ML19003A321
| ML19003A321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/2018 |
| From: | Florida Power & Light Co |
| To: | Office of New Reactors |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19003A318 | List:
|
| References | |
| L-2018-237 | |
| Download: ML19003A321 (96) | |
Text
APPENDIX 2BB AQUIFER PUMPING TEST RESULTS
2BB-1 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR APPENDIX 2BB LIST OF ATTACHMENTS BB-1 Unit 6 Shallow Test Graphs And Pumping Rates BB-2 Unit 6 Deep Test Graphs And Pumping Rates BB-3 Unit 7 Shallow Test Graphs And Pumping Rates BB-4 Unit 7 Deep Test Graphs And Pumping Rates
2BB-2 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 1.0 PURPOSE This appendix provides the interpretation of aquifer pumping tests performed adjacent to the locations of the Units 6 & 7 reactor buildings (Figure 2BB-201). The aquifer pumping tests were performed to provide hydrogeologic properties of the subsurface materials for construction dewatering system design, groundwater flow model support, the analysis of postulated accidental releases of radioactive liquid effluents, and to support simulation of radial collector well operation.
2.0 BACKGROUND
HYDROGEOLOGY The Units 6 & 7 subsurface investigation (Reference 1) identified five subsurface units at the plant area:
Muck organic calcareous silt
Miami Formation oolitic limestone
Fort Thompson Formation coralline to sandy limestone
Tamiami Formation poorly graded silty sand with interlayered clayey sand, silt, and clay
Hawthorn Group poorly graded silty sand grading to dolostone and limestone Subsequent data interpretation divided the Fort Thompson Formation into two units, with the coralline portion being assigned as the Key Largo Limestone and the sandy limestone being assigned as the Fort Thompson Formation. This interpretation also identified a thin layer of freshwater limestone at the top of the Fort Thompson Formation. This freshwater limestone appears to have much lower porosity and permeability than the overlying Key Largo Limestone and the underlying marine limestone of the Fort Thompson Formation.
The primary aquifer in the vicinity of the Turkey Point plant property is the Biscayne aquifer, which is the main water supply source for Miami-Dade County. The Biscayne aquifer in the area of Units 6 & 7 contains saline to saltwater and is not usable as a potable water supply.
The Biscayne aquifer comprises all or parts of the Pliocene through Holocene-aged upper Tamiami Formation, Fort Thompson Formation, Key Largo Limestone, Miami Limestone (oolite), and surficial deposits. Regional transmissivities from aquifer testing of this aquifer range from 2700 square feet per day (20,196 gallons per day per foot) to greater than 1,000,000 square feet per day (7,480,000 gallons per day per foot) (Reference 2).
Dames & Moore (Reference 3) conducted a hydrogeologic investigation adjacent to the plant area, which included three aquifer pumping tests, and determined the following properties:
- Reported as storage coefficient but most probably represents specific yield Formation Transmissivity Storage Coefficient*
gpd/ft ft2/d Muck and Miami Oolite 20,000 2,700 0.35 Fort Thompson Formation (void zone) 3,000,000 400,000 0.35 Fort Thompson Formation (lower zone) 1,000,000 134,000 0.20
2BB-3 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 3.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL The conceptual model for the Biscayne aquifer beneath the Units 6 & 7 plant area is shown on Figure 2BB-202. This conceptual model was created using geologic and hydrogeologic information obtained from the geotechnical investigation of the site (Reference 1) and then refined with additional information from the aquifer pumping tests program. Two test zones were identified for the testing program: the upper zone, which is located in the Key Largo Limestone, and the lower zone, which is located in the Fort Thompson Formation.
The muck and Miami Limestone units are interpreted to have a lower hydraulic conductivity than the underlying Key Largo Limestone. The freshwater limestone layer is interpreted to have a lower hydraulic conductivity than either the overlying Key Largo Limestone or the underlying Fort Thompson Formation. The Tamiami Formation is also interpreted to have a lower hydraulic conductivity than the overlying Fort Thompson Formation. Thus, the Miami Limestone, freshwater limestone, and Tamiami Formation are treated as aquitards in the subsurface.
4.0 METHODOLOGY 4.1 Test Configuration The aquifer testing program consisted of performing two aquifer pumping tests adjacent to the location of each reactor containment. The pumping wells at Unit 6 were designated PW-6U and PW-6L and at Unit 7 were designated PW-7U and PW-7L. The U/L suffix was used to indicate pumping in either the upper or lower test zone as described in Section 3.0. For each test group, a total of 25 observation wells were installed in five groups of five wells. Each observation well is numbered using the convention CX-#$ where:
X
=
reactor unit (6 or 7)
=
number indicating well position 1
=
approximately 10 feet east of upper zone pumping well 2
=
approximately 10 feet north of upper zone pumping well 3
= approximately 25 feet north of upper zone pumping well 4
= approximately 40 feet north of upper zone pumping well 5
=
approximately 10 feet east of lower zone pumping well
=
alphabetic character designating the well monitoring zone A
= Miami Limestone B
=
Freshwater limestone C
=
Tamiami Formation D
=
Upper test zone (Key Largo Limestone)
E
=
Lower test zone (Fort Thompson Formation)
2BB-4 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figures 2BB-203 and 2BB-204 present location plans for the two test groups and Figure 2.4.12-239 shows the general location of the tests. Table 2BB-201 presents the well construction information for the pumping and observation wells.
4.2 Data Collection and Pre-Processing Groundwater level data were collected using In-Situ, Inc. Level TROLL or Aqua TROLL recording pressure transducers. Three data sets were collected during each test:
Background groundwater levels to allow assessment of tidal influences
Pumping levels to measure drawdown in response to pumping the test well
Recovery levels to measure water level recovery after the pumping test stopped The background levels were recorded on a linear logging interval of every five minutes. The pumping and recovery levels were either recorded on a logarithmic interval starting at 0.251 seconds and increasing as the test progressed, on a linear interval starting at 0.25 seconds for the first five minutes and then increasing to 30 seconds for the remainder of the test, or on a linear interval starting at 1 minute.
The raw water level data were pre-processed to remove tidal effects by using data from background observation wells. The corrections included the following assumptions:
The first five minutes of the pumping or recovery periods in each observation well were not corrected due to the rapid response to pumping or recovery and relatively slow tidal response.
One background well cluster (A, B, C, D, and E) was used to correct the observation well data for each test, due to the limited spatial extent of the well array.
The tidal correction was made using the following procedure:
1.
Plot the water level change between successive readings in the observation well (W) versus the changes in the background well (R) during the background data collection period prior to the test and determine the tidal efficiency by linear regression. The tidal efficiency is the slope of the fitted line.
2.
Determine the water level changes between successive readings in the background well during the pumping and recovery periods of the test.
3.
Compute the correction factor at time t by multiplying tidal efficiency (step 1) by the water level change (step 2) and adding the previous correction factor (at start of test, correction factor = 0).
4.
Subtract the correction factor from the water level at time t in the observation well to obtain the corrected water level.
5.
Determine the drawdown/residual drawdown from the test by subtracting the corrected water level from the static water level (at time of test start) in the observation well.
Water level recovery data was truncated at the point where the static level was encountered (zero drawdown). The raw data may have up to several thousand readings after this point, which are not germane to the test interpretation.
2BB-5 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 4.3 Data Assessment Data assessment was conducted for each test to evaluate the pumping rate and water level measurements collected during the test.
The acceptance criteria for the pumping rate measurements were: 1) the manual and electronic flow measurements show reasonable agreement; 2) the short term discharge did not vary more than 10 percent about the mean discharge (Reference 4); and 3) the pumping rate is between 3000 and 12,000 gallons per minute (gpm), which is the calibrated range of the flowmeter.
The acceptance criteria for water level measurements were: 1) comparison of the rate of water level change to the transducer recording interval. When a major change occurs over a single recording time interval, followed by no change in the successive time interval, the recording interval is insufficient to characterize the change, 2) water level responses are consistent between wells screened in the same zone but at different distances from the pumped well and between different monitoring zones in the same well cluster.
4.4 Data Interpretation The aquifer pumping test results were interpreted using the AQTESOLV' (Reference 5) computer program. This program contains solution options for different hydrogeologic conditions such as unconfined, confined, and leaky conditions.
Based on the conceptual model described above and the objectives of the test to determine the properties of the aquifers and aquitards at the site, various aquifer test solution methods were evaluated to select the most appropriate method. The test methods included:
Neuman solution for unconfined aquifer (gravity drainage)
Theis solution for confined aquifer
Neuman-Witherspoon solution for leaky aquifer
Hantush solution for leaky aquifer with aquitard storage The test results were examined using these methods and it was found that the data did not show significant gravity drainage effects over the testing period, suggesting the pumped aquifer behaves similarly to a confined aquifer. The Neuman and Theis solutions provide information only on the properties of the pumped aquifer. The Neuman-Witherspoon method includes an assumption that the pumped aquifer is bounded on one side by a leaky aquitard and on the other side by an impermeable aquiclude. This situation does not match the conceptual model for the site or the actual field conditions encountered during well installation for the tests. The Hantush solution includes an assumption that the pumped aquifer is bounded on both sides by leaky aquitards. This condition matches the conceptualization of the site and actual conditions observed during well installations.
The Theis solution was also retained as a means to determine the upper bound of transmissivity in the pumped aquifer, since this method ignores leakage or gravity drainage effects.
The two interpretation methods selected and used were: the Theis method (Reference 5) and the Hantush leaky aquifer with aquitard storage method (References 5 and 6). The Hantush leaky method with aquitard storage was used to evaluate the distance-drawdown and time-drawdown relationships in the pumping zone observation wells (D or E series wells).
The physical system represented by the Theis method is shown on Figure 2BB-205.
The method includes the following assumptions:
2BB-6 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR
Aquifer has infinite areal extent
Aquifer is homogeneous and of uniform thickness
Pumping well is fully or partially penetrating
Flow to pumping well is horizontal when pumping well is fully penetrating
Aquifer is confined above and below by aquicludes
Flow is unsteady
Water is released instantaneously from storage with decline of hydraulic head
Diameter of pumping well is very small so that storage in the well can be neglected The equations for representing drawdown (s) for a confined aquifer are (Reference 5):
The integral expression can be represented as W(u), the well function of u, which is represented by the series (Reference 7):
- Where, The Theis drawdown equation in compact notation is:
r
=
radial distance from the pumping well to the observation point [L]
Q
=
pumping rate [L3/t]
s
=
drawdown [L]
S
=
storativity [dimensionless]
t
=
time T
=
transmissivity [L2/t]
dy y
e T
Q s
u y
=
4
+
+
+
=
!4 4
!3 3
!2 2
ln 5772
.0
)
(
4 3
2 u
u u
u u
u W
Tt S
r u
4 2
=
)
(
4 u
W T
Q s
=
2BB-7 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR The physical system represented by the Hantush leaky aquifer with aquitard storage method is shown on Figure 2BB-206. The method includes the following assumptions:
Aquifer has infinite areal extent
Aquifer is homogeneous and of uniform thickness
Pumping well is fully or partially penetrating
Flow to pumping well is horizontal when pumping well is fully penetrating
Aquifer is leaky confined
Flow is unsteady
Water is released instantaneously from storage with decline of hydraulic head
Diameter of pumping well is very small so that storage in the well can be neglected
Confining bed(s) has (have) infinite areal extent, uniform vertical hydraulic conductivity and uniform thickness
Confining bed(s) is (are) overlain or underlain by an infinite constant-head plane source
Flow is vertical in the aquitard(s)
The inverse Laplace transform solution for unsteady flow to a fully penetrating well in a homogeneous, isotropic leaky confined aquifer with aquitard storage is (Reference 8):
For a two aquitard system, AQTESOLV' (Reference 5) determines the B' and B leakage values, where:
)
(
4
)
(
u H
T Q
t r
s
=
Tt S
r u
4 2
=
S S
B r
= 4
b K
T B
=
K Tb B =
K Tb B =
2BB-8 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR
- Where, For the conditions at Units 6 & 7, the Hantush method was applied as follows:
Upper Zone Test Upper aquitard Miami Limestone Upper aquifer Key Largo Limestone (pumped aquifer)
Lower aquitard freshwater limestone Lower aquifer Fort Thompson Formation (unpumped aquifer)
Lower Zone Test Upper aquifer Key Largo Limestone (unpumped aquifer)
Upper aquitard freshwater limestone Lower aquifer Fort Thompson Formation (pumped aquifer)
Lower aquitard Tamiami Formation The aquifer test interpretation methods utilized simplified conceptual hydrogeologic models of site conditions. Localized variations in the hydrogeologic properties of the aquifers and aquitards may not conform to these simplified conceptual models. The drawdown response from each test data set was reviewed to evaluate conformance to these conceptual models.
A constant density was applied to the water levels transducer data. This assumption is considered valid over the limited area influenced by pumping. Variations due to deviations from the constant H(u,) =
Hantush leaky well function b =
thickness of first aquitard [L]
b =
thickness of second aquitard [L]
K =
vertical hydraulic conductivity of first aquitard [L/t]
K =
vertical hydraulic conductivity of second aquitard [L/t]
Q =
pumping rate [L3/t]
r =
radial distance [L]
s =
drawdown [L]
S =
storativity of aquifer [dimensionless]
S =
storativity of aquitard [dimensionless]
t =
time [t]
T =
transmissivity of aquifer [L2/t]
2BB-9 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR density assumption are considered to be within the uncertainty of the other assumptions underlying aquifer pumping test analysis.
The AQTESOLV' program allows either automatic or manual curve fitting for both the Theis and Hantush methods. For this analysis, manual curve fitting was used to eliminate data in the early time period of pumping, which may be impacted by casing storage, non-steady state leakage, or other pumping effects. For calculation of average values for the tests, only the Hantush method results were used, since the Theis method results represent an upper bound value.
4.5 Generic Input Parameters The AQTESOLV' program includes input for well radii, well equipment radii, screened intervals, and thicknesses of the different units. This information can be used to correct for well storage, partial penetration, and to calculate parameters for the different units. For the purposes of this analysis, all wells were assumed to be fully penetrating. For unit consistency, all measurements are in feet.
The diameter of the pumping well was represented by two components: the diameter of the cased interval (30 inches) and the diameter of the open hole interval (28 inches). The radius of the cased interval was (30 inches/12)/2 = 1.25 feet and of the open hole interval was (28 inches/12)/2 =
1.17 feet. The pumping equipment (column/bowls) was 12-inch diameter or a radius of (12 inches/12)/2 = 0.5 feet. The diameter of the observation wells was 2 inches with a radius of (2 inches/12)/2= 0.08 feet.
The screened intervals for the pumping and observation wells were obtained from Table 2BB-201.
Based on the drilling program to install the pumping and observation wells, the hydrogeologic unit thicknesses were determined as shown in Table 2BB-202.
5.0 UNIT 6 SHALLOW TEST 5.1 Test Summary Background water level collection in the pumping well for the test commenced at 10:00 am eastern daylight savings time (EDT) on March 12, 2009 and stopped at 10:10 am EDT on March 13, 2009.
The PW-6U aquifer pumping test was started on March 13, 2009 at 10:31 am EDT and pumped at an average rate of 5103 gpm until 6:30 pm EDT when the pump was shut off and recovery occurred.
Recovery measurements continued until March 14, 2009 at 2:30 am EDT. There were no precipitation events noted during background data collection or during the test. Well cluster C7-3 was used as the background well cluster for tidal correction during this test. The pumping rates are presented in Attachment 2BB-1. It should be noted that this test was conducted during the week after the time change from eastern standard time (EST) to EDT. The electronic loggers remained on EST; however, during tidal correction, the water level data times were converted to EDT.
5.2 Data Assessment Figure 2BB-207 presents a plot of flow measurements during the test. The plot indicates that manual and electronic flow measurements are in general agreement, that measurements are within +/-10 percent of the mean flow rate, and that flow measurements are within the calibration range of the flowmeter. Therefore, the flow data for this test were considered to be usable for test interpretation. A complete listing of the flow measurements is presented in Attachment 2BB-1.
Examination of the water level measurements suggests that the data collection rate was sufficiently detailed to characterize the changes. Comparison of water level data at each well cluster (Figures 1 through 4 in Attachment 2BB-1 indicates that the following wells exhibit anomalous behavior based on the conceptual hydrogeologic model for the site: C6-1A, C6-1B, C6-2B, C6-3A, C6-4A, C6-4B, and C6-3B. The water level response in wells C6-1A, C6-1B, C6-2B, C6-3A, C6-4A, and C6-4B,
2BB-10 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR screened in the A or B (Miami Limestone (A) or freshwater limestone (B) aquitard) zones, was essentially identical to the response in the D zone (Key Largo Limestone pumping zone). The response from these wells showed the same transmissivity and storage values as the pumped aquifer. This may indicate placement of a portion of the screened interval of these wells within the pumped aquifer or subsurface conditions where the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquitard is the same as in the pumped aquifer (aquitard not present). Well C6-3B, screened in the B (freshwater limestone aquitard) zone shows less drawdown than in the underlying unpumped aquifer indicating a possible connection between the pumped (Key Largo Limestone) and unpumped (Fort Thompson Formation) aquifers. In either case, the responses from these wells were not consistent with the assumptions used in the Hantush method and thus were not interpreted using this method.
With the exception of the seven observation wells identified above, the remaining water level data were considered acceptable for test interpretation.
5.3 Summary of Results The AQTESOLV' plots for the observation wells are presented in Attachment 2BB-1. The results of the interpretation are summarized on Table 2BB-203. The Hantush distance-drawdown and time-drawdown methods show general agreement for all parameters. The Theis method results generally show higher transmissivity than the Hantush method. This is most probably a result of not accounting for leakage from the overlying or underlying units. The Hantush method test results indicate a mean transmissivity of 2,331,000 gallons per day per foot (312,000 square feet per day) and a mean storage coefficient of 1.5E-04 for the pumped aquifer. The average vertical hydraulic conductivity of the upper aquitard zone A (Miami Limestone) is 103 gallons per day per square foot (14 feet per day) and of lower aquitard zone B (freshwater limestone) is 46 gallons per day per square foot (6 feet per day).
6.0 UNIT 6 DEEP TEST 6.1 Test Summary Background water level collection in the pumping well for the test commenced at 9:32 am EDT on March 19, 2009 and stopped at 9:34 am EDT on March 20, 2009. The PW-6L aquifer pumping test was started on March 20, 2009 at 10:00 am EDT and pumped at an average rate of 3342 gpm until 6:00 pm EDT when the pump was shut off and recovery occurred. Recovery measurements continued until March 21, 2009 at 2:00 am EDT. There was a precipitation event noted immediately before background data collection resulting in measurable rainfall. During the test, some light drizzle was noted but not sufficient to produce measurable precipitation. Unit 3 was in the midst of a scheduled outage, which resulted in higher than normal cooling canal levels. Well cluster C7-3 was used as the background well cluster for tidal correction during this test. The pumping rates are presented in Attachment 2BB-2.
6.2 Data Assessment Figure 2BB-208 presents the pumping rate measurements for the PW-6L test. The plot indicates that manual and electronic flow measurements are in general agreement, that measurements are within
+/-10 percent of the mean flow rate, and that flow measurements are within the calibration range of the flowmeter. Therefore, the flow data for this test is considered to be usable for test interpretation. A complete listing of the flow measurements are presented in Attachment 2BB-2.
Examination of the water level measurements suggests that the data collection rate was sufficiently detailed to characterize the changes in water levels. Comparison of water level data at each well cluster (Figures 1 through 4 in Attachment 2BB-2) indicates that the following wells exhibit anomalous behavior based on the conceptual hydrogeologic model for the site: C6-3C, C6-2B, C6-2C, and C6-2D. In wells C6-2B and C6-2D water level responses in the B zone (freshwater limestone) were essentially identical to the response in the D zone (non-pumping zone). This may
2BB-11 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR indicate placement of a portion of the screened interval of these wells within the non-pumped aquifer or subsurface conditions where the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquitards are the same as in the non-pumped aquifer (aquitard not present). Wells C6-3C and C6-2C show water level response greater than in the pumped zone (C6-3E or C6-2E), which suggest either anomalous transducer data or some unknown external influence. In either case, the responses from these wells were not consistent with the assumptions used in the Hantush method and thus were not interpreted using this method. The wells with acceptable water level data were all wells in cluster C6-5, all wells in cluster C6-4, C6-3B, D, and E, and C6-2E.
6.3 Summary of Results The AQTESOLV' plots for the observation wells are presented in Attachment 2BB-2. The results of the interpretation are summarized on Table 2BB-204. The Hantush distance-drawdown and time-drawdown methods show general agreement for all parameters. The Theis method results generally show higher transmissivity than the Hantush method. This is most probably a result of not accounting for leakage from the overlying or underlying units. The Hantush method test results indicate a mean transmissivity of 122,000 gallons per day per foot (16,000 square feet per day) and a mean storage coefficient of 1.6E-04 for the pumped aquifer. The average vertical hydraulic conductivity of the upper aquitard zone B (freshwater limestone) is 2 gallons per day per square foot (0.2 feet per day) and of lower aquitard zone C (Tamiami Formation) is 7940 gallons per day per square foot (1061 feet per day). The high vertical hydraulic conductivity measured in the Tamiami Formation is believed to be a result of screening of the observation wells at the top of the formation in comparison to the observation wells at the Unit 7 deep test, which were screened deeper in the Tamiami Formation.
7.0 UNIT 7 SHALLOW TEST 7.1 Test Summary Background data collection in the pumping well commenced on February 20, 2009 at 8:17 pm EST.
The pumping test was started at 7:00 pm EST on February 23, 2009 and the well was pumped at an average rate of 4181 gallons per minute. Recovery was started at 3:45 am EST on February 24, 2009 and measurements were continued until 1:30 pm EST on February 24, 2009. There were no precipitation events noted during background data collection or during the test. Well cluster C6-3 was used for tidal correction during this test. The pumping rate data are presented in Attachment 2BB-3.
7.2 Data Assessment The flow measurements collected during the test are presented on Figure 2BB-209. The plot indicates that manual and electronic flow measurements are in general agreement, that measurements are within +/-10 percent of the mean flow rate, and that flow measurements are within the calibration range of the flowmeter. Therefore, the flow data for this test was considered to be usable for test interpretation. A complete listing of the flow measurements are presented in BB-3.
Examination of the water level measurements suggests that the data collection rate was sufficiently detailed to characterize the changes except in observation wells C7-1A and D, which did not have sufficiently detailed measurements to characterize the change. Comparison of water level data at each well cluster (
Figures 1 through 4 in Attachment 2BB-3) indicates that the following wells exhibit anomalous behavior based on the conceptual hydrogeologic model for the site: C7-1B and E and C7-4B and E, which show essentially an identical water level response in the aquitard (freshwater limestone) and the unpumped aquifer. This may indicate an absence of the aquitard or placement of a portion of the screened interval of these wells within the unpumped aquifer. Therefore, only the water level data
2BB-12 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR from well clusters C7-2 and C7-3 are considered to be acceptable for time-drawdown and distance-drawdown test interpretation and data from cluster C7-4 are also acceptable with the notation of anomalous behavior discussed above. Data from the C7-1 well cluster are not acceptable except for distance-drawdown comparisons.
7.3 Summary of Results The results of the test interpretations are presented in Attachment 2BB-3 and summarized on Table 2BB-205. The Hantush distance-drawdown and time-drawdown methods show general agreement for all parameters. The Theis method results generally show higher transmissivity than the Hantush method. This is most probably a result of not accounting for leakage from the overlying or underlying units. The Hantush method test results indicate a mean transmissivity of 2,200,000 gallons per day per foot (294,000 square feet per day) and a mean storage coefficient of 0.002 for the pumped aquifer. The average vertical hydraulic conductivity of the upper aquitard zone A (Miami Limestone) is 173 gallons per day per square foot (23 feet per day) and of the lower aquitard zone B (freshwater limestone) is 54 gallons per day per square foot (7 feet per day).
8.0 UNIT 7 DEEP TEST 8.1 Test Summary Background data collection in PW-7L began at 5:20 pm EST on March 4, 2009. The pumping portion of the test started at 12:00 pm EST on March 7, 2009 with an average pumping rate of 3403 gallons per minute. The recovery portion of the test was started at 9:00 pm EST on March 7, 2009 and measurements continued until 7:34 am EST on March 8. 2009. There were periods of light precipitation and drizzle observed during the background period, but no significant precipitation events were noted during background data collection or during the test. The test data are presented in Attachment 2BB-4.
8.2 Data Assessment The flow measurements collected during the test are presented on Figure 2BB-210. The plot indicates that manual and electronic flow measurements are in general agreement, that measurements are within +/-10 percent of the mean flow rate, and that flow measurements are within the calibration range of the flowmeter. Therefore, the flow data for this test were considered to be usable for test interpretation. A complete listing of the flow measurements are presented in BB-4.
Three of the transducers (C7-3B, C7-4D, and C7-5C) experienced what was referred to as instrument drift where the time recorded on these transducers was not synchronized with the other transducers. The times were manually corrected during the tidal correction, however the time shift on two of the transducers (C7-4D and C7-5C) resulted in missing the early time drawdown making the data from these transducers unacceptable for interpretation. Additionally, the transducer in well C7-4B malfunctioned during the test, resulting in only the first 300 minutes of data from the pumping period being acceptable. Therefore, with the exceptions noted above, the water level data from the remaining wells in clusters C7-3, C7-4, and C7-5 were considered acceptable for test interpretation.
8.3 Summary of Results The results of the test interpretations are presented in Attachment 2BB-4 and summarized on Table 2BB-206. The Hantush distance-drawdown and time-drawdown methods show general agreement for all parameters. The Theis method results generally show higher transmissivity than the Hantush method. This is most probably a result of not accounting for leakage from the overlying or underlying units. The test results for the Hantush method indicate a mean transmissivity of 131,000 gallons per day per foot (17,500 square feet per day) and a mean storage coefficient of
2BB-13 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 0.0003 for the pumped aquifer. The average vertical hydraulic conductivity of the upper aquitard zone B (freshwater Limestone) is 3 gallons per day per square foot (0.4 foot per day) and of the lower aquitard zone C (Tamiami Formation) is 649 gallons per day per square foot (87 feet per day).
9.0
SUMMARY
Four aquifer pumping tests were conducted at the Units 6 & 7 plant area, with two tests performed adjacent to locations of each reactor building, one in the Key Largo Limestone and the other in the Fort Thompson formation. The tests were performed to measure the hydrogeologic properties of these aquifers and overlying or underlying aquitards. Table 2BB-207 presents a summary of the averages of the aquifer testing results.
10.0 REFERENCES
1.
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Final Data ReportGeotechnical Exploration and Testing: Turkey Point COL Project Florida City, Florida, Rev. 2, included in COL Application Part 11, October 6, 2008.
2.
Fish, J., and M. Stewart, Hydrogeology of the Surficial Aquifer System, Dade County, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4108, 1991.
3.
Dames & Moore, Geohydrologic Conditions Related to the Construction of Cooling Ponds Florida Power & Light Company Steam Generating Station, Turkey Point, Florida, prepared for Brown & Root, Inc., July 1971.
4.
ASTM International, Standard Test Method (Field Procedure) for Withdrawal and Injection Well Tests for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifer Systems in Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Designation: D 4050, Vol. 04.08, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1996 (Reapproved 2002).
5.
Duffield, G., AQTESOLV' for Windows Vol. 4.5 Users Guide, HydroSOLVE, Inc.,
Reston, Virginia, 2007.
6.
Hantush, M., Modification of the Theory of Leaky Aquifers, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 65, No. 11, November 1960.
7.
Fetter, C., Applied Hydrogeology, 2d ed., Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1988.
8.
Batu, V., Aquifer Hydraulics a Comprehensive Guide to Hydrogeologic Data Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988.
2BB-14 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Table 2BB-201 (Sheet 1 of 3)
Observation Well and Pumping Well Construction Data Well No.
Easting (ft)
Northing (ft)
Top of Casing Elevation (ft NAVD 88)
Ground Elevation (ft NAVD 88)
Well Depth (ft bgs)
Screen or Open Interval (ft bgs)
Well Diameter ID (inches)
PW-7U 875819.3 396935.3 0.47
-0.2 45 22-45 0-22 ft 30 22-45 ft 28 PW-7L 875819.4 396985.1 0.67
-0.1 87 67-87 0-67 ft 30 67-87 ft 28 PW-6U 876668.7 396938.0 0.37
-0.3 45 23-45 0-23 ft 30 23-45 ft 28 PW-6L 876668.2 396987.5 0.37
-0.1 105 66-105 0-66 ft 30 66-105 ft 28 C7-1A 875829.5 396932.8 2.88
-0.2 15 10-15 2
C7-1B 2.92 64 62-64 2
C7-1C 2.94 120 115-120 2
C7-1D 875829.6 396937.7 2.55
-0.3 40 30-40 2
C7-1E 2.45 82 72-82 2
C7-2A 875822.2 396944.9 2.61
-0.2 15 10-15 2
C7-2B 2.54 52 50-52 2
C7-2C 2.57 117 112-117 2
C7-2D 875817.3 396944.9 2.61
-0.1 40 30-40 2
C7-2E 2.57 82 72-82 2
C7-3A 875822.4 396960.2 2.71
-0.3 15 10-15 2
C7-3B 2.64 55 53-55 2
C7-3C 2.71 97 92-97 2
C7-3D 875817.2 396959.9 2.61
-0.2 40 30-40 2
C7-3E 2.60 87 77-87 2
C7-4A 875822.3 396975.2 3.09
-0.3 15 10-15 2
C7-4B 3.10 61 59-61 2
C7-4C 3.21 117 112-117 2
C7-4D 875817.3 396974.3 2.64 0.0 40 30-40 2
C7-4E 875817.3 396974.3 2.60 0.0 82 72-82 2
2BB-15 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR C7-5A 875829.5 396984.1 2.72
-0.1 15 10-15 2
C7-5B 2.81 62 60-62 2
C7-5C 2.91 117 112-117 2
C7-5D 875828.1 396989.3 3.16 0.0 40 30-40 2
C7-5E 3.05 82 72-82 2
C6-1A 876678.1 396935.4 1.80
-0.3 15 10-15 2
C6-1B 1.66 48 46-48 2
C6-1C 1.73 117 112-117 2
C6-1D 876677.9 396940.4 2.14
-0.4 40 30-40 2
C6-1E 2.26 87 77-87 2
C6-2A 876670.8 396947.3 2.46
-0.4 15 10-15 2
C6-2B 2.48 45 43-45 2
C6-2C 2.47 121 116-121 2
C6-2D 876665.5 396947.4 2.02
-0.4 40 30-40 2
C6-2E 2.10 87 77-87 2
C6-3A 876670.5 396962.6 2.58
-0.4 15 10-15 2
C6-3B 2.57 51 49-51 2
C6-3C 2.57 117 110-117 2
C6-3D 876665.7 396962.5 2.45
-0.4 40 30-40 2
C6-3E 2.42 87 77-87 2
C6-4A 876670.9 396978.1 1.97 0.0 16 11-16 2
C6-4B 876670.9 396978.1 2.08 0.0 48 46-48 2
C6-4C 1.94 122 118-122 2
C6-4D 876666.0 396977.9 2.91
-0.2 40 30-40 2
C6-4E 2.94 86 76-86 2
Table 2BB-201 (Sheet 2 of 3)
Observation Well and Pumping Well Construction Data Well No.
Easting (ft)
Northing (ft)
Top of Casing Elevation (ft NAVD 88)
Ground Elevation (ft NAVD 88)
Well Depth (ft bgs)
Screen or Open Interval (ft bgs)
Well Diameter ID (inches)
2BB-16 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR C6-5A 876678.3 396984.8 2.38
-0.2 15 10-15 2
C6-5B 2.35 49 47-49 2
C6-5C 2.48 122 117-122 2
C6-5D 876678.1 396990.3 2.74
-0.4 40 30-40 2
C6-5E 2.71 86 76-86 2
Table 2BB-201 (Sheet 3 of 3)
Observation Well and Pumping Well Construction Data Well No.
Easting (ft)
Northing (ft)
Top of Casing Elevation (ft NAVD 88)
Ground Elevation (ft NAVD 88)
Well Depth (ft bgs)
Screen or Open Interval (ft bgs)
Well Diameter ID (inches)
2BB-17 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Table 2BB-202 Hydrogeologic Unit Thicknesses(a)
(a)
Based on composite logs, depths and thicknesses are considered approximate.
PW-6U/L Test Unit Formation Depth Interval (ft bgs)
Approximate Thickness (ft)
Upper aquitard Miami Limestone 5-13 8
Upper aquifer Key Largo Limestone 13-46 33 Middle aquitard Freshwater limestone/lime mud 46-57 11 Lower aquifer Fort Thompson Formation 57-114 57 Lower aquitard Tamiami Formation 114-117+
18(b)
(b)
A thickness of 18 feet is assumed for consistency with the PW-7L test, the thickness of the Tamiami Formation is >18 feet.
PW-7U/L Test Upper aquitard Miami Limestone 5-18 13 Upper aquifer Key Largo Limestone 18-42 24 Middle aquitard Freshwater limestone/lime mud 42-61 19 Lower aquifer Fort Thompson Formation 61-97 36 Lower aquitard Tamiami Formation 97-115+
18
2BB-18 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR (a)
Data not usable from these wells.
Table 2BB-203 Summary of Unit 6 Shallow Test Results Group Distance from Pumping Well (ft)
Transmissivity (gpd/ft)
Storage 1/B (ft-1) 1/B (ft-1)
Hydraulic Conductivity of upper aquitard (gpd/ft2)
Hydraulic Conductivity of lower aquitard (gpd/ft2)
C6-1 10 (a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
C6-2 10 2,204,000 2.4E-04 0.0024 0.0017 102 70 C6-3 25 2,867,000 7.98E-06 0.0022 0.0011 111 38 C6-4 40 (a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
Distance-Drawdown
1,922,000 2.1E-04 0.0025 0.0012 96 30 C6-1 Theis 10 7,330,000 1.8E-06
C6-2 Theis 10 5,816,000 1.3E-06
C6-3 Theis 25 8,837,000 1.2E-06
C6-4 Theis 40 11,130,000 1.2E-06
2BB-19 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR (a)
Data not usable from these wells.
Table 2BB-204 Summary of Unit 6 Deep Test Results Group Distance from Pumping Well (ft)
Transmissivity (gpd/ft)
Storage 1/B (ft-1) 1/B (ft-1)
Hydraulic Conductivity of upper aquitard (gpd/ft2)
Hydraulic Conductivity of lower aquitard (gpd/ft2)
C6-2 40 (a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
C6-3 25 201,000 0.0001 0.0011 0.06 3
13,025 C6-4 10 110,900 0.0001 0.0011 0.06 2
7,186 C6-5 10 30,920 0.0001 0.0011 0.06 0.4 2,068 Distance-Drawdown
146,100 0.0003 0.0011 0.06 2
9,467 C6-2 Theis 40 514,000 2.3E-06
C6-3 Theis 25 427,000 2.3E-06
C6-4 Theis 10 218,900 2.3E-06
C6-5 Theis 10 323,600 2.3E-06
2BB-20 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR (a)
Data from this well cluster are unusable.
Table 2BB-205 Summary of Unit 7 Shallow Test Results Group Distance from Pumping Well (ft)
Transmissivity (gpd/ft)
Storage 1/B (ft-1) 1/B (ft-1)
Hydraulic Conductivity of upper aquitard (gpd/ft2)
Hydraulic Conductivity of lower aquitard (gpd/ft2)
C7-1 10 (a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
C7-2 10 2,464,000 0.002 0.002489 0.00115 198 62 C7-3 25 2,056,000 0.002 0.00241 0.0011 155 47 C7-4 40 2,035,000 0.002 0.002484 0.00114 163 50 Distance-Drawdown
2,246,000 0.002 0.002455 0.00115 176 56 C7-1 Theis 10 (a)
(a)
C7-2 Theis 10 5,819,000 3.0E-05
C7-3 Theis 25 5,575,000 3.7E-05
C7-4 Theis 40 5,723,000 3.6E-05
2BB-21 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Table 2BB-206 Summary of Unit 7 Deep Test Results Group Distance from Pumping Well (ft)
Transmissivity (gpd/ft)
Storage 1/B (ft-1) 1/B (ft-1)
Hydraulic Conductivity of upper aquitard (gpd/ft2)
Hydraulic Conductivity of lower aquitard (gpd/ft2)
C7-2 40 131,300 0.0003 0.001143 0.0169 3
675 C7-3 25 134,200 0.0003 0.001145 0.0195 3
919 C7-4 10 126,200 0.0003 0.001148 0.0158 3
570 C7-5 10 132,200 0.0003 0.001148 0.0129 3.3 395 Distance-Drawdown
132,200 0.0003 0.001148 0.0170 3
686 C7-2 Theis 40 1,297,000 2.3E-06
C7-3 Theis 25 1,180,000 2.0E-06
C7-4 Theis 10 454,600 3.5E-05
C7-5 Theis 10 432,900 3.6E-05
2BB-22 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Table 2BB-207 Summary of Aquifer Testing Results Geologic Unit Thickness (ft)
Test Well Aquifer Transmissivity (gpd/ft)(a)
(a)
Average values.
Aquifer Storativity (dimensionless)(a)
Hydraulic Conductivity (Kh or Kv) gpd/ft2(a) ft/d(a) cm/s(a)
Miami Limestone (Kv) 8 PW-6U
103 14 0.005 13 PW-7U
173 23 0.008 Key Largo Limestone (Kh) 33 PW-6U 2,331,000 0.00015 71,000 9,400 3.3 24 PW-7U 2,200,000 0.0022 92,000 12,000 4.3 Freshwater Limestone (Kv) 11 PW-6U
46 6
0.002 19 PW-7U
54 7
0.003 11 PW-6L
2 0.2 7E-05 19 PW-7L
3 0.4 1E-04 Fort Thompson Formation (Kh) 57 PW-6L 122,000 0.00016 2,140 286 0.1 36 PW-7L 131,200 0.0003 3,600 490 0.2 Tamiami Formation (Kv) 18 PW-6L
7,940 1,061 0.4 18 PW-7L
649 87 0.03
2BB-23 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2BB-201 Site Location Map
2BB-24 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Notes:
Not to scale FM = Formation Figure 2BB-202 Conceptual Model Muck Miami Limestone Key Largo Limestone Freshwater Limestone Fort Thompson Fm.
Tamiami Fm.
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K2 > K1 K3>>K2>K1 K4<<K3 K4<K5<<K3 K6<K5 Upper Test Zone Lower Test Zone
2BB-25 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2BB-203 Unit 6 Pumping Test Group
2BB-26 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2BB-204 Unit 7 Pumping Test Group
2BB-27 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Source: Reference 5 Figure 2BB-205 Physical System for Theis Method
2BB-28 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Source: Reference 5 Figure 2BB-206 Physical System for Hantush Leaky Aquifer with Aquitard Storage Method
2BB-29 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2BB-207 Flow Measurements for PW-6U Test PW-6U Pumping Rate 4550 4750 4950 5150 5350 5550 5750 3/13/2009 9:00 3/13/2009 10:12 3/13/2009 11:24 3/13/2009 12:36 3/13/2009 13:48 3/13/2009 15:00 3/13/2009 16:12 3/13/2009 17:24 gpm Electronic Readings Manual Readings Arithmetic Mean
+10% of mean
-10% of mean Arithmetic mean = 5103 gpm
2BB-30 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2BB-208 Flow Measurements for PW-6L Test PW-6L Pumping Rate 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3/20/09 10:00 3/20/09 11:12 3/20/09 12:24 3/20/09 13:36 3/20/09 14:48 3/20/09 16:00 3/20/09 17:12 gpm Electronic Readings Manual Readings Arithmetic Mean
+10% of Mean
-10% of Mean Arithmetic Mean = 3342 gpm
2BB-31 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2BB-209 Flow Measurements for PW-7U Test PW-7U Pumping Rate 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700 2/23/2009 19:00:00 2/23/2009 20:12:00 2/23/2009 21:24:00 2/23/2009 22:36:00 2/23/2009 23:48:00 2/24/2009 1:00:00 2/24/2009 2:12:00 2/24/2009 3:24:00 gallons per minute Electronic Measurements Manual Measurements Arithmetic Mean Mean +10%
Mean -10%
Arithmetic Mean = 4181 gpm
2BB-32 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2BB-210 Flow Measurements for PW-7L Test PW-7L Pumping Rate 3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800 3/7/2009 12:05:00 3/7/2009 13:17:00 3/7/2009 14:29:00 3/7/2009 15:41:00 3/7/2009 16:53:00 3/7/2009 18:05:00 3/7/2009 19:17:00 3/7/2009 20:29:00 gpm Electronic Measurements Manual Measurements Arithmetic Mean Mean +10%
Mean-10%
Arithmetic Mean = 3403 gpm
2BB-33 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR ATTACHMENT 2BB-1 UNIT 6 SHALLOW TEST GRAPHS AND PUMPING RATES
2BB-34 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-1 (Sheet 1 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-6U Date/Time (EST)
Minutes Electronic gpm Manual gpm(a) 3/13/2009 9:31 0
5075(b)
3/13/2009 9:35 4
5075
3/13/2009 9:40 9
5098
3/13/2009 9:45 14 5065 5093 3/13/2009 9:50 19 5079
3/13/2009 9:55 24 5103
3/13/2009 10:00 29 5108 5107 3/13/2009 10:05 34 5113
3/13/2009 10:10 39 5102
3/13/2009 10:15 44 5085 5122 3/13/2009 10:20 49 5088
3/13/2009 10:25 54 5165
3/13/2009 10:30 59 5119 5171 3/13/2009 10:35 64 5150
3/13/2009 10:40 69 5109
3/13/2009 10:45 74 5106 5127 3/13/2009 10:50 79 5136
3/13/2009 10:55 84 5078
3/13/2009 11:00 89 5063 5090 3/13/2009 11:05 94 5075
3/13/2009 11:10 99 5123
3/13/2009 11:15 104 5142 5112 3/13/2009 11:20 109 5145
3/13/2009 11:25 114 5140
3/13/2009 11:30 119 5146 5128 3/13/2009 11:35 124 5124
3/13/2009 11:40 129 5114
3/13/2009 11:45 134 5088 5141 3/13/2009 11:50 139 5137
3/13/2009 11:55 144 5136
3/13/2009 12:00 149 5126 5134 3/13/2009 12:05 154 5114
3/13/2009 12:10 159 5103
3/13/2009 12:15 164 5085 5112 3/13/2009 12:20 169 5099
3/13/2009 12:25 174 5053
3/13/2009 12:30 179 5108 5096 3/13/2009 12:35 184 5124
3/13/2009 12:40 189 5109
2BB-35 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 3/13/2009 12:45 194 5119 5118 3/13/2009 12:50 199 5108
3/13/2009 12:55 204 5141
3/13/2009 13:00 209 5151 5167 3/13/2009 13:05 214 5148
3/13/2009 13:10 219 5153
3/13/2009 13:15 224 5155 5153 3/13/2009 13:20 229 5148
3/13/2009 13:25 234 5157
3/13/2009 13:30 239 5140 5161 3/13/2009 13:35 244 5135
3/13/2009 13:40 249 5115
3/13/2009 13:45 254 5126 5127 3/13/2009 13:50 259 5127
3/13/2009 13:55 264 5149
3/13/2009 14:00 269 5134 5145 3/13/2009 14:05 274 5094
3/13/2009 14:10 279 5108
3/13/2009 14:15 284 5100 5126 3/13/2009 14:20 289 5131
3/13/2009 14:25 294 5106
3/13/2009 14:30 299 5117 5113 3/13/2009 14:35 304 5132
3/13/2009 14:40 309 5110
3/13/2009 14:45 314 5064 5102 3/13/2009 14:50 319 5124
3/13/2009 14:55 324 5116
3/13/2009 15:00 329 5108 5103 3/13/2009 15:05 334 5091
3/13/2009 15:10 339 5053
3/13/2009 15:15 344 5060 5088 3/13/2009 15:20 349 5073
3/13/2009 15:25 354 5073
3/13/2009 15:30 359 5040 5092 3/13/2009 15:35 364 5090
3/13/2009 15:40 369 5072
3/13/2009 15:45 374 5048 5076 3/13/2009 15:50 379 5057
3/13/2009 15:55 384 5066
Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-1 (Sheet 2 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-6U Date/Time (EST)
Minutes Electronic gpm Manual gpm(a)
2BB-36 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 3/13/2009 16:00 389 5060 5052 3/13/2009 16:05 394 5062
3/13/2009 16:10 399 5043
3/13/2009 16:15 404 5060 5072 3/13/2009 16:20 409 5079
3/13/2009 16:25 414 5055
3/13/2009 16:30 419 5068 5051 3/13/2009 16:35 424 5088
3/13/2009 16:40 429 5045
3/13/2009 16:45 434 5086 5072 3/13/2009 16:50 439 5070
3/13/2009 16:55 444 5042
3/13/2009 17:00 449 5090 5045 3/13/2009 17:05 454 5115
3/13/2009 17:10 459 5113
3/13/2009 17:15 464 5122 5125 3/13/2009 17:20 469 5116
3/13/2009 17:25 474 5132
3/13/2009 17:30 479 0
(a)
Manual readings recorded in EDT.
(b)
Value taken from next reading to provide pumping rate at t=0.
Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-1 (Sheet 3 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-6U Date/Time (EST)
Minutes Electronic gpm Manual gpm(a)
2BB-37 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 1 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-1 Well Cluster
2BB-38 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-2 Well Cluster
2BB-39 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 3 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-3 Well Cluster
2BB-40 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 4 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-4 Well Cluster
2BB-41 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 5 of Attachment 2BB-1 Distance-Drawdown Graph for PW-6U Test (t = 20 minutes)
2BB-42 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 6 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-1D Using Theis Method
2BB-43 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 7 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-2D Using Theis Method
2BB-44 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 8 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-2D Using Hantush Method
2BB-45 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 9 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-3D Using Theis Method
2BB-46 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 10 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-3D Using Hantush Method
2BB-47 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 11 of Attachment 2BB-1 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-4D Using Theis Method
2BB-48 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR ATTACHMENT 2BB-2 UNIT 6 DEEP TEST GRAPHS AND PUMPING RATES
2BB-49 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-2 (Sheet 1 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-6L Date/Time Minutes Electronic Flow (gpm)
Manual Flow (gpm) 3/20/2009 10:05:04 0
3376(a)
3/20/2009 10:05:04 5
3376
3/20/2009 10:10:04 10 3366
3/20/2009 10:15:04 15 3372 3359 3/20/2009 10:20:04 20 3373
3/20/2009 10:25:04 25 3339
3/20/2009 10:30:04 30 3318 3332 3/20/2009 10:35:04 35 3355
3/20/2009 10:40:05 40 3342
3/20/2009 10:45:04 45 3325 3334 3/20/2009 10:50:04 50 3344
3/20/2009 10:55:04 55 3347
3/20/2009 11:00:04 60 3354 3347 3/20/2009 11:05:05 65 3358
3/20/2009 11:10:04 70 3336
3/20/2009 11:15:04 75 3357 3360 3/20/2009 11:20:04 80 3344
3/20/2009 11:25:06 85 3341
3/20/2009 11:30:04 90 3360 3348 3/20/2009 11:35:04 95 3366
3/20/2009 11:40:04 100 3328
3/20/2009 11:45:04 105 3366 3354 3/20/2009 11:50:04 110 3360
3/20/2009 11:55:04 115 3352
3/20/2009 12:00:04 120 3354 3362 3/20/2009 12:05:04 125 3350
3/20/2009 12:10:05 130 3371
3/20/2009 12:15:04 135 3354 3342 3/20/2009 12:20:04 140 3346
3/20/2009 12:25:04 145 3328
3/20/2009 12:30:04 150 3345 3360 3/20/2009 12:35:04 155 3328
3/20/2009 12:40:04 160 3339
3/20/2009 12:45:04 165 3352 3322 3/20/2009 12:50:04 170 3331
3/20/2009 12:55:05 175 3336
3/20/2009 13:00:04 180 3357 3341 3/20/2009 13:05:04 185 3331
2BB-50 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 3/20/2009 13:10:04 190 3353
3/20/2009 13:15:04 195 3312 3329 3/20/2009 13:20:04 200 3344
3/20/2009 13:25:04 205 3337
3/20/2009 13:30:04 210 3368 3350 3/20/2009 13:35:04 215 3346
3/20/2009 13:40:05 220 3355
3/20/2009 13:45:04 225 3335 3339 3/20/2009 13:50:04 230 3350
3/20/2009 13:55:05 235 3318
3/20/2009 14:00:04 240 3350 3331 3/20/2009 14:05:04 245 3342
3/20/2009 14:10:04 250 3332
3/20/2009 14:15:04 255 3331 3353 3/20/2009 14:20:04 260 3332
3/20/2009 14:25:06 265 3314
3/20/2009 14:30:04 270 3315 3347 3/20/2009 14:35:05 275 3348
3/20/2009 14:40:04 280 3344
3/20/2009 14:45:04 285 3354 3342 3/20/2009 14:50:04 290 3345
3/20/2009 14:55:05 295 3324
3/20/2009 15:00:04 300 3341 3338 3/20/2009 15:05:04 305 3329
3/20/2009 15:10:05 310 3309
3/20/2009 15:15:04 315 3323 3354 3/20/2009 15:20:04 320 3344
3/20/2009 15:25:04 325 3312
3/20/2009 15:30:04 330 3329 3332 3/20/2009 15:35:05 335 3339
3/20/2009 15:40:04 340 3330
3/20/2009 15:45:05 345 3314 3346 3/20/2009 15:50:04 350 3333
3/20/2009 15:55:05 355 3347
3/20/2009 16:00:04 360 3350 3355 3/20/2009 16:05:04 365 3320
3/20/2009 16:10:04 370 3358
3/20/2009 16:15:04 375 3334 3340 3/20/2009 16:20:04 380 3355
Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-2 (Sheet 2 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-6L Date/Time Minutes Electronic Flow (gpm)
Manual Flow (gpm)
2BB-51 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 3/20/2009 16:25:04 385 3349
3/20/2009 16:30:04 390 3329 3346 3/20/2009 16:35:04 395 3328
3/20/2009 16:40:05 400 3347
3/20/2009 16:45:04 405 3336 3354 3/20/2009 16:50:04 410 3344
3/20/2009 16:55:04 415 3346
3/20/2009 17:00:05 420 3351 3368 3/20/2009 17:05:04 425 3326
3/20/2009 17:10:05 430 3335
3/20/2009 17:15:05 435 3362 3376 3/20/2009 17:20:04 440 3349
3/20/2009 17:25:05 445 3370
3/20/2009 17:30:04 450 3343 3333 3/20/2009 17:35:04 455 3354
3/20/2009 17:40:04 460 3324
3/20/2009 17:45:04 465 3335 3356 3/20/2009 17:50:04 470 3336
3/20/2009 17:55:04 475 3356
3/20/2009 18:00 480 0
(a)
Value taken from next reading to provide pumping rate at t=0.
Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-2 (Sheet 3 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-6L Date/Time Minutes Electronic Flow (gpm)
Manual Flow (gpm)
2BB-52 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 1 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-5 Well Cluster
2BB-53 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-4 Well Cluster
2BB-54 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 3 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-3 Well Cluster
2BB-55 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 4 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-2 Well Cluster
2BB-56 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 5 of Attachment 2BB-2 Distance-Drawdown Graph for PW-6L Test (t = 20 minutes)
2BB-57 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 6 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-5E Using Theis Method
2BB-58 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 7 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-5E Using Hantush Method
2BB-59 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 8 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-4E Using Theis Method
2BB-60 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 9 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-4E Using Hantush Method
2BB-61 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 10 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-3E Using Theis Method
2BB-62 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 11 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-3E Using Hantush Method
2BB-63 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 12 of Attachment 2BB-2 Time-Drawdown Graph for C6-2E Using Theis Method
2BB-64 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR ATTACHMENT 2BB-3 UNIT 7 SHALLOW TEST GRAPHS AND PUMPING RATES
2BB-65 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-3 (Sheet 1 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-7U Date/Time Time (minutes)
Flow Meter Recorded (gpm)
Flow Meter Manual (gpm)(b) 2/23/2009 19:00:15 0
4179(a)
2/23/2009 19:02:15 2.25 4179
2/23/2009 19:07:15 7.25 4149
2/23/2009 19:12:15 12.25 4185
2/23/2009 19:17:15 17.25 4175 4150 2/23/2009 19:22:14 22.23 4178
2/23/2009 19:27:14 27.23 4154
2/23/2009 19:32:14 32.23 4174 4165 2/23/2009 19:37:14 37.23 4181
2/23/2009 19:42:14 42.23 4174
2/23/2009 19:47:14 47.23 4142 4169 2/23/2009 19:52:14 52.23 4178
2/23/2009 19:57:15 57.25 4176
2/23/2009 20:02:14 62.23 4171 4178 2/23/2009 20:07:15 67.25 4174
2/23/2009 20:12:14 72.23 4180
2/23/2009 20:17:14 77.23 4151 4195 2/23/2009 20:22:14 82.23 4183
2/23/2009 20:27:14 87.23 4178
2/23/2009 20:32:14 92.23 4196 4175 2/23/2009 20:37:14 97.23 4164
2/23/2009 20:42:15 102.25 4168
2/23/2009 20:47:15 107.25 4196 4172 2/23/2009 20:52:14 112.23 4153
2/23/2009 20:57:15 117.25 4161
2/23/2009 21:02:14 122.23 4147 4167 2/23/2009 21:07:14 127.23 4167
2/23/2009 21:12:14 132.23 4195
2/23/2009 21:17:14 137.23 4152 4181 2/23/2009 21:22:14 142.23 4187
2/23/2009 21:27:15 147.25 4169
2/23/2009 21:32:14 152.23 4158 4167 2/23/2009 21:37:14 157.23 4203
2/23/2009 21:42:14 162.23 4143
2/23/2009 21:47:15 167.25 4156 4207 2/23/2009 21:52:14 172.23 4182
2/23/2009 21:57:14 177.23 4174
2/23/2009 22:02:14 182.23 4159 4150
2BB-66 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 2/23/2009 22:07:14 187.23 4157
2/23/2009 22:12:16 192.27 4201
2/23/2009 22:17:15 197.25 4172 4151 2/23/2009 22:22:14 202.23 4202
2/23/2009 22:27:14 207.23 4172
2/23/2009 22:32:14 212.23 4167 4167 2/23/2009 22:37:14 217.23 4200
2/23/2009 22:42:14 222.23 4186
2/23/2009 22:47:14 227.23 4182 4197 2/23/2009 22:52:14 232.23 4180
2/23/2009 22:57:15 237.25 4174
2/23/2009 23:02:14 242.23 4189 4174 2/23/2009 23:07:14 247.23 4186
2/23/2009 23:12:14 252.23 4159
2/23/2009 23:17:14 257.23 4180 4157 2/23/2009 23:22:14 262.23 4173
2/23/2009 23:27:14 267.23 4195
2/23/2009 23:32:15 272.25 4177 4201 2/23/2009 23:37:14 277.23 4184
2/23/2009 23:42:15 282.25 4209
2/23/2009 23:47:15 287.25 4202 4203 2/23/2009 23:52:14 292.23 4183
2/23/2009 23:57:15 297.25 4208
2/24/2009 0:02:14 302.23 4182 4200 2/24/2009 0:07:14 307.23 4205
2/24/2009 0:12:14 312.23 4224
2/24/2009 0:17:14 317.23 4211 4185 2/24/2009 0:22:14 322.23 4188
2/24/2009 0:27:15 327.25 4210
2/24/2009 0:32:14 332.23 4196 4214 2/24/2009 0:37:14 337.23 4211
2/24/2009 0:42:15 342.25 4214
2/24/2009 0:47:14 347.23 4203 4218 2/24/2009 0:52:14 352.23 4209
2/24/2009 0:57:14 357.23 4201
2/24/2009 1:02:15 362.25 4189 4164 2/24/2009 1:07:14 367.23 4177
2/24/2009 1:12:15 372.25 4184
Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-3 (Sheet 2 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-7U Date/Time Time (minutes)
Flow Meter Recorded (gpm)
Flow Meter Manual (gpm)(b)
2BB-67 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 2/24/2009 1:17:14 377.23 4163 4192 2/24/2009 1:22:14 382.23 4202
2/24/2009 1:27:14 387.23 4202
2/24/2009 1:32:14 392.23 4183 4216 2/24/2009 1:37:15 397.25 4196
2/24/2009 1:42:14 402.23 4162
2/24/2009 1:47:14 407.23 4179 4191 2/24/2009 1:52:15 412.25 4179
2/24/2009 1:57:15 417.25 4182
2/24/2009 2:02:14 422.23 4170 4201 2/24/2009 2:07:15 427.25 4208
2/24/2009 2:12:14 432.23 4203
2/24/2009 2:17:14 437.23 4176 4183 2/24/2009 2:22:15 442.25 4190
2/24/2009 2:27:15 447.25 4167
2/24/2009 2:32:14 452.23 4200 4185 2/24/2009 2:37:14 457.23 4191
2/24/2009 2:42:15 462.25 4175
2/24/2009 2:47:15 467.25 4158 4189 2/24/2009 2:52:14 472.23 4174
2/24/2009 2:57:14 477.23 4177
2/24/2009 3:02:14 482.23 4165 4169 2/24/2009 3:07:14 487.23 4174
2/24/2009 3:12:14 492.23 4208
2/24/2009 3:17:14 497.23 4219 4198 2/24/2009 3:22:14 502.23 4179
2/24/2009 3:27:15 507.25 4161
2/24/2009 3:32:14 512.23 4197 4165 2/24/2009 3:37:14 517.23 4164
2/24/2009 3:45 525.00 0
(a)
Value taken from next reading to provide pumping rate at t=0.
(b)
Manual measurements reported at the closest electronic measurement time Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-3 (Sheet 3 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-7U Date/Time Time (minutes)
Flow Meter Recorded (gpm)
Flow Meter Manual (gpm)(b)
2BB-68 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 1 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-1 Well Cluster
2BB-69 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-2 Well Cluster
2BB-70 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 3 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-3 Well Cluster
2BB-71 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 4 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-4 Well Cluster
2BB-72 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 5 of Attachment 2BB-3 Distance Drawdown Graph (at t= 20 minutes)
2BB-73 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 6 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-2D Using Theis Method
2BB-74 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 7 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-2D Using Hantush Method
2BB-75 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 8 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-3D Using Theis Method
2BB-76 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 9 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-3D Using Hantush Method
2BB-77 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 10 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-4D Using Theis Method
2BB-78 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 11 of Attachment 2BB-3 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-4D Using Hantush Method
2BB-79 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR ATTACHMENT 2BB-4 UNIT 7 DEEP TEST GRAPHS AND PUMPING RATES
2BB-80 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-4 (Sheet 1 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-7L Date/Time (EST)
Minutes Electronic Flow (gpm)
Manual Flow (gpm) 3/7/2009 12:00 0
3473(a)
3/7/2009 12:05:02 5
3473 3492 3/7/2009 12:10:03 10 3460 3474 3/7/2009 12:15:03 15 3428 3432 3/7/2009 12:20:02 20 3500
3/7/2009 12:25:03 25 3542
3/7/2009 12:30:03 30 3429 3434 3/7/2009 12:35:02 35 3410
3/7/2009 12:40:02 40 3405
3/7/2009 12:45:02 45 3412 3372 3/7/2009 12:50:02 50 3359
3/7/2009 12:55:02 55 3406
3/7/2009 13:00:02 60 3397 3382 3/7/2009 13:05:02 65 3387
3/7/2009 13:10:03 70 3384
3/7/2009 13:15:02 75 3396 3402 3/7/2009 13:20:02 80 3388
3/7/2009 13:25:02 85 3377
3/7/2009 13:30:02 90 3399 3402 3/7/2009 13:35:02 95 3376
3/7/2009 13:40:02 100 3407
3/7/2009 13:45:02 105 3379 3408 3/7/2009 13:50:02 110 3397
3/7/2009 13:55:03 115 3400
3/7/2009 14:00:02 120 3407 3398 3/7/2009 14:05:02 125 3408
3/7/2009 14:10:02 130 3375
3/7/2009 14:15:02 135 3387 3372 3/7/2009 14:20:02 140 3396
3/7/2009 14:25:03 145 3372
3/7/2009 14:30:02 150 3397 3393 3/7/2009 14:35:02 155 3381
3/7/2009 14:40:04 160 3395
3/7/2009 14:45:02 165 3389 3377 3/7/2009 14:50:03 170 3369
3/7/2009 14:55:02 175 3405
3/7/2009 15:00:02 180 3398 3399 3/7/2009 15:05:03 185 3385
2BB-81 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 3/7/2009 15:10:02 190 3379
3/7/2009 15:15:02 195 3406 3397 3/7/2009 15:20:02 200 3372
3/7/2009 15:25:04 205 3397
3/7/2009 15:30:02 210 3394 3392 3/7/2009 15:35:02 215 3395
3/7/2009 15:40:02 220 3380
3/7/2009 15:45:03 225 3393 3405 3/7/2009 15:50:02 230 3380
3/7/2009 15:55:02 235 3386
3/7/2009 16:00:02 240 3389 3384 3/7/2009 16:05:02 245 3379
3/7/2009 16:10:04 250 3395
3/7/2009 16:15:02 255 3436 3432 3/7/2009 16:20:02 260 3403
3/7/2009 16:25:02 265 3388
3/7/2009 16:30:02 270 3361 3372 3/7/2009 16:35:02 275 3376
3/7/2009 16:40:02 280 3368
3/7/2009 16:45:03 285 3393 3396 3/7/2009 16:50:03 290 3405
3/7/2009 16:55:03 295 3398
3/7/2009 17:00:02 300 3387 3392 3/7/2009 17:05:02 305 3397
3/7/2009 17:10:03 310 3393
3/7/2009 17:15:02 315 3380 3403 3/7/2009 17:20:03 320 3406
3/7/2009 17:25:02 325 3387
3/7/2009 17:30:02 330 3396 3401 3/7/2009 17:35:03 335 3367
3/7/2009 17:40:03 340 3408
3/7/2009 17:45:02 345 3409 3412 3/7/2009 17:50:02 350 3385
3/7/2009 17:55:02 355 3373
3/7/2009 18:00:02 360 3386 3399 3/7/2009 18:05:02 365 3393
3/7/2009 18:10:02 370 3397
3/7/2009 18:15:02 375 3388 3418 3/7/2009 18:20:02 380 3381
Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-4 (Sheet 2 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-7L Date/Time (EST)
Minutes Electronic Flow (gpm)
Manual Flow (gpm)
2BB-82 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR 3/7/2009 18:25:03 385 3383
3/7/2009 18:30:02 390 3419 3402 3/7/2009 18:35:02 395 3386
3/7/2009 18:40:02 400 3389
3/7/2009 18:45:02 405 3378 3398 3/7/2009 18:50:03 410 3381
3/7/2009 18:55:02 415 3406
3/7/2009 19:00:02 420 3397 3419 3/7/2009 19:05:02 425 3409
3/7/2009 19:10:03 430 3404
3/7/2009 19:15:02 435 3415 3409 3/7/2009 19:20:02 440 3398
3/7/2009 19:25:02 445 3397
3/7/2009 19:30:03 450 3407 3402 3/7/2009 19:35:03 455 3455
3/7/2009 19:40:02 460 3485
3/7/2009 19:45:02 465 3440 3475 3/7/2009 19:50:02 470 3564
3/7/2009 19:55:03 475 3462
3/7/2009 20:00:02 480 3409 3430 3/7/2009 20:05:03 485 3408
3/7/2009 20:10:02 490 3418
3/7/2009 20:15:02 495 3431 3441 3/7/2009 20:20:02 500 3431
3/7/2009 20:25:03 505 3416
3/7/2009 20:30:02 510 3425 3437 3/7/2009 20:35:03 515 3428
3/7/2009 20:40:03 520 3412
3/7/2009 20:45:03 525 3421 3423 3/7/2009 20:50:02 530 3420
3/7/2009 20:55:02 535 3420
3/7/2009 21:00 540 0
(a)
Value taken from next reading to provide pumping rate at t=0.
Table 1 of Attachment 2BB-4 (Sheet 3 of 3)
Pumping Rate Measurements for PW-7L Date/Time (EST)
Minutes Electronic Flow (gpm)
Manual Flow (gpm)
2BB-83 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 1 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-2 Well Cluster
2BB-84 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 2 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-3 Well Cluster
2BB-85 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 3 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-4 Well Cluster
2BB-86 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 4 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-5 Well Cluster
2BB-87 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 5 of Attachment 2BB-4 Distance-Drawdown Graph for PW-7L Test (t = 20 minutes)
2BB-88 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 6 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-2E Using Theis Method
2BB-89 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 7 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-2E Using Hantush Method
2BB-90 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 8 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-3E Using Theis Method
2BB-91 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 9 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-3E Using Hantush Method
2BB-92 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 10 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-4E Using Theis Method
2BB-93 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 11 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-4E Using Hantush Method
2BB-94 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 12 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-5E Using Theis Method
2BB-95 Revision 0 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 - IFSAR Figure 13 of Attachment 2BB-4 Time-Drawdown Graph for C7-5E Using Hantush Method