ML19338F826

Discusses Secretary of Interior 801003 Ltr to NRC Re Impact of Dewatering at Facility.Util Is Preparing Detailed Response to Ltr & USGS Repts.Summary of Major Points Encl

ML19338F826
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	10/21/1980
From:	Shorb E NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8010270355
Download: ML19338F826 (10)

Text

. :v-

---

p l, y b y g, ~

S  % t, ;

v cero, w. ' a .

e.3 =; <

~

'  : DOCKETtIUt.:tih .

'i ,

~

PR00.&UTil FAC. *I Nortdiern Isullana INststic Servloe Cornpang Gewsr osomr / sses sennen A.me/ mewensc hanee m / w: asssaco ate

'suesneu.suone-October 21, 1980 . ,

e. , . m ,

%- c .-

N"N

~

' Mr. Harold Denton,L Director -

' Nuclear. Reactor Pleg'ulation D 2/ D

. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - ~ g O S O.[

48,h . //

Washington, D. C. 20555 9. ,

, y!!>O

. . , -.s,

Dear Mr. Denton:

.y

~

We have received a copy of the October 3,1980 letter from Secretary of the-Interior, Cecil D. Andrus, to Chairman Ahearne regarding the impact of dewatering at the site _of Bailly Nuclear-1 on the Cowles Bog area of "he Indians Dunes National Lakeshore. We understand that the letter has %en referred to you.

The Northern Indiana Public Service Company is preparing a detailed response to that letter and the USGS reports upon which that letter is based;

~

lthis response will be furnished to you approximately November 15. It will

. document'why the allegedly new information referred to by Secretary Andrus

. is not significant and does not warrant preparation of a supplement to the environmental impact; statement for Bailly Nuclear-l.

~

Meanwhile,1we would point out that the Secretary's letter draws conclusions which are not-supported by the reports which he referenced. Further, the ~-

reports themselves are inadequate;in many respects and, in our view, do not : .

. provide reliable engineering predictions of the effects of dewatering at Bailly' Nuclear-1. ' "

~

Several of the major points that we will address in our response are summa-

rized in th'e attachment to this letter.. t Very _truly yours, j

< ; EMStegs r Attachment '~ .

w r

g,jw.

1 c

W010s7035$  ;: - -

' 4 OA:

'H^ '

~

Q,k. w[ w[ 6 ^

._, y C' '

' ~

aH"  : L

+;

cq 4 '- -

J W

' fy:

a

. i . m,

_s ,

I 4

r. , < '

-Attachment

[4 ~

s

( Aiprell'ainary review has been made by D' Appolonia' Consulting

~

, I.

' Engineers.with. respect to'the: soil parameters used in,USGS 1

' Report No..78-138.(Ref. 1)'. 'The results-of.that re. view are

~

Eset outiin Ref..:3*f and can-be summarized-as follows:

e .

, 1. A large My of field data = relative to soil parameters -

within;the study area has been collected over a 20-year-period).the.USGS reports do not reflect much of this L data.

2. - There are 'sighificant discrepancies between the actual 7 .

7 field data and the data.or assumptions used by the USGS. ,

For exas.ple:

~ a. The wrong permeabilit13s-were'used for Units 1 and

+

3 (upper'and, lower aquifers)4

b. At many locations the wrong surface elevations of l

c Unit 2 were used in USGS repotts. j l ,

H

c. Unit 3 is connected to the s' ands above Unit 2

, through many large openings and it is also connected 1

to Lake Michig/ an. Unit 2'is not continuous as'USGS j j

assumed.- 1- a f d. Units.1, 2 and 3 are diffarent ir shape and in-

o. .

thickness.from those.used.in.the model.

p i There are major differencesibetween actual ground. ]

~

e.

.w ater levels and those~ assumed by USGS. .

I  %

&' .*/ Copies' of(Ref.f3 were provided.to'the'NRC'by'Mr. Bohn's-

-  :)

. - September 26,.1980: letter,to.-Mr. Youngblood.  !

~

- g + -

4 x- . N

/- [ , [

h 0f_ml  % l$5N '

m L. N .- 1 1.m  :

w% < >

g .

aw e g _r: ,;YL . y? ;g;v- ' x

^ - - - - " ~ -

(g" 9.'. ' <~ ^ '

z,.

j i

> ~.. ... ,

g,.'

. J .w .;.L , ,

G , 9 2-: <

f y iL c *

.~ ,L  :

,. 4 6 ,

j9 g S.1 f. Two diffarentiaquifers l(unconfined and confined).  ;

- ~ '

. ,h.

'dolnot exist.throughout the study area-as assumed y

_bys thej USGS; -in many ' areas . they are. connected and iactfas-one. ~T

/

1

~ 3. The radius of influence. for the pressure relief system 1

b- was-cal cu a el t d using actual permeabilitiiss and pump test i results- and found to be 'less than 950 feet. Therefore,

' the system cannot have;any effect an Cowles' Bog which is .

located'over 8,000 feet from the Bailly Nuclear-l' site.

. a

4. The radius of influence from the pressure reliaf system

.will'not reach the-bog area even if it is assumed that

~

[- , -Unit 2 is. continuous throughout the study area' with .an-

~

opening-(" window")'only under.the bog. l

5. For these ress6ns it is congluded that the model,~as l 1

presently constructed, does not accurately predict l

groundwater movements and does not support any conclusion

]

. - . a that the pressure relief system will affect the Cowles -!

Bag area. _

. ~ . .

II. The recent USGS' Report No R80-1105~(Ref. 2) is currently ~

j being. reviewed. :Significant discrepancies discovered thus

> N ~

far are as follows~:- 1 The storage properties of the' marsh (wetland) surrounding

~

- 4. .I l

~

1 ' CowlesLBog are not/ included.in the computer mode 1 k ~ developed by'USGS.. The. wetland west.of' Mineral Springs

~

RoadJand~ surrounding the 10-acre, elevated portion of e "

.j g; - 'i Cowles{ Bog consists of overL200Lacres. Even' if;it;.is i

'1 s 1 b

r- I ,

- 4"

~

, ~ .

q

~' "

q; gg , ,

w, ~ -

w. - o- -

h. ,-,c...

s - +

,l[ j *- [ 4 s

'/

l

f  ?

f'

' A _

'; h-

~

~

~?G

$, lW .N. e,.,q, - ,cW * N

$>, ~ -

f

. l. il l

D .-

^

' ^

s

"~ . assumed'that USGS model predictionsfare correcti

~

.., 6- g. ,

di.

l;:..;J uf _ changessin'- thel.cowlesL Bog : area as the 2003 acres of -

~

e . . - . ~

wetlands 1will offset any' groundwater; decline.

1. j .

.) s - 02. Theffdilowingistatement Jappears ;at page 3 of"Ref. ;2

. ..[

"The USGS and tM NPS have' collected new-

< hydrologic data:in the. vicinity-of cowles, Bog..

4

' ~

s These data suggest that. (1)~ the confining unit-

-(Unit'2), normally present between-the uncon- .

m. ,

fined _ aquifer- (Unit 1)' and the ' confined aquifer

( (Unit 3) , 'mga _be thin.or absent; (2) the. vertical 1

-hydraulic. conductivity of Unit--2 mja be greater

than,it is1elsewhere; orl(3' a combination;of. items -

(1) and (2) may, exist in the area _of the bog. This

" discontinuity" in the confining unit would greatly

[

enhance the_ hydraulic connection between the c unconfined and confined ~aquifars and could intensify

~

the impact of construction dewatering on water levels i

[ at Cowles Bog, particularly g a large part of the ~

y

, v.

o

' water. pumped from the excavation case - from Wit = 3." l

. (Emphasis added) ,

! That statement is qualified to such a degree that the e . Secretary cannot appropriately characterize it as I;

y

-concluding that dowatering at Bailly Nuclear  :

g, _

< 1" =, ...'will result in water level. declines at Cowles i

A " Bog .c. .

(Emphasis added).

y .

u,-

d

, ~; =x

.a '-

14 r - .

N , xy y '

O._'a g -

. -l' ~ l g,; ff '

w & -

~

I * ' ' '

b t

' l+ -. e

m

~, , , :n x u- -: ~ - -

1. E. ".. ' "'

• 3lQi 't

- ; ~*;)p ilp a f:G ~ f ~

y 'M L 4, _: ' '

y.-~.a' . L ~

- , w

. y;

, , ~

l3. J ata D from Ref. 2$shows~.'that the'.' average groundwater a

o.'

"r '

+ - clevelL inLthe l'ower aquifer (Unit 3) c was at7 Elevation 4 '

Y m 589.8 f(Nov." 7, '1979)11nsid's the excavationi for

% % Nuclear-1.1 ThesUSGS performed?a model. simulation to

~x';Kz reducestheihydrostatic pressure.to Elevation'583.7-

, 7 .

.(pages 10 and l'5),-a'reduetion o'f'6.1:fest.- For this~

i

~

1. small reduction at-the. excavation, the model predicted -

- groundwater-deslines.in-the. bog area over 8,000 feet away. This predicted reduction of the groundwater level:in.the1Cowles. Bog area is contrary to pumping- f d.

4

-tests and observed data at the NIPSCO*and Bethlehem u, Steel Co. sites.and to empirical data' presented in L .a . engineering literature. - (See Ref. 3) In effect, the USGS by making-incorrect modeling assumptions, arrive's i- at a conclusion that-violates fundamental hydraulic l principles and is contrary to observations of the effects of dewatering at ar.d near the site of Bailly:

Nuclear-1.  ;

~ + g

~4. The following statement appears at page 27 of Ref. 2:

"Whether the actual ground-water system wil1~

i

- behave in the.same manner as the model simulation depends on how well the model simulates the physical properties.of the ground-water system and the V .

. ~

artificial recharge.of water for mitigation. There-f- c

? fore,'these modellsimuistions.should not be viewed

.as. precise predictions of.what will occur in the.

~

l [ ~ field (butrathera' san'estimationofwhatmla

. ,i

? occur." T(Emphianis t added):

I <. , g ., '

% m

. J _ ,

.. s Lesc '

~

' * ;so h_ ~ f_ ' [

n -- . . , , ..,

%p.; x

- ,  ;- s c. w -

k:?

y gp, . z

.g .a p.,.y 7 p-  ; a

'In other words,ithe results of any model will only

>be as: good as the data.and/or assumptions-incorporated in the model'.: Since,-as we have shown in Ref. 3, the .

i < ,

..c

.USGS model does not simulate actual physical proper, ties }

of thh groundwater' system'i'n the' study area, the model 'i 7 .

cannot reliably predict groundwater movements in Cowles[ Bog.-- The'USGS. Report therefore does-not provide a valid' support for any conclusion that-its estimates of n y_ _ .what "may occur" are accurate.' ,

s r.r% w

^

w _

-: 1 c5..The conclusion of Reference 2 states:

' "Be'cause the flow model has not been verified, w.

itican' ortly be' used in' a general way to evaluate the effect.of construction dewatesing

~

and: decline-of the seepage mound on ground-water levels ~in'and near the Lakeshore. Until the I

.'model-simulated estimates of' water-level-decline can be compared with measured declines, the f'

i accuracy;of the simulated' declines cannot be u

We would emphasize that this passage admits: the flow model i

has not-been. verified and conclusions drawn from its use are

^~

~

therefore speculative.. In fact, the actual-' field data shows g .4 '

, -that.-the'model is not' valid.

c ,

3 q s

h k n

' ~

• f'- '

. .I. i.

,, . . . ' N .-^

f .

s - ..+

,'7"l.

W

.- ;c .

m ,

L,h '* N:  ; .? j

• +< _ _

!.. l ' y,

y - -

Q.l

-6-.

/ &

.c .... . .

p.

~

.q;ir +,

9 , .

,.,= is

^

LIST:OF REFERENCEC n

,~

y .

3 t " 1.- Meyer, William and Tucci',_Patri$k, January, 1979,;

Effacts of~ Seconee From Fly-Ash Settling Ponds and Construction Dewatering on Groundwater Levels in g"

e the Cowles-Unit, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, JIndiana,-.U.s.. Geological Survey, Water-Resources '

~ Investigations,78-138. .

2.- Gillies, Daniel:C..'and-Lapham, Wayne W., September L1980,?Reansessrent of the Effacts of Construction Dewatering on Glound-Water Levels in Cowles-Unit,

. Indiana Dunes National-Lakeshore Indiana,-Supple- -

f

. ment to Geological Survey Water-Resources Invastica-

-tions75-138, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File. -

g . Eport;80-1105'. -

~'  !

3. DE Appolonia Con'sulting Engineers, Inc. May 1980, L  :

" Preliminary Review, Soil Parameters Used in USGS. ,

Report 138, ' Effects of Seepage from Fly-Ash - ,

Settling Ponds & Construction-Dewatering on Ground- '

s.

_ water Levels.in the Cowles Unit, Indiana Dunes

' National Lakeshore,: Indiana' , Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear I, Baileytown,' Indiana," for Northern

. Indiana Public Service Company, Chesterton, Indiana.-

f v

j a r-t j s

1. b; ,

/

e-j, r, . '

(--- , ,'

!P

~Y .

k, ~e z; .jp' L' y; '

• _ l i'^^ '

,g .

, y se m e.N , .

ND gM m # y 7.- .

g '(. ' -

~

1 . v . , .

'~

c o 7 . . , ,9

,g '-' . +

4 4 *

- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

+

BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 7 4

• In the Matter of ') Docket No. 50-367

);

~ NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC )~ (Construction Pennit SERVICE COMPANY ) F.xtension) i

__ ) -

(Bailly. Generating Station, ) October 21;'1980 .

Nuclear-1)~ )

- .i

- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,

'I hereby certify thsticopies of a Letter dated October 21, -

i 1980, addressed'to Mr. Harold Denton, Director, Nuclear Reactor

- Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission, Washington, D.C.

205552from E. M. Shorb, Northern Indiana Public Service Company, together with the Attachment thereto, were served on the following

, by deposit in the United Stutes mail, postage prepaid, on this 21st day of. October, 1980

- ~ ~ Herbert Grossman, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission w ,

c Washington, D.C. ,

20555

p. Glenn O. Bright U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. ~ 20555 Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear ~ Regulatory Connaission

.; Washington, D.C. 20555

$- ~ Docketing'and. Service Section Office of the Secretary

'U.9. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission j Washington, D.C. 20555- _O a w

, Howard K. Shapar, Esquire Executive Legal Director

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. '20555 e ,

Steven Goldberg, Esquire' -

~ Office:of the Executive Legal' Director  ;

[ , . '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i f _

Washington,_D.C.. 20555 p' y J *

,?

~-

r

,^  ;~p"' a f'

y' - g.

, f ^ .:sf ?

-_Q

g. .

g}y:- - .1,... -; .,

n .

i k,' '

t .

-1 Susan Sekular, Esquire Environmental Control Division 7, 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago,-Illinois 60601 j Robert J. Vollen, Esquire c/o BPI . ~) '

• 109-North Learborn Street t Suite 1300 . . ,

Chicago, Illinois 60602

}o

.il

~

Edward W..Osann, Jr., Esquire

'~

i <

one IBM Plasa --

1

. Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60611 _

c d

_ Mr. Mike Olszanski '

m. '

Mr. Clifford Meso United Steelworkers of America r -3703 Euclid Avenue East Chicago, Indiana 46312 Diane B. Cohn, Esquire

(, -

William B. Schultz, Esquire w suite 700

, 2000 P' Street', NW

. Washington,.D.C. 20036 L Richard L. Robbins, Esquire E

53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Mr. George Grabowski ,

-Ms. Anna Grabowski '

7413 W.-136th Lane -)

in ,

Cedar' Lake, Indiana 46303 .

Dr._ George Schultz 807 East Cool Spring

[ s Michigan City, Indiana 46360

-John F. Ahearne, Chairman-

s. 3 .U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f'q }; Washington, D.C. 20555

c. .

Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner-4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connaission m Washington,~D.C.' 20555 2 L s s 2 . ' s ,. M*. '

a ,

^

, r

~

l

,n,. '

f'M(lQ, . _2 Y-  !

We _

s ,

= 9_ c _ x.  : . .: .

.- - _- .. x, - . . . . . . . ~

~

m ; ;s;

g . 7. -; q s;

. . . . . g 1*

. s.. ,

- M,' u.;,  ::. *

+c o

.P i: - .

. Peter Bradford, . Comunissioner

.$7: '3.!'

h"' - .. U.S. Nuclear . Regulatory Connaission -

.{

f-Washington, D.C. 20555 ,"

Joseph M. Hendrie, Comunissioner

, si

~U.S. -Nuclear Regulatory Connaission >

Washington, D.C. 20555 C

r 4m

. , , scn '

DAVID C. asm6EN f

~

'W Eichhorn, Eichhorn & Link 5243 Hohman Avenue Hasumond,' Indiana 46320 Attorneys for Northern Indiana Public Service Company

/

+ r

.eu m

4 y .s._

I Q- ,s 9 S '-

+

4

~

g.-

• ^

i*J-l;G <. '-_ I. '

.:' ~ , , ,

,ls.: '

S-  :

,..;_g ,- , ,._;

, _, _ _ , . ,.