ML13309B623
Text
192 pages follow ENCLOSURE 2 ATTACHMENT 23
SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSES JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN REVISION 3, AUGUST 3, 2012 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSES
JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN
Submitted To: Dr. Gregory Piefer/CEO SHINE Medical Technologies 8123 Forsythia St., Suite 140 Middleton, WI 53562
Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc. 4438 Haines Road Duluth, MN 55811 USA
Distribution: Katrina Pitas, SHINE Medical Technologies Golder Associates Inc.
Project No. 113-81051 Report No. Golder Report 7, Rev 3, August 3, 2012 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
August 2012 i 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Table of Contents
1.0INTRODUCTION
..................................................................................................................
............ 11.1Location ......................................................................................................................
.................. 11.2Work Scope ....................................................................................................................
.............. 11.3Limitations ...................................................................................................................
................. 22.0HYDROLOGIC ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 32.1Surface Water Features ........................................................................................................
....... 32.1.1General Setting and Site Description ....................................................................................... 32.1.2Rivers and St reams ............................................................................................................
..... 32.1.3Dams ..........................................................................................................................
.............. 42.2Stormwater Information ........................................................................................................
........ 42.3FEMA Flood Insurance Studies ................................................................................................... 52.3.1Flood Issues ..................................................................................................................
........... 52.3.2Recurrent Rock River Flows ....................................................................................................
52.3.3Flood Magnitudes...............................................................................................................
...... 52.4Probable Maximum Precipitation and Probable Maximum Flood ................................................ 62.4.1Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates ............................................................................ 72.4.2Probable Maximum Flood Estimates ....................................................................................... 82.5Flood Related Consequence
........................................................................................................ 83.0HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER
.......................................................... 93.1Hydrogeological Setting .......................................................................................................
........ 93.2Evaluation of Hydrogeological (Slug) Tests ................................................................................. 93.3Preliminary Hydrogeological and Solute Transport Analysis for Surface Leak Events ............. 143.3.1Boundary Conditions ...........................................................................................................
... 153.3.2Subsurface Seepage Analysis - SEEP/W ............................................................................. 173.3.3Contaminant Transport Si mulation - CTRAN/W ................................................................... 194.0OTHER HYDROLOGIC RISKS ..................................................................................................... 204.1Tsunamis ......................................................................................................................
.............. 205.0USE OF REPORT .................................................................................................................
......... 216.0CLOSING .......................................................................................................................
................ 2
27.0REFERENCES
....................................................................................................................
........... 23 August 2012 ii 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx List of Tables Table 2.2-1 Design Precipitation 24-hour Storm Accumulations ........................................................... 4 Table 2.3.3-1 Summary of FEMA Flood Information for the Rock River................................................... 6 Table 2.3.3-2 Summary of FEMA Flood Information for the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River ...... 6 Table 2.4.1-1 Summary of NOAA and USACE (1978) Regional Greatest Average Precipitation .................................................................................................................
....... 7 Table 2.4.1-2 NOAA and USACE (1978) Calculated PMP Values for Similar Basin Size
........................ 7 Table 3.2-1 Slug Test Results for Monitoring Wells SM-GW1A, SM-GW2A, and SM-GW3A ............ 10 Table 3.2-2 Permeabilities Evaluated from Bouwer and Rice (1976) Method, AQTESOLV, and the Average, Standard Deviation of the Results for All of the Tests and Slug-in, Slug-out Tests. ........................................................................................................................
........ 12 Table 3.2-3 Hydrobench Analysis Parameters
..................................................................................... 13 Table 3.2-4 Permeability Values Retrieved from Numerical Inversion of Slug Test Time Histories using Hydrobench Ž......................................................................................................... 14 Table 3.3.1-1 Water Table Implem entation ....................................................................................
......... 16 Table 3.3.2-1 Hydrogeological Parameters used in SEEP/W Groundwater Modeling .......................... 18 Table 3.3.2-2 SEEP/W Verifi cation Simulation Results ........................................................................
.. 18 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map Figure 1-2 Project Site Location Map Figure 2.3.2-1 USGS Flows for the Rock River at Afton near the Site Figure 3.1-1 Hydrologic Features Figure 3.1-2 Generalized Geologic Cross Section of Rock County, West - East Figure 3.2-1 Combined Slug Tests for GW1A-MW1 Figure 3.2-2 Combined Slug Tests for GW2A-MW2 Figure 3.2-3 Combined Slug Tests for GW3A-MW3 Figure 3.2-4 Effective Radius Coefficients A, B, and C (Bouwer and Rice, 1976) Figure 3.2-5 Schematic E-W Cross Section. Figure 3.2-6 AQTESOLV Solution to the Slug-in Test in the Monitoring Well GW1A, First Trial. Figure 3.3.1-1 Surface Topography Contours from the Measurements at the Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Geotechnical Borings. Figure 3.3.1-2 E-W Geologic Cross-Section Figure 3.3.1-3 N-S Geologic Cross-Section August 2012 iii 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Figure 3.3.1-4 Smoothed Water Table Elevation Contours and the Water Table Sections used for the 2D SEEP/W Seepage Analysis. Figure 3.3.1-5 Surface Topography Level and Water Table Profile of the E-W Section (A-A) and N-S Section (B-B) Figure 3.3.1-6 Water Tables in the Monitoring Wells Figure 3.3.2-1 Model Geometry and Boundary Condition Figure 3.3.2-2 Volumetric Water Content Function for Dense Sand (center), Suction Function (right), and Conductivity of Unsaturated Zone Figure 3.3.2-3 Evaluated Total Head (top) and Pore Pressure (bottom) Contours after SEEP/W Analysis Figure 3.3.3-1 Contaminant Particle Tracking from SHINE Site, Janesville, to Rock River in the Critical E-W Pathway AppendicesAppendix A FEMA Flood Insurance Studies Appendix B Map of Dams along the Rock River in Rock County Appendix C Abbreviated Version of the City of Janesville Report on the 2008 Flood Appendix D FEMA Flood Area Map from Rock County, FEMA FIRMs through Janesville and near Site Appendix E Figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and US Army Corps of Engineers (1978) Report No. 51 PMP Study East of the 105th Meridian Appendix F Hydrobench Slug Test Visualization Appendix G AQTESOLV Slug Test Analysis August 2012 1 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This analysis report presents preliminary hydrology assessments and review in support of the proposed SHINE Medical Technologies (SHINE) isotope production facility at Janesville, Wisconsin. SHINE proposes to construct a manufacturing plant for production of Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) at a site located south of the community of Janesville in Rock County, Wisconsin (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). SHINE has contracted Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) to provide a range of technical services in support of the environmental impact assessment, site application process for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and geotechnical engineering analysis. To date, Golder has completed a range of subsurface boreholes, soil testing, hydraulic testing, and geotechnical analyses at the Janesville site. This current report is a draft document for development of the Safety Analysis Report chapter. Hydrogeologic analyses for the Safety Analysis Report chapter will be carried out using the full year of hydrogeologic data monitoring. Therefore, the flow and transport simulations reported here will be superseded and replaced by base case simulations and sensitivity simulations to be carried out and included in the Safety Analysis Report chapter. However, it is not anticipated that conclusions provided from the Safety Analysis Report chapter will be materially different from the results from this report.
1.1 Location
The proposed SHINE Medical Technologies facility project site (Site) is located at 4021 U.S. Highway 51 South, in Janesville, Wisconsin. Specifically, the building site is located in south Janesville about 0.75 miles south of East Avalon Road between North Riverside Drive and Prairie Street. This is directly east of the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport (see Figure 1-1). 1.2 Work Scope The full extent of professional services and associated tasks contracted by SHINE from Golder are set out in Golder's proposal to Shine Medical Technologies on October 6, 2011 (Golder proposal P113-81051). An important aspect of both the site safety assessment process and engineering design is the assessment of hydrologic conditions at the Janesville site. Three types of hydrology conditions are considered in this report: Flood risk from Rock River and its tributaries Stormwater and runoff management and related risks Groundwater flow and transport NUREG (NUREG 1537, 1996) requires an assessment of all applicable hydrologic, hydrogeologic, and solute transport risks to nuclear facilities, both during operation and post-closure. The Hydrologic August 2012 2 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Scoping Assessment was carried out as a preliminary site hydrologic and hydrogeologic risk evaluation. The analysis included identification of hydrological processes that could contribute to radioactive releases, and characterization of those processes and the resulting hydrogeologic pathways. The analysis was built upon information provided by the SHINE project, together with data collected during the geotechnical assessment tasks. Specific tasks considered in the Hydrologic Assessment include the following: Qualitative assessment of surface and groundwater features, such as rivers, streams, reservoirs or impoundments (i.e., ponds) that have potential hydrologic and/or hydrogeologic effects on the facility. Flood frequency, magnitude, and consequence estimation. Probable maximum flood assessment. Preliminary hydrogeologic and solute transport analysis for surface leak events. Assessment of other hydrologic risks such as floods or tsunamis, as well as other events that could indirectly lead to hydrologic and hydrogeologic risks. For the present report, Golder has undertaken the following specific office-based tasks: Acquisition and review of available regional and site data, including information pertaining to precipitation (i.e., NOAA), stormwater, flow controls in the Rock River, floods (i.e., FEMA), hydrogeologic, and meteoric within approximately 40 kilometers of the project site. Evaluation of the peak flood levels (100-year and 500-year events) for the Rock River, based on Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) studies (Appendix A), in order to review flood frequency and magnitude and thereby understand potential consequence impacts at the site. Search of online databases of historical flood accounts in the area to assess the potential impacts to the site. Review of the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event at the site, with discussion regarding how the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) would be determined. Preliminary surface and groundwater solute transport analysis for surface leak events. Preparation of this report, including discussion of the results, figures, maps, tables, and databases.
1.3 Limitations
This report was prepared using available information and provides preliminary analyses only. As of the date of this report, there is not 12 months of groundwater elevation data, which is required by NUREG standards for licensing purposes. This report relies on geological information and site description provided in Golder 2012a, Preliminary Geotechnical Report. Golder 2012b, Golder Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD), provides a description of the quality assurance program under which this work was performed.
August 2012 3 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx 2.0 HYDROLOGIC ASSESSMENT This preliminary Hydrologic Scoping Assessment uses available information to identify and review potential surface water and flood related hazards that may impact the site. 2.1 Surface Water Features The following provides a summary and discussion of the surface water conditions and potential corresponding hazards at or near the site. 2.1.1 General Setting and Site Description The area around the site in Rock County experiences long cold winters and warm humid summers.
Temperatures range from -27 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to over 100 degrees F. The County records show an average annual precipitation of approximately 33 inches, which includes winter snowfall accumulations. Annual snow accumulations range from less than 65 inches to as much as 109 inches. Approximately 60 percent of the accumulated precipitation occurs within the 5-month period from May to September, and can include an average of up to 40 thunderstorms per year (FEMA, 2008; see Appendix A). The Site is presently an agricultural field with a center-pivot irrigation system. The fields are cultivated with corn and soybeans. Generalized surface topography of the area slopes gently to the southwest. The ground surface across the development area slopes gently to the northwest with grades dropping about 7 feet from the southeast to the northwest (i.e., from corner-to-corner). The Site's ground elevation ranges from approximately 811 to 827 feet above sea level (Figure 1-2). 2.1.2 Rivers and Streams The central and southeastern portions of Rock County are characterized as flat glacial outwash plains.
The majority of the County's rivers and stream valleys are filled with thick deposits of alluvial sand and gravel. The alluvial sediments and upland plains are the result of glacial activity. Surface soils include silt loam and are underlain by glacial till or stratified sand and gravel outwash units, which then serve as the source sediments to rivers and streams (FEMA, 2008). The County is drained entirely by the Rock River and its tributaries. Major tributaries include the Yahara River, the Sugar River, Raccoon Creek, and Turtle Creek. Turtle Creek drains the southeastern portion of the County, to its confluence with the Rock River near South Beloit, located approximately 8 miles south of the site. The site is located in a bend of the Rock River, The Rock River flows through Janesville, north of the site, then flows generally southward through land west and south of the site (Figure 1-1); it is approximately 2 miles from the site at its closest point. Elevations along the Rock River channel during normal flow August 2012 4 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx conditions range from approximately 760 feet at Janesville, directly north of the site, to approximately 750 feet to the west and south of the site. The Rock River has a tributary area of approximately 3,340 square miles, as measured from the Afton U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gauge located just west of the site (FEMA, 2008). An un-named creek is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the site, and is referred to as the Un-Named Tributary in this analysis report. This tributary stream flows east-to-west to where it meets the Rock River approximately 2 miles south of the site. The stream has a tributary area of approximately 18.4 square miles (FEMA, 2008).
2.1.3 Dams The Rock River has two dams in the vicinity of Janesville, the Monterey Dam and Centerway Dam, both located upstream of the site (Appendix B). These dams are not designed or operated as flood control structures, and therefore have limited impoundments (FEMA, 2008). As such, the dams do not represent a potential hazard to downstream reaches of the river channel from increased releases or modification to flood flows. There are several upstream dams on the Rock River and its tributaries. However, these dams do not produce impoundments that pose any significant risk of cascading dam failures. 2.2 Stormwater Information The Rock County Storm Water Management Ordinance (Rock County 2004) provides guidance on the planning and design of surface water control structures. Section 28.07, (2), (B) of the ordinance addresses stormwater peak discharge rates and volumes, and provides the design rainfall runoff depths for characteristic 24-hour duration storms, as shown in Table 2.2-1 (Rock County). Table 2.2-1 Design Precipitation 24-hour Storm Accumulations ReturnIntervalPrecipitationAccumulation(inches)2 Year2.9 10 Year4.1100 Year6.0 These design storm precipitation depths should be used to support any continued analysis of surface run-off, as well as to support design of stormwater mitigation structures at the site. The Rock County ordinance provides detailed guidance to establish long-term post-construction run-off management measures that require the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce the amount of post-construction stormwater and associated pollutants that may reach waters of the State or other adjacent properties (Rock County). This guidance is consistent with Wisconsin NR 216 and NR 151.
August 2012 5 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx 2.3 FEMA Flood Insurance Studies The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed a flood hazard assessment for Rock County in August 2008 that looked at existence and severity of flood-related hazards, including the areas around the site. The study included the Rock River where it passes by the site, and the Un-Named Tributary stream located just to the south of the site. 2.3.1 Flood Issues The Rock River and the Un-Named Tributary stream are subject to flooding throughout the year; however, the majority of potential flooding occurs during the spring run-off. These floods are the result of combined precipitation and rain-on-snow events. Peak flows occurring during the winter months when temperatures are low can also often result in ice jam events. Based on available USGS flow data, March is the most common month for floods in the Rock River (USGS 2012a; FEMA, 2008). 2.3.2 Recurrent Rock River Flows Golder reviewed the USGS web-based flow data for the gauge site near Afton, located just across the river from the airport and just southwest of the site (see note on Figure 1-1). As shown in Figure 2.3.2-1, the peak stream flows range from approximately 10,000 to 17,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) over the approximate 100-year period of record for the gauge. Based on this record, flows of 10,000 to 13,000 cfs correspond approximately to the 10-year to 50-year events. The notable peak flow of 16,700 cfs in June 2008 is generally consistent with the 100-year flood levels along the Rock River (Janesville, 2008; see Appendix C, p 3-4). The flood level at the USGS gauge at Afton during the 2008 flood was approximately 755 feet. The 2008 flood is discussed in more detail in a summary report prepared by the City of Janesville (Janesville 2008) (Appendix C), which provides a comprehensive summary of the events leading up to the flood as well as emergency response and clean-up efforts. 2.3.3 Flood Magnitudes FEMA completed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the Rock River and the Un-Named Tributary stream to estimate flow magnitudes for various recurrence interval flood events, and to estimate the water surface elevations for corresponding flood events (Appendices A and D). Table 2.3.3-1 provides a summary of flows for the Rock River for the reach from Janesville to Afton near the USGS gauge, located just across the river from the site and the airport. Elevations are reported as an approximate range, based on the FEMA (2008) flood profiles, with the higher elevation corresponding to the upstream end of the reach at Janesville and the lower elevation at the downstream end near the USGS gauge at Afton. Table 2.3.3-2 provides a similar summary for the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River for the reach between Highway 51 and the Prairie Road just to the south of the site. The range of reported elevations August 2012 6 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx is similarly derived from the FEMA (2008) flood profiles. Channel bottom elevations are based on surveys that supported the FEMA (2008) studies. Table 2.3.3-1 Summary of FEMA Flood Information for the Rock River Table 2.3.3-2 Summary of FEMA Flood Information for the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River The FEMA (2008) estimated flood level of approximately 755 feet, estimated for the 100-year event near the location of the USGS gauge at Afton (refer to Table 2.3.3-1), correlates well with the gauge flows and corresponding observed flood levels during the 2008 flood at the same location. The results show that the approximate 500-year floodwater surface elevations for the Rock River are well below the site ground elevation of approximately 830 feet, for the full reach of the Rock River extending from Janesville downstream and around the site through Afton. Similarly, the approximate 500-year floodwater surface elevations for the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River, for the reach just south of the site, are well below the site's approximate ground elevations. 2.4 Probable Maximum Precipitation and Probable Maximum Flood Estimates of the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event for the site have been developed for areas east of the 105 th Meridian (NOAA and USACE, 1978; see Appendix E). These estimates are not specific to the site, but provide typical precipitation values for the regional area. The PMP is defined as the theoretically greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically possible over a particular drainage area at a certain time of year (AMS, 1959). Because of the limited data available for this extreme definition event, PMP results are typically considered to be estimates. PMP results are commonly used to support corresponding estimates of the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), which is R P PeakDischarge(cfs)BottomofChannel(ft)WaterSurfaceElevation(ft)10 0.10 10,900 Approx.758.5to752 50 0.02 14,500 Approx.760to754 100 0.01 16,000 Approx.761to755 500 0.00219,000 Approx.762to756 Note:Elevationsareapproximate.ChannelbottomelevationsarebasedonFEMA(2008).ResultsreportedforthereachfromJanesvilletoAftonneartheUSGSgauge.Approx.738to748 R P PeakDischarge(cfs)BottomofChannel(ft)WaterSurfaceElevation(ft)10 0.10 2,255 Approx.758.5to774.5 50 0.02 3,473 Approx.759.5to775.5 100 0.01 4,205 Approx.760to776 500 0.0025,813 Approx.761to777 Note:Elevationsareapproximate.ChannelbottomelevationsarebasedonFEMA(2008).ResultsreportedforthereachbetweenHighway51andPrairieRoad.Approx.753to770 August 2012 7 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx defined similarly as the theoretically greatest possible flood event at a given site location. The following provides a discussion and summary of the available PMP and PMF information pertaining to the site. 2.4.1 Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates Estimates of the PMP were developed based on available meteorological data (NOAA and USACE, 1978). These PMP results are only estimates that allow for determination of average accumulated results for defined durations or storm events on a regional scale, and not specific to the site. Table 2.4.1-1 summarizes regional estimates for greatest precipitation values for monthly, weekly and 24-hour duration scenarios. Note the various databases used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Table 2.4.1-1 Summary of NOAA and USACE (1978) RegionalGreatest Average Precipitation
Further NOAA and USACE (1978) analysis of the available data developed estimates of PMP values (see Table 2.4.1-2) for various durations and for contributing basin areas of approximately 5,000 square miles, which is similar to the Rock River basin area (i.e., approximately 3,340 square miles). Since the PMP values of Table 2-4.1-2 are higher than those specified in the Rock County Storm Water Ordinance (Chapter 28), it is recommended that this PMP should conservatively be used for future PMF estimation.
Table 2.4.1-2 NOAA and USACE (1978) Calculated PMP Values for Similar Basin Size DurationPrecipitation(inches)6 Approx. 8-9 12 Approx. 10-11 24 Approx. 12-13 48 Approx. 15-16 72 Approx. 17-18 These PMP results would be used to support continued hydrologic and hydraulic assessments of the PMF. PeriodPeriodofRecordPrecipitation(inches)Greatest Monthly Average 1931-1960 Approx. 10-12 Greatest Weekly Average 1906-1935 Approx. 5-7 Greatest 24-hour "through 1970" Approx 14-16 August 2012 8 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx 2.4.2 Probable Maximum Flood Estimates The hydrologic and hydraulic studies to support development of PMF estimates specific to the site were not included in this study. The technical work required to develop PMF flows and corresponding water surface elevations relative to the site would incorporate the PMP results discussed above into a hydrologic model to generate recurrence interval flood magnitudes and hydrographs, and then route those flows along the Rock River in a hydrodynamics simulation model to estimate water surface elevations (USACOE, 1984). Additional analysis and detailed topographic and bathymetric information for the Rock River and the Un-named Tributary to the Rock River would be needed to complete the assessment. These PMF calculations will be provided in the SAR Chapter. 2.5 Flood Related Consequence Based on review of the available information discussed herein, it appears there is little or no likelihood for flood-related hazards from the Rock River or the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River to impact the site for events up to the 500-year recurrence interval flood. Stormwater run-off impacts need to be assessed once preliminary facility design documents are available, using the local planning and design criteria (Rock County). Additional studies are needed to confirm conditions for the PMF. That said, the separation of more than approximately 50 feet in vertical elevation from either the Rock River or the Un-Named Tributary to the Rock River suggests the likelihood will be similarly low.
August 2012 9 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx 3.0 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - GROUNDWATER The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines for preparing and reviewing applications for the licensing of non-power reactors (NUREG-1537, Part 2) states that the facility design must consider leakage or loss of primary coolant to groundwater. The project is a series of linear accelerators that do not use primary coolant, as a reactor would. Therefore, coolant spill is not a credible scenario for this project. Therefore, the spill scenario considers the effects of accidental releases of unspecified liquid effluents in groundwaters. Release scenarios will be described in other sections of the SAR. We also discuss the plausible pathways of the contaminant that may result in the most severe impact to the groundwater resources and to the closest potable water source, the Rock River. The river flows more than 2 miles away from the proposed site both in west and south directions as the river changes its direction from North-South to East-West (Figure 1-1). 3.1 Hydrogeological Setting The SHINE Janesville site is located in a glacial deposition subjected to post-glacial erosional and depositional processes (Figure 3.1-1). The top soil is under-drained by a relatively clean, fine to coarse grained sand extending to depths of 180 to 185 feet. Below this is a 10- to 18-foot layer of sandy silt, which is underlain by silty sand to the borehole termination depth of 221 feet. Bedrock was not encountered during drilling, although sampler refusal was experienced in all three of the deep boreholes at depths between 170 and 180 feet. The density increases with depth as the soils became dense to very dense below depths of about 60 to 100 feet. Depth to bedrock at the Janesville site may be as deep as 300 feet and it consists of Cambrian and Ordovician sedimentary bedrock (conglomerate, dolomite, limestone, sandstone, shale) (Figure 3.1-2). The carbonate bedrock is susceptible to dissolution (WGNHS, 2009). The Rock County Hazard Mitigation Plan (Vierbicher, 2010) indicates that the County has karst potential, particularly in the eastern third of the County. The monitoring well and remaining geotechnical boreholes terminated at depths between 60 and 71 feet. Groundwater was encountered in all of the boreholes during drilling at elevations ranging from about 754 to 766 (about 60 to 65 feet below grade) (see Table 3.3.1-1). Groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and annually with chan ges in precipitation patterns. 3.2 Evaluation of Hydrogeological (Slug) Tests Golder performed slug tests at monitoring wells SM-GW1A, SM-GW2A and SM-GW3A. At each well, static water levels were measured, and then a LevelTROLL 500 data logger was placed in the well. After ensuring that the water level had recovered to the static water table, Golder performed in-situ hydraulic conductivity (slug) tests, which involved near-instantaneous introduction (or removal) of a solid object of known volume into the water column. Both falling- and rising- head tests were conducted. For the August 2012 10 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx falling-head (slug-in) test, the slug was inserted into the well displacing a volume of water equal to the volume of the slug causing the water level in the well to rise. Once the well returned to static conditions, a rising-head (slug-out) test was performed by rapidly removing the slug. A visualization of each of the four slug tests carried out in the three wells is provided in Figures 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3. Tests are summarized in Table 3.2-1. Test data are provided in Golder 2012a. Note that these test results reflect simple, short duration testing procedures. More accurate results could be obtained using single and multi-well pumping tests. However, since these tests primarily confirm generic, published ranges of hydraulic properties for site geologic materials, more advanced testing procedures are not justified. Table 3.2-1 Slug Test Results for Monitoring Wells SM-GW1A, SM-GW2A, and SM-GW3A WellTestTestHead 1Ho(ft)InitialHead 2H(ft)WellCoordinates 3 Easting(ft)WellCoordinates 3Northing(ft)Aquiferthickness 3,4b(ft)Depthtotopofwellscreen 3d(ft)Lengthofwellscreen 5L(ft)TransducerDepth(ft)GW1ASlugIn#17.5407.110W492655.35N248568.86100+5020(6.94)69GW1ASlugOut#16.8667.110W492655.35N248568.86100+5020(6.94)69GW1ASlugIn#27.6107.110W492655.35N248568.86100+5020(6.94)69GW1ASlugOut#26.8577.110W492655.35N248568.86100+5020(6.94)69GW2ASlugIn#16.5395.695W492635.32N246973.23100+5015(8.51)66GW2ASlugOut#15.2845.695W492635.32N246973.23100+5015(8.51)66GW2ASlugIn#26.4675.695W492635.32N246973.23100+5015(8.51)66GW2ASlugOut#25.1515.695W492635.32N246973.23100+5015(8.51)66GW2ASlugIn#36.6625.695W492635.32N246973.23100+5015(8.51)66GW2ASlugOut#35.3355.695W492635.32N246973.23100+5015(8.51)66GW3ASlugIn#15.8435.346W493372.93N247753.86100+5515(5.50)70GW3ASlugOut#15.1085.346W493372.93N247753.86100+5515(5.50)70GW3ASlugIn#26.1885.346W493372.93N247753.86100+5515(5.50)70GW3ASlugOut#25.0925.346W493372.93N247753.86100+5515(5.50)70 1HeadmeasuredinTrolldataloggerduringtestconductedon12/22/11."TestheadHo"isthedisturbedheadduetosluginsertionorremoval.2HeadmeasuredinTrolldataloggerduringslugtestconductedon12/22/11."InitialHeadH"istheheadbeforetesting,andalsodepthfromthephreaticsurfacetopiezometer.3 Wellcoordinates,aquiferthickness,depthtotopofwellscreenandlengthofwellscreenweredeterminedfromwellcompletionrecords.4Totalthicknessofaquiferisexpectedtobeover100feet,includingaquiferbelowbottomofwell.5Lengthofwellscreen:TotalLength(SaturatedLength).6 HydraulicconductivityestimatedusingAQTESOLVdiscussedinSection3.2andsummarizedonTable3.2 2.TestHeadHo,InitialHeadH,andTransducerDepth(inbold)aretestresultsmeasuredorcalculatedbasedon12/22/11slugtests.
August 2012 11 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Golder used the empirical/analytical method of Bouwer and Rice (1976) for analysis using AQTESOLV (Hydrosolve, 2011):
Where R e is the effective radius, r w and r c are the radii of the well and the casing, respectively, H is level of the static water table (at equilibrium), D is the aquifer thickness, A and B are empirical functions of L/r w (Figure 3.2-4), L is the perforation length of the well and y is the rise (or fall) of water table in the well. The method is based on the Theim equation of steady state flow and is an approximate solution for a transient slug test. The term () is obtained from the best fitting straight line in a plot of ln y t versus t. In test cases, Bouwer and Rice (1976) found the equation is accurate to within 10-25 percent depending on how the well below the water table is perforated (or open). AQTESOLV aquifer test analysis software (Hydrosolve, 2011) was used to analyze slug test results. The depth of the aquifer was assumed to be 120 feet considering only the body of sand above the sandy silt and below the groundwater table (Figure 3.2-5). AQTESOLV plots the head data against time in semi-log plots and estimates the hydraulic conductivity (K) based on a best fit line. AQTESOLV analyses are presented in Appendix G. Figure 3.2-6 provides an example analysis. AQTESOLV results are summarized in Table 3.2-2. Appendix G reports the analyses for the other tests, and the corresponding permeabilities are summarized in Table 3.2-2. The slug-in tests result in a slightly higher average permeability estimate (0.0051 ft/sec) than the average permeability of slug-out tests (0.0039 ft/sec).
August 2012 12 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Table 3.2-2 Permeabilities Evaluated from Bouwer and Rice (1976) Method, AQTESOLV, and the Average, Standard Deviation of the Results for All of the Tests and Slug-in, Slug-out Tests. Borehole Test Number Test Type K (ft/sec)GW-1A 1 In 0.0029 GW-1A 1 Out 0.0037 GW-1A 2 In 0.0037 GW-1A 2 Out 0.0027 GW-2A 1 In 0.0078 GW-2A 1 Out 0.0034 GW-2A 2 In 0.0041 GW-2A 2 Out 0.0030 GW-2A 3 In 0.0038 GW-2A 3 Out 0.0020 GW-3A 1 In 0.0053 GW-3A 1 Out 0.0081 GW-3A 2 In 0.0083 GW-3A 2 Out 0.0043 Average In 0.0051 Stdev In 0.0021 Average Out 0.0039 Stdev Out 0.0020 Average 0.0045 Stdev 0.0021 Median 0.0037 Golder verified AQTESOLV results using Hydrobench (Golder, 2011). Hydrobench is an inversion tool which optimizes the free parameters of the transient flow equations to match the well tests results of different kinds of tests with multiple boundary conditions. Although designed for confined aquifers, Hydrobench provides a valuable verification for AQTESOLV solutions. Rather than using an analytical solution, Hydrobench uses optimization of aquifer properties to match the time histories of slug-in and slug-out tests. The input values used for the inversion are: Well diameter (5 cm) Aquifer thickness (120 ft) Density (1000 kg/m 3), compressibility (2E-09 1/Pa), and viscosity (1E-03 Pa.s) of water Lithology (Coarse sand, porosity 20 percent, see Golder, 2012a) Hydrobench analysis parameters are summarized in Table 3.2-3.
August 2012 13 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Table 3.2-3 Hydrobench Analysis Parameters Test Top of Perf(ft) Bottom of Perf(ft) Interval Length (ft) Ref Point Elevation (ft) Transducer Depth (ft) GW-1 50 72 22 825.8 71.5 GW-2 50 71 21 819.3 69.0 GW-3, Shell 1 55 70 15 827.3 71.5 GW-3, Shell 2 55 70 15 827.3 71.5 The numerical inversions were performed for all the tests within each well in two different cases. For the first case, all slug test pressure responses were simulated together for each well and for the second case, each slug test within each well was simulated individually. The inversions optimize well skin, storativity, transmissivity, and the shell radius (distance away from well that head is being affected) to match the slug test time histories. Well test type-curve matches are provided in Appendix H. Figures 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3 present the full time histories of the tests performed on GW1A, GW2A, and GW3A wells, respectively. Magenta lines illustrate the fit from the inversions. The resulting permeability values from the full time histories and also the individual slug test pressure spikes are summarized in Table 3.2-4. We confirm that the AQTESOLV empirical-analytical solution of Bouwer and Rice is less than 20 percent different from the Hydrobench result. Golder's Hydrobench simulations result in a mean permeability of 0.0038 with a lower standard deviation than the empirical method. The permeabilities from the two methods are compatible and the results confirm high conductivity of the poorly-graded sand (SP) as the average permeability from the 14 slug tests is 0.0045 ft/sec from the Bouwer-Rice method and 0.0038 ft/sec from numerical inversions. Considering the observation that the sand deposits get denser (and less conductive) by depth and the observation wells do not extend more than 10 feet below the water table (Table 3.2-4), the permeabilities inferred from the slug tests are upper bounds for the sand deposits. Based on the calculated data and engineering judgement, a permeability of 0.004 ft/sec (1.2 mm/sec) is considered to be an appropriate estimate for the sand deposit over the sandy silt and silty sand (Figure 3.2-5).
August 2012 14 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Table 3.2-4 Permeability Values Retrieved from Numerical Inversion of Slug Test Time Histories using Hydrobench Ž Combined Slug Tests Inversions Well K (ft/s)
GW 1A0.0037 GW 2A0.0054 GW 3A,Shell10.0024 GW 3A,Shell20.0024 Average0.0035 Individual Slug Test Inversions Well Test Trial K (ft/s)
GW 1ASlug in10.0037 GW 1ASlugout10.0057 GW 1ASlug in20.0039 GW 1ASlugout20.0041 GW 2ASlug in10.0055 GW 2ASlugout10.0053 GW 2ASlug in20.0055 GW 2ASlugout20.0054 GW 2ASlug in30.0061 GW 2ASlugout30.0058 GW 3A,Shell1Slug in10.0023 GW 3A,Shell1Slugout10.0022 GW 3A,Shell2Slug in10.0007 GW 3A,Shell2Slugout10.0014 GW 3A,Shell1Slug in20.0027 GW 3A,Shell1Slugout20.0028 GW 3A,Shell2Slug in20.0019 GW 3A,Shell2Slugout20.0028 Average0.0038 Standarddeviation0.0017 Median0.0038 3.3 Preliminary Hydrogeological and Solute Transport Analysis for Surface Leak Events Golder carried out a preliminary evaluation of groundwater transport pathways from the SHINE medical facility to the closest potable water body, the Rock River. Geoslope SEEP/WŽ 2D finite element August 2012 15 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx groundwater flow software (Geoslope, 2011) was used to verify these calculations. The Rock River was selected as the closest potential surface water receptor. If additional potential receptors are identified by SHINE, these will be included in the update to this analysis to be reported in the SAR. 3.3.1 Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions for flow simulations were estimated from data available at the 4 monitoring wells and 10 geotechnical exploration boreholes (Table 3.3.1-1). The highest measured elevation is at the groundwater monitoring well at the far east (827 feet) and the lowest point is the monitoring well at the far west (811 feet) delineating a 1 percent east-west drainage slope for the site (Figure 3.3.1-1). The ground surface was derived from these 16 measurements for a 1500-ft. x 1500-ft. area encompassing the measurement points by Kriging to a 50-ft. x 50-ft. grid space (Figure 3.3.1-1). East-West (A-A) and North-South (B-B) cross sections used for SEEP/W simulations are provided in Figures 3.3.1-2 and 3.3.1-3. East-West and North-South 15,000-foot cross sections from the construction site to the Rock River are shown in Figures 3.3.1-2 and 3.3.1-3. Water table levels have been measured at 10 geotechnical testing boreholes and 4 monitoring wells. Water table elevations in three boreholes could not be well identified (G11-05, G11-06, and G11-09).
Fitting a smooth water table surface to the monitoring wells and boreholes, we identify the local water table elevation as shown in Figure 3.3.1-4. Due to variability in the water table elevations in the geotechnical boreholes, the residual errors to the best fit are noted in Table 3.3.1-1. Table 3.3.1-1 indicates that the water table elevation at the construction site is at 763 to 764 feet with a 0.21 percent East-West and 0.1 percent North-South gradient. Cross sections in the East-West direction and the North-South direction (A-A and B-B, respectively in Figures 3.3.1-2 and 3.3.1-3) are depicted in Figure 3.3.1-5.
August 2012 16 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Table 3.3.1-1 Water Table Implementation Borehole Number Surface Elevation Water Elevation Smoothed Water Table Elevation Residual Error (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) G11-01 819.1 754.1 763.5 9.4 G11-02 822.32 763.8 763.8 0 G11-03 824.92 765.9 764.0 -1.9 G11-04 821.87 763.4 763.4 0 G11-05 824.55 (759.6)
- 763.5 3.9 G11-06 825.87 (725.9)
- 767.3 41.4 G11-07 826.35 761.4 763.8 2.4 G11-08 824.74 765.7 763.2 -2.5 G11-09 824.99 (765)
- 763.5 -1.5 G11-10 826.18 761.2 763.7 2.5 SM-GW 1A 825.78 763.8 763.8 0 SM-GW 2A 819.23 762.2 762.2 0 SM-GW 3A 827.31 764.8 764.8 0 SM-GW 4A 811.72 761.7 761.8 0.1
- Measurements are obscured by drilling fluids. Values cited are estimates only. Residual error of the estimates made for these boreholes is not significant to the development of a smoothed phreatic surface.. The subsurface flow rate and direction can be estimated using the average permeability and head drop between the monitoring wells (Figure 3.3.1-5). Where E-W and N-S refer to flow in the East-West and North-South directions respectively, K refers to hydraulic conductivity, i_ refers to the hydraulic gradient, and h and l refer to difference in height and coordinate respectively. The Rock River is located at about the same distance from the site in North-South and East-West directions. The seepage hydraulic gradient can be calculated from the difference between the groundwater table at the SHINE site and the Rock River. Rock River heads estimates are shown in Figure 3.3.1-5. Gradients i E-W and iN-S are estimated using the following formulae:
August 2012 17 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Based on these gradients, the advective groundwater can be estimated as: Where tE-W and t N-S refer to travel time in the East-West and North-South directions, respectively. Uncertainty in travel time results from both seasonal head variations and uncertainty in hydrologic properties. Winter time water table elevations in the four monitoring wells (Figure 3.3.1-6) indicate up to approximately 3 feet of variation in head. The average water table elevation based on Figure 3.3.1-5 and Table 3.3.1-1 is 763.4 feet while the October 26, 2011 measurements indicate a 765.1-foot elevation, which dropped to 764.7 on January 9, 2012 (Golder, 2012a). This results in seasonal variation in hydraulic gradient, assuming that the Rock River surface elevation is approximately constant, the hydraulic gradient in the East-West direction will increase to 0.14 percent, and the travel time decreases to 63 years (14 percent decrease). This seasonal variation can be compared to the uncertainty in estimates of permeability from the slug tests. The highest hydraulic conductivity estimates in Tables 3.2-2 and 3.2-4 are twice the mean value, and correspond to a groundwater travel time of 36 years. Based on the permeability evaluations shown in Table 3.2-4, and considering the maximum observed water table level (October 2011), the average seepage travel time to the Rock River will be 77 years with a standard deviation of 39 years. These analyses will be updated for the SAR report chapter when a full year of groundwater monitoring data is available. 3.3.2 Subsurface Seepage Analysis - SEEP/W The scoping calculation of seepage velocity presented in Section 3.3.1 was verified using a SEEP/W groundwater flow simulation (GeoSlope, 2011). The simulation mesh is illustrated in Figure 3.3.2-1. The model implements a 15,000-foot-long East-West cross section from the site to the Rock River. Model stratigraphy is based on Figure 3.2-5. The water table is based on information in Figure 3.3.1-5. The water table is extended from the site to the Rock River. Material properties assumed in the model are provided in Table 3.3.2-1. The hydraulic conductivity for the upper (sand) layer is based on slug test results, and are at the upper end of the reference range. Values for silty sand and sandy silt were also selected near the upper end of the reference range.
August 2012 18 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Table 3.3.2-1 Hydrogeological Parameters used in SEEP/WGroundwater Modeling Material Reference Range of Hydraulic Conductivity(m/year) Hydraulic ConductivityPorosity (m 3/m 3)Density (gr/cm 3)Compressibility(1/MPa) Sand1x10 21x10 5 (1)38,500m/yr(.004ft/s)0.32 (1)1.6 (2)1/140 (2)SandySilt1x10 11x10 4 (1)5,000m/yr(5.2x10 4ft/s)0.35 (1)1.6 (2)1/140 (2)Silt1x10 21x10 2 (1)100m/yr(1.04x10 5ft/s)0.35 (1)1.6 (2)1/140 (2) 1 USDOE, 1993 2 Domenico and Mifflin, 1965.
GeoSlopeŽ SEEP/W includes a capability to model a moving phreatic surface using a Volumetric Water Content function (VWC). VWC describes the volume of water that a material can store as a function of the pore-water pressure. As the pore-water pressure moves from a positive to a negative state, the soil begins to desaturate, and water content decreases. The water content must be specified as the volumetric water content, which is defined as the porosity multiplied by the degree of saturation. The reference VWC used for SHINE flow verification modeling is provided in Figure 3.3.2-2, which illustrates the variation of pore pressure (psf) and Total Head (ft) together with the total flux (ft 3/Day) at the specified cross sections after the steady state seepage analysis. SEEP/W simulation results are provided in Table 3.3.2-2 and Figure 3.3.2-3. Results verify the calculations presented in Section 3.3.1. The maximum velocity of 0.38 ft/sec corresponds to an approximate travel time of 79 years for contaminants to reach the Rock River by advective groundwater transport, consistent with the values obtained in Section 3.3.1.
Table 3.3.2-2 SEEP/W Verification Simulation Results SoilLayerThickness(ft)Flux(ft 3/day)AdvectiveVelocity(ft/day)Sand11845.30.38SandySilt15<0.01<0.01SiltySand1265.20.04Total25950.50.19 August 2012 19 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx 3.3.3 Contaminant Transport Simulation - CTRAN/W Preliminary groundwater travel time estimates provided in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 are for advective transport only. The finite element program CTRAN/W (Geoslope, 2011) was used to add dispersion to the groundwater travel time estimates. Anderson (1984) suggests a dispersivity of 10% of the model dimension in the direction of the flow. We specify dispersivities of 1,100 feet and 30 feet for the longitudinal and transverse directions for all of the materials. Preliminary advection/dispersion transport simulations were carried out with CTRAN/W. An example simulation result is shown in Figure 3.3.3-1. In this simulation, the first solute at breakthrough was 37.6 years at the Rock River. CTRAN/W and SEEP/W simulations verify the scoping groundwater transport travel times presented in Section 3.3.1. These values are for design support scoping purposes only. Detailed simulations in support of the SAR will be carried out as a future task.
August 2012 20 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx 4.0 OTHER HYDROLOGIC RISKS
4.1 Tsunamis
Other hydrologic hazards that may impact the site include tsunamis. Tsunami hazards would originate from Lake Michigan, located approximately 63 miles to the east of the site (GoogleEarth). The elevation of the lake in the Kenosha area is approximately 580 feet (USGS 2012b), which is approximately 230 to 250 feet below the elevation of the Shine site of approximately 811 to 827 feet. While the possibility of a large wave being generated in Lake Michigan is possible, there is a low probability of it being greater than 230 feet and then maintaining any appreciable height over the more than 60 miles to the Shine site. This very low probability suggests the risk of tsunami is correspondingly very low. Additional study and investigations would be required to further quantify the tsunami hazard and evaluate the risks to the site.
August 2012 21 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx 5.0 USE OF REPORT This analysis report was prepared for the exclusive use of SHINE Medical Technologies to support design of the proposed Mo-99 production facility. Analyses will be refined for use in preparation of NUREG licensing documents. This report is not to be used directly for NUREG purposes. This analysis report was based on available information. Golder is not responsible for the accuracy of documents sited, and the analyses presented here may not represent a comprehensive survey of available literature. The work program for this project followed the standard of care expected of professionals undertaking similar work in the State of Wisconsin under similar conditions and adhered to the quality requirements in Golder 2012b, Golder Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD). No warranty expressed or implied is made.
August 2012 22 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
6.0 CLOSING
This report is respectfully submitted to SHINE Medical Technologies. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Golder at (218) 724-0088.
Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Bill Dershowitz, Ph.D., P.G., R. Hg. Amy Thorson, P.E.Principal Associate, Duluth Operations ManagerWashington Registration No. 1577 Wisconsin Registration No. 35963-006Thomas G. Krzewinski, P.E. D.GE, F. ASCEPrincipal Geotechnical EngineerWisconsin Registration No. 24946-006
August 2012 23 113-81051113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx
7.0 REFERENCES
1.AMS, 1959.American Meteorlogical Society. Boston, Massachusets. 638 p.
2.Anderson P.A., 1984. "Movement of Contaminants in Groundwater: Groundwater Transport -- Advection and Dispersion" in Groundwater Contamination, Geophysics Study Committee, Geophysics Research Forum, National Research Council, Chapter 2. (37-45), National Academy Press. 3.Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice, 1976. A slug test method for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells, Water Resources Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 423-428.
4.Domenico, P. A.; Mifflin, M. D., 1965. Water from low permeability sediments and land subsidence. Water Resources Research 1 (4): 563-576.
5.FEMA, 2008. Flood Insurance Study: Rock County, Wisconsin and Incorporated Areas. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Study Number 55105CV001A. August 19, 2008. Two volumes.
6.Geoslope, 2011. SEEP/W and CTRAN/W Software Documentation and Theory. Website: [www.geoslope.com]
7.Golder, 2011.
Hydrobench User Documentation. Golder, Celle Germany.
8.Golder, 2012a.Golder Report 6, Revision 3, August 3, 2012, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report. Prepared for SHINE Medical Technologies by Golder Associates, Inc.
9.Golder, 2012b. Golder Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD), January 12, 2012 (RL1).
10.Hydrosolve Inc., 2011. AQTESOLV User Documentation. We bsite: [1]
11.Janesville, 2008. Report on the 2008 Rock River Flood. City of Janesville, Wisconsin, Engineering Division.
12.LeRoux, 1963. Geology and Ground-water Resources of Rock County, Wisconsin: US. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1619-X. 50 p.
13.NOAA and USACE, 1978. Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the 105 th Meridian; Hydrometeorological Report No. 51. US Department of Commerce, National August 2012 24 113-81051
113-81051 shine final hydrology report august 2012.docx Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; US Army Corps of Engineers. Washington D C. June 1978. 14. NUREG 1537, 1996. Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
- 15. Rock County, 2004. Rock County Storm Water Management Ordinance. Chapter 28 of the Rock County Code of Ordinances, Rock County, Wisconsin. Adopted March 2004.
- 16. USACOE, 1984. Probable Maximum Flood Estimation - Eastern United States, TP-100. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. September 1984.
- 17. US DOE, 1993. Data Collection Handbook to Support Modeling Impacts of Radioactive Material in Soil", Environmental Assessment and Information Sciences, Division Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, Sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy. http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/data_collection.pdfNUREG 1537, Part 2, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria".
- 20. WGNS, 1983. Thickness of Unconsolidated Material in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin-Extension Geological and Natural History Survey. Website: f/thickness_unconsolidat ed.pdf, accessed 12/16/2011.
- 21. WGNHS, 2009. Map data. University of Wisconsin-Extension Geological and Natural History Survey. Website: [4]
- 22. Vierbicher, 2010. Rock County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Prepared by Vierbicher in cooperation with the Rock County Emergency Management and Rock County Planning Economic and Community Development Agency, 145 p. [5], accessed 1/20/2012.
FIGURES CHECK REVIEW DESIGN CADD SCALE FILE No.PROJECT No.
TITLE AS SHOWN REV.J:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\VICINITY_MAP_WI_hYDRO.dwg l 4/3/2012 12:57 PM l AGarrigus l JA NESVILLE--------AG4/3/12BD4/3/12TK4/3/120----FIG.113-81051 VICINITY_MAP_WI_hYDRO.dwg JANESVILLE / SHN / WI SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN1.) 1:250,000 SCALE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PRODUCED BY USGS AND DISTRIBUTED BY TERRASERVER (5 KM NE OF
ROSCOE, ILLINOIS, UNITED STATES).
PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATION SCALE 0 11 MILES UN-NAMED TRIBUTARY 1 TO THE ROCK RIVER ROCK RIVER PROJECT LOCATION G11-08 G11-09 G11-10 G11-07 G11-06 G11-05 G11-04 G11-01 G11-02 G11-03 SM-GW2A SM-GW3A SM-GW1A SM-GW4A VSP-01 G11-01 G11-02 G11-03 G11-04 G11-05 G11-06 G11-07 G11-08 G11-09 G11-10 SM-GW1A SM-GW2A SM-GW3A SM-GW4A VSP-01 229143.33 229146.03 229145.94 229017.94 229017.01 229019.68 229018.48 228887.34 228890.59 228890.37 229871.84 228276.10 229064.89 229051.61 229016.11 2230824.06 2230954.95 2231085.65 2230826.22 2230913.86 2230996.02 2231083.35 2230829.93 2230958.33 2231084.76 2230854.43 2230852.17 2231581.03 2230112.60 2230956.34819.1 822.3 824.9 821.9 824.6 825.9 826.4 824.7 825.0 826.2 825.8 819.2 827.3 811.7 825.1J:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\Janseville_Site_map_HARN-W-WI-SF.dwg l 6/18/2012 9:13 AM l AGarrigus l JANESVILLE--------APG6/18/12BD6/18/12TK6/18/1216/18/12 FIG.113-81051 SITE_MAP_HARN-W-WI-SG.DWG JANESVILLE / SHN / WI SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN 1.) AERIAL IMAGERY DISTRIBUTED BY CITY OF JANESVILLE AND PROVIDED BY CLIENT.
2.) ADDITIONAL AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY NAIP AND DISTRIBUTED BY U.S.G.S.
3.) FAA ZONE C BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL REPORT LAND USE PLAN AND AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE WAS PROVIDED BY CITY OF JANESVILLE ON 10/4/11.1.) BOREHOLE AND WELL LOCATION COORDINATES AS SURVEYED BY AYERS ASSOCIATES ON NOVEMBER 11, 2011.
2.) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS A SQUARE, MEASURING 316 FEET ON EACH SIDE.
3.) CENTER OF BUILDING OUTLINE PLACED WITHIN PROPOSED SITE POLYGON AS DIRECTED BY CLIENT.
4.) NORTHING AND EASTINGS PROVIDED IN WISCONSIN STATE PLANE, SOUTH ZONE, NAD1983/91 HARN, US SURVEY FEET. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 (2007) GEOID09.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA SM-GW2A G11-08 WELL LOCATION AND DESIGNATOR FAA ZONE C BOUNDARY PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY BOREHOLE LOCATION AND DESIGNATOR CHECK REVIEW DESIGN CADD SCALE FILE No.PROJECT No.
TITLE AS SHOWN REV.VSP-01 BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH 2 INCH PVC INSTALLED FOR SEISMIC TESTING AND DESIGNATOR SCALE 0 400 400 FEET March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 2.3.2-1USGS Flows for the Rock River at Afton near the Site Lake Winnebago Tichigan Lake Lake Koshkonong Muskego Lake Lake Kegonsa Rome Pond Lake Waubesa Lake Monona Rock Lake Pewaukee Lake Pine Lake Sheboygan Lake Pike Lake Cedar Lake Mud Lake Sinissippi Lake Fox Lake Lake Emily Little Green Lake Green Lake Rush Lake Lake Butte des Morts Goose Lake Eagle Lake Lake Marie Fox Lake Long Lake Elizabeth Lake Wonder Lake Crystal Lake Lake Zurich Lake Como Lake Geneva Whitewater Lake Lake Holiday Spring Lake Orland Lake Lake Calumet Cedar Lake Rynearson Flowage Wisconsin River Castle Rock Lake Wisconsin River Wisconsin River Mason Lake Lake Redstone Mirror Lake Lake Wisconsin Crystal Lake Lake Mendota Yellowstone Lake Spring Lake Mississippi River a Lake Michigan Neshonoc Lake LAKES (REGIONAL)
WATER (REGIONAL) 100 MILE RADIUS STATE BOUNDARYJ:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\JanesvilleHYDRO_WITM.dwg l 6/15/2012 2:34 PM l AGarrigus l JAN ESVILLE--------APG6/18/12BD6/18/12TK6/18/1216/18/12 CHECK REVIEW DESIGN CADD SCALE FILE No.PROJECT No.
TITLE AS SHOWN REV.FIG.113-81051 JanesvilleHYDRO_WITM.dwg JANESVILLE / SHN / WI SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN SCALE 0MILES20 20 PROJECT LOCATION1.) LAKE (REGIONAL) DATA DEVELOPED AND DISTRIBUTED BY ESRI BASED ON THE U.S. NATIONAL ATLAS WATER FEATURE AREAS AS DEVELOPED BY NATIONAL ATLAS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AS PUBLISHED ON 11/09/1999.
- 2) WATER (REGIONAL) DATA DEVELOPED AND DISTRIBUTED BY ESRI BASED ON THE U.S. NATIONAL ATLAS WATER FEATURE LINES AS DEVELOPED BY NATIONAL ATLAS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AS PUBLISHED ON 11/09/1999.
Figure3.1-2SiteLocation acMW1Figure3.2-1CombinedSlugTestsforGW1A-MW1 MW2Figure3.2-2CombinedSlugTestsforGW2A-MW2
Figure3.2-3CombinedSlugTestsforGW3A-MW3 March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 3.2-4 Effective Radius Coefficients A, B, and C (Bouwer and Rice, 1976)
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 3.2-5Schematic E-W Cross Section Note: Water table is assumed to vary linearly from GW-4A monitoring well to the Rock River. The vertical scale is 10times the horizontal.
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 3.2-6 AQTESOLV Solution to the Slug-in Test in the Monitoring Well GW1A, First TrialShine Medical Technologies0.1.42.84.25.67.0.0010.010.1 1.H/H(0) in ftObs. WellsSM-GW1AAquifer ModelUnconfinedSolutionBouwer-RiceParametersK = 0.002908ft/secy0 = 0.4066ft March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 3.3.1-1Surface Topography Contours from the Measurements at the GroundwaterMonitoring Wells and Geotechnical Borings
ELEVATION (FT)
A'HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT)
A 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 10000500100015002000250030003500400045005000550060006500700075008000850090009500100001050011000115001200012500130001350014000145001 5000 bh Name= G11-07 bh Name= G11-0 bh Name= G11-05 bh Name= G11-04 bh Name= SM-GW3A bh Name= SM-GW4A ROCK RIVER GROUND SURFACE 3.3.1-2J:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\Janesville Site Map_ELEV_ROCK CO.dwg l 7/9/2012 10:16 AM l AGarrigus l JANESVILLE--------APG6/18/12BD6/18/12TK6/18120----CHECK REVIEW DESIGN CADD SCALE FILE No.PROJECT No.
TITLE AS SHOWN REV.FIG.113-81051 Proposed_building_layout.DWG JANESVILLE / SHN / WI E-W GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE FEET 1000 1000 0 VERTICAL SCALE FEET 100 100 LEGEND ELEVATION (FT)
B'HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (FT)
B 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 10000500100015002000250030003500400045005000550060006500700075008000850090009500100001050011000115001200012500130001350014000145001 5000 ROCK RIVER GROUND SURFACE bh Name= G11-08 bh Name= G11-04 bh Name= G11-01 bh Name= SM-GW2A bh Name= SM-GW1A 3.3.1-3J:\2011 jobs\113-81051 shine medical technologies, wisconsin\CAD\Janesville Site Map_ELEV_ROCK CO.dwg l 7/9/2012 10:36 AM l AGarrigus l JANESVILLE--------APG6/18/12BD6/18/12TK6/18/120----CHECK REVIEW DESIGN CADD SCALE FILE No.PROJECT No.
TITLE AS SHOWN REV.FIG.113-81051 Proposed_building_layout.DWG JANESVILLE / SHN / WI N-S GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE FEET 1000 1000 0 VERTICAL SCALE FEET 100 100 LEGEND March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 3.3.1-4Smoothed Water Table Elevation Contours and the Water Table Sections used for the 2D SEEP/WSeepage Analysis March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 3.3.1-5Surface Topography Level and Water Table Profile of the E-W Section (A-A)and N-S Section (B-B)
June2012 ProjectNo.113 81051763.00763.50764.00764.50765.00765.50766.00766.50October11November11December11January12February12March12April12May12June 12WaterTableElevation(ft.)Figure3.3.1 6WaterTablesintheMonitoringWells SM GW 1A SM GW 2A SM GW 3A SM GW 4A 113 81051SHINEHydrologyReport_Figures March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 3.3.2-1Model Geometry and Boundary ConditionThe red lines are the predefined head boundary conditions.
March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 3.3.2-2Volumetric Water Content Function for Dense Sand (center), Suction Function (right) and Conductivity of Unsaturated ZoneVol. Water Content (ft³/ft³)Pore-Water Pressure (psf)0.10.150.20.250.30.35-20-40-60-80-1000Vol. Water Content (ft³/ft³)Matric Suction (psf)0.10.150.20.250.30.350.1100110X-Conductivity (ft/days)Matric Suction (psf) 1 1000 10 1000.011000.1110 March 2012 Project No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures
\ Figure 3.3.2-3Evaluated Total Head (top) and Pore Pressure (bottom)Contours after SEEP/W Analysis The total flux values for the control sections are also reported.
roject No. 113-81051 113-81051 shine hydrology report _figures Figure 3.3.3-1Contaminant Particle Tracking from SHINE Site, Jasville, to Rock Riverin the Critical E-WPathway