Text

Testimony of Tw Crosby,Cr Farrell & Lr West Addressing Joint Intervenors Contention 7 Re Groundwater Contamination.W/One Oversize Figure.Related Correspondence
	ML20205J722
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	02/24/1986
From:	Crosby T, Farrell C, West L; BECHTEL GROUP, INC., GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20205J720	List: ML20205J717; ML20205J722; ML20205J747; ML20205J754; ML20205J765;
References
	OL, NUDOCS 8602260373
	Download: ML20205J722 (64)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:,- + o 1-ED CORRE,sPONDM February 0Yhfk986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W FEB 25 P2:32 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFitt c 00CKEIiw.s :ta,iq' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ERANOi In the Matter of ) ) GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-424 (OL) ) 50-425 (OL) (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) l APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF THOMAS W. CROSBY, CLIFFORD R. FARRELL, AND LEWIS R. WEST ON CONTENTION 7 (GROUND-WATERJ We, Thomas W. Crosby, Clifford R. Farrell, and Lewis R. West, are geologists employed by Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc. Our business address in Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc., P. O. Box 3965, San Francisco, California 94119. Summaries of our professional qualifications and experience are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C, which are incorporated herein by reference. We have been intimately involved with the hydro-geological exploration of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site since the beginning of the project. The purpose of this testimony in to address the topics pertaining to Joint Intervenors' Contention 7 which the f,hh22hD h T n

r I O Licensing Board designated for hearing in its November 12, 1985 l Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7 re 3roundwater Contamination). These topics I are: 1) the adequacy of geological / hydrological exploration; 2) the data on marl thickness and permeability; 3) the data on l l marl continuity; 4) the direction of ground-water flow; and 5) ground-water travel time. I. VEGP Geology and Hydrology l Plant Vogtle is located approximately 26 miles south-southeast of Augusta, Georgia, on the Coastal Plain of Georgia. See Figure 1. The plain is underlain by a sequence of sedimen-tary formations which have been deposited periodically be-ginning in the late Cretaceous period (approximately 90 million years ago) and continuing to the present. The deposition is l the result of repeated advance and recession of the Atlantic Ocean. This process has created a thick wedge of alternating and interfingering beds of sand, clay, marl, and limestone sed-iments atop a basement complex of older sedimentary, crystal-line, and metamorphic rocks. The sedimentary formations dip southeast, toward the Atlantic Ocean, at an angle slightly greater than the regional alope, as shown in Figure 2. l . - 1t. - -

O mA. %')4 .A. s.%, -%',, m.r.m. .l

n.,], m.

l8['k' (' t)'. t. ^ (#I ',' i 7s et ,q<.... i. y.,..ty ";cH..,. ,.,s j....%c,..>,l'it >T1: y eM. ' :V,,i ? > .c x., n.,. .v,s,.."l t s ,s' n [ . [f .n. o.. y :,. m,, m.. o IM s .,n, g, m.ww;,h.YIth.(',,'. 8 A i',pfta. -), 5.,hoh. ( w'\\'.$.kS0'. y .. !)lfi'i. s o h(b .k.:$,h.h> >.Y ',. .e

' N..: ~

'i iW. "d: 2 D ' p. r,. O. m y,9 pr.g e-i, Z,, ^'. o I. I l' .OII .y 1 ' 1,. 6,

Jo. $ t.,

r, p.,J. t y l a( O . ;,. J ::,1, s l g"'- },h 's.t \\ A 8-g\\ s l'u,f ,\\ 1 't '.1,, .i \\. Y .,,,8 t .s k 9 Eh 10,.1,. " " r e w

1. ).;l.'

N L' ,3 ) ,Q . i yi i.* 1 .u..,.., ..a a.,.I' h,'>U v. ,. ~ > : f } l;i/s *, g. *. ('g i. t, s'. . / . .s .ri.i g)\\*t. s.ip. s, c...ul,...u. a ;....\\ "%) '. -, ?, h*t,

T C

4 w s o .,. o,.,..n..-~

n., ;os c -

s s. 7 \\ N,n'y..j,,t,~ ",..i. 9 4 ' ' q '.l'i l s : ,( /.'.f,'.. r'IU h! s,

3. g ' %f \\

O Q 3 y 5 . H.s r." ; i', p.s. ic. < ' 9, i!. r *r. ) ff) n \\\\ . L q, i. \\, n s g @0,41h :.s n t ' :',, l'. : m.. o .. W,, Q. % s. 'jf 'g 3.'., ' 'Q.t,t': '* '.c / ' jO'.?r,,p",./ . i;[M,5 /ss e ( et 'O n, 3 ', j g '..,31,. ' ' 'l. p. ~.) f {' s,' '. s,; t s.- e , 10 /., ,,,...,/ s o '. I.,.s. 3." 1 s s I'.',,.,., ". s' s y 's .&s s yl, .N. \\ l .>l E y l!,$s.is ' h.Nl \\. q,' ' h ' \\ ' *. "r ) l, >l' \\ di s i s a..'l,,,t., h s'.. .'u,< phy* 'z , e f.s. t t o 3 4,, .s .-,, o il t,.i / , j.hq '% y# )f. t. ' g g '[g] g > %p e .. ' ' ' '/ i / * *o, p 4 g i f, ' h */ \\ iD. 6 ' '(( } R ',h\\ f ' N s'g \\l,g. ~' %r ll', , "l,' Q',',o,. ' 1 g,1 % /

~~) 5 '%'a'l~~
~~"'I I~~
~~,l. \\ y ' pii. I, f t'ut!.Vily.s\\I' l'ok ff,~~
p'r ([j). 4; p'0.' , '.\\ h : {' t, / s1 1 l ' h' v 'ty (Q? :,1-, 0l. > a;. i , * :,~ y.c.o ' r,s vwg ,'s)o ,[. r s - ie .p.o.., g v '.e r ' o i s= s l= ty p. I n, ts i/! '. un \\ s s n t +y. \\ i. s s b Q /* m., net ., %,.s /'i ..t s 0 ' t 4 In A ', Wg,)! ). i s [p' A / t i G CN O' g Q';,'f6'/, *,. i@ ',y {\\ i
~~d,l#/ 9//.;.b,',.}~~
fihijlf p M yiw 'Y, jYri" :g f.( <, [ { '.,.j(y'i ?' l: f I g h 'l-l. h Qi n n; <,', ' ' ~ 9.. V G. i ~ m~r ?,),3.s G.o\\ \\,'d %.,Ht A :>;. s 's i.,. e \\s
~~r.r m. 4~~
~ ',0 ';; s,s. <- p v s-ts . ?r .<*\\ f,v. 'f,' { L l 4"g.'jY k 0y i,' ~..j,,"d'! v -g g W... s.1, 3'g $f{.ts)%)'W, h T',r ) l>.' :.,' 40.\\.)' 1s r o p O, * *,, \\ *, t '.i 73 h o') ',= H nt)g.f'%g.y o,,' h", y,,/, f '+,<l:c y 't o ';<, p')'.'.,'<,- t. t s >/ N c We, 3. , 3s <: c& e.i,, E >s w we s 1 @,% i l's g,,'",> p.,N.n ' , '.. g' d\\ i.s , l, "./ r o u v ' Y W '\\l '('~',*;* * !.'.' i Gq'%s ,g, W lO/.; i '. n )4. f"" L *, 'b 'r:' >.. 'I. :1 a' .i u s ', L',. '. :,., , y q !,. n... o',b,,U:b' / ' ' l ' ' p, !,{t,,l s*s~ g"!s '4 ' *1 ",'. p;h i,.: t Z, l,.'~.~'s ~,l* o.', s's i.,s', 'y' $., (\\,> '; ' i {'ul' A, %. v .,s ' 'f.0., . ',' b .l.'. f.. ..y*o~' y y.i,', ,6,6;d '.o.g 1.l,,s ;*,s*=! ",<yi..l,n l S%. h, ;,. " h, !Ih h, ". \\ S,r' { " ;<,h. & ' ',a .f't ' ' 'e te .h o ,e .st' o %' > %,.,Q.4 ' ~' i ci'
~~E 3. 'so,'b',4. * *.s '. s~~
~~' +,) k r vti & Iil' \\. Q L \\ \\~~
~~f. f*.,y ' 'i. V' '~~
~~,'," L O. W f.'O 's o !';,'.",dd-p?.,~o'J,~~
~~1, %'n'yt N'~~
't ? < ((..' ',. :. ! 'f". }:[Q; lt ,"),.Q, y. ' % D Y so,. R , ', 'I v V'., MMR, %p..f:'4 H :. %'W% W \\.~ ' y&n.&, %vilo 7l & fi'. : d. Q *,'g.', Q@*c,o.' 4 2;:, t,4o 0 C' 4 W' *:. Md .m*: o r
~~x L ;e~~
~~),p. -~~
~~'%,%,sp\\v'**.A*I:o O , y,{ lm{ a 3'~~
~~m O~~
~~nm, . ' t~~
~~l n, / {,( se,r.a> \\;h i I.~~
~~( V';.hi d)t,, I;,t. g~*'.*'%,'.,**'. *. E.*r '.i,\\',~~
~~g/e *if.,7 q,s.,jc,%,,s.;'h(&~.,@p,',9i,,g,,.p..~~
'Q ln dj, ' ),4 4 r s f t. $z ' - '. .V5i /'#,' u.# s .e,, o e 'g,' 'g './ , 1 o [Q i O-Q, '. N' 8 n i) t '*s .h, * ' b,,':% a(. ' ',q.. s', ", i % ;., \\ ' li, 4 m m' 'L ;Ml b.uW,.? ";nst's 1 s~ W. 's$'.wM,.,t.,,,,,e,a,...,/',,,,,?, e,t.,, m. fp;p%.%, W,. '.C,k e & a,,e,:; Kib w c.,, c,: w -d-2 b .n. w @.M ,9.%yy % vo- ~*1 i 4,n o s, p l a # 1 *s.eI,,,. o*/.,,'.se,,,op.,*,','d,: M u,,, & i.n. e. e ', /,vn, e,. <s -w
~~h,,), h, m 3 o~~
oo ' \\,',s, n, s',, %, v,\\" s",, f.\\ *, '* *
~~l,'f,{,.i,,,.,., o..',.T.i. I *.~~
~~.m. + 1 ,l.0,,'.';..I('f,jllyf,.[, }{ \\ 0 s is .J n ,1 . *j n. s.\\ <g},. s s s~~
=*1a*
~~bs! .,,r.',l el,,,}',;;gn@>i. L ,o / m,,e, n,..M. v,., 6, ~~~
~~s. i e, :,.,~~
,i,, 6s in45<hpv e i s < s,,e,s t.,,# . i,.o. ,,p,o , \\. o.g.s s ..o g o. - i ,1., '. #.'l'eM;d[.(,*,\\o* '.h,'Me ((I.. o t ro h {,'),; u 'i i o o s s.'(s, day o ; -+b,, " r Yll, t ; du -#',[a",,,j, oj g, y.n"!V, ,W' *, r# .a., \\. a, p,,.,w:c. n,' ..,.,.,~'u m.,,~ 2 v ,x k>i h.+, h
~~.k,,'s,.~~
~~..'Y',.'..'., wl'h,.o.N'f.'>I,".. s.,,, ' a.' '.,.. ? y...n. I* o ro,s m"l Y,.w',.,ib k, I 1,'. v xn t ;. v w,,t p !/ w .u,, p a t~~
~~y'.. c ~,y,. s'.. s#~~
~~'lu 0 9*., p )j$, / y+m, '0 % y jd ., d.'n( 1 o,i o~~
~~o asr y(~~
~~o o . i. 8, '..1~~
~~f * $ t %,, 0. #~~
~~,\\,,,,, % % e,, m s % g,, ,t d Q. d %., $,~ j ) v,i. r r ' \\' ?.*n'.'.h,,*%*l,*, l l '.~~
/
f
\\.*
~~9 I,f NI',,'r0{,,j 'Q~~
.9I

Q !.C,,s*,'

o
~~,- n.. m.. v.,,~ ~, b o','.,' t.\\'g"* m'."s*) a.1 'e W % f s, ~ W. p, o,-(h'@. i.,.'s.,,. a r s r s .W(.!,9,hl,06:,o,., h..,',.w.,~~
~~p,dAWT!@4,.,\\s, s~~
~: * .,\\. <,s ., s ;r i, *,,, \\ o gw m M o ,$$' kN1Y'h'$, *0, $$$*'5'$, !?$$'illN, Ni$$bN$N$ ,,s.
J O g[ra $a b O 2 C 0 0 k 2 6 e O OQ hh O < *4 0 g z O b h"k j 4 a 9 O D w U U fy% h$ u m w k a m le yo g8 em i C z k $'O n w 8 9g gg = x d> 4 ^ ~ yy g ~ - _ _ _ _ _ ~ ^% y x J. a5 e s' 3 8 9 l 3 f, i w s $ ~: >l / f l Y ~2 c l ef e 1 v c l f 9: W-f$$}yd ' y; f O@ $w ^ Q j $5 es;$olh?, o l a .!i?k {! oub b rlW:B'ff'h!l$ YIN I !O0Yhf- ~ I h@&'h.f.??!* $ Nf$ i sy@diy Sf 9 s Th',h,3)A"kg 8 A / = yf i .g i mu ya f}bl 3h Q" .a d ,k!l 5 l .c N O s f f M "q O OE
A. Geologic Units The Tuscaloosa Formation overlies the basement complex. This formation consists primarily of sands and gravels with scattered beds of silt and clay. The Tuscaloosa sediments were deposited in late Cretaceous time, or about 90 million years ago. As shown diagramatically in Figure 2, the Tuscaloosa sed-iments are exposed at the surface near Augusta. The Huber and Ellenton Formations were deposited on the Tuscaloosa sediments during the Paleocene Epoch (Tertiary Period). These sediments consist of dark gray sandy clays and silts and multicolored clays. The Lisbon Formation was deposited atop the Huber and Ellenton during the Socene Epoch (Tertiary Period). Beneath Plant Vogtle, the Lisbon Formation is comprised of two members -- a lower calcareous sand unit and an upper calcareous clay (mcrl). The lower sands do not have a formal name and are therefore called the unnamed sands. The calcareous clay has been named the Blue Bluff marl. The Barnwell Group of sediments was deposited over the Lisbon Formation in the Late Eocene Epoch. The Barnwell Group is comprised of sand with minor amounts of clay and limestones. The Utley Limestone, which is the lowest strata in the group and which is not present everywhere, was locally deposited on the Blue Bluff marl. The overlying sediments of the Barnwell Group are composed primarily of sands and silts, and are exposed at the surface in the Plant Vogtle area. The Hawthorn Formation sediments were deposited over the Barnwell Group sediments in the early Miocene Epoch. The Haw-thorn is the youngest Tertiary formation in the vicinity of the plant site. These sediments consist of multicolored clayey sands and gravels. B. Hydrogeologic Units There are two major aquifers recognized in the coastal plain region, both of which are present beneath VEGP. The lower aquifer is called the Cretaceous aquifer and consists primarily of the sands and gravels of the Tuscaloosa Formation. It is often referred to as the Tuscaloosa aquifer. The upper aquifer in the coastal plain region is called the Tertiary aquifer and consists primarily of permeable sands and lime-stones of several Tertiary-age geologic formations. The Terti-ary aquifer is also referred to as the principal artesian aquifer, or as the limestone aquifer in different parts of the Coastal Plain. At Plant Vogtle, the Tertiary aquifer is repre-sented by the " unnamed sands" member of the Lisbon Formation. Beneath the Plant Vogtle area, both the Tertiary and Cretaceous aquifers are confined. The uppermost confining layer is the Blue Bluff marl of the Lisbon Formation. In addition to that contained in the Cretaceous and Terti-ary aquifers, ground-watur in the vicinity of VEGP also exists under water-table (unconfined) conditions as shallow (less than 5 -
100 feet) and discontinuous bodies in the Barnwell Group and other near-surface deposits. These discontinuous ground-water units are referred to as the water-table aquifer. C. Methods of Investigation Applicants have conducted extensive investigations of the geology and hydrology at and in the vicinity of the plant. These studies are up to date and demonstrate the suitability of the site for a nuclear power plante The investigations commenced with site exploration in 1971. A thorough search of the literature, stereoscopic exami-nation of color air photographs, detailed evaluation of geolog-ic conditions at and within five miles of the site, and geolog-ic reconnaissance along 12 miles of the Savannah River bluff upstream and downstream were conducted. Geologic field inves-tigations included geologic mapping, drilling, and geophysical surveys. During this phase, 474 exploratory holes were drilled for a total of 60,000 feet of hole. The drilling program in-cluded electric logging, natural gamma, density, neutron, cali-per, and three dimensional velocity logs in selected drill holes. Menard pressure meter tests were performed to determine in-situ engineering properties of the mari, which is the load bearing unit for plant structures. The geophysical surveys consisted of a total of 28,400 feet of shallow refraction seismic lines, 5,000 feet of deep refraction lines, and s
'l u s i: ), 'n v ~ f. cross-hole $ velocity m,easurements in the upper 290 feet of mate-rials. (The results of these investigations are presented in 4 Section 2.5 of the PSAR.) i l-Also, ground-water studies were conducted during initial 3 site exploration. These studies included in-situ permeability \\ testing, installatfonsand monitoring of observation wells and a i i well-canvasses. A total of 280 walls were located and in-f' spected on the west side of the Savannah River. These included t all wells in use within 7 miles of the site, and an estimated (*(J, sixty 5 percent of.the wells beyond to a distance of 10 miles of-the site. (The data from these canvasses is found in PSAR l Table 2. 4-4. ) Investigations of the geology and hydrology at VEGP con-tinued during site excavation and construction. These included I detailed geologic mapping of the soil and rock strata exposed i i during the power block excavation, and coring and testing of the Blue Bluff marl. -Over.100 additional exploratory holes were drilled in the vicinity of Plant Vogtle. In addition, since initial site exploration in 1971, 37 observation wells 4 s have been used to monitor water levels in the water-table aquifer; and the Tertiary aquifer has been monitored by 23 wells. Data have also been obtained~from four wells open to i Cretaceous aquifer. (Not all of these wells have been opera-i tional throughout the entire period of site exploration and construction; some wells,have-had to be abandoned and grouted 4 q - due to their location near_ plant facilities.) 7
~~l. t~~
In May and June of 1982, another major well canvass was conducted to accumulate a comprehensive hydrogeologic data base to evaluate the postulated Millett fault. A total of 886 wells encompassing an area cf approximately 4,400 square miles sur-rounding the plant were investigated. Geophysical.well log data from both the State of Georgia Geological Survey and the j U.S. Geological Survey were obta'ined and analyzed. As'part of a the Millett study, 12 observation wells were installed along two lines southeast of the plant. The wells were drilled through the marl and monitored water levels in the Tertiary and i Cretaceous aquifers below the marl. The data from these and other core holes provide accurate definition of the depth of geologic units, lithology, and aquifers from the plant to nine-teen miles southeast of the plant, and evidence the lateral ex-a tent of the marl in that direction.
~~See, e.g.,~~
Figure 3. (The results of this study are found in " Studies of Postulated Mil-lett Fault" October, 1982.) Even more recently (1984), a well canvass was conducted to identify all offsite wells within a two-mile radius of the plant. (Results of this well canvass are presented in the FSAR at page Q240.5-1.) During the summer of 1985, a further program of geotechnical verification work was conducted at Plant Vogtle to resolve NRC Staff questions and to acquire supplementary data on site characteristics. The work consisted of. conducting standard penetration tests of the backfill, core drilling and -7 l h.
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT ~ PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS 1 NUMBER OF PAGES: / ACCESSION NUMBER (S): 9(.4 O 9-@G O'3M '3 - d / 1 APERTURE CARD / NARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-3939
in-situ permeability testing of the marl, laboratory measure-ment of marl permeability, observation well installation, and laboratory measurement of the cation exchange capacity and equilibrium distribution coefficient of the backfill. These programs of geologic mapping, drilling, geophysical logging, well monitoring, and permeability testing have reliably determined the location and characteristics of the 1 geologic and hydrogeologic units in the vicinity of Plant Vogtle. In particular, exploratory drilling, which is the pri-mary method for determining the geologic units and aquifers at a site, has provided extensive information on the depth, char-acter, and areal extent of the subsurface units and aquifers. At Plant Vogtle, over 600 holes have been drilled. Over 200 of these explored the marl and provide a reliable data base on its characteristics. The locations of these holes are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Detailed geologic sections have been con-structed from these data and are presented in FSAR Figures 2.5.1-14 through 2.5.1-21. Permeability measurements have been made of the water-table aquifer, the marl, the Tertiary aquifer, and the Cretaceous aquifer. The permeability of the Barnwell sands was measured in situ in two exploratory holes and in laboratory tests of three undisturbed samples from another hole. The lowest strata in the water-table aquifer (the Utley limestone) was studied with pumping tests, falling head tests, and __
.g. -$~ 4_.... x.
~~.j ' i~~
~~._ i __\\... _ _..._.j, g, _ _ ago. . g,,,,, g '...... N, s,. s )~~
=
~~i ( I ,...s. s. o x 6 ' "'.,,um n. n..~~
~~'.$.-s umn~~
~~/ u.g,,,u. u- . ; - I . ',. I-u m... . PL__. _ 4 .....n.e..+.... a.~~
~~u..l _....~~
., G.sr =. e ~... n._ /J.. "L. : .p,.._.- f"*%ses .s s. 6Na' s / * /. aa. '.m. N -{,-. t .u. j : )*. l
== i,. ), lw. \\ .;.: y' ~,*;'. d= i "T ~
~~n.,'\\~~
~~y / ,. nn. .. s g..- .s,s~~
~~'s.es,rga,e.,.,...~~
~~,t s~~
-(
.f.,, " ' ~.,.'.h. 4.u.... ' j,f.'."*["[*+.5'. DETAIL h PL ANT $1TE 5 '~ e, ./ lN(Ith (< x-t ,, ~. i >Q,) a>. ~ ~ . y a.... e. e., o - i -"r,.,,,.,. ,.., l l, / '.. ;}}. ,g.
~~5'i y f"'.~~
~~- ) u... t + 88 i p[.,, _ ' l,'f ' e at a..vio. j -4... ,..,U *lR l N '. n.3 f. ,,,N ' 'V (,~~
~~* ' * * ~ * * * * * *~~
~~,....'.,,7.- '.u,i.", j,, '** '* -% ';;. '// y. \\- / l' L m. p . i. c . e. _.."'~~
4,,,,#,].,c'g_"*'%
~~t - "4 r.s .,'./ . ( 'fi ',; ' ,s., g 3 re.,,,. o . + as N i~.'.. p.} \\, 0 -~ - 4, ,,,y, -.DP,.,,. g .1 i ,_. l~~
~~lna~~
{
~~".',.".,**-.ir+~~
~~, m..' >,,,,,, 1 .,,.,l, ~~~
*a
~~_.,3,L, . *..,,n*,,i n.* '....'.,._ e., .-.~.s. u e w , i.,.,. m.... u.. .s.... . 7... '. c... .l ,u, ,,,,,m.. i o ,j 4 , f"* .J.l,.gf . J. i. ~ OnoO f g Im ~ ..' I !.,~., ' *") i . u. a* .} .n. 3~~
/
j
~~= = -, - ,.-*r - - %4 ,',, 6.. re.,, j.,., _ (' /,/ _. < e.* *fa c e,,, -~- ),,, s e. s.t. si i r-g 5y.~~
~~Ii l.~~
h, w- ~., /,./ - }\\ l j. est o i 3, s t\\ g .g I e.c o m -=- 3. - --4 = ~,- \\ .. V .s. j. r., . ~.- ; %,s 3 .\\ 4 ;..,g.,.. s .3 c ~. - +, + r...., ~ -_ N. I - 'w i ,.,' ( )r 4. ',,.. t .n. s sc. - v{ - w 1 s. - 1 y> t,pg ( s q..>ya m-x. , f. p...:. '-. s-- _. s N) .. ~ ~ _ ..n.-. ,g s, / q '.#e p_ ' , '. I. ) l w s i s =.es e.. ae e e n. pererr. NQ'N],('. g',, N-j (G< [/.l) ~ '[. i _ s '.,,} {e ~,,,, ~ ~ ~ ~* ( s. ,. 7 .}
~~v. 4~~
.\\,. , r.h. g a . W,,, 1 i \\ li ) g ,', /' Y ~'N , %,.'C '. G fi c w a. on. san k? -d '5 I,} j d> EXPLORATORY HOLES ~ 3 -.M .s' l-- > ?t r. -0,,Vf [ N AND WELLS f %c %.. p ..i. D' THROUGH BLUE BLUFF MARL !/ ,..j l. l .s, 1.

~~1 ', f,, c.~~

n, _. .,.. <., o 3. x i, ~, PLANT VOGTLE f w.. a. /. 5. / _ p ...b--- .<'.%. di a.*!EM C _$ (.g) fi i '-. N y FIGURE 4 - 4
a u a I._ ,\\ fi 4 o Iy I i z i 1 s t z J r.'
~~1 is~~
= .m -.m., m a e _i 5 a.f~e~% ih P.,gl a . t,y 4 n= w e s a o 5 2 6 i v I..,' -i r m 8-s% r t z 0.m-1 t a4 = w, L g 'a s W ee ~ .H.,,,,, p W .I -t- . _ ~. j q L a x m E.L m o. ( ) ...::.,...,h. -..LL-i e t >:1, l.h '. ' k 28 k v t.
~~j,i e;~~
g m,,. bi ( ...}.,- .' x i s, t, o, '., ( i, / 1,, 7,l ;.. '.' i ,r.- .c 8, a f '.. 7 .I 6 A,. v,f,. I t j { / s . f. 4. /* l .!. c>; L *, i + .i I, \\, (/. /W t l[ s l g If .? \\ ,= b '. 'l /o ' t W) fi; - ' 4 : '~ I r i. A at,:s ,.-e7 I-c' e i p .. y' y@ y ,g; ,_o--.
~~n. <.g~~
~~[ ! ;i Y j) /) '/ 37 l f ../.4 ' ' j i ll ../ ,\\' L. -(s .( 1 l ,,,..$x. e o:v-y ;.? g is V. p; i i, t. ,,si >\\ d ,,) ,, i t s,,.2. n s ~ w -o.;. ,.--+.n, ... 3, _., a /s f. .\\ \\/. v,,c,~~
~~4. -~~
~~,.. p;/ j' .o% \\>\\ ' l l 3 s ~- / g (3. i.r__ _ il " ;5 N' o d T s 1 L 1 l p S.!.!, Iln .c r g L S t (~~
~~l o~~
i i i, i .%(;/ y,. 3 3 k. s\\ 3 .s 1 (M .'4 h, 1 .l, /' \\ s.pr-i 1 L, ,x a , t >s i s ' g ; g ' {,..,...7_..' n , Is. I,"Q..,--__._.%,._._. \\y,, 7,. ,i 6.ll c' [ g 79 g. gg, / > p\\p G 1. s g:..\\Q }/7n4l c~ 7 je, i, (> J ! ')e .'n ~; ) 3) e l l' ,/ I ,w / - v i 1 l (l (. <, s :.' ? :W, g i , -,l, 'q..g *,M; f. G '. >fM-.' it! 2* l v \\b ,1 i 1 % r\\ .\\ .i ~ l , p 6 ~.=r y .-,i '
~~pf..~~
(, ..y- ,.p .g, ,,,.;/.. ,, g ) ' (f l',Q \\,fl Q Y( l 'i,. V .,, l { (.l .)l[ \\'y...- ',.:..:. r,'9,Q . ~f(/ i . c~R <r v.ll{ y' s, t .; M; W t i y:y ;. ~ > ').v.i Q..) \\ l.t ~ s ~ ' C, 'y ' JV-r. '<-< (' <.Al. [T(S L 4 ;, .,,1 x .L s ggy.. ![,l,'.{...v,g y{..c,;. 4.?(=l ff c4 +/ w c ~':;: e++..i. i a 7.. z.. ~m, ... o, w....... -- ' : -._.. ~l n. . I.- Jtaurz!* - rva i a es - i -,..,-i
.i i i 1 constant head tests in two well arrays. The hydraulic charac-teristics of the Cretaceous-and-Tertiary aquifers were also measured in pumping tests. During site exploration (1971-1973), the marl. permeability. was tested in situ; 80 packer tests and permeameter tests were conducted in 22 drill holes, the locations of which are shown in Figure 5. During the geotechnical verification work per-formed in the summer of 1985, an additional 15 packer tests. were performed in six new holes shown as holes 900 through 905 on Figure 5; and laboratory permeability measurements were taken on ten samples from these holes. To provide early estimates of the permeability of the i backfill material, laboratory tests of a disturbed sample of 2 Barnwell sands and of two grab samples of backfill material compacted to varying densities (enveloping the design density 1 l and percent compaction) were performed. Much more recently, i the permeability of the backfill material was measured in situ by slug tests performed in four observation wells in the power block area. D. The Interrelationship of Geologic and Hydrogeologic Units at Plant Vogtle The extensive investigations at Plant Vogtle have deter-mined the interrelationship of both geologic and hydrologic units as shown on Figure 6. The VEGP site is situated over an area wherein the Huber Formation and the Ellenton, if it is 3 A
PLANT VOGTLE HYDROLOGIC GEOLOGIC UNIT: UNITS 200 -T e njg WATER TABLE ";$$..:ag6%lp.. - s s s W" .u v...., ..,W m / 0~ts AL M it_ t ' s~M d.: BARNWELL GROUP s .u s m 7;. iD <:W ~e ,.u e.e.su3. .wgg-Ayss.r _k cy gg-AQUlFER a n: m' _ l8LUE BLUFF MARL (LIS80N FORMATION) f CONF a= -.w.. % T.A.A N..f%hq4 M S h% VA%25h g y;g,$'yRfi A f,.4 I00 - ?$.:.' ;': ' "'@?'.
a.
UNNAMED SANDS (LISBON FORMATION) f AOUIFER O '. e. MdN!Tf,fG72$5Q.M6M:f.W.;.i.W.pa@i.PJ8WiMX:.4.iWW:P @%@W? i.:ii'J*}l/ HUBER F0RMATlON f SEMlPERMEABLE g f $ _1oo _NNN yidb kksi M , h.h,{[ diff;MN$i. b ll:$3 i ) ' E..., -I:F: yifM.!0 9'."s"d..
~~.;,.,. )l.5,,:,.y, 9, 6 ' W.ii~~
~~!? ,;.: i.j.S@M i 2 'Tli.O l ?f85G.0:.y;h,gi "",...:. (;:l{:j,..?!6"'...g::gr 9,{:{ Ng.;, g:$~" Wi:' z - 200 - 9 tz:g. 9;.ip.c h>" . :,ig.::c w.1:s J:;jy.':}:.) ll,;;.: ..:.,g..,.py;~~
~~. g.p,: k H~~
~~C ' ..:.::.p % y:-(::. .;.:!:ii!.:,l:.C i :: VN+. <C k.:::lr;...,:.z.e:.; btp~~
~~)?:.::'. '..~~
~~..:h:..... y uJ Il[.Eh~~
~~,..TN!!.~~
~~m lif.{!.:' W M p TUSCALOOSA CRETACEOUS ..iN,...:5: !.:i- :V.:.I.. 38y.ji .W: ' :18.} ~ 3 2 FORMATION k AQUIFER . $15 :.hN/5INSI., ) i$:b -Ef? Q' ;.i,:~~
h il

::W..
~~e.. s.,$ ::f":i:.f. "1,:l:i j:fi ..u.;#N. '. ' #l.y::j,p, :.::. /: "M::i f M: i # q i~~
~~g...~~
~~. +.,~~
~~,e.~~
vg .. ?:{ ..i,'s,:j. w:. y ~ } .f?N:h!?'.. , :N':: 1.1$.'t. Ih' ~ ) ) } NEWARK GROUP SEQUENCE OF GEOLOGIC AND HYDROLOGIC UNITS BENEATH PLANT VOGTLE Figure 6
present (Ellenton beds have not been positively identified be- ~ neath the site), are thin and relatively permeable. As a re-sult, the Cretaceous and Tertiary aquifers are believed to be hydraulically connected in this area. Overlying this sequence of beds of moderate to high permeability is the Blue Bluff marl, the upper member of the Lisbon Formation. The marl, ap-proximately 70-feet thick, is a layer of very low permeability that confines the Tertiary and Cretaceous aquifers. The Barnwell sands and limestone, which overlie the marl and in which the unconfined water-table aquifer exists at VEGP, are on an interfluvial ridge -- a topographically high area in which the ground-water in the water-table aquifer discharges along streams that nearly surround the area. The interfluvial ridge at VEGP is illustrated in Figure 7. The water-table is, in general, a subdued reflection of the ground surface,_and movement is from the central portions of the interfluve toward the bordering interceptor streams. The streams have eroded down to the marl. Along the east flank of the site, the interfluvial ridge ends abruptly at the bluff of the Savannah River. The sands, silts, and clayey sands that make up the water-table aquifer beneath the site are exposed in the face of that bluff. More prominently exposed is the underlying unit which gives the bluff its characteristic feature -- the Blue Bluff marl. The exposure is illustrated in Figure 7. l.
e %se w-I l 1 N .., +..... ~. ~,: s N..- . u.R.%. O-t?. .~ , g. g %n.... n. ~,
~.
~~.... x.....__ s'"% - #..,N.%..,41 w -.. .N w.. .., ~ ~. s-m . s.c-M. s.N.:4s- ~;. - - ~-r: v,, sw%m.s,. .,.c-x w~, ' .s s %..' .,,A.,%%. .'s s W TEt.* q w s.F' AIR' MM9 A #DANIP ~ PONO :zS:'a ' 8~~
~~s ~,*~~~
- w:A.,._. .x<-ig+ . c. m.w. w..y - - %x _ _ _. _.s_. m.. q s m ..,s .. ~. -.... ~ =-. m= g. ..:. w..:., ~~ ~ ...~.m. ~ -- w. ~.,,l;c.m~,.; ?w.: .:e--=.r. - /... . m. : ~~ v., =-j.3.K,. R-* y*L~x 7.}- .QQ L*.
~~s'.. LWD ~ p '.*~~~
~~s f.m '.% f ~ v. m - ,w w w'* =. - .m = v;===... ~.% w, % ma ...v......=.... -.c~-~~
~~i = %~~
gN %.mm.%g3q,.N v f. y .~- J.W. ~ ~;_B.E. A.VERDA.M..E M,., ~,h.% c _- ete '3-::G"M... ~... .y ~ Y.C R E'E K I.. f S. N..34 N...:5.?. N _.. -.~ ~ - ;;?.> 'J . ~.. : g w. ,..e e, %. *%"N.*N.,s f,. ~.~.%. ~ 4-
~~+. - - f~~
~~.g. 7% ,._~.. ;...,, w ~ n ~ O p. y 'd f - \\. o.f f. * ' ~ [. --. -f.... Q. uyjg. ~ ' I "' _. 3. (, .?-~~
~~"'e" m~~
~~.w.,.~~
w S'.

~,. _
~~..m~.~~
w

[*
~~,= . " *w =,--[%,- [ .*e1,' .N.--~~
a
~~, 7*..,~~
~~.-% g.-$w'*'..'.%.4,~~
~~'**e ,.,..e g,._v.%'.-.g,.*. g +'e.-*" ,g g,m gU e,,*pi.#g. ' Ns 7., '.'p.,N.*g-d.gm &g S, ~,. ' -4. y.5,. , = ,.;';*--~.~.,.*,,, g*., w y,,,%.p. :%; y . ~~ n ...y,, y,,., /.- ,._=.g.~~
9
db-e.
~~..c,. +...c-- ~.c._,...**+~~
a
~~.8 --E."*..y #. -.,,. ;+. - e ~ ZZ., *~,.,'; m, *,*w.... 4 ~ , +.,... s' m.~ ~ ~, .%.%./ f.~~
,- *.,*- f i,.,*
= L'A *. -.. s'*
~~s w.\\~~
~~s a'm,* ."'. D_' ', J. 7. .(. .. i* !'.';_', w=*'"P#T..~~
~~p)/.*g.#,~.**'.. '. M.~~
~~.9., ,,g...- g s.= %, ~~ J,.~~
~~h~.y.~~
~~w h *-*..*w,,.,e,.w... s. g a.f,- ,,.Ps.. m d da~~
~~F.*"M'*Me..-..A,.*,.,-~~
~~95 "as' ,Aa g -gT' 9 " [f .*y'.\\ e..,'.e*++ w <,/.4.~..*~*..**it, _ a$** '7., . *,'*1**%.'*"%[ o. i 6 ,,;$... _ sfW ^ ,., * * [ e['. e... c .. .N,'~g* N,N . ~~~
~~^ - =~~
~~g ~ " Y ~ ~ * ~ .. ~ _.,. ~,h'.- / '. f:; ~*c. '- ~ .. ~.~.;*... .%..,f.;. g,;.~. ;_...~ ~. %.,.. . p,.<,..,....% <. - f,. ), g p, ,.,-.,.p,;.~~
~~w,,s-a;,-.~~
~~s,...... .,,pd..... -,..., ~ *, ',,.~~
~~'." % =,~~
~~%.+#. ewm,*.'N,-'e~~
~~e. m.D~~
~~,, g *..,% .,s.*. ".*=%,.- = #q. m_.-~.N.- ..s..., f. e ,- -g y 8 25 g A g.f -. m~~
~~, c....., - c. N w~~
~~h+ "p, c .N u+1 ,*_. /., e,~~
* * =.. *-
N I n,.*, * *,** .[-..+a.s*
~~, c. =~~
~~, *=. *.~~
~~y,.,..,,e.~~
~~=,**.g,.+.4, y. ,*.,..%'.'--~~
~~J g+ g e~~
f,, 4s* = 7 a s p,.*. -.N*
D
~~,-. -s, ,3 "w~~
~~W.W e.e~~
~~.w h, \\~~
~~,;*,f~~
. ~, g =.. .."'.,7...,; .h. %.. J ' g =y s -. s, g,.*N w,-* .= '.., %.,gi %. :.... I I ....../ a .,.m :.. w'.~ :.;.- 2... ~ : ..s..* ...~..e, , q. ; ~ ;. '+ l p;. .s '.- -4 =Og s.- w 4,= g W .g*,** g *g#\\,* 4,,*,,ar-*5 ,,,l .,,,xx e + I l l l l O '*Nur
) 1 s ] l 14 l 9 ON A A'SHOWN ON FIGURE 9 i ! 8 SECTION 8-8,SHOWN ON PERSPECTIVE VIEW FlGURE 8 n Yrwm a www .v.
r.
.= M~ m?- 4 ;. w' GC#m.s.s ww se M q. w - Q,. E h s u.%.~ c ~.nM.. s M ~ s - x ~ - M..% W: $ecc x s:e.RAkce V mNM.,~ WwN ';.N' -R. w N s -p '. -lN.K.% 1 ; ..4.<.'s' '; ':;%' ". ~- - 2 .Q. ^ 4-N% Q ; Q,-~ x',~ :l,N : - ._ ~- - s ' C. -' se
~,
- A. J,N N _,,*N ' hs'. 4 t;- d. % ~ l s -e. c4. W~~ D~.:%. ~,.D. e' v: ~g N A N- ,'y'- ,,' Q JNs*- j - c y .y,,' '. xc ,'%:s.,;;;s N,.NN' - v. s;e NS- ,J'..,, c i.f e . s@;N's.JN . N '+ 2 ' '; l- " - f .y.. . ~ ;' c% -. a s si s s s .g-~.7...,,. x.=o-c :%g.. N +. -a, + ...fs *N. e4 %lb " q-x* = 4,,., s .
~~JN. ",~,I*.[*N..~~
~~=**=.%- e, c.y.;<g %c,%,- m. s s . a .,y c"?, %~~
~~o. N'agg~~
,., - N. s. v s. N...., !N.c ' _w';F-Q y;, .s..3. ..c_ N Nx scs. N N a wa s b. 'w'. -s s.x. ss,, s.. -Q s.., q - 'av Os.s.,N;,y c.3, E'.[ =(s%51,.',g] ;.j G y., _ ~ s .s -g'e. --Ws es. ..'..%.-.s*,.g..q .,. %..,%. ; -c. -- ' \\o', ~k A', %.m-- w .x .c Nsse %
~~s. -.-~~
,Q ' w'. = s - ~; .V* ;,.j '%.e. %, s..Ms,- ('N. -s.,,, .. c. ... s. %.. w O s q ss ._q.- p. s s ../, %,. w-%..,. [.. '.2- ; y..._ M.g S.:. m,,v.,%. s. cOs.~,gs. ,~~.. fs~: '.~~; 'm :~. w, sb} s-.;v.v ., -. g c, 3 n ecg,- x.m-.%. ; - .N ?- s x% .,,,>. v Q *.-->% .e- ~ 2 :.y,.,- ex ::, - - ^ - - - "' ,'\\' -
~~A.r.:;~~
~~~ c.. _,_,.n r s .... n.. ~.:' % ., a .a ;_. ~.-.. .,L-c y. ,c., N.2 . - QO.f. <; ., +.-K*-:::~~
~~. Tc n.~~
~~. +' wRN s-~)<~-.y. .~~%,- . ~ _ ~ ,,... ~, a N:- :;,. ~.'.m'; a_. w',. m.2._;h - ' ',.~.. - -.,. - + - :. ,Q~.,' ,~i ~ -' x +m <h . ~. w' ' f_- ~ ..m %.- M_4':s_s _,.~. ~ - ~., .c~ b. '.f~, <..=~~
~~_ :~.+N';%.'* #' wN'.,. /.-s.~~
s'Ne. n.-,% %. . c s s - 7 ss ;' N n.s.;+ m_,_, w .=, n-.:./.n/..~, e N ,,N."s O,',* v.<.,=. s .? k.,x,. v s ,s . p.p"'*., ... z.,.. s N. e I, n 5 ,e 9 4 e. 2-M Hm.v. s-:. y s,rfRx..... n~.'.% .m. - - .~. x Ju ,,x -:. m%: y.u. : c:,v m .%w.
~~C C%.;~..~~~
~~~ ..s s 4 ~. '. - y . V.: N~. ,y. : ; ~ - c . ~. v.~~
~~O.,~~
~~- c-O s :;,c, N ~ ~. - .N. ~;~~
~~'Q=s;%. O. s. ~.e's%.. ~ ;;, y,.~~
~~,.: m,, :. %., - 3~ ~s.y '.~ :sa:Q:.., ~.;,.s.; ,,,,_-g;~..,p".- ; s .;N; l [ ;; ,..-;=. ~ g. %.%,_;,-, .y;c .n y \\% fx ;, N~~
c. 3. c

%

.. s;-:. ~, ms NC N,'
~.: l ~ ; :: y ~ ;. m.;N..A,y, N p ~m % sg~ x, e.v: N Q* sy.~.:c ;N, -. - !s ,.y N ; .,N . ';. N,;~- ;.;y~%g*Nd,. ',s.;v,N ,. -- ;~ :- N' p;, y: e,p.as ~ ;.,- ~ 4,.'NN..Nq:,,s. s .N NN.,'-...- s.- ..N L ;O e.. s - :- L ^ h,-' C'. ,3 ,9 s L ;~...,
~~s s~~
.:cs. N. N*.N . N-rt. [ - A-* ' w' ? .N ~%'. q.%:~. N. f, }A:' b, 's [. " g%,.s. ~ 7- - s s:..s.*.-* s %:.,.,s' ;. '.g,g-O e N'.*..N- ,s.w e, v. (N,N;3% =%C :y.N - e A'. 'p. ,.%N OC - N-c -c-O. %;,g"s>y s cY.Jvce',, . - ^ s. h W.sh.ge,? 5 M M W, L gb,F,w M * ^E vx A g Lv_v %s - Mf ..;.y-. APERTUR 7 <w.s s .W - e. n x '- p '., X..,N. v.. '. '.?.,, :.;-. N* 1}t
.v. % %m.. =

%. '.
~~e .N'.- ~ ,.s-. NJ, - I ~ s -. g s y ' o..cs;c ' mN *- .?N *. % %s '. - 3 me:ww~.c. s, ;,:~.. I <g- ' ;N,.~~
~~g'y~~
~~._ ;v%- - s ,,9 '.J.. ^%,* -,-~~
~~3. %. %~~
~~-' Q%p A erture Card +. .N ..t~~ ,g g~~
~~P e,_ g - *.~~
p ?' I Pl. ANT VOGTLE OVERVIEW (PERSPECTIVE} P i Figure y OMsgg
l Bordering the site on the south, west, and north are stream channels tributary to the Savannah River that have cut through the aquifer sands down to the marl. On the north is the drainage of Mathes Pond, which discharges to the Savannah River at Hancock Landing. The marl is exposed at Mathes Pond, and in the channels downstream to the river (See Figures 7'and 8). South and west of the site is Beaverdam Creek and its major tributary, Daniels Branch. The marl is present'in these channels just belov alluvial channel deposits. Extending northward from these named streams are tributaries bordering the site; die marl is also present immediately below a veneer of channel deposits in these tributaries. The presence of the marl immediately below these channels was determined by explor-atory holes and is illustrated in the geologic sections of Fig-ures 8 and 9. There is only a narrow remnant of continuity be-tween the water-table aquifer materials beneath the site and those offsite. That remnant is northwest of the plant between. the head of the Mathes Pond drainage and the unnamed tributary to Daniels' Branch west of the plant. Ground-water beneath the narrow remnant drain's either into Mathes Pond or into the unnamed tributary of Daniels Branch. Thus, the water-table aquifer at VEGP is effectively isolated, both laterally and vertically,.from other aquifers. - n
~~" m N~~
~ ,' ' - g ~ 3 fg.t7 342 i s - Blue-Bluff Marl t 00-* ~~~~ / - i -so " -10 0 - -15 0 5aJ HCRIZO'4TAL SCAL'
~? T e Y /4 ~ I (/ i W e O $N s m O I
~~5 e~~
~~i O h"'" I \\ /~~
~~N 8~~
5 .$ 0$d 4 EF *e M M I m \\ i
A A ~ MATHES PONO POwCR BLOCg BEAVER 0AM CREEK ~ Utley Limestone 3 . EXCAVATION & Blue Bluff Mort ,. o. 0 BACKFILL "0 -a a o o w 8- -g 234 / *
~~T, E~~
~~~ a 24 202 0-z- h-200- ~ ~ g $-coo w NOTES: I. See Figure 7 for location of section~~
~~2. (Modified from Vogtle FSAR Figure 2.5.l-15 Geologic Section B-B1 j~~
O 9000 2000 3000 SCALE IN FEET PLANT VOGTLE SECTION A-A' MATHES POND TO BEAVERDAM CREEK i Figure 9
i II. The Consequence of an Accidental-Spill i l In the very unlikely event that an accidental spill of ra-dioactive fluid occurred at Plant Vogtle~and reached the water-table aquifer without interception, the spill would migrate within the water-table aquifer in accordance.with the prevail- { -ing hydraulic. gradient. Because of the marl, spill migration of any significance would be lateral, and the spill would move ) in the direction of decreasing hydraulic head. Accordingly, a spill would flow north and northwestward toward, and after con-siderable travel time discharge into, Mathes Pond and stream, t 3 as further discussed below. A. The Effectiveness of the Marl as a i i Barrier to Migration of Contaminants i i The Blue Bluff marl is a densely-consolidated, fine-i grained calcareous clay with subordinate lenses of dense, well-t indurated, well-cemented limestone. The reported values of the permeability of unweathered marine clays, of which the marl is -7 -10 a type, range from 10 to 10 cm/sec (0.1 to 0.001 ft/ year). In engineering practice, materials with such low i l permeability are qualitatively considered to.be impermeable. { The Blue Bluff marl is approximately 70 feet thick.1/ It I 1/ Under the power block, the thickness of the marl is less due to excavation. Due to this excavation, the marl is gener-ally 60 feet thick under the power block area, and its minimum thickness is 38 feet under the auxiliary building. i ' l l 4 .,-._m _.m
extends over an area well beyond the limits of the plant site and the interfluvial ridge on which the plant site is located. The comprehensive exploration and testing that has been con-ducted demonstrates that the marl is an extensive and persist-ent unit that significantly inhibits the percolation of ground-water downward to the underlying Tertiary / Cretaceous aquifers. In particular, the marl's integrity as a barrier to ground-water movement has been demonstrated by (1) field and laborato-ry permeability testing, (2) visual inspection of cored sam-ples, the marl surface exposed during site excavation, and marl outcrops along the Savannah River, and (3) comparison of water levels.in observation wells open to the water-table aquifer with those observed in wells open to the confined aquifer imme-diately below the marl. During site exploration, the permeability of the marl was measured in the field at 80 intervals of varying depth in 22 exploratory holes. Constant-head inflow methods were used. In 20 of the exploratory holes, inflatable packers were used to isolate a specified test interval. These tests followed the procedure set out in Designation E-18 of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Earth Manual. In two exploratory holes at the in-take structure, permeameter tests were conducted in accordance with Designation E-19 of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Earth Manual. In nearly all of the intervals tested, no measurable water inflow occurred. In only three holes was any measurable - t h
s water intake confirmed, two of which were in near-surface, i weathered marl at the intake structure. (Water inflow was men-sured in three other holes, but was due to leakage around the packers.) i' During the summer of 1985, the permeability of the marl was again measured. In-situ permeability testing was conducted .at 15 intervals in six new holes. These tests followed the procedure set out in Designation E-18 of the U.S. Bureau'of 1 l Reclamation Earth Manual and were in general compliance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Testing Handbook, Stan-dard 381 (1980). The entire thickness of the marl penetrated in the holes was tested in ten-foot intervals to ensure that all of the marl and int'erbedded limestone lenses were tested. l In all of these in-situ tests, the water takes were zero. The l test results confirmed the previous in-situ measurements. In addition, during coring of the'six new holes, ten typi-cal marl and limestone core samples were collected for labora-tory testing to provide an estimate of the range of permeabili-ty of various material types (marl and interbedded limestone i lenses) within the marl. The laboratory permeability measure- ] ments ranged from 8.5 x 10-6 (low) to 5.0 x 10 cn/sec -9 4 (effectively impermeable). 1 l The continuity of this material (i.e., the lack'of voids, l open joints or fractures) has.also been demonstrated. Since 1971, there have been over 10 thousand feet of marl penetrated s I I >
at VEGP by drilling, coring, standard penetration testing, and undisturbed sampling. At no time throughout this extensive testing was there any unaccountable fluid loss or abnormal tool advance in the marl. When coring, the most revealing evidence for the occurrence of voids or fractures is a loss of all or l part of the drilling fluid and/or a sudden or rapid advance of the core barrel. Neither of these conditions occurred during the site exploration. None of the borings encountered signifi-cantly fractured zones; nor was there evidence of leaching (re-moval of calcareous material.) Visual inspections and detailed logging and photographing of the many extracted samples of marl have likewise produced no indications of voids or extensive fracture zones. Over 500 feet of the marl penetrated has been collected either by coring or sampling and closely inspected and described. Very few joints or fractures were observed and those identified were i consistently found to be tight, and'without void space. Marl I beneath the plant site, exposed during excavation for the foun-dation, was directly examined and carefully logged by qualified geologists. This included inspection and logging of more than 900,000 square feet of the upper surface of the marl at the base of the power block excavation, more than 20,000 square feet of detailed mapping and photographing of vertical face in the auxiliary building excavation, and more than 20,000 squate feet of inspection and logging of the vertical face in the
radwaste solidification building caisson excavations. Addi-tionally, marl outcrops along the Savannah River in the vicini-ty of VEGP have also been examined, mapped and photographed. These extensive and detailed mapping investigations of the marl formation at VEGP have produced an abundance of data indicating the absence of voids, solution cavities, or systematic or ex-tensive fractures or joint sets in the marl. Finally, the large and consistent hydraulic head dif-ferential between the water-table aquifer and the confined aquifers immediately below the marl confirms that the marl is a barrier to significant ground-water movement. The hydraulic j head (energy potential) of ground-water in an aquifer is com-monly expressed as feet (elevation) above sea level, and is de-l termined from measuring the elevation of water in an observa-tion well. In the vicinity of the plant, the hydraulic head in j the water-table aquifer is 45 to 55 feet greater than the hy-draulic head in the aquifer immediately below the marl. This difference in hydraulic head can be seen by comparing the 1 ground-water (equipotential) contours shown on Figures 10 and 11. The contours are based on water levels measured in obser-vation wells in December, 1984. Similar conditions ware ob-served prior to plant construction, as indicated by the con-tours of water levels measured in wells in October and November 1971 and shown in Figures 2.4.12-6 and 2.4.12-7 in the FSAR. To bring about such a marked difference in hydraulic head, the . t t l
~~w. q _./. f r. v. _. p /~~
~~9w%xw,- 3gsv i b y~= h Q T \\ l~~
t
%'.% %r, em=ee- :. L, K' b '/shgiiiF;Fr-s QG74 7~ y~~~~ $ 5 M;. N, d,d N N & +d s ':\\ i a n-m c m-j' M, c- - re~ --~= ' s 'Y-Q' ) h 'l,x &.ql s',&f?. g _. \\ / y p ,=,) g,>. m + A i \\. b ~h ' _d ^ ' f a AhN q" i., p /, /,/ m@c=w t. %g y w 5 w?. O M d LM, w yWMMED .m-2/3 0 o , 5 h v.
== M..$de,bb-. . as. V.. 7 . [ 'd ~' f f is,' ,a ,,,,,8074.. as. =-. ;..e' _ ,1,. 179 129 T. ' 8.//57)O' o f ~o l 'l. ] % - 8068 (' o ' s., I }t a P* -i -E40 .i!!' ,,,,,r*T-p (4,,p. ; N -l-~\\s i o \\ \\3 T-7 ' 8 D !'/ I ; 0 t c ~-. p o f22 ~ 50 o 0 L- ,[: ' :=#y#j), o o
~~Lim, o'~~
~~'o l M 852//60p /'_ 803 i l c // r o O-- ~(16 0, ,i y ~, F" f: e+ \\ a 7w a, o \\ n ' o *l~~
~~('/6 5~~
~~.. d , s \\ y;f g'6I f.#pd[ ,1 9. \\ \\ ' - \\,,,~~
i v j y ) t d
~~\\ a - (s ~; \\,,' g - R ~Qr } 'Ls;-w-L ,..;s~~
~~# w \\' ? (~~
o J N ': / ) =g _%+. s 1 s - w< e -9 '@.27__ ~' 20/ -Z N i s n.JN . Q., -, /' / '-. - -, A,p d..,4 (- N o 's s 2-Y ., q( -m,, .=- o o \\ li tMt l '(,/~ O j'["G'"u 'o N '. -d. ' G p \\c. ' 1'y@):{ ~ ,~ 7, s /'ili,,, c, '///J. ! g ,e . ]i' / \\ 4 /, g t ,~ s ~J
/
,3 ^%, y ( ,l\\ y f,,a /,j g g ' ~-, \\ ~ee-,.s Md? j Q %-g! \\ ':,x .;-.=? ,,q p s ./ ~ e u 'f i ) / / ? l _. ~ hhL fWhhWs 1? \\ L!P, S
I U i d l t O '\\ i \\\\ j s. i EXPLANATION sb '.s '~ 800 'g\\ j e OBSERVATION WELL .1, //60) WATER TABLE ELEVATION IN PARENTHESES s -.N l60" CONTOUR OF GROUND-WATER ELEVATION p 3 ,. GROUND-WATER DIVIDE x _... _ T_ m % m ( e. N ')fh 3 7 r xo $'s T1 N 5S: d ,<^y/N T h ',, WERTURE po p 's CARD 7/- G h id" h '. s. . p-eJ W m } m~ W '3 N s% 's \\,s .? N \\ .s g i ( b s. pe gf Y w ~+ o, w.q';*M,y. 'N q f,L = Q *.~ l'- m - W gs \\ NOTE: w_M M2 Z g SITE GRACING GENERALIZED FROM ^'~ \\ ( - .f ' 2.] / SHOWN UNDERLINED: 2,75 DWG. NO. CXZD46V003 WITHIN GRADED / I AREA. APPROXIMATE ELEVATIONS 3[1 j - 'a - \\ h% /g 5 m j s l' ~ \\' ,.. _s As. ~ ,, _. - -. / R EFE R ENCE: s [ TOPOGRAPHIO MAP PREPARED BY l C"*Q{ '."'k / C'-*" HANCOCK LANDING PROJECT "",2 y-( s 7 ^^ - y~j f CLYDE N. ELDRIDGE AERIAL .pg s h e ^ SURVEYS, FEB. 25/71, k i y !j e d (N \\UT N:s :. o-g t(,,4 y ': Q
~~m s~~
m w )2 m 'k 1 ~f. s s c w. 'N n L : %s N'* 'N's. x _ 7 e% ~ f ', g, g' ,C5. SC ALE IN FEET k b, N . 4,. e Awg m-( Contour intervals 5f t.and25f t. g hd&& ~/Q-Dl CONTOURS OF WATER TABLE AQUlFER i DECEMBER 1984 I) ( ( f - Figura 10
i 11 l ii i lli.o l1 lg ll o!.! 9.= 3 ,il 5 g e l5 [i i .l. -s i !'!!v!.Ih ei= c i ae s 5 EE a N: I a ser ll ~ g ! ji il p,,y,y.(s.i. ",( n u,. ' -),. o u e, s. g i /,
~~i. p,, m r~~
~~,,,,, ;v .-v ,f, i It'/ \\ r A .,,/,, s e,. I'{$$A~~
s
~~\\>;,Rf<\\< $oy e, ^s mp- 's 'l' H/?j$ - J jb yjk /: Y' .y,}.f .m g < r +l } ll ..v 'T ,,<j ;, f // \\ t-l- ,c /. */ / ,m. , s/ s p.- -[) .,u,,,. p.-- a, :. u+m r s~~
=0
,,I/ y. ..'),[ ? p_ ',')'L y o,. ' inp: ~ y y ,,l-] s c\\g<, fy v,8 y/l..., Y A. h l-fh/ h f' h lfqd.fi .hi k-- 3 ff %_f *,AmL g n M@tM dp'Nyy' 5-- I)9-4 rb-v;9m e y -, s d L. 'A 4 "f lb ' Q' G.,pp xp J_ II Q <, 4 ?2) w(if f Q s a ' ~~ 2 3, 51 J hf ,, -]l,,\\% g. w.w 'N,hhlbffQ.6, r n;: pn '>3Q V<A&sM ghb,h, e g(lbh,,,,hhg$qW'O M .g e q g sk0 W,
1 barrier must be extensive and without significant through-going openings (such as fractures or solution cavities). A nest of observation wells constructed at the site of ex-pioratory hole 42 provided a direct measure of this hydraulic head differential between the overlying water-table aquifer and the confined aquifer sands beneath the marl. The observation wells were constructed in 1971 and included two, 42B and 42C, open to the marl itself, and one each, 42A and 42D, that were open to the confined and water-table aquifers, respectively. At their location, the marl is 65 feet thick. The wells were monitored for four years until construction of the plant re-quired their closure, at which time they were sealed. Hydrographs of the measured levels are shown in Figure 12. The differences in water levels (head) between the obser-vation wells is generally proportionate to the thickness of marl between the wells. The zones monitored by each observa-tion well are illustrated on Figure 13. For example, the dif-ference in water levels of the two wells open to the two aquifers (42D and 42A) is about 55 feet, (the head in the water-table aquifer is higher) and the thickness of marl be-tween them is 65 feet. In comparison, well 42B is open to an interval of the marl that is near the bottom of the marl. The water levels measured in well 42B are from 15 to 20 feet dif-forent (higher) than those measured in well 42A, which is open to the underlying confined aquifer, and the thickness of marl 2. O n w--
S H Y PS AW A L 8 R L GE 2 R OW 1 = &/ 8 DS r P A R e u YE g H Ri R I o AM o EF 8 ES L c S T 2 2 E G 4 M ? F 8 O s v V A N = A n J + n \\ NN M 8 s C E D = = A 8 V = ON 'n T CO = = 3 P E ,+ S 8 G %"M 8 7 UA \\ 8 LU J 1 9 1 h N U J ok-8 o-Ob-8 o* n..o0 e-wv zoMWd b " 2 #- 8: 8 g- = w- ,;i Iili!} Ili 1l,Ill\\ lI i 1tJ' i .\\;
~~ll(;lllIIIll lll l,~~
!li
.a 1 4IT EL 226.2' 42 SERIES WELLS 829 508 SA VANNAN RIVER 23 EL 219E EL 230.4* 115 MOJ,00'S) (PROJ. 35*$) 313 503 EL 198X EL 215.0, i EL 224.9' EL 194.5' (PROJ. 40'NI, l ELesX 300-200 --- lN g W sp - 200 UPPER SANDS Y . l00 ,X z 10 0 -~ I e Q01 g g z 0-N BLUE BLUFF MARL -O . 100 P -100 - LOWER SANDS UTLEY LIMESTONE .200 -200 - y g -300 W ~300 i i i i i i i 0 10 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 OlSTANCE IN FEET i 42 SERIES WELLS d' B C D N j - 200 200 - 1 UPPER SANDS , twerra trviu t-- w a = I I .; i n. x iSEUE BLUFF' MARL) f 9 100-4 (l ll ) gs - 10 0 ti 5, LOWER SANDS W 0 0 NO HORIZONTAL SCALE SECTION SHOWING 42 SERIES WELLS ( Figure 13
between them is about 10 feet. Water levels measure'd in well 42C.follows this general relationship. It is open to an inter-val of the marl that is within 3-feet of the top of the marl. The water levels measured in 42C are from 50 to 521 feet higher than those measured in 42A, and the thickness of marl between them is about 60 feet. Two clusters of piezometers (A and B) were installed in the marl in June and July 1985. The clusters are located at opposite corners of the power block, as shown on Figure 17. The piezemeters provide a direct measurement of hydraulic head' over the full depth of the marl. The differences in hydraulic head between the piezometers within a cluster show a progres-sive decline in head with depth as was observed in the 42 se-ries. See Figure 14. Owing to the extent and very low permeability of the marl, the impact of an accidental spill on the Tertiary and Cretaceous aquifers will be negligible. A calculation of the possible rate of flow across the marl demonstrates this conclu-- sion. The rate of flow is determined by the hydraulic gradient across the marl, and by the permeability and porosity of the materials. The relationship between these parameters in de-1 ) termining ground-water seepage velocity is expressed as Darcy's Law: i 1 _
180 d180 I I I l l l I I I m { CLUSTER "B" 42 SERIES CLUSTER "A" d -160 ' 160 S S .z 5 l Water-table aqu fer Water-toble aquifer i O Water-table aquii er I h 2D " 140 l Top of Mort Top of lAori l -14 0 3 a w I l s l J ~ ~ Top of Mori I ~ g -(Powe r tHoth estavation),,' / ABO 4E ,42C 12 0 !.E. [. ,e' O 19 03 8e l- .h 905 _. / - -10 0 0 100 1 e. .l h - -j/ m-. -l- -- 8 0 p' 's 80 g I Base of Mort Base of Morl ' 2 j -- - I I I O Bose of Mor! l Conf'ined oquifer b Confine ( aquifer 1 i I l 42A l l Confined eqluif er l l l l 9 l l 60 2 60 10 0 12 0 140 160 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 10 0 12 0 14 0 16 0 HYDR AULIC HEAD - ELEVATION, FEET (M SL) NOTES:
~~l. Measurements in 900 thru 905-Nov.1985~~
~~' 2. Measurements in 42 Series - April 1972~~
~~3. Levels for water table and confined aquif ers of clusters A and B based on measurements Nov.1985 (i e ; Figure 16)~~
PIEZOMETER PROFILES BLUE BLUFF MARL Figure 14
c' v =~ Ki "e seepage velocity (L/T),
~~where, v~~
= coefficient of hydraulic conductivity K = (permeability) (L/T), hydraulic gradient (ratio) i, = n, effective porosity (ratio) = The gradient is determined by the hydraulic head dissipat-ed (the difference in piezometric levels of the water table and - the Tertiary aquifers) over the travel path (the thickness of the marl). The difference in head beneath the power block can -l ~ be datermined from'a comparison of piezometric surfaces of the twotaquifers measured in December 1984. These indicate a dif-farence of about 50 to 5$ feet. This is similar to the dif-I ference observed in a comparison of levels measured prior to construction November 1971. The minimum thickness of the marl beneath the power-block is 38 feet. See note 1 supra. The i maximum hydraulic gradient, then, is 55 feet of head over'a distance.of 38 feet, or 1.447. The vertical permeability of the marl is anisctropic, as is evidenced by the differences lin head decline observed be-tween the piezometers of well clusters A and B and well series 42. The downward migration of ground water across the marl, l however minute:in quantity, will-dissipate more head traversing the... layers of lowest permeability than in traversing those lay- ~ ers of'relatively higher permeability. v i l > t l l m t~
The marl is composed of a series of beds, and a material ~ comprised of such layers, each of different permeabilities, is described as having layered heterogeneity. R. A. Freeze and J. A. Cherry, Groundwater, p. 30 (Prentice-Hall, 1979). The average or effective permeability across such a material (ver-tical flow) has been found to be equal to the harmonic mean of the layer permeabilities. H. Bouwer, Groundwater Hydrology, pp. 56-60 (McGraw-Hill, 1978). Assuming the ten-laboratory tests are.a representative sample of the layers present in the marl (each sample represents an equal propor' tion of the total I marl thickness), the harmonic mean permeability would be 0.045 -8 ft/yr (4.3 x 10 cm/sec). Adopting an average vertical permeability of 0.1 ft/yr is therefore reasonably conservative. Total porosity of the marl has been calculated for 18. sam-ples, and the average value of those samples is 47.5 percent. Recent studies at the University of Waterloo show that for clays the effective porosity (the-porosity affecting the rate b of ground-water movement) is essentially equal to total s ] . porosity. j Applying the values above for the three controlling i parameters -- hydraulic gradient (1.447), average permeability j (0.1 ft/yr), and effective porosity (47.5%) -- the average ver-tical ground-water velocity in the marl is calculated to be 0.31 ft/yr, and the time required to traverse 38 feet of marl would be 123 years. Taking into account retardation (discussed s _
below), this travel time is sufficient to reduce all ra-dionuclides in a worst case spill below the maximum permissible concentrations set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 (which applies to routine, continuous re-leases). B. Lateral Migration and the Hydraulic Isolation of the VEGP Site Because the marl prevents significant vertical movement of contaminants across it, migration of contaminants from an acci-dental spill at VEGP would be predominantly lateral in the direction of decreasing head in the water-table aquifer. The water-table has been monitored by measurements of levels in wells at the VEGP site since 1971. With these measurements, the direction of ground-water flow can be determined. The water levels that were measured during site investiga-tion indicated that the direction of ground-water flow beneath the' power block area is northward to Mathes Pond. Subsequent excavation and dewatering profoundly but temporarily affected the water table level.2/ The dewatering continued until 1983. Although water levels were measured periodically during this period, the dewatering operations preclude their use to predict present or future flow direction nd flow rate. 2/ See FSAR, Figure 2.4.12-7, which shows that during dewatering ground-water flow in the vicinity of the excavated area was radially inward towards the excavation. l. b
Water lev'els monitored in observation wells since cessa-tion of dewatering indicate that the water table has recovered from the dewatering. Continued construction activity, however, still precludes complete stabilization.of the water table, par-ticularly in the power-block area. Backfilling is still in progress around the structures and requires considerable appli-cation of water to the materials. This water percolates to the water table, where its flow is locally retarded by plant struc-tures. Hence, the power block is an area in which recharge and hence water levels are te'mporarily higher than will be the case after construction is complete. Grading and leveling of the site have also changed the drainage pattern and reduced topographic relief, and these changes affect the configuration of the water table. Nevertheless, post-dewatering water levels indicate that the configuration of the water table remains a subdued replica of the 1971 levels and that similar flow pat-terns will exist. Compare Figure 10 with Figure 15. The most recently determined water table contours are shown in Figure 16, and are representative of the temporary ground-water conditions described above. The southern ground-water divide may have temporarily shifted toward the power block area because of the localized recharge from placement of backfill, but-it remains generally south of the power block. The flow from points of potential spill are still north and northwestward to Mathes Pond. Analysis of past and present s l. e
,;.<. es m _ (,- e.j 6 % w-
~~3enu, c.; -~~
~~w.: - s., v - ~ ~ SXj,. Q&_{v.. s s. N, K.s ' -p Q. % v-~,r \\ f-* y% Q el c ./> , Wp(w' }g,9' ^ A '.~~~

9
^ w-. . - w'L.'*i'% g} fp[/'4ys..-i[_:I I b.7, c y /~~d'/ T.1 - ~ ON'_ n,% ./ - . s '~~ \\ ,' r-& / s .' W g; ._. ;-,== ~ -=,. 3_ ~m.,. -., --.,. m t ; . ' % 3 L= % Q' L. ~> ,- /' ~~- .--) / _ Ns- ( .1. WNM, ry' 'C_, 2 D-'~=~ g - Y& .,m @ff ' gl[ b. R' ^y ) )).(, (,\\p g \\{T i.,-"c*3 -;f's a S _ ' e ) l;,"(' ' ',f,,.,-= +4.). :' N:
~~Q L~~
~~) l y 7 . / q/ a.\\ x n , ::=.=- - ".q ) : ,.T-'.' M 9, 1 / e,, g v-t 7 . Q '. ): // ;/% l ', ; 2 ,ff ) [b 'l ' ( 'j ,- 96'(I / p wp m&f.- [G7-<,n'fg/y m f. h~~
~~ff52,~~
~~~% ~~~
)
~~5 ~! * $3 .. - ~ 3 l' ~ ' - (tS3J )\\ Q' L, fi ' ' ~ = ~~ ~,)'.! nf - ~h.'j4g l45 y ,,,y,y _c; '} q Fs._'. ',~;.",'.- ]//551 /.5J/ 9420 j ij m - ! /' i , )p)' e' '\\ ' NI~~
~~m y 3x~~
~~.o r~ - j 41, n /. i,/gf5g{p~ ... -o ~#9 h45G 6 [Jq M,&,y& g -[. g o y.e %, E 'Y W Y p f 'd 9 4 g - 's T n ~~n y;* ~~ n==,9 y ac a n. 3o o ^ - [ /, - ~ ~~. l~~
~~.\\a4 7(t62),~~
c = o /.T' f- / o M, .t u p. o -e o 9 o o* / ~ ^' wp o I,a o o _. -j 'f r c.. s, y ~~ m m_9 .1..,./ \\\\ ( f o% W /,7 - fa ./ /g rs k 3\\ ) V {:. c,. [ *o \\,f6Glm)'y 7 ( Ms 7,,j2%4 n 's; 7a( 3 ( -> ( _ { ~ m:: F _ 7'o / ' *, ,EM 7
~~7 o~~
= 2- .~ .s o.- p 3 - n &' _* &,- !,W ' 4W,,: ~. ._-s ' Q.' b'-j; G, [- p . :. ' v;.l%.,a ,l c a.iv u ? w s ~ Q, / M~ .'. ~. o. n _K ~ ./, k, c _ : ; y,, s y y-= ~) /m gy.. n hll1.l} y [L~ i X L!j5,, " 4M%L 2%#WNMi 5 cc ~~
_/ M i i U i N '*'\\,\\ i EXPLANATION 1 s '.s s in g'kssd\\\\\\ j e OBSERVATION WELL t \\, //6// WATER TABLE ELEVATION IN PARENTHESES \\ SPRING OR SEEP s{} 160--" CONTOUR OF WATER TABLE ELEVATION j x^' c-=E 2 //g n s _/ '\\
~~o GROUND-WATER OlVIDE~~
~~,oooe {... - a g x' N I // /FM'AD a i b d Mq. ss ' W ;j h N \\ \\,' own ieO~~
~~--y~~
~~\\. s o 'o, 'NQ.p# s ooo,*fooo h,\\ o o J \\,' y'~~
~~y ~ d, G N g~~
~~'T tjS TI N w 47Abg APERTURE N~~
~~2* "~~
--R% w .N CARD Y f ?. G E Q. ~ ~ ', O Also Avaitahle On N r K--, gg /s :._ ^ - _%._4 ~'- j s ( ~ 'Kperture Card % Q%' X '3 / 3 -- )('\\s,sr 'f -~ -- t ,q 0 3 (4 I \\j Ig ~,/ ' -:~'2 I d. d,3 N,% ~ m i\\ C,, e' ^ ~
~~REFERENCE:~~
'r, ( r '.., - [ '~ ^ H ANCOCK LANDING PROJECT I - l) -g j/ y 1 K ~~ ^X ( TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PREPARED BY 7 CLYDE N. ELDRIDGE AERIAL }., h (* ~\\ .[ Jj,dy;'6 d M\\g, Q N \\sh y, y q q j l yNV \\ 'N N. N~ ~/ l ~'. l" ~'* x:':. sem ~' ; 9 '. m., ......:r.: ""........ Q-C --, g s \\fN %/,, ' \\fwf 4$Ap-s.s_ g(pogg,cpo31g-oS s v ,/ --- CONTOURS OF WATER TABLE AQUlFER NOVEMBER 1971 I )([.- Figure 15 L: .x
g '.,d.c/ m% ! ! / /'" ~ / O N#\\ \\'N, ) h \\ \\'. w i i - .y. } g,t NNN M,,axv ~ % < F w/,,.., yw -4,, - %\\ 5- ~. '~ {t , g ( 37. '3T,, N= ( ~ e ' bh 's v- ' / Z.y's, ' ,b 4 / l, I 'A j.) ' l T? 9;,'fh,y,0, '
'y
~~_2. 4 ' - p . n .y. f. ^- y f_ I f f.,f Nk NNb k ...,ues_si 7 we~~
9
[ *- ._o.-,. \\ f_ . f. e D ,j W.a s o % or .O [W-c' -' -- :,.7;,T' hy '. M( mf o. 2 ~ o 3'r-T io, fail W[ / ,hed}gy,_... .og o i N / I ) e i '., l 'o / atto cousita e' p o-ED' - (161.6h O O .1 e so: p-O ~,,0 ^ ^ (160.9? / o .t. \\.wnt etusita t 7 ,,,o _ r.* 7', (Ipgpy aa* lesoza ,s. J o o ~T gO "i'N' o o ~x . 04 m. a.. \\\\ IL
*) Y / ' R 4:6o.8)
~~Of -v. s 3:-v t /4 / '., xdg x N~~
~~o w~~
~~s ./ . - re+. nm{ = - 20 9 y-x .,.. i. N ~ o i; 1 - l \\ l ',D Ny 3 ',-1 -D_a . o ..a}..,k l 'y /"~\\ o~~
~~Qdg) D,,.I~~

~~ff.., ~ t ./ .4 m,, ~o / /~~
~~n.. a J.~~
~~. 1 ) a nm wwum~~
~~xurm k~~
N o jf \\ EXPLANATION OB$ERVATION WELL \\ //6// WATER TABLE ELEVATION IN PARENTHESES =c-r ^ \\+ 160- CONTOUR OF WATER TABLE ELEVATION N. J \\ o GROUND-WATER DIVIDE o oo oa $7%MN b % D [o, hw d'.\\9 h g\\ 2 \\ .. s t T1 i M'" ~. 9%% Nh\\.\\\\\\ CARD APERT M a n f doo os o o o a f- .' g ( , ['f'jk ,y hNb m Manable On <eDs{x Aperture Card }.g - . A,.l . $w ~ ~ N x (' Jf e:sa \\ l~ ~ ~ ~ L . /.: - I - .N .. NOTES *. -- ' ) s ,I e Q' THE WELLS SHOWN ARE USED FOR THE %w I *- e*- GROUND WATER MONITORING PROGRAM ' 852 \\ ' ~_ INITIATED OUniNG THE SUMMER OF 1985 j! {' T = s ) 'i.' beee[ SITE GRADING GENERALIZED F / ,,, K 1, g ~~
~~=e DWG.NO CXZD46V003WITHIN GRADED 8~~
/
~~ii d , g / , AREA, APPROXIMATE ELEVATIONS g j, ,e i . SHOWN UNDERLINED: M ([. tb \\~~
~~REFERENCE:~~
j/ ' [" '[ i'"7.. _.J..4 A >y \\. ,s. D y .~ HANCOCK LANDING PROJECT y, u g ]s -s ' @k -s L, TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PREPARED EY i\\'% ~ g g'T;.,fE g. ^ ' " ' ^ ' Y'u 1 y,\\. - m' g(%z SCALE N F ET 3' * ,#. -: ' - f, Contour intervals 5f t.ond 25 f t. i / \\rR.[x/,e i , 4 t, a g'y g909 n og n -og N g,,, f, y q, r
~~m-N~~
{ CONTOURS OF WATER TABLE AQUlFER l . NOVEMBER 1985,_ ijg Figure 16
water levels demonstrates-that an accidental spill will not mi-grate to the south. Ground-water moving northward from beneath the power block area will eventually reach Mathes Pond. Concentrations of any remnant radionuclides from a spill at the plant would be fur-ther reduced by dilution as the contaminated ground-water slowly discharged into Mathes Pond (which is completely on-site) and, subsequently, to the stream. Ground-water north of Mathes Pond and stream would not be affected. The Mathes drainage has cut down to the marl, as have other streams bor-dering the interfluvial ridge on which VEGP is located, inter-rupting continuity between water-table aquifers. Ground-water in the water-table aquifers on both sides of the bordering pond and streams discharges into the pond and streams (i.e., ground-water flows into and not across the pond and streams).3/ 3/ Because the weter-table aquifer beneath the VEGP site is hydraulically isolated (see discussion on pages 9-11), an acci-dental spill flowing in any direction could not impsir domestic or other wells beyond the streams around the interfluvial ridge. For the same reason, a spill could not migrate to an area where the marl is not present or less permeable (potential avenues to reach the !.ower, confined aquifers). The only wells that could be affecte' by an accidental spill are those on the interfluvial ridge ar. ' drawing from the water-table aquifer. There is only one sucu well. This well is located approxi-mately 1.7 miles south of the plant, and an accidental spill would not move in that direction. k-A b
. =. i s C. Spill Analyses and Travel Time Estimates S&veral analyses have been previously made to assess the impact of a postulated spill. Applicants have analyzed the im-pact of the rupture of the Recycle Holdup Tank (RHT) -- the ] tank that potentially has the highest specific isotopic activi-ty-(highest concentration of radioisotopes). FSAR 55 2.4.13 and 15.7.3. The NRC Staff references this analysis in the FES as representing a worst case release for potential offsite im- } pact of design basis events. FES-OL, 5 5.3.2.4. The NRC Staff also performed a similar analysis for the rupture of the Waste i-Evaporator Concentrates Holdup Tank (WECHT), which is a smaller 3 tank than the RHT but which has a specific isotopic activity l comparable to that of the RHT. SER, $ 2.4.13. In addition, j both Applicants and the NRC Staff have analyzed a core-melt 1 liquid-pathway accident scenario. ER-OL, 5 7A; FES-OL, t 1 $ 5.9.4.5(4). Each of the analyses is based on a one-dimen-i sional flow model. The analyses differ in the hydraulic gradi-f ent, permeability, and effective porosity assumed along the l' ground-water flow path. The different analyses consider either j best-estimate values of flow path parameters or worst-case val-ues of flow path parameters. All of the analyses impose extreme assumptions involving the manner in which a radioactive release could occur. With respect to an accidental spill, the RHT is the most critical 4 tank and a spill analysis involving the RHT is presented below l j : l O
as the worst case. The spill analysis postulates not only tank failure, but also the failure of the auxiliary building in which the tank is located. The spill analysis described below assumes that these failures are total and that the release to the ground-water occurs instantly, with no initial dilution of the spilled waste; the spill is transferred to the ground-water as a slug in negligible time (no decay). While this scenario is probably physically impossible, it is presented to bound any lesser scenario. D. Flow Path to Mathes Pond Following the postulated events above, the spilled waste would migrate along a flow path in the ground-water northward to Mathes Pond. The flow path considered, between the auxilia-ry building and the spring on the southeast side of Mathes Pond, is a distance of over 3400 feet. The first 550 feet of this flow path is through the backfill material. The time required for ground-water to migrate through the backfill is determined by the permeability and porosity of the materials, and the hydraulic gradient. The backfill is sand and silty sand compacted to an average of 97% of its maximum density. FSAR, 5 2.5.4.5.2. The permeability assigned to the backfill is the maximum value measured in situ, 1220 ft/yr. Total porosity measurements of backfill samples that meet the compaction criterion range from 31.6 to 37.6%, and average $ n
total porosity is 34%. For sand and silty sand, the total and effective porosity are essentially the same. The hydraulic gradient in the backfill along the Mathes Pond flow path is 3.5 -3 X 10 but again for conservatism is rounded off to 4.0 X -3 10 Applying Darcy's Law to the parameter values above, the calculated ground-water velocity in the backfill is 14.4 ft/yr. With a flow path length of 550 feet, the ground-water travel time in the backfill is 38.2 years. The concentrations of spilled radionuclides that are ulti-mately transmitted through a ground-water system to a discharge point (i.e. transmitted through the water-table aquifer to Mathes Pond and stream, and, subsequently, discharged off-site to the Savannah River) is determined by the following factors: The source (tank) radionuclide inven-tory released to the ground-water The attenuation which takes place dur-ing transport through the system, caused principally by dispersion, di-lution, adsorption, and radioactive decay. Of the several radionuclides present in the liquid waste holding tanks, three are critical because of relatively long half-lives. These include tritium (H-3), strontium-90 (Sr-90), and cesium-137 (Cs-137). Because they are chemically active and susceptible to adsorption, migration of Sr-90 and Cs-137 in j the ground-water will be retarded; they will move at a markedly i l : } i i l e
I i slower rate than the water. Tritium is not adsorbed signifi-cantly, and tends to travel at the same rate as the ground-water The degree of retardation is governed by the various phys-ical properties such as bulk density, aquifer porosity, and ra-dionuclide equilibrium distribution coefficients. The rela-tionship between ground-water velocity (or ground-water transport time), radionuclide adsorption, and the radionuclide r fraction resulting from decay that is ultimately transmitted to Mathes Pond is given by the following expressions In (T.F.) = -0.693(t)a Tl/2
~~where, T.F. =~~
transmitted fraction (ratio) estimate of ground-water t = travel time (T), 4 adsorption retention factor, a = l/2= radionuclide half-life (T). T j The adsorption retention factor (also called retardation i factor) is equal to (1 + p/n K ) d 3
~~where, p~~
= dry (bulk) density of the aquifer (M/L ), porosity of the aquifer (ratio), n = and K = equilibrium distribution coefficient d which is defined as the mass of radio-nuclide adsorbed per gram of soil divided by the mass of radionuclide dissolved per milliliter of ground-I water. l
t The density of backfill at the required compaction was de-termined for twelve samples. The values ranged from 1.62 to 3 1.79 g/cm3 (101.1 to 111.8 lb/ft ). A value of 1.6.g/ 3 cm is therefore conservative. The ratio of this value to i 3 the average total porosity (0.34), i.e. p/n, is 4.71 g/cm, The equilibrium distribution coefficients (K ) I# d Sr-90 and Cs-137 of four samples of backfill were measured by the batch method. The values for Sr-90 ranged from 40.8 to 3 94.7 cm /g, and the values for Cs-137 ranged from 385 to 3 b 2134 cm /q. These values are all more than five times greater than the conservative estimates of average values given 4 by Isherwood (NUREG/CR-0912, January 1981). Again to be con-i l servative, the lower estimated average values of Isherwood, 10 7 1 3 and 100 cm /g for Sr-90 and Cs-137 respectively, were cho-sen. Using the values of the parameters above, the calculated I reduction in concentration in the backfill along a northward I flow path are summarized as follows: i Nuclides Kd(cm3/qm) a T 1/2 (vr) TF H-3 0 1 12.2 1.15 x 10'1 Sr-90 10 48.1 28 1.8 x 10-20 Cs-137 100 472 30 1.5 x 10~194 The concentration of radioisotopes in contaminated ground-4 water after travel through the backfill is equal to the trans-mitted fraction times the initial concentration. The following q i i r n
summarizes the initial concentrations assumed to be present in l the postulated worst-case spill, the reduced concentration after travel through the backfill due to radioactive decay and adsorption, and the maximum permissible concentration (MPC) for normal releases from 10 C.F.R. Part 20, Appendix B (Table II, Column 2). Postulated'RHT Rupture Concen. after Initial Travel through Concentration Backfill MPC Nuclides (uC$/cm3) (uC1/cm3) (uci/cm3) H-3 1.0 1.15 x 10 3.0 x 10-3 -1 -7 Sr-90 1.0 x 10-5 1.8 x 10-25 3.0 x 10 Cs-137 1.9 x 10 2.9 x 10 2.0 x 10-5 -2 -196 It can be seen that under this very simplified and conser-vative scenario, the concentrations of both Sr-90 and Cs-137 in ground-water would meet 10 C.F.R. Part 20 limits after travel 1 i through the backfill. Parameters that would reduce the concen-tration further, such as dispersion and dilution, need not be corsidered. Because tritium is not retarded and migrates with, the ground-water, the tritium concentration in ground-water travelling through the backfill would exceed the MPC limits 5 (still ignoring any dilution or dispersion of the spill). Ground-water exiting the backfill would continue its mi-i gration through the Barnwell Group to Mathes Pond. Several l high permeability measurements in the Utley Limestone raised . l O
the possibility that the Utley might act as a conduit permit-ting the ground-water exiting the backfill to flow very rtpidly to Mathes pond. However, even if this hypothesis were correct, contaminated ground-water subsequently reaching Mathes Pond would be further diluted in the pond and in the stream running from the pond to the Savannah River, reducing the concentration below 10 C.F.R. Part 20 limits before it flows off-site. Flow into Mathes Pond is continuous, and the pond level is held constant by a spillway. The ratio of Mathes Pond stream flow tc the rate at which the postulated spill would discharge from the backfill (and into Mathes Pond) is the potential for dilution of the spill within the stream. The rate of flow in the stream draining Mathes Pond has been measured at 250 gpm. The discharge rate of the spill in the backfill is determined by the velocity of ground-water flow (14.4 ft/yr) and the as-sumed volume and dimensions of the spill slug. The critical source of radionuclides in an accidental spill, the RHT, has a total capacity of 112,000 gallons. Assuming the tank is filled to 80 percent of its total capacity, its entire content is re-leased, and the spill is instantly transferred to the backfill, the rate of discharge from the backfill would be from 0.04 to 0.07 gpm, depending on the dimensions of the spill. The volume of flow in Mathes Pond stream would reduce the concentration of the largest calculated discharge rate (0.07 gpm) by a factor of more than 3500. The concentration of 3 tritium discharging from the backfill (0.115 pCi/cm ) 3 would be reduced to 3.2 x 10-5 pCi/cm in the Mathes Pond stream with complete mixing. Because contaminated ground-water would first discharge to the Pond, and would then flow into and down the stream below the Pond before discharging offsite, there would be adequate mixing. However, assuming only a 50 percent effective mixing, the concentration of tritium in Mathes Pond and stream would be 6.4 x 10" 3 pC1/cm, which is below permissible concentration levels for continuous routine releases. E. Alternative Pathway to the Northeast Because changes in the water-table due to construction currently preclude a precise definition of its future configu-ration, a flow path to the northeast cannot at this time be un-equivocally eliminated as a possibility. A northeast flow path was therefore postulated and analyzed for this hearing. For this pathway, the shortest distance north to the edge of the backfill is assumed, and a straight line path is struck north-east to the Savannah River. Within the power block area, the flow path is essentially the same as that to Mathes Pond. The hydraulic gradient is 4 x 10-3 and the flow path through the backfill is 550 feet. Thus, the transmitted fractions along this flow path and concentrations after travel through the backfill are the same . m - - - - - - - o
O as those shown on page 29 above. Only the concentration of tritium would exceed MPC. Travel time in backfill along the northeast pathway re-duces the original concentration of tritium in the postulated 3 spi;' to 0.115 pCi/cm. Assuming rapid travel through the Utley limestone with no dispersion, this would be the con-centration at the discharge point of this ground-water flow path. The discharge point is on the bluff of the Savannah River, at the head of a small tributary to the river. After discharg-ing to that drainage, concentration of the spill would be di-luted by the stream flow, in a similar manner to that consid-ered in the Mathes Pond drainage. Flow in the drainage is sustained by ground water discharging from the water table aquifer exposed along the bluff. The underlying marl is also exposed in the bluff, and the Utley limestone extends over the full length of the small drainage. Thus, a measure of the potential dilution is indicated by the total length of aquifer exposed in the drainage, in relation to the width of the spill slug. That is, thespillslugisadr~a~ckionofthetotal length of aquifer discharging to the drainage. The length of aquifer discharging to the drainage is at least 2800 feet. The maximum calculated width of the spill slug in the ground-water is 40 feet. Assuming the initially spilled slug moves to the discharge point casentially intact (no dispersion or dilution
along the flow path), the ratio of slug width to aquifer length is 0.014. Applying this ratio as a dilution factor, the reduced peak concentration cf tritium in the drainage discharg-ing to the Savannah River would be 1.6 x 10-3 pCi/ 3 cm, Thus, the concere; ration of tritium would be reduced to about half the MPC /alue along this arbitrary flow line, under the very conservative assumptions applied in the analysis. Di-lution to a ner,ligible concentration would occur almost immedi-l ately upon d',scharge to the Savannah River. III. Grouid-water Monitorinq !'.1 July 1985, a program of frequent measurement of water-table wells was implemented in response to the NRO Staff's re-q.'ast. The principal purpose of this program is to provide more detailed information to support the VEGP design basis water level (see SER 5 2.4.1.2.4). The wells and piezometers monitored by this program are listed on Tables 1 and 2, and their locations are shown on Figure 17. The design basis water level is the maximum expected ground-water level in the vicinity of the power block struc-tures. The elevation of the water table tends to fluctuate from year to year and from season to season in response to f variations in the rate of recharge. A conservative maximum level is determined for use in various design calculation such. a
i OB8ERVATION WELLS TABLE 1 Ground Depth Depth of Surface Top of Monitored Well Installed coordinates Elev.(1) Marl (2) Interval (2) ERz_ (Yr.) N 8 (ft.) (ft.) (f t'. ) Water-table seuifer 129 1971 8856 9576 215.9 77 35 - 100 142 1971 8283 8262 231.2 92 52 - 101 179 1971 9059 7779 214.8 130 90 - 131 l 800 1979 8850 11011 213.7 83 59 - 94 801 1979 7656 10733 212.8 82 49 - 87.5 802A 1985 7196 10194 216.9 87.5 72 - 90 803A 1979 7085 8898 218.3 82 42 - 87 804 1979 6597 8227 224.1 87 49 - 102 805A 1979 6672 10403 232.7 124 69.5-127 8065 1980 8821 9726 214.8 77 23 - 70 407A 1980 9047 9835 213.6 77 36 - 80 800 1985 9625 9300 207.0 66.3 45.5-68 809 1985 8320 1860 222.8 89 69.4-90 LT-1B 1985 8388 9304 213.2 83.3 65.2-84.7 LT-7A 1985 8151 9317 215.9 87 65 - 87 LT-12 1985 7775 9600 209.0 79 58.2-78.6 LT-13 1985 8135 10110 219.0 89 64.1-89.1 Tertiary aquifer 1 27 1971 8622 13931 210.0 148 146 - 190 29 1971 9975 12392 193.0 126 124 - 210 34 1971 12180 10846 86.0 N.A. 47 - 115 850A 1984 11723 10494 225.9 135 147 - 200 851A 1984 8868 7066 262.7 195 235.7-300 852 1984 5993 13380 200.7 153.5 159.1-220 853 1984 11020 9204 227.6 145 176.3-217 854 1984 9899 7917 236.8 153 174 - 220 855 1984 7159 13951 218.0 173 192 - 240 856 1984 4927 12558 186.7 155 156 - 197 Cretaceous seulfer TW-1 1972 7738 9984 218.5 140 506 - 850 NU-2 1971 9500 9135 214.5 150 450 - $20 NOT88 (1) DetermLned at time of drillin8 (2) Below tround surface at time of drLL1Lnt.
TABLE 2 PI820NETERS IN BLUE BLUFF MARL Ground Depth of Surface Depth of Monitored Well Installed Coordinates Elev.(1) Marl (2) Interval (2) Egz_ (Yr.) W E (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) 900 1985 7538 10119.5 216.3 92.6-148 133.8-140.7 901 1985 7538 10104.5 215.58 91.6-148 122.0-128.0 902 1985 7543.5 10110.5 215.97 91.0-148 101.5-108.0 903 1985 8480 8900 215.75 78.0-148 127.0-133.0 9048 1985 8464 8885 215.75 78.8-148 90.0- 94.7 905 1985 8450 8900 215.75 77.3-148 109.8-116.0 BOTSS i (1) Determined at time of drilling. (2) Below Sround surface at time of drilling. Botton depth of marl is interpolated f rom fi8ure 2.5.1-31, FSAR. l l 4 1 ~. -- n. ,- ~
.4,4v//nc.nywqv.vir= =W.\\mv\\%y n N\\ W _ \\h 9& cam:s' QM75 Q, reseg $ deb 3dd3id
~~e;:1~~~
~~gvz>yc xp2 szy 2,.w w% A m =M p~WEh'f}[qv%: n,, nl,- ~ p ;ly @gn s.- m,y y' r.t, t h, ; m .t=. 3 I y-A.o.o a s nz L m' y; [p,.--. lg m 2svs .s Er-m i p .n w. e:L6 cousns,ej r w,t 8 s:g.., y.~~
~~g gg 0'.... -~~
~~o 0~~
~~7p; a~~
~~-,., ) h..o~.'w" t xty l J% 9;y; L' 3r -,,7 r ,4 ..e gi, Oo,I j.a[ c=s ~ a) [ %)y n <.%f ,/Q+ + an .Au x w ) y \\ Jm4 % Mn%_e,ud _\\'=wN ' gqggn ;/-~~
~~c. '~~
-sw r w q.. r t q;ej s g W~sf,$. /*/ ~ ~' .. ' '.rr,A. ~ -/~n' Q,w*h.f f.t [ ~- - .\\ ,-s y p(hu h't'sI) 'N 2 ,/ I,Ij s s s, ,. _ SW-r 3 / ljnhL.#.9Ah?Esu # M ; T 1 "' \\ Lii/n 3 )( w.
.. m 904s 4 " 3 g 9CS d k*;en ~ , ; ,' (;in .. x Q _' / h- -O THE WELLS SHOWN ARE USED FOM THE GROUNO WATER MONITOMING PROGRAM M aesa 'K-3 -t ) INITIATED DURING THE SUMMER OF 1985 p 'e ? d. ),), x. o pa-;,4 "'[ SITE GRADING GENERALIZED FMOM 4 (),. [ ' r,, '" ,... M i / (dp sg ,g DWG No.CxzoseVeo3WITHIN GRADED // .j' s, AREA APPMOxlMATE ELEVATIONS Ax 1 s.(, 'i i /.- %A_, sHOWN UNDEMLINED: [ff 3-s 9 l '/ '#-REFE RENCE: N v \\ -D' A s sf H ANCOCK LANDING PMOJECT \\n 4 j N' - g s \\
~~h. ' '~~
~~d f' - - - __) 'h. %,~ TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PMEPARED SY~~
~~b. I1~~
~~'D CLYDE N.ELDMIDGE AERIAL i~~
~~c. ~d g --~~
~~k, ' SUMVE YS, F E 5. 2541, s, ms 3 y-(~~
~~m. u r'\\~~
~~s,a. - summununummmuumunum m g I%*'k 'b \\ 'Gl 1~~
~~f N.'.v.;,,,&ahw~~
. o./ L;,3 \\g i h ' {*,.j go Contour Intervots Sitoed2SfL N v v y, s s\\/ i h,. ...s m i\\.h J N r 09%037347 "-""~ OBSERVATION WELLS AND HAIN GAUGES lQ FIGURE 17 b'-
t as subsurface hydrostatic loading (the stresses that ground-water exerts on subsurface structures). The design basis water level for the power block area is 165 feet mal, whereas expect-ed levels in that area range from 157 to 161 ft. mal. The NRC Staff's concern was that water levels had not been monitored for a sufficient length of time to verify the fluctu-ations in level that might be expected,4/ and designated this concern a confirmatory item. See SER, Table 1.5 and $$ 2.4.12.6 - 2.4.12.7. This item has little bearing on the speed or direction of ground-water flow over the power block area, since fluctuationi are quite uniform over this area and do not appreciably alter the hydraulic gradients. The first six mon *.hs of monitoring was completed in December, 1985, and the results presented. The highest recorded water-level in the power block area during this period was 162 feet mal at well LT-12. Well LT-12 is located in a small enclosed area between the auxiliary building and adjacent structures that, until recently, had been a depression (only partially backfilled). Drainage from the auxiliary building and other structures was directed to this depression. Until late october, when backfilling was continued, there was no 4/ The Licensing Board referred to this concern at pages 12-13 of its November 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 7 re: Groundwater Contamination).
c t attempt to drain the depression. The resulting ponded water was a source of concentrated recharge and has created a tempo-rary mounding of the water table aquifer. Yet despite this ab-normal recharge, the water level remained well below the 165 foot design basis water level. The NRC Staff also requested that as part of this renewed monitoring program two well clusters of piezometers be in-stalled at opposite corners of the power block to provide addi-tional detail on the pore pressure distribution within the marl. See SER $$ 2.4.12.2.2 and 2.4.12.2.7.5/ As a result, well clusters A and B were installed. The data from these wells, discussed above at page 18, were consistent with that previously obtained from well series 42. Finally, the NRC Staff asked that the Cretaceous (Tuscaloosa] aquifer be monitored to determine the long-term effect of withdrawing water from this aquifer. SER $ 2.4.12.7.s/ During operation, VEGP will draw ground-water from the Cretaceous aquifer at a maximum rate of approximately 8705 L/ min (2300 gpm) and at an average rate of approximately 3180 L/ min (840 gpm). Beneath VECP, the Cretaceous aquifer is approximately 700 feet thick. Pumping tests previously 5/ The Licensing Board referred to this. confirmatory item at page 13 of its November 12, 1985 Memorandum and order, s/ The Board referred to this item at page 13 of its Hovember 12, 1985 Memorandum and Order. -
conducted at VEGP indicate transmissivities in the range of 110,000 to 230,000 gpd/ft and storage coefficients ranging from -5 ~4 2.1 x 10 to 6.6 x 10 for the aquifer. FSAR at 2.4.12-10. Estimated water in storage in the Tuscaloosa aquifer is approximately 21 billion acre-ft, and sustainable yield is estimated to be 5 billion gpd (19 billion L/ day). Id. at 2.4.12-3. Because of the large available capacity, the small use rate during operation of VEGP ehould have no signifi-cant effect on the aquifer. There should be no appreciable lowering of piezametric levels beyond 1000 feet from the pumping site, and no effect on any off-site water user. The monitoring of the Cretaceous aquifer during plant operation will provide confirmation of these determinations. IV. Conclusion In our opinion, the geology and hydrology at VEGP have been adequately explored. There is sufficient data on marl thickness, permeability, and continuity for a confident deter-mination that the marl is an effective barrier against contami-nation of the confined aquifers. Based on this exploration and the conservative analyses of ground-water flow, it is our opin-ion that even if a worst-case spill of radioactive liquid were to occur at Plant Vogtle and reach the water table, such spill would not pose undue risk to the public health and safety. e _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 7 t Thomas W. Crosby My name is Thomas W. Crosby. I graduated from Oregon State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology in June 1973. For the past twelve years I have been employed by Bechtel as an engineering geologist. My responsibilities have been the field and office studies for the siting, design, and construction of major engineering projects, including nuclear power plants, hazardous waste facilities, dams, and tunnels. I have been responsible for field exploration, data interpretation, report preparation, and regulatory review on nuclear power sites in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Washington, California, and Taiwan. My ground water experience includes supervision of monitoring well construction and testing at hazardous waste sites in New York, Tennessee, and Arizona. I have also supervised the installation and testing of large capacity production wells in Senegal, West Africa and Washington State. I am a Registered Geologist and a Certified Engineering Geologist in the State of California, and a Licensed Geologist in the State of Oregon. 1 l e \\.
4 e. ' EXHIBIT B
~~o PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I~~
i \\ Clifford R. Farrell J My name is Clifford R. Farrell. I have received a Bachelor of Science degree in geology from the University of Southern California in 1954, and have completed some graduate studies. i I have 31 years of experience in field and office studies in hydrogeology l and engineering geology including investigations for the development of regional an<l local water supplies; design and construction of water wells; hydrogeologic studies concerned with the safety analysis of ~ nuclear power plants and geologic studies for the planning and design of i dams, tunnels, and power plants. j I worked for the California Department of Water Resources for 11 years. } Initially I worked on alternative route studies for the California i Aqueduct, becoming head of a unit responsible for geologic studies of 3 tunnels, dams, and power plants. In 1961, I became head of a ground } water and hydrology special studies unit that conducted basin-wide water l supply studies. I j From 1967 to 1969, before joining 8echtel, I completed an assignment with the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization for the Huaura River Project in Peru. I was responsible for the proposed ground water development plans and for geologic investigations of dam sites. k' l For the past 16 years I have been responsible for the technical direction I of ground water investigations conducted by the Bechtel Engineering i Geology Group. I have directed geologic and ground water studies i concerned with the safety analysis of eleven nuclear power plant sites and with the design and characterization of hazardous, non-hazardous, and low-level waste repositories. Characterization studies have included contaminant plume identification and radionuclide migration studies. Other studies have included: design and construction of ground water l supplies for mining, industrial, and agricultural developments in many j countries, including Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Indonesia, Algeria, and Senegal; seepage and pollution analysis of storage ponds at several U.S. power plant sites; and environmental impact studies. I have l designed dewatering and ground water control systems for power plant j foundations, open-pit mining, and other projects. l I am a registered geologist and a certified engineering geologist in the i State of California. l l l-
EXHIBIT C o " o ,/ PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS i ~ Lewis R. West My name is Lewis R. West. I have a B.S. degree in Geology from the University of-Southern Mississippi and some graduate studies in geology at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I was empicyed by the Ground Water Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey for seven years. During this period. I worked in Alabama for four years and at tne U.S.A.E.C. Nevada Test Site for three year-From 1964 to 1973, I was employed by Environmental Research Corporation in Las Vegas, Nevada as field geologist and field office manager. I was responsible for the liaison between the home office in Virginia and the I AEC's Nevada Operations Office. My duties involved investigations of tunnels and drill holes fcr input to determine containment and ground motion effects in relation to atomic bomb testing. For the past 12-1/2 years, 7 have been employed by Bechtel as a Hydrogeologist. My responsibilities include all aspects of ground water occurrence and interaction in respect to four:dation, dam sites, retention ponds and engineering geology design criteria as well as development of industrial ground water supply systems. I am a Registered Geologist in the State of California, s lr
g
~~\\ -.}}~~

ML20205J722

Text

REFERENCE:

REFERENCE:

Navigation menu

Search