ML19029A573
| ML19029A573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 01/18/2019 |
| From: | James Shea Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Office of New Reactors |
| Fetter A | |
| References | |
| TVACLINCHRIVERESP, TVACLINCHRIVERESP.SUBMISSION.5, CRN.PART02, CRN.PART02.2 | |
| Download: ML19029A573 (71) | |
Text
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report APPENDIX 2.4.12B TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.4.12B Aquifer Pumping Test Results.................................................2.4.12B-2 2.4.12B.1 Introduction .........................................................2.4.12B-2 2.4.12B.2 APT Design .........................................................2.4.12B-2 2.4.12B.3 Analysis Methodology .........................................2.4.12B-4 2.4.12B.4 Results and Discussion ....................................2.4.12B-12 2.4.12B.5 Conclusion ........................................................2.4.12B-13 2.4.12B.6 References .......................................................2.4.12B-13 2.4.12B-i Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report APPENDIX 2.4.12B LIST OF TABLES Number Title 2.4.12B-1 Pumping and Observation Well Data 2.4.12B-2 Well Pumping Rates Measured During the Constant Rate Test 2.4.12B-3 Aquifer Pumping Test Results 2.4.12B-ii Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report APPENDIX 2.4.12B LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 2.4.12B-1 Observation Well Locations 2.4.12B-2 Stratigraphic Section 2.4.12B-3 Layout of the Supplemental Aquifer Pumping Test Wells 2.4.12B-4 Geologic Section Inclusive of the Aquifer Pumping Test Area 2.4.12B-5 Pumping Rate Versus Time 2.4.12B-6 Barometric Pressure During the Aquifer Pumping Test 2.4.12B-7 Precipitation During the Aquifer Pumping Test 2.4.12B-8 Clinch River Stage Measurements During the Aquifer Pumping Test 2.4.12B-9 Pumping Well PT-PW Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-10 PT-OW-U1 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-11 PT-OW-L1 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-12 PT-OW-U2 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-13 PT-OW-L2 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-14 PT-OW-L3 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-15 OW-423L Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-16 Distance-Drawdown Plot Upper Monitoring Zone 2.4.12B-17 Distance-Drawdown Plot Lower Monitoring Zone 2.4.12B-18 PT-OW-U1 Hantush-Jacob Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-19 PT-OW-L1 Hantush-Jacob Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-20 PT-OW-U2 Hantush Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-21 PT-OW-L2 Hantush Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-22 PT-OW-L3 Hantush Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-23 OW-423L Hantush Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-iii Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Appendix 2.4.12B Aquifer Pumping Test Results 2.4.12B-1 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 2.4.12B Aquifer Pumping Test Results 2.4.12B.1 Introduction 2.4.12B.1.1 Purpose The purpose of this appendix is to present the evaluation of the aquifer pumping test (APT) performed at the Clinch River Nuclear (CRN) Site and to provide estimates of transmissivity, storage coefficient, and hydraulic conductivity at the test locations in support of the Early Site Permit for the proposed small modular reactors at the CRN Site. There were 34 groundwater observation wells installed and developed at the CRN Site for hydrogeologic characterization and long-term water level monitoring, and 7 supplemental wells were installed for performing and monitoring the APT (Figure 2.4.12B-1).
2.4.12B.1.2 Hydrogeologic Setting The geology of the site consists of Ordovician and Cambrian predominantly calcareous rocks overlain by regolith composed of clayey soils, saprolite, and fill. The bedrock units present in the site area are shown on the stratigraphic section in Figure 2.4.12B-2 (Reference 2.4.12B-1). The bedrock has been subjected to repeated folding and faulting that has produced a series of northeast-trending ridges and valleys typical of the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province (Reference 2.4.12B-2) in which the site lies. At the site, the bedrock dips toward the southeast (Reference 2.4.12B-3). Typically a dip of about 30 degrees is observed, but the dip can vary between 20 degrees and 45 degrees (Reference 2.4.12B-4). The subsurface flow system in this region consists of a stormflow zone near the surface, a less permeable vadose zone below, and a saturated zone consisting of fractured bedrock with fracture frequency decreasing with depth (Reference 2.4.12B-5). Reference 2.4.12B-6 indicates that the transition from fractured bedrock to deeper, less fractured bedrock occurs at about 45 meters (m) (148 feet [ft]) below ground surface in Melton and Bethel Valleys in the adjacent Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). The secondary porosity resulting from the fracture system is expected to dominate the flow regime in the groundwater-bearing rocks, since the rock matrix has a low primary porosity and hydraulic conductivity.
Previous investigations at the site have identified four orientations of discontinuities (joints and fractures) on the site: N52°E 37°SE, N52°E 58°NW, N25°W 80°SW, and N65°W 75°NE. The N52°E 37°SE oriented discontinuities represent bedrock bedding planes and are the predominant discontinuity set at the site (Reference 2.4.12B-3). This information was used to guide well placement as shown on Figure 2.4.12B-3. Measurements from the CRN Site subsurface investigation indicate a primary discontinuity set oriented N60°E 59°NW and a secondary set oriented N60°E 38°SE. Previous orientation measurements and the CRN Site measurements are within 8 degrees, suggesting a reasonable agreement between the two measurement sets.
2.4.12B.2 APT Design The APT is a commonly used technique to characterize aquifer properties. Other methods, such as slug tests and packer tests, focus on the area immediately surrounding the well or borehole being tested. The APT utilizes a pumping well pumped at a constant rate to stress the aquifer and a group of spatially distributed observation wells to measure the effects of that stress. After completion of the pumping period of the test, the pump is shut off and water level recovery in the pumping and observation wells is observed.
Water level measurements were collected using electronic and manual methods. The electronic method utilizes pressure transducers to measure and record the water level. The transducers 2.4.12B-2 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report used for this test were Level Troll model 500 or model 700 transducers manufactured by In-Situ, Inc. These transducers are vented to the atmosphere to allow compensation for barometric pressure changes. Data from the Level Troll includes date/time, elapsed time in seconds of the logging period, pressure (pounds per square inch [psi]), temperature (°C), and depth (ft) (i.e., height of water above the pressure transducer).
Manual water level measurements were made using an electrical water level measurement device. Water levels are measured relative to the top of the well casing and are reported as feet below top of casing (ftbtc). Water level measurements were collected prior to (background) and during the APT.
Supplemental observation and pumping wells installed to perform the APT were screened in the Chickamauga Group, in the Eidson and Fleanor Members of the Lincolnshire Formation and the Blackford Formation. Figure 2.4.12B-4 is a geologic cross-section that includes the APT area and illustrates the stratigraphic relationships. The upper U monitoring zones are screened in the Eidson and Fleanor Members and the lower L monitoring zones are screened in the Blackford Formation, as is the lone deeper D well associated with the OW-423 observation well series.
The pumping well is screened in both units. The Eidson Member of the Lincolnshire Formation consists primarily of limestone and the Fleanor Member consists of shale. The Blackford Formation consists primarily of maroon-colored calcareous siltstone with dolomitic limestone layers. Reference 2.4.12B-1 classifies these units as an aquitard as shown on Figure 2.4.12B-2.
2.4.12B.2.1 Observation Wells Observation wells used for the test represent a subset of the site observation wells as shown on Figure 2.4.12B-1. The supplemental observation wells near the pumping well were installed around the pumping well as shown on Figure 2.4.12B-3 to characterize horizontal anisotropy.
The well layout was designed to examine differences in response along the strike and dip of the discontinuity sets at the site. Observation well construction information can be found in Reference 2.4.12B-7. The screened intervals for the wells are summarized on Table 2.4.12B-1.
2.4.12B.2.2 Pumping Well The pumping well consists of a 6-inch (in.) diameter well equipped with an electric submersible pump. The construction information for the pumping well is presented in Reference 2.4.12B-7 and the screened interval is presented on Table 2.4.12B-1. Prior to performing the APT, the pumping rate was determined for the test using a step-drawdown test. The objective of the step-drawdown test was to determine the pumping rate that will stress the aquifer without drawing the water level down to the test pump during the pumping duration. Based on the results of the step-drawdown test, a pumping rate of 14.5 gallons per minute (gpm) +/-5 percent was established.
Discharge from the pumping well was measured using a Master Meter mechanical totalizing flow meter. Since the flow meter reads the total gallons pumped, the flow rate was determined by measuring the number of gallons pumped over a specific time period. Flow measurements are summarized on Table 2.4.12B-2. Figure 2.4.12B-5 presents a graphical representation of the pumping rate data, which shows that the pumping rate was within the specified tolerance for a majority of the test. The discharge from the pumping well was directed to a series of steel 21,000 gallon tanks connected in a manifold arrangement that allowed filling one tank at a time.
2.4.12B-3 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 2.4.12B.3 Analysis Methodology Data from the pumping well and observation well pressure transducers were prepared as follows:
- 1. The In-situ, Inc. WinSitu (Reference 2.4.12B-8) software was used to convert the native file (wsl) to Microsoft Excel format (csv). The converted files were compared to manual groundwater level measurements to confirm the accuracy of the conversion.
- 2. Microsoft Excel was used to calculate drawdown and pumping time using 3/21/2014 12:00 as the test start time. It should be noted that for those wells with frequent early time measurements, the elapsed time in seconds of logging was used to resolve the individual time readings since the date/time did not contain sufficient detail for these readings. The pumping portion of the test continued for 4325 minutes (72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />).
- 3. Plots of the background water level measurements and the measurements during the APT are presented in Attachment A to Appendix 2.4.12B on Figures 2.4.12B-A1 through 2.4.12B-A23.
The following information is derived or assumed:
Saturated Thickness = Pumping well static water elevation of 741.36 ft North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (Reference 2.4.12B-7)Bottom of primary flow zone at elevation 587 155 ft.
Radius of pressure transducer cable = (0.25 in (Reference 2.4.12B-9) /12)/2 = 0.01 ft Volume displaced by the transducer = (0.72 in (Reference 2.4.12B-8) /12/2)2 x (8.5/12) x =
0.002 ft3 transducer volume displacement is insignificant.
Anisotropy ratio (Kz/Kr) vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity = 0.1Typical for limestone/dolomite. The range of Kz is an order of magnitude lower than the range of Kr (Reference 2.4.12B-10). The assumed value is similar to results observed on the ORR (Reference 2.4.12B-6).
2.4.12B.3.1 External Influences Common external influences that may influence APT data include barometric pressure fluctuations and changes in aquifer recharge.
Figure 2.4.12B-6 presents a plot of barometric pressure versus pumping time during the APT (Reference 2.4.12B-11). The figure indicates a maximum barometric pressure fluctuation of approximately 0.3 in. of mercury, which is approximately 0.34 ft of water. If the barometric efficiency of the aquifer were 100 percent, this would be the change in water level associated with the barometric pressure fluctuation. Reference 2.4.12B-12 indicates that barometric efficiencies of aquifers typically vary from 20 to 70 percent. Figure 2.4.12B-6 indicates the barometric pressure increases during late time period of the test. An increase in barometric pressure would cause a corresponding decrease in groundwater level. The relatively low magnitude of the barometric pressure fluctuation suggests that it would only have a significant impact on wells with less than 0.5 ft of drawdown.
Changes in recharge would include infiltration of pumping well discharge, rainfall events, and changes in surface water stage. Infiltration of pumping well discharge (recirculation) was mitigated by containerizing the discharge water thus preventing recharge to the aquifer. One rainfall event occurred during the test as shown on Figure 2.4.12B-7. The peak precipitation 2.4.12B-4 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report occurred at approximately 2460 minutes after the start of pumping. This event was regarded as being an insignificant recharge event due to its low intensity and short duration; however this event may explain the premature recovery observed in some of the observation wells. Changes in surface water stage in the Clinch River arm of the Watts Bar Reservoir, which surrounds the CRN Site on three sides, were documented at the Melton Hill Dam tailwater stage monitoring site approximately 4.5 miles (mi) upstream of the CRN Site. Figure 2.4.12B-8 presents the tailwater stage (as elevation in feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29)) for the pumping and recovery periods. The graph indicates a maximum stage change of approximately 3 ft.
Review of long-term monitoring data at the site indicates that changes in stage in the river have negligible impact on water levels at the CRN Site.
2.4.12B.3.2 Evaluation of Well Response Examination of plots in Attachment A to Appendix 2.4.12B was performed to select wells for analysis. A total of 23 wells were monitored during the test and the data from 16 wells were rejected for reasons discussed below. Table 2.4.12B-1 presents a summary of the information.
Evaluation of background water levels prior to undertaking the pumping test indicates a number of wells (as identified below) showed a decreasing (downward) water level trend. The downward trend in these wells varied between 0.05 and 0.8 ft/day. This suggests that the local to regional water levels were trending downward prior to the test. Evaluation of the drawdown during the pumping test in the subject observation wells showed minimal drawdown (ranging from 0.2 to 1.1 ft). This range of drawdown is similar to that of the decreasing water level trend observed prior to the pumping test. Thus, it is difficult to discern whether the drawdown observed during the pumping test in these wells is due to the decreasing local to regional water level trend or stress caused by the pumping test. All of the subject wells are outside the immediate vicinity of the pumping well, and thus the effect of pumping (at about 15 gpm) on water levels in these wells is likely to be negligible. Thus, no further evaluation to determine hydrogeologic properties (such as hydraulic conductivity) was undertaken, using drawdown data from these wells, which included, PT-OW-U3, OW-423U, OW-423D, OW-202U, OW-202L, OW-202D, OW-428U, OW-428L, OW-428D, OW-409U, OW-409L, OW-101U, OW-101L, OW-101D, OW-417U, and OW-417L wells. Wells in the vicinity of the pumping well exhibited substantial drawdown as compared to the background decreasing water level trend, and evaluations to determine hydraulic conductivity were undertaken.
PT-PW: Figures 2.4.12B-A1 and 2.4.12B-A2 show the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The well shows a relatively stable background water level once recovery from the step test was complete. The pumping and recovery curves show adequate and reasonable response. The information from this well was retained for analysis.
PT-OW-U1: Figure 2.4.12B-A3 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The well shows a relatively stable background water level once recovery from the step test was complete. During the pumping period, the water level in the well dropped below the transducer level as shown by periodic manual measurements. For analysis, the transducer readings are supplemented with the manual readings. Once pumping stopped, the water level in the well rapidly recovered to within 0.5 ft of the static level. The information from this well was retained for analysis.
PT-OW-L1: Figure 2.4.12B-A4 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The well shows a relatively stable background water level once recovery from the step test was complete. The well shows adequate and reasonable response to pumping and recovery. The information from this well was retained for analysis.
2.4.12B-5 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report PT-OW-U2: Figure 2.4.12B-A5 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background measurements for the well show no response to the step test and a downward trend of approximately 0.1 ft/d prior to start of the pumping test. The well shows response to pumping and recovery. The information from this well was retained for analysis.
PT-OW-L2: Figure 2.4.12B-A6 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The well shows response to the step test and an upward trend of approximately 0.1 ft/d at the end of the background period. The well shows adequate and reasonable response to pumping and recovery. The information from this well was retained for analysis.
PT-OW-U3: Figure 2.4.12B-A7 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a response to the step test and a downward trend of approximately 0.1 ft/d at the end of the background period. The well continued to show influence due to the background trend during the pumping and recovery periods and the water level data show erratic variations, and therefore the information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
PT-OW-L3: Figure 2.4.12B-A8 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows response to the step test and a stable trend prior to the start of pumping. The well shows adequate and reasonable response to pumping and recovery. The information from this well was retained for analysis.
OW-423U: Figure 2.4.12B-A9 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows no response to the step test and a downward trend of approximately 0.2 ft/d prior to the start of pumping. The response of the well during pumping and recovery suggests that the well is being influenced by external factors, such as the precipitation event at 2460 minutes elapsed time. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
OW-423L: Figure 2.4.12B-A10 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows response to the step test and a stable but noisy trend prior to the start of the test. The well shows adequate and reasonable response to pumping and recovery. The information from this well was retained for analysis.
OW-423D: Figure 2.4.12B-A11 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows response to the step test and a stable but very noisy trend prior to the start of the test. The well shows response to pumping, but has no recovery, suggesting the well may be influenced by a downward trend in levels. This well is screened below the bottom of the primary flow zone, which coupled with the complex response resulted in the decision to discard this information from further analysis.
OW-202U: Figure 2.4.12B-A12 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a downward trend of approximately 0.4 ft/d at the end of the background period. During the pumping period, the well shows drawdown, but the drawdown is consistent with the background trend in water levels. The well does not show any recovery. The well is at a distance of 508 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
OW-202L: Figure 2.4.12B-A13 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a downward trend of approximately 0.1 ft/d.
The well shows drawdown, but the drawdown is consistent with the background trend in water 2.4.12B-6 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report level. The well does not show any recovery. The well is at a distance of 524 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
OW-202D: Figure 2.4.12B-A14 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a stable but noisy trend. The pumping and recovery plot shows a complex and noisy response. This well is screened below the bottom of the primary flow zone, which coupled with the complex response resulted in the decision to discard this information from further analysis. Also, the well is at a distance of 558 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm.
OW-428U: Figure 2.4.12B-A15 presents the pumping period manual measurements from this well. Manual measurements were not collected during the background or recovery periods. The well response suggests response to pumping after 300 minutes followed by recovery after 3000 minutes as a result of the precipitation event. The paucity of data and uncertainty of external influences resulted in the decision to discard this information from further analysis. The well is at a distance of 810 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm.
OW-428L: Figure 2.4.12B-A15 presents the pumping period manual measurements from this well. Manual measurements were not collected during the background or recovery periods. The paucity of data and lack of response in the well resulted in the decision to discard this information from further analysis. The well is at a distance of 812 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm.
OW-428D: Figure 2.4.12B-A16 presents the pumping period manual measurements from this well. Manual measurements were not collected during the background or recovery periods. The well shows drawdown during the late period of the pumping test, but since no information is available to define a background trend in this well the cause of this drawdown is indeterminate.
This coupled with the fact that the well is screened below the primary flow zone resulted in the decision to discard this information from further analysis. Also, the well is at a distance of 817 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm.
OW-409U: Figure 2.4.12B-A17 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a downward trend of approximately 0.3 ft/d.
The drawdown in the well during the pumping period is consistent with the background trend.
The well is at a distance of 881 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis as a result of the background trend and erratic water level fluctuations.
OW-409L: Figure 2.4.12B-A18 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a downward trend of approximately 0.3 ft/d.
During the pumping period, the well shows drawdown consistent with the background trend, followed by early recovery to above the static level. Also, the well is at a distance of 866 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
OW-101U: Figure 2.4.12B-A19 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a downward trend of approximately 0.8 ft/d.
During the pumping period, the well shows drawdown consistent with the background trend, followed by early recovery to slightly below the static level. This well is at a distance of 1202 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
2.4.12B-7 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report OW-101L: Figure 2.4.12B-A20 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a downward trend of approximately 0.4 ft/d.
During the pumping period, the well shows drawdown consistent with the background trend, followed by early recovery to below the static level. This well is at a distance of 1179 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
OW-101D: Figure 2.4.12B-A21 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a downward trend of approximately 0.3 ft/d.
During the pumping and recovery periods the well exhibits water level fluctuations consistent with those observed in the background period. This well is at a distance of 1168 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
OW-417U: Figure 2.4.12B-A22 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a downward trend of approximately 0.2 ft/d.
During the pumping and recovery periods the well exhibits water level fluctuations consistent with those observed in the background period. This well is at a distance of 2184 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
OW-417L: Figure 2.4.12B-A23 presents the response of the well for the background, pumping, and recovery periods. The background plot shows a downward trend of approximately 0.05 ft/d.
During the pumping and recovery periods the well exhibits water level fluctuations consistent with those observed in the background period. This well is at a distance of 2224 ft from the pumping well and is unlikely to be influenced as a result of pumping at 14.5 gpm. The information from this well was discarded from further analysis.
Wells PT-OW-U2 and PT-OW-L2 show a background downward or upward trend in water levels.
This trend was not corrected for in the data since there is uncertainty in the projection of this trend into the pumping and recovery periods, based on the responses of the wells beyond the influence of the test (e.g. OW-202U/L and OW-101U/L). The results of this evaluation are summarized on Table 2.4.12B-1. Data from tests identified in Table 2.4.12B-1 were entered into the AQTESOLV program for further interpretation of the test results.
2.4.12B.3.3 Diagnostic Plots Reference 2.4.12B-13 presents a discussion of using a diagnostic plot for evaluating aquifer test data. The diagnostic plot is a log-log plot of drawdown and the derivative of drawdown versus time. The derivative of the drawdown is calculated using (Reference 2.4.12B-10):
Equation 2.4.12B-1 where:
T = appropriate time function (elapsed time or Agarwal equivalent) s = drawdown The derivative time function selected for use was the Bourdet method (Reference 2.4.12B-14).
This method of calculating the derivative at data point i uses data points separated logarithmically 2.4.12B-8 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report in time by a differentiation interval, L, that normally ranges between 0.1 and 0.5 log cycles of time. A value of 0.5 was chosen for L based on trial and error. The following setting was used in AQTESOLV:
The drawdown derivative represents the slope of the drawdown curve, if the rate of drawdown change is constant, then the derivative is a horizontal line. The derivative curve is more sensitive to subtle changes in the drawdown rate than are the direct drawdown measurements. The Agarwal equivalent time (tequiv) for recovery measurements is determined from (Reference 2.4.12B-10):
Equation 2.4.12B-2 where:
t' = time since pumping stopped tp = total time of pumping 2.4.12B-9 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report The following diagnostic plots presented in Reference 2.4.12B-13 illustrate pumping and recovery responses to various hydrogeologic conditions:
Note: Plots above, including notes underneath, excerpted from Reference 2.4.12B-13 Figures 2.4.12B-9 through 2.4.12B-15 present the diagnostic plots for the wells selected for analysis. Examination of the diagnostic plots suggests that a majority of the wells exhibit a response approximating a leaky aquifer model when comparing the APT diagnostic plots to the responses depicted by Reference 2.4.12B-13 and shown above in graph e). An exception to this generalization is at OW-423L during the pumping period, which shows a response intermediate between a) the standard Theis confined aquifer model and e) the leaky aquifer model on the above graph.
Another method of examining the data is to use distance-drawdown plots. For these plots, the drawdown at a given time is plotted versus the wells distance from the pumping well.
Figures 2.4.12B-16 and 2.4.12B-17 present the distance-drawdown plots at 2880 minutes after the start of pumping for the upper and lower monitoring zones respectively. Both plots suggest directional anisotropy in the observation well array. For isotropic conditions the drawdown would be the same at a given distance from the pumping well, regardless of the orientation of the observation point relative to the pumping well. Figures 2.4.12B-16 and 2.4.12B-17 show 2.4.12B-10 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report observation wells that are approximately the same distance from the pumping well have significant differences in drawdown, thus indicating directional anisotropy in the aquifer.
2.4.12B.3.4 Hantush Leaky Aquifer Method AQTESOLV contains a number of leaky aquifer analytical models, but the most commonly used are the Hantush leaky aquifer models, which includes a method without aquitard storage (Hantush-Jacob method) and a method with aquitard storage (Hantush method). The Hantush-Jacob method was selected for the analysis because it best represented the drawdowns and derivatives of drawdowns observed during the pumping test.
Reference 2.4.12B-15 presents the Hantush-Jacob solution for the unsteady drawdown near a well discharging from an infinite leaky aquifer. The discharge is supplied by the reduction of storage through expansion of water and compression of the aquifer matrix, and also by leakage through the confining bed. The leakage is assumed to be proportional to the drawdown. During the early time of pumping from the leaky aquifer, water is moving through the leaky aquifer and then later it moves through the leaky confined aquifer and the confining bed. Eventually, the pumping well discharge equilibrates with the leakage through the confining bed and the system is in steady-state. Storage in the confining bed is neglected and all the observation wells are assumed to be within the leaky confined aquifer.
This method includes two options: the complete solution and the early time solution. The complete solution was used for all wells except the pumping period for OW-423L, which used the early time solution. The early time solution is used for the transition period from confined to leaky flow. The Hantush-Jacob leaky aquifer method solution is obtained from (Reference 2.4.12B-12):
Equation 2.4.12B-3 where:
s = drawdown [L]
T = transmissivity [L2/T]
Q = Pumping rate [L3/T]
r = distance from pumping well [L]
W(u,r/B) = Hantush leaky well function u = r2 S/4Tt S = storativity B = leakage factor [L]
Equation 2.4.12B-4 where:
K' = hydraulic conductivity of confining bed [L/T]
b' = thickness of confining bed [L]
The solution includes the following key conditions (Reference 2.4.12B-10):
The pumping well is either fully or partially penetrating.
2.4.12B-11 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report The aquifer has infinite areal extent.
The aquifer is homogeneous and of uniform thickness.
The aquifer is leaky confined.
The flow in the aquifer is unsteady.
Water is released instantaneously from storage with decline of hydraulic head.
The diameter of the pumping well is very small so that storage in the well can be neglected.
The confining bed has infinite areal extent, uniform vertical hydraulic conductivity, and thickness.
The confining bed is overlain or underlain by an infinite constant-head plane source.
Flow is vertical in the confining bed.
The leakage through the confining bed is approximately proportional to drawdown in the leaky aquifer. The Hantush-Jacob solution does not include the impacts of skin effect in the pumping well.
The solution allows correction for partial penetration effects. Partial penetration effects become negligible when (Reference 2.4.12B-10):
Equation 2.4.12B-5 where:
r = distance from pumping well [L]
b = aquifer thickness [L]
Kz/Kr = anisotropy ratio [dimensionless]
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 as described in Section 2.4.12B.3. (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.) Using an aquifer thickness of 155 ft and an anisotropy ratio of 0.1 (Subsection 2.4.12B.3), a minimum distance from the pumping well of 735 ft is needed for partial penetration effects to become negligible. All of the supplemental wells and OW-423U/L/D are less than this distance from the pumping well.
The condition that the pumping well diameter is very small is valid for the observation wells, but is not valid for the pumping well. Therefore the water level data from the pumping well were not analyzed using this method.
2.4.12B.4 Results and Discussion Figures 2.4.12B-18 through 2.4.12B-23 present the Hantush-Jacob solution with partial penetration for the observation wells. The results are summarized on Table 2.4.12B-3. The hydraulic conductivity values are calculated by dividing the transmissivity by the saturated thickness of the aquifer. The hydraulic conductivity represents an average for the thickness of the 2.4.12B-12 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report aquifer. Reference 2.4.12B-6 indicates that the bulk (or average) hydraulic conductivity is an aggregation of thin conductive (fractured) zones and thicker less conductive (unfractured) zones at the adjacent ORR.
Comparison of the results with the observation well orientations (Figure 2.4.12B-3) suggests that the maximum transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity occur in OW-423L, which is oriented with the N52°E strike of the bedding planes. Perpendicular to this orientation (N38°W), or along dip, the transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity are approximately an order of magnitude lower.
To evaluate the reasonableness of the results of this test, they were compared against multiple APTs performed in the Conasauga Group in Bear Creek Valley on the adjacent ORR, presented by Reference 2.4.12B-16. The test results were from the Nolichucky Shale and Maynardville Limestone Formations (Figure 2.4.12B-2) of the Conasauga Group, which have similar lithologies as the units tested during this investigation. The following are the ranges of properties:
Reference 2.4.12B-16 CRN Site Investigation 2
Transmissivity (ft /d): 2.7-8120 7-410
-6 -3 Storage Coefficient 9.0 x 10 -6.6 x 10 8.1 x 10-3-4.8 x 10-2 (dimensionless):
Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/d): 0.0283-99 0.06-2.6 Comparison of the test results to the published results indicates that, with the exception of the storage coefficients determined at PT-OW-L1, PT-OW-U2, PT-OW-L2, and OW-423L, data from this test fall within the range of tests performed on the adjacent ORR. Insufficient information is available for the ORR tests to allow postulation of reasons for the deviation of the storage coefficient values.
The leakage factors (1/B) determined from the type curve solution (Figures 2.4.12B-18 through 2.4.12B-23) range from 1.3 x 10-2 to 5.7 x 10-2 ft-1. This indicates that the leakage from the confining bed is consistent in the vicinity of the pumping well.
2.4.12B.5 Conclusion An APT was performed at the CRN Site and was analyzed using AQTESOLV to determine estimates of transmissivity, storage coefficient, and hydraulic conductivity. The results of the test indicate that horizontally anisotropic conditions are present, with the highest transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity along the strike of the bedding planes (N52°E). The results of the APT are used in the site groundwater flow model described in Appendix 2.4.12C.
The results in Subsection 2.4.12B.4 should be qualified by the fact that the APT was performed in a fractured rock environment, but the solution method used utilizes a homogeneous porous media model and the conceptual model inherent in the analytical solution may not be an exact representation of the site conditions. While this analysis approach is common in the industry, errors in these results could be up to an order of magnitude.
2.4.12B.6 References 2.4.12B-1. Hatcher Jr., R.D., P.J. Lemiszki, R.B. Dreier, R.H. Ketelle, R.R. Lee, D.A. Lietzke, W.M. McMaster, J.L. Foreman, and S.Y. Lee, Status Report on the Geology of the Oak Ridge Reservation, prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), ORNL/TM-12074, October 1992.
2.4.12B-13 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 2.4.12B-2. Lloyd, O.B., and W.L. Lyke, Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Segment 10, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Atlas, 730-K, p. 30, 1995.
2.4.12B-3. Project Management Corporation, Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Vol. 2, Amdt. 68, May 1982.
2.4.12B-4. Lee, R.R., and R.H. Ketelle, Geology of the West Bear Creek Site, prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for DOE under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400, ORNL/TM-10887, January 1989.
2.4.12B-5. Moore, G.K., Hydrograph Analysis in a Fractured Rock Terrane Near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, prepared for DOE, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management by the Environmental Science Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400, ORNL/ER-45, June 1991.
2.4.12B-6. Solomon, D.K., G.K. Moore, L.E. Toran, R.B. Dreier, and W.M. McMaster, Status Report, A Hydrologic Framework for the Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-12026, May 1992.
2.4.12B-7. AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc., Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Clinch River SMR Project, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Data Report, Rev. 4, October 2014.
2.4.12B-8. In Situ, Inc., In-Situ Level TROLL 400, 500, & 700 Data Loggers. Available at http://www.in-situ.com/force_download.php?file_id=985, accessed on May 14, 2014.
2.4.12B-9. In Situ, Inc., In-Situ RuggedCable Systems. Available at http://www.
in-situ.com/force_download.php?file_id=794, accessed on March 5, 2014.
2.4.12B-10. HydroSOLVE, Inc., AQTESOLV for Windows Version 4.5 Users Guide, Glenn Duffield, Developer, Reston, Virginia, 2007.
2.4.12B-11. NOAA, National Weather Service Oak Ridge (KOQT). Available at http://forecast.
weather.gov/MapClick.nphp?CityName=Oak+Ridge&state=TN&site=MRX&text Field1=35. 9627&textField2=-84.2962, accessed on March 26, 2014.
2.4.12B-12. Todd, D.K., Groundwater Hydrology, 2d ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 123-236, 1980.
2.4.12B-13. Renard, P., D. Glenz, and M. Mejias, Understanding diagnostic plots for well-test interpretation, Hydrogeology Journal, DOI 10.1007/s10040-008-0392-0, Springer-Verlag, November 2008.
2.4.12B-14. Bourdet, D., J.A. Ayoub, and Y.M. Pirard, Use of Pressure Derivative in Well-Test Interpretation, in Formation Evaluation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, June 1989.
2.4.12B-15. Hantush, M.S., and C.E. Jacob, Non-Steady Radial Flow in an Infinite Leaky Aquifer, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.95-100, 1955.
2.4.12B-14 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 2.4.12B-16. Jacobs EM Team, Feasibility Study for Bear Creek Valley at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Vol. II: Appendixes, prepared for DOE Office of Environmental Management, DOE/OR/02-1525/V2&D2, November 1997.
2.4.12B-17. Weatherford Company, Johnson Well Screens PVC Products, p. 4. Available at http://www.johnsonscreens.com/sites/default/files/literature/PVC% 20Well%
20Screens%20and%20Accessories.pdf, accessed May 13, 2014.
2.4.12B-18. Campbell Manufacturing, Inc., Monoflex Product Catalog, p. 6. Available at http://www.continentaldrillingsupply.com/flush_threadPVC.pdf, accessed May 13, 2014.
2.4.12B-15 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.4.12B-1 (Sheet 1 of 2)
Pumping and Observation Well Data Well Well Distance Data Quality Assessment Casing Casing from Screened Inner Inner Pumping Interval(a) Diameter(b) radius(c) Well Background/Pumping and Well Name (ft bgs) (in) (ft) (ft) Recovery Plot Evaluation Conclusion Relatively stable background PT-PW 39.3-169.3 6.031 0.251 0 Retain for analysis Good response to pumping Relatively stable background Good albeit truncated response PT-OW-U1 41.8-61.8 2.049 0.086 81 Retain for analysis to pumpinguse manual readings Relatively stable background PT-OW-L1 139.7-159.7 2.049 0.086 61 Retain for analysis Good response to pumping Limited response during step test PT-OW-U2 42-62 2.049 0.086 74 Apparent response to pumping Retain for analysis with incomplete recovery Slight upward trend in background PT-OW-L2 139.8-159.8 2.049 0.086 59 Retain for analysis Good response to pumping but incomplete recovery Downward trend in background Discarded from PT-OW-U3 42.6-62.6 2.049 0.086 83 Apparent response to pumping analysisbackground but no recovery trend Relatively stable background PT-OW-L3 140.5-160.5 2.049 0.086 62 Retain for analysis Good response to pumping Downward trend in background Discarded from OW-423U 42.2-62.2 2.049 0.086 101 Well recovers to above static at analysisbackground 3366 minutes trend Noisy transducer, relatively stable background OW-423L 139.6-159.6 1.913 0.080 81 Retain for analysis Good response to pumping with incomplete recovery Very noisy background Discarded from OW-423D 248.1-268.1 1.913 0.080 42 Complex pumping response with analysisnot within no recovery primary flow zone Variable background Discarded from OW-202U 15.7-35.7 2.049 0.086 508 Apparent response to pumping analysisbackground with no recovery trend Slightly noisy background with Discarded from downward trend OW-202L 150.5-170.5 1.913 0.080 524 analysisbackground Apparent response to pumping trend with no recovery Noisy background Discarded from Noisy pumping period with OW-202D 276.4-296.4 1.913 0.080 558 analysisnot within complex response to pumping primary flow zone and no recovery Limited manual measurements Discarded from OW-428U 40.4-60.4 2.049 0.086 810 appears to show response to analysisinsufficient pumping data 2.4.12B-16 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.4.12B-1 (Sheet 2 of 2)
Pumping and Observation Well Data Well Well Distance Data Quality Assessment Casing Casing from Screened Inner Inner Pumping Interval(a) Diameter(b) radius(c) Well Background/Pumping and Well Name (ft bgs) (in) (ft) (ft) Recovery Plot Evaluation Conclusion Limited manual measurements Discarded from OW-428L 115.2-135.2 2.049 0.086 812 appears to show response to analysisinsufficient pumping data Limited manual measurements Discarded from OW-428D 190.2-210.2 1.913 0.080 817 appears to show response to analysisnot within pumping primary flow zone Discarded from Variable background OW-409U 54.9-74.9 2.049 0.086 881 analysisbackground Complex response to pumping trend Downward trend in background Discarded from OW-409L 89.1-109.1 2.049 0.086 866 Apparent response to pumping analysisbackground with recovery above static level trend Downward trend in background Discarded from OW-101U 26-46 2.049 0.086 1202 Apparent pumping response with analysisbackground incomplete recovery trend Downward trend in background Discarded from OW-101L 138-158 1.913 0.080 1179 Apparent pumping response with analysisbackground incomplete recovery trend Discarded from Variable background OW-101D 230.5-250.5 1.913 0.080 1168 analysisnot within Complex response to pumping primary flow zone Discarded from Downward trend in background OW-417U 50-70 2.049 0.086 2184 analysisbackground Complex response to pumping trend Discarded from Downward trend in background OW-417L 95-115 2.049 0.086 2224 analysisbackground Complex response to pumping trend (a) Reference 2.4.12B-7.
(b) Reference 2.4.12B-17 for schedule 40 PVC and Reference 2.4.12B-18 for schedule 80 PVC.
(c) (Well Casing Inner Diameter/2)/12 in./ft.
bgs = below ground surface 2.4.12B-17 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.4.12B-2 (Sheet 1 of 3)
Well Pumping Rates Measured During the Constant Rate Test Elapsed Volume Calculated Time in Pumped flow rate Date/Time (minutes) (gallons) (gpm) Notes 3/21/2014 12:00 0 7 14 30 second reading 3/21/2014 12:02 2 15 15 1 minute reading 3/21/2014 12:03 3 15 15 1 minute reading 3/21/2014 12:06 6 13.5 13.5 1 minute reading 3/21/2014 12:07 7 25 12.5 2 minute reading 3/21/2014 12:10 10 15.5 15.5 1 minute reading 3/21/2014 12:12 12 29 14.5 2 minute reading 3/21/2014 12:21 21 73 14.6 5 minute reading 3/21/2014 12:30 30 213 14.2 15 minute reading 3/21/2014 12:45 45 213 14.2 15 minute reading 3/21/2014 13:00 60 214 14.3 15 minute reading 3/21/2014 13:15 75 214 14.3 15 minute reading 3/21/2014 13:30 90 214 14.3 15 minute reading 3/21/2014 13:45 105 213 14.2 15 minute reading 3/21/2014 14:00 120 215 14.3 15 minute reading 3/21/2014 15:00 180 855 14.3 Start 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> readings 3/21/2014 16:00 240 852 14.2 3/21/2014 17:00 300 857 14.3 3/21/2014 18:00 360 854 14.2 3/21/2014 19:00 420 857 14.3 3/21/2014 20:00 480 855 14.3 3/21/2014 21:00 540 859 14.3 3/21/2014 22:00 600 857 14.3 3/21/2014 23:00 660 860 14.3 3/22/2014 0:00 720 856 14.3 3/22/2014 2:05 845 14.5 14.5 1 minute reading 3/22/2014 2:41 881 73 14.6 5 minute reading 3/22/2014 4:00 960 862 14.4 3/22/2014 5:00 1020 863 14.4 3/22/2014 6:00 1080 863 14.4 3/22/2014 7:00 1140 865 14.4 3/22/2014 8:00 1200 862 14.4 3/22/2014 9:00 1260 861 14.4 3/22/2014 10:00 1320 863 14.4 3/22/2014 11:00 1380 858 14.3 3/22/2014 12:00 1440 860 14.3 3/22/2014 13:00 1500 856 14.3 3/22/2014 14:00 1560 856 14.3 2.4.12B-18 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.4.12B-2 (Sheet 2 of 3)
Well Pumping Rates Measured During the Constant Rate Test Elapsed Volume Calculated Time in Pumped flow rate Date/Time (minutes) (gallons) (gpm) Notes 3/22/2014 15:00 1620 859 14.3 3/22/2014 16:00 1680 854 14.2 3/22/2014 17:00 1740 859 14.3 3/22/2014 18:00 1800 856 14.3 3/22/2014 19:00 1860 859 14.3 3/22/2014 20:00 1920 857 14.3 3/22/2014 21:00 1980 860 14.3 3/22/2014 22:00 2040 862 14.4 3/22/2014 23:00 2100 860 14.3 3/23/2014 0:00 2160 857 14.3 3/23/2014 1:00 2220 866 14.4 3/23/2014 2:00 2280 861 14.4 3/23/2014 3:00 2340 863 14.4 3/23/2014 4:00 2400 860 14.3 3/23/2014 5:00 2460 862 14.4 3/23/2014 6:00 2520 863 14.4 3/23/2014 7:00 2580 860 14.3 3/23/2014 8:00 2640 864 14.4 3/23/2014 9:00 2700 861 14.4 3/23/2014 10:00 2760 861 14.4 3/23/2014 11:00 2820 862 14.4 3/23/2014 12:00 2880 861 14.4 3/23/2014 13:00 2940 862 14.4 3/23/2014 14:00 3000 860 14.3 3/23/2014 15:00 3060 859 14.3 3/23/2014 16:00 3120 860 14.3 3/23/2014 17:00 3180 857 14.3 3/23/2014 18:00 3240 860 14.3 3/23/2014 19:00 3300 859 14.3 3/23/2014 20:00 3360 860 14.3 3/23/2014 21:00 3420 864 14.4 3/23/2014 22:00 3480 862 14.4 3/23/2014 23:00 3540 863 14.4 3/24/2014 0:00 3600 865 14.4 3/24/2014 1:00 3660 863 14.4 3/24/2014 2:00 3720 866 14.4 3/24/2014 3:00 3780 863 14.4 3/24/2014 4:00 3840 864 14.4 2.4.12B-19 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.4.12B-2 (Sheet 3 of 3)
Well Pumping Rates Measured During the Constant Rate Test Elapsed Volume Calculated Time in Pumped flow rate Date/Time (minutes) (gallons) (gpm) Notes 3/24/2014 5:00 3900 866 14.4 3/24/2014 6:00 3960 864 14.4 3/24/2014 7:00 4020 864 14.4 3/24/2014 8:00 4080 866 14.4 3/24/2014 9:00 4140 866 14.4 3/24/2014 10:00 4200 864 14.4 3/24/2014 11:00 4260 867 14.5 3/24/2014 12:00 4320 870 14.5 3/24/2014 12:05 4325 NC NC Pump Turned off Notes:
NC = Not calculated gpm = gallons per minute Average Flow Rate = 14.3 gpm 2.4.12B-20 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Table 2.4.12B-3 Aquifer Pumping Test Results Transmissivity Transmissivity Storage Hydraulic Screened Pumping Period Recovery Period Coefficient Conductivity Interval (ft2/d) (ft2/d) Pumping Period (Tp+Tr)/2/155 ft Well Name (ftbgs) Tp Tr (dimensionless) (ft/d)
PT-OW-U1 41.8-61.8 10.6 7 5.37 x 10-4 0.06 PT-OW-L1 139.7-159.7 129.3 128.7 3.10 x 10-3 0.8
-2 0.2 PT-OW-U2 42-62 28.4 22.2 4.83 x 10
-3 0.2 PT-OW-L2 139.8-159.8 28.1 30.3 2.28 x 10
-4 0.06 PT-OW-L3 140.5-160.5 11.8 8.0 2.73 x 10 OW-423L 139.6-159.6 410.1 391.1 8.91 x 10-10(a) 2.6 (a) A storage coefficient of 8.9 x 10-10 was reported for the pumping period at 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 reportedthe recovery period derivative data contained less noise.
2.4.12B-21 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Figure 2.4.12B-1. Observation Well Locations 2.4.12B-22 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Source: Reference 2.4.12B-1 Figure 2.4.12B-2. Stratigraphic Section 2.4.12B-23 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Figure 2.4.12B-3. Layout of the Supplemental Aquifer Pumping Test Wells 2.4.12B-24 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Figure 2.4.12B-4. Geologic Section Inclusive of the Aquifer Pumping Test Area 2.4.12B-25 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 16 15.5 Upper bound pumping rate +5% = 15.2 gpm 15 Pumping Rate in gallons per minute (gpm)
Target pumping rate = 14.5 gpm 14.5 Average pumping rate = 14.3 gpm 14 Lower bound pumping rate -5% = 13.8 gpm 13.5 13 12.5 12 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time in minutes since start of pumping Figure 2.4.12B-5. Pumping Rate Versus Time 2.4.12B-26 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Oak Ridge, TN NWS KOQT 30.30 30.25 30.20 Barometric Pressure (inches Mercury) 30.15 30.10 30.05 30.00 29.95 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of Pumping (minutes)
Note: NWS = National Weather Service Figure 2.4.12B-6. Barometric Pressure During the Aquifer Pumping Test 2.4.12B-27 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report TVA Clinch River Site Rain Gauge 0.08 t = 2460 min 0.07 0.06 Precipitation (inches) 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (minutes)
Figure 2.4.12B-7. Precipitation During the Aquifer Pumping Test 2.4.12B-28 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report TVA Melton Hill Dam Tailwater Elevation 740.00 t = 4080 minutes 739.50 739.00 Tailwater Stage (feet NGVD 29) 738.50 738.00 737.50 737.00 736.50 736.00 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (minutes)
Figure 2.4.12B-8. Clinch River Stage Measurements During the Aquifer Pumping Test 2.4.12B-29 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 100.
Obs. Wells PT-PW
+ Derivative 10.
Drawdown (ft) and Derivative 1.
0.1 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 100.
Obs. Wells PT-PW
+ Derivative 10.
Recovery (ft) and Derivative 1.
0.1 0.01 0.001 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-9. Pumping Well PT-PW Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-30 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-U1
+ Derivative 1.
Drawdown (ft) and Derivative 0.1 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-U1
+ Derivative 1.
Recovery (ft) and Derivative 0.1 0.01 0.001
- 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-10. PT-OW-U1 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-31 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L1
+ Derivative 1.
Drawdown (ft) and Derivative 0.1 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L1
+ Derivative 1.
Recovery (ft) and Derivative 0.1 0.01 0.001
- 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-11. PT-OW-L1 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-32 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 1.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-U2
+ Derivative 0.1 Drawdown (ft) and Derivative 0.01 0.001
- 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 1.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-U2
+ Derivative 0.1 Recovery (ft) and Derivative 0.01 0.001
- 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-12. PT-OW-U2 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-33 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L2
+ Derivative 1.
Drawdown (ft) and Derivative 0.1 0.01
- 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 1.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L2
+ Derivative 0.1 Recovery (ft) and Derivative 0.01 0.001
- 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-13. PT-OW-L2 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-34 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L3
+ Derivative 1.
Drawdown (ft) and Derivative 0.1 0.01
- 1. 10. 100. 1000.
Time (min)
Pumping 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L3
+ Derivative 1.
Recovery (ft) and Derivative 0.1 0.01 0.001
- 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-14. PT-OW-L3 Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-35 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 1.
Obs. Wells OW-423L
+ Derivative Drawdown (ft) and Derivative 0.1 0.01
- 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 1.
Obs. Wells OW-423L
+ Derivative 0.1 Recovery (ft) and Derivative 0.01 0.001
- 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-15. OW-423L Diagnostic Plots 2.4.12B-36 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 0.0 OW-423U t = 2880 minutes PT-OW-U2 Q = 14.3 gpm 0.5 1.0 1.5 Drawdown (feet) 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 PT-OW-U1 4.5 10 100 1000 Distance from Pumping Well (feet)
Figure 2.4.12B-16. Distance-Drawdown Plot Upper Monitoring Zone 2.4.12B-37 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 0.0 t = 2880 minutes Q = 14.3 gpm 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Drawdown (ft)
PT-OW-L2 1.0 1.2 1.4 PT-OW-L1 PT-OW-L3 1.6 1.8 OW-423L 2.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Distance from Pumping Well (feet)
Figure 2.4.12B-17. Distance-Drawdown Plot Lower Monitoring Zone 2.4.12B-38 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-U1 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob Parameters T = 10.57 ft2/day S = 0.000537 1/B = 0.02654 ft-1 Drawdown (ft) and Derivative Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve
- 1. Derivative of type curve 0.1
- 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-U1 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob
- 1. Parameters T = 6.998 ft2/day S = 0.001344 1/B = 0.03507 ft-1 Kz/Kr = 0.1 Recovery (ft) and Derivative b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve 0.1 Derivative of type curve 0.01 0.001
- 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-18. PT-OW-U1 Hantush-Jacob Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-39 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L1 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob Parameters T = 129.3 ft2/day S = 0.003106
- 1. 1/B = 0.02213 ft-1 Drawdown (ft) and Derivative Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve Derivative of type curve 0.1 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L1 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob
- 1. Parameters T = 128.7 ft2/day S = 0.004035 1/B = 0.02231 ft-1 Kz/Kr = 0.1 Recovery (ft) and Derivative b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve 0.1 Derivative of type curve 0.01 0.001 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-19. PT-OW-L1 Hantush-Jacob Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-40 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 1.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-U2 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob Parameters T = 28.42 ft2/day S = 0.04828 1/B = 0.03805 ft-1 Drawdown (ft) and Derivative (ft)
Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 155. ft
+ Derivative 0.1 Hantush-Jacob type curve Derivative of type curve 0.01 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 1.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-U2 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob Parameters T = 22.2 ft2/day S = 0.01573 0.1 1/B = 0.05666 ft-1 Recovery (ft) and Derivative (ft)
Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve Derivative of type curve 0.01 0.001
- 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-20. PT-OW-U2 Hantush Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-41 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L2 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob Parameters T = 28.07 ft2/day S = 0.002283
- 1. 1/B = 0.04974 ft-1 Drawdown (ft) and Derivative Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve Derivative of type curve 0.1 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 1.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L2 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob Parameters T = 30.26 ft2/day S = 0.003078 0.1 1/B = 0.05224 ft-1 Kz/Kr = 0.1 Recovery (ft) and Derivative b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve Derivative of type curve 0.01 0.001 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-21. PT-OW-L2 Hantush Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-42 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L3 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob Parameters T = 11.81 ft2/day S = 0.0002731
- 1. 1/B = 0.04812 ft-1 Drawdown (ft) and Derivative Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve Derivative of type curve 0.1 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 10.
Obs. Wells PT-OW-L3 Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob
- 1. Parameters T = 8.033 ft2/day S = 0.0002909 1/B = 0.05359 ft-1 Kz/Kr = 0.1 Recovery (ft) and Derivative b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve 0.1 Derivative of type curve 0.01 0.001 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-22. PT-OW-L3 Hantush Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-43 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 1.
Obs. Wells OW-423L Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush Parameters T = 410.1 ft2/day S = 8.906E-10
/r = 19.97 ft-1 Drawdown (ft) and Derivative Kz/Kr = 0.1 b = 155. ft
+ Derivative 0.1 Hantush-Jacob type curve Derivative of type curve 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Time (min)
Pumping 10.
Obs. Wells OW-423L Aquifer Model Leaky Solution Hantush-Jacob
- 1. Parameters T = 391.1 ft2/day S = 0.008085 1/B = 0.01339 ft-1 Kz/Kr = 0.1 Recovery (ft) and Derivative b = 155. ft
+ Derivative Hantush-Jacob type curve 0.1 Derivative of type curve 0.01 0.001 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 1.0E+4 Agarwal Equivalent Time (min)
Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-23. OW-423L Hantush Leaky Aquifer Plots 2.4.12B-44 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Attachment A of Appendix 2.4.12B Background, Pumping, and Recovery Graphs 2.4.12B-45 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping Data Figure 2.4.12B-A1. Pumping Well PT-PW Background and Pumping Data 2.4.12B-46 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report Figure 2.4.12B-A2. Pumping Well PT-PW Recovery 2.4.12B-47 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A3. PT-OW-U1 Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-48 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A4. PT-OW-L1 Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-49 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A5. PT-OW-U2 Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-50 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A6. PT-OW-L2 Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-51 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A7. PT-OW-U3 Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-52 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A8. PT-OW-L3 Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-53 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A9. OW-423U Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-54 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A10. OW-423L Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-55 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A11. OW-423D Background, Pumping and Recovery 2.4.12B-56 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 17.0 Step Test 17.5 18.0 Depth to water (ftbtc) 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 3/16/2014 0:00 3/17/2014 0:00 3/18/2014 0:00 3/19/2014 0:00 3/20/2014 0:00 3/21/2014 0:00 3/22/2014 0:00
Background
-0.2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 Drawdown (ft) 0.8 1
1.2 Stop Pumping 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (min)
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A12. OW-202U Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-57 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 43.6 43.7 Step Test 43.8 Depth to water (ftbtc) 43.9 44 44.1 44.2 3/16/2014 0:00 3/17/2014 0:00 3/18/2014 0:00 3/19/2014 0:00 3/20/2014 0:00 3/21/2014 0:00 3/22/2014 0:00
Background
-0.2 0
0.2 Stop Pumping 0.4 Drawdown (ft) 0.6 0.8 1
1.2 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (min)
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A13. OW-202L Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-58 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 54.6 54.7 54.8 54.9 Depth to water (ftbtc)
Step Test 55 Stable but noisy trend 55.1 55.2 55.3 55.4 3/16/2014 0:00 3/17/2014 0:00 3/18/2014 0:00 3/19/2014 0:00 3/20/2014 0:00 3/21/2014 0:00 3/22/2014 0:00
Background
0 0.1 Stop pumping 0.2 0.3 Drawdown (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (min)
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A14. OW-202D Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-59 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
-0.4
-0.2 0
0.2 Drawdown (ft) 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1.2 10 100 1000 10000 Time since pumping started (min)
OW-428U Manual Measurements
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01 Drawdown (ft) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 10 100 1000 10000 Time since pumping started (min)
OW-428L Manual Measurements Figure 2.4.12B-A15. OW-428U/L Manual Measurements 2.4.12B-60 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
-0.04
-0.02 0
0.02 Drawdown (ft) 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 10 100 1000 10000 Time since pumping started (min)
Figure 2.4.12B-A16. OW-428D Manual Measurements 2.4.12B-61 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 69.8 70.0 70.2 Step Test 70.4 Depth to water (ftbtc) 70.6 70.8 71.0 71.2 71.4 71.6 3/16/2014 0:00 3/17/2014 0:00 3/18/2014 0:00 3/19/2014 0:00 3/20/2014 0:00 3/21/2014 0:00 3/22/2014 0:00
Background
-0.3 Stop Pumping
-0.2
-0.1 0
Drawdown (ft) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (min)
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A17. OW-409U Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-62 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 37.5 Step Test 38.0 38.5 Depth to water (ftbtc) 39.0 39.5 40.0 3/16/2014 0:00 3/17/2014 0:00 3/18/2014 0:00 3/19/2014 0:00 3/20/2014 0:00 3/21/2014 0:00 3/22/2014 0:00
Background
-0.6 Stop Pumping
-0.4
-0.2 0
Drawdown (ft) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (min)
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A18. OW-409L Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-63 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 12 13 Step Test 14 Depth to water (ftbtc) 15 16 17 18 19 3/16/2014 0:00 3/17/2014 0:00 3/18/2014 0:00 3/19/2014 0:00 3/20/2014 0:00 3/21/2014 0:00 3/22/2014 0:00
Background
0 Stop Pumping 0.2 0.4 0.6 Drawdown (ft) 0.8 1
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (min)
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A19. OW-101U Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-64 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report
Background
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A20. OW-101L Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-65 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 63.2 63.4 63.6 Depth to Water (ftbtc) 63.8 64 Step Test 64.2 64.4 64.6 3/16/2014 0:00 3/17/2014 0:00 3/18/2014 0:00 3/19/2014 0:00 3/20/2014 0:00 3/21/2014 0:00 3/22/2014 0:00
Background
-0.5 Stop Pumping
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2 Drawdown (ft)
-0.1 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (min)
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A21. OW-101D Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-66 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 27.8 28.0 28.2 28.4 Depth to water (ftbtc) 28.6 Step Test 28.8 29.0 29.2 29.4 3/16/2014 0:00 3/17/2014 0:00 3/18/2014 0:00 3/19/2014 0:00 3/20/2014 0:00 3/21/2014 0:00 3/22/2014 0:00
Background
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1 Drawdown (ft) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (min)
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A22. OW-417U Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-67 Revision 1
Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report 24.2 24.3 Step Test Depth to water (ftbtc) 24.4 24.5 24.6 3/16/2014 0:00 3/17/2014 0:00 3/18/2014 0:00 3/19/2014 0:00 3/20/2014 0:00 3/21/2014 0:00 3/22/2014 0:00
Background
-0.1
-0.05 0
Stop Pumping 0.05 0.1 Drawdown (ft) 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 1 10 100 1000 10000 Time since start of pumping (min)
Pumping and Recovery Figure 2.4.12B-A23. OW-417L Background, Pumping, and Recovery 2.4.12B-68 Revision 1