ML19343A830
| ML19343A830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1980 |
| From: | GROUND TECHNOLOGY, INC. (FORMERLY STS D'APPOLONIA |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343A827 | List: |
| References | |
| MW79-720, NUDOCS 8011210571 | |
| Download: ML19343A830 (89) | |
Text
L
- g L
!I e ;
iI l
!l iI il 1
l i Report ,
!I i Assessment of the influence lg of Dewatering at Bailly N-1
!l 4
!l 4
I
!I t
l 4
i
!I 1
i
'8 0.1 ; 41 oggt IlD"AIPIlR(DIUfDNJ[A
I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND SOIL PARAMETERS 3 3.0 REVIEW OF USGS REPORTS 7 3.1 USGS REPORT 78-138 (REFERENCE 1) 7 I EFFECTS OF SEEPAGE FROM FLY-ASH SETTLING PONDS AND CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING ON GROUND-WATER LEVELS IN THE COWLES UNIT, INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE, I INDIANA 3.2 USGS REPORT 80-1105 (REFERENCE 2)
R2 ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING 12 I ON GROUND-WATER LEVELS IN THE COWLES UNIT, INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE, INDIANA, SUPPLEMENT TO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS78-138 3.3 DISCUSSION OF SOIL DATA 23 4.0 REVIEW OF USGS MODEL 26 4.1 26 I
GRID SYSTEM 4.2 INPUT DATA 27 4.3 MODEL LIMITATIONS 29 4.4 MODEL CALIBRATION 29 4.5 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 30 4.6 OVERALL MODEL STRATEGY 31 5.0 DEWATERING AND RADIUS OF INFLUENCE 33 6.0 GROUNDWATER DATA IN THE COWLES BOG AREA 36
7.0 CONCLUSION
S 39 LIST OF REFERENCES R-1 FIGURES APPENDIX A - REPRESENTATIVE COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY OF SOILS APPENDIX B - LIST OF FIGURES, FIGURES 6 THROUGH 12 REPRODUCED FROM USGS REPORT 78-138 (REFERENCE 1)
APPENDIX C - COMPARISON OF SOIL DATA, LIST OF FIGURES, FIGURES Cl THROUGH Cl3, LIST OF REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C.
I DhlPIPOILONIIA
l l
11 LIST OF FIGURES FIGUPE NO. DRAWING NO. TITLE I Vicinity Fbp, Bailly Nuclear 1 I
l 1 MW79-720 B4 and Cowles Bog 2 MW79-720 E11 Plan, Borings and Piezometers, Bailly Generating Stati: n, I Nuclear 1 3 MW79-720 E6 Generalized Soil Profile A-A Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1 Generalized Soil Profile B-B I 4 MW79-720 E7 Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1 5 MW79-720 B5 Comparison of Water Levels in Unit 1, Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1 6 MW79-720 B6 Comparison of Water Levels in Unit 3, Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1 7 MW79-720 B7 Recorded Water Levels in the Great Marsh Area Piezometers, I Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1 I
l ll ,
I IlDRIPIIMDIfADNIUk
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
g Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) has retained D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc. (D'Appolonia) to assess the influence of construction dewatering at NIPSCO's Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1 (Bailly N-1) on groundwater levels in the vicinity of Cowles Bog which is located within Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (IDNL) (Figure 1).
D'Appolonia has provided services as a geotechnical consultant in and around tha 'ndiana Dunes area since 1959 at the site of Midwest Steel Company, o nce 1963 at the site of Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSCO) and since 1966 at the site of the Port of Indiana. A part of D'Appolonia's
- responsibility has been large scale subsurface investigations and construc-tion dewatering using deepwell and wellpoint systems.
The U.S. Geological Sur vey (USGS) in cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS), has published two reports;78-138 and 80-1105 (Re ferences 1 and 2 respectively) relative to effects of construction dewatering on groundwater levels within IDNL.
Reference 1, issued in January 1979, summarizes a two year study of soil and groundwater conditions within a study area located north of U.S. 12, between the Port of Indiana and Mineral Springs Road in Porter County,
'"di"""- '"" "'"d' "'"" i' "'"""d '" ' "" " "i"""" - ^ " " '
I lB IDNL is adjacent to NIPSCO's Bailly Generating Station where two fossil fuel plants are operating and a nuclear generating unit is under construc-tion. 'Ihe principal objective of the USGS study was to investigate the effects of construction dewatering on the groundwater levels within IDNL. The USGS constructed a digital model of the groundwater regime for this purpose. 'Ih e finite-difference model (Trescott 1975) was used to simulate and predict changes of groundwater flow in three dimensions throughout the study area.
DTMPiP4DIL/(DNRA
2 I
At a meeting on January 31, 1980 NPS informed NIPSCO that the USGS, using the model, had predicted groundwater changes of up to 0.5 feet at Cowles Bog (over 8000 feet away) resulting from NIPSCO's pressure relief system.
Because this prediction is inconsistent with observed data in the area, NIPSCO requested that D'Appolonia review the soil parameters used in the USGS report. The results of this review were submitted in Reference 3.
I Reference 2, issued in September 1980, is a supplement to Reference 1 directed specifically toward determining the effect of Bailly N-1 construc-tion dewaterirg at Cowles Bog.
This report e, compasses a study of References (1), (2), soil data, pumping tests and observations during construction in the Indiana Dunes area since 1959. Based on our u.alysis of all available data, it is our view that the pressure relief system proposed for Bailly N-1 dewatering will not affect the water level at Cowles Bog.
I I
I :
l l
I 11MhlPIPOIfADNILA
I 3 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND S0IL PARAMETERS The study area consists of land owned principally by Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSCO), NIPSCO and NPS. Throughout the BSCO site (Burns Harbor Plant) over 800 borings were drilled, five of which were drilled within the IDNL. Over 120 soil borings were drilled on the NIPSCO I property (Bailly Generating Station). Over 400 observation wells and over 70 dewatering wells were installed within the study area. Two field pumping tests were conducted to obtain in situ permeability; one in 1963 at the BSCO site and another in 1979 at Bailly N-1 site.
Reference 1 describes the study area as approximately 80% industrialized land and 20% national lakeshore. Surficial physical features include the interdunal ponds (Pond Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7), the fly-ash settling ponds (Pond Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13) and the Great Marsh which contains an area I known as Cowles Bog, designated as a National Landmark.
Reference 1 divides the soils into four units. The following descriptions of these units are extracted from Reference 1.
e Unit 1, unconfined aquifer, consists primarily of fine sand with lateral hydraulic conductivity of 167 ft/ day.
The saturated thickness ranges from 0 to 35 feet.
I e Unit 2, confining layer, consists chiefly of clay with a thickness ranging from 0 to 80 feet, e Unit 3, confined aquifer, consists chiefly of fine to medium sand with lateral hydraulic conductivity equal to that of Unit 1. The thickness of the unit ranges from 0 to 80 feet.
I IIDNRPGlfADNI[A
l l
il 4
e Unit 4, primarily silt and clay with a thickness ranging from 60 to 140 feet. The characteristics of Unit 4 are not considered in this report.
Relying upon numerous borings, pumping tests and knowledge gained I through 21 years of experience in the area, soil conditions and layering can be reliably defined at the BSCO and NIPSCO sites. his is not true for the IDNL portion of the study area since logs of only five borings and one water supply well (Wl) are available for analysis. Although USGS ir. stalled over 30 observation wells within IDNL, adjacent to Bailly N-1, soil sampling was conducted in only one of these. H e remaining were installed by driving or jetting. However, these data are sufficient to identify some of the contradictions in the data between Reference 1 and several logs which are selected from the above mentioned logs. D e contradictions are discussed in detail in section 3.3 of this report.
D'Appolonia's review of all available data indicates that the permesble soils (Units 1 and 3) within the study area should not be modeled as two aquifers (enconfined and confined) separated by a practically impervious layer (Figures 3 and 4). Generally there is one aquifer which is partly unconfined and partly confined because the confining layer is absent in many locations. The sands of Unit I and Unit 3 are directly connected not only through many large openings in the confining layer (Unit 2) but
- also to Lake Michigan as a line source. A detailed description of the confining layer is presented in Reference 3. he simplifying assumption used in modeling is inconsistent with the actual statigraphy in the study area.
During review several discrepancies were disecvered between the actual conditions and the conditions presented in Reference 1 relating to BSCO devatering wells. These differences introduce serious errors which preclude reliable model results.
4 I 1 DMIPIP4NfADNI[A 1 l
l 1
1 l
The major points from Reference 3 can be summarized a:= follows:
- 1. A large body of field data relative to soil parameters within the study area has been collected over a 20 year period; the USGS reports ignored or misused much of this data.
- 2. There are significant discrepancies between the actual field data and the data and assumptions used by the USGS.
For example:
- a. He wrong permeabilities were used for Units 1 and 3.
- b. he USGS study incorrectly modeled the top elevations of Unit 2.
- c. Unit 3 is connected to the sands that lie above Unit 2 through many large openings and it is also connected to Lake Michigan. Unit 2 is not continuous as the USGS assumed.
i
! d. Units 1, 2 and 3 are different in shape and in
! thickness from these used in the model.
- c. There are major differences between actual ground water I levels and those assumed by the USGS.
l i
- f. Two different aquifers (unconfined and confined) do not exist throughout the study area as modeled by the USGS; in many areas they are connected and act as one.
I I
IlDDAIPIPOIIADNIUK
I 6
- 3. The radius of influence (the limit of lateral extension of a cone of depression) for the pressure relief system was calculated using actual permeabilities obtained from pumping test results and found to be less than 950 feet. Accordingly, the system cannot have any ef fect on Cowles Bog which is located over 8,000 feet from the Bailly N-1 site.
. 4. The radius of influence from the pressure relief 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.
I 5. For these reasons it is concluded that the model, as
- resently constructed, does not accurately predict ground-I sater fluctuations and cannot be used to support the conclusion that the pressure relief system will affect the Cowles Bog area. One may safely argue, a posteriori, that a model reflec-ting a drawdown at 8000 feet under these circumstances contains inherent error because the result is manifestly wrong.
I I
I I
IID?MPIPOIfADNILK
I I
3.0 REVIEW 0F USGS REPORTS I D'Appolonia's initial review was limited to soil parameters used in the USGS Raport 78-138. After the USGS Report 80-1105 was released, at NIPSCO's request, D'Appolonia performed a review of both USGS reports.
The following is an analysis of pertinent issues addressed in both USGS I reports.
3.1 USGS REPORT 78-138 (Reference 1) 3.1.1. " Unit 3 consists chiefly of a gray, fine to medium sand but contains thin lenses of sandy clay, clay, and sand and gravel. Thickness of unit 3 ranges from 0 to 80 ft (fig. 9). The unit is thickest beneath the central and south-central parts of the study area. Where unit 3 is absent, unit 4 merges with unit 2." (p. 14, Par. 3)
In the 5000 by 8000 foot area between NIPSCO's east property line and Cowles Bog, no boring has been drilled deep enough to determine the thickness of Unit 3. Accordingly, Figure 9 showing " thickness of unit 3" in that area is speculative. This figure is included in Appendix B.
3.1.2 ".. average lateral hydraulic conductivity of 167 ft/ day
- for unit 1. This value is at the upper end of the range of lateral hydraulic-conductivity values reported for this unit in Porter and LaPorte counties . . ." (p. 15, Par. 1)
The site is not in LaPorte County. On site and near site values of permeability are available. Permeability calculated by the authors is "at upper end of reported values" but was used as a representative average value.
- 589 x 10-4 cm/see I
IlDhlPIPOILADMILK
I 8
I The most reliable procedure for determining the average in situ permea-bility of a water-bearing formation is a field pumping test (Re ference 4). In 1963 a field pumping test was conducted at the BSCO site prior to any deep well dewatering activity. The average in situ permeability of the sands was calculated to be 250 x 10-4 cm/sec or 71 ft/ day. Extensive I dewatering throughout more than 1000 acres regularly confirmed this as a representative value of average permeability.
In 1979 a field pumping test was conducted in Unit 3 at the site of
. Bailly N-1 (Reference 7). Using 80 feet as the thickness of Unit 3 and I an average transmissivity of 12,000 GPD/ft, it 4as found that the resulting average permeability is 70 x 10-4 cm/sec or 20 ft/ day, g The permeability used in the model for Unit 1 and Unit 3 is two to eight I times higher than the average permeability obtained from these field pumping tests.
A permeability of 1 x 10-4 cm/sec for " fine silty sand with clay" (a part of Unit 3) was determined by D'Appolonia using the USGS log of observation well 107 (Appendix C). The permeability of 589 x 10-4 cm/sec used in the model is about 600 times higher than actual permeability at observation well 107. Additional details regarding permeability within the study area are conMined in Section 4.0 of Reference 3 and Section 3.3 of this report.
Based on the above it is concluded that the permeabilities used in the model do not re flec t site conditions. Differences in actual permeabilities vary too much to be used as a constant throughout the study area.
Further, the value of a finite diffetence model lies precisely in the (
ability of introducing a large number of variables.
I I
I IlMhlPIPOILONILA\
I I
3.1.3 " Lines of - ual transmissivity for units 1 and 3 were obtained by multiply 7 ng the average hydraulic-conductivity value by thickness, as determined from the thickness naps for each unit. 'Ihe distributions of transmissivity for units 1 and 3 are shown in figures 11 and 12, respectively.
I Although the preceding technique can lead tu a systematic estimate of transmissivity either too high or too low, th ase inaps ( figs.
11 and 12) did not require adjustment during model analysis."
(p. 15, Par. 3)
Because the coefficients of permeability used by the authors are incorrect and the absence of information from deep borings in the area between NIPSCO's east property line and Cowles Bog, the estimate of transmissivity as shown in Figures 11 and 12 (Reference 1) is invalid. Any transmissivity lines drawn between NIPSCO's east property line and Cowles Bog are speculative. Figures 11 and 12 from Reference 1 are includea in Appendix B.
3.1.4 "A map (fig. 16) showing the approximate configuration of the October 26, 1976, potentiometric surface of unit 3 provides a base u.ap far the unit before dewatering at the nuclear excavation site or pumping at the coal-fired plant. Pumping i at the plant began in January 1977, and dewatering at the l nuclear excavation site began in March 1977." (p. 31, Par. 3) l On Figure 16 of Reference 1, the Unit 3 potentiometric contour north of Bailly N-1 near the lake is shown at elevation 600. The ground surface elevation in this area is between 580 to 585 feet.' Using this elevation implies that Unit 3 is a free-flowing artesian aquifer which is not the case, as no artesian head was encountered during drilling cpera-tions in the arec. The USGS report does not recognize that Unit 3 is not, in fact, a confined aquifer and the contour variation should have I
alerted the USGS to a flaw in its application of the model.
IlDTAIPPOII1NNIL'A
I 10 3.1.5 " Constructing the map of the potentiometric surface of unit 3 involved adjusting the water levels in Bethlehem Steel Corp.
wells in unit 3 in a manner similar to that done for wells in I unit 1. A decrease in water levels in Bethlehem Steel Corp.
observation wells from September 1976 to January 1977 ranged from 0.60 to 4.4 ft. Water levels for the Geological Survey wells in unit 3 for October 26, 1976, were estimated by following the trends of the water level in the unit in Bethleher Steel Corp. wells from September 1976 to April 1977, when water levels were available for all the Geological Survey v211s. The adjustment required was an increase of 2.0 ft. over April water levels. The potentiometric surface of unit 3 on October 26, 1976, constructed by the preceding method, is shown in figure 16. Although not based on data for this date, the map of this surface for October 26 represents an approximation that is probably accurate within the contour interval of the map and should allow a reasonable interpretation of the flow direction in unit 3 on this date." (p. 31, Par. 5)
The model was calibrated using these estimated water levels which are "probably" accurate within the contour interval. The contour interval is 5 feet and there is only one data point in the northern half of the study area and no data points in the vicinity of Cowels Bog (Figure 6) indicating that model calibrations were not performed with an accuracy sufficient to predict water level changes as small as a tenth of a foot.
3.1.6 ". .At present (1977) it [BSCO) is pumping 5 wells, althor .
it has pumped more than 70 wells at different times.
Information on well locations, well construction, historic water levels, and specific-capacity tests for the major wells constructed during the last 5 years was made available to the Geological Survey by Bethlehem Steel Corp. during the study. ."
(p. 49, Par. 1)
}lDTAPIPOIU(DNLA
11 In Reference 1, Figures 13 and 25 show only one well while Figures 16 and 26 show three wells (See Figures 5 and 6, this report). All these figures are for water levels on October 26, 1976. Table 1 (Page 49, Reference 1) shows four wells to be active on that date. The USGS is aware that all of these wells are futly gravel packed (Pages 15 and 49, RE ference 1). Therefore, all the wells are pumping from both Unit 1 and Unit 3, yet in Table I the USGS lists wells 6 and 73 as pumping only from Unit 3. Accordingly, the model derived water levels as presented in Figures 25 rnd 26 are incorrect, as the well data has been incorrectly incorporated into the study.
3.1.7 " Water is pumped for domestic use in Dune Acrea and in the southeast part of the study area, but this pumpage is minimal and has only a very localized effect on ground-water icvels."
(p. 52, Par. 5)
This may be relevant to the study objectives of Reference 1. It is not true for Reference 2 in which the study objective is to assess the influer : of construction dewatering at Bailly N-1 on Cowles Bog (Figure
- 1) over 8,000 feet away. Using the model, the USGS predicted groundwater level changes as far as the Cowles Bog area. If this is correct, all wells within a radius of approximately 10,000 feet from Cowles Bog should I
be incorporated into the model particularly when the study is attempting to determine water level changes as small as one tenth of a foot.
3.1.8 Figure 11, Reference 1, "Transmissivity of Unit 1, October 26, 1976."
Figure 11 (Reference 1) is included in Appendix B and shows thac Unit 1 is absent in the southeast corner of the study area.
I IlDNPRNDIfADNRA
I 12 Figures 13 and 25 (Reference 1) then show groundwater levels for Unit 1 in the area where Unit 1 is supposedly absent. Obviously this is incorrect (Figure 5 of this report).
3.1.9 Figure 16, Reference 1, " Potentiometric surface of Unit 3, I October 26, 1976".
Figure 26, Reference 1, "Model-derived steady state potentio-metric surface of Unit 3".
Figure 16 shows observed water levels in Unit 3 (see Section 3.1.5) for October 26, 1976, and Figure 26 shows the model derived water levels for the same time. Data from these two figures is summarized and presented in Figure 6 of this report. It can be seen that water levels in Unit 3 are not in good agreement particularly for model calibration and that groundwater levels for Unit 3 are shown in the area where Unit 3 is absent north of Bailly N-1.
3.2 USGS REPORT 80-1105 (Reference 2)
I 3.2.1 'A variation or "discontir.uity" in the hydraulic characteris-tics of the confining unit (r. nit 2) beneath Cowles Bog would intensify water-level declines in unit 1 in the vicinity of Cowles Bog resulting from construction dewatering. With the
" discontinuity", a simulation of simultaneous decline of the seepage mound and the second phase of dewetering indicates that water levels in unit 1 in Cowles Bog would be below
" reference water levels" (water levels, as simulated in the model, that would have been present in unit 1 on October 26, 1976, if there had been no seepage from the fly-ash ponds) after 18 months. For a comparable simulation withour the
" discontinuity," water levela did not decline below the l
l l
WAIPPOIIAMWIM
l 13 I
" reference levels." Model results with the " discontinuity" present also indicate that the artificial recharging of unit I near the excavation cannot completely make up water-level declines below " reference icvels" within the area of Cowles Bog af ter 18 months of simultaneous decline of the seepage mound and the second phase of dewatering...' (p. 1, Par. 4)
The accuracy of "teference water level" is commented upon in Reference 1, Page 31 and is reproduced below:
I " Constructing the map of the potentiometric surface of unit 3 involved adjusting the water levels in Bethlehem Steul Corp.
I wells in unit 3 in a manner similar to that done for wells in unit 1. A decrease in water levels in Bethlehem Steel Corp.
observation wells from September 1976 to January 1977 ranged from 0.60 to 4.4 feet. Water levels for the Geological Servey wells in unit 3 for October 26, 1976, were estimated by following the trends of the water level in the unit in Bethlehem Steel
- Corp. wells from September 1976 to April 1977, when water levels were available for all the Geological Survey wells. The adjustment required was an incresse of 2.0 feet over April water levels. The potentiometric surface of unit 3 on October 26, 1976, constructed by the preceeding method, is shown in figure 16. Although not based on data for this date, the map of this surface for October 26 represents an approximation that is probably accurate within the contour interval of the map and should allow a reasonable interpretation of the flow direction in unit 3 on this date." (underlining added for emphasis)
The map of the water surface has an accuracy of 5 feet, and yet it is used as " reference water levels". These were used throughout Reference 1 rad 2 studies to predict drawdown, which will introduce error, l i
1 l
l l
l IIMMPPOLONILA l
I 14 3.2.2 , . .Because of the close proximity of the model boundary to the bog, model simulation can only yield maximum and minimum estimates of the impact of the seepage-mound decline and construction dewatering for simulations of the " discontinuity" beneath Cowles Bog. The maximum and minimum estimates of impact are derived by simulating a constant-flux boundary and a constant-head boundary, respectively, at the east edge of the model. The difference between the maximum and minimum impacts is significant, particularly for simulation of seepage-mound decline, but the model cannoc be used to determine which boundary condition best simulates the aquifer system. A new expanded model, which places the east boundary farther away from Cowles Bog to eliminate the effects of that boundary on water levels near the bog, would be needed to refine the estimates of the impact of construction dewatering and seepage-mound decline on water levels in the vicinity of the bog. Also, if possible, the storage properties of the marsh, which are not incorporated in the present model, could be included.' (p. 2, Par. 1)
Moving the east boundary farther to the east (away from the bog area) will not " refine" the predicted drawdown in the bog area but simply force the predicted drawdown to become greater. There are unlimited locations of the east boundary and correspondingly unlimited predicted drawdowns in the bog area for this computer model. The modeling error is endless
~
unless the radius of influence of the / watering 3 wells is taken into consideration when establishing the oodel boundary.
The storage properties of the marsh cannot be excluded from the model as it is a year round wetland and virtually eliminates any predicted drawdown.
l l
DhPPOLONILS
15 3.2.3 'The USGS and the NPS have collected new hydrologic data in the vicinity of Cowles Bog. These data suggest that (1) the confining unit (unit 2), normally present between the uncon-fined aquifer (unit 1) and the confined aquifer (unit 3), may be thin or absent; (2) the vertical hydraulic conductivity I of unit 2 may be greater than it is elsewhere; or (3) a com-bination 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 unconfined and confined aquifers and could intensify the impact of construc-tion dewatering on water levels at Cowles Bog, particularly M a large part of the water pumped from the excavation came from unit 3.' (underlining added) (p. 3, Par. 3)
Item (1) states that the confining unit may be thin or absent. There are many locations within the study area where unit 2 is absent or is very thin (References 1, 2 and 3) .
Item (2) above states that the vertical hydraulic conductivity may be greater. This condition exists in all locations where unit 2 is absent.
Conclusions based on the "new data" are speculative. The expression "may be" is hypothetical and generates hypothetical results. There are no deep soil borings within the bog area and its surroundings. To speculate ,
1 as to the characterist ics of Unit 3 using hypothetical data to define the j soil strata results in an unrealistic assessment of the ef fect of construc-tion dewatering on Cowles Bog.
3.2.4 ". . The cbjectiver - 'he study were to (1) review all sig-nificant hydrolog alected at the NIPSCO Bailly site l
,' since the study by Meyer and Tucci (1979) and determine whether the data could be used to refine their estimates of ef fects of construction dewatering on ground-water levels in the Lakeshore, I . ." (p. 3, Par. 4)
RM11PPOHADNHA
I 16 The study did not " review all significant hydrologic data", or if it did, it failed to incorporate these into its analyses. Reference 2 ignores the permeability determined from a key pumping test conducted by NIPSCO.
The resulting value of 70 x 10-4 cm/sec (Reference 7) is more than eight times smaller than the permeability 167 ft/ day or 589 x 10-4 cm/sec used by the USGS in its computer model. Further, the NIPSCO pumping test yielded a radius of influence of only 600 feet. This is confirmed by other tests and observations in the area.
3.2.5 ". .In the south one-third of the excavation, the water levels in both units 1 and 3 have declined about 11 feet.
The nearly equal water-level decline in the two units also suggests that the hydraulic connaction between the two aquifers is good in that area, especially because little water has been removed directly from unit 3. The signi-I ficance of this hydraulic connection was investigated further by examining the results of phase 1 dewatering for model experiments K through Z of Meyer and Tucci (1979)." (p. 4, Par. 2)
The above discussion identifies a " good" hydraulic connection at only one location whereas there are many hydraulic connections throughout the study area which have not been considered (References 1, 2 and 3). In many cases Reference 2 relies on assumptions tather than data.
I 3.2.6 " Pumping directly from unit 3 for reduction of hydrostatic pressure in that unit was sin.ulated in revised experiments S and U by assigning a constant head of 583.7 feet above NGVD to unit 3 at the model node representing the sc6th one-third of the excavation and then holding it constant throughout the 18-month duration of phase 2 dewatering. Selection of this water level to represent the average requirement for reduction in hydrostatic pressure in unit 3 under the excavation was based on data presented in the report by Sargent and Lundy 1 1
(1979)." (p. 15, Par. 3) l l
1 l
l E 3
17 I
On November 7, 1979, the groundwater level in Unit 3 inside the slurry wall was 589.8 (Figure 5 of Reference 2). Experiments S and U simulated drawdown to el. 583.7, creating 6.1 feet water level change in Unit 3.
The calculated radius of influence (R) for this case, using the equation widely accepted (see Section 5.0), is:
~
R= 3 (AH) Y~K = 3 x (6.1) V 589= 444 feet.
Where R= ladius of influence (feet)
AH= Drswdown at point of withdrawal (feet)
K= Permeability expressed in 10-4 cm/see units This calculated Radius of Influence is vastly less than the 8000 foot distance to Cowles Bog. Even allowing for considerable error in permea-bility, the radius of influence does not extend to Cowles Bog.
I 3.2.7 ". . . Simulated water-level declines in unit I for revised experiment U are only slightly greater than those produced by experiment U of Meyer and Tucci (1979). This near agreement indicates that simulation of an extended phase 1 dewatering, a lower maintenance of the water level in the excavation for phase 2 dewatering, and direct pumping from unit 3 produce an estimated impact on water levels within the Lakeshore that differs little from those estimated by M:yer and Tucc *
(1979). The model-calculated rate of pumping from the excavation at the end of revised experiment U was 819 gal / min of which 816 gal / min is from unit 3 and 3 gal / min from unit
- 1. The total rate compares fairly closely with the 710 gal / min for experiment U of Meyer and Tucci (1979, table 4)." (p. 15, Par. 4)
I I IlD?hlPPOIfADNILK
I I
18 I
Units 1 and 3 are connected inside and cutside the slurry wall. Pumping rates of 816 gpm from Unit 3 and 3 gpm from Unit I are unrealistic.
It is reasonal.e to expect that wore than 3 gpm will come directly from Unit I through the steel sheet piling at northeast corner of the excava-tion, and indirectly via Unit 3 which is connected to Unit 1 outside the I slurry wall.
3.2.8 Figure 9, Reference 2, "Model-simulated water-level declines in Unit 3 after 18 warths of phase 2 construction dewatering (revised experiment U)"
Figure 9 shows 2 feet of water level decline in Unit 3 north of Bailly N-1 excavation site. According to the USGS reports, unit 3 does not exist in this area. The drawdswn is incccrect and illustrates that the model simuistion is inapplicable.
3.2.9 ". .Whether the actual ground-water system will behave in the ame manner as the model simulation depends on how well the model simulates the physical properties of the ground-water system and the artificial recharge of water for mitigation.
Therefore, these model simulations should not be viewed as precise predictions of what will occur in the field, but I rather as an estimation of what may occur." (p. 27, Par. 1)
This is true for all models. The USGS model does not simulate actual physical site properties. More importantly, the model is incorrectly used to predict drawdown beyond the radius of influence, a contradiction the USGS reports fail to address.
3.2.10 'The ground-water mound in unit I at Cowles Bog is probably due to a thinning or absence of the confining unit (unit 2)
I beneath the center of the bog that normally separates units I J1DRIRPOIfADNIM
I 19 1
1 and 3, or a greater value of the vertical hydraulic conductivity of unit 2 beneath the center of the bog than elsewhere, or a combination of both factors. The variation l
in one or both of the characteristics of the confining unit, hereafter termed a " discontinuity," results in a better connection between the two aquifers (units 1 and 3) than
- elsewhere. Upward flow from unit 3 to unit 1 through the 5 confining unit (unit 2) is well documented in the study area and throughout the Lakeshore. For example, upward flow is evident at well 108, about 2,000 feet northeast of Cowles Bog and east of Mineral Springs Road (fig. 14), where the water level in unit 3 was about 2.2 feet higher than the level in unit 1 in February 1980. The better hydraulic l connection beneath Cowles Bog apparently allows greater quantities of ground water to discharge upward from unit 3 l into unit I through the " discontinuity" than where the l confining unit is present and thus to produce the mound in unit I at the bog. Other documented " discontinuities" in the confining unit include one at the west end of pond 1 and another in the south part of the study area (Meyer and Tucci, 1979, fig. 7). There also may be a " discontinuity" under the south part of the excavation.' (p. 27, Par. 4) l l
l Flow from Unit 3 to Unit 1 is not documented. In many areas it has been l documented that the flow is from Unit I to Unit 3. At the Bethlehem Steel Corp. plant site, shallow piezometers showed higher groundwater
, levels than the deep piezometers prior to the plant desatering in 1963.
The USGS piezometers 103 and 104 (Figure 2) show the same water level; the USGS piezometer G6 shows a water level in unit I higher than piezometer !
102 in Unit 3. The USGS piezometers 107 (in Unit 3) and 108 (in Unit 1) cannot be used for comparison because 107 is screened in a layer of silty 11DTXIPPOIf4DNHA
20 sand with clay and it is out of order. According to the data, it is doubtful if 107 was working properly from the time of installation. The USGS statement ". . Upward flow is evident at Well 108 . ." is incorrect because the screen of Well 108 is located in Unit I and Uait 2 is present at that location, therefore, it cannot record water levels in Unit 3.
3.2.11 'Although the hypothesis of the " discontinuity" in the I confining unit at Cowles Bog has not been proven with direct evidence such as test boringa and corings, the mound in unit 1 indirectly supports it. The USGS and NPS will continue to gather data that will expand and refine the present under-standing of the hydrology of Cowles Bog. For now, the hypothesis that a " discontinuity" exists in the confining unit underlying Cowles Bog is assumed, and the model simu-lations that follow incorporate this " discontinuity".'
(p. 33, Par. 2)
Results derived from a hypothetical case are themselves hypothetical and inconclusive. They do not provide a reasonable engineering definition of I the impact of the NIPSCO dewatering on Cowles Bog.
l l
3.2.12 '. .Thus, for all model simulations involving the "disconti-nuity" in the confining unit at Cowles Bog, both constant-head l and constant-flux boundary conditions were used in both units 1 and 3 along the east edge of tha model. The two boundary conditions result in maximum and minimum ef fects on water levels at Cowles Bog caused by seepage-mound decline j I
and construction dewatering. Although the storage properties of unit I were considered in the simulations, the storage properties of the Great Marsh were not. Standing water in the marsh and witer in the organic mat could moderate water-level declines.' (p. 34, Par. 1)
I I IIMSIPPOIfADNILS
1 21 The standing water in the marsh must be conside.ed in the computer model because the marsh has an area of several hundred acres and the elevated portion of the bog has an area of 10 acres. This large body of available water would virtually eliminate the water level decline if indeed it were influenced by the NIPSCO dewatering.
3.2.13 " Evaluation of data collected at the NIPSCO Bailly site since December 1977 indicates that, of experiments K-Z by Meyer and Tucci (1979, tables 3 and 4), experiments S and U I are the ones that best simulate field conditions. These two experiments assume.! that the lateral hydraulic conductivity of the slurry wall around NIPSCO's excavation is equal to the design value 2.8 x 10-4 ft/ day and that the vertical hydraulic connection between units 1 and 3 under the south .
one-third of the excavation is good. Model analysis indicates that the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining unit between units 1 and 3 under the excavation is a more sensitive parameter than the slurry-wall lateral hydraulic conductivity in the simulation of water levels near the excavation. Further, the good vertical hydre lic connection between units 1 and 3 yields results that are more consistent with field data regardless of what value of the lateral hydraulic conductivity of the slurry wall was used in the simulations." (p. 48, Par. 1)
I Based on the above, Experiment S and U best simulate field conditions, but Figure 37 (Experiment S) of Reference 1 shows 5 feet of drawdown for the same experiments in Unit 3 north of Bailly N-1 where Unit 3 is absent. Also, Figure 9 (Revised Experiment U) Reference 2 shows 2 to 5 feet drawdown in Unit 3 where it is absent. This is a contradiction or inaccuracy of the "best" simulated experiments.
I IlMMPPOILONI[A
I 22 3.2.14 'Recently collected data indicate that a ground-water mound exists in unit 1 at Cowles Bog. The mound is probably produced by the upward discharge of ground water from unit 3 into unit I through a " discontinuity" in the confining unit that normally separates the two aquifers. A simulation of l' water-level decline due to phase 2 dewatering, including the "discoatinuity," indicates that phase 2 is close to equili-brium aft.c 18 uonths in the vicinity of the bog. Simulations also indicate that the " discontinuity" could cause intensified water-level declines in unit 1 at Cowles Bog during phase 2 construction dewatering and that water-level declines below the " reference level" at Cowles Bog cannot be eliminated completely by either the proposed mitigation plan or any remnant of the seepage mound present after 18 months of simultaneous phase 2 dewatering and seepage mound decline.'
(p. 48, Par. 3) l The radius of influence from dewatering in Unit 3 at Bailly N-1 site will not reach the bog area (see Section 5.0). Even if it is assumed that it will reach the bog area, it will not cause intensified water level l changes in Unit i near the bog area because the 10 acre elevateo portion i of the bog is encompassed by 240 acres of wetland. The wetland around i
l Cowles Bog is also connected to another several hundred acres of Jetland on the east side of Mineral Spring Road.
l l
3.2.15 "Beca.se the flow model has not been verified, it can only I
be used in a general way to evaluate the effect of construc-tion dewatering and decline of the seepage mound on ground-water levels in and near the Lakeshore. Until the model-I simulated estimates of water-level decline can be compared with measured declines, the accuracy of the simulated declines can not be determined.. ." (p. 48, Par. 4)
DTMPIPOIIADNIIA
I 23 The flow model has not been verified, therefore, the accuracy of the simulated declines is unknown. However, as previously stated, because the model is predicting drawdowns beyond the radius of influence, it is safe to conclude that either the model or its application is incorrect.
3.2.16 ". . .A new expanded model, which places the east boundary farther away from Cowles Bog to eliminate the effects on water levels near the bog, would be needed to refine the estimates of the impact of construction dewatering and seepage-mound decline on water levels in the vicinity of the bog. More field data, detailing the stratigraphy and hydrology of the area, would need to be collected to further refine, calibrate, and verify the :nodel." (p. 49, Par. 1)
Ideally the boundary should be established at tae radius of influence of the pumped well (or wells). Arbitrarily setting the boundary to include areas of interest while ignoring the radius of influence presupposes and in fact " forces" drawdown to occur in all areas included in the model simulation. That fact alone renders meaningless drawdown predictions between the radius of influence and the boundary where the boundary is arbitrarily extended beyond the radius of influence.
3.3 DISCUSSION OF SOIL DATA D' Appolonia compared soil stratigraphy used by the USGS with the actual data at 13 locations. The comparisons of soil stratigraphy and permea-bilities are illustrated on Figures Cl through Cl3 presented in Appendix i C. The data used by the USGS in their model was taken from Figures 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Reference 1 and are reproduced in Appendix B. Actual soil conditions are derived from USGS piezometer installation logs and soil l
l I
1 IlDhlPPOILONIIA 1
I 24 I boring logs by Sargent & Lundy, and D'Appolonia. Permeabilities assigned to the actual soil conditions are based on published correlations and pumping tests within the study area (see Appendix A). These comparisons have been limited only to those data points near Cowles Bog and those of major importance. The thirteen locations are shown on Figure 2.
Some of the differenceu revealed by the comparisons in Appendix C are outlined below:
- 1. The actual soil layers are substantially different than those used in the USGS model.
- a. Unit 2 is actually much thicke. in the northeast area I adjacent to Cowles Bog than assumed in the USGS model.
As a result, the extent of impervious soils is greater than modeled by the USGS.
- b. Unit 3 in the east and south areas around Cowles Bog consists of silty sand with clay. These soils will exhibit a coeffi- l cient of permeability 30 to 600 times less than the value modeled by the USGS. l
- c. There are no soil borings available for comparison west of the bog area except piezometer 102 which is located approxi- I mately 3000 feet away. This boring exhibits a clay layer sandwiched within Unit 3 which will greatly reduce groundwater flows.
- d. Because there are no soil borings in the Cowles Bog area and the large area surrounding the bog, little or no soil IIMMPPOILONIL4
I 25 I
information is available for the computer program. The soil parameters for Units 1, 2 and 3 have been assumed by the USGS studies and those assumptions are inconsistent with the
- best data available.
I 2. From these boring logs the soils consist of many interbedded clay and sand layers. The clay layers vary from 3 to 5 feet in thickness and will drastically reduce the overall transmissivity of Unit 3. Accordingly, the radius of influence is diminished.
' The USGS did not account for the multi-layering system in modeling the groundwster regime.
- l I
l
\
l l
1 IIMhlPIPOIf4DNI(A
I 26 4.0 REVIEW 0F USGS MODEL I The NPS retained the USGS to assess the effect of Bailly N-1 construction dewatering on water levels within the IDNL boundary including the Cowles Bog area. This assessment has been conducted by simulating the subsurface flow regime using a finite difference computer program deve-loped by Trescott (Reference 9). The results of simulations are presented in References 1 and 2. As shown in this report, the USGS model results contradict hydrologic principles by indicating drawdowns, water levels and time to equilibrium values which are grossly inconsistent with previous experience, actual observations, calculations, and actual pumping tests in the area. A review of the modeling discloses several significant items that result in either meaningless or unreliable results. The modeling is discussed below.
D'Appolonia did not have access to all the computer input and output data while conducting this review. Therefore, input errors, truncation errors and errors in interpreting the output data are not addressed.
4.1 GRID SYSTEM The grid system has two major faults, the close proximity of the model boundary to the bog and the increasing grid size between Bailly N-1 and the bog. The following instructions are sat forth in the User's Manual I for this computer program (Reference 9):
e Boundaries within the project area should be located accurately. !
e Distant boundaries can be located approximately and with fewer nodes by expanding the grid.
1 e Place nodes closer together in areas of rapidly changing trans-missivity in each layer.
I IIMAPPOILONHA
I 27 I
The grid system was established for the study conducted in Reference I which was concerned with the western portion of the IDNL property and this area is modeled with a relatively fine grid. However, in the second study, Reference 2, Cowles Bog is the area of major concern; yet it is represented by some of the coarsest grids in the mor' Certainly, a " discontinuity in Unit 2" would represent an " area of rapidly changing transmissivity", and Figure 14, of Reference 2, shows that water levels near Cowles Bog vary considerably within relatively small lateral distances. Yet this assumed discontinuity is represented by only one node. The Ccwles Bog area study should not have been performed using a grid designed for the study in Reference 1.
I 4.2 INPUT DATA Key input parameters used in the model are incorrect, the most reliable data (that obtained from pumping tests) was not used at all, and some of the data used was improperly interpreted.
Omission of the storage properties of the Great Marsh is significant.
There i.: over 200 acres of standing water contiguous to Cowles Bog.
There is an additional several hundred acres of standing water east of I Mineral Springs Road, which is directly connected to Cowles Bog through a culvert and Unit 1. As mentioned on page 34 of Reference 2, " standing l
water in the marsh and water in the organic mat could moderate water level declines" (underlining added). It is our view that several hundred acres of standing water immediately available to the Cowles Bog area will offset any hypothetical water level declines.
Inaccurate representation of site conditions is discussed in detail in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this report and is summarized below for convenience.
e Units 1 and 3, particularly in the western portions of the study area, are connected and they constitute a single unconfined l l
aquifer. l l
\
4 .
28 o observed water level readings at Units 1 and 3 are dif ferent than those used by USGS.
I e The actual hydraulic conductivities, hence transmissivity used for Units 1 and 3, are different than shown in both USGS reports.
o The dewatering wells at the BSCO plant were improperly modeled.
.I In addition, permeabilities of Units 1 and 3 are not constant as assumed in the analyses. The re fo re, the resulting transmissivities are incorrect (Figures 11 and 12 Reference 1, which are included in Appendix B). It is dif ficult to understand the purpose of using an intensive finite dif ference modeling procedure, and then assume the same permeabilities in Unit I and Unit 3 throughout the entire study area. This is particularly true when the available data indicates permeability variations of up to 600 times less than the values used in the model. Using mere realistic permeability values will greatly reduce drawdowns within the IDNL property.
There is a critical lack of stratigraphic data, particularly in the northeastern portion of the study area (the Cowles Bog and the Great Marsh area). This was not adequately considered in discussing the accuracy of the model results. On page 33 of Reference 2 the USGS I states:
"However, the lower vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining I unit used in Experiments S and Revised S produced a better simulation of the observed difference between water levels in Units 1 and 3 in Cowles Bog than Experiments U and Revised U".
. The nearest observation well to Cowles Bog, which measured water levels in Unit 3, is over 2000 feet away.
Yet differences i.t water levels
- I I IlMMPIPOILONILS
29 between Unit 1 and Unit 3 at Cowles Bog are presented and predicted to the nearest 0.1 foot (Table 3, Reference 2). Accuracy of 0.1 feet at a distance of 8000 feet is precluded by errors and oversimplifications in the input data. In fact, the distance alone precludes that level of accuracy.
I 4.3 MODEL LIMITATIONS I In the User's Manual (Reference 9, page II-14) it is stated that some features such as the necessary logic to permit an aquifer to change from artesian to water table conditions can be added to the three dimensional models with changes in the code. Also, Reference 1, Page 53 states:
"The finite difference model of Trescott (1975) for simulation of unsteady or steady, confined or unconfined, groundwater flow in three dimensions was used to simulate the movement of groundwater in the unconsolidated rocks underlying the study area".(underlining added).
I We interpret these statements to mean that the program as used by the USGS, does not permit an aquifer to change from artesian (confined) to water table (unconfined) conditions. This represents a major breach in I
the model logic, considering that a change from confined to unconfined conditions does in fact occur in several areas. Such a condition would occur at the assumed discontinuity under Cowles Bog where the drawdown is predicted to one tenth of a foot.
4.4 MODEL CALIBRATION Calibration of the model is not sufficiently accurate to predict drawdowns to the nearest foot, and certainly not to one tenth of a foor. Comparison of Figures 4, 5, and 6 of Reference 2 show water level drawlown variations I in excess of 2 feet in close proximitv r the NIPSCO excavation where input data is relatively plentiful T.e fe re nce 1, Page 34 recognizes *.his.
I mu>a>onom
I 30 I
"Althoegh not based on data for this date, the map of this surface for October 26 represents an approximation that is probably accurate within the contour interval of the map and should allow reasonable interpretation of the flow direc-I tion in Unit 3 on this date"'(underlining added).
This refers to Figure 16 (Reference 1) which has a contour interval of 5 feet. Other water level incor.sistencies include:
e Water levels are show to exist in Unit 3 where Unit 3 does not exist, north of Bailly N-1.
e The 605 contour is drawn through the northeastern portion of the study site without a data point on which to base the location of
= this interval.
At Cowles Bog the measured water lerels vary between elevations 604 and 608, as shown in Figure 14, Reference 2. Yet in the model both Unit 1 and Unit 3 water levels are calibrated to elevation 605. While this may be the "best model experiment", it is certainly not sufficiently accurate to predict drawdowns to 0.1 feet, considering variations between the simulated and observed drawdown where observed data is available.
I 4.5 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS The USGS has mentioned throughout Reference 2 that the finite difference model boundary was too close to Cowles Bog to obtain a good estimate of the drawdown values and that:
I "A new expanded model, which places the east boundary farther away from Cowles Bog to eliminate the effects on water levels near the bog, would be needed to refine the estimate- of the llMMPRMOIfADNRA
31 I
impact of construction dewatering and seepage--mound decline on water levels in the vicinity of the bog" (Reference 2, Page 49).
4
= A misconception exists with the premise that extending the boundary eastward will produce more accurate drawdown results at Cowles Bog.
Inherent in models such as this, is the fact that if the eastern boundary were extended Detroit (over 200 miles to the east) the model would show drawdowns ir South Bend, Indiana (about 50 miles to the east), and the model would correspondingly indicate greater drawdown in Cowles Bog.
Conversely, if the boundary were placed west of Cowles Bog then the model would accurately shew no drawdown at Cowles Bog. The concept of a tadius of influence thus becomes essential to obtain relf.able vait es from finite difference modeling. The eastern boundary of the study area at its present location, represents a radius of influence ten times greater than observations, experience, and calculations support.
4.6 OVERALL MODEL STRATEGY in .he paper " Groundwater Modeling: An Overview", (Reference 10), authors James Mercer and Charles Faust, experts in finite difference modeling, I state:
"Of course confidence in any predictive results must be based on (1) a thorough understanding of the model limitations, (2) the accuracy of the maps with observed historical behavior, and (3) knowledge of data reliability and aquifer characteristics."
As mentioned above, and elsewhere in the report, a model which cannot handle aquifers which may vary from artesian to water table conditions .s used. Very little of the available historical data has been used, n.d none exists in the Cowles Bog area. And most impor .:ntly, there is a critical lack of subsurface stratigraphic data throughout the north-I I mwannama l
I 32 eastern portion of the study area, and that which is known, has been incorrectly used in many cases. For these reasons, it is D'Appolonia's view that extended study (Reference 2) should not have been conducted without better input parameters.
Mercer and Faust also state:
i "Perhaps the worst possible misuse of a model is blind faith in model results. Calculations that contradict normal hydrologic intuition almost always are the result of data input mistakes, a
' bug' in the computer program, or misapplication of a model to a problem for which it was not designad. Proper application of a groundwater model requires an understanding of the specific aquifer.
Without this conceptual understanding the whole exercise becomes a meaningless waste of time and money."(emphasis added)
I I
, I
.g !
1 1
1 I
I B
! IlDRIPPOIfADNHA
i l
l I
33 i
. 5.0 DEWATERING AND RADIUS OF INFLUENCE l construction dewatering at Bailly N-1 is designed to be conducted in two phases:
Dewater within the slurry wall in Unit I to provide a dry I Phase I, excavation for the placement of footings. Phase I dewatering was activated on March 17, 1977 and is still in progress (Nov. 1, 1980's. The average water levels in Unit 3 beneath the cottom of the excavation were at elevation I 590.6 on August 14-16, 1978; at elevation 589.8 Nov. 7, 1979; and at elevation 589.2 Sept. 24, 1980. This indicates
'.nat wacer levels have reached steady state in Unit 3.
I Phase II, The purpose of pumping from Unit 3 is to reduce the hydrostatic pressure in Unit 3 beneath the bottom of the excavation. The piezometric siirface must be reduced to ele v a tivat 333.7 fut uun >i.ruc t ion. The average water level beneath the bottom of the excavation for the past two
!n years has been 589.9. Accordingly, the additional required
{
- drawdown (from the present level) in Unit 3 beneath the l bottom of the excavation for Bailly N-1 is 6.2 feet.
l
" '""""'* "'"'** '""' d'""d "" ""' "' "' ' "'** " * "*" *-
E
'W feet away from the location of the Bailly N-1 pressure relief system.
This presumes that the radius of influence (the limit of lateral extension of a cone of dep ession) must be in excess of 8,000 feet. To assume that the radiua of influ;nce of a wellpoint system in a fine sand media will extend over 8,000 feet is unrealistic, contrary to the engineering literature, pumping tests and observed data at the BSCO and NIPSCO i
sites.
1 I
1 1
I IIMMPPOIL4DNI[A
34 The radius of influence was discussed in detail in Reference 3. Th e main points are repeated for emphasis because disregarding this constraint of the model precludes obtaining reliable drawdown data at Cowles Bog.
The radius of inf)eence (R) for both artesian and gravity flows can be estimated from the following equation (Reference 4, p. 150):
R= C(H-hw )YK EQ. I where R= Radius of influence, feet H-h y = Drawdown in the well, feet K= Permeability expressed in 10-4 cm/see units C= Dimensionless constant C= 3 for artesian and gravity wells C= 1.5 to 2.0 for a single line of we11 points I Equation 1 was verified using pumping tests on wells in the Mississippi River Valley by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It was also verified for a line of we11 points by the Moretrench Corporation (Reference 5, p.
307). This equation was verified for dune sand at the BSCO site and on many other dewatering projects engineered by D'Appolonia.
I For verification of Equation 1 at Bailly N-1, data from a NIPSCO pumping test cenducted in 1979 was used (Section 4.0, Reference 3). Using a permeability of 70 x 10-4 cm/sec and a drawdown of 26 feet at the test well, the resulting value of the radius of influence is 653 feet. This value is in excellent agreement with the radius of influence of 600 feet observed at the end of the test.
Using Equation 1 and in the extreme case C=3 and the permeability from j the pumping tests, the radius of influence can be calculated for a maximum groundwater change (from initial static water level) of 20 feet I
I IIMMPIPOILONIIA
35 in Unit 3 at Bailly N-1. 'Ihis results in a radius of influence of approximately 500 feet for the permeability of 70 x 10-4 cm/sec, that obtained from the pumping test at the N!PSCO site. Using the permeability I obtained by the pumping test at the BSCO site, the radius of influence is approximately 950 feet.
Even if the USGS model permeability of 589 x 10-4 cm/sec is used (which has been shown to be excessively high and inconsistent with other data) with 20 feet of drawdown at Bailly N-1, the radius of influence is only approximately 1450 feet.
- The following table is a summary of calculated radii of influence for different permeabilities.
Drawdown in Unit 3 . Coefficient Radius of at Bailly N-1 of Perr_eability Data Influence Ratio to (feet) (10-4 cm/sec.) Source (feet) 8000 Feet 20 70 NIPSCO pumping 500 16:1 ,
test l l
20 250 BSCO pumping 950 8:1 )
test 20 189 USGS assumed 1450 5:1 I
1 1
Based on the above, it is evident that Cowles Bog is beyond the influence of the pressure relief system at Bailly N-1. Accordingly, the groundwater level at Cowles Bog will not be al tered as a result of construction dewatering at Bailly N-1.
I
! 11MLPIPOILONIL'k
36 6.0 GROUNDWATER DATA IN THE C0WI.ES B0G AREA I Cowles Bog is located in the Great Marsh area which is a part of IDNL (Figure 2). Reference 1, Page 6, dercribes this area as:
I
". . .The Great Marsh occupies part of the northeastern quarter of the study area. The Great Marsh is wet during most of the year, when the water table is at or near the surface. Ditches that were dug years ago to help drain the marsh .re still present. Two of these ditches cross the eastern boundary of the study area, but discharge through them is cinimal. The marsh area also contains an area known as Cowles Bog, vaich was designated as a National Natural Landmark by Congress in 1965. There is some question as to the exact location of th: Las and whether or not that particular part of the wetland is in fact a bog (William Hendrickson, National Park Service, oral commun., 1977)."
Reference 8 provides some of the details of the hydrological data in this area.
l "A 2-inch diameter stainless steel well, screened in the sand l bottom, established that there is a positive hydrological pressure
! below the elevated mat. The pressure was sufficient to cause a
! flowing well which carried water a little more than 3 feet above the
! mat surface or 8 and a half feet aoove the level of the water which j surrounds the elevated island. A pressurized source of ground water of significant dimension is thus shown to exist in Cowles Bog."
I
! The following statement on Page 27, Reference 2 further describes i the uter level in the bog area as.
- i W ". . . Water levels in unit I within the mound are as much as 5 feet
- l l higher than in unit 1 beneath the surrounding marsh area. The mound l l
I IIIMIPIPOILONILA
37 apparently coincides with a topographic rise that is also as much as 5 feet higher than the land or open-water surf ace i . the surrounding marsh."
I Comparison of data quoted a'uove from Reference 8 and Reference 2 leads to the conclusion that water levels within ;owies Bog are changing as much as 3.5 feet in a matter of months, indicating that even if changes of a few inches "predi ced" by the USGS model were accurate, it would not ma.
any difference, particularly in view of the fact that the bog is surround.a by a large recharge area of several hundred acre feet.
Water levels for 16 USGS piezometers (screened in Unit 1) are plotted on Figure 7. Eleven piezometers are inside the bog and five are in the marsh area surrounding it. The maximum difference between water levels measured in the bog is approximately six feet and in the marsh area, approximately five feet. In November 1979, the piezometers inside and outside the bog area show the lowest readings, and in March 1980 the highest. The changes are in the range of 1 to 2 feet. This apparently represents the seasonal change for that period and is typical for the area. The water level changes in pies;ometers (Figure 7) follow the same general trend and do not exhibit any anomalies inside or outside Cowles Bog. In turn, this indicates that changes in water level in the bog area are reflected in the marsh area. If it is assumed that the USGS computer
, model simulations are correct in predicting water level changes in Cowles l
l Bog, the changes will be of fset by recharge with marsh water before they can occur. It is unrealistic to predict any water level changes in the l bog area without taking into account the surrounding marsh water.
Further, on Page 27, Reference 2 states:
1 l
I "The ground-watt.r mound in unit 1 at Cowles Bog is probably due to a thinning or absence of the confining unit (unit 2) beneath the center of the bog that normally separates units 1 and 3, or I
5 IlDRIPPJDIIADNILA
38 l a greater value of the vertical hydraulic conductivity of unit 2 beneath the center of the bog than elsewhere, or a combination of both f actors. The variation in one or both of the character-istics of the confining unit, hereaf ter termed a " discontinuity,"
results in a better connection between the two aquifers (units 1 and 3) than elsewhere. Upward flow fron, unit 3 to unit I through the confining nit (unit 2) is well documented in the study area and throughout the Lakeshore."
Even assuming that the USGS hypothesis is correct regarding a "disconti-nuity" of Unit 2 at the bog, this would not be unique as Unit 2 is absent in many locations (as a small or large opening) throughout the study area (References 1, 2 a d 3). Both USGS reports show Unit 2 as being absent ir a southern hat? of the study area (Figure 7, Appendix B).
There are dunes located north and northwest of the elevated portion of Cowles Bog. These dunes have groundwater levels higher than the marsh (wetland) due to the recharge of the rainfall in the dunes area. At the oottom of the marsh areas semi-confining layers are sometimes formed which covers the Unit I sand. The high groundwater table in the dunes could produce some localized "artesian" flow in the lower marsh area.
This phenomenen is explained in Reference 11, Page 47. This is the
" upward flow" from Unit 1, not from Unit 3. (Upward flow from Unit 3 to Unit 1 is also discussed in Section 3.2.10) l l
l I
I 11MilPIPalIADNIIA
39
7.0 CONCLUSION
S I
Based on a review uf USGS reports No.78-138 (leference 1) and 80-1105 I (Reference 2) and all available field data, we have reached the following conclusions relative to the effects of construction dewatering at NIPSCO Bailly N-1 on the groundwater levels at Cowles Bog (IDNL).
e The radius of influence of NIPSCO's pressure relief system calcula-ted through the use of actual field data and demonstrated permea-bilities, is less than 950 feet. Furthermore,even when the erroneous coefficient of permeabilities assumed by the USGS is used, the radius of influence does not exceed 1450 feet. Therefore, I the pressure relief system cannot have any effect on Cowles Bog which is located more than 8000 feet from the site of dewatering. l l
e The possible drawdown predicted by the USGS modeling exercise is wrong and unreliable; first, because a substantial body of actual field data available for the study area was ignored or misused in !
the model; secondly, because the assumptions used for the modeling bear little resemblance to actual field data; and finally, because of defects in application of the model itself.
The bog area is well beyond the calculated radius of influence of the proposed dewatering system. Accordingly, the system will not cause a groundwater level decline in the bog area. Further, analysis shows that the distance between the bog area and Bailly N-1 is so great that the calculated radius of influence would not reach the bog even if the permeabilities used in our calculations were in substantial error. l 1
I
\
I DNPIPOLONIIA
40 Simply stated, the radius of iMluence of NIPSCO's pressure relief system cannot be assumed to extend over 8100 feet to the Cowles Bog area under any reasonable application of hvirologic principles. Further studies of possible drawdown in the Cowles Bog area, suggested by the USGS, are not i
warranted.
Respectfully submitted, i A4 Richard F. B issette
%h
- l Stevo Dobrijevic RFB/SD/lsh i
.! Project No. IN79-720
{ November, 198n l
- I i
i i
1, d
4 l
1 11DRIPRRIDIfADNILS
R1 LIST OF REFERENCES
- 1. Meyer, William and Tucci, Patrick, January, 1979, Etfects of I Seepage From Fly-Ash Settling Ponds and Construction Dewatering on Ground-Water Levels in the Cowles Unit, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations,78-138.
- 2. Gillies, Daniel C. and Lapham, Wayne W., September 1980, Reassessment of the Effects of Construction Dewatering on I Ground-Water Levels in the Cowles Unit, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana, Supplement to Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations78-138, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 80-1105.
- 3. D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc. May 1980, " Preliminary Review, Soil Parameters Used in USGS Report 78-138, ' Effects of Seepage from Fly-Ash Settling Ponds & Construction Dewatering on Ground-Water Levels in the Cowles Unit, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana', Bailly Generating Station, I Nuclear I, Baileytown, Indiana," for Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Chesterton, Indiana.
- 4. Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, April, 1971, Dewatering and Groundwater Control for Deep Excavations, TM 5-818-5, NAVFAC P-418, AFM 88-5, Chap. 6.
1
- 5. Leonards, G. A., ed. 1962, Foundation Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
- 6. Hough, B. K. , 2nd. ed.1969, " Basis Soils Engineering", Ronald Press Co., New York. I
- 7. Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, Illinois, Dames & Moore, Park Ridge, Illinois, Ground / Water Technology, Inc., Denville, New Jersey, August 27, 1979, Supplementecy Information, Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Constructior. Dewatering, Bailly Generating '
Station, Nuclear 1, Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
- 8. Hendrickson, William H. and Wilcox, Douglas A., November 26-30 1979, Relationship Between Some Physical Properties and the Vegetation Found in Cowles Bog National Natural Landmark, Indiana, National Park Services, Indiana Dunes National Lake-shore, Porter, Indiana.
- 9. Trescott, Peter C., September 1975, Documentation of Finite-Dif ference Model For Simulation of 'Ihree-Dimensional Ground-Water Flow, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 75-438.
I I IlMAIPPOIIADNIIA
l l
R2 i
l 10. Mercer, James W. and. Faust, Charles R., " Ground-Water Modeling: An overview", March-April,1980, Journal of Ground-Water Technology Division National Water Well Association, Worthington, Ohio, pp. 108-115.
- 11. Davis, Stanley N. ani Dewiest, Roger J. M. , 2nd printing, May,1967, Hydrogeology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
I I
I IIM11PIPOLONI[A
T-
[ ,
]- m N
[ N l !2 APPROXIM ATE LY 9,000' L i .
g i.
11 O %
- a. a. BAILLY NUCLEA -
<4rW 9 N
,%b . Mk c >
(%
b *
- 'l .
~~
^
Og l A N7 : I, % .
_ .s A, &p
~
., , s u
.P at - 1 --
1 w
4 . . _ .._ , . .
- a. .,.yn.--
)
, g q o M,f 1 jo ~a
. gj, ,
e 4Pa v pi u d, yi~'gC. A [! ', 1 -
F.
[.i 3 , .
cowlES BOG
%se a r. 4 -
a
- a '
H
! el <m 3.-.+. j
" * ' ' ~
ke {\
w.
t f....;.. . . ;; ;. ..m f~.' Q: s,~f A,,a f
. - . . .m:k.: .3. s/ Dune Acres, station, o / r . ~e_
ks A = = sr N, m .;.. '.'-
Z en 1
( a.
8 ~s 4 r
, ,l, A,y- -
-- f..h*f p y *-
W YS r s-$$m.J '?""-"mf f
"" 4. Q: . ; - j t < ,
".saunten ;hf
' l
-em.,--, j9 ?g /' .'
, : e . ,3.+ a .. j. } e; I L{ g,.. .' - -
[1
>$ s 2 ~ '
p I BeltY i Ry , ' t af-P
- ^' s .y._.,,,,,.;- y
- %.y aj f I
,,f '[ ,- ,0 ' l Cern
\/=="-
ef 4m .qsfa[;,j
' ' kfi.
tu ph'",%N$AEM - L:f ;i' ~ M,'y iE t [74 j / {#7,#,
l
,) &l/- p^*' ,.
.f
>~68 IL*}
o- -
- s j . >. * , A **-
O
.y]m w ,f
- m-ss=si.=
f ;s.g
- h '- nes '"'lJ g\-
',',.,Q*'g$nasy- 2 a- . c ..
O{' ,d
\[ ' .. 7. . . . .eggA 28 -
[y 'f. /x. ps.
^/; ~ *r_?,P, - - s... .. -
. f.-
G e . Drsposni i"J. )' -
a ~
a .- 1.-
9,p
./
a > .*
n 4._a y*
,-* .: q >>.,
g g .,z O
75-r-
h;w.ru.._,.dinGb[',. Wj MC A&#b#dM XW.. v n -
F
,w QMj ,-
w
)E i g .n, i e m.t e'~m' t
t ;m.
r _ v s .. m b s 6 "
Jxp!y -
. .s i .'; 9pf ,,ggy .
Qg ed-- obr ~~- a huu ,. . . -
'9 -
4,. 6 / eMeadowbrook 4 T,.? mn y _ w vob -
".4 D
{
[
Iarfao'r 2
. l'. h . % - , " ,_ ._ ' 3.3 ._. ._ _
s.
./ :
I w
e gi .
- . -- -) .
j-
-)";h4 n .3...,t '
- j. #.j. ." Hagpnd .p,.j Dj 7,;jf H E S T E R: 1) ,,
1 .I .n .,
e .
+ i c
t 8 Ip fc
'q- -;
\ 4. .:!" . 2.Lw ;.;.,,b - =;;v.e .- J;,, .;
{p. L.-5 .x..,,
- i. ..
g s i . . .l.-
l ; , -.
!.- l.
.. . j #'
t s.*-
i .
hi I gl
-Jo s ,
s.}' 'i ..i. t, r 2, 1#r,,,,
i
- ~' . ._ ,, _ _ .
% f- 'y . .. .. f-f- t- .
]
r 19 4293 MERCut4NE. A45 thelTM C1 PGM . P4 LTIS30 9079 -
xy J
S?
, ;- Qe t. " ;-__ :,n
,/4 I ggggggggg f *"N t \ USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS u
i...c. s. . .
._ . ct t
9' I 3:b
-d. 9 ,c e i y.; .
a CHESTERTON, DUNE ACRES i , ..; %.,. 4 .,p a,q.'N~, y, , ,; i ,f -\ ; AND PORTAGE QUADRANGLES, q 12.,g + W,. i,-%
7 .
, n.,
o, 1968 SERIES en, . m. .
. . r \- .
Q sig ,,j:./ q.-,a'.ifsh .c. ( '. ; t3. b F m.lo . P. .
7/r < n od a oyqk jj,?N'?_'J' o W...ify* L -C '. l di y g- f p e . a.-. .. ., , .:. ..
,i 6
2 ., ,, " i ~,e yt-s g
- w, Lw
= ./. U(
ax :.:c, , :
g, 9 :- .,.
23 b $4 Y; S f .. 3 El s .fyI ;. .d5 S M
- n . .
- s.
T l C H- ..F M
J l E
. . g . . st%R sB,g e g
- . . ..- 40 i
o ? y n.,#%. , ,
. S. c,. .1 .
,A; ib, mf4l % .-3 ' .2.")p%. =
- ;W ; n., ,
m:e. ,, .
0rter !
..p.-n
,s- 4. ~
e
, ~l
. .3 s . i
...s P s
+,.
.:) FJL gs:pq' b \ -
' nts,
.- era:t.--
e:
g 1[:, .
'g' s
I a;. ;ql-25-id"' . :".W..:.-QIk,. - .a ::RO' ' W. .,J . .C, h :dC.e.*
v mv .. a S-. . h.
- i .
i .g.. - .. ,.
. . , . . ..e..
.,\.: p.
- a. , - : ': a , ,ew a,,
~ . , .
a,
_ . . ..p.5'
..d
..}f'g<__o-y5y' -jl. phest&t i g r\ M / ,
u, ...). Lt p
. . a/.
, . l
, F ~ , 2 ,, - ,.f.
[' '
"[ Tj h -
SCALE
\ .
ry n f 25A-
/sb ",,
4}
1.
A / N 2000 0 2000 fee t N '
2., f R ,
syn .,
' O h lW ( k,, & y[ +* h .?'h ,
p /. N h (- \
o m ay w-N ,,f...,.-
. !.tp:-- - .
m 4, ; ~.
VICINITY MAP sr.m6u ch
" 7g1 A pA . g/pg il!ES T fR' # -d?S ~ F-
.w.
BAILLY NUCLEAR 1 JMh td .
N a
@d j
,%[a 3
., ,,.3 6 %n,<c s
.f j ..
AND COWLES BOG BAILLY GENERATING STATION k -
NUCLEAR 1
,/ -lh.
- n[g ly' '=:... :: .:df~y. p--
'"] *7 : . . . a r. h o, .
v I PREPARED FOR equ%
a, yo#f .
E *C'i d (T*@v,- ;'*Qf* NORTHERN INDIANA l
, ..';.A6:. f - [:pr:- .j,. k,b;r on: i n GE dj
- , i
_ d'.___.PF s ' -
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. I g t. '
eat f l,d f, .,
jj 3
[- ,--y
' e1. ,, Wh n*C , p,,, g--
- p .. .
- i..
f' ;; d:... .. . INS 3.N.SMM $<1M, g .,, , .,-h IIMllPllNDII4DNILS
i
~ --
Q Q' 9' '
3~
w D g 33 d . 1: =
. N.
i $
N o H.
I 3 8 $. $ $
8 2 i i i t.
og w LIMIT OF U S G S _ STUD' zw Em 42 i
j i
l '
g?
, t !
N l
LAKE l MICHIG.
A i s t
- - .I j
[ph' S
,4 I L '.
O 0 *
,/
N$ SAILLY N1 S g C )i -
--.---.-.------.---e
- - - . . . . . - - . - -B (n,GURE 4 )\ .
A (F GURE 3 ) % \/ '
INDI AM
-E o*
Y is
,/ d' on a m o
> E[
574.e; 3b
'4s - .s 3 hja%)j"l'1 (Q z o nov, 5 / ,.
55 an#sz73 p y.
3
- u. . w'o ya, / l 2 5 35^ '
o .- ,
se a.e,c n ,, om a /
1 l s2
- *' se a,a,8
- s
' rsio O
} a
._1 s2
' . It 10 a
, BETHLEHEM
.' ST E E L i
PROPERTY : LINE CORPORATlON i s k
i i I L r. . H_
- - r- y l . } 1
- - -- g
- i i
J i
- 7 1 i
l O ,
i i l 1 .
l <
D I I ! I
, j_ -
' ~
i' { B +
i i i 4 ,
v ,
j
$ I
- A ! .
1 i , LIMIT OF USGS STU@
REFERENCES u 9 GLOL%iCAL Suavty erpont-W Af t R -RES A*CES th WE STtG At l0NS78-138 SARGE N T & LbN0Y EWNEER$
DR A*M$ M-SOO- Mi e M-501-L2 l
l
09"l0 lD 0% V M Jw n w NU 1Us'l L 2
5 d 8 R 8 . o. a
~
- i i AREA = 3 !
__.,,_w
_ .._.,._ _ _ ._. LEGEND l
. A -- !
l ! /C' ~ o PIEZO W ET E R 7.- p
/' a CUNE ACRES W E LL IN ,-'(( DUNE ACRES g
- 80" x-v, -
6 .- i
- - ,y q,ip Ng ,r),ryyy
-~ ~ ~-+'--
y_ - ---
,, - V - ', / >
s j
/' Il i - a ' ~
.A-.,.~^^"_;.- _
.,, < a
- ^' <
s' F$2Q p{ R T y l'lN{
--g P'C ZOWF. Tf R CM2 8 CMS E A'$ T
" 5f T wi E N_._cN#0tN A) E S ,_ L E G_A L
's
(
j " - - - CESC[tj P,TIONS . A40__ U S G S
! o .s. :- - f. .s ki;6'^(pdc bygG,eiic~ ^s5 -~ ^^ ^
.. . . . _ _ _ . . _ - . -- _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ .._._m . _.._.._'.._...u,a_.. _ .m
,\ 4
, y g,,
o o i~ '
.' r gera d5 4A DUNES N AT:O N A L LAKESHORE !
is o "I i
~
K' '
e ,, CO
- L(S
- ~ ~ - - -
BOG 4
o r, z a + ,, ; ,, j l 0
- 1 g%.
7 ,
- s. s A. g, 4 e* ww* ' o - se .on ..
c5 *
- wac o L.4 n
3 M* u i
.-, _- s v .o s w..
y 2 PRJFtRTY 4
UNE s ;l
' oi r
.._,_ . ___ _ _ _ .. _.. . __ _L_ _,a_.___ ___ _.._.. __ _; ;j cy
' NORTHERN IN DI AN A
, - ^ GREAT YARSH .m 4- 1 WW /l
- 'l
- r. ,
O
- PUBLIC io2 o %
SERVIC E
I -
... '4'
- 'w Tl' jf n o,,., *"J,' -
.- i m m ,2 ~
m i
COM PANY /l,
^
jdj m ,
k.==g ,== :--_ -.=:_-_.. - _ . ____
x s
os, ,
f 2 a
/{
\ j y i
). _ .s
- / /y ,,
8 3, _
_r y_
7___
,-* , /, ,s i ~p~ r"
/ r ./Qa e/- f r e k
/ ,/ , f'
~
('x ,, /
/
,p
,r,,/
1 t
! i
\ \ # ! , c f 4 ,
\ p l
- r,
_-- L _ - .w a cs. .d, .
jL, ._
, y. .x n
f *"3.s FIGU RE 2 PLAN p/ j i
j BORINGS AND PIEZ0 METERS o
/ i ,
r AREA BAILLY GENER ATING STATION .
NUCLEAR 1 -
sc ia
,M _.. ,._ _ M Pf4 f'f 49 L FC*
o 6m' ' eco r o rEri NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
IlDM)lSlNDM DNRA
c'
$ es vb
& W dSV{"
y ss J e
\ D Me S. $.
ex : s.,
=
- 2L
?, l
. .c -
i i_
x no . ,,. .., .7 3., .., i 21 l-
- l pORG ANI.C SILT - l . lT _l.
' ~
, l/ . S AN D ..
e a* ... a. = a ~z> ..
I 560 -
sr H t .#
4 $60 -
Z G
,' S.o .
_' SAND) ,
Sto -
500 -
.ec -
60 -
a aA 1
"9 1
l t
1 I
-o l .
, i l
a b
I O H D WD 3!lf h AP o Jk JU K L o o I o o 8 8 8 8 2
a 2 3 2
..c PRESENT GROUNO SURFACE
/
- 7 /
n, .2, ,,. rs =
's N.
\
N 600 N.
N ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE -
((((
l d N N (S A ND) m
,---~ ~- _
TW ? IndL:'4:~ .T'1W_ ~~**
Rys WG ynwp a rg;9mm vm - mwh h $'? me?!rcin$g?p%g;p?N0l f $Ih;??ff() ' ?! N;_; ^~ ~ ' ':.;Q %e V &s?k??flkh*NlWl$Y
-mmcc' _ haTiMewelar,idR.J ,21iM % M 6!s km wN ,
4- *
$Y T gtM4EM EMS EMfEH2nt3 _
42 iRAM*N# h!9E .r.Eftaan$vrage, vsw n
=
nh- vm rmW ve um w: RIP 7 M $ kii M M$hMLem,g M 9 i ,N SSMSM&F@v W a'e wm" ~ a~ r
;g
+c~ -
w 4v 4 p,qg"@ g gy ^ s w 7 ' pg og 'e -te, ::e 4#
'r f,f , ~;;f; N - 'h, O ' u,.
440
'ROFILE A-A LOOmNG WEST M;4rIO N T AL SCALE O 200 400 600 FEET E
vs.,, cat scatE
?R PROF IL E LOCATION SEE >
GURE NO 2 o 20 40 60 FEET FIGURE 3 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE A-A i BAILLY G ENERATING STATION ! ! NUCLEAR 1 PREPARED FOR NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. l 11MhlPIP4NfADNILS l 1
5. b W O qo o " "
~ 0 %
4-d ww c u51 U 4 I* Fe 3: E o O om zw 8 s 8
- j. 4 s 4 a 35 2 2 S i,
au T ~3 i O Z_ z a r E
\
[ f I 640-l -- t.
- 620 -
g, g g g-- T22 T 3 s8 234 236 235 s . .
! i 1 .
. e i i
( soo - J l: .l. [. ] -
> >- OR I e m V ,GANIC l SI L .;
c g w j teo -
- q. ., .. j u O x .
I
- i a
- ORGANIC ' SILT w .
--T . ..
SAND' 340 - E T NO n** - 9 T ( . y 4- ,d . '- - 4 m .s ..- . - . .
? -'- i c R.' " ;' [.'.('~" ' ' * ' .- ' .'
O ; 4( . _. % y . m ;; . .
': l(: . ;., . . ,
(,s , i _ s,.n -[ ;.','. ,:La[m( .'. ,3,y - . - '. f t
- 5. . ; Mp;
.- +o ,M - - :- -
..e.' '
_.rL;
.'[_ f. '. ,',:'* .,--'.~.*. ;W Q,'y.g,u.
. , ., i t h- ^*
n' . ,-
'-_s _
9 , f ,_ . .)'[ *
.l' ,
~. ; . .% .-. . - .
f,l:'A ;qh - _'(_ f
~
e l ' 'l - Q \
' l_' 'l '- : ' .
c..... .. .. ., C' *a , .. . , . , ' . . . ~~ .. : .. '.
. &'. , a<m. - *
- y. - . '- <- .w. -.r,s,% . .
[f, 'M.. 'y '-
.#, . h { ', " k. '
A. n _' ' . ' ~' . ' .. ,
, r-g .,
E ' f, I.: . ~, , . .
D..' < ^:
.. ' 4'\ . 9 ;g. ~ ;g; %'i: y;
...'s's - - ' . ' ' - . . * '
pg 7 .; .. ,, ,.;& ., mys.tg. i ~., [,ty . -- r-,-.
.m ; g: y& vL... .. . . . _.-
m ... .c: n
?
. . .: r. .- .
--n 1
PR( NOTQ
~FOR FIGU$
? . ! I L f i
% 1 l
I I. f n l' i L i
l i Tj) *
- D *D f 1
[@o o b. b u a f h" 2 o b-5 8 c f 6 2 .a 2 e ' 2 7 2 2 640 PRESENT GROUND SURFACE 333 334 355 220 z2t zoa ies $64 _O.F^ 3 5, t 3,52 N __- _ ._ __ l
\ % s
-~
\ -
600 m.r.r - SAND x/ " x
\
x OR@NAL j 6
- [N- ~ ~ . J, -
GROUND $URFAC Sao
^
~
rr , * [ q .v; m ', %
.g. - ',
~ , l 4 ;; f
;% ^&,.' t ' 4g'- * , ~ 'j . .' l;,Q ) ,. %
' . ) -..
L- 'D ..r..]E
.: : ^ 2 'i',
- s
~Th-? ; )L Lt ,, s
-., ,' fc , , l
_ $4g i
@F%fr.."
,.; p % 7 N. T' * ,
,9.
~
l.eh. s,
, w .~y. g .C y.
- .,-1-2 t - y g . 's ., ' -
ca t;m :.y ,.4~,, V,1...' ,' 7.;y * .:
- 3 . ,4, *
. , j e- : rf_. m. .
;'[ ;.g;g< +,, ... Y, vpL' z!
'm <
pgi;g.gg y ~ " ' ' [ ' ?[. _$"f .; ' d
'*;'[
- Q-i'- ' ;9 , .
1 " ' ' l
,S!l Q % n17 QQ n. ',k, f'N' &,m:,W, j;,,. ,~?.h'(:j k. .&, ^; . .
, M. ;- ..,-. > ,
w,. _r.. , , W, y,m. . e .a s
, w--
.w,- / - >v. N.
,28 +
% h $$. - e;.N?;hM 3..
' h>ahl nth Q:$hh. gn?k : s./ i : .,- , i$b:h
- l
,S & y dmgy
..sg '.2 % Q $ Q , uWMS:NB%TM$$Wn.M(i F. i,@dQ Dd;z @+ Q ,v r ' %:( %y. ' ' % ;~ ,
I
,, . , v ,, 7 ,, , ,
' J& ' ', , n C:'" , ; , . ,:' ,, 4p rf,_ .A ? -JM_,W, .::c ,
ft.(-;@- j; 3;M __rusg%%t y, "f' t"dk -$.4 W$.Yy.nL;; 4;Aat% o^ 4 % 7.gf*4; i , - , ; M..w - ' + %yl :wK, sh ~ m 4
'Wn v'
# 1 l
- g:: g (g;,q m u-x.g' p : 5.p
..- -- s a e . .w f ,. .g 2 e . yp-~
.- , .a; g ;%y, ' ;n,
. .u..q y
--m2 7:c ,,
e s ,_ . ,. , 9j 5-j;p.p. gyM.u wg . j - f'j g 3.C;;. t ___m.-- s s.. g m y:>f(g _ j ; .gg4.-g .,, [y%, y,' , t 3'
. O. .f.jf. :. N jf=4 'h'.I 4^ ;ji y%]yi. Qi -] y iQ I i b l g{l Yl ? N c $. . . ^ '
1 l m
", m .- ' ' s _. .'c y: n, u- . ys ':, s' r + sp.w ..?= ,
%. r-.,3 , / x 2ng n zuw.y +g , n{
e, v. ,.
's . *f 3. ' ,
.s e i
..}',
g- - 7 p c;g-l, , .. ,
,b 5, ,
...,.s
'2 -
4 il? ~ ' ' ' g.c1s' . ;7q$; 3
'^-
' ' E Of ' ~ 7;r:l l
^
~ ~;sh
. l1 h; ~ Y ^ ?l ?$ , j.
. - ?$::
44o WILE B-P
,vun % M :, i $ N0m20NTAL SC AL E
' ,70 FILE LOC ATION SEE
*%N~20m'0 0 400 600 FEET I N0 2
%ER TfC AL St*LE 0
m- 20 40 60 FEET FIGURE 4 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE B-B 1 BAILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR 1 PREPARED FOR NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. 11Mi\IPIPolfADNILA\
G 87*07' f ( i A -mm e y j 5 .-w. u. t 2 .: ,,;2 y Yb A l* ~ LAKE MICNIC
$$ 39'
[ Si u ' r $$ l _ m& ! / 4 T '
- 5 8 7.--- '
h- 584 ' sE g 586 58 7 8## "/ 37 588 , a 92 M 5 596
-----q---
3 % h ( '( m. 10
]
i ll THLEHEM TELL CORPOR 410N g BU .S HARBOR PL iT '
' ~
- A Mto h m,
1 b 1 l Am
; 20 ,l ,
4 l* f
! 60 NEQs .
. , A O 2000 f eet SCALE LEGEND V CUMPING V
. DATA POlB f
OBSERVED d i l r 600 UNCONFIN' IN UNIT
REFERENCE:
--590 s MODEL-DE L. LEVEL CO!
USGS REPORT 78 - 138, FIGURES 6,13 8i 25. OCTOBER l T' UNIT I AE { O
~--
8F 0 6' l ,-, ON [ p- RF* N
/
3ec < _ _ _ g__s Q-f,y, $95"% I O 10 q,O S _ 60 h. A L A K E S HOR E O~
%2
/ N w
No0 - 7 6 COWLES BOG N' 8
-.-. q q
PROPERTY E "00 RN IN ANA;
- , , l% B L
_____ CO IPA N Y { _ _ , 9 's 3 ^ 6Os - \ m ~ go ~,
's, '
/g
)
h606 ,
e e l, , ,
's '
fi).Nb[A. !!dNhkhiij
* 's
' . * : ::3 w.:...-.... ls.:c.i!.
- . WnsA@!! WFMit
. ll! !!@(-i::iE I.$.8.!: i!jil:
TC 'N :
.:q-
- p:1 BU d .HaftSO i: :. .,
COMPARISON OF WATER LEVELS IN UNIT I / ELL BAILLY GENERATING STATION T NUCLEAR 1 , l PRFPARED FOR i AND/OR ESTIMATED NORTHERN INDIANA ED WATER LEVEL CONTOURS " I, OCTOBER 26, 1976. PUBLIC SERVICE CO. hlVEDSTEADY-STATE WATER 4 TOURS IN UNIT I ' 26,1976. 372-11"IN)NA E Ret SENT
to G3 87*07' i {T ex LAKE #'O'b
-{-.. zw 4o ~
im 39' g- $b et
?,,$
5I # ' I
. ~- 8 IND
}Lh ...,.
s
.h; ' :53 N1 g5 '
s 4 a ; l U$ 3 b S e e T I ] u ,i ;
- j
._____-- g
=
i 1 M STEEL CORPORATIO N 's y BUR t HARBOR PLANT s
- - - - - - - - - - 6pRTR T Y"
?E o m y i h i I
, 600w s / ,
580 N m
'J egah f M -
~
5' 303 C /
-/ "360 c , )
e N )W
}
r I J . - o 2000 feet i
' ' ' ' ' ' i SCALE LEGENC l[ y PUMPq
- DATA'
- )
6
-605- $
REFERENCE MODEj i __600 - USGS REPORT 78-138, FIGURES 7,16826. POTE UNIT UNIT 1g a O% bd{ S(w 4 E k$ OSN*U *I- '
* 'T r 8 ?'0 6'
)D**
a so S, r
- o. ,
l ,-
/
jy - DUNE ACRES , _ l r - - -- - - - - - - - T -- - - -- L P R O_P E,R,Ty , _LJN,E,,;l k j f -~- ANA DUNES N ATION AL LA
/ ) 605 7
/
'. P-
. . - .R O P._E R T _ _L I_N E_ - - - -
NORTI IERN IN DI ANA g j I m PU B LIC I4 SERVICE
.__ _ __ _ _ _ CO M PA N Y
%s -
. .- r-
___ _-' _l 's ' 6\O' o - 3
/ ' -
- 610 i ,
se { 's i i .e
, IN DI AN A DUNES
* , \1 '
{ TOWN 8 OF PORTER : TOWN :
/ OF
/
! FIGURE 6 BURNS HARBOR l COMPARISON OF WATER LEVELS IN UNIT 3 NG WELL BAILLY GENERATING ' STATION POINT NUCLEAR 1 PREPARED FOR '
ITIOMETRIC CONTOUR OF NORTHERN INDIANA 3, OCTOBER 26,1976. 5 PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
- DERIVED STEADY - STATE TlOMETRIC CONTOUR OF 5, OCTOBER ,1976.
3 ABSENT Wdd5DEIMN-
m ' N @ b0 ., d , , \ (j y y' ! m g0 i . .. 609 /\ kg 'GM4C ' ; r ( GM 38 - m,\ / 0 og *% ,
"~~"~~~~~
$ GM46 -
y} ~ SE 60d / GM42
~
y > m 4 GM4C GM40_
/
) 607
$b f co l * $
d O ll
.n 606
~~
O t? ~ GM I-g'l
~
w W
~.
[~ $ 605 h e 2 O
~ GM 2 -
Q y 2 ' W GM43-J GM4s W 604 N "%,
~~~ - T\
qq44 N w. GM48
# ./ '
603
#.d 39 l *" '*
' N; GM 3 - -- - _ =
,,,,,,,,,,,/
602 ~ f GM4A r-i f .. Q 6 01 l f X r 5
- /
L' 600 Nov DEC JAN FEB MAR APR 1979 191
" ' * " * '"u 't a s . a . . . ,,,
o
I D P*']D A koM "l]D eM "S\ . 2 No-r-- - --
- __ GM 38 - _ _ .
-GM4C- -- $
-Gu4G - ..__
NOTE
- WATER LEVELS PLOTTED IN ORANGE ARE RECORDED WITHIN THE COWLES BOG BOUNDARYS.
THOSE PLOTTED IN BROWN ARE RECORDED IN THE " GREAT MARSH " AREA OUTSIDE THE COWLES BOG BOUNDARY.
-FOR PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS SEE FIGURE 2.
GMi
# GM43.
~N f # _ , . - GM45
-- M 4
~ ** ' [__ . . -.. ---- G M 41 2 *i
- -- G M 3 9
", / N' R3
~%. -
GM5 FIGURE 7 RECORDED WATER LEVELS IN THE GREAT MARSH AREA PIEZOMETERS BAILLY GENERATING S TATION NUCLEAR 1 PREPARED FOR NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. MAY. JUN JUL AUG SEP 3)211 DIADNL1
2 APPENDIX A REPRESENTATIVE COEFFICENT OF PERMEABILITY OF S0ILS IN 10cm/sec UNITS COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY TYPE NAVFAC FOUNDATION BASIC SOILS USED FOR OF P-418 ENGINEERING ENGINEERING COMPARIS0N SOIL (Re f.4) (Ref.5) (Ref.6) Silty Clay 0.01 0.01 Silt 0.50 0.50 Sandy Silt 5-20 10 Silty Sand 20-50 1 20 (If clayey, use 1) Silty Sand and Gravel 4 Very Fine Sand 50-200 50 100 Fine Sand 200-500 200 40 200 Fine to Medium Sand 500-1000 500 500 Medium Sand 1000-1500 1000 1000 1000 Medium to Coarse Sand 1500-2000 1500 1500 Coarse Sand 4000 3000 Coarse Sand and Gravel 2000-5000 3000 NOTE: Coefficient of Permeability by pumping test: At BSCO site K = 250 x 10~ cm/sec At NIPSCO site K= 70 x 10~ cm/sec l l IlMhlPPOIfADNIL4
d i s APPENDIX B LIST OF FIGURES i j i PAGE NO. FIGURE NO.* TITLE l B1 6 Saturated Thickness of Unit 1, ! ! October 26, 1976 B2 7 Thickness of Uni: 2 l B3 8 Elevation of the Surface of Unit 2 B4 9 Thickness of Unit 3 l B5 10 Thickness of Unit 4 B6 11 Transmissivity of Unit 1, i October 26, 1976 j B7 12 Transmissivity of Unit 3 j October 26, 1976 j 1 l lI
- I l
l i
- *These figures are reproduced from and refer to the numbering systen
- used in Reference 1, USGS Report 78-138.
s
- IIMhIPIPOIf4DNIIA
f
- IT l
j a 3 D** J 6c c - - m 87'07' ~
~ ,> , ,
~ + u s ' +~ ,' , ,. , -
,, / ;, ,
s << i,
,# ,n i <, <, < s +s s
#f<
E
,Y , , '< , / ? e , , /
yl$ '! /n ,y ! f , 6 4 ,
~? < < , <
< , , s > ,, ,,' , ,' s s
<. , s e r
/ <, < /, , s
, a s t s
,t sr y ,, , ,
, / , / ,
,~ ~ , , '<, s ,? , - ,
o- ' / / // ' , ~ , , <, ', ~
, i in, ,~, N ,~,s' r/$s '< '\. ' ,
A , s' ! /
,, ' s 'A
<<,)',", ,, ' ,< ',
rg >
. \.s s
' i > vs,< 0 ,.
4,<?'/ '
+ %~ <
8 ' sw, , r e y %, $,
'z
? -,
<< > ,, i l, si
! / %'
,, ' Y
,a.4, ,
d-s s.
d ,< f, ,, / / -s .:, 's < 'v .< A s .s.,s., -
w9, w, ' u., ,x.s,' '
c' ~'+ 2,, s, , ," < <
uzcat
,/ , ,"n, , . :
'~ , <., ,
> ) { ,' , e , ' , '
sj f ' , , < ls , , /9% ' *< ,,
$ $ ,,,y >, , ,
s I \
,'~ ,
, < , '; w n e' s 'z 4,; , ' 3 s s
' , ' < < >^ ' ',
* % s r , ,ry ,
S i
\~ '
e t pu,
! \ t s ,
e \ 7 ,
,s%, ,'^s < > }'e ' p, I ,,,,
, , , s t '
- + v,
' ^' '
?
r
^",, f~ s, ,- i ,
r / , ,, y of, / *% > t ! f"' , ,
' 's r A ,
r , , ,
< ,$ e
'v' G
l, 5
, e,', e
/
% g,# E '*
f
<S j
s j
^ e 'fc 'g ' y g ,' , s - ,
, - ' ^ , - , ', '
t ,
< - s
, - - f , - - *' se"g, s
1 ', s
, s s
.' -y-
,,' - s s
N , 3...
' /
j '
' s' i .. - - ' !;.@0 l '.
~-
+ . s r _
. v . __
^
t
- r BAILLY N 1 '" *-
_ s
/ 35 L I .
i
- 35 e -3o 25 --
20 % -
. - - 15 7 . .
/ 'ic ,
l 6 G 7 . 31' . [ A. *
. 3 i
l Base from 1973 NIPSCO Map No. MS-150 by Sa rgent and Lundy 0 2000 FEET i f I f I l Figure 6.-- Saturated thickness of u l PM t
. 4
PAGE Bl 81*06' c:a ,
' h. p - - - -gj- ' d'l -
'GkN[: k ,-s 9 j . J CO LES BOG \ . EXPLANATION , Unit I absent, inter-
.q:,,
e No n U b ent) Line of equal saturated 5 kness. Interval 5 f is-mg: c.2 e Data point g l:fh NOTE: COWLES BOG AND BAILLY N-1 ADDED BY D'APPOLONIA FIGURE 6 REPRODUCED ' nrt I, October 26, 1976. FROM USGS REPORT 78-138 Di1PPOIr43 NILS
n 1 - [D**lD o o M o M lilXL lD 7[l] Af '
- 87*07'
- 5. E i:i#. . :.!
i !'-- as .
, 33 . . .
I 50 :
"l . ^!b73;s L ,_::'M
- !.sii r-
- .:;::: 'M
"],. 4
\ 'I N ..
's s
's, BAILLy N1 - ~M
's,,.'..,- 2 '
d 6 e f e i
- e e O . .
/
l ~ . e .s- . ! ' - 38 e
- N e, f t' s <
j < ' O
. ?'. , . .. .. ... .. .
- .. . :.... . }
Base from 1973 NIPSCO Nap No MS-150' by Sargent and Lundy 0, - , , , , 20,00 FEET l.- 1
'3
)i { Figure 7.--Thickness of unit L
a a'
PAGE B2 n'as S$ , ll.j l ma- ,l i s:i i i l - [h [k}Q I i
/
,/
,' e
/
/
/ COWLES OG EXPLANAll0N
/ Unit 3 absent
- 6 Unit 2 ab:ent g0 .<4)g8)?'fd
' #66d4 Areal entent unknown e
a f 10 -- er is n se Dashed where apprealsate
?, Data point
$W
$2" o / no
/ +
/, ' ' ,
NOTE: COWLES BOG AND BAILLY
-N-1 ADDED BY D'APPOLONIA FIGURE 7 REPRODUCED I
2' FROM USGS REPORT 78-138 $ D*4PPOLONIA !
k p; - mo o g " 1 + g ;,; D
.c o o S. .=
, 87*07'
;~ .;
4 < r; : , s ,
.l3 a+) ,
4;:
-f f '
~ .{ .... '
s
'EiCNSGA
,, ., f.m: 'L4KE)
-[ .39' I' s
. .1$ , ,
?
<M p
f' ~, x . r 4 r
; ., ni u
=
(p. 3{ (h CA / e- l
*$ e n., e o.
e ggo
, 5 #' .s p ss5 g is ?
, e e "
Ew- ' 4, 38'
- o 9 * ..
' 60
/ $g
- . ,% p'
$95 (a+fb
. ',l j,f:k fhih ,
,. bb'bbh' ? .
l
. . ,%qw . . . ,
Base fron 1973 NIPSCO Nap No. NS-150, 0 2000 FEET by Sargent and Lundy , e- e r i i 7 Figure 8.-- Elevation of the surface of-uni-
.- j
a O@ O 3" 87,06, o oju oju S . frua PAGE B3
/
/
/
/
/
9 /
/
/
/ '
i
/ p'
/ ,
p /
/ /
s' ,
/ p
/ /
/
,/
/ sS' CO S BOG
$90
/ EXPLANATIDN e Areal entent unknoan
/ Is; of unit 2 600 5so ~rntereals 5 and 10 f eet
, Dashed where approximate ,
Datum in mean see level e Data point
/ $0$?Sbb'?khlhh s'*
% * -r , 3's:< ~M ;
7p ;;;f:g';;'gj
. K.Q " d s -- e l
, l
~ , - , . , ,, ';; n'~* %- -
l
;a , y-j,;, '
', s.f
., j'
- e , -1 600 f~ $ $ $ $ $$ $
/ // / / / A* / _
NOTE: COWLES BOG AND 9AILLY N-1 ADDED BY D'APPOLONIA
- 2. FIGURE 8 REPRODUCED FROM USGS REPORT 78-138 DhPPOLONIA
m r# m m = " " c o - ,. g7*07'
'1; ;.
C-., u.g'. ~
.i::%. . e.::s., ~
9 (i D$ i:xt ' 8' , ~,
\ ' ,, 'rj ..
' '^~
i
- pli:
^
i
~-,
- . .f. ,
,, r, ,
, ':;ih$$.e, '., , $.f:i:
/
;:!p.{:.
~, , .,
(,: - m , ' f.M-iv
+
^r
^
.:. , ..,c' *--.
',y...._......
< ,;,::+c? w as':.;;
' ' , ;;:n ,
/ , WICNIW :
u LLp: ; s,
- A
- 2 '. -
pk. . .s;, -
~, 3 W-J ', $
f
.m BAILLY "1 e
V
/
-,w O
FM 9 ~ s O ll 10 Ls f'~ c 40 0
%* f
/'[
3
~
5
\ o 60 f
l. l - N [ I J. pass from 1973 NIPSCO Nap No, MS-150 0 2000 FEET ey Sargent and Lundy e i i i ' '
! l
'('
.{
Figure 9.-- Thickness of un-w t*- t G
s O) O O
,,.,,,- T L M lh umuXltdo PAGE 84 h[ :s (l:':.
+: ..
i ?J) L ,- i
.sf \
V -
' w' ,/
l h 9 EIPL AN ATION l 5 Unit 3 absent i Line of equal thickness p g -- Interval 10 feet Dashed shore approximate
'( ~~ ~ 's
=
,s g e Data point l
t
- e/ z 60 09 30 e n
o . l 30 J N NOTE: i.
)
00WLES BOG AND BAILLY N-1 ADDED BY D'APPOLONIA , l-i FIGURE 9 REPRODUCED s3 FROM -USGS REPORT 78-138 WAPIMMA)NIA
i WW m 87*07' I [ . l :- 1 1
, ,,. ; uxi : uscuro as' .
;.. u
.. - j ..
.-f.-
+
s 7, .
-~,~, BAILLY N "%
. p
-- 90 e' I
-100
~' E 0
% j i
[ .) . * = . 35 N o S by Sa rgent and Lundy Mm Base from 1973 NIPSCO Nap No. NS=150' 0 i i i a 2000 FCET i
/*
Figure 10.-- Thickness of i L_ i
9m m'g a g ooN . _:2 PAGE 85 [ f
/
/
N-
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
e' COWLES G EXPLANATION 6 . , , l Line of equal thickness l f 70--Dashed Interval 10 feet where appronimate go A% s s Unit 3 absent S* . ..t. .o,n, v 30
/ .
g o gao x - x NOTE: COWLES 80G AND BAILLY N-1 ADDED BY D'APPOLONIA I unit 4 FIGURE 10 REPRODUCED - FROM USGS REPORT 78-138 EMUL"POILONIA
a-fl Fl N " "' u w d, ,p 1. o l - Lli ~ 3:a
- 3. .
. ~1 -s-s ' -:g:i
.' O 'k5 s .
g ,,
- Mdi --
cp
#$e Mci e
3
~
f N. x m . p. (~ 4000~BAILLY N 1 -
- F j ,. , .
c . 5000
. y- .
,f 1
--3000 y 41^
0 . 39 go0 g0 00 W e Base from 1973 NIPSCO usp h. MS-150 by $stgent and LunJy f , , i i 20,00 FE M i I. Figure 11.--Transmissivity of unit L s L.
P
.g; c3*
D"*D OW W DTT< w l PAGE B6 b '$ ....; hhh ' - ,
!RVD ' '[ ' 'hji:::[' $[d .NEN Qy ' ,
k- s.
;, s)l{ky'4-: c.
._ x
,...;. s;
, ~
,3 Y$
.:[ ,;'rlyy,;1.:p:%,
l .; ;x s 7
-~,;:yy. , $$Y$g$ ~- ' , ' '
s
~ '
E VIGAN f p,'O 4Y g.i - ' < n+g. y . - n ' i GN:' 3 -
< 'I ,
V O o . COWLES BOG \ e /
/ EXPLANAil0N O' e
" " [ Unit I absent.
morainal area e [, ~
, Unit I occupied by Bethelem Steel N - % 2000 bullding foundation
,;,. pnth 4000 "
) g. Line of equal G ttant.atssiwIty, e 1
- Q's.:
in fest ?quared per
'j:L $*1 9oO 9 Data pojat
;e:
J'e : 4 '
* ~
_n_' .- : .c. ;
.- m:x.,:1.3-
'n ': .. W s s
, - } %
s .'. e' : V NOTE: COWLES ' BOG AND BAILLY N-1 ADDED BY D'APPOLONIA 1, October 26, 1976.. # FIGURE 11 REPRODUCED FROM USGS REPORT 78-138 DRR" POI 4)NIA
4 , P::A :B M E .,..,. 1 m 8 4 vl- f ' 4, ... IhgCllh
~k. .
39'
,j-
[J' ,
-l- yKE ::: C L
rh E d e . An .i ;. f// g? ...- 7, so u
, BAILLY N 1-- k
. m um W
f i . 9-20 0 I
' 6000 .
4 y.
] I 1 Base from 1973 NIPSC3 Wap No. MS-150 0 2000 FEET by Sargent aid Lundy. '
!;{ . >
--l. l
-La i1 - Figure 12.-- Transmissivity off
- {l
-i j
%s s ,,
PAGE B 7
*1'00' l .-
/
3AN k
/ ,
/
000-- COWL [gplANAfl0N IJ,000 . s Unit 3 absent O ansmiss y ty, 8000 " in feet squared ser day 900 0 1'
- Dets peint 8000 6000 l.
NOTE 2 COWLES BOG AND BAILLY N-1 ADDED BY D'APPOLONIA i FIGURE 12 REPRODUCED hit 3, Oct,ber 26,1976, FROM USGS REPORT 78-138 l Diu-yggjg,gg
~1 APPENDIX C COMPARIS0N OF S0ll DATA (For Explanation and Conclusions See Section 3.3)
I Comparison of Soil Data at Dune Acres Well No. 1 Figure Cl* The actual thickness of Unit 2 clay encountered is approximately 55 feet, whereas the thickness used in the model is only 12 feet. The actual thickness of Unit 3 is approximately 12 feet instead of 45 feet used in modeling. The permeability of Unit 3 is about 1/3 of that used in modeling. The surface elevation of the Unit 3 sand is about 42 feet below the elevation used in the stuJy. There are major differences in physical properties and limit the reliability of the modeling results. Comparison of Soil Deta at USGS Piezometer 101 Figure C2 Soil boring data indicates that U..it 2 is in fact tvo layers, one 19 feet thick and the other 9 feet. The model assumes an uninterrupted 40 foot thickness. The materials encountered at Unit 3 consist of clayey sands, clay, and sand. Permeabilities of these materials are 3 to 30 times lower than the value used in the study. Comparison of Soil Fata at USGS Piezometer 102 Figure C3 I Unit 3 materials at this location vary from a coarse to fine sand with permeabilities varying from 3 times lower to 3 times higher than the value used in modeling. The actual stratigraphy shows a clay layer embedded between sand so that vertical flows will be affected within i the aquifer. !
- Figures Cl through Cl3 are included in this Appendix.
I I 11DTMPIPO]L4DNIIA
I C-2 I Comparison of Soil Data st USGS Piezometer 103 Figure C4 I Unit 2 was not encountered at this location, however, the model assumes a fifteen foot thickness for Unit 2. The Unit 3 sands encountared are approximately 92 feet thick not 70 foot thick as modeled. Permenbilities of the actual sand vary from 2 times more to 600 times less than the I value used in the study. Lack of Unit 2 in this boring is significant as the actual case indicates an unconfined aquifer whereas it was modeled as a confined aquifer. The groundwater level was nodeled about 5 feet above the existing ground surface. I Comparison of Soil Data at USGS Piezometer 105 Figure C5 The actual Unit 3 sands have variable ainounts of silt with permeabilities I up to 600 times smaller than the value used in the study. Also, the actual thickness of the Unit 3 soils is about 77 feet, not the 55 feet that was modeled. Comparison of Soil Data at USGS Piezometer 107 Figure C6 I The thickness of Unit 2 material is about 2 feet, whereas it was modeled The actual Unit 3 sands are silty with clay and about 600 I as 5 feet. times less permeable than that used in the study. Coccarison of Soil Data at Boring 705 Figure C7 I Although this boring is shallow, it represents the only data available at l this location. Permeabilities of the upper Unit 1 sands are similar to the values used in the model. Information is lacking for Units 2 and 3. I IlDRPPOIfADNI[A
1 1 I C-3 l Comparison of Soil Data at Boring 706 Figure C8 This boring shows that the upper Unit I sands are about 3 times less permeable than the values used in the model. Comparison of Soil Data at Boring 709 Figure C9 The Unit I sands have permeabilities of about 3 times less than that modeled. Aino, the Unit 3 sands encountered are only about 18 feet thick not 55 feet as was modeled. The actual permeabilities of Unit 3 are 3 times less than the value used in the study. Unit 2 was encountered at an elevation about 12 feet below that 6&cd in the model study and the surface elevation of the Unit 3 sands is about 17 feet below the elevation modeled. Comparison of Soil Data at Boring 712 Figure C10 The Unit 1 sands have permeabilities 3 to 30 times less than the value used in the study. The actual thickness of the Unit 2 clays is more than 44 feet and not the 5 feet used in the model resulting in more than a 39-foot dif ference in elevation of Unit 3. Comparison of Soil Data at Boring 715 Figure Cll I Sands encountered in this boring are silty sands and clayey silty sands having permeabilities 30 times less than the valtte used in the I study. Unit 2 clays were not encountered, although Unit 2 was modeled at this location. 1 l
! IIMARNRDIIADNI[A
I C-4 Comparison of Soil Data at Boring B-79-1 Figure Cl2 I Actual Unit 2 clays are only about one foot thick, not 18 feet thick as used in the study. "Ihere are no other soil borings in this area to identify Unit 2 and Unit 3. The thicknesses shown are assumed. Comparison of Soil Data at Boring B-79-3 Figure Cl3 The Unit 2 clay encountered is only 1 to 2 feet thick and not 18 feet thick as used in the model. The Unit 3 sands were encountered about 15 feet higher than the elevation used in the study. There are no other borings in this area to identify Unit 3. Comparison of Soil Data in the Cowles Bog Area There are approximately 12 USGS piezometers installed in the Cowles Bog area. These are shown on Figure 2. The piezometers are shallow and soil information is available only from 7 to 20 feet. No deep borings were drilled to locate Units 1, 2 and 3. Hence, the thickness and permeability determinations of the units in this area for model analysis must have been assumed. Comparison of Soil Data in the Area Surrounding Cowles Bog There are no deep soil borings in the one square mile area surrounding the Ccwles Bog to define Units 1, 2 and 3. It is overly simplistic to merely assign soil layer thicknesses and permeabilities over so large an area with little or no subsurface data. . 4 l I I 11DTMPIP4DIfADNILS
I l l APPENDIX C LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NO. DRAWING NO. TITLE C1 MW79-720 A2 Comparison of Data Dune Acres Well No. 1 i
! C2 MW79-720 A3 Comparison of Data l USGS Piezometer 101 j l
C3 MW79-720 A4 Comparison of Data l USGS Piezometer 102 l l C4 MW79-270 AS Comparison of Data ' USGS Piezometer 103 C5 MW79-720 A6 Comparison of Data USGS Piezometer 105 C6 MW79-720 A7 Comparison of Data USGS Piezometer 107 C7 MW79-720 A8 Comparison of Data Boring 705 l C8 MW79-720 A9 Comparison of Data Boring 706
, I C9 MW79-720 A10 Comparison of Data Boring 709 C10 MW79-720 All Comparison of Data Boring 712 C11 MW79-720 A12 Comparison of Data Boring 715 C12 MW79-720 413 Comnarison of Data noring B-79-1 C13 MW79-720 A14 Comparison of Data Boring B-79-3 I
11D AIPPOIfADNIIA
1
- g DATA POINT Dun, Acres Well No. I LOCATION N. I.512.450 t E. 499 550 '
$ DATA USED BY U.S.G.S. U ) ACTUAL DATA (2)
R ELEV ' k K SOIL DESCRIPTION hkh h 0F. SOIL DESCRIFTION K* F di Ew
- 630- !
]
l ES -620 - P R 1' 6 - 610 - s G.S 603' r TOPSOIL
---- -------2 600 - : .
S; V
. c. .
FINE SAND 200 589 UNIT I : - 5 *,
, c SATURATED THICKNESS '."i -590- :,q... ,. . : .'
SAND AND GRAVEL l000 __ U6 Si 0.002 UNIT 2 -580- , 6 % , L ,
-- ... e
- , . . . ; :. -570 xg 3 .
.::::- t p
21 -l .' .'. -- 56oil:* z ./.- CLAY I M P. l n .i .. e+ 5.;. E 589 UNIT 3 - 550 q
. . :. .. -5AO 1
'., ..~
l 4
-530- i ^..
\.. .
.' SAND 200
-520-SHALE GRAVEL SAND IM P.
. - 510 - -
0.459 UNIT 4
- 500-d
- 490-LEGEND FIGURE C I COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED Dune Acres Well No i IN IO-4 C'"/sec UNITS . BAILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I
* - ESTIMATED pr;Ef% RED FOR IMP PRACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
( l ) - INDICATES REFERENCE OF APPENDIX C 3)2MSN)3d)Nbk
m DATA POINT USGS Piezomiter 101 _ LOCATION N. l.508.651 E. 489. 329 i 5 DATA USED BY U.S.G.S. (I) l ACTUAL DATA (3) b SOIL L g K SOIL DESCRIPTION PROF ' [l PROF.l SOILSOIL DESCRIPTION l K* M
#2 - 630-Ew D* G.S.
E -620 . If ,.'- n.' 4 33
- 610 E:.
p *. 200 I 2e; d _ . - _ -
---------3 ,
-600 .' ,' , .
FINE BROWN SAND
-590-ll.,,';
;a : , . '. -
SS UNIT I '. -
$ f a
589 SATURATED THICKNESS 'l-
-580 Il$
;-l?.! SAND & FINE GRAVEL 500 It-- .
; . o '.
4 -570 t l } hl L560 GRAY CLAY W/ FINE TO MED. GRAVEL I M P. z E 0.002 L 550 UNIT 2 SAND, MEDIUM, GRAY' SOME SILT 20 I p540 GRAY CLAY W/ IM P-i GRAVEL ( FINE ) 530
... SAND ( MED. - FINE ) 20
't W/ LITTLE CLAY l
- - 520 589 UNIT 3 ' J. . ) ,,
. GRAY . CL AY . . . l M P.
I .
- 510 *-
.,.. ' , . . ' . ' . ' ' . FINE
. * - SAND 200
-500 I 0.459 UNIT 4 l CLAY W/ SAND &
FINE - MED. GRAVEL IM P' l l
-490 LEGEND RE C2 l CO' C 71SDN OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED g ej., Fiezometer 101 IN 10-4 C*/sec UNITS . 3 .i; ENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I '
* - ESTIMATED PCEMPED FOR IMP - PRACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHFRN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
(I ) - INDIC ATES REFERENCE OF APPENDIX C D*2M"IN)1A9NL1
, DATA POINT USGS Piezomnter 102 LOCAT ON N. 1,507,596 E. 493,395 l
k DATA USED BY U.S.G.S. (') l l ACTUAL DATA m K SOIL DESCRIPTION hh, SOIL DESCRIPTION K^ M Is 630-
; G.S.
I $$ 92 h - -- ----.----V_ ~ 620 619.4 1 O I
' l . .' - 610 - . ' . ' LIGHT BROWN, .23 .
1000 A 589 UNIT I ' ': . ..:. MEDIUM SAND
)y S ATUR ATED THIC'. NESS . . soo _ . '-
I j%
.c. ;m 59C-o8 CLAY, DARK GRAY, 08 SOME ORGANIC I M P.
Og 0.002 UNIT 2 580- MATE RI AL I r a gLC0 ARSE GRAY SAND, 570 - , . .. ( CLAY /
~3.000-1 1 M P. > -
I p .
. ' . -.' SAND, MED/ COARSE, N t .
1,500 z - 0 ~ *!;. . GRAY R - E . ' . .' 550--
- ...3 I ,-
-540
~
, ':. FINE / MED BROWN SAND 500 589 UNIf 3 '.'.'- .. :
- 530 - --
- " CLAY I M P.
I ..
- 520 -
. FilJE BROWN SAND 200 I #
- 510 - :~;..
500 CLAY W/ INTERBEDDED I 0.459 UNIT 4
^-
4 SAN D SILTY LAYERS I M P.
- 490 LEGEND GURE C 3 COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED USGS Piezometer 102' IN IO' 4 C'"/sec UNITS . B AILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR l
* - ESTIMATED PREPARED FOR IMP PRACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
(! ) - INDICATES REFERENCE OF 3T[2hl{DJ[I([}{gpy{g APPENDIX C l
o DATA POINT USGS Piezometer 103 LOCATION N. 1,505,4911 E. 496,645 t g DATA USED BY U.S.G.S. U) ACTUAL DATA (3) 5 K SOIL DESCRIPTION hh hh. SOIL DESCRIPTION K* 01 UNIT I -630-Ew SATURA SE _ _ .__ (_ _ _.TED _ _. 9 6 THICKNESS l 23 EE 620 - G.S. 0.002 UNIT 2 ' ~
.. I:
vh[ slo g ' SAND - BROWN , fd - 600 - - 7 ,. - M ,' , MEDIUM I,000 m
- m- " . . -590 .
'J' ( COURSE AT 20')
38 .'. u g . Si ".- -580- ' ..
?> S ..
0 -570 589 UNIT 3 '. . : . - g g . 1 .
-560- SAND - GRAY SILTY, I a . ,'
. W/ SOME CLAY D -
E -
- 550 j
- 5 4 0 I . ' '-] S AND - MEDIUM , GR AY I,000
-UE l 6 - ? ? 4 SAND - FINE , CLAYEY l
-/_ -
- 530 - k ;
fe l .
- 520 I 0.459 UNIT 4 g/ -5to CL AY - SANDY, LENSES a,1 0F MED. SAND , I M P.
'r STIC K Y .
l
- 500-v.
-490 l LEGEND COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED l lN 10' 4 C*/see UNITS .
* - ESTIMATED USGS PieZ0 meter 103 BAILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I PREPARED FOP IMP - PRACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. l
( l ) - INDICATES REFERENCE OF [jM3%)3I)Nb-h APPENDIX C.
I e DATA POINT USGS Piezometer 105 LOCATION N. I,504,036 E. 492,685 l k DATA USED BY U.S.G.S. U) l ACTUAL DATA (3) 5 K Solu DESCRIPTION hkh hkh, SOIL DESCRIPTION K* g . . - - M
; g - 630-
- 48 1 ZE - 6 2 0 --
My i G. S .
- 610 _ 609.6 g h _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
-600 W
- l l
3% 589 UNIT I SATURATED THICKNESS b ' .' UGHT BN EW N E [-590 0.002 UNIT 2 , .- j o
, ; m GRAY CLAY f i IM P. F 8 *l x '
Sg j- 580 - 3% 'g
-~
LIGHT BROWN, FINE / MED. 4 l -570~ SAND, SOME SILT AND I l i CLAY
$$ ^
21 589 UNIT 3 .ly .': -560e z - GREY FINE / MEDIUM SAND
.' .,'; -550; SOME SILT AND CLAY '
-540- SAND AND CL AY, GREY l GREY , MEDIUM SAND 1,000 lh'..
II c530 CLAY AND FINE SAND (SILTY) I M P. i i-520 4..
</
o';. ' FINE BROWN SAND 200 (" QUICKSAND ") 0.459 UNIT 4 r- 510 - i L 500 j SANDY SILT W/ LENSES 10 OF CAND ; SOME CLAY l 490 LEGEND COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED USGS Piezometer 105
- IN 10 ' 4 C'"/s e c UNI TS - BAILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I
* - ESTIMATED PREPARED FOR I
IMP- PRACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. I (1 ) - INDICATES REFERENCE OF }j)$\ MMS {)}},,((DNILS APPENDIX C
s DATA POINT USGS Piezometer 107 LOCATION N. 1,509,681 E. 499,6251
$ DATA USED BY U.S.G.S. ( ' ) ACTUAL DATA (3)
R ELEV h K SOIL DESCRIPTION h hoh, SOIL DESCRIPTION K* B oz - 630-Ew SE I EE U4 h
- 620 -
n I 6 g
-610- G.S.
6041 1 p - _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ y , " ,,: , l
}$ 589 UNIT I .
,, '. l: GREY, WELL SORTED l'900 SATURATED THICKNESq,,. 'c MEDIUM SAND s x 590- ..
oo 0.002 UNIT 2 - gy ,..; f x BLUE GREY CLAY , 11MP. r-8& :-580= g\.. 5g , _- p. f
~~
..570=
O 21
- y. N[.i p' GREY, FINE, SILTY
-560= g 2 .: SAND W/ CLAY
- s. 589 UNIT 3 -
.m gx "-
- q o ,
550- f4j I . ,.-
-540= .j;lI '
W?
.;l I I l
530 - ! t
-520=
O.459 UNIT 4 'I - 510 = ! BLUE GREY CLAY W/ SAND , VERY HARD iyp'
- 500 =
--490 I LEGEND FIGUR E C 6 COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED US6S Piezometer 107 IN IO -4 C'"/sec UNITS . B AILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I
* - ESTIMATED I
PREPARED FOR IMP - PR ACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (l ) - INDICATES REFERENCE OF g g Dg D( Q J f ) p d 1 APPENDIX C
I e DATA POINT BORING 705 LOCATION N.1,509,128 E . 49 2,630 I $ k K DATA USED BY U.S.G.S. (0 SOIL DESCRIPTION hkh ELEV hkh, ACTUAL DATA (4) SOIL DESCRIPTION K* I 2 Em x -630-SE ES -620 - pq G.S. 613 p I 9 .
- 610 -
S3 .
' ' . ' . MED. DENSE BROWN 200 g . ,. , FINE SAND 2 ------ - - ----- 2 600 - -
.I l 3V t -
- '/ id.'l
- . c . ' 1 MED. DENSE BROWN FINE SAND - SOME l 500
- s 589 UNIT I
-590-
- I C.* COARSE SAND - 1 500 SATURATED THICKNESS .s ". l SOME GRAVEL
, , /<
mm 58 DENSE BROWN FINE 580-y [ p SAND - SOME COARSE ll i
]
g
,; - 570 -
SAND - SOME GRAVEL , l t, .', O.002 UNIT 2 .
. ,y 1 ~
-560-l z $
05 5 * : , l- - 550 - ,I ?
-540-589 UNIT 3 - 530 -
,. , . - 520 -
. . ., , , - 510 -
; - 500-0.459 UNIT 4 ' l" '
-490-LEGEND FIGUR E C 7 COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEAB!LITY EXPRESSED Boring 705 IN 10 - 4 C"'/sec UNITS . B AILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I
* - ESTIMATED I
PREPARED FOR IM P - PRACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (l) - INDICATES REFERENCES OF APPENDIX C
]pg[D]DQ)Ld)Mld I
I , DATA POINT BORING 706 LOCATION N. I,508,283 E. 493,580 o DATA USED BY U.S.G.S. (O ACTUAL DATA (4) 5 K SOIL DESCRIPTION hh hkOF. SOlt 'ESCRIPTION K* c5 - 630-Ew QE EE -620 - j@ G.S. 6'2 4____ o I 2 3
= .
- 610 - '.
LOOSE BROWN FINE SAND 200 f 589 UNIT I . -
-600 -
. SATURATED THICKNESS . ?.tJ . VERY LOOSE BROWN 200
' ':'v. FINE SAND - TRACE
.J .- .
;E ,
' .- -5 9 0 -- 10F ORGANIC MAT 8 L f oS e >
VERY SOFT TO SOFT *R E8
'- -580- 970 \ GRAY ORGANIC SILT -/ IMP Sg i\ TRACE OF SHELLS /
I 1 a
$$ 0.002 UNIT 2
- 570 -
STIFF GRAY SILTY CLAY- TRACE OF 3 } ROCK FRAGMENTS (( g i SAND SEAM I" , Z
- - -560-E
-550-
. .- -540-
.- - 530 -
589 U N IT 3 ..
,s ;
': - 520 -
I .',,
- 510 -
. - 500-F 0.459 UNIT 4 O.
+ 2 - A go -
LEGEND FIGUR E C 8 COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED Boring 706 IN 10 - 4 C'"/sec UNITS . 8 AILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I
* - ESTIMATED I
PREPARED FOR IMP - PRACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (1) - INDICATES REFERENCE OF APPENDIX C D21H"HND]IADNH21
I p DATA POINT BORING 709 LOCATION N .1,506, 9 53 E. 499,133 l o DATA 'USED BY U.S.G.S. I'I ACTUAL DATA I4I R ELEV. k K SOIL DESCRIPTION kh kF. SOIL DESCRIPTION K* o - 630-
%r as
-620 -
( , kh - 610 -
$1 Q G.S.
ps. 589 SATURAT THICKNESS U 'I- ~ MED. DENSE ROWN FINE 200 3 30 0.002 UNIT 2 %-I'600 _ ' .' '-\ SAND ' SAND
-TRACE OF COARSE
/
sa "hf. -590- '.
~
8 [ HARD GRAY SILTY CLAY - g y p* x 8 .. TRACE OF ROCK FRAGMENTS S E
- 580- -I 6% , l ', ' ,' M T. VERY DENSE GRAY FINE 200 4.' . . SAND -TRACE OF COARSE
' SAND-TRACE OF GRAVEL
-570- ..'
f 589 UNIT 3 ?,$.' * MED. DENSE GRAY FINE SAND 200 I , ? y t
. -560- g.
i TRACE OF COARSE SAND 1
\SOME GRAVEL l 200
+
' \ MED. DENSE GRAY FINE /
$3 .
\ SAND / I M P.
E* ' _ }:, - 550 - HARD GRAY SOME SAND SILTY SEAMS 1/8CLqY f
"' ~
7?: f - 530 - l 0.459 UNIT 4 -520-
- 510 -
-500-
'N - 4 99 _
LEGEND FIGURE C 9 COMPARISON OF DATA I K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED BORING 709 IN lO* 4 */sec UNITS . BAILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I l
* - ESTIMATED PREPARED FOR IMP. - PRACTIC ALLY NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
(l) INDICATES REFERENCE OF APPENDlX C 3)$MDIIS[D}Ild)NM l I, . l
M N N .1,509,322 E. 499,095
._ DATA POINT BORING 712 LOCATION f K DATA USED BY U.S.G.S.(')
SOIL DESCRIPTION hh hh. ACTUAL DATA I43 SOIL DESCRIPTION K* p - , I2 - 630-Ew
$3 -620 -
ML N' - 610 - G.S.
$13 Q 604 ' STONE ROAD \ __
h =~ .. . .
*~
-600 BROWN SAND 200 200 2 _
589 UNIT I SATURA."ED THICKNESS .' * :: pp . LOOSE GRAY FINE SAND - s TRACE OF ORGANIC MAT'L, g]g:- VERY LOOSE DARK SILTY SAND g 0~ l Sj
~
f l> w
- 0.002 UNIT 2
~h+ HARD GriAY SILTY CLAY -
TRACE OF ROCK FRAGMENTS g y p' bk - '
-580 - $y 6 a" .
~
- ' . ~' VERY STIFF GRAY SILTY CLAY- TRACE OF ROCK IM P.
4
. FRAGMENTS gg 4
- 570 -
g~ HARD TRACEGRAY SILTY OF ROCK FRA CgAY MENTS - IM P-N t
' ' - ~
589 UNIT 3 -5604 VERY STIFF TO HARD GRAY a ' ' SILTY CLAY- TRACE OF IMP
. . i :
ROCK FRAGMENTS
~
* *' WL VERY STlFF GRAY SILTY IMP
' f
\ CLAY - SOME SAND SEAMS I
*'. - - 540- \ l/8" i
....'e
- 520 -
0.459 UNIT 4
/-
I - - . 500-
- 490-FIGUR E C 10 LEGEND COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED I IN IO - 4 C'"/sec UNITS .
Boring 712 B AILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I
* - ESTIMATED PREPARED FOR IM P, PRACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
(l) INDICATES APPENDIX REFERENCE OF C I[IM IONAWM
I y DATA POINT BORING 715 .0 CATION N. 1,507,700 E. 496,750 l $ K DATA USED BY -U.S.G.S.(3) SOIL DESCRIPTION ACTUAL DATA (4) SOIL DESCRIPTION K* I o$ Ew r -630-QI EE -620 - D_ l 2- _____ _________ 9
' - 610 - G. S.
GM h UNIT I .S PEAT I M P. l 589 SATURATED THICKNESS ' :.i . : - 600 _ 20 f. EDIUM DENSE FINE
$ m>- -590-I U$
8 0.002 UNIT 2
- 5 8 0 -;
BROWN SAND MEDIUM DENSE GREY CLAYEY SILTY FINE SAND, 20 20 Of '. TRACE OF COARSE SAND ' I I TRACE OF GRAVEL g ; J _g_ . , . DENSE GREY FINE SitfY SAND - TRACE OF COARSE 20 y 570_ LSAND - f r< ACE OF GRAVEL i I 7 5 - DENSE GREY FINE SILTY 4 e . .- SAND - TRACE OF COARSE
, l.-560- SAN D / 20 I MEDIUM DENSE GREY FINE 3
={m - -
SILTY SAND - TRACE OF S 589 UNIT 3 tCOARSE SAND T' .'. ' . - 5 5 0 - l ;
..a
~$
;-540-I l
. ': [ - 530 -ll
, .- *- i k-520-l
- 510 -l 0.459 UNIT 4 !
LEGEND I - 500- FIGUR E C ll COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED I IN 10- 4 C'"/sec UNITS
- BORING 715 B AILLY GENERATING STATION
* - ESTIMATED I IMP - PRACTICALLY .lMPERVIOUS (1) INDICATES REFERENCE OF 3)iMDM )3d)N M PREPARED FOR NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
APPENDIX C
g DATA POINT BORING B-79-1 LOCATION N. 1,507,489 E 492,532 h DATA USED BY U.S.G.S. I') ACTUAL DATA W t- ELEV' M SOIL K R K SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL PROF ) PROF. SOIL DESCRIPTION p _
#x - 630-Ew 95 G.S.
EE -620 - 5 E -_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
? ^619.2x SAND FINE TO MEDIUM ,
- F% TRACd OF GRAVEL. 500 b . . . .
?T
- Y..):_
- eio _ .".~ . ,
2? -
- t.; : . .' . -
*'~
UNIT I N - D 589 SATURATED THICKNESS . J.';;it._ goo _
' .,, g ,;'
' ;, ' SAND,
. " .FINE TRACE ' .GRAVEL OF TO MEDIUM, 500 a- ..:..
m, E * :. * - -590-o o w
;; l - -
flMP % y .g,, s CLAYEY SILT - u a c' J -580-SAND, FINE TO COARSE, 1000 I v n i 0.002 UNIT 2 1 TRACE OF GRAVEL / t
~~
9- 570 - 4 ';
- NOTE d
l ' ::ll "O- FOR DETAILED z
." l,i. DESCRIPTION , SEE D >.
8ORING LOG 8-79-I am g : . ,: . - 550 -
- l ,' . -5AO-589 UNIT 3 ,.
I#
-530-l' . : -
I .;f:.". : - 520 -
- .:::.?
I .*:i'q .
- .y
- . .*l-
- 510 -
- 500-C' 0.459 UNIT 4 .
- c. 2- 490-I LEGEND FIGUR E C 12 COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED BORING B 1 IN 10'4(m/sec UNITS . 8 AILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR I
* - ESTIMATED PREPARED FOR IMP - PR ACTICALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
(1) INDICATES REFERENCE OF APPENDIX C EMAPIN)IANIA
I g DATA POINT BORING B-79-3 LOCATION N. 1, 507, 379 E. 492,537 I kN k K DATA USED BY U.S.G.S.I 'I SOIL DESCRIPTION hh ELEV kh. ACTUAL DATA I5) SOIL DESCRIPTION KM Im - 630-
.9$ G.S.
5 -) 620.2 5 Sz ~ 620 - 03 yq -~~ ~~~~~~~~ g gL SAND, FINE TO MEDIUM 500 9 610 -,W PEAT IMP gS - - 589 UNIT I '1 -600 - .'!.b. M SATURATED THICKNESS i.; . .
- . J '.
SAND, FINE TO MEDIUM -500 EE J . .; -
.s..
-590- ', .# '
- CLAYEY SILT "
,, x ,
UNIT 2 -580- ;,s I $ g 0.002
,. W5
-]
e .. - f
- 570 -
.s :
SAND, FINE TC COARSE 1000 M .
~ , .: .
/ -560- NOTE 5x l FOR DETAILED dm .
DESCRIPTION SEE
$ :.: - - 550 - BORING B-79-3
. -540-589 UNIT 3 '
- 530 -
l : ,' - 520 - I 'l .. s g 0
':i
-500-I c
0.459 UNIT 4 ? j 2- 490-4 FIGUR E C 13 LEGEND COMPARISON OF DATA K - PERMEABILITY EXPRESSED BDRING B-79-3 I IN 10 '4 C*/sec UNITS .
* - ESTIMATED B AILLY GENERATING STATION NUCLEAR i PREPARED FOR I M P. - PR ACTIC ALLY IMPERVIOUS NORTHERN 'NDIANA PUBLIC . SERVICE CO.
(1) INDICATES REFERENCE OF b APPENDIX C
I LIST OF REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C (1) USGS Report 78-138, Figures 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (See Appendix B) (2) Well Log No. 1, October 16, 1953, City of Dune Acres, Porter County, Indiana, Layne Norther.n Co., Inc. Mishawaka, Indiana. (3) Division of Water, Department of Natural Resources, State of Indiana, Water Well Lags for USGS Wells 101, 102, 103, 105 and 107, Porter County, Indiana. (4) D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., Chesterton, Indiana, Boring logs 705, 706, 709, 712 and 715, Project No. 70-114. (5) Sargent & Lundy, Engineers, Chicago, Illinois, Boring logs B-79-1 and B-79-3, Project Number 5560-31. ! I I i l 1 11DRPIPOIL.ONIIA
.-}}