ML19030A489

Part 08 Enclosures (Rev. 2) - Part 08 - Enclosures - Subsurface Data Report - Pages 1-46

ML19030A489
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.6, CRN.P.PART08, CRN.P.PART08.2
Download: ML19030A489 (46)

Text

DATA REPORT, REV. 4 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND TESTING CLINCH RIVER SMR PROJECT OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE Prepared By:

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

Raleigh, North Carolina AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page1 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 CONTENTS 1.0 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Personnel ........................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Subcontractors .................. ..... ..... .. ... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ........ 1-3 1.4 Organization of Report ....................................................................................... 1-4 1.5 Quality Assurance .............................................................................................. 1-5 2.0 TEST METHODS- GEOTECHNCIAL AND GEOLOGY ............................................... 2-1 2.1 Surveying ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Utility Location ........ ..... .. ... .. .... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... .. ...... 2-2 2.3 Testing Program ................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 Drilling Equipment .............................................................................................. 2-2 2.5 Drilling Methods .................................................................................................. 2-3 2.6 SPT Energy Measurements .............. ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. ...... 2-5 2.7 Sampling in Geotechnical Borings ...................................................................... 2-5 2.7.1 Standard Penetration Test Sampling ...................................................... 2-5 2.7.2 Rock Core Sampling ............................................................................... 2-6 2.7.3 Intact Soil Sampling .... .. ... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. ...... 2-7 2.8 Boring Logs ........................................................................................................ 2-7 2.8.1 Boring Log Preparation ........................................................................... 2-7 2.8.2 Clinch River SMR Stratigraphic Summary .............................................. 2-8 2.9 Sampling in Geotechnical Test Pits ........ ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ....... 2-9 2.10 Rock PressuremeterTesting ............................................................................ 2-10 2.11 Surface Geophysical Testing ............................................................................ 2-11 2.11.1 Seismic Refraction Survey .................................................................... 2-11 2.11.2 Seismic Reflection Survey ..... ..... ..... .. ... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... ...... 2-12 2.12 Geophysical Downhole Testing .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. ... ...... 2-13 2.12.1 Description of Testing ........................................................................... 2-13 2.12.2 Natural Gamma .................................................................................... 2-15 2.12.3 Duallnduction ....................................................................................... 2-15 2.12.4 Three Arm Caliper ..................................................... .. .... ..... ..... ..... ...... 2-15 2.12.5 Acoustic Televiewer/Boring Deviation Survey ...................................... 2-16 TOCi ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 2 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 2.12.6 Suspension P-S Velocity Logging ......................................................... 2-16 2.12.7 Temperature I Conductivity Logging ..................................................... 2-16 3.0 TEST METHODS- OBSERVATION WELLS AND FIELD PERMEABILITY ..... ..... ....... 3-1 3.1 Well Installation .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Well Development .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.3 Packer Testing .................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 Slug Testing ...................................... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... .. ...... 3-5 3.5 Water Level Measurements ................................................................................ 3-6 3.5.1 Initial Water Level Monitoring ................................................................. 3-6 3.5.2 Long Term Water Level Monitoring ........................................................ 3-6 3.6 Groundwater Sampling ................ ..... .. .... ..... ..... .. ... .. .... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. ...... 3-7 3.6.1 Geochemical Sampling .................................................... ..... .. ... .. .... ....... 3-7 3.6.2 Groundwater Sampling for Kd Adsorption Testing ................................. 3-8 3.7 Aquifer Pumping Test ......................................................................................... 3-9 4.0 SAMPLE PRESERVATION AND STORAGE ............................................................... .4-1 4.1 On-Site Sample Storage ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Preservation and Shipping of Soil and Rock Samples for Laboratory Testing .. .4-2 4.2.1 Rock Samples ........................................................................................ .4-2 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................................................. S-1 5.1 Description ofTesting ........ ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. ... .. .... ..... ..... ..... .. ...... S-1 5.2 Test Procedures ................................................................................................. S-1 5.3 Reporting ............................................................................................................ 5-3

6.0 REFERENCES

...............................................................................................................6-1 TOCii ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 3 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 TABLES Table 2.1 Testing Summary- Soil Borings Table 2.2 Testing Summary- Test Pits Table 2.3 Testing Summary- Surface Geophysics Table 3.1 Testing Summary- Wells Table 3.2 Groundwater Sampling Field Parameters Table 4.1 Soil and Rock Samples for Kd Testing Table 4.2 Rock Samples Shipped for LCI Table 4.3 Rock Samples with Special Care Table 5.1 Summary of Laboratory Organizations and Testing Table 5.2 Summary of Soil Index Test Results Table 5.3 Summary of Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test Results- Soil Table 5.4 Summary of Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test Results- Soil Table 5.5 Summary of Moisture I Density Testing- Soil Table 5.6 Summary of Direct Shear Test Results - Rock Table 5.7 Summary of Slake Durability Test Results- Rock Table 5.8 Summary of Unconfined Compression Test Results- Rock Table 5.9 Summary of Unconfined Compression Test Results with Stress Strain - Rock Table 5.10 Comparison of Rock Pressuremeter Shear Modulus and Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results Table 5.11 Summary of Carbonate Content Testing - Rock Table 5.12 Summary of Rock Unit Weight, Moisture Content and Specific Gravity Table 5.13 Groundwater Geochemistry Test Results Table B.1-1 Key to Boring Logs Table B.1-2 Stratigraphic Summary Table TOCiii ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 4 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 Table B.2-1 Summary of SPT Energy Testing Results Table E.3.1 Summary of Packer Test Intervals Table E.4.1 Summary of Slug Testing Table 1.2-1 Listing of Groundwater Transducer Data Files FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Boring Location Plan, Sheet 1 (in pocket)

Figure 3 Boring Location Plan, Sheet 2 (in pocket)

TOC iv ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 5 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 APPENDICES Appendix A - Survey Report Appendix 8 - Geotechnical Field Data 8.1 -Geotechnical Logs (Soil and Rock) 8.2 - SPT Energy Measurements Reports 8.3 - Rock Pressuremeter Report Appendix C- Downhole Geophysical Logging Report Appendix D- Surface Geophysical Test Data D.1 -Seismic Refraction Survey Report D.2- Seismic Reflection Survey Report Appendix E- Observation Wells and Field Permeability Testing E.1 -Observation Well Installation Logs E.2- Well Development Data E.3- Packer Test Data E.4- Slug Test Data Appendix F- Laboratory Test Data- Soil F.1 -Soil Index Test Results F.2- Soil Strength Test Results F.3- Soil Moisture/Density Test Results Appendix G- Laboratory Test Data- Rock G.1 - Unconfined Compression Test Results G.2 - Unconfined Compression with Stress/Strain Test Results G.3- Direct Shear Test Results G.4- Carbonate Content Test Results G.S- Slake Durability Test Results G.6- Moisture Content, Specific Gravity, Unit Weight and Dimension Results Appendix H- Laboratory Test Results- Groundwater Geochemistry H.1 - AMEC Data Qualification Report for Groundwater Chemistry H.2- Test Reports from TestAmerica Appendix I - Groundwater Level Monitoring 1.1 - Manual Water Level Readings 1.2- Listing of Transducer Data Files TOCv ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 6 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 1.0 OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC) was retained by Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) to conduct a subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program to obtain information on subsurface materials and conditions for use in preparation of the Construction Permit Application for the proposed Clinch River Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Project. AMEC services were included within the scope of services to be provided by Bechtel as a direct contractor to Generation mPower. The project site is located at a TVA controlled site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (Figure 1).

AMEC executed its services in accordance with Bechtel Technical Services Subcontract No.

25665-000-HC4-CY00-00001, dated March 31, 2011. Amendment 1, dated April 19, 2013, changed the Subcontract Number to 25847-601-HC4-CY00-00001. The scope of work performed was outlined in Bechtel Engineering Specification No. 25665-000-3PS-CY00-00001, Rev 004, dated May 6, 2013. Subsurface investigation locations were shown on Bechtel provided drawings "Boring Plan Sheet 1 of 2", Drawing No. 25665-000-CY-0010-00001, Rev. 1 dated May 7, 2013, and "Boring Plan Sheet 2 of 2" Drawing No. 25665-000-CY-0010-00002, Rev. 1, dated May 7, 2013. The field work commenced on June 3, 2013. Field work, with the exception of long term water level monitoring and the aquifer pumping test, was completed in January 2014. Long term water level monitoring is planned to continue to October 2015.

The AMEC scope of work, procedures, and methodologies are further defined in the following project documents:

• AMEC Quality Assurance Project Document (QAPD), Revision 2, dated May 17, 2013.

• AMEC Health and Safety Plan (HASP), Revision 1, dated May 24, 2013.

• AMEC Work Plan, Revision 0, May 20, 2013.

• AMEC Pumping Test Work Plan, Revision 4, March 17, 2014.

The above documents were in effect during the course of the field effort; the latest revision numbers and dates are shown above. The QAPD outlines the quality assurance requirements and procedures for the project. The HASP addresses the specific health and safety requirements related to the subsurface investigation phase of this project. The Work Plan describes the investigation activities to be performed. The Pumping Test Work Plan describes the activities specific to the aquifer pumping test. The scope of work for the investigation program as contained in the Work Plan is briefly described below:

• Preparing and submitting a Quality Assurance Project Document, Health and Safety Plan, and Work Plans

• Obtaining permits necessary for performing the work

• Furnishing the supervision, labor, equipment, tools, supplies, and materials necessary to perform the specified work at the locations specified by Bechtel

• Locating work items by survey methods

• Providing geotechnical engineers and/or geologists in the field under the direction of qualified geotechnical engineers and/or geologists with the experience in geotechnical investigations to oversee and log the investigation work Page 1-1 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 7 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014

• Providing a site manager responsible for oversight of all required field activities

• Providing water to work areas for drilling and testing

• Performing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and obtaining soil samples using a split-barrel sampler

• Performing SPT energy measurements

• Obtaining undisturbed (intact) samples

• Obtaining rock cores using "H" size rotary coring methods

• Collecting bulk samples from test pit excavations

• Collecting, labeling and transporting soil samples, rock cores, and test pit bulk samples to a designated sample storage area

• Transporting designated samples to appropriate laboratories for testing purposes

• Backfilling drilled holes with cement/bentonite grout using the tremie method

• Installing observation wells for monitoring groundwater levels

• Performing packer testing in selected boreholes

• Performing depth to water measurements in the observation wells

• Performing slug testing in selected wells

• Performing downhole geophysical testing including P-S Suspension Velocity logging, and Geophysical and Televiewer Logging

• Performing Seismic Refraction Survey

• Performing Seismic Reflection Survey

• Performing an Aquifer Pumping Test

• Performing laboratory testing on disturbed soil samples, intact soil samples, and rock core samples

• Performing laboratory testing for geochemistry of water samples

• Obtaining groundwater samples for geochemical and Kd testing

• Performing long term water level monitoring

• Preparing this data report containing the data generated by the subsurface investigation and laboratory testing activities Revision 1 of this report was issued to address Bechtel comments on revision 0. Changes were made to well construction diagrams in Appendix E.1, to some pages in Appendix E.3 and to well construction diagrams in Appendix E.4. Revision 2 was issued to revise Table 3.1.

Revision 3 was issued to revise Page 1 of Table 5.8 with no other changes. Revision 4 is issued to revise Appendix B-1 to include the boring M P-41 0 core log.

1.2 Personnel AMEC completed field work for this project under the direction of Bechtel's Site Coordinators.

Primary AMEC personnel and their responsibilities were as follows:

Stephen J. Criscenzo Project Manager J. Allan Tice, P.E. Technical Lead Carl D. Tockstein, P.E. Technical Lead Page 1-2 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 8 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 Jeffery A. Mann Chief Technical Lead John D. Martin Quality Assurance Representative James Cooley Surveyor William Deobald Site Manager Michael B. Lear Site Manager I Lead Geologist John Mason Lead Geologist Nick Smith Rig Geologist Kristen Lloyd Rig Geologist Chris Baldwin Rig Geologist James Howard Rig Geologist James Terry Rig Geologist Emily Shrum Rig Geologist Joseph Hensberry Rig Geologist Michael Flanik Rig Geologist Rodney Clark Rig Geologist James Goddard Field Technician Kimberly Charles-Smith Field Technician Bernadette Freeman Record Control Administrator Elise Harwood Record Control Administrator Brian Johnson Raleigh Laboratory Manager Allen Hughes Charlotte Laboratory Manager Geoff Hebner Atlanta Laboratory Manager 1.3 Subcontractors The organizations that conducted on-site work, laboratory testing of samples, or equipment calibration as part of this effort are summarized below.

Organization Function ConeTec, Inc. (ConeTec) Geotechnical Drilling M&W Drilling, Inc. (M&W) Geotechnical Drilling Monitoring Well Installation Packer Testing Aquifer Pumping Test Support Tri-State Drilling, LLC (TSD) Geotechnical Drilling Monitoring Well Installation Premier Drilling, LLC (Premier) Geotechnical Drilling GEOVision Geophysical Services Downhole Geophysical Logging (GeoVision) Seismic Refraction Survey Seismic Reflection Survey In-Situ Engineering, Inc. Rock Pressuremeter Testing GeoTesting Express, Inc Rock Core Testing TestAmerica, Inc. Laboratory Testing Applied Testing Services Calibration Services Cal Tech Process Management Calibration Services Micro Precision Calibration, Inc Calibration Services Page 1-3 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 9 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 American Calibration and Testing Calibration Services Company, Inc.

Bird Seismic Services Seismic Reflection Field Data Collection Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd. Seismic Reflection Data Processing Corona Resources, LLC Seismic Reflection Consultation 1.4 Organization of Report The narrative text provides an overview of the testing performed for the Clinch River SMR Project. Tables, figures and appendices follow the text. The appendix documents contain project data and are organized as follows.

Appendix A - Survey Report Appendix B - Geotechnical Field Data 8.1 -Geotechnical Logs (Soil and Rock) 8.2 - SPT Energy Measurements Reports 8.3 - Rock Pressuremeter Report Appendix C- Downhole Geophysical Logging Report Appendix D- Surface Geophysical Test Data D.1 -Seismic Refraction Survey Report D.2- Seismic Reflection Survey Report Appendix E- Observation Wells and Field Permeability Testing E.1 -Observation Well Installation Logs E.2- Well Development Data E.3- Packer Test Data E.4- Slug Test Data Appendix F- Laboratory Test Data- Soil F.1 -Soil Index Test Results F.2- Soil Strength Test Results F.3- Soil Moisture/Density Test Results Appendix G- Laboratory Test Data- Rock G.1 - Unconfined Compression Test Results G.2 - Unconfined Compression with Stress/Strain Test Results G.3- Direct Shear Test Results G.4- Carbonate Content Test Results G.S- Slake Durability Test Results G.6- Moisture Content, Specific Gravity and Unit Weight Test Results Page 1-4 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 10 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 Appendix H - Laboratory Test Results- Groundwater Geochemistry H.1 - AMEC Data Qualification Report for Groundwater Chemistry H.2- Test Reports from TestAmerica Appendix I - Groundwater Level Monitoring 1.1 - Manual Water Level Readings 1.2- Listing of Transducer Data Files 1.5 Quality Assurance Activities conducted by AMEC and its subcontractors during the work presented in this report were completed in accordance with the AMEC Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual and the AMEC Quality Assurance Project Document prepared for this project. The AMEC Nuclear Quality Assurance Program complies with NQA-1-1994 Subpart 2.20 and the requirements of 10CFRSO Appendix B.

Page 1-5 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 11 of 82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 2.0 TEST METHODS- GEOTECHNCIAL AND GEOLOGY 2.1 Surveying The surveying for the project was conducted by AMEC surveyors working under the supervision of a Tennessee licensed surveyor. Survey control was established on site by GPS post processing using NGS monuments. Four control points were established at the site for use in locating testing locations. The initial survey phase was to stake preliminary test locations for borings and wells and seismic refraction lines based on coordinates provided on Bechtel Drawing Nos. 25665-000-CY-0010-00001, Rev. 1; and 25665-000-CY-0010-00002, Rev. 1.

Wooden stakes marked with the test identification number and tied with flagging were used to mark the initial locations.

For seismic refraction surveys, the surveyors placed wooden stakes at the designated starting points and selected intermediate points for each line. An extended ending point for each line was also staked. The actual ending point for testing was based on the field spacing and placement of instrumentation. The geophysical subcontractor used these initial stakes as references to establish the horizontal and vertical locations of seismic shot and receiver points.

After completing an initial assessment of test locations and potential access and/or overhead utility conflicts, some test locations were relocated. All relocated test locations were approved by the Bechtel site representative. Locations moved more than 25 feet from the specified location were submitted to Bechtel via the Supplier Deviation Disposition Request (SDDR) process.

The second phase of surveying was conducted after completion of the field testing. The surveyor returned to the site and determined as-built locations and ground surface elevations of the actual test locations. Two Topcon HiPer GA GPS receivers using real time kinematic global positioning survey techniques (RTK-GPS) were used to perform the horizontal and vertical survey of the test locations. The elevations of the observation wells were established using a TOPCON AT-F2 auto level using differential levelling techniques.

Surveying for the seismic reflection lines was completed by laying out 100 ft. stations along each of the two test lines. Referencing the staked station locations, the seismic reflection subcontractor then located the intermediate geophone location points. Vertical and horizontal locations for each geophone point were then determined by the surveyor.

The as-built survey locations were reviewed and accepted as project records by AMEC, then provided to AMEC project personnel and subcontractor personnel for use as input to final boring logs and other tables reporting locations. Locations (Northing and Easting) were provided relative to Tennessee State Plane Coordinates, NAD 1983 (U.S. feet). Elevations were provided relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). A survey report was prepared for all as-built survey data and is included in Appendix A. Figures 2 and 3 are copies of as-built boring location plans created by Bechtel based on the as-built survey information.

Page 2-1 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 12 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 2.2 Utility Location Underground utility locations for the site were provided by TVA prior to mobilization of drilling equipment. Test locations were adjusted as necessary to accommodate underground and overhead utility conflicts. As described above, all adjusted test locations were approved by Bechtel prior to testing.

2.3 Testing Program Table 2.1 summarizes information about the borings and associated downhole testing and sampling. Table 2.2 summarizes information about test pits. Table 2.3 summarizes information on seismic refraction survey lines and seismic reflection survey lines. Figures 2 and 3 show as-built locations for all field test points. (Information on observation wells and field permeability testing is included in Section 3.0) 2.4 Drilling Equipment AMEC used the following drilling equipment for geotechnical drilling:

Hammer Serial Drill Rig Carrier Auto Number Driller Model Type Owner Hammer Rig Use CME-323438 L. Carter ATV Premier Yes SPT, Core

?SOX CME-337153 J. Landeros ATV Premier Yes SPT, Core 55 0X SPT, Core, TS272567 G. Bilbrey CME-75 Truck TSD Yes Angle Drilling TS373705 S. Snow CME-55 ATV TSD Yes SPT, Core CME-MEC02 D. White ATV ConeTec Yes SPT, Core 55LC MEC21 A. Martin CME-55 ATV ConeTec Yes SPT, Core George Dietrich MW2 ATV M&W Yes SPT, Core Akins D-120 Dietrich MW01 Gary Akins ATV M&W Yes SPT, Core D-120 B. Woods Schram Wells N/A George Track M&W N/A T450 (Air Rig)

Akins B. Woods Wells Schram N/A George Truck M&W N/A (Air Rig)

T450 BH Akins Page 2-2 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 13 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 DriiiTech Wells N/A N. Dempsey TSD N/A DK25KW (Air Rig) 2.5 Drilling Methods Geotechnical drilling activities were performed by Premier Drilling, ConeTec, M&W Drilling, and Tri-State Drilling. Each drill crew and rig used a support truck and/or tool trailer to haul water, drilling tools, and materials to the drilling sites.

The water used for drilling was obtained from an off-site fire hydrant on the Oak Ridge Water system. Water was trucked from the hydrant to the project site and pumped into and stored in a 20,000 gallon capacity steel tank rented by AMEC and placed at the project site.

Except for borings designated "PS" or "UD", all borings were advanced in soil using mud rotary wash-drilling techniques until reaching the designated boring depth/termination criteria or encountering standard penetration testing (SPT) refusal (defined as 50 blows for six inches or less of penetration). Bits used to advance the borings were 4-inch to 6-inch diameter, side discharge roller cone bits or wing bits. Flush jointed AW size drill rods were used for SPT sampling in the geotechnical borings. All rigs that collected SPT soil samples used automatic hammers. Automatic hammers were calibrated by weighing the hammer and measuring hammer drop height and verifying both to be in conformance with ASTM D 1586-11. Hammer calibrations were completed prior to the start of work at the site and prior at completion of drilling. SPT energy measurements were made for each automatic hammer operation; these are discussed in Section 2.4.

SPT samples in the geotechnical borings were obtained at approximately 2.5-foot intervals from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 15 feet below the ground surface and at 5-foot intervals thereafter to refusal.

Borings MP-112, MP-212, and MP-427 were drilled at an approximate inclination of 25° from vertical, and oriented approximately North 52° East (+/-5°). Borings MP-113, MP-213, MP-424, and MP-426 were drilled at an approximate inclination of 25° and orientated approximately North 38° West (+/-5°). These angled borings were advanced using a 4-inch diameter (I.D.)

casing advance system and mud rotary drilling techniques in the soil section of the boreholes to refusal on rock. SPT testing was not completed in these borings due to the inclination which impeded the function of the automatic hammer. Soil samples were collected in angle holes, when possible, by hydraulically pushing a standard split-spoon sampler with the drill rig at 2.5 and 5.0-foot intervals until refusal on rock. The borings were then advanced via rock coring techniques to the required termination depth in rock.

In specified borings, once rock was encountered, a steel casing was set, and the holes were advanced in accordance with ASTM D 2113-08 using diamond core drilling methods and wireline rock coring equipment. Rock coring was accomplished using "HQ3" sized triple-tube core barrels consisting of an outer core barrel, an inner core barrel equipped with stainless steel split inner barrel liners, and face discharge diamond impregnated core bits. Four-inch diameter (I.D.) casing was used to stabilize the upper portions of the borings as necessary. The water Page 2-3 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 14 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 introduced into the borehole during drilling and coring was obtained from AMEC's storage tank or delivered directly from the site water truck as described above.

Downhole testing consisting of packer tests, rock pressuremeter tests and geophysical testing was performed in specified borings. Procedures for each downhole test method are provided later in this section. Specific testing completed in each borehole is included in Table 2.1.

Sampling in the geotechnical borings is discussed in detail in Section 2.7. The boring logs included in Appendix B-1 contain information specific to sampling in each boring.

Fluid levels in the boreholes were measured at the start of each day's drilling activities. Due to the use of drilling fluid additives, the fluid levels observed in the geotechnical borings may not accurately reflect the groundwater conditions at the site. Daily water level observations, where applicable, are included on the geotechnical boring logs contained in Appendix 8.1.

Drilling fluid additives such as powdered bentonite clay and/or synthetic drilling fluids were used as needed to provide borehole stability, to help flush the drill cuttings from the borehole, and to provide better coring conditions. Drilling fluids were typically recirculated in the soil portion of the geotechnical borings. In the rock portion of the borings the return drill fluid was not typically recirculated and directed away from the boring location and allowed to runoff in a controlled manner onto the ground.

Drill fluid runoff was monitored by the AMEC rig geologists and site management as drilling progressed. Prior to beginning drilling activities at each location, the boring site was evaluated for the presence of wetlands (identified by TVA) site drainage features or other sensitive areas that could be impacted by the drilling activities. Impacts to these areas were mitigated if required by using straw bales or silt fences to prevent drill fluid runoff or drill spoils from entering sensitive areas. Solid spoils and drill cuttings from the geotechnical borings and wells were spread out onto the ground in the vicinity of the boring locations.

Boreholes were backfilled with a cement-bentonite grout once all testing and sampling was completed. The grout was placed by pumping through PVC tremie pipe or AW-sized drill rods inserted to the bottom of the borehole. The drillers used the specified grout mixture of 8 gallons of water and 2.5 pounds of powdered bentonite per 94-pound sack of cement.

All casing was removed from the borings during grouting operations except for the three designated "PS" holes where PVC casing was grouted in place and for boring MP 219 where approximately 59 feet of drill tools were left in place due to the core barrel becoming locked in the borehole.

In some borings, where grout loss in the hole precluded completion of grouting with normal methods, bentonite chips were used to help seal zones of grout loss and allow completion of grouting to the surface. At the completion of grouting, a boring location stake was placed for later as-built survey use. The as-built coordinates and elevations for each boring are included on Table 2.1 and on the boring logs in Appendix 8.1.

Page 2-4 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 15 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 2.6 SPT Energy Measurements SPT energy measurements were conducted for each of the automatic hammers/drill rigs performing SPT soil sampling. The SPT energy testing was completed through overburden soils at locations separate from assigned borings. Energy measurements were recorded during SPT sampling at the depth intervals shown in the SPT Energy Test Reports in Appendix 8.2. Table 8.2-1 in Appendix 8.2 summarizes the results. Due to shallow rock at the site, SPT energy measurements we taken at depths ranging from 3.5 feet to 18 feet below ground surface.

The energy measurements were performed with a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) model PAK with SPT Analyzer software and calibrated accelerometers and strain gages. A steel drill rod two feet long, the same size as the drill rod used to advance the boring, and instrumented with dedicated strain gages was inserted at the top of the drill rod string immediately below the SPT hammer anvil. The inserted rod was also instrumented with two piezoresistive accelerometers that were bolted to the outside of the rod.

The work was done in accordance with ASTM D 4633-10. The strain and acceleration signals were converted to force and velocity by the PDA. The maximum energy transmitted to the drill rod string (EFV), as measured at the location of the strain gages and accelerometers, was calculated by the PDA using the equation shown below:

EFV =f F(t)

• V(t)

• dt Where: EFV =Transferred energy (EFV equation), or Energy of FV F(t) =Calculated force at timet V(t) = Calculated velocity at timet As recommended by ASTM 04633-10, the force-velocity method of energy calculation was used. The equation shown above for calculating EFV, integrated over the complete wave event, measures the total energy content of the event using both force and velocity measurements.

The EFV values associated with each blow analyzed are shown graphically in POl PLOT charts and are also tabulated in PDIPLOT tables. These tables and charts are contained in the SPT Energy Test Reports in Appendix 8.2.

The average ETR measured for each rig used at the site ranged from 80% to 96% of the theoretical potential energy (140 pound hammer falling 30 inches or 350 foot pounds). These ETR values are within the range of typical values for automatic hammers. The ETR values (as percent of the theoretical value) are shown in the SPT Energy Test Reports in Appendix 8.2.

2.7 Sampling in Geotechnical Borings 2.7.1 Standard Penetration Test Sampling Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling in the geotechnical borings was generally conducted to obtain two samples for each five foot depth increment to a depth of 15 feet and at approximately five foot intervals thereafter to the commencement of coring. SPT sampling was not conducted in the inclined borings or the borings identified by the suffix "PS" or "UD".

Page 2-5 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 16 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 In some borings, zones of soil and/or weathered rock were encountered after commencement of coring operations. When soil and/or weathered zones were encountered below the top of rock and where drilling conditions indicated that SPT sampling could be utilized, the inner core barrel was removed from the borehole and SPT sampling was attempted below the core bit.

Where indicated, SPT sampling continued at approximately five foot intervals until corable material was encountered at which point coring resumed.

The equipment and methods for Standard Penetration Testing are described in ASTM D 1586-

11. Automatic-trip hammers were used for all SPT sampling. SPT energy measurements were completed for each hammer-drill rig combination as discussed in section 2.6. The split-barrel sampler was typically driven 18 inches into soil with blows recorded for each six-inch interval of penetration.

In very hard soils, driving was terminated after 50 blows for a six-inch, or less, interval and the actual penetration recorded, (e.g., 50 blows I 0.3 feet). The boring logs provide the depth of penetration for each split-barrel sample.

The split-barrel sampler was opened at the drill site and the recovered materials were visually described, classified, and photographed by AMEC's rig geologist or engineer. A selected portion of the sample was placed in a glass sample jar with a moisture-proof lid. In some instances, where materials changed over the sample drive length, two samples were retained.

Sample jars were labeled, placed in cardboard boxes, and transported to the on-site sample storage facility at the end of each work day.

2.7.2 Rock Core Sampling The specification defined SPT refusal as 50 blows for 6 inches or less of penetration. For purposes of determining the depth at which to begin rock coring procedures, refusal to soil drilling was defined as physical inability to advance the hole using wash drilling procedures. In practice, the sampler was typically struck with 50 blows and the actual penetration measured and recorded on the boring logs. Coring typically began once SPT refusal, as defined in the specification, was encountered. Rock coring was completed in accordance with ASTM D 2113-08.

Rock core runs were typically approximately five feet, although shorter runs were made if judged appropriate by the rig geologist or engineer to improve core recovery. Rock recovered by the coring process was photographed while still in the split inner barrel liner, then carefully removed from the inner barrel liner and placed in wooden core boxes with wooden blocks used to mark ends of runs. When core recovery was less than 100%, the rig geologist or engineer placed foam or wood spacers in the core box to stabilize the core placement.

The rig geologist or engineer visually described the core and noted the presence of joints and fractures, distinguishing mechanical breaks from natural breaks where possible. The rig geologist or engineer also calculated percent recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) prior to moving the core from the drill site. Field boring logs and photographs were used to Page 2-6 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 17 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 document the drilling operations and recovered materials, and are retained in the AMEC Record Control Center (RCC).

Filled core boxes were taken to the sample storage facility. Record photographs of core boxes were taken after completion of field review by the lead geologist and prior to any samples being removed for laboratory testing. It should be noted that the run intervals indicated on the core boxes reflect the intervals recorded at the time of drilling. In some borings, the core run intervals shown on the boring logs were adjusted to reflect recovery of rock further down in the borehole. Photographs of the core boxes are included with the boring logs In Appendix B.1.

2.7.3 Intact Soil Sampling Intact soil samples were obtained using 3-inch thin-walled tube samples using a Shelby tube sampler in accordance with ASTM D 1587-08.

Borings for intact sampling were offset borings drilled adjacent to the previously drilled companion geotechnical borings having the same number designation. Target sampling intervals were established by Bechtel based on the information from the primary boring. Intact samples were obtained in borings, MP-111 UD, MP-122 UD-A, and MP-122 UD-B All intact samples were sealed at the top and bottom against moisture loss, labeled, and stored in an upright position. Intact soil samples were transported to and stored in the sample storage facility following methods in ASTM D 4220-95(2007) for Group C materials.

2.8 Boring Logs 2.8.1 Boring Log Preparation Records of each boring were maintained by the rig geologist/engineer in the field. These field logs were reviewed by the lead geologist and the information was used to prepare boring logs using Version 8 of the computer program "giNT". The final boring logs are included in Appendix B.1. These final logs incorporate the results of technical reviews by the Lead Geologist.

Photographs of the rock core are included following the boring logs for each boring where rock coring was conducted.

The soil descriptions on the boring logs in Appendix B.1 are based on the field descriptions (ASTM D 2488-09a) by the rig geologist or engineer and the laboratory test results using ASTM D 2487-11 for selected samples. The rock core descriptions on the boring logs in Appendix B.1 are based on the rig geologist's or rig engineer's description. In addition to classification and logging of the bedrock lithology, rock discontinuities were described and logged, rock core recovery, and the RQD were measured and recorded for each core run according to ASTM D 6032-08. These features are included on the boring logs in Appendix B.1. Table B.1-1 provides a key for the terminology and graphic representations included on the boring logs. Materials encountered with SPT blow counts greater than 50 over less than 6 inches of penetration were described as Weathered Rock. Weathered Rock at the site occurs as a typically thin transitional zone between soil (Fill or Residual Soil) and hard rock that would yield very hard drilling or bit Page 2-7 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 18 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 refusal to rotary wash drilling methods. Weathered Rock intervals encountered after rock coring began were described using the appropriate terms provided in Appendix E of the specification.

The water depths on the boring logs in Appendix B.1 are from observations during drilling.

Because fluid was introduced into the borehole during mud rotary and core drilling, the water depths on the boring logs may not represent the stabilized water depths.

2.8.2 Clinch River SMR Stratigraphic Summary The Clinch River SMR Project Site (SMR Site) is located in Bethel Valley southwest of the Oak Ridge Reservation. The basic stratigraphic framework for the SMR Site was established by comparison to the published descriptions of similar Chickamauga Group sections located within Bethel Valley (Bethel Valley Section). Lee and Ketelle (1988; reference citations are in Section 6.0) completed a study at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10 Facility) that provides an analog to the SMR Site as it is located directly along strike of the section investigated for the SMR project, approximately 4.5-miles northeast of the SMR Site. Lee and Ketelle correlated their findings to the geologic framework established for the Oak Ridge Reservation by Stockdale (1951), and continued the use of Stockdale's unit designations for the Chickamauga Group (Units A to H). Stockdale's work was based mostly on outcrop observations with limited bore hole data. The Lee and Ketelle study was based on a series of deep core holes that were completed along a transect perpendicular to geologic strike. The bore holes, along with down-hole geophysical logs, overlap to provide a complete section of the Chickamauga Group in the Bethel Valley Section. Lee and Ketelle provide detailed lithologic and stratigraphic descriptions for the Chickamauga Group Units A through H.

Hatcher, et al. (1992) established the application of formation names to the lettered Chickamauga Group Unit designations. Hatcher, et al., apply the regional stratigraphic nomenclature described in Virginia and eastern Tennessee to the unit designations (Units A-H) of the Chickamauga Group for the Bethel Valley Section, and include general descriptions of the Formations. Ongoing studies at the Oak Ridge Reservation and elsewhere in eastern Tennessee may refine these correlations, specifically for the lowermost Chickamauga Units/formation correlations (i. e. Blackford Formation/Five Oaks Formation).

The Clinch River SMR Site stratigraphic boundaries presented on the final boring/coring logs and summarized in Table B.1-2 were primarily established by comparison of field boring/coring log descriptions and rock core samples to the stratigraphic and lithologic descriptions provided by Lee and Ketelle. In general, the lithologic and stratigraphic descriptions from the Lee and Ketelle study correlate very well with the descriptions and observations from the SMR Site boring/coring logs. Natural gamma and conductivity data were also used to identify stratigraphic and lithologic boundaries in borings where down-hole geophysical testing was performed. The Chickamauga Group Units have characteristic geophysical (gamma/conductivity) signatures, relative to the unit above or below, that correlate to the lithology and lithological variations of the unit. In general, unit boundaries correlate to distinctive changes in the overall gamma and/or conductivity data observed in the borings logged for the SM R project. These variations were used to refine the boring/coring log descriptions during the technical review of field logs, rock core, and core photographs to establish the boundary depths of the units.

Page 2-8 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 19 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 In borings for which no down-hole geophysical testing was completed, the field descriptions and core photographs were compared to adjacent borings that did have available geophysical data to establish the unit boundaries. Non-geophysical factors that were used to determine the Chickamauga units and unit boundaries were the presence or lack of chert, and the mode of occurrence, such as chert nodules versus bedded chert (or the thickness of chert beds), the bedding characteristics of the units, the presence or lack of fossils, gross composition of the unit (such as Limestone, Siltstone, Dolomite, or the degree of interbedded limestone, siltstone, and chert), along with the overall appearance and color of individual units. In most cases all of the above were used to determine the stratigraphic units presented on the final SMR Site boring/coring logs. Once the individual Chickamauga Unit (A-H) was established, the regional formation correlation was made per Hatcher, et al. (1992).

No attempt was made to correlate individual lithologies within each unit, as determined by Lee and Ketelle, to those indicated on the final SMR Site boring logs. Individual lithologies shown on the SMR Site boring logs are based on the descriptions, observations, and conditions encountered specific to that boring. In general, the individual lithologies encountered at the SM R Site agree with those presented by Lee and Ketelle, but such a correlation (beyond the unit determination) was not within the scope of this work.

2.9 Sampling in Geotechnical Test Pits Three geotechnical test pits were performed at locations described in Table 2.2 and as shown on Figures 2 and 3. The test pit locations were selected by Bechtel. Survey location of the completed test pit corners was performed as described in Section 2.1.

The test pits were excavated by TVA personnel using a track mounted CAT 314C-LCR excavator. All logging of the test pits was completed from the surface. The excavated depth was estimated by extending the bucket and boom to the bottom of the excavation and referencing depth markings on the boom placed by the rig geologist.

As the test pit progressed, the excavated soils were placed on the ground adjacent to the test pit. An AMEC rig geologist visually inspected the soils and described them using methods of ASTM D 2488-09a. A geotechnical test pit log was prepared by the rig geologist for each test pit. Test pits were excavated to the assigned depth except for test pit TP-2 which was stopped at an approximate depth of three feet after refusal was encountered. Completed test pit logs showing total depth excavated and locations of samples are included in Appendix B.1.

Bulk samples consisting of representative samples of the soils encountered in the test pits were collected in each test pit. Selection of materials for bulk samples was made by the Bechtel site representative. Bulk samples consisted of filling two or three 5-gallon plastic buckets and two glass jars with moisture proof lids for each sample. The jars and buckets were appropriately labelled and transported to the sample storage facility after completion of the test pit.

Upon completion of each test pit excavation and sampling, each test pit was backfilled with the excavated material which was tamped with the backhoe bucket as backfilling progressed. The four corners of the backfilled test pits were marked with wooden stakes for later survey use.

Page 2-9 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 20 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 The as-built survey locations and elevations of the four corners of the completed test pits are included in Table 2.2 and in Appendix A.

2.10 Rock Pressuremeter Testing Rock pressuremeter testing was completed in two borings, MP-105 and MP-205. Test intervals were selected by the Bechtel Site Representative based on a review of rock core results.

Seventeen rock pressuremeter tests were attempted with 16 tests yielding useable test data.

The results of one test were disregarded due to noise in the test signal. A summary of test intervals is included in Table 1A of the Report of In Situ Pressuremeter Testing included in Appendix B-3.

Rock pressuremeter testing was completed by In Situ Engineering, Inc as a subcontractor to AMEC, and working under AMEC Quality Assurance Program requirements. Work was completed in accordance with In Situ Engineering procedures TP-01-04, Technical Procedure for Collecting Borehole Pressuremeter Data in Soil and Rock and TP-02-03, Standard Technical Procedure for Correcting Electronic Pressuremeter Data for Membrane Effects. Analysis software was approved by AMEC under Commercial Grade Dedication.

The rock pressuremeter instrumentation required an "N" size core hole for testing. In order to accommodate this requirement, the borehole was advanced to the top of a specified interval using "HQ" sized coring tools. The "HQ" tools were removed from the borehole and replaced with "NQ" sized core barrel and drill tools. The borehole was then advanced approximately five to ten feet with the "NQ" tools to create a test zone for the rock pressuremeter testing.

Once coring of the test zone was completed and the core reviewed, the Bechtel site representative selected the specific intervals for testing. The pressuremeter test is run over a 16.25 inch test length. Testing within a test zone typically consists of running two tests separated by approximately 1.5 feet.

The pressuremeter instrument used for this testing was approximately three inches in diameter and 30 inches long. The instrument had three electronic displacement sensors spaced 120 degrees apart and located at the center of the pressuremeter. A flexible rubber membrane was placed over the sensors and clamped at each end. The membrane was covered by a protective sheet of stainless steel strips referred to as the shield. The unit was pressurized using compressed air which expands the membrane and the shield and deforms the adjacent rock pocket. The electronic signals from the displacement transducers and pressure sensor were transmitted to the surface and recorded. Testing at an interval typically consists of a series of one or more load I unload cycles.

The complete report for the rock pressuremeter testing, as prepared by In Situ Engineering, Inc, is included in Appendix B.3. The report was reviewed and accepted by AMEC in accordance with the AMEC QA Program. The rock pressuremeter report contains details for the equipment, test procedures, and data analysis. Values for shear modulus for each test interval are also provided. Table 5.10 presents a comparison of pressuremeter shear modulus values and Page 2-10 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 21 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 laboratory unconfined compressive strength tests for cases where the unconfined compressive strength test was performed on a core sample from within the pressuremeter test interval.

2.11 Surface Geophysical Testing 2.11.1 Seismic Refraction Survey A seismic refraction survey using compressional wave (P-wave) refraction techniques was performed to map depth to rock below the seismic refraction lines. Six lines were identified for seismic refraction testing. The locations of the survey lines are included on Figures 2 and 3.

The AMEC surveyor located the starting points and intermediate station points for the seismic lines as described in Appendix A.2. The survey points were used as references by the seismic survey personnel to determine elevations of seismic shot points and sensors. Survey data for the seismic refraction lines is included in the Survey Report in Appendix A. Coordinates for the starting and ending point for each line are included in Table 2.2.

The seismic refraction work was performed by GEOVision Geophysical Services under subcontract to AMEC. The procedures and equipment calibrations were approved by AMEC.

Analysis software was approved by AMEC under Commercial Grade Dedication.Their report was reviewed and accepted by AMEC in accordance with the AMEC QA Program and is contained in Appendix D-1.

The seismic data were obtained using two 24-channel Geometries Geode signal enhancement seismographs combined to form a 48-channel system. Vertical 1OHz geophones and a geophone seismic cable with 20-foot takeouts were used to receive the seismic signals.

Energy for the survey was provided by either a track-mounted or a truck-mounted accelerated weight drop system. The seismic equipment and calibrations were approved by AMEC.

Each seismic line consisted of one spread of 48 geophones, spaced 10 to 12.5 feet apart, arranged in a linear array. Horizontal and vertical control was established by a AMEC surveyor at 200-foot intervals along each line. Individual geophone locations were established by GeoVision by referencing the survey established control.

Up to 20 shot point locations were used on each spread. Shot points off the ends of the lines were used where possible. Topography limited the placement and/or the source of some shot points.

The generalized reciprocal method (GRM) and the tomographic analysis technique were used to process the data and analyze the subsurface velocity structure. The results of the analyses are presented in graphical form as profile figures in the GEOVision report in Appendix D-1. The figures also include information on estimated range of rock depths as taken from the final geotechnical boring information and associated suspension PS logging plots. Each figure contains the interpreted seismic bedrock interface based on interpolation of the subsurface velocity structure and geotechnical boring information.

Page 2-11 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 22 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 2.11.2 Seismic Reflection Survey A seismic reflection survey using compressional velocity waves (P-waves) was completed along two lines at the site. The first line, identified as SRL-1 is approximately 3,000 feet in length. The second line, identified as SRL-2, is approximately 2,000 feet in length.

The objectives of the seismic reflection survey were as follows:

• To map the contact between the Knox group and the overlying Chickamauga Group to a depth of at least 1,100 feet below the existing ground surface.

• To provide information on the dip of bedding of the rock formations in areas away from boreholes.

• To evaluate the presence of continuous anomalies in the Knox and Chickamauga Groups.

Locations for the seismic reflection survey were selected by Bechtel, AMEC and GeoVsion personnel with consideration given to general geologic information for the site, site access, conflicts with utilities and sensitive areas, and proximity to completed boreholes. The starting and ending points for each lines as well as 100ft. station locations along each line were staked by the AMEC surveyor. Using the staked reference points, GeoVision personnel then located geophone locations at a spacing of five feet. Each geophone location was then surveyed by the AMEC surveyor to collect horizontal and vertical coordinates.

Locations of the two seismic reflection lines are shown on Figures 2 and 3. Complete survey information for all seismic reflection points is included in the survey report in Appendix A.

Coordinates for the start and end points for Lines SRL-1 and SRL-2 are included in Table 2.3.

The data acquisition for the seismic reflection survey was performed by GEOVision Geophysical Services under subcontract to AM EC. GEOVision was assisted in the data acquisition effort by Bird Seismic Services. The seismic reflection equipment and associated calibrations or validations were reviewed and accepted by AMEC for use on the project.

Seismic reflection data were acquired with 600 (Line SRL-1), or 401 (Line SRL-2) live channels. An lVI EnviroVibe was used as the energy source with four, 4-second 20 to 250 Hz sweeps.

At the start of data acquisition, the EnviroVibe was positioned a half station after the end geophone and nominally offset about 7ft from the seismic line to permit the buggy mounted seismic source to drive along the side of the line. A Seismic Source Company Force Two Universal Encoder linked the seismic acquisition system to a Force Two Vibrator Controller Unit in the EnviroVibe. When the seismic observer initiated the sweep sequence in the recording truck, a signal was sent to the vibrator via radio link to start the sweep and the seismic Page 2-12 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 23 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 acquisition system began recording. Data were transmitted from the EX-6 modules to the computer where the seismic acquisition software was used to display data, apply data filters and write data to hard disk.

P-wave seismic reflection data were processed by Sterling Seismic Services of Denver, Colorado, under subcontract to GEOVision using the SeisSpace PROMAX Ver. 5008.2.3 software package. The processing flow for the data is based on a standard common midpoint (CMP) reflection processing sequence with modifications for specific conditions at the survey site. The processed P-wave seismic reflection data were viewed and interpreted using the Kingdom Suite Ver. 8.8 software package by IHS. Each software program was qualified by AMEC under Commercial Grade Dedication and accepted for use on the project.

Details for seismic reflection survey data acquisition, data processing, and survey results are contained in GEOVision Seismic Reflection Report included in Appendix D.2 2.12 Geophysical Downhole Testing 2.12.1 Description of Testing Downhole geophysical logging and/or PS velocity logging was performed in 30 borings as assigned by Bechtel. Downhole testing included:

• Temperature I Conductivity

• PS Velocity

• Acoustic Televiewer

• Three Arm Caliper

• Natural Gamma

• Dual Induction

• Borehole Deviation A listing of the specific testing completed in each boring is included in Table 2.1. The testing was completed by GEOVision Geophysical Services, an AMEC subcontractor. Detailed descriptions for each test are provided in the following sections.

Except for borings MP-111 PS, MP-122PS-A, and MP-122PS-B all downhole testing was performed in boreholes drilled with either rotary wash or diamond rock coring techniques.

Certain of the downhole testing tools have limitations including the stability of the borehole sidewalls, the presence of drilling fluids and the ability to log through casing. In order to accommodate these limitations while maximizing data collection, the following sequence was generally used for drilling and downhole testing:

Page 2-13 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 24 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014

1. The overburden portion of the boring was drilled using rotary wash drilling techniques

2. Steel casing was set through the overburden and unstable rock portions of the boring

3. The boring was advanced to termination depth using diamond rock coring techniques

4. The hole was flushed with clear water

5. Temperature I conductivity testing, if assigned, was completed after a minimum 24-hour hold period

6. Additional water was added to the boring to attempt to bring the fluid level up to the bottom of the casing

7. PS velocity testing and acoustic televiewer logging were completed, as assigned, through the fluid-filled portion of the borehole (additional water was added, as appropriate, during logging to attempt to maintain fluid level)

8. Remaining logging was completed in the uncased portion of the borehole

9. Natural gamma logging was completed through the cased portion of borehole.

10. Logging of the upper portions of the borehole was attempted in some borings after grouting the lower portion and the removal of casing through the soil section.

There were attempts in several borings to stabilize the upper portions of the borehole, sufficient to allow logging, after removal of the steel casing. Efforts to stabilize the upper portions of the boreholes included sequencing the removal of casing, circulating thick drilling mud, and use of weak grout mixes followed by redrilling. After several attempts with little success, it was decided that logging through an uncased soil or fill column presented too great a risk to the instrumentation and alternate means would be used to obtain at least PS velocity data in the overburden.

After consultation with GeoVision and Bechtel representatives, AMEC proposed that PS velocity data be obtained in the overburden areas by logging through PVC casing grouted in place.

Three borings, MP-111 PS, MP-122 PS-A, and MP-122 PS-B, were each drilled using an air rotary drill rig to depths to allow the completion of PS velocity logging to the top of rock (approximately 15 feet below the top of rock). After drilling, three-inch diameter flush joint PVC casing was placed in the borehole and grouted in place using tremie methods. After the grout had set, water was added to the PVC casing and PS velocity logging and a borehole deviation survey were completed.

Locations where downhole geophysical testing was completed are shown on Figures 2 and 3.

Table 2.1 contains boring location and elevation information for these borings.

The test results for the downhole geophysical testing and Suspension P-S Velocity Logging are provided in the GEOVision report contained in Appendix C. The following information is presented for testing completed in each borehole:

• Plots of suspension shear and compressive wave velocities

• Combined plots of caliper, dual induction, and natural gamma logging

• Combined plots for fluid temperature and conductivity

• Up deviation projection Page 2-14 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 25 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014

• Rose diagrams Tables of information are presented for each borehole in the GEOVision report as follows:

• Summary of compressional wave velocity, shear wave velocity and Poisson's ratio

• Acoustic televiewer feature depth, dip azimuth, dip inclination and feature description Acoustic televiewer logs are presented in Appendix C of the GEOVision report as color plots for each borehole. These plots are at an expanded vertical scale (approximately 1 in = 1 ft) in order to better show the features identified.

The downhole geophysical logging and Suspension P-S methods performed in the selected boreholes are briefly described below.

2.12.2 Natural Gamma Gamma logs record the amount of natural gamma radiation emitted by the soil and rocks surrounding the borehole. Natural gamma logging was conducted in 27 boreholes.

2.12.3 Dual Induction An electromagnetic induction probe consisting of transmitter and receiver coils is used to create eddy currents in the subsurface materials which give rise to a secondary electro-magnetic field.

The secondary electromagnetic field generates an alternating electrical current which is measured by the receiver coils that is proportional to the conductivity of the formation.

Formation conductivity is the reciprocal of formation resistivity. Dual induction can be performed to within a few feet of the ground surface. Use of the dual induction logging technique instead of long and short normal resistivity logging was approved by Bechtel. Dual induction logging was conducted in 27 boreholes.

2.12.4 Three Arm Caliper Caliper logs record borehole diameter. Changes in borehole diameter are related to boring construction, such as casing or drilling bit size, and to fracturing or caving along the borehole wall. Because borehole diameter commonly affects log response, the caliper log may be useful in the analysis of other geophysical logs. The caliper tool consists of three arms that are spring-loaded so as to contact the borehole sides. The movement of the arms is converted into a voltage recorded by the probe. The caliper probe also has a natural gamma tool that records a second set of natural gamma logs. In the case of the angle borings, the mechanical caliper tool could not maintain contact with the borehole walls due to the angle. Thus, the caliper log data Page 2-15 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 26 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 for the inclined boreholes, although included in the GEOVision report for completeness, is unreliable.

2.12.5 Acoustic Televiewer/Boring Deviation Survey The High Resolution Acoustic Televiewer (HiRAT) was used to obtain acoustic images of the borehole walls. The acoustic televiewer probe measures amplitude and travel time of an ultrasonic beam that is reflected from the borehole wall. A three-axis accelerometer enclosed in the probe allows determination of borehole inclination and deviation from vertical. A fluxgate magnetometer allows determination of magnetic north. Processed data are referenced to true north by applying the appropriate declination (5.17 to 5.19 west for the Clinch River site). The acoustic televiewer and deviation survey work was performed in accordance with GEOVision Procedures contained in the AMEC Geotechnical Work Plan. The use of the acoustic televiewer is limited to the portion of the open boreholes filled with water or drilling mud.

Acoustic televiewer and boring deviation survey logging was conducted in 27 boreholes.

2.12.6 Suspension P-S Velocity Logging Suspension P-S velocity logging was performed in 27 boreholes using the OYO suspension PS logging system. The system directly determines the average shear and compression velocities of a 3.28-foot segment of the soil/rock column surrounding the boring by measuring the elapsed time between arrivals of a wave propagating upward through the soil/rock column.

Measurements of compression (P) and shear (S) wave velocity were recorded at 1.64-foot intervals as the probe was slowly lowered into the borehole. The suspension P-S logging was conducted in accordance with GEOVision procedures as contained in the AMEC Work Plan for Geotechnical Services.

2.12. 7 Temperature I Conductivity Logging The temperature conductivity probe provides a continuous depth-based measurement of temperature and conductivity. The temperature I conductivity logging was completed to assist in identifying zones of potential water flow in boreholes. The temperature I conductivity logging was completed in the water-filled portion of selected boreholes using a probe manufactured by Robertson Geologging and AMEC Project Procedure CRP 4, Rev. 2. In boreholes where the temperature I conductivity logging was performed, it was the first of the downhole suite of tests to be performed. Prior to performing the temperature I conductivity logging, the borehole was flushed with potable water. Logging was performed after a minimum period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after flushing in order to allow the borehole fluid to stabilize. Temperature I conductivity logging was performed in 15 boreholes. The temperature I conductivity probe also has a natural gamma tool.

The recorded natural gamma data are plotted on the appropriate borehole logs.

Page 2-16 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 27 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 3.0 TEST METHODS- OBSERVATION WELLS AND FIELD PERMEABILITY 3.1 Well Installation Forty-four observation wells were installed as part of the overall subsurface exploration program. The observation wells were installed by AMEC subcontractors TriState Drilling and M&W Drilling using Tennessee licensed well drillers. Figures 2 and 3 show the as-installed locations. Table 3.1 provides coordinates, elevations, and well construction information for each well. At locations where a two well cluster was installed, the shallowest observation well identification contains the suffix "U" and the deeper observation well identification contains the suffix "L". At locations where a three well cluster was installed, the shallower observation well identification contains the suffix "U", the intermediate observation well identification contains the suffix "L", and the deepest observation well identification contains the suffix "D".

Seven of the 44 observation wells were installed specifically for the aquifer pumping test. The well identifier for each of the pumping test wells contains the prefix "PT". Installation details for the seven pumping test wells are provided in Section 3.7.

The original field exploration program included the installation of 30 observation wells, (not including the seven pumping test wells). Ultimately, the program was expanded to include 37 observation wells (not including the seven pumping test wells) with the changes as follows:

• Wells OW-409U and OW-409L were added to the program to provide additional data in the area between the two proposed power blocks.

• After installation, groundwater contamination was identified in well OW-422L. As a result of the contamination, control of the three-well OW-422 cluster was turned over to TVA, and additional work for the OW-422 cluster (development, slug testing, groundwater sampling and long term monitoring) was removed from AMEC's scope of work via an SDDR. Well installation schematics for OW-422U, OW-422L and OW-422D are included in Appendix E.1. It should be noted that elevations and depths for wells in the OW 422 cluster are approximate due to limited access to these wells by AMEC personnel.

• Two well clusters were added to the program to replace the OW-422 cluster. Well cluster OW-428 (three wells) and OW 429 (two wells) are the designated replacement well clusters.

Observation wells were installed in accordance with the Bechtel Engineering Specification and AMEC's Geotechnical Work Plan. The well-construction details are shown on the Observation Well Installation Records in Appendix E.1.

The observation well depths and screen intervals were specified by the Bechtel Site Representative after review of completed adjacent geotechnical borehole records and available Page 3-1 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 28 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 downhole testing data. Boreholes for the observation wells were advanced using air rotary drilling techniques with a nominal 6 to 8-inch outside diameter extending to the top of rock.

After rock was encountered, the boring was extended to the final termination depth in rock using a downhole air hammer bit with a nominal 6-inch outside diameter. Steel or PVC casing was used to stabilize the upper portions of the boreholes as needed. An attempt was made to remove all casing but in some wells the casing could not be removed due to either the depth of the casing or because the casing was needed to maintain the stability of the upper portion of the hole while setting the well. Where the casing was not removed, the casing was instead grouted in place.

Upon reaching the designated depth for a well, the drill tools were removed from the borehole and a capped solid PVC sump section was connected to machine-slotted PVC screen casing, which was then connected to solid PVC riser as the well was set to the bottom of the borehole.

Stainless steel centralizers were installed just above the well screen and at nominal 50-foot spacing along the length of the solid PVC riser, as needed. The borehole annulus was then filled with DSI No. 2 Well Sand installed to a minimum of 2 feet above the top of the screened interval creating the filter pack. A minimum of three feet of bentonite chips or bentonite slurry was then installed above the filter pack to create the well seal. A cement/bentonite grout mixture was then placed from the top of the bentonite seal to the ground surface in each well location by the tremie method. The cement-bentonite grout mixture used was in accordance with the Specification.

The well installations were completed with a lockable, steel protective well cover installed over the top of the PVC riser casing. The steel cover was embedded approximately two feet into the grouted annulus and extended approximately three feet above grade. A removable, screw-type compression well cap was installed on the well riser casing. A concrete protective pad, two feet square and six inches thick, was placed around each well cover. The pad was installed such that it extended partially above the ground surface with the top surface sloped away from the well. Two seep holes were drilled in the steel well covers, just above the top of the concrete pad, to allow water that may collect in the annulus between the riser casing and well cover to drain out. The top of the riser casing was notched and marked in permanent ink to establish a reference mark for water level measurements. The well covers were painted and labeled with the well designation number.

After well installation activities were completed AMEC surveyors determined the as-built location, elevation of the top of well riser casing reference mark, and the elevation of the concrete pad installed around the well for the installed observation wells. This data is included in the Survey Report (Appendix A) and on the well installation records in Appendix E.1.

Page 3-2 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 29 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 3.2 Well Development After well installation was completed, wells were developed by M&W Drilling personnel and observed by an AMEC rig geologists or technician. The wells were developed using either a submersible Grundfos submersible pump, an air driven bladder pump, or a Waterra inertial pump. Well development was generally performed along the length of the well screen. During the development process the pump was cycled off and/or lifted up and down to create a surge effect in the well. Wells were considered developed when the purged water was relatively clear and visually free of suspended sediment, and recovery rate stabilized between purge cycles (maximized yield). If feasible, a minimum of approximately ten well volumes (saturated borehole-volumes) was removed from each well during development.

At some locations, the wells were observed to purge dry relatively quickly. Where feasible, development on these wells continued after the wells had a chance to recover over multiple days.

In three wells the water level at the time of development did not cover the screen interval but the well produced sufficient water to develop the well in the saturated zone of the filter pack. Wells partially developed due to low water are:

• OW-420L

• OW-421U

• OW-421L In two wells, the water level at the time of attempted development was not sufficient to complete partial development. Wells not developed are:

• OW-202U

• OW-420U Development was completed over the length of the screen for all wells except for the five wells listed above. In each case the AMEC representative recorded development activities on field forms and the Bechtel site representative approved termination of development activities in each well. Well development data is included in Appendix E.2.

3.3 Packer Testing Packer testing was completed in 12 borings completed adjacent to specified well cluster locations. The packer tests were completed at intervals assigned by Bechtel based on the results of coring and available downhole testing. Packer testing was performed to assist Bechtel in selecting screen intervals for the adjacent wells and to provide information to be used for evaluating hydraulic conductivity. Borings in which packer testing was completed are identified in Table 2.1.

Page 3-3 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 30 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 Packer testing was completed in accordance with AMEC Project Procedure CRP Packer Pressure Testing in Boreholes, Rev. 5. The packer testing assembly was configured for use in a borehole drilled with "H" size coring equipment. The packer testing assembly provided for a test interval of approximately 7.5 feet. The two packer assemblies, one above and one below the test interval were each approximately 24 inches in length. Compressed nitrogen gas was used to inflate the packers.

Three pressure transducers were located on the packer test assembly, one above the test interval, one below the test interval and one within the test interval. Data from the pressure transducers was used to evaluate the packer seal prior to testing and to monitor pressures while flow was introduced to the test interval. An additional transducer was utilized to measure and record barometric pressure during testing.

Water flow for the packer testing was measured using a Master Meter Model 1344 water meter and a stopwatch to establish flowrate. Testing was supported with a Mobile B-59 truck mounted drill rig that was used to raise and lower the packer assembly and to pump water for the packer testing.

Five test pressures were identified for each interval. The test pressure sequence for each test interval was as follows: 1/3 Po, 2/3 Po, Po, % Po, Po, where Po is the maximum test pressure calculated from the following formula:

Po= ((A+B*1) + (C*0.57))

Where Po = Maximum test pressure calculated for each test interval A= Depth to water table from datum B= Surface gage height above datum C= Distance from water table to center of test interval During the test, the flow volume was recorded manually on project data sheets and the water pressure for the transducers was stored on the transducers and then downloaded to the data logger. Each test was continued until at least five pressure readings at the same flow rate were observed. In cases where the specified pressure could not be reached at a flow rate of 100 gallons per minute, or where there was little or no flow observed, the test sequence could be terminated at the direction of the Bechtel site representative.

Appendix E.3 contains the results of the Packer testing including:

Page 3-4 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 31 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014

• A summary table indicating intervals tested (Table E.3.1)

• Plots of flow versus time for intervals tested

• Copies of field data sheets Copies of electronic files of transducer data for each tested interval are provided under separate cover as supporting information for this data report. A listing of file names for each test interval is included on the last page of the set of data sheets for each test.

3.4 Slug Testing Field permeability testing (slug testing) was attempted for all wells except for the seven wells designated for the pumping test (with "PT" designation). Slug testing was performed by AMEC personnel in accordance with Section 8 of ASTM D 4044-96 (2002). When tested, both rising and falling head tests were performed. When feasible, pneumatic testing equipment was used for the slug testing. The testing equipment for the pneumatic testing consisted of a Midwest Geosciences Model HI-K test setup. The model HI-K equipment, as delivered, provides for only running a rising head test. To allow completion of pneumatic falling head tests, the equipment was modified to allow application of vacuum to the system.

Solid slug test methods were used where the water level in the well at the time of the test did not cover the screened interval. Solid slug methods were also used when there was difficulty maintaining pressure with the pneumatic system and where the recovery rate was anticipated to be slow. Using the solid slug for slow recovery wells allowed the wells to be secured during the test recovery period.

Slug testing could not be performed in some assigned wells due to low water levels in the well at the time of testing. A minimum of approximately ten feet of water was needed in the well to accommodate the length of the solid slug and instrumentation. Wells where slug testing was not completed due to low water conditions are: OW-202U, OW-420U, and OW-429L.

Water levels were recorded in both the pneumatic and solid slug tests using an In-Situ Model 700 Troll transducer. A minimum of five minutes of water level data was recorded prior to the start of the test. For the pneumatic tests, initial data collection extended through stabilization of the water level after application of pressure or vacuum. Once the initial data collection period was complete, the transducer was reprogrammed to collect data using the step linear function with an initial data collection interval of 0.25 seconds. The data collection interval was programmed to increase as the recovery period progressed.

Page 3-5 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 32 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 Preliminary slug test results were reviewed in the field by AMEC and Bechtel personnel. In some cases, after this initial review, a decision was made to rerun a test. In these cases, only the replacement test data is reported.

The results for the slug testing are reported in Appendix E.4. The Appendix contains a summary table (E.4-1), information sheet for tests at each well; plots for the initial data, the rising test and the falling test; a schematic for each well and copies of field data sheets.

Copies of electronic files for transducer data for each test are provided under separate cover as supporting information for this data report.

3.5 Water Level Measurements 3.5.1 Initial Water Level Monitoring AMEC representatives completed initial water level monitoring by measuring the depth to the water level in each developed observation well at approximately weekly intervals from September 24, 2013 to December 20, 2013. These measurements were collected using an electronic water-level meter and are relative to the surveyed reference mark at the top of each observation well. Measurements were made to the nearest 0.01 foot. The date and time of the measurements was recorded for each observation. Appendix 1.1 contains the results of the initial water level monitoring.

3.5.2 Long Term Water Level Monitoring AMEC's scope of services includes a continuation of the initial water level monitoring for a period of two years starting in December 2013. The long term water level monitoring program includes manual water level measurements in all observation wells and the collection of water level data from pressure transducers installed in selected observation wells.

The manual water level readings will be taken on a monthly basis for one year. After completion of 12 monthly readings, the reading interval will be extended to three months for four additional reading events.

Pressure transducers for long term monitoring of water level were installed in thirteen observation wells selected by Bechtel. The collection of transducer data was coordinated with data collection for the aquifer pumping test, therefore additional data collected as part of the background data collection for the aquifer pumping test is included, as appropriate in this data report. Ultimately, all wells identified for long term transducer installation will be fitted with In-Situ Troll Model 500 pressure transducers. Data from the pressure transducers will be downloaded at the time of the long term manual water level readings.

The wells identified to receive long term pressure transducers are as follows:

Page 3-6 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 33 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014

• OW-101U

• OW-101L

• OW-1010

• OW-202U

• OW202L

• OW-2020

• OW-409U

• OW-409L

• OW-417U

• OW-417L

• OW-423U

• OW-423L

• OW-4230 Appendix 1.1 contains manually collected water level data collected through February 18, 2014.

Data files from transducers collected through February 18, 2014 have been provided to Bechtel electronically under separate cover. A listing of data files provided as of February 18, 2014 is included as Table 1.2-1 in Appendix 1.2.

Water level data collected after February 18, 2014 will be provided to Bechtel in a series of reports prepared after each monthly or quarterly data collection event.

3.6 Groundwater Sampling 3.6.1 Geochemical Sampling Groundwater samples were obtained from thirteen observation wells for the purpose of geochemical characterization of groundwater at the site. Wells to be sampled were identified by Bechtel and provided to AMEC in Laboratory Assignment 8. The observation wells sampled are as follows:

• OW-101L <1l

• OW-202L

• OW-401L

• OW-409L

• OW-409U

• OW-415U

• OW-416L

• OW-417L

• OW-418U

• OW-419U Page 3-7 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 34 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014

• OW-420L <1l

• OW-421L

• OW-423U 1

<l Samples for duplicate testing were obtained in wells OW-101 Land OW-420L Water sampling was performed in accordance with the Bechtel Specification. Water samples were obtained using either a Grundfos submersible pump or an air driven bladder pump. Wells were purged prior to sampling until a minimum of three saturated well volumes was withdrawn and parameters, as measured with a flow-through cell were deemed stable based on the following criteria:

• pH=+/- 0.1 pH units

• Dissolved oxygen=+/- 0.3 mg/liter

• Specific conductance = +/- 3 percent

• Oxidation reduction potential = +/- 10 mv

• Turbidity = +/- 1 nephelometric unit or+/- 10 percent if greater than 10 NT Us Results of the field parameter tests listed above plus water temperature are presented in Table 3.2.

In some wells, the wells were pumped dry prior to purging three volumes and recovery was not sufficient to allow additional purging after the first volume was removed. In these wells, low flow sampling methods as described in EPA SESDPROC-301-R3, Section 4.5 were utilized.

Water samples were placed into sample jars supplied by the testing laboratory. Sample jars contained preservatives as appropriate for the assigned testing. Samples were shipped to the testing lab via overnight carrier in coolers supplied by the lab. Temperature control of the samples was maintained by placing ice in coolers during the sampling and prior to sealing the coolers for shipment.

Testing of the groundwater samples was completed by Test America, St. Louis, MO. A description of the laboratory geochemical testing of groundwater samples is included in Section 5.2. AMEC conducted a data qualification review of the laboratory test results for acceptance; that report is included in Appendix H.1. Results of the laboratory geochemical testing are summarized on Table 5.13 and included in Appendix H.2.

3.6.2 Groundwater Sampling for Kd Adsorption Testing Groundwater samples were obtained to support Kd adsorption testing in 10 observation wells as assigned by Bechtel in Laboratory Assignment 8. The observation wells sampled for Kd adsorption testing are as follows:

Page 3-8 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 35 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014

• OW-101L

• OW-202L

• OW-409L

• OW-409U

• OW-415U

• OW-416L

• OW-417L

• OW-418U

• OW-419U

• OW-420L

• OW-423U In wells OW-202L and OW-416L two individual samples were collected to support testing of two different rock samples.

The groundwater samples to support Kd testing were collected after the collection of the geochemical samples as described in Section 3.6.1. The groundwater samples for Kd testing each consisted of two 1-liter samples. In observation wells OW-202L and OW-416L, two samples were collected (4 liters total).

After collection, the groundwater samples for Kd testing were placed in the sample storage facility at the site for temporary storage. No preservatives were used and the samples were not cooled with ice during storage. The samples were later transported to the AMEC laboratory in Durham, NC, and were ultimately shipped to Argonne National Laboratory with the rock samples designated for Kd adsorption testing.

3.7 Aquifer Pumping Test The results of the aquifer pumping test will be provided under separate cover as a supplement to the Data Report.

Page 3-9 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 36 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 4.0 SAMPLE PRESERVATION AND STORAGE 4.1 On-Site Sample Storage A sample storage facility was established by TVA prior to AMEC mobilization to the site. The storage facility consists of two climate-controlled, lockable trailers. The trailers are ground-supported with dimensions of approximately 40 feet by 8 feet. AMEC installed and maintained an alarm system in both trailers that monitored power status and high and low temperature settings. The alarm system included a mobile phone link to automatically alert AMEC personnel of power failure or abnormal temperature conditions. The sample storage facility was maintained as controlled access under AMEC control until the samples were turned over to TVA.

Samples were transported daily from the field to the sample storage facility by the rig geologists/engineers. SPT samples, upon retrieval and characterization, were placed into labeled glass jars with screw-type lids, and were transported in compartmentalized cardboard boxes or plastic bins; each labelled to reflect its contents.

Rock cores were transported in wooden core boxes and maintained in a horizontal position during transport and storage. Prior to placement of rock core samples, each core box was prepared by affixing project information to the inside and outside of the lid and by lining the boxes with plastic sheets to reduce moisture loss from the core samples. Each core box was labeled to reflect its contents.

Undisturbed (intact) tube samples were temporarily capped in the field and transported in a vertical orientation to the sample storage facility. Once at the sample storage facility, the tubes were cleaned and sealed. Undisturbed tube samples were stored in a custom rack that maintained the tubes in a secure and vertical position.

Bulk samples were placed in plastic buckets secured with snap-on lids. Buckets were labelled to reflect the contents.

All samples entering the on-site sample storage facility were recorded on an inventory log by the rig geologist/engineer or site manager/lead geologist. All sample transport, labelling, and storage were performed in accordance with the Bechtel Engineering Specification and AMEC Work Plan.

Samples were reviewed by the lead geologist at the sample storage facility, and were then stacked for convenience. For those samples selected for removal from the sample storage facility for laboratory analysis, a chain-of-custody form was completed.

Page 4-1 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 37 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 Custody of all samples was transferred from AMEC to a representative of TVA on November 13, 2013. Copies of the chain-of-custody record related to the transfer from AMEC to TVA, soil and rock sample inventory sheets, and a photographic record of the physical placement of the samples remain with the samples at the site.

4.2 Preservation and Shipping of Soil and Rock Samples for Laboratory Testing Samples of soil and rock obtained for borings and test pits were shipped to AMEC laboratories in Charlotte, NC; Raleigh, NC; and Atlanta, GA. Soil samples were packaged and shipped in accordance with methods of ASTM D 4220 for Group B samples (SPT samples and bulk samples) and Group C (intact samples). Preparation of rock core samples for shipping is described below. Rock samples were also shipped to GeoTesting Express, Inc, an AMEC subcontractor. As directed by Bechtel, samples were also shipped to CTL Group, Inc, a subcontractor for Lettis Consultants International, Inc; and Argonne National Laboratories, a Subcontractor for Bechtel Power Corporation. All samples were shipped under chain-of custody.

4.2.1 Rock Samples Bechtel provided Laboratory Assignments indicating boring numbers, sample intervals and assigned testing for rock samples. A listing of Laboratory Assignments is included in Section 5.1. AMEC personnel reviewed each of the assigned intervals and if found acceptable, the sample was prepared for shipping. If necessary, the selected interval was cut from the core sample using a diamond blade wet saw. If the assigned interval was observed to be unsuitable for the assigned testing, AMEC personnel, with coordination with the Bechtel Site Representative selected an alternate sample interval for testing.

With the exception of the samples selected for "special care" (described below), each rock core sample was prepared for shipping by completing the following steps:

• The sample identification and the top and bottom of the core section were marked on the sample

• The sample was wrapped in stretch plastic wrap with the ends tucked

• The sample was wrapped with at least two layers of bubble wrap packing material

• An identification label was placed on the packing material and another layer of plastic stretch wrap was placed around the sample

• Prepared samples were placed in sturdy plastic bins, fitted with padding along the sides and bottom, in preparation for shipping.

• A spacer was placed in core box in the space previously occupied by the removed sample. The spacer was labeled to indicate the sample was removed for testing.

Page 4-2 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 38 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 During the process of sample preparation, Bechtel identified seven rock core samples for special care preparation. These samples were prepared in accordance with ASTM 05079-08, Section 7.5.2.2. Preparation of these samples involved wrapping the samples in a stretch plastic wrap followed by a wrap of aluminum foil. The samples were then sealed with micro-crystalline wax. After sealing with wax, an identification label was affixed to the sample and the sample wrapped in bubble wrap. For some samples specified for special care preparation, Bechtel specified that a adjacent section of core be prepared using the standard method. The samples prepared with the special care process and the corresponding adjacent samples, if selected, are listed in Table 4.3 Rock samples assigned for testing in an AMEC laboratory were transported to the appropriate laboratory by AMEC personnel, transporting the prepared shipping containers. For samples requiring shipping by commercial carrier, the shipping containers were prepared with additional packing and shipped via an overnight carrier. All rock samples were shipped under AM EC Chain of Custody procedures.

At the request of Bechtel, AMEC prepared five rock core samples for Lettis Consultants International (LCI), a Bechtel subcontractor, to be tested by CTL Group, Skokie, IL. The samples were shipped under AMEC Chain of Custody procedures but the testing of the samples was at the direction of LCI. A list of the samples shipped for LCI is included in Table 4.2. The test results for these samples will be reported by LCI in a separate report.

AMEC also prepared and shipped soil, rock, and groundwater samples to be used for Kd adsorption testing by Argonne National Laboratory. The Kd adsorption testing is directed and under the control of Bechtel. Procedures for sampling the groundwater are described in Section 3.6.2. Procedures for preparation of soil and rock samples for Kd adsorption testing are included in Section 5.2. A listing of samples shipped to Argonne National Laboratory for Kd adsorption testing is included on Table 4.1.

Page 4-3 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 39 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 5.1 Description of Testing Bechtel selected disturbed (split-spoon), intact (tube) and bulk soil samples plus rock core samples for laboratory testing. In addition, Bechtel selected observation wells from which groundwater samples were to be collected and tested for geochemical parameters (non-safety-related testing). Specific testing requirements were provided to AMEC via Bechtel-prepared Laboratory Test Assignments. Laboratory Testing Assignments issued for the project are as follows:

Assignment Number Issue Date Testing Included Laboratory Test Assignment No. 1 Rev 1 10/16/13 Rock Testing Laboratory Test Assignment No. 2 Rev 1 10/17/13 Rock Testing Laboratory Test Assignment No. 3 9/19/13 Rock Testing Laboratory Test Assignment No. 4 9/19/13 Soil and Rock for Kd Testing Laboratory Test Assignment No. 5 9/24/13 Direct Shear (Rock)

Laboratory Test Assignment No. 6 9/20/13 Rock Samples for LCI Laboratory Test Assignment No. 7 9/24/13 Soil and Rock Testing Laboratory Test Assignment No. 8 9/30/13 Geochemical Parameters Laboratory Test Assignment No. 9 10/18/13 Rock Testing (Special Care)

Laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM standards or other standards, where applicable. An AMEC Technical Lead prepared Work Instructions to accomplish the testing shown on the Laboratory Test Assignment sheets provided by Bechtel.

Samples were transported under chain-of-custody from the site sample storage location to the appropriate AMEC or subcontractor laboratory as described in Section 4. Laboratory testing was performed at several AMEC Laboratories and at AMEC QA-approved subcontractor locations.

The testing locations are summarized in Table 5.1.

5.2 Test Procedures Tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM or other procedures listed below.

Deviations from procedures, if found necessary, were submitted to, and approved by, Bechtel.

• Index Tests (soil) o Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass -

ASTM D 2216-10 Page 5-1 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 40 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 o Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Density (Unit Weight) of Soil Specimens- ASTM D 7263-09 o Particle-Size Analysis of Soils - ASTM D 422-63 (2007) (for analysis including hydrometer) o Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis - ASTM D 6913-04 (2009) (for analysis not including hydrometer) o Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils- ASTM D 4318-10 (Method A)

• Shear Strength Tests (soil) o Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils - ASTM D 2850-03a (2007) o Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils - ASTM D 4767-11

• Other Physical Property Tests (soil) o Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/fe(2,700 kN-m/m 3)) ASTM D 1557-12

• Laboratory Tests (rock) o Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass -

ASTM D 2216-10 o Standard Test Method for Slake Durability of Shales and Similar Weak Rocks -

ASTM D4644-08 o Standard Test Method for Rapid Determination of Carbonate Content of Soils. -

ASTM D 4373-02 (2007) o Standard Practice for Preparing Rock Core as Cylindrical Test Specimens and Verifying Conformance to Dimensional and Shape Tolerances- ASTM D 4543-08 o Test Method for Performing Laboratory Direct Shear Strength Tests of Rock Specimens Under Constant Normal Force- ASTM D 5607-08 o Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimens under Varying States of Stress and Temperatures- ASTM D 7012-10 o Suggested Methods for Determining Water Content, Porosity, Density, Absorption and Related Properties, Part 1 -ISRM, 2006

• Laboratory Tests (Groundwater) o Total Dissolved Solids- EPA Method 160.1 o Inorganic ions- EPA Method 300.0 o Cations- EPA Method 6020A o Alkalinity- EPA Method 310.1 o Ammonia- EPA Method 350.1 Page 5-2 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 41 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 o Nitrate/nitrite- EPA Method 300.0 o Cation/anion balance- standard laboratory procedure (calculation only)

In addition to the procedures listed above, AMEC prepared soil and rock samples for Kd testing that will be performed by Argonne National Laboratory under contract to Bechtel. The sample preparation for rock samples, performed in accordance with Bechtel Specifications, consisted of crushing each specified rock core sample to produce a minimum of 250 grams of material having a diameter of approximately 1 centimeter and a minimum of 250 grams of material having a diameter of approximately 1 millimeter. The core samples were crushed in the AMEC Durham laboratory using manual methods. Crushed samples were passed through a nest of appropriately sized sieves to collect the selected sample sizes. For the soil sample, only the 1 millimeter size sample was prepared by sieving the selected soil sample. The prepared samples were placed into appropriately labeled containers along with the samples described in Section 3.6.2 and shipped to Argonne National Laboratory under AMEC Chain of Custody procedures. A listing of samples shipped to Argonne National Laboratory is included in Table 4.1.

5.3 Reporting The geotechnical laboratory test reports consisting of individual test data and results sheets for soil index, soil moisture density, and soil shear strength tests are included in Appendices F.1 to F.3. Results for Resonant Column Torisional Shear testing on soil samples will be presented in a separate submittal as a supplement to this Data Report. Results of laboratory testing of rock samples are included in Appendices G.1 to G.6. Results of groundwater geochemical sampling, including the AMEC data qualification review report and the laboratory reports from Test America as accepted by AMEC, are included in Appendix H.

Tables summarizing laboratory test results are included as follows:

Table 5.2 Summary of Soil Index Test Results Table 5.3 Summary of Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test Results - Soil Table 5.4 Summary of Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test Results- Soil Table 5.5 Summary of Moisture- Density Testing -Soil Table 5.6 Summary of Direct Shear Test Results - Rock Table 5.7 Summary of Slake Durability Test Results- Rock Table 5.8 Summary of Unconfined Compression Test Results- Rock Table 5.9 Summary of Unconfined Compression with Stress Strain Test Results- Rock Table 5.10 Comparison of Rock Pressuremeter Shear Modulus and Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results Table 5.11 Summary of Carbonate Content Testing - Rock Table 5.12 Summary of Rock Unit Weight, Moisture Content and Specific Gravity Table 5.13 Summary of Groundwater Geochemistry Test Results Page 5-3 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 42 of82

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Testing, Rev 4 AMEC Project No. 6468-13-1072 Clinch River SMR Project October 16, 2014 6.0 References Stockdale, P. B. 1951. Geologic conditions at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10) area relevant to the disposal of radioactive waste. OR0-58. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.

Lee, R. R., and R. H. Ketelle. 1988. Subsurface geology of the Chickamauga Group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNUTM-10749. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Hatcher, R. D. Jr., et al. 1992. Status Report on the geology of the Oak Ridge Reservation.

ORNUTM-12074. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Page 6-1 ame Clinch River Data Report Rev. 4 CRP-1112.16 Page 43 of82

P:\Energy\Projecta\Bechtel\6468 13 1072 Clinch River SMR\Data Report Rov A\Flgure 1.dwg Wed, OS Mar 201~ - 8:58am roya.rohle "tl I>>

(Q n>

t 0

co N

R.R. I DATE: JANUARY 2014 II FIGURE

.. DRAWN:

SITE LOCATION PLAN ame CLINCH RIVER SMR PROJECT I ENG CHECK: SCALE: N.T.S.

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. OAK RIDGE, TN I 1 4021 STIRRUP CREEK DRIVE , SUITE 100 APPROVAL: Ql)v JOB No. : 6468-13-1072 DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA I

REFERENCE:

ARCGIS . I

-~~---~--~-- - - -- ----~---------------

---

"'- - -=---7 OSI'()f!I,I,I,I S.((l .OC*07EST O 011*101 __ __ ________________ ::-:-:-

0 0

0 ~!

0 :I ~ ~ ~!

0 0.:1

i :i  ; wi 0 lmA IICil N<l.E 0 I ZJ.Ill I FIOTATJONNnE

>- *"- ~~~- -~--

'-' -t- * .......

"'0(") 0 1

':\..~ il Ill= 8 ~~

(Q ::I \ I!

~ n

.j:o.:::T ~~ N cn:;u li _ __ __ I__ ___ _I_

0 -*

-~

co..,

u* **L~- I Nc Ill

.£~

S' ~~

~ _N_5_ll0!10_ I I "C

,,i~ I 0 .u  ! I

I. I

~~  !

~ I

.,..::::  !! _, __ I

• "-~- .I .

---,- .I - *--- - --r -

(")

I

u it t I

-~r I "P I I

..... ~ -! I I

..... t i N ___ I_ l _______ _j __ --- - ---~-

!!,_11_5~-

lJ

"' i*~!

jo I*

't6 I N ~71500 I I l!ol,, I I tiQlEi l lH!SK:li'NKI:AI[$>

Sl.ll[ Pl¥£C!IDI(JH.IT{S NJO!J HJO TOft:!&( !US TEth

~~ O.(VlTKINSNA\'088

• ~7IXXI

~

n, n ,--*-*-*---r -

l~~-(1(1001 2 . 2~*000<Y*I))II)-(I(J)Ctl SIET:IIS2 ii l . 2~HOO-lPS-CYOO

• OOOOI SP£Cf(A!Qi f(fl IN'tlSIIG~II:); If()

i! TESTNI

!~

z<i .!!.~~-- LEW!<

i; ---'-------- - j£ ~

~g

• 11'*1 [WCTIOfl,lrt IICJI<<>

• FtRf't)OCU.M TO ST~

~ llf'-1 IMCIOIN.BCIIIC*Polli.lli.RtOSn;M f{ Q OW*I(fJSDIYAII]j'IEU

~~ II~ [81 E XISTN:T~~Silii !OWERSIMOC"TIH:

HI ----- I

-j~l ';r -:) SRS*l tSliSI<< R(flUICI O< U ( l

~; G--) 511l*11SliSMICIIEfl(CTIJNLN:J I

~.

IGJRE2 ~

i~ I BORING LOCATION PLAN I h

~~ -~~-~~- 1 l~ -r-

S:s

~: 7, i::

~~ I *"-~ -- - ------

!i 1

!i

!~ rl-1 ., 1--1:::;:1 -

~.

~~ I _ II_ ~_ l!l~l:ll 'i' n Wl@W~~ GOIJI~@lli.U~@IIl FREOERICK,N .IRYLJJ IO

~~ TVA

s CLINCH RIVER PROJECT I

I I Ifo*

~~ ,-- ---,-

0~f L-------~"-------,----------~.-----------,----------,,~----------,----------,b'-~"*u*-~~"n~~n<,oo~aoooc~~.~~~~'*or~~o~A,-,,-----------,-

---

,,,----------,,----------,,,-----~----r------L-----.---w"'~'"~~

0 0

"' ~~ : !oR*r os. oaseRvAllON wELLs AND lEST PITS 0

0 I

6 0 IQTA!IIll AIQ(

21.80

'? ~TATICH AIG.E u ,~ .......~

"lJC') 60 I>>=

(Q  :::l 0 ... ~

n> n ~-r

~:::T N cn;:o

.:i ~~

0 -*

-;§ ~i co..,

Nc ~~

£i

!!l. ;j I>>

~i TABLE 2

• SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY

~ i~ NORTHIN~TjTEASTING I NORTHING j oEASTING

"'C SRS-1 2~

0 .H SRS-2 570729 2448337 57 1162 2~~8153

I. 2448278 42 ..... "" ,..,..,

'"""" """' 2-'48415

o ~~

n> 2.. 47733

!Z TABlE 3 - SBSMIC REflECTION SUR\Ia' START EHD

~

SRL NUMBER NORTHING EASTING NORTHING EASTING C') SRL-1 57 1~1 ~ 2448128 568908 2449766

o if S RI.-2 570543 2<<61122 589477 2448346

~-

"ll ~i N

it!~

en ,,

f~

~f

j<;

H!; t CRD 9(1'111 -~*rs*

STATE ptM( COOIDI.ITES IOO&J 4ll0 TOKSSII IUS rtl ll

= [LlV~llOMS IUV066 1!h

J. W'T!CS M£ oASI.IlllfROII EX6TNO CJ!ru() SI.I!f".IC(.

i;

.H i~

!1.. 11'*11!1 18N()01'(l) WITlllf'PRODI"~!Uf!llrttT CI"I(ICASIIC H CA(lJTUifl l'l.lrCL

~

~

i! l 25Ee*OOCH'I-CI(l00*00001 F\OT F\NI

2. ~5 -DOO-Cl"-GO"O *OOOOI 8(RC PUll SlUT I {J" 1

• ' J. r..ti65-1l00- P5-tl"OO-OOOOI

~:ircs~~\:r,:

n l .tllllt\TOR'Il(Sft<<;

l! l.illtlll'

~i e

~~

~

• 11'*1 OHCTOI.II. Baiii!G* PDffiUll.III TOSTRII:[

~f i t~

~: ~ tl'*l [ftCIOI-IC.B!R-lG

~i 0 M'*IQBSDVAIIO'Ili(U

~! tiS~ EXISniGTR..wsMS~ JO'IOI STI'!UClU![

~a 3- -0  !:IIS*I ~19<<: A[flliCIICtl LKl

~.

G---E} 911.

• 1 l5tlSYC IUUCIICfllf( l if l!i "i ~

j;

i

~ ::

l~

.~~

'f:

g &r~.<,I ISSUI:D ,OftUS(

.g~

!~

~

~!;!:Ill Till ~@\'.!!'~Iii

. ... .. *-*=*-

i:!llif!fl@i!£ 1i'~!l~

fR[IJE:RICI<. t.l.ltHYlN()

~~

.:i TVA

~:

CLINCH RIVER PROJECT

~~ BORING PL AN A:

• '"';~ SHEET 2 OF 2

~i vvu-~..o 1- uu lu -vvuvL 1 l R 7 1:: R~f\1 * ~PR-1?1=;1=; n Ar,l= .:1 n 1= .:1 i 1 ,.. ' '~~"' ~;~~