1
APPENDIX A
Scenario corresponds to southern inflow location 2 in Figure 17. Fracture locations and hydraulic properties were kept identical for all inflow scenarios to allow for comparison.
Layer 1: Natural till. Layer 2: Protective layer.
Layer 3: Sealing layer. Layer 4: Waste rock.
Layer 5: Bedrock layer 1. Layer 6: Bedrock layer 2.
Scenario corresponds to southern inflow location 3 in Figure 17.
Layer 1: Natural till. Layer 2: Protective layer.
Layer 3: Sealing layer. Layer 4: Waste rock.
Layer 5: Bedrock layer 1. Layer 6: Bedrock layer 2.
Color scale applies to both scenarios presented above.
In both scenarios bedrock layer 3-6 show very similar Darcy fluxes to bedrock layer 2 and are therefore not shown.
2
APPENDIX B
The figures represent a scenario without fractures where the bedrock has the same hydraulic conductivity as indicated in Table 4. Location of the southern inflows according to Figure 17 is number 1.
Layer 1: Natural till. Layer 2: Protective layer.
Layer 3: Sealing layer. Layer 4: Waste rock.
Layer 5: Bedrock layer 1. Layer 6: Bedrock layer 2.
Note: Different color scaling than for the model scenarios above.
Bedrock layer 3-6 show very similar Darcy fluxes to bedrock layer 2 and are therefore not shown.
3
APPENDIX C
Table C1: Results from the individual slug tests and average values using the Bouwer and Rice analysis method.
GW1 GW2 G1 G2 GW4 GW6 GW8 GW5 GW7
Pit Pit Pit Pit Bedrock Bedrock Bedrock Till Cover Nat. Till 3.86·10-6 4.77
·
10-4 2.11·
10-6 6.80·
10-8 1.13·
10-5 4.68·
10-7 7.91·
10-6 1.70·
10-4 2.89·
10-5 5.49·
10-6 4.07·
10-4 6.33·
10-7 1.86·
10-7 5.71·
10-6 1.66·
10-6 4.83·
10-6 7.56·
10-4 6.31·
10-5 9.75·
10-6 2.25·
10-4 2.64·
10-6 1.83·
10-7 1.54·
10-5 1.77·
10-8 9.05·
10-6 1.48·
10-3 5.16·
10-5 1.04·
10-5 3.12·
10-6 3.92·
10-8 2.08·
10-5 3.79·
10-7 4.84·
10-6 9.38·
10-5 6.17·
10-6 3.31·
10-6 8.17·
10-8 5.43·
10-6 4.55·
10-7 1.86·
10-4 1.06·
10-47.13
·
10-7 7.30·
10-8 3.99·
10-6 5.04·
10-7 5.75·
10-6 2.48·
10-6 7.34·
10-82.92
·
10-7 2.41·
10-6 8.53·
10-7Avg. 7.13
·
10-6 3.70·
10-4 8.03·
10-4 6.87·
10-5 1.86·
10-6 1.04·
10-5 3.64·
10-5 5.80·
10-7 1.01·
10-73.12
·
10-4 1.62·
10-5 1.0·
10-7 1.0·
10-7Table C2: Dissolved element concentration (<0.45 µm) in water from the wells.
Classification according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2000) whose categories are based on the risk of biological damage.
As Cd Cr Cu Ni Zn Pb
GW6 <1 0.06 <0.5 7.48 11.9 24.4 <0.2 GW7 <1 0.06 0.683 1.6 7.96 20.3 <0.2
GW1 <1 0.27 3.33 1810 7.34 103 1.03 < Value below the detection limit, no classification possible
GW2 <1 0.164 1.63 640 8.59 77.9 1.46
GW3 <1 0.212 1.34 370 17.9 119 0.585 Very low concentration GW4 <1 0.963 7.1 2870 40.9 288 1.03 Low concentration
GW5 <1 1.12 1.17 2140 42.4 269 0.696 Moderate high concentration GW8 <1 0.751 1.66 2300 21.5 269 0.542 High concentration
GW9 3.94 0.796 1.31 2180 20.1 273 0.462 Very high concentration
Table C3: Parameter measurements in selected wells from 2014-06-11.
O2 Electrical
Conductivity
mg/l mS/cm
GW6 2.04 0.46
GW7 1.14 0.31
GW2 1.94 0.62
G1 1.59 1.46
G2 1.49 0.63
4
Table C4: Water temperatures [°C] in wells recorded by divers during slug tests on 2014-06-01.
G1 G2 GW1 GW2 GW3 GW4 GW5 GW6 GW7 GW8
Run 1 4.1 3.6 4.0 3.7 3.9 3.6 6.6 3.7 4.4 3.6
Run 2 4.2 3.8 4.1 3.8 4.1 3.8 7.1 3.2 3.2 3.4
Run 3 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.8 6.7 3.2 3.6
Average 4.2 3.7 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.7 6.8 3.4 3.7 3.5
