (ft)

NAVD 88 NAVD 88 (ft/ft)

Section 1 296 810 780 30 0.10 Section 2 682 810 750 60 0.09 Section 3 230 810 800 10 0.04 Section 4 250 770 750 20 0.08 Section 5 111 780 770 10 0.09 Section 6 520 810 760 50 0.10 Section 7 260 780 770 10 0.04 Note: Based on Figure 2.3.1-42; Maximum Water Levels in Each Nested Well Cluster Mean Horizontal Hydraulic Gradient = 0.07 ft/ft Minimum Horizontal Hydraulic Gradient = 0.03 ft/ft Maximum Horizontal Hydraulic Gradient = 0.12 ft/ft 2.3.1-52 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-5 (Sheet 1 of 3)

Borehole Packer Test Results Summary Estimated Depth (ft Estimated Geologic Unit Hydraulic Boring Zone below Transmissivity Analysis Notes Formation Conductivity ground) (ft2/day)

(ft/day)

Chickamauga MP-101 Z1 27.5 to 35.0 7 0.9 None Benbolt Chickamauga MP-101 Z2 145.0 to 152.5 20 3 None Rockdell Chickamauga MP-202 Z1 41.7 to 49.2 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Fleanor member Chickamauga MP-202 Z2 153.0 to 160.5 2 0.3 None Fleanor member Chickamauga MP-202 Z3 182.0 to 189.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Fleanor member Knox MP-401 Z2 28.0 to 35.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Newala Knox MP-401 Z3 77.0 to 84.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Newala Knox Test results indicate higher transmissivity value for MP-401 Z4 237.0 to 244.5 3 0.4 higher pressures. Possible explanations for the test Newala behavior include fracture dilation or fracture washout.

High flow rates (exceeding 80 gpm) with pressure increase in the transducer above the test interval. The Chickamauga MP-415 Z1 27.5 to 35.0 High High target test pressure in the interval was not achieved Bowen and the test was aborted. The high flow rates suggest high hydraulic conductivity.

Chickamauga MP-415 Z2 162.5 to 170.0 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Benbolt Chickamauga MP-415 Z3 252.5 to 260.0 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Benbolt Chickamauga Flow for this test was low, behavior suggests non-linear MP-416 Z2 89.0 to 96.5 1 0.2 Rockdell flow.

2.3.1-53 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-5 (Sheet 2 of 3)

Borehole Packer Test Results Summary Estimated Depth Estimated Geologic Unit Hydraulic Boring Zone (ft below Transmissivity Analysis Notes Formation Conductivity ground) (ft2/day)

(ft/day)

Chickamauga MP-416 Z3 109.0 to 116.5 8 1 None Rockdell Chickamauga MP-416 Z4 205.0 to 212.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Rockdell Some response was observed in the transducers above Chickamauga and below the test interval. Flow did not increase in MP-417 Z1 61.5 to 69.0 10 2 Fleanor member highly non-linear fashion, suggesting an indirect connection to the borehole outside the test interval.

Chickamauga MP-417 Z2 84.0 to 91.5 3 0.5 None Fleanor member Chickamauga MP-417 Z3 210.5 to 218.0 3 0.4 None Eidson member Chickamauga MP-418A Z1 86.0 to 93.5 40 5 None Eidson member Chickamauga MP-418A Z2 139.0 to 146.5 1 0.2 None Blackford Chickamauga MP-418A Z3 240.0 to 247.5 0.3 0.04 None Blackford Knox MP-419 Z1 210.0 to 217.5 1 0.2 None Newala Knox MP-419 Z2 135.0 to 142.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Newala Knox MP-419 Z3 120.0 to 127.5 2 0.3 None Newala Knox MP-419 Z4 109.0 to 116.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Newala Knox MP-420 Z2 79.0 to 86.5 2 0.2 None Newala 2.3.1-54 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-5 (Sheet 3 of 3)

Borehole Packer Test Results Summary Estimated Depth Estimated Geologic Unit Hydraulic Boring Zone (ft below Transmissivity Analysis Notes Formation Conductivity ground) (ft2/day)

(ft/day)

Knox MP-420 Z3 100.0 to 107.5 10 2 None Newala Knox MP-420 Z4 132.5 to 140.0 8 1 None Newala Knox MP-420 Z5 166.0 to 173.5 5 0.7 None Newala Knox MP-420 Z6 186.0 to 193.5 10 1 None Newala Chickamauga MP-421 Z1 57.0 to 64.5 1 0.2 None Blackford Chickamauga MP-421 Z2 99.0 to 106.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Blackford Knox MP-421 Z3 121.0 to 128.5 0.8 0.1 None Newala Knox MP-421 Z4 228.0 to 235.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Newala Chickamauga MP-422 Z1 31.5 to 39.0 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Benbolt Chickamauga MP-422 Z2 50.0 to 57.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Benbolt Chickamauga MP-422 Z3 170.0 to 177.5 Low Low Low/negligible flow suggests low hydraulic conductivity.

Benbolt Much higher flows in later portion of test, which achieved the highest test pressure. There was no response in the transducers above or below the test Chickamauga MP-423 Z2 68.5 to 76.0 5 0.7 interval, indicating that there was no hydraulic Eidson member connection outside the test interval. Possible explanations for the test behavior include fracture dilation or fracture washout.

Notes: Hydraulic conductivity values were computed based on unrounded transmissivity values; both values were then rounded to one significant figure.

Low - qualitative indication of low transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity.

High - qualitative indication of high transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity.

2.3.1-55 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-6 (Sheet 1 of 2)

Well Slug Test Results Summary Falling Head Rising Head Test Average Hydraulic Hydraulic Hydraulic Geologic Unit Well Name Test Type Conductivity Conductivity Analysis Notes Conductivity Formation Estimate Estimate (ft/day)

(ft/day) (ft/day)

Chickamauga Group OW-101D Pneumatic 0.13 0.063 0.097 None Rockdell Chickamauga Group OW-101L Pneumatic 7.6 7.5 7.6 None Rockdell Chickamauga Group OW-101U Pneumatic 0.049 0.053 0.051 None Benbolt Chickamauga Group OW-202D Solid 0.068 0.024 0.046 None Eidson Member Chickamauga Group Both tests discarded - Static water level discrepancy and OW-202L Solid -- -- --

Fleanor normalized head never reaches 0.3 to 0.2 Knox Group OW-401D Solid -- -- -- Not analyzed - Head does not change after initiation Newala Knox Group OW-401L Pneumatic 0.059 0.092 0.076 None Newala Knox Group OW-401U Pneumatic 0.089 0.065 0.077 None Newala Chickamauga Group OW-409L Pneumatic 0.069 0.061 0.065 None Rockdell Chickamauga Group OW-409U Solid -- 0.14 0.14 Falling head not analyzed - Irregular response Rockdell Chickamauga Group Falling head discarded - Normalized head never reaches OW-415L Pneumatic -- 0.29 0.29 Benbolt 0.3 to 0.2 Chickamauga Group OW-415U Solid -- -- -- Not analyzed - Irregular response Bowen/Benbolt Chickamauga Group OW-416L Pneumatic 0.61 0.48 0.54 None Rockdell Chickamauga Group OW-416U Pneumatic 1.2 1.1 1.2 None Rockdell Chickamauga Group OW-417L Pneumatic 0.31 0.44 0.38 None Fleanor Member 2.3.1-56 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-6 (Sheet 2 of 2)

Well Slug Test Results Summary Falling Head Rising Head Test Average Hydraulic Hydraulic Hydraulic Geologic Unit Well Name Test Type Conductivity Conductivity Analysis Notes Conductivity Formation Estimate Estimate (ft/day)

(ft/day) (ft/day)

Chickamauga Group OW-417U Pneumatic 2.2 1.6 1.9 None Fleanor Member Chickamauga Group OW-418L Pneumatic 0.16 0.14 0.15 None Blackford Chickamauga Group OW-418U Pneumatic 0.21 0.21 0.21 None Eidson Member Knox Group OW-419L Pneumatic 2.7 3.6 3.2 None Newala Knox Group OW-419U Pneumatic 11 13 12 None Newala Knox Group OW-420L Solid 0.062 0.048 0.055 None Newala Knox Group OW-421D Solid -- -- -- Not analyzed - Irregular early-time response Newala Knox/Chickamauga Falling head not analyzed - Head does not decrease after OW-421L Solid -- 0.00055 0.00055 Newala/Blackford initiation Chickamauga Group OW-421U Solid 0.066 0.036 0.051 None Blackford Chickamauga Group Rising head discarded - Normalized head never reaches OW-423D Pneumatic 0.039 -- 0.039 Blackford 0.3 to 0.2 Chickamauga Group OW-423L Solid 0.10 0.095 0.098 None Blackford Chickamauga Group OW-423U Pneumatic 2.3 0.66 1.5 None Eidson Member Chickamauga Group OW-428L Solid 0.012 0.0022 0.0071 None Rockdell Chickamauga Group OW-428U Solid 0.0016 0.012 0.0068 None Rockdell Chickamauga Group Rising head discarded - Normalized head never reaches OW-429U Solid 0.0035 -- 0.0035 Bowen/Benbolt 0.3 to 0.2 2.3.1-57 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-7 CRN Constant Rate Aquifer Pumping Test Results Transmissivity Transmissivity Storage Hydraulic Orientation Pumping Recovery Coefficient Conductivity Well Name Relative to Period Period Pumping (Tp+Tr)/2/155 ft Pumping Well Tp Tr Period (ft/d)

(ft2/d) (ft2/d) (dimensionless)

PT-OW-U1 N7°E 10.6 7 5.37 x 10-4 0.06 PT-OW-L1 N7°E 129.3 128.7 3.10 x 10-3 0.8 PT-OW-U2 N38°W 28.4 22.2 4.83 x 10-2 0.2

-3 PT-OW-L2 N38°W 28.1 30.3 2.28 x 10 0.2

-4 PT-OW-L3 S7°E 11.8 8.0 2.73 x 10 0.06 1 -3 OW-423L N52°E 410.1 391.1 8.1 x 10 2.6 1 A storage coefficient of 8.9 x 10-10 was reported for the pumping period of observation well OW-423L and is considered a nonrealistic value; however, for the same well in the recovery period, a value of 8.1 x 10-3 was reported - the recovery period derivative data exhibited less noise.

2.3.1-58 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-8 (Sheet 1 of 5)

Rock Effective Porosity Measurements on the Oak Ridge Reservation Effective Porosity (%) Grain Density Bulk Density Depth Depth Data Borehole Group Unit1 (m) (ft) Helium Mercury Immersion2 Other (g/cm3) (pcf) (g/cm3) (pcf) Source3 Joy-1 Conasauga Pumpkin Valley Shale 201.2 660 --- --- 0.46 --- --- --- --- --- A Joy-1 Conasauga Pumpkin Valley Shale 219.2 719 --- --- 1.1 --- --- --- --- --- A Joy-1 Conasauga Pumpkin Valley Shale 244.2 801 --- --- 1.9 --- --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 52.1 171 --- --- --- 0.4 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 52.7 173 --- --- --- 0.1 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 57.9 190 --- --- --- 1.1 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 58.5 192 --- --- --- 0.4 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 65.1 214 --- --- --- 0.3 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 66.1 217 --- --- --- 1.5 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 71.8 236 --- --- --- 0.7 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 73 240 --- --- --- 0.1 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 77 253 --- --- --- 2.0 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 80.2 263 --- --- --- 0.8 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 81.7 268 --- --- --- 1.9 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 83.5 274 --- --- --- 2.7 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 93.9 308 --- --- --- 1.5 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Dismal Gap 94.6 310 --- --- --- 1.9 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 105.8 347 --- --- --- 3.4 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 107.3 352 --- --- --- 1.8 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 115.9 380 --- --- --- 1.3 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 116.3 382 --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 122.7 403 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 130.8 429 --- --- --- 2.3 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 132.6 435 --- --- --- 1.3 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 135.3 444 --- --- --- 1.4 --- --- --- --- A 2.3.1-59 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-8 (Sheet 2 of 5)

Rock Effective Porosity Measurements on the Oak Ridge Reservation Depth Depth Effective Porosity (%) Grain Density Bulk Density Data Borehole Group Unit1 (m) (ft) Helium Mercury Immersion 2 Other (g/cm )3 (pcf) (g/cm )3 (pcf) Source3 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 138.1 453 --- --- --- 2.1 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 141.4 464 --- --- --- 1.7 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 141.7 465 --- --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 147.2 483 --- --- --- 0.8 --- --- --- --- A 05MW013A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 151.5 497 --- --- --- 0.6 --- --- --- --- A GW-133 Conasauga Dismal Gap 41.07 135 11.4 3.8 7.67 --- 2.73 170 2.64 165 A GW-133 Conasauga Dismal Gap 67.18 220 12.7 4.9 11.47 --- 2.78 174 2.71 169 A GW-133 Conasauga Dismal Gap 80.52 264 10.2 3.1 11.83 --- 2.74 171 2.73 170 A GW-133 Conasauga Dismal Gap 114.53 376 7.6 3.4 11.51 --- 2.74 171 2.70 169 A GW-133 Conasauga Rogersville Shale 138.73 455 11.5 3 10.9 --- 2.72 170 2.67 167 A GW-133 Conasauga Rogersville Shale 163.12 535 12.7 3.5 11.03 --- 2.75 172 2.71 169 A GW-133 Conasauga Rogersville Shale 165.56 543 19.2 4.4 9.75 --- 2.81 175 2.74 171 A GW-132 Conasauga Friendship 45.95 151 --- --- 9.16 --- --- --- --- --- A GW-132 Conasauga Friendship 65.33 214 5.1 2.9 9.39 --- 2.73 170 2.72 170 A GW-132 Conasauga Pumpkin Valley Shale 90.73 298 9.3 3.8 9.24 --- 2.77 173 2.70 169 A GW-132 Conasauga Pumpkin Valley Shale 102.97 338 10.7 3.0 10.35 --- 2.76 172 2.72 170 A GW-132 Conasauga Pumpkin Valley Shale 130.71 429 --- --- 11.41 --- --- --- --- --- A GW-132 Conasauga Pumpkin Valley Shale 130.76 429 6.3 4.5 9.43 --- 2.82 176 2.72 170 A GW-132 Conasauga Pumpkin Valley Shale 187.83 616 3.8 3.1 11.44 --- 2.78 174 2.77 173 A GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 44.45 146 9.9 2.7 9.46 --- 2.73 170 2.69 168 A GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 58.27 191 12.2 3.4 11.52 --- 2.78 174 2.70 169 A GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 80.29 263 3.2 3.8 12.04 --- 2.79 174 2.71 169 A GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 99.80 327 2.9 4.3 13.29 --- 2.79 174 2.69 168 A GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 109.53 359 4.9 4.3 15.87 --- 2.76 172 2.77 173 A GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 151.59 497 3.9 4.0 9.16 --- 2.79 174 2.70 169 A GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 158.27 519 4.7 5.1 11.60 --- 2.70 169 2.68 167 A 2.3.1-60 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-8 (Sheet 3 of 5)

Rock Effective Porosity Measurements on the Oak Ridge Reservation Depth Depth Effective Porosity (%) Grain Density Bulk Density Data Borehole Group Unit1 (m) (ft) Helium Mercury Immersion 2 Other (g/cm )3 (pcf) (g/cm )3 (pcf) Source3 GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 171.86 564 14.7 4.2 11.95 --- 2.79 174 2.67 167 A GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 181.14 594 4.1 3.7 11.74 --- 2.77 173 2.69 168 A GW-134 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 201.19 660 10.4 3.2 10.57 --- 2.80 175 2.67 167 A WOL-1 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 12.04 40 --- --- 13.00 --- --- --- --- --- A WOL-1 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 26.67 88 4.4 4.2 3.67 --- 2.83 177 2.74 171 A WOL-1 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 38.41 126 5.3 4.1 --- --- 2.79 174 2.71 169 A WOL-1 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 57.38 188 6.0 5.2 10.81 --- 2.82 176 2.72 170 A WOL-1 Conasauga Nolichucky Shale 99.90 328 10.9 3.2 11.80 --- 2.77 173 2.71 169 A WOL-1 Conasauga Dismal Gap 243.84 800 15.4 3.4 7.43 --- 2.79 174 2.67 167 A WOL-1 Conasauga Friendship 320.09 1050 7.8 3.5 6.84 --- 2.79 174 2.74 171 A WOL-1 Conasauga Pumpkin Valley Shale 352.60 1157 3.5 3.2 5.35 --- 2.79 174 2.76 172 A 0.5MW012A Conasauga Dismal Gap 38.34 126 --- --- 5.41 --- --- --- --- --- A 0.5MW012A Conasauga Dismal Gap 51.44 169 3.9 3.1 12.84 --- 2.77 173 2.72 170 A 0.5MW012A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 83.10 273 11.8 4.2 4.58 --- 2.81 175 2.73 170 A 0.5MW012A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 118.10 387 --- --- 9.59 --- --- --- --- --- A 0.5MW012A Conasauga Rogersville Shale 135.13 443 3.7 4.5 7.97 --- 2.78 174 2.70 169 A 0.5MW012A Conasauga Friendship 148.10 486 3.6 4.5 6.44 --- 2.78 174 2.68 167 A GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 127.76 419 0.59 --- 1.02 --- 2.83 177 2.82 176 B GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 134.80 442 0.22 --- 0.56 --- 2.82 176 2.81 175 B GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 136.96 449 1.13 --- 1.30 --- 2.82 176 2.79 174 B GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 148.69 488 2.77 --- 1.82 --- 2.83 177 2.75 172 B GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 149.23 490 1.25 --- 1.03 --- 2.84 177 2.80 175 B GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 151.56 497 2.40 --- 2.43 --- 2.86 179 2.79 174 B GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 154.28 506 2.17 --- 3.62 --- 2.79 174 2.73 170 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 183.72 603 0.45 --- 0.45 --- 2.82 176 2.81 175 B 2.3.1-61 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-8 (Sheet 4 of 5)

Rock Effective Porosity Measurements on the Oak Ridge Reservation Depth Depth Effective Porosity (%) Grain Density Bulk Density Data Borehole Group Unit1 (m) (ft) Helium Mercury Immersion 2 Other (g/cm )3 (pcf) (g/cm )3 (pcf) Source3 GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 159.56 523 1.19 --- 2.04 --- 2.80 175 2.77 173 B GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 175.16 575 1.62 --- 1.65 --- 2.84 177 2.79 174 B GW-131 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 179.05 587 0.81 --- 0.54 --- 2.81 175 2.79 174 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 188.93 620 0.61 --- 0.54 --- 2.70 169 2.69 168 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 195.45 641 1.12 --- 0.88 --- 2.78 174 2.75 172 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 205.92 676 1.06 --- 0.67 --- 2.78 174 2.75 172 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 206.35 677 8.13 --- 4.52 --- 2.85 178 2.62 164 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 217.02 712 0.37 --- 0.24 --- 2.71 169 2.70 169 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 231.27 759 0.37 --- 0.22 --- 2.73 170 2.72 170 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 236.88 777 0.22 --- 0.21 --- 2.71 169 2.71 169 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 248.26 815 0.22 --- 1.45 --- 2.72 170 2.72 170 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 258.62 848 0.37 --- 0.22 --- 2.71 169 2.70 169 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 266.27 874 0.37 --- 0.31 --- 2.71 169 2.70 169 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 268.28 880 0.45 --- 0.31 --- 2.76 172 2.75 172 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 290.04 952 0.22 --- 0.17 --- 2.73 170 2.73 170 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 294.44 966 0.22 --- 0.29 --- 2.72 170 2.72 170 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 301.60 990 0.30 --- 0.30 --- 2.72 170 2.72 170 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 311.56 1022 0.52 --- 0.62 --- 2.72 170 2.71 169 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 326.49 1071 0.22 --- 0.44 --- 2.71 169 2.70 169 B GW-131 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 333.60 1094 0.22 --- 0.51 --- 2.71 169 2.71 169 B GW-135 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 155.85 511 0.21 --- 0.34 --- 2.84 177 2.83 177 B GW-135 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 177.78 583 0.48 --- 0.81 --- 2.83 177 2.81 175 B 4

GW-135 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 184.53 605 0.55 --- 1.72 0.3 2.79 174 2.78 174 B GW-135 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 186.23 611 1.47 --- 2.91 0.54 2.80 175 2.76 172 B GW-135 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 189.74 623 0.92 --- 1.39 --- 2.83 177 2.80 175 B 4

GW-135 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 193.09 633 1.53 --- 1.81 1.0 2.82 176 2.78 174 B 2.3.1-62 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-8 (Sheet 5 of 5)

Rock Effective Porosity Measurements on the Oak Ridge Reservation Depth Depth Effective Porosity (%) Grain Density Bulk Density Data Borehole Group Unit1 (m) (ft) Helium Mercury Immersion 2 Other 3 (g/cm ) (pcf) 3 (g/cm ) (pcf) Source3 4

GW-135 Knox Copper Ridge Dolomite 202.49 664 4.99 --- 3.41 1.3 2.87 179 2.72 170 B GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 212.24 696 0.10 --- 0.24 0.34 2.74 171 2.73 170 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 223.11 732 3.34 --- 2.18 1.4 2.84 177 2.75 172 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 227.25 746 4.10 --- 1.31 2.3 2.84 177 2.72 170 B GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 234.44 769 1.79 --- 1.84 1.74 2.84 177 2.79 174 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 243.46 799 0.10 --- 0.14 1.2 2.70 169 2.70 169 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 249.53 819 0.46 --- 0.24 0.4 2.76 172 2.75 172 B GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 255.40 838 0.34 --- 0.29 2.34 2.70 169 2.69 168 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 268.91 882 0.28 --- 0.26 0.2 2.75 172 2.75 172 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 290.53 953 0.36 --- 0.29 0.8 2.75 172 2.74 171 B GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 306.58 1006 0.24 --- 0.26 0.44 2.74 171 2.73 170 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 314.96 1033 0.14 --- 0.24 0.3 2.70 169 2.70 169 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 318.01 1043 0.56 --- 0.29 0.2 2.74 171 2.72 170 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 324.08 1063 0.17 --- 0.60 0.4 2.71 169 2.70 169 B GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 345.49 1133 0.15 --- 0.46 0.24 2.71 169 2.70 169 B 4

GW-135 Conasauga Maynardville Limestone 365.02 1198 0.06 --- 0.34 0.3 2.73 170 2.73 170 B Number of tests 83 33 90 46 83 83 83 83 1

Unit names for Maryville Limestone and Rutledge Limestone changed to current usage of Dismal Gap and Friendship respectively.

2 Some values represent the average of several tests.

3 Data Sources:

A (Reference 2.3.1-45)

B (Reference 2.3.1-46) 4 Results from a sample approximately collocated with the other results.

Effective Porosity (%) Grain Density Bulk Density Helium Mercury Immersion Other (g/cm3) (pcf) (g/cm3) (pcf)

Average 3.85 3.79 4.67 1.11 2.77 173 2.73 170 Minimum 0.06 2.7 0.14 0.1 2.70 169 2.62 164 Maximum 19.2 5.2 15.87 3.4 2.87 179 2.83 177 2.3.1-63 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-9 Representative Soil and Rock Properties Important to Radionuclide Transport Total Unit Weight Specific Gravity Group Unit Material Best Estimate Range Best Estimate Range (pcf) (pcf)

Existing Fill/Residual Soil Silt and Clay 120 NA 2.75 NA 1

unconsolidated New Granular Backfill well graded Sand 135 NA 2.70 NA Weathered Rock Limestone/Siltstone 140 NA NA NA Benbolt formation Limestone/Siltstone 168 163-170 2.70 2.62-2.72 Rockdell formation Limestone 168 160-169 2.69 2.57-2.71 Chickamauga Fleanor member Siltstone 168 166-176 2.70 2.67-2.83 Eidson member Limestone 168 164-169 2.69 2.64-2.71 Blackford formation Limestone/Siltstone 168 164-169 2.68 2.64-2.71 Knox Newala formation Dolomite 175 161-177 2.80 2.59-2.84 1 based on Tennessee Department of Transportation Type A specification Note:

NA = information not available 2.3.1-64 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Table 2.3.1-10 Groundwater Linear Velocity and Travel Time Representative Property Source Value Maximum calculated value as documented in SSAR Table 2.4.12-6 (observation well OW-Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/d) 2.6 423L)

Horizontal Hydraulic Gradient 0.07 Mean value as presented in SSAR Table 2.4.12-8 (ft/ft)

Mean value determined in SSAR Table 2.4.12-7, using the Immersion test method results Effective Porosity (decimal) 0.0467 which the referenced author identified as the test method that yields results that most accurately approaches the true effective porosity value.

Shortest distance from edge of power block area to Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Distance to Receptor (ft) 1400 Reservoir (Figure 2.3.1-19)

Calculated Values Linear Velocity (ft/d) 3.90 Travel Time (days) 359 Travel Time (years) 0.98 2.3.1-65 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Anderson County Po V U

327 a rC re ek pla r Be Cre ek Oak Ridge Clinch River arm of the ee k

Watts Bar Reservoir Cr ak eo CRM 12 hit W

E Barge/Traffic Area ek Rd V U

95 e

Cr CRM 13 ar E Be CRM 14 ek E r e

Grassy C Creek o on R cc a

CRM 20 Whiteoak CRM 15 E Lake CRM 19 PROPOSED E E DISCHARGE CRM 18 CRM 21 E

V U

58 E

^

PROPOSED INTAKE CRM 16 Pa CRM 22 CRM 23 Melton E wp E E aw C reek Hill Dam CRM 17 E

§

¨ 40 CRM 24 E

ek Melton Hill re Reservoir sC i ng S pr ar pl Po Loudon County Roane County k

re e yC ne Ca

£ 321

£ 321

£ 70 Source: Hydrology, ESRI USA Water Body Types; Railroads, ESRI Railroads; Roads, ESRI USA q Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Major Highways; Cities/City Boundaries, ESRI City; Counties/County Lines, ESRI Counties Legend

^ CRN Site Center Point Rivers and Lakes Interstate Bear Creek Road E Clinch River Mile Town/City Boundaries Highway CRN Site Counties Major Road Barge/Traffic Area Railroads Figure 2.3.1-1. CRN Site Vicinity Water Resources 2.3.1-66 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Sunbright Norris Dam Scott County Campbell County V

U Lake City V

U 329 61

£ Norris 441

£ Rosedale Briceville 27 U V

116

§

¨ U

V 116 U

V 75 V

U eek 61 V

U 62 Cr Fork Mountain 61 Lancing la r U

V V U

Po p

V U

Wartburg Anderson County 61 298 Petros k U

V 62 re e Morgan County 330 rC la Po p

U V V U V U V U

Po

£ 62 61 170 13 25 Em i ve V U

61 Oak Ridge V

U ory R V U

29 62 r

V U Solway V

U Oakdale 95 Karns V

U 327 299 e ek Cr Harriman Bea r d k r ee k Melton Hill U V

162 Cumberland County kR ee

£ Reservoir Cr ee C Cr k Knox County Be ar on iteoa 11 co Clinch River arm Ra

§

¨

^

c Wh of the Watts Bar Reservoir V

U #

Melton Hill Dam Farragut

£

40 61 eek Ozone Midtown k 70 ee

§

¨ Concord Cr k w Cr

£ s ee U

V Cr Kingston Westel in g 332 140 27 pr ey pa la rS n w Ca Pa 70 U V

op Roane County P

£ 326 Louisville Me Lenoir City Fort Loudoun Dam

£ 27 Watts Bar Reservoir §

¨ 75 Tellico Dam Friendsville

£ 321 Aln V

U V

U Loudon Loudon County 72 U

V 72 V

U 322 Blount County Rhea County V

U 58 V

U V U 95

£ 323 Philadelphia Greenback 411 Ten Mile q

Meigs County Little Tennessee Watts Bar Dam River

£ 129

• V U

68 Sweetwater V U

72 McMinn County Vonore Miles U

V Monroe County Source: Hydrology, ESRI USA Water Body Types; Counties/County Lines, ESRI Counties; 0 32.5 60 5 7.5 10 Railroads, ESRI Railroads; Roads, ESRI USA Major Highways; Cities/City Boundaries, ESRI City Legend

^ CRN Site Center Point Rivers and Lakes Interstate

• Dam City/Town Boundaries Highway City Counties Major Road CRN Site Railroads Bear Creek Road Figure 2.3.1-2. CRN Site Regional Water Resources 2.3.1-67 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-3. Melton Hill Dam Weekly Discharge Frequency 2.3.1-68 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-4. Operating Guide for Headwater Elevation at Watts Bar Dam 2.3.1-69 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-5. Daily Average Release from Melton Hill Dam 2.3.1-70 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-6. Percentile for Daily Average Release from Melton Hill Dam 2.3.1-71 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-7. Percentile for Hourly Average Release from Melton Hill Dam 2.3.1-72 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-8. Average Annual Frequency of No Release Events from Melton Hill Dam 2.3.1-73 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-9. WSEL Measurements at CR SMR and WBH, and Discharge Measurements at Melton Hill Dam 2.3.1-74 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-10. Headwater Elevation at Watts Bar Dam, Showing Max, Min, and Average Values of Daily Midnight Readings, 2004-2013 2.3.1-75 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-11. Hourly Water Temperature for Tailwater Below Melton Hill Dam 2.3.1-76 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-12. Daily Maximum, Minimum, and Average Hourly Water Temperature for Tailwater Below Melton Hill Dam 2.3.1-77 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-13. Percentile for Change in Hourly Water Temperature between CRM 16.1 and CRM 22.6/MHH Tailwater 2.3.1-78 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Rd nk Ta RAILROAD t er OFFLOAD AREA a HIGHWAY W ACCESS RAMPS RAILROAD d

lR Rd atr BARGE/TRAFFIC e ek o AREA Cr nP ar Be Zio CRM 14 Ne BARGE w

UNLOADING Clinch River arm of the FACILITY Watts Bar Reservoir TN 5 8 LAYDOWN AREA Ln AC C

n lto ES Cu SR OA D

Rd Sheet 2 of 3 cke r Tha CRM 15 Jones Island Rd R d d h er rr yR lla Pe d Sheet 3 of 3 Ga R

R og dg ers CRM 18 e R L n id CRM 17.9 ge CRM 15.5 a Ri Bl PROPOSED ck Ro DISCHARGE/ PROPOSED rn ge DIFFUSER INTAKE bu rs PIPES STRUCTURE Ln d

id g eR Rogers Ridge Rd tR Ch est nu CRM 16 RIV ER RO AD ings Poplar Spr q

d r sR ee Sp Ln CRM 17 rs Rd d le 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Fid Miles Source: Hydrology, ESRI USA Water Body Types; Roads, U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division Legend CRN Site Wetland Barge/Traffic Area Rivers and Lakes Bathemetry Contours Permanently Cleared Areas Transmission Line (Range: 709-743 feet) Local Roads 500 kV Transmission Line Approximate Proposed 161 kV Temporary Cleared Areas Right-of-Way Transmission Line Relocation Ponds Figure 2.3.1-14. (Sheet 1 of 3) CRN Site Bathemetry 2.3.1-79 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report 20 5

730 7 73 CRM 15 740 725 7 725 15 15 7 740 720 Ln er ry St W

ea Ch v er 715 Cherry Pt 715 715 715 71 5

n H ill L 7 15 ith Sm CRM 715 d 15.5 eR 72 7 73 5

id g 0 20 tR tnu 72 0 71 es 5 Ch Proposed Location 720 72 0

of Diffuser Pipes 72 0

72 0

720 725 730 720 720 715 720 715 720 720 SUBMERGED 72 0

720 ISLAND 720 725 7 35 20 7 7 7 35 30 Source: Hydrology, ESRI USA Water Body Types; Roads, 72 CRM 16 0

72 715 0

730 0 350 700 1,050 q

1,400 Feet U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division Legend Bathemetry Contours CRN Site Wetland (Range: 709-743 feet) Local Roads Approximate Proposed 161 kV Permanently Cleared Areas Transmission Line Transmission Line Relocation Temporary Cleared Areas 500 kV Transmission Line Submerged Island Right-of-Way Ponds Rivers and Lakes Figure 2.3.1-14. (Sheet 2 of 3) CRN Site Bathemetry 2.3.1-80 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report 72 0

5 1

7 715 720 5

71 715 71 5 CRM 18 720 CRM 17.9 730 Bl a ck rn bu Ln PROPOSED INTAKE STRUCTURE 720 715 725 740 71 5

0 72 715 5

71 715 740 5

715 71 720 725 71 5

5 715 71 71 5

735 q

730 715 735 720 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet Source: Hydrology, ESRI USA Water Body Types; Roads, U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division Legend CRN Site Bathemetry Contours (Range: 709-743 feet) Rivers and Lakes Permanently Cleared Areas Approximate Proposed 161 kV Local Roads Transmission Line Relocation Temporary Cleared Areas Figure 2.3.1-14. (Sheet 3 of 3) CRN Site Bathemetry 2.3.1-81 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-15. Location Map - ORR and CRN Site 2.3.1-82 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-16. Geographic Regions of Tennessee 2.3.1-83 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-17. Preconstruction Topographic and Geologic Map and Cross-Section of the CRBRP Project 2.3.1-84 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-18. Current Site Topography and Observation Well Locations 2.3.1-85 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-19. CRBRP Fill and Excavation Areas 2.3.1-86 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-20. Cambrian and Ordovician Aquifers 2.3.1-87 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-21. Typical Cross-Section of the East Tennessee Aquifer System 2.3.1-88 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Source: (Reference 2.3.1-29).

Figure 2.3.1-22. Site Area Hydrogeostratigraphy 2.3.1-89 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Source: (Reference 2.3.1-28)

Figure 2.3.1-23. ORR Vertical Flow Conceptualization 2.3.1-90 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report a) Box and whisker plot of hydraulic conductivity tests by geologic formation. Data presented in Appendix 2.3-A Figure 2.3.1-24. (Sheet 1 of 2) ORR Historic Bedrock Hydraulic Conductivity Test Data 2.3.1-91 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report b) Scatter plot of hydraulic conductivity versus depth. Data presented in Appendix 2.3-A Figure 2.3.1-24. (Sheet 2 of 2) ORR Historic Bedrock Hydraulic Conductivity Test Data 2.3.1-92 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-25. ORR Aquifer Pumping Test Results 2.3.1-93 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report a) Box and whisker plot of CRBRP bedrock packer test results. Data presented in Appendix 2.3-B Figure 2.3.1-26. (Sheet 1 of 2) CRBRP Bedrock Packer Hydraulic Conductivity Tests 2.3.1-94 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report b) Hydraulic conductivity versus depth plot of CRBRP bedrock packer test results. Data presented in Appendix 2.3-B Figure 2.3.1-26. (Sheet 2 of 2) CRBRP Bedrock Packer Hydraulic Conductivity Tests 2.3.1-95 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Source: (Reference 2.3.1-31)

Figure 2.3.1-27. Groundwater Levels Adjacent to the Clinch River 2.3.1-96 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Source: (Reference 2.3.1-32)

Figure 2.3.1-28. Sole Source Aquifers in EPA Region IV 2.3.1-97 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Source: (Reference 2.3.1-23)

Figure 2.3.1-29. U.S. Geological Survey Regional Hydrograph 2.3.1-98 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Source: (Reference 2.3.1-34)

Figure 2.3.1-30. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrograph Near the CRN Site 2.3.1-99 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 1 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-101 Well Cluster 2.3.1-100 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 2 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-202 Well Cluster 2.3.1-101 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 3 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-401 Well Cluster 2.3.1-102 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 4 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-409 Well Cluster 2.3.1-103 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 5 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-415 Well Cluster 2.3.1-104 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 6 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-416 Well Cluster 2.3.1-105 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 7 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-417 Well Cluster 2.3.1-106 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 8 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-418 Well Cluster 2.3.1-107 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 9 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-419 Well Cluster 2.3.1-108 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 10 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-420 Well Cluster 2.3.1-109 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 11 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-421 Well Cluster 2.3.1-110 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 12 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-423 Well Cluster 2.3.1-111 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 13 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-428 Well Cluster 2.3.1-112 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-31. (Sheet 14 of 14) Hydrograph of OW-429 Well Cluster 2.3.1-113 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Source: (Reference 2.3.1-35)

Figure 2.3.1-32. Bethel Valley Flow Conceptualization 2.3.1-114 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-33. Potentiometric Surface Map for September 24, 2013 2.3.1-115 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-34. Potentiometric Surface Map for December 20, 2013 2.3.1-116 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-35. Potentiometric Surface Map for January 13, 2014 2.3.1-117 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-36. Potentiometric Surface Map for March 16, 2014 2.3.1-118 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-37. Potentiometric Surface Map for May 15, 2014 2.3.1-119 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-38. Potentiometric Surface Map for August 18, 2014 2.3.1-120 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-39. Potentiometric Surface Map for November 4, 2014 2.3.1-121 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-40. Potentiometric Surface Map for February 12, 2015 2.3.1-122 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-41. Potentiometric Surface Map for May 19, 2015 2.3.1-123 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-42. Potentiometric Surface Map for August 10, 2015 2.3.1-124 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-43. Snapshot in Time Showing Equipotential Lines in the Vertical Plane Along the Strike of the Bedding Plane on June 13, 2014 2.3.1-125 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-44. Fracture Frequency Histogram 2.3.1-126 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Adapted from: (Reference 2.3.1-21)

Figure 2.3.1-45. Example Acoustic Televiewer Geophysical Log 2.3.1-127 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report a) Box and whisker plot of CRN packer test results by geologic unit. Data from Table 2.3.1-5 and Appendix 2.3-B Figure 2.3.1-46. (Sheet 1 of 2) Clinch River Nuclear Borehole Packer Test Results Box and Whisker Plots 2.3.1-128 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report b) Box and whisker plot comparing CRN packer test results with CRBRP packer test results. Data from Table 2.3.1-5 and Appendix 2.3-B Figure 2.3.1-46. (Sheet 2 of 2) Clinch River Nuclear Borehole Packer Test Results Box and Whisker Plots 2.3.1-129 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Data from Table 2.3.1-5 Figure 2.3.1-47. Scatter Plot of Clinch River Nuclear Packer Test Hydraulic Conductivity Results with Depth 2.3.1-130 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report a) Box and whisker plot of slug test hydraulic conductivity by observation well monitoring zone. Data from Table 2.3.1-6 Figure 2.3.1-48. (Sheet 1 of 2) Slug Test Results for CRN Site 2.3.1-131 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report b) Scatter plot of slug test hydraulic conductivity with depth below ground surface. Data from Table 2.3.1-6 Figure 2.3.1-48. (Sheet 2 of 2) Slug Test Results for CRN Site 2.3.1-132 Revision 1

Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 3, Environmental Report Figure 2.3.1-49. Comparison of Slug and Packer Test Results 2.3.1-133 Revision 1