March 30, 2011 BN P-2011-072 Enclosure 2

March 30, 2011 BNP-201 1-072 Enclosure 2

Enclosure 2

Construction Dewatering Design Report

No. SL-009655, Revision 2
 sa=,rgent &*.: Lundy~o

Robert A. Hameetman, P.E. (IL)

Senior Project Manager
312-269-6482
312-269-2028 - fax
Robert. a.harneetmansarnqentlundy.com
Date: November 23, 2010
Project No. 12198-415
Letter No. SLL-BBNPP-824
File No. 2.02
UniStar Nuclear
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant

Deliverable: Construction Dewatering Design Report

Schedule ID: BBPP020504129

Mr. Stephen Geier

VP New Nuclear Projects
750 East Pratt St., 16 th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202

Dear Mr. Geier:

Sargent & Lundy LLC (S&L) is submitting this letter to document transmittal of the following deliverable for
approved for USE.

. Construction Dewatering Design Report No. SL-009655, Rev. 2, 11-23-10.

Also, posted on the ftp server; BBNPP Documents for Approval/Deliverables/Sargent & Lundy/Part 02
FSAR/ Second Submittal - For OAR, are three (3) CD's that contain our consultants report
(Weaver Boos) and the data run from Weaver Boos.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 312.269.6482.

Yours v~ry truly,/

R. A. Hame tean
Senior Project Manager

RAH:
Copies:
Lisa Dashnau Maury Pressburger
Bob Randall Steve Taylor
Mike Yox Dan Kocunik
Dimitri Lutchenkov Dave Nielson
Fred Perdomo Jong Min
Dave Klinch
Vince Kelly
George Kuczynski
Rocky Sgarro
Dale Roth

55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA, 312-269-2000

Transmittal Coversheet UiStar
1. UniStar PurchaseOrder Number: Bell Bend: 300458
2. UniStarPurchase OrderShoff Title: Bell Bend
3. (Check one): M FirstTime Submittal E] Resubmitted
4. Reason for Submittal (check any that apply):
[_1 ForFinalApproval E] ForComments (OAR) E] For Information [ ConceptualDesign for Use
5. Vendor: D-"AREVA Black
B'- &Veatch Eli Rizzo Sargent &Lundy I Other:
6. Submittal Title: Construction Dewatering Design Report
7. Supplier-Assigned Unique Submittal Identifying Number (with Revision Level):

* Construction Dewatering Design Report No. SL-009655, Rev. 2, 11-23-10.

8. Schedule Activity ID: BBPP020504129
9. Related Section of COLA: FSAR 2.5.4
10. Submittal Date: 11/23/10
PRINT NAME DATEE. SIGNATURE

11. Preparer: Tawana Barnett 11/23/10 2 A

12. Supplier:
NOTE: Signature indicates the supplier /
offering the Document for Approval for -/• .
acceptance has verified that the Robert A. Hameetman 11/232/10
Document for Approval being furnished
complies with the requirements in the

[13.
UniStar procurement documents.

Administrator
14. (Check one): D Approved As Is Not Approved (Comments Attached) Review Not Required

UniStarEngineering (name/date) UniStar QualityAssurance (name/date)

UniStarRegulatory Affairs (name/date) Client (name/date)

Other(name! date) Other (nameldate)

16. FinalA cep~tanice; '

UniStar ContractManager(name/date) . Other (name/date)

FORM 2(Rev 06.2008)

UmNCLar
NUCLEAR
Construction Dewatering Design

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant

UniStar Nuclear Energy

Non-Safety-Related

Report No. SL-009655

Revision 2

November 23, 2010

134W-0fa Sk L-niv II
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design

Approval Page

Construction Dewatering Design

Non-Safety-Related

Revision Summary

Revision 0 For OAR Review

Revision 0 For Use
Revision OA For OAR Review
Revision 1 For Use
Revision 2A For OAR Review
Revision 2 For Use

Prepared By: Date: IJ/,3/ 20WO

D. E. Nielson

Reviewed By: Date: l/V, /-'p/t

D. C. Kocun

Approved By: Date: 7 (2

R. A. gamreetman
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design

Table of Contents

1. PU R PO SE/O BJECTIV E ...................................................................................................................... 1

2. BA C KG R O U N D ................................................................................................................................... 2

3. D ESIG N IN PU TS .................................................................................................................................. 2

4. A SSU M PTION S .................................................................................................................................... 3

5. METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 4

6. EV A LUA T IO N ..................................................................................................................................... 5

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 26

8. LIM ITA T ION S ................................................................................................................................... 29

9. ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 30

10. R EFEREN C ES .................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A - Weaver Boos Consultants North Central, LLC, A-1

"Evaluation of Temporary Construction Dewatering (1 Page
Strategies Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant and 3 CDs)
Berwick, Pennsylvania", Dated October 20, 2010

CD-I Evaluation of Temporary Construction Dewatering

Strategies
CD-2 Visual MODFLOW Project Files (Disc I of 2)
CD-3 Visual MODFLOW Project Files (Disc 2 of 2)

i
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 1 of 45

1. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the existing groundwater conditions around the proposed

* Nuclear Island (NI), which includes:

o Reactor Building;

o Fuel Building;

o Reactor Auxiliary Building;

o Safeguard Buildings;

o Radioactive Waste Building;

o Emergency Diesel Buildings;

o Ultimate Heat Sink Buildings;

o Turbine Building;

o Essential Service Water Emergency Makeup System (ESVWEMS) pond and pump
house;

* ESWEMS Pipeline between the pump house and NI; and

* Two Cooling Towers,

at the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (BBNPP) and provide recommendations for the temporary
construction dewatering system during the construction of the power plant. Attachment A
depicts a conceptual layout of the major elements of the plant.

This information will be used to support the Combined Operating License Application (COLA)
for the BBNPP. This evaluation will be the basis for the discussion of the construction
dewatering system and the disposal of the extracted water as addressed in the Environmental
Report (ER).

The purpose of Revision 2 is to evaluate the existing groundwater condition around the NI based
on its new location 972 feet north and 300 feet west of the original plant location (Reference
10.1). Revision 2 is a comprehensive revision and thus, revision bars are not indicated.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 2 of 45

2. BACKGROUND
The explored site conditions and plant layout result in two distinct conditions. The NI and
cooling towers will be located in an area of unsaturated granular soils above the shale bedrock.
In the vicinity of the ESWEMS pond and pump house, the lower granular soils that overlie the
bedrock are saturated.

For structural and seismic design considerations, the safety related structures, will be supported
on bedrock or engineered fill (concrete or granular) extending from the bearing elevation down
to the top of competent rock. Although considered safety related, the ESWEMS pond will be
supported on cohesive fill extending from the pond floor down to the competent rock.

This construction detail and the site geologic setting requires an approximate maximum of 56
feet of water-bearing sands and gravels to be excavated (References 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4) for the
ESWEMS pond. Proper placement of the backfill requires the work be performed in a dry
condition. As such, an active construction dewatering system will be implemented prior to
construction to maintain dry conditions and it will continue until the subgrade portions for these
structures are completed and the excavation is backfilled. The dewatering system will be
decommissioned as the structures are completed and the backfill is placed to a level above the
groundwater and up to the final grade.

3. DESIGN INPUTS
The following design inputs and assumptions are used in this report:

a. Three months of available groundwater levels are provided in the Paul C. Rizzo and
Associates (Rizzo) response to RFI SL-BBNPP- 111 (References 10.3).

b. Twelve months of groundwater levels for monitoring wells installed in 2008 as

documented in FSAR Section 2.4.12 (Reference 10.5).

c. Locations of the monitoring wells, subsurface soil and rock descriptions, and top of rock
elevations as provided by Rizzo in their responses to RFI SL-BBNPP-132 and RFI SL-
BBNPP- 111 (References 10.2 and 10.3, respectively). Attachment C presents the
locations of the groundwater monitoring wells.

d. Dewatering system criteria, groundwater levels with various dewatering approaches and
comments as provided by Weaver Boos Consultants North Central, LLC (Weaver Boos)
(Reference 10.6 - included as Appendix A of this report).

e. Potential construction reuse of groundwater pumped from the excavation (Reference

10.7).

f. General site layout per the Reduced Scale Standard Utilization Plot Plan (SUPP)
(Reference 10.1), which is provided as Attachment A.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 3 of 45

g. Final yard high-point finished grade is established at Elevation 719 feet per the North
American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), with the design finished floor elevation
of the NI structures at 720 feet (Reference 10.8). Note, all elevations in this report refer
to the NAVD 88 and are in feet.

h. The approximate elevation of the invert of the pipes from the ESWEMS pump house to
the NI is 694 feet (Reference 10.13).

i. Water quality information from on site wells and water sampling (Reference 10.10).

j. Conceptual Excavation Plan as prepared by Rizzo and provided in their response to RFI
SL-BBNPP-149 (Reference 10.4). Attachment B presents a compilation of the data
presented in Reference 10.4.

4. ASSUMPTIONS
Design inputs 3a, 3b, 3c, 3e, 3h, 3i and 3j listed in Section 3 (above) are the latest available
information based on responses to Requests For Information (RFI) and are considered as verified
information for the conceptual design of the construction dewatering system. Design inputs 3f
and 3g are the site layout and grading drawings and are the latest information for the conceptual
design.

Integration of the Site conceptual model with a mathematical computer code to simulate flow
requires several simplifying assumptions. The following assumptions and idealizations apply to
the model utilized herein (from Reference 10.6):

a. The model domain is underlain by a conductive overburden aquifer extending through

the basin lowlands and restricted in its horizontal extent by surrounding rises in the less
conductive bedrock.

b. The complex natural flow system may be represented using a system of seven discrete
layers, while the natural conditions likely result in a more gradual variation in
hydrogeologic properties.

c. The baseline groundwater flow system is in equilibrium and is modeled on a steady-state

basis.

Assumptions 4a, 4b, and 4c, listed above, are consistent with the available data and do not need
further verification for this evaluation. Adjustments can be made during construction of the
dewatering system to account for any subsurface discrepancies, which may be encountered
during construction. All assumptions for this report are considered to be verified for its current
use. However, this report will be reviewed after receipt of the 6-month and 12-month water
levels in the piezometers currently being monitored and updated as necessary.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 4 of 45

5. METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA

The groundwater modeling and calculations discussed in this report were primarily performed by
Weaver Boos based on field data obtained and evaluated by Rizzo. The Weaver Boos report is
documented as Reference 10.6, which is attached as Appendix A to this report. The Rizzo
findings from the field investigations and testing are documented in References 10.2, 10.3, 10.5,
and 10.10.

Prior to assessing applicable dewatering technologies, Weaver Boos developed a conceptual

model, which to the extent practicable, incorporates natural hydrogeologic boundaries for the
flow system of interest. Preparation of the conceptual model included the following general
steps:

* Defining hydrostratigraphic units based on the data presented in References 10.2,

10.3, 10.5, and 10.10;

" Defining the flow system; and

* Preparing a water budget of flows into and out of the area of interest.

Evaluation of groundwater flow was performed by Weaver Boos utilizing a seven-layered

conceptual model implemented using Visual MODFLOW Version 2009, by Schlumberger Water
Services. This software is a widely used implementation of the USGS's globally recognized
MODFLOW-2000 program. Weaver Boos selected this software for its capability to reliably
model groundwater flow in three dimensions and relative ease of use offered by its integrated
graphical user interface. The modeling reflected two principal groundwater dewatering
strategies:

" Open excavation and water table depression without groundwater flow barriers; and,

* Dewatering and excavation using a slurry wall, diaphragm wall, or other type of
subsurface flow barrier to mitigate potential off-site water level drawdown and
subsequent impact to potentially sensitive areas around the ESWEMS pond.

Since the ESWEMS pump house is contiguous with the ESWEMS pond dike alignment, the term
ESWEMS pond incorporates the excavation for the pump house.

5.1 Model Domain

The digital model domain is based on a rectangular block-centered grid network that covers a
1.8-square mile flow domain representing the local drainage basin. The grid includes 316 rows
and 245 columns, with their spacing refined as needed to assess small-scale effects in the area
where dewatering is needed. In the areas where the greatest detail was desired, the grid node
spacing is approximately 22 by 22 feet and provides site-scale detail without creating a
computationally excessive number of model nodes.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 5 of 45

5.2 Model Calibration

Calibration of the baseline flow model consisted of initial simulations, with the model-estimated
groundwater elevations compared to the adjusted target values discussed in Section 6.5. To
adjust for discrepancies in the model predicted and actual groundwater elevations, adjustment of
selected model elements such as recharge flux and distribution, river boundary condition
parameters along the edges of the model domain and along Walker Run were made. The
calibration is iterative to allow a suitable set of recharge and boundary conditions to be
formulated.

An evaluation of the calibration for all layers indicates a correlation coefficient of 0.90, which is
considered reasonable given the distribution of the groundwater monitoring wells and the
relatively short duration of groundwater monitoring in the recently installed wells. The
calibration indicated the model estimate groundwater elevations were typically slightly lower
than the target values.

The model calculated heads are considered a reasonable match with the observed values given
the objective of the flow model (Reference 10.6).

This calibrated digital model was then used to simulate the dewatering program parameters as
presented in the following sections. Additionally traditional hand calculations were used to
check the results of the computer modeling, determine near well hydraulics, and to determine the
well spacing. These methods are presented in Appendix D of Reference 10.6.

There are no acceptance criteria for this evaluation since its purpose is to provide
recommendations for the need of a flow barrier to mitigate the drawdown effects of dewatering.

6. EVALUATION
6.1 Topography

The topography of the site is gently rolling with an east-west trending set of ridges. At the
BBNPP, ground elevations range from 650 feet along Walker Run in the southwest corner of the
site up to elevations slightly higher than 800 feet on the hilltop located in the vicinity of the NI
and cooling towers (Reference 10.8). North of Beach Grove Road (north of the site), the
elevation rises sharply upward to elevations of 1,100 to 1,150 feet along the crest of the ridge.
Thus, total topographic relief in the immediate vicinity of BBNPP is approximately 500 feet.
The ground surface elevation in the area of the NI generally ranges from approximately 700 to
800 feet. The ground surface elevation in the area of the ESWEMS pond ranges from
approximately 680 to 740 feet. The existing grade elevation in the area of the cooling towers
varies from 700 to 800 feet. Attachment A provides a general site layout for the BBNPP along
with the general topography.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 6 of 45

6.2 Geology

The geologic conditions described below are generally based on FSAR Sections 2.4.12
(Reference 10.5), 2.5.4 (Reference 10.9) and the recent boring logs (Reference 10.2).

Subsurface conditions beneath the site are characterized by sand and gravel deposits that are
underlain by shale bedrock.

The Pleistocene Age overburden soils range in thickness from 0 to 100 feet with the thinner
overburden encountered on the ridges and hills. With the exception of some loose sand pockets,
the overburden consists of over-consolidated, brown silty sand and sand containing gravel and
large rounded cobbles and boulders. The frequency of the boulders increases with depth.

The bedrock generally consists of folded, jointed and fractured Devonian-Age shales of the
Mahantango Formation extending approximately 1000 to 1200 feet beneath the site. The
Mahantango Formation consists primarily of dark gray, silty to very silty claystone. Frequent
joints and intense cleavage development causes the claystone to become splintery, and
fragmented upon weathering. The Mahantango Formation has low to moderate resistance to
weathering.

6.3 Hydrogeology

The hydrogeologic conditions described below are generally based on FSAR sections 2.4.12
(Reference 10.5) and 2.5.4 (Reference 10.9), the Rizzo Monitoring Well Test Data Report
(Reference 10.3) and the Weaver Boos report (Reference 10.6).
Generally, borings in the vicinity of the NI and cooling towers did not encounter groundwater in
the overburden soils based on the field exploration performed by Rizzo (References 10.3 and
10.5). Although not encountered, it is not uncommon for groundwater to become perched in
granular soils at the soil-bedrock interface. The occurrence and quantity of this perched
groundwater is often seasonally affected and highly variable in areas of a sloped interface
between the granular overburden and the less permeable bedrock. The conceptual design for the
temporary construction dewatering system considers this potential source of water, which must
be controlled to facilitate the planned work. In the vicinity of the ESWEMS pond and pump
house, groundwater levels in the overburden typically range from 2 to 15 feet below the ground
surface (bgs). Along the south side of the proposed ESWEMS pond, the depth to water was
approximately 2 to 8 feet bgs, and flows generally southerly and westerly towards Walker Run.
In the vicinity of the ESWEMS pond and pump house, the overburden aquifer is recharged by
downward percolating precipitation and upflow from the deeper bedrock aquifer. Groundwater
discharges from the surficial aquifer as springs and seeps into ponds, the wetlands along the
southern border of the site, and into Walker Run.
The underlying Mahantango Shale Formation is also considered an aquifer. There are no
extensive aquitards in the vicinity of the BBNPP site. Vertical groundwater flow in the upland
areas to be developed as the power block and cooling towers is generally downward. Vertical
groundwater flow is generally upward from the bedrock aquifer to the overburden aquifer in the
area to be developed as the ESWEMS pond.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 7 of 45

6.4 Hydraulic Properties by Layer

Groundwater flow is simulated in seven layers. Walker Run, the site wetlands and the
excavations for the ESWEMS pond are generally located within Layer 1, which is a relatively
high conductivity zone. The base of the ESWEMS pond excavation is generally at the top of the
competent rock, which is within Layer 2 and exhibits a lower conductivity than Layer 1. The
excavations for the NI and cooling towers extend through Layer 1 and well into Layer 2. Layer
2 includes the upper weathered rock zone, the transition zone and the upper extent of the
competent rock. Layer 2 is also the primary component of the highland ridges. Layers 3 through
7 are deeper shale bedrock.

6.4.1 Layer 1

Layer 1 exhibits a varying thickness across the model domain, since its upper surface is based on
the topography of the site and the lower surface is based on the interface with weathered bedrock
(Reference 10.2). Rizzo performed and documented (References 10.3 and 10.5) both slug and
pump tests to quantify the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of Layer 1.

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated from slug tests conducted in the
overburden aquifer ranged from 1.19 x 10-5 cm/s to 3.4 x 10-2 cm/s, with a geometric mean of
3.63 x 10-3 cm/s (Reference 10.5, Section 2.4.12.3.2.1). A single slug test in the overburden was
completed in observation well MW410 during 2010, indicating a horizontal hydraulic
conductivity of 1.72 x 10-3 cm/s (Reference 10.3). Slug tests of the kind implemented during the
site investigation measure horizontal hydraulic conductivity only near a test well, and may
reflect influences by filter pack storage or low-conductivity borehole skins remaining after
conventional rotary drilling using mud.

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated based on a 24-hr pump test at
approximately 60 gpm ranged from 3.63 x 10-2 cm/s to 1.26 x 10-1 cm/s, with a geometric mean
of 5.93 x 10-2 cm/s (Reference 10.5, Section 2.4.12.3.2.1). A pump test of the kind implemented
during the site investigation stresses a much broader area of the aquifer than a slug test, and is
therefore considered more representative than the slug test results.

S&L considers the geometric mean value obtained during the pump test, which is the highest
mean value for the site, as a representative (yet conservative) value for the horizontal hydraulic
conductivity in the overburden aquifer. Because sand and gravel deposits comprising the
overburden aquifer are horizontally stratified as described in the boring logs, the deposit is likely
anisotropic, and the vertical hydraulic conductivity (which has not been measured) is considered
to be 1/ 1 0 th of the horizontal value obtained during the pump test. The specific yields computed
for the pump test indicated values ranging between 0.253 and 0.500, with a geometric mean of
0.344, and a median value of 0.322. For a well- to fairly well-graded material such as the
overburden, the median value of 0.322 appears reasonable and is therefore considered
appropriate for use in the model. Thus, conservative values to quantify the hydraulic properties
of the overburden aquifer were selected for use in this conceptual dewatering evaluation.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 8 of 45

6.4.2 Layers 2 Through 7

Layer 2 also varies in thickness, since it extends from the interface with the overburden down to
elevation 600 feet and is also referred to as the shallow shale bedrock. Layers 3 through 7 are
considered to be uniform in thickness and extend from elevation 600 feet down to elevation
0 feet.

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated from slug tests conducted in the shallow
bedrock aquifer during 2007 and 2008 ranged from 3.70 x 10-4 cm/s to 1.36 x 10-2 cmrs, with a
geometric mean of 1.41 x 10-3 cm/s (Reference 10.5, Section 2.4.12.3.2.2). The horizontal
hydraulic conductivity values calculated from slug tests conducted in the shallow bedrock during
2010 ranged from 4.69 x 10-5 cm/s to 1.32 x 10-3 cm/s, with a geometric mean of 2.86 x 10-4 cm/s
(Reference 10.3, Table 3).

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated from slug tests conducted in the deep
bedrock aquifer ranged from 1.15 x 10-5 cm/s to 1.51 x 10-3 cm/s, with a geometric mean of 1.18
x 10-4 cm/s (Reference 10.5, Section 2.4.12.3.2.2). No further slug testing of wells screened in
the deep bedrock was reported during 2010.

Packer tests were performed in 56 intervals of the shale bedrock during 2007 and 2008. Of these
tests, nearly one-half (26) indicated impermeable rock. In the other 30 tests, the horizontal
hydraulic conductivity ranged from 2.39 x 10-7 to 1.63 x 10-4 cm/s (Reference 10.5, Section
2.4.12.3.2.2). Packer tests were performed in 34 additional intervals of shale bedrock during
2010. In these most recent tests, seven (7) tests indicated impermeable rock. In the other 27
tests, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity ranged from 3.99 x 10-7 cm/s to 3.82 x 10-4 cm/s
(Reference 10.3).

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated based on a 24-hr pump test at
approximately 6 gpm ranged from 1.93 x 10-5 cm/s to 7.23 x 10-4 cm/s, with a geometric mean of
1.64 x 10-4 cm/s (Reference 10.5, Section 2.4.12.3.2.2) during 2007 to 2008. This pump test was
completed in wells screened from elevations ranging from 502 to 582 feet. Additional pump
tests were performed using wells screened in the bedrock during 2010. The horizontal hydraulic
conductivities calculated on the most recent pump tests ranged from 6.42 x 10-6 cm/s to 2.88 x
10-4 cm/s, with a geometric mean calculated equal to 5.43 x 10-4 cm/s (Reference 10.3, Table 4).
The recent pump tests utilized wells screened in the bedrock at elevations ranging from 618 to
670 feet.

For the reasons discussed in Section 6.4.1, S&L considers the geometric mean values obtained
during the pump tests as more representative than values obtained by slug testing. However,
results from the packer testing program are also considered representative for the intervals that
were tested. Of the values reported for the shale bedrock, the geometric mean horizontal
hydraulic conductivities from the pump tests are selected as conservatively high values for use in
the dewatering evaluation. S&L selected the geometric mean pump test conductivity value of
5.43 x 10-4 cm/s as representative and conservative for shallow bedrock occurring above an
elevation of approximately 600 feet (based on 2010 pump test). The geometric mean pump test
conductivity value of 1.64 x 10-4 cm/s is similarly selected as representative and conservative for
deep bedrock occurring below an elevation of approximately 600 feet (based on 2007 and 2008
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 9 of 45

pump tests). These values are regarded as conservative because their selection is likely to over-
predict rather than under-predict the flow of groundwater to be yielded by temporary dewatering
systems. As was selected for the overburden, S&L also considered the vertical conductivities of
the bedrock (shallow and deep) to equal 1 / 10 th of their respective horizontal values obtained
during the pump tests.
Although the shale bedrock is correctly described as an aquifer in Reference 10.5 (Section
2.4.12.3.2.2), the conductivity of Layer 2 is about 1/1,100th of the overburden aquifer
conductivity, while Layers 3 through 7 are about 1/ 3 ,7 0 0th of the overburden aquifer. The
contrast in conductivity between the overburden and bedrock aquifers means the preferential
flow path is through the overburden rather than the bedrock aquifers.
6.5 Groundwater Level Observations

Monthly water table elevations in the overburden and the head elevations in the bedrock were
previously measured between October 2007 and September 2008 (Reference 10.5, Table 2.4-44).
The groundwater elevation data obtained in 2007 and 2008 indicate a slight seasonal variation in
groundwater elevation has been observed during the monitoring period. Generally, the
groundwater elevation is at a minimum in autumn, followed by gradually increasing levels in
winter, peak groundwater elevations are noted in the early spring and then decreasing elevations
through the summer. For the overburden monitoring wells, the differences between the annual
high and low elevations for each well ranged from 1.67 to 5.49 feet. Elevations measured on
January 26, 2008 appear to represent "average" conditions, and elevations measured on March
24, 2008 are taken to represent "high" water levels.

Monthly groundwater levels were most recently reported for the period between May 2010 and
July 2010 (Reference 10.3). Measurements taken during 2010, which include measurements
from the initial round of wells (MW300 series) and the recently installed MW400-series
observation wells (MW401 through MW410), are generally somewhat lower than the "average"
levels measured during January 2008. In order for this evaluation to conservatively consider the
reasonably foreseeable maximum future groundwater elevations that may occur in the 2010 -
2011 12-month monitoring period, two feet was added to the "high" groundwater elevations
previously reported during March 2008. These higher values were then selected as flow model
calibration targets. The highest recently measured water levels in the MW400-series wells were
"corrected" to reasonably foreseeable maximum future groundwater levels by adding 5.0 feet to
the new rock wells and 4.6 feet to the new overburden well for the calibration targets to evaluate
the groundwater model simulations. The resulting conservatively high groundwater elevations
selected for use herein are listed in Table 2 of Reference 10.6, which is Appendix A of this
report.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 10 of 45

6.6 Excavation Approaches and Dewatering Implications

6.6.1 Collection Ponds for Dewatering Output

Prior to initiating dewatering activities, preparations must be made to receive the water
discharged from the dewatering systems. Final selection of the site ponds, which will receive the
flow from the dewatering system, as well as the precipitation that falls in the excavation, should
be based on the location of the ponds, piping routes, pond volumes and the sequence of
construction of the ponds. The following paragraphs address the possible ponds which may be
selected to receive the waters.
6.6.1.1 Temporary Groundwater Storage Pond
Effluent from the dewatering system could be routed through the Temporary Groundwater
Storage Pond (TGWSP), which is to be located between the ESWEMS and the NI. Thus, it
would be beneficial to construct this pond prior to excavation activities in order to use it as a
collection area for the dewatering system. The design elevation of the bottom of the TGWSP is
anticipated to be approximately elevation 665 to 670 feet (to be determined during final design),
while the current ground surface is at approximately elevation 672 feet. Table 5 of Reference
10.3 documents the range of measured groundwater elevations from 656.58 to 658.91 feet in this
area. Given this information, it is anticipated that dewatering for the construction of the TGWSP
will not be needed.
6.6.1.2 Combined Waste Water Retention Pond
The Combined Waste Water Retention Pond (CWWRP) is located east of the ESWEMS Pond.
Reference 10.16 indicates the design elevation of the bottom of the CWWRP is 686.5 feet. The
current ground surface elevation in the vicinity of the CWWRP ranges from approximately 676
to 728 feet (Reference 10.8). The estimated groundwater level is estimated to be below
elevation 675 feet (Reference 10.3), except where the groundwater may be perched on top of the
bedrock. Although the field exploration program by Rizzo did not encounter groundwater
perched on the bedrock, some perched groundwater can be anticipated. Given this information,
it is anticipated that dewatering for the construction of the CWWRP will not be required.
However, if any groundwater is encountered at the soil/rock interface, this can be controlled by
utilizing diversion trenches and sumps around the periphery of the excavation to maintain a dry
condition. Where soil is present beneath the pond floor, the groundwater is estimated to be
below the excavation limits.
The CWWRP could be used for storage and exfiltration of the dewatering effluent provided it is
constructed early enough and that the lining designed for the permanent pond is not installed
until after the dewatering is complete. However, the excavation for the placement of engineered
fill below the ESWEMS pond (as depicted in the drawing attachments to the Response to RFI
SL-BBNPP-149 [Reference 10.4]) appears to intersect the western portion of the CWWRP.
Thus, the final excavation plan for the ESWEMS pond construction or the final design of the
CWWRP will require some slight modifications to allow the use of this waste pond for
dewatering effluent while the ESWEMS pond excavation and dewatering system is active.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 11 of 45

6.6.1.3 Other Ponds

In addition to the TGWSP and the CWWRP, other impoundments such as the Temporary
Sediment Basin (TSB) and the ESWEMS Pond could receive dewatering system output,
provided they are operable prior to completion of the dewatering activities for the NI and the
cooling towers.

6.6.2 ESWEMS Pond

The ESWEMS pond excavation is expected to fully penetrate the overburden soils and the upper
weathered bedrock to establish the bearing surface (subsurface information from References 10.2
and 10.4) on the competent rock at elevations ranging from 610 to 640 feet. The excavation in
the vicinity of the southern portion of the ESWEMS pond will extend approximately 56 feet
through saturated granular deposits. Existing groundwater elevations are discussed in
Section 6.3.

To facilitate quality construction methods in the ESWEMS area, the excavations should be
performed in a dry condition. A dewatering system consisting of deep wells surrounding the
excavation is conceptually designed. The excavation can proceed as the dewatering takes place
provided the dewatering system maintains the groundwater level below that of the excavation.
As the excavation advances, a series of groundwater monitoring wells will be monitored to
verify the effectiveness of the dewatering system in reducing the groundwater level.

6.6.3 Nuclear Island and Cooling Towers

The final plant grade in the vicinity of the nuclear island and cooling towers is at elevation 719
and 699 feet (Reference 10.8), respectively, while the current ground surface ranges from
approximately 700 to 800 feet (Reference 10.8) in these areas. These structures and/or the fill
supporting these structures will extend down to the upper surface of the competent rock, which is
at an approximate minimum elevation of 650 feet in the NI and elevation 565 feet in the vicinity
of the cooling towers, as indicated by References 10.2 and 10.4. Thus, the excavations
associated with construction of the NI and cooling towers will extend from the current ground
surface, through the surficial soils and into the bedrock. Based on References 10.2 and 10.3, the
overburden soils are not saturated. General groundwater conditions for the site are discussed in
Section 6.3. Thus, an active dewatering system for the upper soils is not likely to be required. It
is expected that groundwater inflows from localized water bearing zones in the overburden and
from the bedrock (weathered and unweathered) may be controlled using trench drains at the soil
bedrock interface as well as some trenches cut into the bedrock excavation slopes and floor. The
trench drains can be sloped to sumps where the water can be pumped out if a proper slope cannot
be attained to drain the trenches to the groundwater storage pond by gravity.

An area of uncertainty is located at the northwest portion of the cooling towers excavation,
where the available boring data is limited. Specifically, Rizzo developed excavation plans
(Reference 10.4) for the cooling towers based on a boring located at the proposed center of each
tower. From these two borings, they extrapolated the bedrock surface elevation and likely
excavation depth. Reference 10.4 indicates the northwest quadrant of the cooling towers
excavation will extend down to elevation 646 feet. Figure 2.4-33 of Reference 10.5 indicates
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 12 of 45

that the stream bed of Walker Run near the intersection of Market Street and Beach Road is at an
approximate elevation of 675 feet. If the overburden extends below the elevation of Walker
Run, it is likely that the overburden will be saturated. Figure 5 of Reference 10.3 did not
indicate groundwater in the overburden soils in this area. If the overburden soils are saturated, it
is likely that excessive groundwater pump rates and subsequent dewatering of the adjacent
wetlands and possibly Walker Run will occur. The groundwater pumping rates and subsequent
drawdown determined and presented in this evaluation does not consider this potential outcome
since the Rizzo groundwater data does not indicate the overburden in this area to be water-
bearing. It should be noted that if the overburden extends below the wetlands, this condition
could be mitigated by installing a flow barrier wall as discussed for the ESWEMS pond and
pump house. No further discussion is provided for the cooling towers since this condition and
the extent of the cooling towers excavation will be determined during the subsurface exploration
and construction phases for the cooling towers.

6.6.4 ESWEMS Pipeline

The ESWEMS pipeline from the ESWEMS pump house to the NI will have an approximate
invert elevation of 694 feet, with the pipe bedding supported on the natural soils (Reference
10.13). Since the construction activities for the ESWEMS pipeline is above the groundwater
elevation of 665 feet (Figure 5 of Reference 10.3), construction dewatering will not be needed.

6.6.5 Groundwater Flow Barrier

Dewatering for the ESWEMS excavation can be performed either with or without a flow barrier
as discussed later. Based on the inputs for this work, the ESWEMS excavation is the only area
where a flow barrier was considered. However, based on the site conditions (which may be
identified when additional exploratory borings and wells are performed), a flow barrier may also
be considered for the northwestern area of the cooling towers excavation.

If a flow barrier, such as a slurry wall, is constructed, a significant reduction in the required
pumping rate and aerial extent of drawdown will be achieved. Reference 10.6 considered the
effect of implementing a flow barrier along a preliminary alignment. If the final design of the
flow barrier is combined with a construction phase excavation support to minimize the pond
excavation, the alignment may be adjusted inward (made smaller). An open excavation (sloped
sidewalls not structurally supported) is currently planned for construction of the ESWEMS pond
as indicated in the response to RFI SL-BBNPP-149 (Reference 10.4). The extent of the
excavation with this approach is quite wide. If a construction phase excavation support (earth
retention system) is used, the planned dimension of the excavation will be smaller since the cut
slope out of the excavation will be eliminated. Since the dimension of the excavation is now
smaller, the barrier can be closer to the pond, making the overall area to be dewatered smaller.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 13 of 45

6.7 Definition of the Flow System

Weaver Boos reviewed the available information and formulated the following definition of the
flow system as presented in Reference 10.6. This review indicates that the BBNPP site may be
viewed as located within a small groundwater basin storing water mostly in the overburden
aquifer. The overburden aquifer basin is defined to the north by the system of higher ridges, to
the east by a bedrock ridge and groundwater flow divide corresponding approximately to the
route of Confers Lane, to the south by a bedrock ridge forming in the knolls, and to the west by a
bedrock ridge forming in the uplands west of Walker Run. Surface water and groundwater enter
the overburden basin from the north and exit the basin via Walker Run, its small tributary
located on the BBNPP site.

Deeper groundwater flows through the bedrock are less constrained than in the overburden basin
and are assumed to reflect high upland recharge occurring to the north, followed by upward flow
just south of the site, and deeper horizontal southerly and southeasterly flow towards the
Susquehanna River.

6.7.1 Water Flow Budget (Initial Steady State Conditions)

The groundwater digital model is presented in Reference 10.6 (included as Appendix A of this
report), and is summarized in the following sections. Based on the baseline flow budget
presented in Reference 10.6, the basin receives and discharges groundwater from three potential
sources of groundwater flow:

" The first is groundwater discharge, assumed equal to groundwater recharge, reported in
Table 2.4-42, of Reference 10.5 for the Wapwallopen Creek Basin as ranging from 6.6 to
21.8 inches per year, with an average equal to approximately 14.2 inches per year.

" The second is groundwater exchange with Walker Run that flows along the west side of
the model domain.

" The third is groundwater inflow originating in the ridge that rises to elevations as high as
1,100 feet directly north of the site. This source cannot be directly measured, yet its
significance is inferred from the upward vertical flow of groundwater in the lowland
areas south of the proposed power block and ESWEMS pond.

Potential discharges of groundwater originating beneath the site include bank and bottom
discharge to Walker Run and subsurface outflow to the south (much of which likely occurs in
overburden deposits beneath Walker Run), with eventual discharge to the Susquehanna River.
Additional southerly and southeasterly discharges of groundwater through the shallow and deep
bedrock are also inferred from the bedrock potentiometric surfaces provided by Reference 10.3.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 14 of 45

6.7.2 Water Flow Budget and Drawdown Forecast for Dewatering Without a Flow Barrier

The mass flow budget for this model includes drains that represent the collective withdrawal of
groundwater by multiple dewatering wells to temporarily (about three years) depress the
groundwater to facilitate construction of the ESWEMS excavation and drains to represent
dewatering trenches and/or well points to dewater the minor inflows in the NI and cooling
towers excavations.

Zone budgets were set in the model to separately account for the dewatering system outflows
from the power block, cooling towers, and ESWEMS excavation. The dewatering system under
this scenario is suggested to remove water at a rate of 0.11 cfs (50 gpm) at the power block
excavation and 0.16 cfs (70 gpm) from the cooling towers excavation. The total flow from the
ESWEMS excavation is 2.0 cfs (920 gpm), which is the sum of approximately 0.56 cfs (250
gpm) from the ESWEMS drains, and 1.5 cfs (670 gpm) from the ESWEMS dewatering wells.
The total pump flow rate of 2.3 cfs (1040 gpm) will be required to maintain steady state
conditions in all three excavations. These rates are steady state and will be much higher when
dewatering is first initiated. The flow rates when the dewatering program is implemented will be
dependent upon the desired schedule to achieve the target groundwater elevations.

The digital model results of drawdowns in Layer 1 for the dewatering system without the use of
flow barriers are illustrated in Attachment D. The drawdowns are shown in feet, and represent
water table depression from the steady state head calculated by the calibrated model. Review of
Attachment D indicates deep water table depression (5 to 40 feet) in the areas extending west,
south, and east of the proposed ESWEMS pond. The model predicts an area of up to 25 feet of
groundwater table depression extending approximately 400 feet south and east of the ESWEMS
pond. This pumping scheme would most likely result in extensive dewatering of the wetlands
south of the ESWEMS pond.

6.7.3 Water Flow Budget and Drawdown Forecast for Dewatering With a Flow Barrier

Installation of a flow barrier, such as a soil-bentonite slurry wall, or diaphragm wall substantially
reduces the steady-state outflow from the ESWEMS pond excavation dewatering system.

Considering the preliminary alignment of the flow barrier depicted on Attachment H, the model
calculated (Reference 10.6) the steady state flow rate required to dewater the ESWEMS
excavation to be approximately 0.51 cfs (230 gpm) (0.35 cfs from the rock drains and 0.16 cfs
from the wells) as compared with 2.0 cfs (920 gpm) without the barrier. Total dewatering
system outflow for the NI, cooling towers and ESWEMS excavations is approximately 0.78 cfs
(350 gpm) considering a flow barrier around the ESWEMS and approximately 2.3 cfs (1040
gpm) without a flow barrier. The model also indicates that with the flow barrier around the
ESWEMS, the flow from the drains in the rock portion of the three excavations (NI, cooling
towers and ESWEMS pond) will yield approximately 0.62 cfs (280 gpm). However, the actual
flow may be less due to the wide range of hydraulic conductivities reported in References 10.3
and 10.5. Numerous packer tests conducted in the shale during the site investigation indicate
hydraulic conductivity values much lower than considered in the model, and in approximately
one-half of the tests, the hydraulic conductivity was effectively zero. Thus, these hydraulic
conductivities and the resultant flow values are considered to be conservatively high.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 15 of 45

The flow rates discussed herein are steady state and will be higher when dewatering is initiated.
The initial rates of dewatering within the flow barrier are dependent upon the schedule allocated
to achieve the target groundwater elevation and the volume of water stored in the pore space of
the soils within the barrier wall. As the alignment of the barrier wall is adjusted, the initial flow
rate and/or schedule of achieving the target groundwater elevation will need to be reconsidered.

As before, the flow model (modified to include a groundwater barrier wall around the ESWEMS
pond and pump house, wells and drains) used the initial heads computed by the baseline flow
model and the expected drawdowns are plotted on Attachment E. Review of this figure again
shows the deep drawdown required at the ESWEMS pond. However, the simulated drawdown
elsewhere in the basin is very much less than the simulation without the flow barrier. Drawdown
greater than 5 feet is focused immediately west and southwest of the flow barrier. This effect is
likely not primarily due to the withdrawal of water from within the flow barrier, but rather due to
the partial cutoff of natural westerly flow of groundwater through the position of the barrier.
Groundwater levels are expected to diminish on the down-gradient side of a flow barrier and
possibly build along the upgradient side. The close proximity of the wetland to the flow barrier
wall at the northwest comer of the ESWEMS pond (near the 50-foot buffer zone) and
construction of the ESWEMS pumphouse structure directly south of the wetland may result in
some mounding of groundwater upgradient of these impermeable barriers. This groundwater
mounding may result in a rise in the groundwater level and subsequent expansion of the
wetlands into the 50 foot buffer zone. Thus, there will be a need to monitor the water level
fluctuation in this wetland area.

6.8 Conceptual Dewatering Design

In general, the dewatering system should be designed to remove the flows suggested by the flow
budgets and to evacuate the precipitation that falls into the excavation during construction. The
flows discussed herein, only consider those flows originating from the groundwater and not
those associated with evacuation of precipitation into the excavation. However, due to the
conservatism used in this conceptual design, as noted later, the dewatering system should be
capable of extracting most of the precipitation that falls within the limits of the excavation.
Considering that sound construction practice dictates the area around the excavations will be
graded to prevent stormwater from flowing into the excavation, the only additional water to be
evacuated will be the direct precipitation that falls into the excavations. The approximate
cumulative aerial extent of the excavations is 53.7 acres (from the plans provided in RFI No SL-
BBNPP- 149). Considering the storm water report (Report No. SL-009446 [Reference 10.15]),
the 100 year storm event is 7.49 inches in a 24 hour period. The increased flow from this storm
event is 10,921,000 gallons per day (10.9 mgd) or 7580 gpm. This flow, combined with seepage
into the excavations equates to a flow of 7,930 gpm. This flow should be within the capacity of
the pumps for the sumps which collect and discharge the flow. These pumps will be sized in
final design.

Dewatering wells could be drilled at this site using direct rotary, reverse-circulation rotary, cable
tool, or other methods such as Rotosonic drilling. Reverse-circulation rotary will provide wells
with the greatest efficiency and should therefore be considered. The other methods listed might
tend to compact the aquifer formation, or leave low-conductivity borehole skins that cannot be
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 16 of45

completely removed during development. Because the overburden aquifer contains boulders, it
may be necessary to use a chisel, or other methods to remove or penetrate them.

6.8.1 Conceptual Design Without Flow Barrier

Deep dewatering wells may be located around the perimeter of the ESWEMS excavation to
implement the first stage of water table depression. Because wells cannot depress the water table
to the base of the aquifer in areas between the wells, a level of approximately 10 feet above the
shale is selected as a target for use in computing cumulative drawdowns. By inspection of the
drawdown curves presented in Appendix D of Reference 10.6, an inter-well spacing of
approximately 100 feet will provide for a cumulative drawdown of slightly more than 50 feet at
locations between the wells. Dewatering wells may be located as shown on Attachment F, based
on this conceptual design criterion. A total of approximately 28 dewatering wells appear to be
appropriate for conditions at the ESWEMS pond excavation. Given the large number of wells
required and potentially very large initial flows that such a system might develop, individual
pumps should be sized for maximum flows of approximately 100 to 150 gpm each. The
discharge lines should be fitted with throttling valves to control the overall flow rate of the
system and avoid overwhelming the body receiving the discharge. A schematic diagram
showing a typical dewatering well considered appropriate for conditions at this site is provided
as Attachment I.

The ESWEMS excavation will likely require a method to control groundwater at the interface of
the overburden and weathered shale in the form of a system of vacuum well points positioned as
shown on Attachment F. Each of the headers shown will draw water from well points that are
typically 2-in. diameter that may be drilled, driven or jetted in if conditions allow. Each header
will need to be connected to its own vacuum pump. Individual vacuum pumps will need to be
sized based on conditions encountered and the length of each header.

Final stages of the dewatering conceptual design for the ESWEMS excavation include the
installation of trench drains and sumps into the exposed bedrock surface at the base of the
ESWEMS excavation. Such trenches might be excavated 3 to 5 feet wide, and 2 to 3 feet deep,
and sloped to collection sumps for ejection from the excavation. Groundwater flow from the
bedrock is expected to vary over a wide range, and additional trenches or sumps might be needed
at locations to be determined. Three such trenches were incorporated into the digital flow model
at the ESWEMS pond as shown on Attachment F.

Groundwater observations at the NI and cooling towers excavations suggest that little saturated
overburden is present in either area. It is therefore expected that groundwater inflows may be
controlled using trench drains cut into the bedrock at the locations and elevations suggested on
Attachments F (NI) and G (cooling towers). The trench drains can be sloped to sumps where the
water can be pumped to the TGWSP or other disposal points if gravity drainage to the ponds
cannot be established.

The effectiveness of the dewatering system should be monitored to compare observed drawdown
with the estimates described herein (or more detailed design estimates developed prior to
implementation). Water levels may be monitored for this dewatering strategy using existing
monitoring well clusters that have been drilled at the site. Additional monitoring wells or
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 17 of45

piezometers should be installed at select locations to provide further points for comparison. A
typical schematic diagram for monitoring wells or piezometers is provided on Attachment J.

Operation of this conceptual dewatering system will require an uninterrupted source of power for
electrically operated submersible pumps and vacuum pumps, and an uninterrupted source of fuel
for internal combustion vacuum pumps if selected for use. Provisions for convenient
maintenance should be included for all system elements as needed for a project duration
approaching 3 years.

6.8.2 Conceptual Design of a Flow Barrier

Temporary construction dewatering of the site was simulated to evaluate the potential benefits of
a flow barrier encompassing the proposed ESWEMS pond excavation (See Paragraph 6.7.3).
Wall boundaries considered in the flow model were a 3-feet thick flow barrier characterized by a
hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-6 cm/s. The wall boundaries form a continuous flow barrier
around the proposed excavation and extend from top to bottom in Layer 1 of the model. This
model simulation utilized 14 pump wells, located inside the flow barrier wall to achieve dry
conditions in the ESWEMS pond. The preliminary alignment of the flow barrier and the wells is
presented on Attachment H.

As discussed in Paragraph 6.6.3 an area of uncertainty is located at the northwest portion of the
cooling towers excavation, where the available boring data is limited. If the overburden extends
below the elevation of Walker Run or the associated wetlands, it is likely that the overburden
soils are saturated it is likely that excessive groundwater pump rates and subsequent dewatering
of the adjacent wetlands and possibly Walker Run occur. If these conditions are present the
installation of a flow barrier wall should be considered in the area of the cooling towers
excavation where the overburden extends below the groundwater table.

The NI excavation will not require a flow barrier.

If a soil-bentonite (S-B) slurry wall is selected for use as a flow barrier, it might be installed
along an alignment as shown on Attachment H, and should reflect the following guidelines in its
final design:

" The slurry wall will be a minimum of three feet thick, and will be at least '/2-foot-thick for
each 10 .feet of hydraulic head across the wall.

* The slurry wall will be keyed into competent shale such that the flow underneath the wall
through the shale is less than or equal to the flow directly through the soil-bentonite slurry
wall. The minimum depth of penetration of the slurry wall key will be two feet into the shale
below any permeable lenses or weathered shale zones.

* The slurry will consist of 4 to 7 percent bentonite in water, and the backfill will contain
bentonite at a rate of 3 percent. If the groundwater barrier is also designed to act as a
temporary excavation support wall, Portland cement may also be incorporated into the slurry.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 18 of45

" The slurry wall will have a designed in-situ permeability less than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/s.
A value of 1 x 10-6 cm/s is used to account for any minor imperfections in the wall. Some
plastic fines may need to be imported to meet this criterion.

" The slurry wall will have a minimum of a five-foot overlap at corners.

* The slurry wall will be constructed vertically.

* Slurry levels will be maintained at least seven feet above the groundwater table during
construction. Depending upon the groundwater levels along the southern leg of the wall for
the ESWEMS pond, this will likely require the construction of a berm to raise the ground
level at several locations along the specified alignment.

" Extensive quality control measures should be taken to assure that the S-B slurry wall is
constructed without gaps or windows.

* Because the overburden aquifer contains boulders, it may be necessary to use an orange peel,
clamshell, chisel, or other methods to remove or penetrate through them.

If final design incorporates the flow barrier wall into an excavation support structure, sheet
piling, concrete diaphragm walls, intersecting caissons or secant piles, or cofferdams should be
considered. All aspects of ground support and excavation stability will require extensive
additional evaluation and detailed designs beyond the scope of this evaluation.

Appendix D of Reference 10.6, which is attached to this report as Appendix A, estimates

potential flux rates through the flow barrier wall when the maximum gradient is established.
Assuming that the in-situ hydraulic conductivity will achieve 1 x 10-6 cm/s, flux across the wall
is estimated at approximately 8 gpm. If the design criterion of 1 x 10-7 cm/s is achieved, the
corresponding flux rate is about 1 gpm. If the barrier wall is discontinuous over 1 percent of its
vertical surface area due to gaps or windows, excess inflows approaching 5,000 gpm might
occur. This finding underscores the need for adequate quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) during construction. Furthermore, it indicates that if the wall is discontinuous, the
presence of discontinuities should be obvious shortly after the initiation of interior dewatering as
the excavation proceeds downward.

Operation of the barrier wall and interior dewatering system should include a piezometric
monitoring program to compare expected groundwater withdrawals and drawdown rates with
those calculated in advance. This program should include continuous monitoring of the existing
and proposed monitoring wells or piezometers at select locations. Data logging pressure
transducers with remote telemetry are recommended for this purpose so that head levels may be
continuously monitored during initial drawdown and later during the extended phase of
construction activity. If any windows or gaps in the flow barrier are indicated by the piezometric
monitoring program, then pressure grouting or other remedial measures will be necessary to
correct these deficiencies. Additional groundwater monitoring wells may be warranted in the
immediate vicinity of significant repairs to the flow barrier wall.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 19 of 45

6.8.3 Conceptual Dewatering System Design With a Flow Barrier

When determining the spacing between wells within the flow barrier for the ESWEMS pond,
they can be spaced at greater distances than without a barrier, since the flow barrier will
effectively prevent inflows.

Considering the use of the flow barrier along the preliminary alignment, dewatering wells may
be located as shown on Attachment H. A total of approximately 14 dewatering wells appear
appropriate when the flow barrier is utilized. Given the number of wells required and the
potential flows (steady state total in flow of 350 gpm, for the three excavations evaluated) that
such a system might develop, individual pumps can be sized for a maximum flow rate of
150 gpm each.

The model of this dewatering strategy suggests that interior dewatering might require a steady-
state flow on the order of 230 gpm at the ESWEMS pond excavation; however, the actual flow
may be less as discussed in paragraph 6.7.3.

Appendix D of Reference 10.6 (which is attached to this report as Appendix A), determined the
volume of groundwater contained in the saturated pore space of the soils within the ESWEMS
flow barrier to be approximately 166 acre-feet. Approximately 85 days are required to remove
this stored water (not considering inflow from upward flow through the soil rock interface or
through the barrier wall), at a flow rate of 600 gpm (Reference 10.6). During the initial
dewatering, the inflow through the rock interface and flow barrier can be estimated as one half
the steady state flow rate. Thus if 85 days are scheduled to drain the saturated soils within the
ESWEMS flow barrier, the average flow rate during initial dewatering is approximately 715
gpm (600 gpm + (0.5 x 230 gpm) = 715 gpm [1.6 cfs]).

A second stage of water table depression to the shale surface or near the shale surface may
require the use of vacuum well points positioned as shown on Attachment H. Each of the
headers shown will draw water from well points that are typically 2-in. diameter that may be
drilled, driven, or jetted in if conditions allow. Each header will need to be connected to its own
vacuum pump. Individual vacuum pumps will need to be sized based on conditions encountered
and the length of each header.

Final stages of the dewatering conceptual design include the excavation of trench drains and
sumps into the exposed bedrock surface in front of the toe of the slope at the base of the
ESWEMS excavation. Such trenches might be excavated 3 to 5 feet wide, and 2 to 3 feet deep,
and sloped to collection sumps for ejection from the excavation. Groundwater flow from the
bedrock is expected to vary over a wide range, and additional trenches or sumps might be needed
at locations to be determined. Three such trenches were incorporated into the digital flow model
at the ESWEMS pond as shown on Attachment H.

Groundwater observations at the NI and cooling towers excavations suggest that little saturated
overburden is present in either area. It is therefore expected that groundwater inflows may be
controlled using trench drains cut into the bedrock at the locations and elevations suggested on
Attachments H (NI) and G (cooling towers). The trench drains can be sloped to sumps where the
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 20 of 45

water can be pumped to the TGWSP or other disposal points, if gravity drainage to the ponds
cannot be established.

Operation of this conceptual dewatering system should be less sensitive to brief interruptions in
electrical power because the flow barrier will retard inflows to the excavation. However,
provisions for convenient maintenance should still be included for all system elements as needed
for a project duration approaching 3 years.

6.9 Disposal of Groundwater

As stated in Section 6.7.3 above, the steady state discharge from a dewatering system without the
use of a seepage cutoff wall would be approximately 1040 gpm (approximately 1.5 million
gallons per day [mgd]). Considering the use of a seepage cutoff wall around the ESWEMS
excavation, the discharge will be reduced to an estimated flow of 350 gpm (0.5 mgd). For this
report, an average value of 350 gpm (0.5 mgd) will be considered as the average daily quantity
of water that will be discharged with the installation of a competent seepage cutoff wall and after
steady state conditions are established.

There are several options for the disposal of the groundwater pumped from the excavations. PPL
may or may not choose to implement any one or more of these options. They include:

* Discharge into the Susquehanna River.

* Temporary storage/sedimentation in the temporary groundwater storage pond (TGWSP)

or other discharge ponds, with or without infiltration into the overburden prior to release.

" Injection / infiltration into the overburden (away from the excavation) to replenish the
drawdown in groundwater levels.

* Treatment for human consumption.

* Used for various construction activities, such as:

o Dust control;

o Water for compaction control of fill and backfill; and

o Concrete mixing.

The use of injection wells to replenish the drawdown in the groundwater level in the overburden
soils can be considered, but these wells have a tendency to clog due to sedimentation or fowling
and may require extensive maintenance. Therefore, the potential use of injection wells to
maintain the groundwater levels in the nearby wetlands is not feasible or recommended.

Water obtained from the dewatering activities will not be used for human consumption. A
potable water line would be constructed from a local municipality (Reference 10.7, Section
A4.2.1.3).
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 21 of 45

There is the possibility that the amount of water extracted during dewatering will trigger the
need for a Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) Groundwater Withdrawal Permit.
Also, Pennsylvania DEP Regulation § 110.201 has a requirement: "The following persons shall
register the information specified in § 110.203 (relating to content of registration) with the
Department: (3) Each person whose total withdrawal from a point of withdrawal, or from
multiple points of withdrawal operated as a system either concurrently or sequentially, within a
watershed exceeds an average rate of 10,000 gallons per day in any 30 day period."

Of these disposal options, the most likely beneficial uses are for construction activities and to aid
in recharge of the overburden soils and associated wetlands in the vicinity of the ESWEMS
excavation. These likely uses are discussed in Section 6.10.

Even with the installation of the seepage cutoff around the excavation, there will be some
drawdown of the water within the wetlands south of the NI as noted in Reference 10.6. The use
of the pumped water to restore the groundwater level in this wetlands area would be beneficial.
The surface water present in the wetlands at the site is hydraulically connected to the
groundwater. Therefore, the water chemistry is very similar (Reference 10.10). The various
water quality components tested from the shallow bedrock wells also indicated similar values for
these components. Thus, the direct discharge of any groundwater pumped from the excavation
would not have any detrimental chemical effect on the water in the wetlands. However, direct
discharge would require permits, a sedimentation basin, a suitable area with erosion protection
measures, and a controlled outlet. If the discharge water is pumped directly into the temporary
groundwater storage pond (TGWSP) to be constructed on the southeast side of the NI, then the
outlet facilities of the pond would provide the necessary controlled outlet and erosion protection.
Since the in situ soils are granular and permeable, the water pumped from the excavation would
naturally infiltrate through the bottom of the pond and replenish the wetlands naturally.
Additionally, waters discharged from the TGWSP into Walker Run (if allowed) will aid in the
recharge of the wetlands since Walker Run has a granular bottom. It is important to construct
this TGWSP as one of the first construction activities for this project.

It was stated in Reference 10.7, Section A4.2.1.3, that the water obtained from the dewatering
activities would not be used for human consumption and is no longer a consideration for water
reuse. A potable water line would be constructed from a local municipality.

The anticipated maximum flow which may be discharged to the Susquehanna River during
dewatering activities (with proper permitting) could be considered to be the average value of
steady state discharge from the dewatering systems for all areas of 0.5 mgd (350 gpm). This
flow is well within the design parameters for the 24 inch CWWRP blowdown discharge drain (if
used) which will have a flow capacity of 9356 gpm (Reference 10.14, Section 4.1).
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 22 of 45

6.10 Beneficial Water Reuse

The most beneficial uses of the groundwater pumped from the excavations would be reuse as a
source of non-potable water for construction use and replenishment of the wetlands.

Construction uses for non-potable water include dust control for the construction roads and water
to be used for moisture conditioning of fill during placement and compaction. Approximately
40,000 gallons of water per day will be required for dust control (Reference 10.7, Table 4.2-1,
Note d).

Approximately 1.3 million cubic yards (cy) of granular and cohesive backfill will be placed from
the top of competent rock to the bottom of foundations or plant grade, where applicable
(Reference 10.4, Table 3). This fill volume does not include fill placed around the site for
general site grading operations or the concrete fill beneath select safety related structures.
Estimating an addition of 2 percent (approximately 2.5 pounds of water per cubic foot of
material) moisture to material for soil placement and compaction, a total of 10.5 million gallons
will be required (1.3x106 cy x 27 cf/cy x 2.5 lbs/cf/ 8.34 lbs/gal = 10.5x10 6 gallons).
Considering 180 days per year for 3 years of work, the daily usage would be approximately
19,000 gallons per day [10.5x10 6/(180 x 3) = 19,000].

Concrete mixing requires the use of potable water to preclude the addition of impurities to the
concrete that may result in improper strength in the concrete. Based on the groundwater quality
data available from on-site pumping tests (Reference 10.10, Table 2.3-41), the water to be
extracted during dewatering appears to be acceptable for concrete mix water; however, test
batches should be performed per ASTM C 1602 (Reference 10.11) when non-potable water is
used. It is estimated that 2,220,000 gallons of water will be required per year to mix and cure
concrete (Reference 10.7, Table 4.2-1). Considering concrete placement 250 days per year, this
equates to 8,900 gallons per day (2,220,000 / 250 = 8,900).

The anticipated daily average beneficial water use in construction activities is approximately
68,000 (40,000 [dust control] + 19,000 [soil compaction] + 8,900 [concrete mixing and curing] =
67,900 say 68,000 gallons per day), which is substantially less than the anticipated average daily
flow of 500,000 gallons per day anticipated from the dewatering systems. The remaining
432,000 gallons per day could, with proper evaluation and permits, be used to recharge the
wetlands near the ESWEMS excavation.

The surface water present in the wetlands at the site is hydraulically connected to the
groundwater. Therefore, the water chemistry is very similar (Reference 10.10). The various
water quality components tested from the shallow bedrock wells also indicated similar values for
these components. Thus, the direct discharge of any groundwater pumped from the excavation
would not have any detrimental chemical effect on the water in the wetlands. However, direct
discharge would require permits, a sedimentation basin, a suitable area with erosion protection
measures, and a controlled outlet.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 23 of 45

With proper design and construction, the TGWSP (1.5 acre pond - Reference 10.8) could act as a
natural recharge facility to the wetlands near the ESWEMS excavation. Since the steady state
dewatering system flow rate (with a flow barrier) minus the anticipated average beneficial use
for construction is approximately 432,000 gallons per day, approximately 1.3 acre-feet/day is
available for recharge to the wetlands (432,000 gallons/day / 7.48 gallons/cf/ 43,560 sf/acre =
1.3 acre-feet/day). This indicates that if exfiltration rates through the pond floor are established
and maintained in excess of 10.4 inches/day (1.3 acre feet/day x 12 inches/foot / 1.5 acres = 10.4
inches/day), under average conditions the dewatering system effluent would not discharge into
the wetlands via the discharge structure. If the exfiltration rate is less than 10.4 inches/day, the
excess effluent from the dewatering systems, with proper permits, could be released into the
adjacent wetlands via the discharge structure.

The final design of the TGWSP should consider both the steady state flow from all three
excavations as well as peak flows from the ESWEMS dewatering system startup combined with
the flows from the other excavations to the extent they will have concurrent flows based on the
construction sequencing. It is important to construct this TGWSP as one of the first construction
activities for this project.

In summary, the most prudent approach for the disposal of the water pumped from the
excavation would be to pump it directly into the TGWSP located southeast of the NI. This pond
could act as a natural recharge facility to the wetlands near the ESWEMS excavation. Water for
beneficial use in construction (dust control, fill conditioning and concrete mixing and curing)
could be extracted from the TGWSP. A pumping facility could easily be established adjacent to
this detention'pond for ease of extraction. No additional storage facilities (tanks) would need to
be constructed. However, the use of a storage tank for water, if it was to be used for concrete
mixing, may be prudent for ease of testing. The excess water from the TGWSP could then flow
through the controlled outlet structure and into the wetlands and Walker Run.

6.11 Environmental Effects

Infiltration may be required for the disposal of water produced from dewatering activities.
However, if disposal into ponds is allowed, some of the discharge from the construction
dewatering system will potentially directly enter the surrounding environment through overflow
from these detention ponds (sedimentation basins).

As such, prior to land disturbance and construction, an NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit
(PAG-2) will be required. The major components of the permit include:

" Notice of Intent (NOI);

* Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Control Plan;

" Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Search;

" Post Construction Stormwater Management (PCSM) Plan;

* Thermal Impact Analysis; and

UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 24 of 45

0 Antidegradation Analysis.

Walker Run is classified as a wild trout stream by the PA Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC).
The wetlands associated with such a stream are considered "exceptional value" by the PA
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). It may not be possible to obtain a "General
NPDES Permit". An Individual NPDES Permit will be required, as referenced in 25
Pennsylvania. Code Chapter 92. Coordination with the Luzerne Conservation District would
most likely be required. Water sampling and testing will most likely be required as part of this
permit to ensure that the water contains no material detrimental to the environment (Reference
10.12).

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection does not specify a limit on the flow
rate of the discharge. However, they do specify that "Best Management Practices (BMPs) be
implemented to maximize infiltration technologies, eliminate (where possible) or minimize point
source discharges to surface waters, preserve the integrity of stream channels, and protect the
physical, biological and chemical qualities of the receiving surface water." Therefore, high
discharge rates that would not preserve the integrity of the stream channel or the physical
qualities of the receiving surface water may be restricted. This permit will also require the use of
proper erosion control measures and other BMP, such as hay bales and silt fences for any
discharges to the surface bodies of water.

Since the groundwater in the overburden aquifer and the shallow bedrock have water quality
parameters similar to the existing surficial water in the wetlands and Walker Run, no detrimental
effects are anticipated from disposing the pumped water into the wetlands and Walker Run or
reusing it for dust control or water content control during compaction operations.

6.11.1 Possible Impacts of Dewatering Without Flow Barrier

The extent and magnitude of groundwater drawdown projected for dewatering without a flow
barrier is shown on Attachment D (Reference 10.6, Figure 15). Review of this figure indicates
deep drawdown (25 feet or more) at distances of up to approximately 800 feet south and east of
the ESWEMS pond. The extent and magnitude of groundwater drawdown projected from
dewatering using the flow barrier is shown on Attachment E (Reference 10.6, Figure 15), which
indicates drawdowns of 5 feet extend no further than approximately 400 feet west of the
ESWEMS pond. However, groundwater recharge from the groundwater storage pond (if
unlined) will reduce both the magnitude and aerial extent of drawdown.

The majority of residents near the site obtain water from domestic wells. Several industries
including the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) obtain water from wells. There are six
domestic use wells and one commercial use well within one-half to three-quarters of a mile from
the site. Given the drawdown projected to occur during dewatering without a flow barrier, some
potential exists for negative impact on nearby domestic and industrial water supply wells.

In the case where the flow barrier is utilized, little or no impact to nearby wells is anticipated.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 25 of 45

Numerous and extensive wetlands are located both on the BBNPP site and in adjoining areas,
particularly to the west, south, and east. Such features are often expressions of the natural water
table at or near the surface, and are therefore quite sensitive to impact via water table depression.
If dewatering is implemented without the flow barrier, substantial adverse impact is expected on
the levels of surface water and groundwater in the wetland south of the ESWEMS pond. A very
small area to the northwest of the ESWEMS pond is shown with a drawdown of 5 feet,
suggesting a minor potential for adverse impact to the wetland at that location. As stated in
Section 6.7.3, the presence of the flow barrier may counteract this drawdown due to a slight
mounding effect. A very small area of drawdown of 5 feet is also shown immediately west of
the proposed power block excavation. This very small area of drawdown does not appear to
extend to the wetland located west of the power block.
If dewatering is implemented utilizing flow barrier(s) around the ESWEMS and any other areas
where the overburden soils are saturated, the potential for adverse impact on the wetland is
significantly reduced. The actual impact is likely to be less than indicated by the model
(Attachment E) because the flow barrier will be keyed several feet into bedrock. The digital
model can only simulate the extension of the flow barrier to the top of the bedrock. Potential
drawdown to the northwest of the ESWEMS pond appears to be nearly eliminated. Potential
drawdown immediately west of the power block excavation remains unchanged since no flow
barrier is used for the power block and is not expected to affect the wetland to the west.

6.11.2 Mitigation of Potential Impact

Potential impacts due to water table drawdown may be mitigated by any method that reduces or
eliminates drawdown in areas beyond the excavation. Aquifer recharge is one potential method
to reduce drawdown in areas where drawdown of the groundwater is not desired. This might be
implemented using injection wells or by allowing exfiltration from the TGWSP if constructed
without a lining. It will be difficult; however, to control extensive drawdown using these means
alone if dewatering is undertaken without the flow barrier around the ESWEMS pond.

Given the physical constraints posed by the location of the site and adjoining wetlands, a
vertically-oriented flow barrier, such as a S-B slurry wall, or diaphragm wall appears to be a
viable and effective means to mitigate potential impacts due to projected water table drawdown.
Drawdown outside the flow barrier extends mostly west and south of the ESWEMS pond as
shown on Attachment E.

If the overburden soils in the northwestern quadrant of the cooling towers excavation extend
below the groundwater level an additional flow barrier wall should be implemented to reduce the
adverse impacts of the planned excavation.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 26 of 45

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions are based on this evaluation of the conceptual dewatering system for
the construction of the BBNPP:

a. An active dewatering system will be required to lower the groundwater for the excavation to
allow for construction of the foundations for the ESWEMS structures to be performed under
dry conditions. The dewatering system will consist of deep wells penetrating the overburden
soils down to the top of the bedrock and collector trenches or well points near the interface of
the soil overburden and weathered rock.

b. A passive dewatering system (collection trenches) will be required to excavate the area
where the NI and two cooling towers are to be located. Extensive excavation of both
overburden soils and bedrock will be required. Based on the available data, trenches and
ditches at the soil/rock interface and at select locations in the rock excavations can be
designed to collect and divert any groundwater from the NI and cooling towers excavations.

c. The radius of influence of dewatering wells for the ESWEMS excavation would extend
significant distances to the south and east from the site. Anticipated drawdown of 25 feet
being experienced approximately 400 feet from the wells if a flow barrier is not utilized.
This would result in a significant impact on the nearby wetlands. Some of the nearby
wetlands could become fully dewatered.

d. The use of a flow barrier, such as a soil-bentonite slurry wall, around the ESWEMS
excavation would greatly reduce the drawdown effect of the dewatering wells since the wells
would be located within the limits of the flow barrier. Considering a groundwater barrier
wall around the ESWEMS pond and pump house, the model forecasts drawdowns will be
much less than the simulation without the flow barrier. Drawdown greater than 5 feet is
focused immediately outside (west and southwest) the flow barrier. These impacts should be
characterized in the Environmental Assessment and the Permanent and Temporary Wetland
Impact Report.

e. There is the potential for significant water seepage through the bedrock in the bottom of the
NI, cooling towers and ESWEMS excavations. The numeric groundwater model calculated
the flow collected from the rock portion of the three excavations to be approximately 0.62 cfs
(280 gpm). However, this calculated flow rate is based on the mean value of hydraulic
conductivity from pump tests, which were considered conservative and resulted in higher
forecast flow rates than if the values for hydraulic conductivity had been chosen. Trenches
and ditches will most likely be required in the bottom of the excavation to direct this upward
flow through the rock away from the center of the excavation to the perimeter ditches.
Sumps and pumps will be utilized to remove this water from the excavation.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 27 of 45

f. With a competent flow barrier around the ESWEMS excavation and no barrier around the NI
and cooling towers excavations, inflow into the three excavations considered (through the
flow barrier and up through the bedrock) is anticipated to be 0.78 cfs (350 gpm). The initial
flow rate, to remove the groundwater from within the flow barrier, will be contingent upon
the time period allowed. If 85 days are scheduled to remove the water from within the flow
barrier of the ESWEMS (not considering initial flow from NI and cooling towers
excavations), an average flow rate of approximately 1.6 cfs (715 gpm) would be required
from within the ESWEMS barrier wall.

g. Direct discharge of the groundwater into Walker Run will most likely not be permitted. The
use of a detention/sedimentation pond and the use of Best Management Practices to reduce
the total solids in the runoff will be required. Disposal of water produced from dewatering
activities will most likely be accomplished by allowing infiltration from the TGWSP and
possibly other ponds provided bottom liners are not installed to prevent infiltration. During
periods of excessive flows from the excavations due to precipitation or at the start of
pumping, the excess water will likely be allowed to settle and thermally stabilize before
discharge directly into the Susquehanna River via the Combined Waste Water Retention
Pond blowdown pipeline if the pipeline has been installed. If disposal in surface water or
wetlands is allowed, an NPDES permit will be required at a minimum."

h. There is the possibility that the amount of water extracted during dewatering will trigger the
need for a Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) Groundwater Withdrawal Permit.
Also, Pennsylvania DEP Regulation § 110.201 defines the filing requirements.

i. The water removed from the excavation should be suitable for reuse as dust control, soil
compaction, and concrete mixing and curing based on the available water quality
information. Some testing of the water will be required if it is to be used for concrete
mixing.

j. The ESWEMS pipeline will be constructed above the groundwater level, thus a dewatering
system is not required.

k. The Temporary Groundwater Storage Pond will most likely be constructed above the
groundwater level, thus a dewatering system will not be required.

1. The Combined Waste Water Storage Pond will most likely be constructed above the
groundwater level, thus a dewatering system will not be required. Trenches to divert the
groundwater in the northwest corner where rock is present may be needed.

The following recommendations for a dewatering system are based on this evaluation of the
conceptual dewatering system for the construction of the BBNPP:

a. A flow barrier, such as a soil-bentonite slurry wall should be installed around the ESWEMS
excavation, which includes the pump house. One continuous wall is recommended for the
portions of the excavation where water bearing overburden (sand and gravel) will be
encountered. The flow barrier would be installed by keying it into the underlying bedrock.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 28 of 45

The minimum design permeability of the flow barrier is 1 x 10-7 cm/s with an approximate
thickness of three feet.

b. With a flow barrier around the ESWEMS excavation, a total of 14 dewatering wells, as
shown on Attachment H, will be required to create and maintain a dry condition at the
bottom of the excavation. These wells should have a capacity of up to 150 gpm. If a build up
of groundwater occurs on the north side of the ESWEMS excavation or extreme levels of
seepage are encountered, additional pumping wells can be integrated into the pumping
system. To control seepage at the interface of the soil and rock, a series of well points is also
shown on Attachment H.

c. Sufficient ditches and trenches should be installed at the soil/rock interface in the NI and
cooling towers excavations to preclude groundwater from flowing into the excavations.
Based on the available data, flow barriers are not required for the NI and cooling towers
excavations.

d. Trenches will be required in the underlying bedrock in the bottom of the NI, cooling towers
and ESWEMS excavations to direct any up flow of groundwater through the rock to the
perimeter ditches where it can be removed through the use of sumps and pumps.

e. The Temporary Groundwater Storage Pond, to be located south east of the NI should be
constructed prior to any dewatering activity. This pond can be utilized as the detention and
release point for the discharge from the dewatering systems established for the ESWEMS, NI
and cooling towers.

f. The Combined Waste Water Retention Pond, the Temporary Sediment Basins and possibly
the Essential Service Water Emergency Makeup System Pond could be used as depositories
for dewatering outflow, if they are constructed prior to the completion of all on site
dewatering activities.

g. The existing monitoring wells should be utilized to monitor the effectiveness of the
temporary construction dewatering program. Additional monitoring wells should also be
installed to provide adequate monitoring on all four sides of each excavation. The
monitoring program should include recording water levels on both the inside and outside of
the flow barrier at the ESWEMS excavation.

h. If the monitoring wells indicate an open window within the flow barrier, remedial measures,
such as pressure grouting, will be required to mitigate this condition.

i. Prior to implementation of dewatering using the conceptual designs provided with this
evaluation, the subsurface conditions along the alignment of the proposed flow barrier and
along the horizontal limits of the planned excavations should be better defined using soil
borings advanced several feet into the underlying competent bedrock. Such borings should
be advanced on 100 foot centers (or less) along the flow barrier alignment for the ESWEMS
excavation and at 200 foot centers (or less) along the perimeter of the excavations for the NI
and cooling towers, and if significant variations in bedrock elevation or groundwater
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 29 of 45

conditions are encountered, additional borings or wells should be advanced to assess

conditions in such areas.

j. Groundwater conditions at the northwest corner of the cooling towers excavation should be
defined by advancing additional borings and by installing monitoring groundwater
monitoring wells in the overburden and upper bedrock. The required extent of excavation
for the cooling towers should also be reevaluated once the additional data is available.

k. The groundwater model was constructed using the available data. Since the exploratory
testing to date is based on low flow pump and packer tests along with slug tests, this testing
may not have stressed the aquifer sufficiently to allow a complete understanding of the flow
regime in the fractured rock. To further evaluate the potential fractured flow regime and the
potential aerial extent of dewatering in the fractured rock, a long-term high-flow-rate pump
test program can be implemented.

1. Conceptual evaluations presented herein should be reviewed to consider additional data and
information as it becomes available at the end of the 12-month monitoring period and the
conceptual designs further refined and developed to provide final designs suitable for use in
construction.

8. LIMITATIONS
This conceptual construction dewatering evaluation was performed consistent with the principles
of hydrogeology in accordance with the prevailing standards for professionals practicing under
similar circumstances in the same geographical area. This warranty is in lieu of all other
warranties either expressed or implied.

This evaluation is conceptual in nature, and the conceptual evaluations presented herein will
require confirmation and refinement prior to development of final designs for the purposes stated
herein. The input data and information considered during this evaluation were developed
primarily by others. The soil and groundwater conditions in areas between soil borings and
wells are interpolated or extrapolated, and the actual soil and groundwater conditions may differ
from those considered in this report.

The following specific technical qualifications and limitations should be considered by the users
of this report:

a. This evaluation was prepared using subsurface characterization data that are limited in
several respects. Relatively few exploratory borings were drilled in the area of the cooling
towers and ESWEMS pond. Actual subsurface conditions, including the depth to bedrock,
are therefore uncertain in these areas and may differ significantly from the interpolations and
extrapolations used to develop the excavation plans and groundwater potentiometric surface
maps (prepared by others), which were used in this evaluation.
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 30 of 45

b. Groundwater mass budgets, flow rates, projected drawdowns, and projected dewatering
system yields are estimated based on digital flow models and manual calculations using
available hydraulic conductivity and specific yield data. The actual groundwater flow
system may therefore differ from the conceptual models used in the digital and manual
calculations.

c. The dewatering operations, without a flow barrier and to a lesser extent with a flow barrier,
evaluated herein will locally stress the groundwater flow system. The aquifers' actual
response to such stress (e.g., actual dewatering system flow rates, basin drawdown, and
changes in the mass flow budgets) has not been verified at high rates of test pumping and
may therefore vary significantly from the estimates projected herein.

9. ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES

This report includes the following Attachments and Appendices.
Attachment A - Reduced Scale SUPP, Reference 10.1 (1 Page)
Attachment B - Construction Excavation Plan, Reference 10.6 - Figure 3, which is based
on Reference 10.4 (4 Pages)
Attachment C - Groundwater Monitoring Wells (Location Plan), Reference 10.3 - Figure 1
(1 Page)
Attachment D - Drawdown in Overburden Aquifer Without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS,
Reference 10.6 - Figure 15 (1 Page)
Attachment E - Drawdown in Overburden Aquifer With Flow Barrier at ESWEMS,
Reference 10.6 - Figure 16 (1 Page)
Attachment F - Conceptual Dewatering Strategy Power Block and ESWEMS Without
Flow Barrier, Reference 10.6 - Figure 20 (1 Page)
Attachment G - Conceptual Dewatering Strategy Cooling Towers, Reference 10.6 - Figure
21 (1 Page)
Attachment H - Conceptual Dewatering Strategy Power Block and ESWEMS With Flow
Barrier, Reference 10.6 - Figure 22 (1 Page)
Attachment I - Typical Dewatering Well Schematic, Reference 10.6 - Figure 23 (1 Page)
Attachment J - Typical Monitoring Well (Piezometer) Schematic, Reference 10.6 - Figure
24 (1 Page)
Appendix A - Weaver Boos Consultants North Central, LLC, "Evaluation of Temporary
Construction Dewatering Strategies Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power
Plant Berwick, Pennsylvania", Dated October 20, 2010, on 3 CDs.
CD-1 Evaluation of Temporary Construction Dewatering Strategies
CD-2 Visual MODFLOW Project Files (Disc 1 of 2)
CD-3 Visual MODFLOW Project Files (Disc 2 of 2)
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 31 of 45

10. REFERENCES
10.1 Sargent & Lundy LLC drawing SK-12198-400-015, Rev. 4, "Reduced Scale SUPP".

10.2 Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc. 2010. Response to RFI SL-BBNPP-132, Approved for
Use by UniStar August 12, 2010 (Final Boring Logs).

10.3 Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Response to RFI SL-BBNPP-1 11, Approved for Use by
UniStar August 31, 2010 (3-Month Groundwater Monitoring data Report).

10.4 Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Response to RFI SL-BBNPP-149, Approved for Use by
UniStar September 13, 2010 (Excavation Plans).

10.5 BBNPP, Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.4.12 - Groundwater, Rev. 2.

10.6 Weaver Boos Consultants North Central, LLC, "Evaluation of Temporary Construction
Dewatering Strategies Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Berwick,
Pennsylvania", Dated October 20, 2010.

10.7 Areva, Response to RFI SL-BER-069, Approved for Use by UniStar August 19, 2008
(Water Use).

10.8 Sargent & Lundy LLC drawings:

" SK-12198-400-015, Sheet 1, Rev. 5, "Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan,

Sheet 1".

" SK-12198-400-015, Sheet 2, Rev. 5, "Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan,

Sheet 2".

" SK-12198-400-015, Sheet 5, Rev. 5, "Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan,

Sheet 5".

" SK-12198-400-015, Sheet 6, Rev. 5, "Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan,

Sheet 6".

10.9 BBNPP, Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.5.4 - Stability of Subsurface Materials
and Foundations, Rev. 2.

10.10 BBNPP, Environmental Report, Section 2.3 - Water, Rev. 2.

10.11 ASTM International C 1602 - 06, "Standard Specification for Mixing Water Used in the
Production of Hydraulic Cement Concrete".

10.12 Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Response to RFI SL-BER-070, Approved for Use by
UniStar September 9, 2008 (Water Discharge).
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 32 of 45

10.13 Black and Veatch, 2010. Response to RFI SL-BBNPP-143, Approved for Use by
UniStar July 27, 2010 (ESWEMS Pipeline).

10.14 Sargent & Lundy, LLC, Report No. SL-0009498, "Conceptual Design of the Circulating
Water System, Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, UniStar Nuclear Energy", Dated
October 28, 2010, Revision 6.

10.15 Sargent & Lundy, LLC, Report No. SL-0009446,"Conceptual Design of Stormwater
Management, Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, UniStar Nuclear Energy", Dated July 28,
2010, Revision 5.

10.16 Sargent & Lundy LLC drawing SK-12198-400-01512198-400-CWS-003, Rev. 0,

"Conceptual Combined Waste Water Retention Pond General Arrangement".
 CA.

CA
CC.

- . -C .. . . . I. C

C/iCC
P ~ 44/

\ \ C

J
C N

to
/ 7Z -

CJ \
'I f

\ Np.

CX

C MODIFIEDFROM
CC CCWEAVER BOOS CONSULTAN7S, LLC
FIGURE 3
ZCA
PAGE 92 OF 84
6- 6-----------

J/

MOOIFIED FROM
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS, LLC ' z
FIGURE 3

PAGE 83 OF 84
 C.S,

WEAVER
BOOSC U N -

C -i

MO I•E F gROM
FIGURE
3
WEAVER ROOS CONSUILTANTSq, LLC
o
 Z) Dlow• (ft)(brow o- .p]

00 140O•00V ,4Q•,tOO 2,0*DZq

FIGURE 15
Dmwdown in Overburden Aquifer Without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Safety Related
4(*5 Meotan Beeler Court Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bevnd.Indiana 46628
 ww•
D ou, (ft (brownon map)

a.2

FIGURE 16
Drawdown in Overburden Aquifer With Flow Barrier at ESWEMS

WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Salfey Related
4085 Meghan Beeler Court Berwick. Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 POND
ION

TION HFADOR

LIFOWEP OLO0K
EXUAVA-ION
,1
/

"CLLECTI3\ F•ADEN (h'rFP) -/

I CONCEPTUAL DEWATERING STRATEG)

POWERBLOCKAND ESWEMSWITHCUT
FLOWBARRIER
BELLBENDNUCLEAR POWERPLAiNT

'&h~ ~, c ,oo(..v6ouccc~

A-0h WnorT'"m RKr=n 4.c

6 :
 C) ;C -Ak'>

7 .....-- Y I

U..

U> J~~v

'744744
lGAi.& 78~ 18~

ii

_m
CONCEPTUAL DEWATERING STRATEGY
COOLINGTOWERS
/
E.LLSENDNUCLEARPOWERPLANT
UNISTARNUCLEAR
Weaver PENNSYLVANIA
Boos Consultants

-py -.TE F-0 OCVRU 5 - &

~ ~s~a ~,.
. FIGURE 21

ztr
 II,

FSWFMS PON
L XCAVATiON

/'
/ ;COL L.' ' TION HEA jEN
/ (TY'P)

p /
""t
VA U Fl II- A
0 ,I-,
F RW

UX

;XCAVA TN .¥ --- I
N N 0
N ~

CONCEPTUAL DEWATERINGSTRATEGY
POWERBLOCKAND ESWEMS
WITHFLOWBARRIER
BELLBENDNUCLEAR POWERPLANT
UNISTARNUCLEAR
~~(50l~~t0(55'
PENNSYLVANIA
.tIA'4 51(t#(
Weaver Boos Consultants
o~e0 ,OltO (551 ftVW.tt5 *ft0
.. ossou - .ao o..o * ~
(~001
- - 915500 4%ObSV.IIh 915*0*00054 FI252-1O01O
R
w 9.- 6i,•i
ZZ-F. m E3amm
1 FIGURE22
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bred Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design Page 44 of 45

ATTACHMENT I

TYPICAL DEWATERING WELL

VALVE
1-1/2" PIEZOMETER
HEADER

SAND & GRAVEL-'--Z

SILICA GRAVELPACK #1630

030 0 034" WATERTABLE
050 0036

.......
. ~~~.
. ..... ........
. .. .

::'..:]- .-..-"..- •:.-:.:.

..
.- -. -v..

S2Ps25SLT.
... 005...

•.S
••.:,::•:•"
: .•
- •-?
SAD& . .....
:• ...:- : i
GRAVEL..

(-HIG 2FLSLOT
_.I..-. ._._._........
_AD&GRAVEL

.':-.'::,'::.SAND &GRZAVEL'..•-:::'.:.' SUMM RILE PUMP

Tý-0
BV SfIALE--*

', Z•ZZZZZ•ZZ ZZZ•ZZZZ ZZ/Z Z/ /ZzzZ

NXNNNXN 1• K•NNNNNNNNNNNN•

SHL, "; :s'• xNýN •N N SHALE NNNNN

ZZZ• ~ ~ ~ T 36 N# ./ * ,/ /,,Z

×××
×z z/
xxz×zz xz xxz zxy•//•aff~ •zz ×z
xlx zz • z • z×
NN
N N
NN N NNNK
1, N X X • K • % NN '

NOTES: TYPICAL
B) SUBMERSIBLE PUMP RATED AT M'WBOOMMT&Y IM 1 150 a-, DEWATERING WELL SCHEMATIC
2) 1" DI1, SAMPLING PORTAT EA0CHPEPE
• e E BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
UNISTAR NUCLEAR
PENNSYLVANIA

~ Vn
,oar~nnn~FIGURE 23
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rav. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewateeing Design Page 45 of 45

ATTACHMENT J

TYPICAL 2-INCH MONITORING WELL SCHEMATIC

/ PROTECTIVE COVER

I,
CONCRETE PAD

w,

ANNULARBACKFILL
BENTONITEOR
CEMENT BENTONITE

BENTONITEPLUG

. 1WELLSCREEN
SAND FILTER

NOT TO SCALE

TYPICAL MONITORING WELL

(PIEZOMETER) SCHEMATIC
BELLBENDNUCLEAR POWERPLANT
UNISTARNUCLEAR
. ..... . .
PENNSYLVANIA ...

MOMS
Bfllt tIz•ILC

ienti
ATLoWN1 0tOg 1tt
Ot onnonitOS~tBBtt FIGURE 24
FetnoB
UniStar Nuclear Report No: SL-009655, Rev. 2
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project No. 12198-415
Construction Dewatering Design

APPENDIX A

Weaver Boos Consultants North Central, LLC

Evaluation of Temporary Construction Dewatering Strategies
Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Berwick, Pennsylvania
Dated: October 20, 2010

(On Three CDs)

CD-1 Evaluation of Temporary Construction Dewatering Strategies

CD-2 Visual MODFLOW Project Files (Disc 1 of 2)
CD-3 Visual MODFLOW Project Files (Disc 2 of 2)

Page A-I of 1
October 20, 2010
Project No. 2524301-01-02

EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING STRATEGIES
PROPOSED BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
BERWICK, PENNSYLVANIA

NON-SAFETY RELATED

Prepared For:

Sw'gontmr fi Luridy

Sargent & Lundy, LLC

55 E. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603

Prepared By:

Weaver Boos Consultants North Central, LLC

4085 Meghan Beeher CT
South Bend, IN 46628
 EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING STRATEGIES
PROPOSED BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
BERWICK, PENNSYLVANIA

NON-SAFETY RELATED

Prepared: October 20, 2010

The above titled evaluation and report has been prepared, reviewed, and approved consistent with
Weaver Boos Consultants North Central, LLC standard operating procedures.

z_,z /trf_"

Prepared and Approved by: Steven M. Stanford, Senior Project Manager

iV
Reviewed by: Michael B. Maxwell, Senior Project Manager
 EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING STRATEGIES
PROPOSED BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

NON-SAFETY RELATED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 G en eral ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background Information and Purpose ................................................................................... 1
1.3 R eport O rganization ..................................................................................................... 3

2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Site Location and Setting ................................................................................................. 4
2 .2 Phy siograp hy ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................................ 5
2 .4 S ite Inv estigation s .................................................................................................................. 5
2.5 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ...................................................................................... 6

3.0 REVIEW OF HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS FOR EVALUATION ........................ 8

3.1 G eneral R equirem ents ................................................................................................... 8
3.2 R eview of A vailable D ata ................................................................................................. 8
3.2.1 Overburden Aquifer Material ................................................................................. 8
3.2.2 Shale B edrock ...................................................................................................... 9
3.2.3 Groundwater Water Table and Head Elevation ...................................................... 10
3.3 B edrock Surface Elevation ............................................................................................ 11

4.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF HYDROGEOLOGY ................................................... 12

4 .1 G eneral A pproach ................................................................................................................ 12
4.2 Definition of the Flow System ........................................................................................ 12
4.3 Definition of Hydrostratigraphic Units ........................................................................... 13
4 .4 W ater B u d get ....................................................................................................................... 13

5.0 FLOW MODEL IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................... 14

5.1 Objective and General Approach .................................................................................... 14
5.2 Sim plifying A ssum ptions .............................................................................................. 14

WEBAVER OO OSULCTANTS i
KAWh'm,('•nt,'•' •' 25'!-2•9•.2524ý3U0J1 (1J Rcp,`•pI,•N'in,125243• o:1-W2
Rtkd, 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING STRATEGIES
PROPOSED BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

NON-SAFETY RELATED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.3 Softw are S election ............................................................................................................... 15

5.4 Baseline Flow M odel D esign ........................................................................................... 15
5.4 .1 M odel D om ain ............................................................................................................ 15
5.4.2 Model Layers and Hydrogeologic Properties ....................................................... 15
5.5 Baseline Flow M odel Calibration .................................................................................... 16
5.6 Baseline Flow M odel R esults .......................................................................................... 17
5.7 Flow Model Simulating Dewatering with No Flow Barrier ........................................... 18
5.8 Flow Model Simulating Dewatering with a Flow Barrier ............................................... 19
5.9 D ew atering R esults .............................................................................................................. 19
5.1O M ass Flow B udgets .............................................................................................................. 20
5.10.1 B aseline Flow Model ............................................................................................. 20
5.10.2 Mass Budget for Dewatering Without a Flow Barrier ........................................... 21
5.10.3 Mass Budget for Dewatering with a Flow Barrier .................................................. 21

6.0 CONCEPTUAL EVALUATION FOR DEWATERING SYSTEMS ....................... 22

6.1 Objective and G eneral Approach .................................................................................... 22
6.2 D ew atering W ell Hydraulics .......................................................................................... 22
6.3 Conceptual Evaluation for Dewatering with No Flow Barrier .................... 23
6.3.1 Perform ance C riteria ............................................................................................. 23
6.3.2 C onceptual Evaluation ........................................................................................... 24
6.4 Conceptual Evaluation of Dewatering with Flow Barrier ............................................. 26
6.4.1 Perform ance C riteria ............................................................................................. 26
6.4.2 C onceptual D esign ................................................................................................. 26
6.4.3 Interior D ew atering ............................................................................................... 28
6.4.4 Time Domain Analysis Using Transient Digital Model ........................................ 30

7.0 EVALUATION OF OFF-SITE IMPACTS ................................................................ 31

7.1 Objective and General Approach .................................................................................... 31

WE V RB O CONSULT.TANTrS ii
K:ýý Ietig,,Clkrmtn
?i,, n25l-2599l25243 1
Re prtNa,,,tNtive1252430l-OI-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING STRATEGIES
PROPOSED BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

NON-SAFETY RELATED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.2 Extent and M agnitude of Drawdown .............................................................................. 31

7 .3 P otential Im p act ................................................................................................................... 31
7 .3 .1 W ater W ells ................................................................................................................ 31
7 .4 W etlan d s .............................................................................................................................. 32
7.5 Lakes and Other Surface W aters ................................................................................... 32
7 .6 S tru ctures ............................................................................................................................. 33
7.7 M itigation of Potential Impact ......................................................................................... 33

8.0 CONCEPTUAL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE PLAN ................................................. 34

8.1 G eneral Approach ................................................................................................................ 34
8.2 G eneral A ssum ptions ........................................................................................................... 34
8.3 Discharge to Surface W ater ............................................................................................. 34
8 .4 R e-Injection ......................................................................................................................... 35
8.5 On-Site Beneficial Re-Use ............................................................................................ 35

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM MENDATIONS ...................................................... 36

9 .1 Co n clu sio n s ......................................................................................................................... 36
9.2 R ecom m endations ............................................................................................................... 37

10.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIM ITATIONS ................................................................ 39

11.0 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................. 41

WVEAVER3 BOOSC ONS LT NT iii

K:I JgmlClient nj rmationl2500-25991252413110111Rep.rt\N •rive,2524301-0J-02 Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING STRATEGIES
PROPOSED BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

NON-SAFETY RELATED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGURES

Figure 1 - Site Location Plan

Figure 2 - Site Plan
Figure 3 - Construction Excavation Plan
Figure 4 - Groundwater Observation Well Locations
Figure 5 - Groundwater Flow Model Grid and Extent
Figure 6 - Layer 1 Conductivity Zones and River Boundaries
Figure 7 - Layer 1 Recharge Boundary Distribution (in/year)
Figure 8 - Layer 2-7 Fixed Head Boundaries
Figure 9 - Block View of Model Area
Figure 10 - Layer 1 Baseline Simulated Head
Figure 11 - Layer 2 Baseline Simulated Head
Figure 12 - Layer 1 Dewatering Plan (Without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS)
Figure 13 - Layer 2 Dewatering Plan (Without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS)
Figure 14 - Layer 3 Dewatering Plan (Without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS)
Figure 15 - Drawdown in Overburden Aquifer without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS
Figure 16 - Drawdown in Overburden Aquifer with Flow Barrier at ESWEMS
Figure 17 - Power Block Dewatered Head, Layer 3
Figure 18 - Cooling Towers Dewatered Head, Layer 2
Figure 19 - ESWEMS Pond Dewatered Head, Layer 2
Figure 20 - Conceptual Dewatering Strategy, Power Block and ESWEMS without Flow Barrier
Figure 21 - Conceptual Dewatering Strategy, Cooling Towers
Figure 22 - Conceptual Dewatering Strategy, Power Block and ESWEMS with Flow Barrier
Figure 23 - Typical Dewatering Well Schematic
Figure 24 - Typical Monitoring Well (Piezometer) Schematic

WEAV RB OOS CONSULmTANTS iv

K:;I 7 gmCl ,tnI,rti•n, 25OO-2599ý2524ý3(e010Rp•tNarative252431- -02 Rpt~doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING STRATEGIES
PROPOSED BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

NON-SAFETY RELATED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES

Table 1 - Hydraulic Properties Summary

Table 2 - Head Observations Used in Dewatering Evaluation
Table 3 - Mahantango Shale Formation Elevation
Table 4 - Summary of Baseline Flow Model Inputs
Table 5 - Steady State Groundwater Flow Model Mass Budgets

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Hydrogeological and Geological Data

Appendix B - Baseline Flow Model Calibration Results and List Output,
All Model Files on Compact Disc
Appendix C - Baseline and Dewatering Flow Model Mass Budgets
Appendix D - Calculations

K A•R1OOs COSJloTAMTS V
K.. Wbgm•AChient 25O-2599•2524•3OI 01
njI,, namrtin e Narati •2243 -0-02 Rpt,dc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Weaver Boos Consultants North Central, LLC (Weaver Boos) has performed this evaluation of
temporary construction dewatering strategies for use at the proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power
Plant (BBNPP) site located near Berwick, Pennsylvania, for UniStar. This assignment was
undertaken consistent with the scope of services described in Weaver Boos Proposal No.
P10013, dated June 2, 2010, as well as Sargent & Lundy, LLC authorizing Purchase Order No.
27290 dated June 16, 2010.

1.2 Background Information and Purpose

Weaver Boos understands that construction of the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (BBNPP)
facility will require excavation as needed for the placement of foundation systems for the power
block, cooling towers, and the Essential Service Water Emergency Makeup System (ESWEMS)
pond and pump house. These structures generally need to be founded on competent bedrock or
on structural fill extending from the structural foundation down to the competent rock.
Overlying soils in the area of the ESWEMS pond comprise a conductive overburden aquifer with
a saturated thickness of up to about 56 ft (Reference 3). Overlying soils in the area of the power
block and cooling towers are generally thinner and likely contain only minor groundwater
perched atop the weathered surface of the bedrock (Reference 4). The underlying weathered
bedrock and the competent rock also comprise aquifers, although they are much less conductive
than the overburden soil.

Temporary groundwater control will be required during excavation and construction in the three
areas of the site considered herein (powerblock, cooling towers, ESWEMS pond and ESWEMS
pump house) (Reference 5). Groundwater will be pumped from the aquifers as needed to
dewater the excavations to facilitate below grade construction activities, for the duration of
below grade construction. Weaver Boos evaluated alternative dewatering strategies to assess the
effectiveness and potential impacts of temporary construction dewatering both with and without
the use of a flow barrier in the area of the ESWEMS pond. This approach was utilized to assess
whether a slurry wall, diaphragm wall, or other type of subsurface flow barrier is needed around
the ESWEMS pond to minimize groundwater intrusion into the excavation and to mitigate
detrimental effects such as drainage of nearby wetlands. The scope of work for this assignment
includes the following general tasks:

WEAV B OSULTAN 1
K. IVbgmýc,-t
C f.m'•'i , 2500. 12541 11] R. ,fp. wI125243.1-01-02 Rp,.dc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, TN 46628
 . Review of site characterization data;

" Preparation of dewatering system conceptual strategies;

" Estimates of groundwater flow rates, drawdown rates, and radius of influence;

" Evaluation of offsite impacts of dewatering strategies;

* Preparation of groundwater effluent discharge conceptual strategy; and

* Report submittal preparation.

The overall purpose and objective of this work is to evaluate site conditions, identify applicable
dewatering strategies, evaluate their potential impacts to the nearby wetlands and neighboring
well owners, and to provide conceptual strategies for dewatering under the following two general
scenarios:

" Open excavation and water table depression with no groundwater flow barrier; and

* Dewatering and excavation using a subsurface flow barrier to reduce the quantity of
groundwater removal and to mitigate potential impacts to potentially sensitive nearby
areas.

This evaluation is based largely upon the data and information contained in the BBNPP Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Section 2.4.12 - Groundwater, Rev. 2 (Reference 9, which
presents data and information developed during 2007 and 2008, and more recent data and
information reported by Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc. (Rizzo) for monitoring well test data
obtained during May, June, and July 2010 (Reference 4). Weaver Boos also reviewed and
considered selected additional information obtained from published sources. Weaver Boos has
not visited the site or completed any physical work at the site. The following report is therefore
based upon our review of the available information and our evaluation of relevant site
characterization data developed by others.

Weaver Boos notes that we previously completed a similar evaluation of temporary construction
dewatering strategies for this site dated September 8, 2008. This current report provides our re-
evaluation of dewatering strategies after shifting the power block and cooling towers
approximately 972 ft north and 300 ft west of the previously proposed location (Reference 7).
Elevation changes and several other variations from the original site plan are also considered.
This evaluation supersedes our September 8, 2008 report, yet retains much of the relevant data
and information we previously considered.

V [ B C*ONST TANJTS 2
K.:IWbgnClient Ij00rmati]n 25-2599]2524 30 Report Narative 252430-0-02 Rpt.dc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
1.3 Report Organization

Section 1.0 introduces the facility and states the technical challenge(s) to be addressed. Section
2.0 describes the physical setting, including geology and hydrogeology of the site and
surrounding area. Section 3.0 reviews data applicable for developing the dewatering strategies
presented herein. Section 4.0 describes a conceptual model of the site developed from the
information reviewed. Section 5.0 describes the implementation and results obtained from a
three-dimensional groundwater flow model developed to evaluate applicable dewatering
strategies and to assess their potential impact to nearby sensitive areas. Section 6.0 provides
conceptual strategies for temporary dewatering systems both with and without the use of a flow
barrier at the ESWEMS pond. Section 7.0 evaluates potential off-site impacts of the dewatering
strategies. A conceptual strategy for dewatering effluent discharge is provided in Section 8.0.
Conclusions and recommendations are provided in Section 9.0. Qualifications and limitations in
connection with this work are discussed in Section 10.0. References cited are listed in Section
11.0. Selected supporting data and information are appended, as calculations supporting the
conceptual dewatering strategies presented herein.

K. OS COgSmJX.fTiMT25TS 3
K.\J~bgmlCient ln~fonation,12500-25991252413010
(Ii01 I~prlartv1540-10 Rpt.do~c 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING

2.1 Site Location and Setting

The proposed BBNPP facility site is located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania as shown on
Figure 1, and is about three miles east northeast of Berwick, a borough of Columbia County,
Pennsylvania. Land use at and around the site is primarily rural agricultural, except to the east,
where the adjoining land is occupied by the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES). The
site and immediate surrounding area is situated on an upland terrace above the North Branch of
the Susquehanna River. The surface elevation at the site ranges from approximately 650 ft above
the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) to about 800 ft (NAVD88) (Reference
9, Section 2.4.12.3).

Development plans for the site, including the power block, cooling towers, and ESWEMS pond
and pump house, are illustrated on Figure 2 (Reference 8). Construction excavation plans for
these features are illustrated on Figure 3 (Reference 5).

2.2 Physiography

The site lies in the northeastern end of the Ridge and Valley Province in northeastern
Pennsylvania. Within the Ridge and Valley Province, the site lies in the Susquehanna Lowland
Section, close to the North Branch of the Susquehanna River (Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.1.1).

The northeast-southwest trending Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province extends from West
Virginia and Maryland to northeastern Pennsylvania. This Province is characterized by layered
Paleozoic sedimentary rocks that have been faulted and folded. Elongated mountain ridges are
formed by well-cemented sandstones and conglomerates that are resistant to weathering. These
ridges are typically the remnant flanks of breached anticlines. Limestone, dolomite, and shale are
more easily weathered and eroded and, as a result, form the intervening valleys between the
ridges. The BBNPP site is located on the north limb of the Berwick Anticlinorium (Reference 9,
Section 2.4.12.1.2).

Current land use appears to be mostly agricultural, and includes fields and forested areas
(Reference 12). Several areas of wetland are located on and around the site (Reference 8).
Wetlands mapped nearest to the power block, cooling towers, and ESWEMS pond and pump
house, are illustrated on Figures 2 and 3.

o. 4
K:11Vbg.,Client l ![Rrmdtionl250-2599125241301101ýOlIReportlNarratie12524301-Ol-02
Rpt.do 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, TN 46628
2.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology

In the northeastern and northwestern comers of Pennsylvania, the bedrock is overlain by a

variable thickness of glacial till, outwash, colluvium, kame, and kame terrace deposits of
Pleistocene age. A large percentage of these surficial glacial materials were deposited during the
last major glacial advance (Wisconsinan Stage). The BBNPP site lies at the edge of where the
Wisconsinan glacier made its farthest advance. As a result, end moraine deposits have been
mapped at the site (Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.1.1).

The total thickness of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks overlying the Precambrian crystalline
basement is approximately 33,000 ft in the vicinity of the BBNPP site. The Paleozoic
sedimentary rocks form a wedge that is thickest in eastern Pennsylvania and gradually thins to
the north and west across the state. The sedimentary rocks include sandstone, siltstone, shale,
and limestone units, with lesser amounts of coal and conglomerate of Cambrian to Pennsylvanian
age (Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.1.1).

The glacial outwash and kame terrace deposits constitute some of the most permeable aquifers in
the region. The outwash deposits in the Susquehanna River Valley are especially thick and
permeable in some places. The highest groundwater levels generally occur in the winter and
spring months each year (Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.1.2.10).

Groundwater in the Ridge and Valley Province of Pennsylvania is found and produced in almost
all of the rock formations, including shales and clay shales. The area is dependent on
groundwater for domestic purposes because the major public water supplies are few and
generally separated by large distances. Groundwater in the bedrock formations is present
primarily in secondary openings, including fractures, joints, and bedding plane separations. The
size and frequency of water-bearing zones generally decreases with depth because the confining
pressure increases and the fractures close as the weight of rock above increases. Thus, the
hydraulic conductivities of the rock formations are expected to decrease with depth (Reference
9).

2.4 Site Investigations

Geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations completed by Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.

provide information to depths of 600 ft beneath the BBNPP site. Subsurface information was
collected from over 110 borings and 50 groundwater observation wells drilled across the site
during 2007, 2008 (References 9 and 10), and 2010 (Reference 4). The observation wells range

WEAVERF BOOS CO.ULANTS 5

K:Ulbg,,mClint h,,fo ,,, ,Ition,2500-2599125241301ýOI0111Repo-tlýarrtive25243-01-02 Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, FN 46628
from 1-inch to 4-inches in diameter. The locations for observation wells or clusters of
observation wells are illustrated on Figure 4 (Reference 4, Figure 1).

Of the 50 observation wells installed, 15 are screened in the glacial overburden deposits and the
rest are screened in shallow and deeper bedrock. Clustered observation wells were installed at
select locations to measure vertical gradients. A total of ten well clusters were installed around
the BBNPP site. Upward flow of groundwater from the bedrock is apparent in roughly half of
the well clusters. There are two areas of suspected upward flow from bedrock. The first area lies
along Beach Grove Road along the northern boundary of the site and extends westward to
Walker Run. The second area covers all of the wetlands south of the proposed power block and
ESWEMS pond locations (Reference 9, Figure 2.4-97).

The hydraulic properties of the BBNPP site lithologies were characterized by several means
(References 4 and 9). Observation wells were generally slug tested. Bedrock intervals in many
of the borings were packer tested. Finally, pumping tests were performed in glacial overburden
wells, shallow bedrock wells, and in deep bedrock. wells. Results for the pumping tests are
summarized in Table 1 and are considered by Weaver Boos as most representative for use in the
evaluation of dewatering strategies involving the pumping of groundwater during temporary
construction dewatering. Selected site investigation data, including groundwater and surface
water measurements, groundwater flow directions, slug tests and packer tests, developed by
Rizzo are provided as Appendix A.

2.5 Site Geology and Hydrogeology

Subsurface conditions beneath the site are characterized by Pliestocene Age sand and gravel
deposits ranging from 0 to 100 ft thick that are underlain by folded, jointed and fractured
Devonian-Age shales of the Mahantango Formation extending approximately 1,000 to 1,200 ft
beneath the site. The Mahantango Formation consists primarily of dark gray, silty to very silty
claystone. Frequent joints and intense cleavage development causes the claystone to become
splintery, chippy, and fragmented upon weathering. The Mahantango Formation has low to
moderate resistance to weathering (Reference 9, Section 2.4.1.2.4).

Borings in the vicinity of the powerblock and cooling towers generally did not encounter
groundwater in the overburden soils (Reference 3). In the vicinity of the ESWEMS pond and
pump house, groundwater levels in the glacial overburden typically range from 2 to 23 ft below
the ground surface (bgs) (derived from Reference 4, Table 5, and Reference 9, Table 2.4-44).
Seasonal fluctuations in groundwater elevations measured in the overburden aquifer are typically

•AYEZ • 1o300<M9
•oos 6
K. IWbgmhC/in lnf ..... io12500-259902524130110/110/RportNrti12524301-01-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
less than 5 ft (Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.3.1.1). Along the south side of the proposed
ESWEMS pond in the MW302-series observation wells, the depth to water is reported to be
about 2 to 8 ft bgs (Reference 9, Table 2.4-44), and flows generally westerly towards Walker Run
(Appendix A Figure 5). In the vicinity of the ESWEMS pond and pump house, the overburden
aquifer is charged by downward percolating precipitation and upflow from the deeper bedrock
aquifer (Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.3.1.4). Groundwater discharges from the surficial aquifer as
springs and seeps into Pond G8 (shown in Appendix A Figure 2), the wetlands along the
southern border of the site, and into Walker Run.

Hydrogeological investigations completed at the site indicate that the sand and gravel deposits
comprise a conductive "overburden" aquifer with a hydraulic conductivity (K) of approximately
5.9 x 10-2 cm/s (geometric mean from pump test) and a median specific yield of 0.32 (Reference
9, Section 2.4.12.3.2.1). Generally for sand and gravel deposits, the specific yield is nearly the
same as effective porosity. Therefore, the effective porosity (n) for the overburden aquifer is
considered to be 0.32. Utilizing the aforementioned hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity
values in conjunction with an average hydraulic gradient (i) of 0.0081, a groundwater velocity
(V) of 4.2 ft per day can be considered for the overburden material by Darcy's law: V= Ki/n.

The greatest anticipated thickness of conductive water-bearing overburden (approximately 56 ft)

requiring temporary dewatering during construction occurs near the southeast corner of the
proposed ESWEMS pond. With the exception of some loose sand pockets, the overburden
consists of over-consolidated, brown silty sand and sand containing gravel and large rounded
cobbles and boulders. The frequency of the boulders is reported to increase with depth
(Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.1.3.1.1).

The underlying Mahantango Shale Formation is also considered an aquifer. There are no
extensive aquitards in the vicinity of the BBNPP site. Vertical groundwater flow in the upland
areas to be developed as the power block and cooling towers is generally downward. Vertical
groundwater flow is generally upward from the bedrock aquifer to the overburden aquifer in the
area to be developed as the ESWEMS pond. As stated by Rizzo (Reference 9, Section
2.4.12.3.2.2), results from slug and packer tests do not conclusively support a hypothesis that
there is a significant difference between the hydraulic conductivity values of the shallow and
deep bedrock. However; the pumping test results (Table 1) suggest that hydraulic conductivity
is greater in the shallow bedrock than in the deeper bedrock beneath the site.

HrA'VIR
OOS CO S1wS 7
K.Il bgmiCIent Infomtio,,,2500-2599125241301101101ReportINarrative12524301-Ol-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 3.0 REVIEW OF HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS FOR EVALUATION

3.1 General Requirements

The saturated overburden materials will be excavated to depths of 56 ft bgs in the area of
ESWEMS pond and pump house (Reference 5). Mostly unsaturated overburden and some partly
saturated shallow bedrock will be excavated in the areas of the power block and cooling towers.
Excavation will generally extend downward to the surface of the Mahantango Shale Formation
and deeper at selected locations to remove weathered and transitional zone bedrock. Several
safety-related structures such as portions of the power block and ESWEMS pond will be founded
on engineered fill (including concrete fill) bearing directly on the competent bedrock. The
construction excavation plans for the power block, cooling towers, and ESWEMS pond based
upon available information (Reference 5) are illustrated on Figure 3. These relatively deep
excavations may be advanced concurrently or sequentially.

Extensive control of groundwater in the overburden aquifer will be required to allow excavation
to in "dry" conditions in the area of the ESWEMS pond. Some control of groundwater found in
the shallow bedrock beneath the power block and cooling towers is also expected to be required.
Relevant parameters for dewatering system evaluation under steady state flow conditions include
the hydraulic conductivity (K) of the deposits to be dewatered. Specific yield (Sy) of the
overburden and the storage coefficient (S) for the aquifer are relevant for evaluating transient
flow conditions.

3.2 Review of Available Data

3.2.1 Overburden Aquifer Material

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated from slug tests conducted in the
overburden aquifer ranged from 1.19 x 10-5 cm/s to 3.4 x 10-2 cm/s, with a geometric mean of
3.63 x 10-3 cm/s (Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.3.2.1). A single slug test in the overburden was
completed in observation well MW410 during 2010, indicating a horizontal hydraulic
conductivity of 1.72 x 10-3 cm/s (Appendix A) (Reference 4). Slug tests of the kind
implemented during the site investigation measure horizontal hydraulic conductivity only near a
test well, and may reflect influences by filter pack storage or low-conductivity borehole skins
remaining after conventional rotary drilling using mud.

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated based on a 24-hr pump test at
approximately 60 gpm ranged from 3.63 x 10-2 cm/s to 1.26 x 10-' cmls, with a geometric mean
WE V 3SR C S TANTS 8
K:;ýWbgm\Client~ql',,matf
m i 25OO-2599ý2524ý3 lIRRportiN,,rwrtie-25243--0J-02Rpt.doe
Jý 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
of 5.93 x 10-2 cm/s (Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.3.2.1). A pump test of the kind implemented
during the site investigation stresses a much broader area of the aquifer than a slug test, and is
therefore considered more representative than the slug test results. Weaver Boos considers the
geometric mean value obtained during the pump test, which is the highest mean value for the
site, as a representative (yet conservative) value for the horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the
overburden aquifer. Because sand and gravel deposits comprising the overburden aquifer are
horizontally stratified as described in the boring logs, the deposit is likely anisotropic, and the
vertical hydraulic conductivity (which has not been measured) is considered to be 1 / 1 0 th of the
horizontal value obtained during the pump test.

The specific yields computed for the pump test indicated values ranging between 0.253 and
0.500, with a geometric mean of 0.344, and a median value of 0.322. For a well- to fairly well-
graded material such as the overburden, the median value of 0.322 appears reasonable and is
therefore assumed representative. Conservative values for the overburden aquifer selected for
use in conceptual dewatering evaluation are summarized in Table 1.

3.2.2 Shale Bedrock

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated from slug tests conducted in the shallow
bedrock aquifer during 2007 and 2008 ranged from 3.70 x 10-4 cm/s to 1.36 x 10-2 cm/s, with a
geometric mean of 1.41 x 10-3 cm/s (FSAR Section 2.4.12.3.2.2). The horizontal hydraulic
conductivity values calculated from slug tests conducted in the shallow bedrock during 2010
ranged from 4.69 x 10-5 cm/s to 1.32 x 10-3 cmrs, with a geometric mean of 2.86 x 10-4 cm/s
(Reference 4, Table 3) (Appendix A).

The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated from slug tests conducted in the deep
bedrock aquifer ranged from 1.15 x 10- 5 cm/s to 1.51 x 10-3 cm/s, with a geometric mean of 1.18
x 10-4 cm/s (FSAR Section 2.4.12.3.2.2). No further slug testing of wells screened in the deep
bedrock was reported during 2010.

Packer tests were performed in 56 intervals of the shale bedrock during 2007 and 2008. Of these
tests, nearly one-half (26) indicated impermeable rock. In the other 30 tests, the horizontal
hydraulic conductivity ranged from 2.39 x 10-7 to 1.63 x 10 -4 cm/s. Packer tests were performed
in 34 additional intervals of shale bedrock during 2010. In these most recent tests, seven (7) tests
indicated impermeable rock. In the other 27 tests, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity ranged
from 3.99 x 10-7 cm/s to 3.82 x 10-4 cm/s.

•3frMx• 1 O31A430 9
K:.•VbgIClient Ihf rmti-n250-2599M252413011
M ReprtNr0e02430-01-02Rpt.doe 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
The horizontal hydraulic conductivity values calculated based on a 24-hr pump test at
approximately 6 gpm ranged from 1.93 x 10-5 cm/s to 7.23 x 10-4 cm/s, with a geometric mean of
1.64 x 10-4 cm/s (FSAR Section 2.4.12.3.2.2) during 2007 to 2008. This pump test was
completed in wells screened from elevations ranging from 502 ft to 582 ft (NAVD88).
Additional pump tests were performed using wells screened in the bedrock during 2010. The
horizontal hydraulic conductivities calculated on the most recent pump tests ranged from 6.42 x
10-6 cm/s to 2.88 x 10- 4 cm/s, with a geometric mean calculated equal to 5.43 x 10-4 cm/s
(Reference 4, Table 4) (Appendix A). The recent pump tests utilized wells screened in the
bedrock at elevations ranging from 618 ft to 670 ft (NAVD88).

For the reasons discussed in Section 3.2.1, Weaver Boos considers the geometric mean values
obtained during the pump tests as more representative than values obtained by slug testing.
However, results for the packer testing program are also considered representative for the
intervals that were tested. Of the values reported for the shale bedrock, the geometric mean
horizontal hydraulic conductivities are selected as conservatively high values for use in the
dewatering evaluation. Weaver Boos selected the geometric mean pump test conductivity value
of 5.43 x 10-4 cm/s as representative and conservative for shallow bedrock occurring above an
elevation of approximately 600 ft (NAVD88). The geometric mean pump test conductivity value
of 1.64 x 10-4 cm/s is similarly selected as representative and conservative for deep bedrock
occurring below an elevation of approximately 600 ft (NAVD88). These values are regarded as
conservative because their selection is likely to over-predict rather than under-predict the flow of
groundwater to be yielded by temporary dewatering systems. As was selected for the
overburden, Weaver Boos also considered the vertical conductivities of the bedrock (shallow and
deep) to equal 1 / 1 0 th of their respective horizontal values obtained during the pump tests.
Conservative values for the bedrock selected for use in this conceptual dewatering evaluation are
summarized in Table 1.

3.2.3 GroundwaterWater Table andHead Elevation

Monthly water table elevations in the overburden and the head elevations in the bedrock were
previously measured between October 2007 and September 2008 (FSAR Section 2.4.12, Table
2.4-44). The data indicate seasonal fluctuations. Elevations measured on January 26, 2008
appear to represent "average" conditions, and elevations measured on March 24, 2008 are taken
to represent "high" water levels. Monthly groundwater levels were most recently measured
between May 2010 and July 2010. Measurements taken during 2010, which include
measurements for the recently installed MW400-series observation wells (MW401 through

WV MR OOS CONSULTANTS 10
K UVbgm
Wiewt hf.. tion12500-259912524ý3011101 R•porttAarrativ e2524301-01-02 Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
MW410), are generally somewhat lower than the "average" levels measured during January
2008.

In order for this evaluation to conservatively consider the reasonably foreseeable maximum
future groundwater elevations that may occur during construction, calibration targets for the
groundwater flow model were calculated in several steps. Firstly, Weaver Boos added 2.0 ft to
the "high" groundwater elevations previously reported during March 2008 and selected these
values as conservatively high flow model calibration targets in the MW300-series observation
wells that were in the ground during 2008. The MW400-series observation wells were not
installed until 2010, so the highest recently measured water levels in the MW400-series wells
were corrected to estimate elevations expected to have been measured if they had been in the
ground during March 2008. For MW410 screened in the overburden aquifer an adjustment of
+2.6 ft was added to estimate an elevation that might have been measured during March 2008.
This corrected maximum was further adjusted by +2.0 ft to account for possible fluctuations
during consutruction. The total adjustment applied to MW410 was therefore +4.6 ft. High water
elevations measured in MW400-series wells screened in the shallow bedrock (MW401 through
MW409) were adjusted upward by +3.0 ft to first correct the observed levels back to March 2008
and the result was further adjusted by +2.0 ft to account for future fluctuations. The total
adjustment applied to MW401 through MW409 was therefore +5.0 ft. The resulting
groundwater elevations listed in Table 2 were then used herein as conservatively high calibration
targets for the groundwater flow model described in Section 5.5.

3.3 Bedrock Surface Elevation

Bedrock surface elevations were obtained from soil borings advanced during the site
investigation as reported in FSAR Section 2.5.4, Table 17. Bedrock surface points are also
inferred from soil boring depths reported for overburden monitoring wells in FSAR Table 2.4-43,
Rev. 2. Finally, bedrock surface points were collected by direct review of Rizzo's final boring
logs (Reference 3) for the B400-series geotechnical borings and MW400-series monitoring wells
advanced during 2010. The consolidated data are listed in Table 3.

WEISAVEIR B3OCOS CXONSUT ANIITrS 1

K.IWbgmCUint lu,,mfatio,,2500-2599ý25241301(JJ 010RepoJtlNarrative2524301-01-02 Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 4.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF HYDROGEOLOGY

4.1 General Approach

Prior to assessing applicable dewatering technologies, Weaver Boos developed a conceptual

model that to the extent practicable, incorporates natural hydrogeologic boundaries for the flow
system of interest. Preparation of the conceptual model included the following general steps:

* Defining hydrostratigraphic units;

" Preparing a water budget; and

* Defining the flow system.

4.2 Definition of the Flow System

Weaver Boos defined the flow system based on review of the 7.5-minute series USGS
topographic map of the Berwick Quadrangle (Reference 12), review of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (1978) Map of Surface Deposits of the Berwick
Quadrangle (FSAR Figure 2.4.12-3), and review of the information and data contained in
References 3, 4, and 9).

Review of the available information indicates that the BBNPP site may be viewed as located
within a small groundwater basin storing water mostly in the overburden aquifer. The
overburden aquifer basin is defined to the north by the ridge formed in till-draped bedrock high
upland north of Beech Grove Road, to the east by a bedrock ridge and groundwater flow divide
corresponding approximately to the route of Confers Lane, to the south by a bedrock ridge
forming in the knolls, and to the west by a bedrock ridge forming in the uplands west of Walker
Run. Surface water and groundwater enter the overburden basin from the north and exit the
basin via Walker Run, its small tributary located on the BBNPP site, and to a limited extent,
southeastward through the narrow pass shown at the bottom of Figure 4 between easting
coordinates 2,404,800 ft and 2,405,500 ft. Figure 5 depicts the boundary of the basin and
groundwater flow model domain.

Deeper groundwater flows through the bedrock are less constrained than in the overburden basin
and are assumed to reflect high upland recharge occurring to the north, followed by upward flow

-'IIAVL n RO OS COSST TA0rS 12

K.Wbgm•CienlItqfonrmahionl25-2599t2524130 \2 Repr•Narrativel252430-1--3Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, TN 46628
just south of the site, and deeper horizontal southerly and southeasterly flow towards the
Susquehanna River.

4.3 Definition of Hydrostratigraphic Units

The principal hydrostratigraphic units beneath the site include the conductive overburden
aquifer and the less conductive underlying shale bedrock. The shale bedrock is subdivided as
"shallow" and "deep", with the dividing line occurring at an elevation of about 600 ft
(NAVD88).

4.4 Water Budget

Three potential sources of groundwater flow inputs to the conceptual flow system are identified.

The first is groundwater recharge, assumed equal to groundwater discharge, reported in

Reference 9, Table 2.4-42 (Appendix A) for the Wapwallopen Creek Basin as ranging from 6.6
to 21.8 inches per year, with an average equal to approximately 14.2 inches per year. The
Wapwallopen Creek Basin is located closest to the site (Reference 9, Section 2.4.12.1.2.9) and is
therefore considered the most representative of the watersheds listed in Reference 9, Table 2.4-42
(Appendix A).

The second is groundwater exchange with Walker Run that flows along the west side of the
model domain.

The third is groundwater inflow originating in the ridge that rises to elevations as high as 1,100 ft
(NAVD88) north of Beach Grove Road. This source cannot be directly measured, yet its
significance is inferred from the upward vertical flow of groundwater in the lowland areas south
of the proposed power block and ESWEMS pond.

Potential discharges of groundwater originating beneath the site include bank and bottom
discharge to Walker Run and subsurface outflow to the south (much of which likely occurs in
overburden deposits beneath Walker Run), with eventual discharge to the Susquehanna River.
Additional southerly and southeasterly discharges of groundwater through the shallow and deep
bedrock are also inferred from the bedrock potentiometric surfaces provided by Rizzo
(Appendix A).

13
K: WbgmiClietw
if rmation 250-259912524330 IRep.rtN rti,0e2524301-0J-O2Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, 1N 46628
 5.0 FLOW MODEL IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 Objective and General Approach

A groundwater flow model was implemented to first simulate the basin-scale groundwater flow
system, and then to estimate the flows expected from site-scale dewatering systems at the power
block, cooling towers, and ESWEMS pond excavations. The baseline model was prepared first
and then compared with observed groundwater head and known basin inflows and outflows to
check its calibration to the selected targets. Groundwater heads predicted by the baseline model
were then used as initial conditions in subsequent models incorporating dewatering system
elements (dewatering wells, drains, and constructed flow barriers) to simulate active dewatering,
estimate groundwater withdrawals, and evaluate resulting drawdown.

Following development of the baseline flow model, it was modified to reflect two principal
groundwater dewatering strategies:

" Open excavation and water table depression with no groundwater flow barriers; and

* Dewatering and excavation using a slurry wall, diaphragm wall, or other type of
subsurface flow barrier at the ESWEMS pond to mitigate potential off-site groundwater
level drawdown and subsequent impact to potentially sensitive areas.

5.2 Simplifying Assumptions

Integration of the Site conceptual model with a mathematical computer code to simulate flow
requires several simplifying assumptions. The following assumptions and idealizations apply to
the model utilized herein:

" The model domain is partly formed by a conductive overburden aquifer extending
through the basin lowlands and restricted in its horizontal extent by surrounding rises in
the less conductive bedrock.

* The complex natural flow system may be represented using a system of seven discrete
layers, while the natural conditions likely result in a more gradual variation in
hydrogeologic properties.

* The baseline groundwater flow system is in equilibrium and is modeled on a steady-state

basis.

WBBMOOS
X COSUx.TIP>'rS 14
K. WbgmlClieinlfoma,,,tio,12500-2599ý25241301101101ýReportlNarrativ,12524331-01-02
Rptdoc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
These simplifying assumptions do not require validation since they are the basis of modem
groundwater modeling techniques.

5.3 Software Selection

Evaluation of groundwater flow was undertaken utilizing a seven-layered conceptual model

implemented using Visual MODFLOW Version 2009.1, by Schlumberger Water Services. This
software is a widely used implementation of the USGS's globally-recognized MODFLOW-2000
program. Weaver Boos selected this software for its capability to reliably model groundwater
flow in three dimensions and relative ease of use offered by its integrated graphical user
interface. Detailed information regarding the MODFLOW-2000 program can be found in
Harbaugh et al. (2000).

5.4 Baseline Flow Model Design

5.4.1 Model Domain

The general area of the site is shown on Figure 4, which includes the locations of existing
observation wells. Many of the observation well locations represent nested or clustered wells
screened at varying elevations. The digital model domain is based on a rectangular block-
centered grid network that covers a 1.8-square mile flow domain representing the local drainage
basin as shown in Figure 5. The grid includes 316 rows and 245 columns, with their spacing
refined as needed to assess small-scale effects in the area where dewatering is needed. In the
areas where the greatest detail was desired, the grid node spacing is approximately 22 ft by 22 ft
and provides site-scale detail without creating a computationally excessive number of model
nodes.

5.4.2 Model Layers and Hydrogeologic Properties

Groundwater flow is simulated in seven layers.

Layer 1 is divided into conductivity zones delineated by narrow gridlines shown on Figure 6.
The overburden aquifer is vertically limited to Layer 1. The lower surface of Layer 1 in the
vicinity of the site was interpolated from the bedrock elevations reported on Table 3. Since the
upper surface of Layer 1 is based on the topography of the site and the lower surface is based on
the interface with weathered bedrock, this layer exhibits a varying thickness across the model
domain. The lateral limits of the Sand/Gravel Zone of high horizontal conductivity (5.9 x 10-2
cmls) illustrate the extent of the overburden aquifer. The lateral limits of the overburden aquifer
are represented by the conductivity zone border, outside of which Layer 1 is assigned the

IBVATE• l tOOS
IRK NSST TS 15
K. IVbg
I 'rni ,ft,,••,ýtnai,,n250-2599125241301J100UiReport Narraiteiei25243O1-OI-O2Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, TN 46628
conductivity for shallow bedrock (5.4 x 10-4 cm/s). Walker Run is represented by a river
boundary located wholly within the high conductivity zone of Layer 1.

Layer 2 (not graphically shown) is uniformly assigned the conductivity for shallow bedrock.
Within the upland rise to be occupied by the power block and cooling towers, Layers 3 and 4 (not
graphically shown) are also assigned the shallow bedrock conductivity so that bedrock above an
elevation of about 600 ft (NAVD88) is represented as the more conductive shallow bedrock.
Layers 3 through 7 are assigned the conductivity for deep bedrock (1.64 x 10-4 cm/s) in other
areas of the model domain at elevations below approximately 600 ft (NAVD88). The vertical
conductivity in all zones is assigned as 1/ 1 0 th of the corresponding horizontal conductivity for
overburden, shallow bedrock, and deep bedrock, respectively.

The upper surface of Layer 1 is a recharge boundary with three zones illustrated on Figure 7.
Lowland areas within the model domain are assigned a recharge of 14.2 in/yr. The transition
zone between the lowlands and uplands is assigned an intermediate recharge of 21.8 in/yr. The
uplands are assigned a high recharge of 29 in/yr. High recharge was focused in the upland areas
to simulate the groundwater mounding reported by Rizzo in the shallow bedrock forming the
upland part of the site to be occupied by the power block (Appendix A, Figure 6). The high
upland recharge values were also selected to conservatively model the groundwater flow during
very wet times, thus tending to maximize predicted groundwater withdrawals during dewatering.

Several fixed head boundaries as shown on Figure 8 were incorporated into Layers 2 through 7
of the model to simulate observed deep bedrock head levels. These include constant head
boundaries north and southeast of the site and a general head boundary along the southern limit
of the model domain. The constant head boundaries are intended to simulate generally southerly
and southeasterly flow originating in the highlands north of the site towards the Susquehanna
River. The general head boundary at the southern limit of the model domain is intended to
simulate the discharge of groundwater directly to the river. The entire model domain is
encompassed by a no-flow boundary in all layers. The upper surface of the model domain was
interpolated from the ground surface contours included in the USGS 7.5-minute series
topographic map for Berwick as shown on the block view illustrated in Figure 9.

5.5 Baseline Flow Model Calibration

Calibration of the baseline flow model consisted of initial simulations followed by adjustment of
selected model elements such as recharge flux and distribution, river boundary conductance
along Walker Run, the placement of constant head boundaries in Layers 2 through 7 to simulate

V,• HVOE
OOS CONSrJ TS 16
K..•WbgmýClient ubr\mationl250-25991252413O01
01IRcpor0Narrativeý2524301-01-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, 1N 46628
inflow from the upland ridge north of the site, constant head boundaries to simulate deep bedrock
outflows to the east and southeast of the site, and the use of a general head boundary to simulate
outflow along the southern edge of the model domain towards the Susquehanna River.
Calculated baseline heads in the relevant model layers are compared with the target heads listed
in Table 2. Results for these comparisons are provided as several plots in Appendix B.

The first calibration plot includes all target head values for observation wells screened in Layers
1 through 6. As shown on the first plot "Baseline Head Calibration, All Layers", a correlation
coefficient of 0.903 is reported. The 95% confidence interval falls slightly to the right of the
ideal line, suggesting that the modeled heads are generally lower than their targets. Subsequent
plots for Layers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; however, shows that the under-prediction of heads is limited to
Layer 3, which contains most of the MW400-series observation wells located on the power block
upland. This distribution of under-predicted heads on the power block highland is further
illustrated as the cluster of blue circles on the "Calibration Residual Map, All Wells" also
provided in Appendix B. Calibration trials using upland recharge as great at 36 in/yr increased
the mass budget discrepancy between total inflows and total outflows to excessive levels, yet
failed to significantly even out the residual distribution. Such unrealistic recharge was therefore
omitted from the model. The baseline head calibration is nevertheless considered reasonable as
it shows significant groundwater mounding on the power block upland as needed to evaluate
dewatering. Additionally, some of the high head levels observed on the upland may represent
perched conditions, and may not be entirely representative of the groundwater flow system in this
area.

Global list file output is also included in Appendix B to provide additional details as to the
baseline flow model. Included is a compact disc containing all of the files comprising the
baseline flow model in connection with the primary project file named "BBNPPBaselineO.vmf'.

5.6 Baseline Flow Model Results

Simulated baseline model heads for Layer 1, which includes the overburden aquifer, are shown
on Figure 10. The upland area of the power block shows no head contours because the layer is
dry across the top of the upland as observed in borings advanced in this area. Head contours in
the lowland areas are generally similar to those mapped by Rizzo as shown for the overburden
aquifer (Appendix A, Figure 5). Simulated baseline heads for the shallow bedrock in Layer 2
are illustrated in Figure 11. Significant upland groundwater mounding is shown in the model
results consistent with observation of the shallow bedrock potentiometric surface provided in

oo
VVIE-2-F- MNSU'r0--'r 17
K.Wbgm1Client lnformation 2500-2599ý2524ý3011011011ReportlNarraive12524301-Ol-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, 1N 46628
Appendix A, Figure 6. Although not shown, the simulated heads in Layers 3 through 7 also
successfully simulate observations in the deep bedrock. Considering the reasonable simulation
of observed heads, the steady-state simulation values computed by the baseline flow model were
stored and then utilized as an initial condition for two further models simulating dewatering of
the site, both with and without the use of a flow barrier at the ESWEMS pond.

5.7 Flow Model Simulating Dewatering with No Flow Barrier

Temporary construction dewatering of the site was first simulated without the benefit of a flow
barrier at the ESWEMS pond. Dewatering was simulated using a combination of pumping wells
and drains. Pumping wells DWI through DW28 are shown around the perimeter of the
ESWEMS pond excavation as shown on Figure 12. Pumping wells are expected to form the
most effective first stage of dewatering in this area where excavation through a thick section of
saturated sand and gravel is required. The pumping wells were input as multi-node wells
(MNWs) and set to draw their casing water levels down near the top of the bedrock. Their rates
were specified to vary between 10 and 300 gpm, with the actual rate computationally determined
by the software using the specified drawdown elevations.

Lower stages of dewatering at the ESWEMS pond, as well as the dewatering of bedrock at the
power block and cooling towers, was simulated using drain cells. The drain cells simulate either
lines of vacuum well points if located in overburden, or trenches cut into the exposed bedrock
surface drained to sumps. The shallowest anticipated drains reside in Layer 1 of the model and
shown as gray cells on Figure 12. The drainage elevation at each drain cell is set approximately
2 ft below the nearest excavation contour elevation and is placed on a proposed bench where
present. Drains at deeper depths were placed in Layer 2 of the model as shown on Figure 13.
Drains at the deepest depths to be excavated are shown on Figure 14 and are limited to the
power block and cooling towers excavations.

The modified flow model named "BBNPPNoBarrierO.vmf' was then run on a steady state basis
utilizing the output from the baseline flow model to establish initial heads. This procedure
allows the modified flow model to compute the drawdowns expected to result when dewatering
has reached steady-state conditions. The resulting drawdowns in Layer 1 of the modified flow
model are illustrated in Figure 15. The drawdowns are shown in feet, and represent water table
depression that is likely to result in the overburden aquifer if this dewatering strategy is used.
Review of Figure 15 indicates deep water table depression (5 to 40 ft) in the areas extending

18
K:11Vbg•Ciie nInf r-aicn,250-259912524130 RpýrtINarati-e1252430I-0J-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, 1N 46628
west, south, and east of the proposed ESWEMS pond. This would most likely result in extensive
dewatering of the wetlands south of the ESWEMS pond.

5.8 Flow Model Simulating Dewatering with a Flow Barrier

Temporary construction dewatering of the site was then simulated to evaluate the potential
benefits of a flow barrier encompassing the proposed ESWEMS pond excavation. Wall
boundaries were inputted to the dewatering flow model to simulate a 3-ft thick flow barrier. As
discussed in Section 6.4.2.1, it is recommended that the flow barrier be designed for a hydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10-7 cm/s. Recognizing that construction quality control for a subsurface
flow barrier is difficult; the flow model was implemented assuming a hydraulic conductivity of 1
x 10-6 cm/s through the wall to account for potential imperfections in its
construction. The wall
boundaries form a continuous flow barrier around the proposed excavation and extend from top
to bottom in Layer 1 of the model that simulates the conductive overburden aquifer. The
modified dewatering flow model was named "BBNPPFlowBarrierl.vmf" and is also provided on
the compact disc in Appendix B.

As before, the modified flow model was run using the initial heads computed by the baseline
flow model and the expected drawdowns are plotted on Figure 16. Review of this figure again
shows the deep drawdown required at the ESWEMS pond as needed for construction. However,
the simulated drawdown elsewhere in the basin is very much less than for the simulation without
the flow barrier. Drawdown ranging from 5 ft to 10 ft is focused immediately west and south of
the flow barrier. Weaver Boos believes that this effect is not primarily due to the withdrawal of
water from within the flow barrier, but rather due to the partial cutoff of natural westerly flow of
groundwater through the position of the barrier. Groundwater levels are expected to diminish on
the downgradient side of a barrier obstructing horizontal flow.

5.9 Dewatering Results

The effects of dewatering included in the evaluation for the power block are illustrated on Figure
17, which shows the predicted head in the shallow bedrock at the bottom of the proposed
excavation (Layer 3 of the model). The predicted dewatered heads are lower than the bottom of
the excavation at almost all locations. The effects of dewatering included in the evaluation for
the cooling towers excavation are illustrated on Figure 18, which shows similar results in Layer
2 of the model. The effects of dewatering at the ESWEMS pond excavation are illustrated on
Figure 19, which shows head levels in the bedrock at the base of the excavation (Layer 2 of the
model). Predicted heads are lower than the base of the excavation except for a small area along

VV-1E:-A-O ICOOCIS OST19

KfWbgiC h f.t .tioi,2500-259922524130SIOnRýlleportNarratie12524301-O]-02
..... Rpt;doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
the west side of the excavation floor. This exception appears to be connected with the model
discretization of the interface between Layers 1 and 2 and the high contrast between their
respective hydraulic conductivities. This exception is not regarded as computationally
significant. Additionally, the keying of the flow barrier into the competent bedrock is likely to
reduce actual dewatered heads to levels lower than those predicted by the model.

5.10 Mass Flow Budgets

Baseline flow conditions and projected drawdown discussed above provide considerable
information regarding the likely influence of the projected dewatering strategies. Mass flow
budgets provide additional information as to the inflows and outflows from the model domain
and provide an additional means to assess the representativeness of the simulation. Groundwater
mass flow budgets from the three flow models are summarized in Table 5. Mass budget output
from the flow models are also provided in Appendix C.

5.10.1 Baseline Flow Model

The mass flow budget for the baseline flow model includes terms for the following sources and
sinks:

* Constant Head Boundary - Represents inflows to the model domain originating in the
bedrock ridge to the north.

" River Leakage - Represents exchange of water between Walker Run and the Aquifer.

" Head Dependent Boundary - Represents outflow from the southern edge of the model
domain to the Susquehanna River.

" Recharge - Represents percolation of recharge over the entire 1.8 mi 2 model domain.

Review of the baseline mass flow budget summarized in Table 5 suggests that the model domain
is receiving subsurface groundwater inflow at about 2.1 cfs from the ridge and highlands to the
north and losing about 1.5 cfs through deep bedrock pathways to the east and southeast. Walker
Run is suggested to lose about 1.4 cfs to the aquifer, but also to gain about 2.0 cfs from the
aquifer, indicating a net gain of 0.6 cfs. The basin receives recharge from precipitation at about
2.5 cfs. Water is lost through the head-dependent general head boundary at the south edge of the
model domain towards the Susquehanna River at about 2.5 cfs. Total inflow and total outflow
are suggested to be about 6.1 to 6.0 cfs, respectively, indicating a discrepancy of about 1.7
percent.

WR CONSULX~TANTS 20
K.iVhbgmICIlieI lnformtion 2500-2599h25241301101101R ,ort N,r 12524301-Ol-02 Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, 1N 46628
5.10.2 Mass Budgetfor Dewatering Without a Flow Barrier

The mass flow budget for this model includes terms for Drains and Dewatering Wells positioned
at the locations shown on Figures 12, 13, and 14. Zone budgets were set in the model to
separately account for the dewatering system outflows from the power block, cooling towers, and
ESWEMS excavation. As shown on Table 5, the dewatering system under this scenario is
suggested to remove water at a rate of 0.11 cfs (about 50 gpm) at the power block excavation,
0.16 cfs (about 70 gpm) from the cooling towers excavation, about 0.56 cfs (about 250 gpm)
from the ESWEMS drains, and 1.5 cfs (about 670 gpm) from the ESWEMS dewatering wells.
Dewatering outflows from the site without a flow barrier at the ESWEMS pond excavation total
2.33 cfs (about 1,040 gpm). These rates are steady state and will be much higher when
dewatering is initiated.

Other terms of the mass flow budget for this model indicate that inflows from the northern ridge
will increase, and southerly/southeasterly bedrock outflow will decrease. Inflow from Walker
Run is indicated to increase from 1.4 cfs to 1.9 cfs, and outflow is 1.7 cfs instead of 2.0 cfs as in
the baseline model. This result suggests that Walker Run will be changed from a gaining stream
to a losing stream (-0.2 cfs) near the site. The total aquifer throughput suggested by this model is
7.1 to 7.5 cfs as compared with 6.0 to 6.1 cfs as indicated by the baseline model. The mass flow
discrepancy for this model is considerably higher than the baseline model at about 5 percent.

5.10.3 Mass Budgetfor Dewateringwith a Flow Barrier

Installation of a flow barrier, such as a soil-bentonite slurry wall, or diaphragm wall substantially
reduces the steady-state outflow from the ESWEMS pond excavation dewatering system to a rate
suggested to be about 230 gpm as compared with 920 gpm without the barrier. Total dewatering
system outflows for the site are about 0.78 cfs (about 350 gpm) in this scenario. These rates are
steady state and will be higher when dewatering is initiated, as the pore space of the soils within
the barrier wall is drained.

Walker Run also appears to remain a gaining stream in this scenario at about 0.2 cfs. Total
aquifer throughput in this scenario is 6.4 cfs to 6.5 cfs as compared with 6.0 to 6.1 cfs in the
baseline flow model. Total aquifer throughput is therefore expected to increase by only about 8.2
percent. The mass flow discrepancy for this model is about 1.6 percent, which is about equal to
the baseline model.

" ABM BOOs O 21

K.IWbgm•CfientIn- ution12500-259912524ý301ýP0 QReprt\Narrative,2524301-01-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 6.0 CONCEPTUAL EVALUATION FOR DEWATERING SYSTEMS

6.1 Objective and General Approach

A digital groundwater flow model was used to simulate basin-scale groundwater flow and the
effects of various elements of dewatering systems as discussed in Section 5.0. Site-scale
dewatering systems for the proposed excavations are further evaluated using traditional manual
calculations as described in this section. The general approach included manual calculation of
probable flow rates and type drawdown curves for dewatering wells for two representative
saturated thickness values, and then the application of the hydraulic principal of superposition to
select appropriate dewatering well locations and spacing under the two primary scenarios at the
ESWEMS pond.

6.2 Dewatering Well Hydraulics

The calculation of water table drawdown in an unconfined aquifer of the type present at the
ESWEMS pond first requires an estimate of flow from a typical dewatering well. Radial flow to
a frictionless (100 percent efficient) well in an unconfined aquifer may be estimated using the
following equation (Reference 6, page 103):

Q -= K(H -h. Eqn I

ln(R./r•)

Where:

Q= well yield or pumping rate (Length3/time) assuming 100 percent efficiency

K= hydraulic conductivity of water bearing formation (L/time)
H= initial height of water above the lower confining layer (L)
h, = height of water above the lower confining layer in the well (L)
R, = radius of influence of pumping well, historically estimated at this facility using
Sichart's empirical relation (Reference 11) (L).
rw= distance from the pumping well (L)

Once the flow rate, Q, is estimated assuming an ideally efficient well, it should be down-rated to
account for the hydraulic inefficiency characterizing even properly drilled water wells. A well
efficiency of 80 percent is assumed for this evaluation.

"VVE•,FM• R 3B O O.T .' 22

K:JbgmlCliewn l 301ý01101IRepottN iv12524301-Ol-02Rpt.doc
(inrtio12500-2599i2524 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
The height of the water table surface at distance r from the well, where r is greater than 1.5H,
where H is the original saturated thickness, may be estimated as follows (Reference 6, page 103):

h = ýH2-Q`ln R2 Eqn 2
7rK r

Where:

= down-rated flow from well (L3/time)

h = height of the phreatic surface above the lower confining layer (L)
r = distance from pumping well or group of pumping wells (L)

Appendix D provides a series of solutions calculated using Equations 1 and 2 to estimate the
flows from dewatering wells and to predict the drawdown expected at selected distances. As
shown in the calculations, a typical dewatering well installed in a saturated zone 55 ft thick is
expected to extend its radius of influence to a distance of approximately 3,300 ft from the well.
Accounting for an estimated efficiency of 80 percent, such a well is expected to yield water at
about 790 gallons per minute (gpm) if pumped to a level approximately 10 ft above the bottom of
the well. Weaver Boos notes that this flow rate is for a single well and does not consider the
interaction and reduced flows that will result for individual wells located in a closely spaced
group or line.

The second typical case considered in Appendix D is for a dewatering well installed where the
saturated thickness of the aquifer is 27.5 ft. In this case, the radius of influence is expected to
extend to a distance of approximately 1,300 ft, and the 80 percent efficient flow rate for a single
well acting alone is estimated at 210 gpm.

Included in Appendix D is a semi-logarithmic plot of drawdown expected for the typical wells as
described. These drawdown plots are the basis for well location and spacing selection using the
hydrogeologic principal of "cumulative drawdowns" stating that the water table drawdown at any
point in the vicinity of a well array will be the sum of the individual drawdowns that would have
been caused by each well operating alone.

6.3 Conceptual Evaluation for Dewatering with No Flow Barrier

6.3.1 PerformanceCriteria

Performance criteria for dewatering include depression of the ambient water table to depths at or
below the surface of the bedrock. Water level observations listed in Table 2 and bedrock surface
•.VrIE-Al-VISIM l).Ua
BNT23
Rpt.doc
K: Whgm1Client hin! nirmawtion2500-2599ý2524ý3011OIOllRepotlNnrrative2524301-OI-02 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, MN46628
elevations listed in Table 3 indicate that during high groundwater conditions selected as flow
model calibration targets, the saturated portion of the overburden aquifer at the ESWEMS pond
ranges from about 26 ft to 56 ft in thickness Depression of a water table to the surface of a low
permeability layer such as the shale beneath the site will therefore require several stages.

6.3.2 ConceptualEvaluation

Deep dewatering wells may be located around the perimeter of the excavation to implement the
first stage of water table depression. Because wells cannot depress the water table to the base of
the aquifer in areas between the wells, a level of approximately 10 ft above the shale is selected
as a target for use in computing cumulative drawdowns. By inspection of the drawdown curves
computed in Appendix D, an inter-well spacing of approximately 100 ft will provide for a
cumulative drawdown of slightly more than 50 feet at locations between the wells. Dewatering
wells may be located as shown on Figure 20 based on this conceptual design criterion. A total of
approximately 28 dewatering wells appear to be appropriate for conditions at the ESWEMS pond
excavation. Given the large number of wells required and potentially very large initial flows that
such a system might develop, individual pumps should be sized for approximately 100 to 150
gpm each. The discharge lines should be fitted with throttling valves to control the overall flow
rate of the system and avoid overwhelming the body receiving the discharge. A schematic
diagram showing a typical dewatering well considered appropriate for conditions at this site is
provided as Figure 23.

Dewatering wells might be installed using direct rotary, reverse-circulation rotary, cable tool, or
other methods such as Rotosonic. Reverse-circulation rotary will provide wells with the greatest
efficiency and should therefore be considered. The other methods listed might tend to compact
the aquifer formation, or leave low-conductivity borehole skins that cannot be completely
removed during development. Because the overburden aquifer contains boulders, it may be
necessary to use an orange peel, chisel, or other methods to remove or penetrate through them.

A second stage of water table depression to the shale surface or near the shale surface may
require the use of vacuum well points positioned as shown on Figure 20. Each of the headers
shown will draw water from well points that are typically 2-in. diameter that may be drilled,
driven, or jetted in if conditions allow. Each header will need to be connected to its own vacuum
pump. Individual vacuum pumps will need to be sized based on conditions encountered and the
length of each header.

• LA-VEI: BOO
E O N .. TANTS 24
K. IWbgmClient Injbrmetion 2500-2599125241301/01101/Repor-tNarative/2524301-Ol-02Rpl.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 Final stages of the dewatering conceptual design include the excavation of trench drains and
sumps into the exposed bedrock surface in front of the toe of the slope at the base of the
EWSEMS excavation. Such trenches might be dug 3 to 5 ft wide, and 2 to 3 ft deep, and sloped
to collection sumps for ejection from the excavation. Groundwater flow from the bedrock is
expected to vary over a wide range, and additional trenches or sumps might be needed at
locations to be determined based on actual field conditions. Three such trenches were
incorporated into the digital flow model at the ESWEMS pond as shown on Figure 20.

Groundwater observations at the power block and cooling towers excavations suggest that little
, saturated overburden is present in either area. It is therefore expected that groundwater inflows
may be controlled using trench drains cut into the bedrock at the locations and elevations
suggested on Figure 20 (power block) and Figure 21 (cooling towers). The trench drains can be
sloped to sumps where the water can be pumped out if a proper slope cannot be attained to drain
the trenches to the groundwater storage pond.

The modeled solution in the vicinity of the northwest comer of the cooling tower is limited by
the available boring data. Specifically, the excavation plan (Reference 5) for the cooling towers
considers a boring located at the proposed center of each tower. The response to RFI SL-
BBNPP-149 indicates that the northwest quadrant of the cooling tower excavation will extend
down to elevation 646 ft (NAVD88). The site grading plan (Reference 8) indicates wetlands
associated with Walker Run are present at an approximate elevation of 670 ft (NAVD88) near
the intersection of Market Street and Beach Road. If the overburden extends below the nearby
wetlands, it is likely that the overburden will be saturated. Figure 5 in Reference 4 (Appendix
A) does not show groundwater in overburden soils in this area. If the overburden soils are
saturated it is likely that excessive groundwater pump rates and subsequent dewatering of the
adjacent wetlands will occur. The groundwater pumping rates and subsequent drawdown
determined and presented in this evaluation does not consider this potential outcome since the
site groundwater data does not indicate that the overburden in this area is water-bearing. It
should be noted that if the overburden extends below the wetlands, this condition could be
mitigated by installing a flow barrier wall in accordance with Section 6.4.2.

The effectiveness of the dewatering system should be monitored to compare observed drawdown
with the estimates described herein (or more detailed design estimates developed prior to
implementation). Water levels may be monitored for this dewatering strategy using existing
monitoring well clusters that have been drilled at the site. Additional monitoring wells or
piezometers at the locations near to the excavation would provide further points for comparison

WV COc-NSULX TANTS 25
K:Ubg lClient Iformation12500-259912524130110110 1 , ,IIprtl Atative12524301-OJ-02
Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, 1N 46628
and are therefore recommended. A typical schematic diagram for monitoring wells or
piezometers is provided on Figure 24.

Digital modeling of dewatering suggests that the total steady state discharge from ESWEMS
system will be somewhat more than 1,000 gpm if no flow barrier is used to control horizontal
inflows from the overburden aquifer. The trench drains at the power block excavation are
estimated to discharge about 50 gpm at steady state. The trench drains at the cooling towers
excavation are estimated to discharge about 70 gpm at steady state. These figures are also
summarized in Table 5. Larger flows on the order of 2,000 to 4,000 gpm might be incurred
during the initial phase of water table depression with the specified dewatering well pump sizing
at the ESWEMS pond excavation.

Operation of this conceptual dewatering system will require an uninterrupted source of power for
electrically operated submersible pumps and vacuum pumps, and an uninterrupted source of fuel
for internal combustion vacuum pumps if selected for use. Provisions for convenient
maintenance should be included for all system elements as needed for a project duration
approaching 3 years.

6.4 Conceptual Evaluation of Dewatering with Flow Barrier

Dewatering system yields and impacts to nearby wetlands may be mitigated using a subsurface
flow barrier. The digital flow model indicates that substantial benefits may be obtained by using
a flow barrier at the ESWEMS pond excavation.

6.4.1 PerformanceCriteria

Performance criteria for this dewatering strategy are the same as discussed in Section 6.3.1.
However, the use of a flow barrier, such as a slurry wall or diaphragm wall, will assist in
controlling groundwater flow towards the ESWEMS pond excavation and likely allow further
water table depression using deep wells to be located on the interior of the flow barrier.

6.4.2 ConceptualDesign
6.4.2.1 Flow Barrier

If a soil-bentonite (S-B) slurry wall is selected for use as a flow barrier, it might be installed
along an alignment as shown on Figure 22, and should reflect the following guidelines in its
final design:

VVISAW,•
- CO-SIVýIMAN'TS 26
KA1VbgmlClienl,: tio n2500-259912524ý301•OI!Ol•ReportINrti-t2524301-01-02Rpt.dc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 * The slurry wall will be a minimum of three feet thick, and will be at least Y2-foot-thick
for each 10 feet of hydraulic head across the wall.

" The slurry wall will be keyed into competent shale such that the flow underneath the
wall through the shale is less than or equal to the flow directly through the soil-bentonite
slurry wall. The minimum depth of penetration of the slurry wall key will be two feet
into the shale below any permeable lenses or weathered shale zones.

" The slurry will consist of 4 to 7 percent bentonite in water, and the backfill will contain
bentonite at a rate of 3 percent. If the groundwater barrier is also designed to act as a
temporary excavation support wall, Portland cement may also be incorporated into the
slurry.
7
" The slurry walls will have a designed in-situ permeability less than or equal to 1 x 10-
cm/s. Some plastic fines may need to be imported to meet this criterion. A value of 1 x
10-6 cm/s was used in this evaluation to account for any minor imperfections in the wall.

" Slurry walls will have a minimum of a five-foot overlap at corners.

" Slurry wall will be constructed vertically.

" Slurry levels will be maintained at least seven feet above the groundwater table during
construction. This will require the construction of a berm to raise the ground level at
several locations along the specified alignment.

" Extensive quality control measures should be taken to assure that the S-B slurry wall is
constructed without gaps or windows.

* Because the overburden aquifer contains boulders, it may be necessary to use an orange
peel, clamshell, chisel, or other methods to remove or penetrate through them.

If ground support is required, sheet piling, concrete diaphragm walls, intersecting caissons or
secant piles, or cofferdams should be considered. All aspects of ground support and excavation
stability will require extensive additional evaluation and detailed designs beyond the scope of
this evaluation.

Calculations included in Appendix D estimate potential flux rates through the flow barrier wall
when the maximum gradient is established. Assuming that the in-situ hydraulic conductivity will
achieve 1 x 10-6 cm/s, flux across the wall is estimated at approximately 7 gpm. If the design

VVISIA-rvR'll IBOOC Oiri•s 27

K:lVbgmn\Chient h f• mRtionp2500-2599125241301101ý011ReportýNarr•,tiveý2524301-Ol-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, TN 46628
criterion of 1 x 10- 7
cm/s is achieved, the corresponding flux rate is about 1 gpm. Calculation is
also provided assuming that the barrier wall is discontinuous over 1 percent of its vertical surface
area. Assuming a 1 percent area of gaps or windows, excess inflows approaching 4,400 gpm
might occur. This finding underscores the need for adequate quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) during construction. Furthermore, it indicates that if the wall is discontinuous,
the presence of discontinuities should be obvious shortly after the initiation of interior dewatering
as the excavation proceeds downward.

Operation of the barrier wall and interior dewatering system should include a piezometric
monitoring program to compare expected groundwater withdrawals and drawdown rates with
those calculated in advance. This program should include continuous monitoring of the existing
and proposed monitoring wells or piezometers to be located as shown on Figure 22. It is
recommended that monitoring wells or piezometers be installed in pairs at the five locations
shown on Figure 22 to allow monitoring of groundwater levels inboard and outboard of the flow
barrier wall. Data logging pressure transducers with remote telemetry are recommended for this
purpose so that head levels may be continuously monitored during initial drawdown and later
during the extended phase of construction activity. If a window or gap in the flow barrier is
indicated by the piezometric monitoring program, then pressure grouting or other remedial
measures will be necessary. Additional groundwater monitoring wells may be warranted in the
immediate vicinity of significant repairs to the flow barrier wall.

6.4.3 InteriorDewatering
Deep dewatering wells drilled at the locations shown on Figure 22 may be used to depress the
water table inside the flow barrier. Although the wells will not depress the water table
completely to the base of the aquifer in areas between the wells, greater drawdown is expected
with this strategy owing to the effective prevention of inflows by the flow barrier. Additionally,
the presence of the flow barrier will amplify the drawdown within the enclosed area consistent
with the concepts of image theory (Reference 1, page 330). Image well theory states that wells
pumping near an impermeable barrier such as a flow barrier wall induce drawdown comprising
the sum of the drawdown caused by the real well(s) plus additional drawdown attributable to
image well(s) located on the opposite side of the flow barrier.

Considering the use of the flow barrier, dewatering wells may be located as shown on Figure 22
based on this conceptual design criterion. A total of approximately 14 dewatering wells appear
to be appropriate if the flow barrier is utilized. Given the number of wells required and
potentially very large initial flows that such a system might develop, individual pumps should be

VV -ONS3-AT.TS 28
K.UWbgmClient f tio2500-25991252413011ý0 Re'portlNrtive12524301-0]-02 Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
sized for no more than approximately 100 to 150 gpm each. Included in Appendix D is
calculation of the time expected to drain the groundwater stored within the conceptual flow
barrier. As shown therein, it is assumed that the dewatering system inside the flow barrier is
pumped at a rate of about 600 gpm. Approximately 226 acre-ft of water will be removed over a
period of approximately 85 days. Digital flow modeling of this dewatering strategy suggests that
interior dewatering might require a steady-state flow on the order of 230 gpm at the ESWEMS
pond excavation. The majority of this water is expected to flow upward through the shale, but
the actual flow may be less. Numerous packer tests conducted in the shale during the site
investigation indicate hydraulic conductivity values much lower than assumed in the model, and
in approximately one-half of the tests, the hydraulic conductivity was effectively zero.

A second stage of water table depression to the shale surface or near the shale surface may
require the use of vacuum well points positioned as shown on Figure 20. Each of the headers
shown will draw water from well points that are typically 2-in. diameter that may be drilled,
driven, or jetted in if conditions allow. Each header will need to be connected to its own vacuum
pump. Individual vacuum pumps will need to be sized based on conditions encountered and the
length of each header.

Final stages of the dewatering conceptual design include the excavation of trench drains and
sumps into the exposed bedrock surface in front of the toe of the slope at the base of the
EWSEMS excavation. Such trenches might be dug 3 to 5 ft wide, and 2 to 3 ft deep, and sloped
to collection sumps for ejection from the excavation. Groundwater flow from the bedrock is
expected to vary over a wide range, and additional trenches or sumps might be needed at
locations to be determined. Three such trenches were incorporated into the digital flow model at
the ESWEMS pond as shown on Figure 20.

Digital modeling suggests that the total steady state discharge from ESWEMS system will be
about 230 gpm if the flow barrier is used to control horizontal inflows from the overburden
aquifer in this area of the site. Dewatering discharges from the power block and cooling towers
excavations are not expected to change because flow barriers are not indicated based on the
evaluation of available data and information. The trench drains at the power block excavation
are therefore estimated to discharge about 50 gpm at steady state. The trench drains at the
cooling towers are therefore remain estimated to discharge about 70 gpm at steady state. These
figures are also summarized in Table 5. Larger flows on the order of 1,400 to 2,100 gpm might
be incurred during the initial phase of water table depression with the specified dewatering well
pump sizing at the ESWEMS pond.

,•AF BOS COBSC...TAVIS 29

K: WbgmlClient h,,J•*,rtion12500-2599,2524 30110Ol ReprtlNm,,,,raive12524301-Ol-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
Operation of this conceptual dewatering system should be less sensitive to brief interruptions in
electrical power because the flow barrier will retard inflows to the excavation. However,
provisions for convenient maintenance should still be included for all system elements as needed
for a project duration approaching 3 years.

6.4.4 Time Domain Analysis Using TransientDigitalModel

Manual calculation of the time to drain the enclosed volume of the ESWEMS pond flow barrier
suggests that it will take about 85 days. This estimate was also further evaluated using a
transient implementation of the computer flow model incorporating the flow barrier. The
transient implementation of the model is included on the compact disc in Appendix B, and is
titled "BBNPPWithBarrierlTR.vmf'. A single stress period of 1,095 days, representing the 3-yr
duration of dewatering, was subdivided into 10 time steps to estimate the flows from the various
dewatering system elements (drains and pumping wells). Graphical output of the results for the
ESWEMS pond, power block, and cooling towers excavations are provided at the end of
Appendix C.

The transient implementation of the model indicates that outflows from all dewatering system
elements closely approach their steady state values after about 90 days of pumping. This
estimate is nearly equal to the manual calculation for the ESWEMS pond system. Steady state is
reached for all dewatering system elements at the power block, cooling towers, and ESWMES
pond excavations after about 300 days of pumping according to the transient model.

K. • BOS COOSTJ.5TA T. 30
K.iJ~bgm,,Cliernt~
lnoto150-592210lll~prlartiveA2524301-Ol-02 R 1 tgdoc
4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, FN 46628
 7.0 EVALUATION OF OFF-SITE IMPACTS

7.1 Objective and General Approach

This section evaluates potential off-site impacts that might develop as a result of temporary
construction dewatering as described in Section 6.0. The general approach is to consider the
extent and magnitude of groundwater drawdown projected to occur in off-site areas in response
to dewatering. The following potential impact points and sensitive areas are considered:

* Water wells;
* Wetlands;

" Lakes and other surface waters; and,

* Structures.

7.2 Extent and Magnitude of Drawdown

The extent and magnitude of groundwater drawdown projected for dewatering without a flow
barrier is shown on Figure 15. Review of this figure indicates deep drawdown (greater than 25
ft) at distances of up to about 800 feet south of the ESWEMS pond. The extent and magnitude
of groundwater drawdown projected from dewatering using the flow barrier is shown on Figure
16. No deep drawdown (greater than 25 ft) is indicated in areas outside of the flow barrier.
Drawdown indicated to range from 5 to 10 ft extends no further than about 500 ft west and about
250, ft south of the ESWEMS pond. However, groundwater recharge from the groundwater
storage pond (if unlined) is expected to reduce both the magnitude and aerial extent of such
drawdown.

7.3 Potential Impact

7.3.1 Water Wells

The majority of residents near the site obtain water from domestic wells. Several industries
including SSES obtain water from wells. There are six domestic use wells and one commercial
use well within one-half to three-quarters of a mile of the site. Given the drawdown projected to
occur during dewatering without a flow barrier, some potential exists for negative impact on
nearby domestic and industrial water supply wells.

In the case where the flow barrier is utilized, little or no impact to nearby wells is anticipated.

VOWSK.I.TANJTS BOOS 31
K. IWbgm1Cie.n lIformation12500-2599125241301101nOllReport ,arrativ-e2524301-Ol-02
Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, 1N 46628
7.4 Wetlands

Extensive wetlands are located both on the BBNPP site and in adjoining areas, particularly to the
west, south, and east. Such features are often expressions of the natural water table at or near the
surface, and are therefore quite sensitive to impact via water table depression.

If dewatering is implemented without the flow barrier, substantial adverse impact is expected on
the levels of surface water and groundwater in the wetland south of the ESWEMS pond. A very
small area to the northwest of the ESWEMS pond is shown with a drawdown of 5 ft, suggesting
a minor potential for adverse impact to the wetland at that location. A very small area of
drawdown at 5 ft is also shown immediately west of the proposed power block excavation. This
very small area of drawdown does not appear to extend to the wetland located west of the power
block.

If dewatering is implemented with flow barriers around the ESWEMS pond excavation and any
other areas where the overburden soils are saturated, the potential for adverse impact on the
wetlands is significantly reduced. The actual impact is likely to be less than indicated by the
model (Figure 16) because the flow barrier will be keyed several feet into competent rock. The
MODFLOW program cannot easily simulate the partial penetration of the flow barrier into the
top of the bedrock. Potential drawdown to the northwest of the ESWEMS pond appears to be
nearly eliminated. Potential drawdown immediately west of the power block excavation remains
unchanged since no flow barrier is used for the power block and is not expected to affect the
wetland to the west.

7.5 Lakes and Other Surface Waters

Several ponds, Walker Run, and a short section of stream channel are located within the basin as
shown on Figure 4. These water features are expected to be connected with the water table to
varying degrees. If connected with the water table, such features will be sensitive to water table
drawdown during dewatering.

Given the relatively widespread deep drawdown projected to occur during dewatering without a
flow barrier, considerable potential exists for negative impact to surface water features near the
site. The mass flow budgets for both dewatering scenarios (Table 5) suggest that Walker Run
may change from a gaining stream to a losing stream, if dewatering is undertaken without the
flow barrier.

V"EO CONS'J..•T.,TS 32
K..II gm\ClieI~f ,ncutitn
250-259912524130 Reportýarr,,tive•25243010-02 Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
In the case where the flow barrier is utilized, projected drawdown is much less, and potential
impacts to surface waters, if any, will also be substantially less. The mass flow budget (Table 5)
indicates that Walker Run should remain a gaining stream in this instance.

7.6 Structures

The sensitivity of structures to changes in water level results from potential changes in effective
stress on underlying foundation soils and possible loss of ground. Structures founded on firm
bearing soils or on rock are not likely to be impacted by either of the dewatering scenarios.
However, structures that bear in organic or compressible soils might experience undesirable
settlement or damage due to consolidation resulting from increased effective stress. Potential
impacts to structures will tend to be minimized by the use of the flow barrier.

7.7 Mitigation of Potential Impact

Potential impacts due to water table drawdown may be mitigated by any method that reduces or
eliminates drawdown in areas beyond the excavation. Aquifer recharge is one potential method
to reduce drawdown in areas where drawdown of the groundwater is not desired. This might be
implemented using injection wells or by allowing exfiltration from the groundwater storage pond
if constructed without a lining. It will be difficult; however, to control extensive drawdown
using these means alone if dewatering is undertaken without the flow barrier around the
ESWEMS pond.

Given the physical constraints posed by the location of the site and adjoining wetlands, a
vertically-oriented flow barrier, such as a S-B slurry wall, or diaphragm wall appears to be a
viable and effective means to mitigate potential impacts due to projected water table drawdown.
Drawdown outside the flow barrier extends mostly west and south of the ESWEMS pond as
shown on Figure 16. Exfiltration from the groundwater storage pond might effectively mitigate
the limited drawdowns predicted by the model incorporating the flow barrier.

If the overburden soils in the northwestern quadrant of the cooling tower excavation extend
below the water table, an additional flow barrier wall should be implemented to reduce the
adverse impacts of the planned excavation.

VEV OOSCOVSKR 33
K:.WbgmlCtik'nt [,o tion12500-2599125241301OI 1Repoil Narrativ-e2524301-Ol-02Rpt.doec 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, 1N 46628
 8.0 CONCEPTUAL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE PLAN

8.1 General Approach

This section provides a conceptual plan for groundwater effluent discharge. The following
potential discharges are considered:
* Discharge to surface waters;

" Re-injection; and,

* On-site beneficial use for dust control, concrete mix water, street cleaning, and soil
compaction.

8.2 General Assumptions

It is considered for purposes of this conceptual plan that groundwater to be pumped from beneath
the BBNPP site will generally be the calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate water type of moderate to
high hardness, generally depressed dissolved oxygen content, generally elevated dissolved carbon
dioxide content, and a production temperature on the order of 110 C (52' F). It is further
considered that the water will be free from petroleum products, hazardous substances, and
sources of ionizing radiation at significant concentrations (this consideration should be verified
prior to initiating off-site discharges).

8.3 Discharge to Surface Water

Effluent from temporary construction dewatering is typically directed either to the nearest natural
surface water body or storm water conveyance with sufficient capacity to accept the required rate
of flow. Walker Run is the nearest water of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and is
designated as a cold water fishery in Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code. According to
information obtained during a non-specific inquiry with the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) Northeast Regional Office, discharge of dewatering effluent
to a designated cold water fishery may require an individual permit under National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) rules. PADEP also suggested that coordination with the
county conservation district would be appropriate.

Under similar circumstances the discharge of dewatering effluent to a surface water stream has,
in the experience of Weaver Boos, required that the water be conditioned by settling of
suspended solids and aeration. Settling might be efficiently accomplished by routing the
discharge through the temporary groundwater storage pond included in the site layout as shown

•VVIE[0A'Vz1EI BONKJ A 34
K:4bg•'\Chi-t 1.•01,'0'i`N25002599125241301 ,0to,•'`
a.'Na°ivel2524301-01-02 Rpl.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, MN46628
on Figures 20 and 22. Aeration and temperature adjustment might be implemented using
constructed rapids, falls, or use of spray aeration in the pond. Periodic monitoring of the influent
and effluent water may be appropriate to mitigate potential impacts to the fishery. Additional or
more specific requirements may be identified by regulatory authorities with federal, state, or local
jurisdiction.

8.4 Re-Injection

Aquifer recharge by injection well(s) or recharge ponds may be considered. Without the use of a
flow barrier, however, the volume of water requiring management is likely to be too great to
manage in the vicinity of the site. If the flow barrier is utilized, the effluent, or a portion of the
effluent, might be selectively re-injected or recharged to the aquifer as a means to mitigate
impacts to the nearby wetlands. The temporary groundwater storage pond west of the ESWEMS
pond excavation appears well located as a means to counter the limited drawdown projected in
this area when the flow barrier is used during dewatering. Consideration should therefore be
given to designing this temporary structure to recharge the groundwater at a rate appropriate for
countering the indicated drawdown. However; groundwater recharge over extended periods can
be difficult due to sedimentation or other fouling of the recharge structure. Provisions for
maintenance of recharge facilities should therefore be included in final designs.

8.5 On-Site Beneficial Re-Use

Provided that the groundwater characteristics discussed in Section 8.2 are met, a portion of the
dewatering effluent may be diverted and should be readily useable for dust control, street
cleaning, and soil compaction with little or no conditioning. Moreover, the water may be near
potable quality, and could be suitable for use as concrete mix water. Prior to use as concrete mix
water, the effluent should be tested for chloride, sulfate, alkalies, and total solids and checked
against the requirements listed in ASTM C 1602. So long as the water is clear and non-turbid, it
should meet applicable and relevant requirements.

WEAVER BOOS C~OSULTAMTS 35

K:1VbgmWIC liethi
lRfo tio12500-2599p25241301101pO1iReportlNarratire•2524301-Ol-02
Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Conclusions

Weaver Boos has evaluated alternative dewatering strategies to assess the effectiveness and
potential impacts of temporary construction dewatering both with and without the use of a flow
barrier at the ESWEMS pond excavation. This approach was utilized to assess whether a slurry
wall, diaphragm wall, or other type of subsurface flow barrier is appropriate to be installed
around the ESWEMS pond before excavation is initiated to minimize groundwater intrusion into
the excavation and to mitigate possible detrimental off-site effects of dewatering. The results of
the evaluation support the following principal conclusions in accordance with hydrogeological
principles and practice:

Temporary dewatering implemented without the benefit of a flow barrier is likely to

deeply depress (25 ft or more) the groundwater table at distances extending
approximately 800 ft south of the proposed ESWEMS pond location. Significant adverse
impacts may develop under this dewatering strategy, which include but may not be
limited to:

a. Impairment of nearby domestic and industrial water supply wells;

b. Loss of stream flow in Walker Run;

c. The unintended drainage of existing wetlands adjoining the site and elsewhere
throughout the basin; and,

d. The potential settlement of existing structures if founded in compressible soils.

e. Management of dewatering system effluent flows of approximately 4,000 gpm

during the initial dewatering and of approximately 1,000 gpm during steady state
dewatering operations.

* Temporary dewatering implemented with the benefit of the flow barrier around the
ESWEMS pond and pump house will likely require initial dewatering pump rates of
approximately 600 gpm and steady state pumping of approximately 230 gpm. The
groundwater model indicates these dewatering system pump rates may tend to depress the
groundwater table by 5 to 10 ft in the areas immediately west and southwest of the flow
barrier. It therefore remains possible with the proposed flow barrier that nearby wetlands
ZIrAV-']F- 1ONJDI.OTAJTS
BOOS 36
K:IWhbgmlClientlnformation2500-259912524130101i01 Report0NarrativeW2524301-01-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, TN 46628
 may be drained or partially drained. Given the much lesser drawdown projected during
dewatering using the flow barrier; however, the return of dewatering effluent to Walker
Run and exfiltration through the temporary groundwater storage pond may be sufficient
to counter stream losses and assist in maintaining water levels in the adjoining wetlands.

* Flow barriers should not be needed around the power block excavation. The groundwater
model indicates dewatering of the temporary construction excavation will yield
approximately 50 gpm (included in flow rates discussed in prior bullets), which can be
controlled using ditches located at the toe of the excavation, at the soil rock interface and
on the benches of the excavation.

* Based on the groundwater observations, flow barriers should not be needed around the
cooling towers excavation. The model indicates the groundwater inflow into the
excavation will be on the order of 70 gpm, which can also be controlled through
appropriately placed ditches. However, if the overburden soils to be excavated from the
northwest corner of the cooling towers extend below the level of the wetlands along
Walker run west of the cooling tower, a flow barrier wall and active dewatering system
may be required. An alternate solution to the planned excavation is the use of deep soil
improvement techniques to reduce or eliminate the deep excavation of potentially water
bearing overburden soils.

9.2 Recommendations

Prior to implementation of dewatering using the conceptual designs provided with this
evaluation, Weaver Boos recommends the following:

" Subsurface conditions along the alignment of the proposed flow barrier and along the
horizontal limits of the planned excavations should be better defined using soil borings
advanced several feet into the underlying competent bedrock. Such borings should be
advanced on 100 ft centers (or less) along the flow barrier alignment and at 200 ft
centers (or less) along the perimeter of the excavations, and if significant variations in
bedrock elevation are encountered, additional borings should be advanced to assess
conditions in such areas.

* Groundwater conditions at the northwest corner of the cooling tower excavation should
be defined by installing and monitoring groundwater monitoring wells in the overburden
and upper bedrock.

"EA BOO ITS CONSFX.r.T 37

K:PWbgmAC~ientInfrimatifn-2502599,2524,3 Rep~rtýNrivei252430-0-02 Rptddoc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 * Conceptual evaluations presented herein should be reviewed to consider additional data
and information as it becomes available and the conceptual designs further refined and
developed to support development of final designs suitable for use in construction.

ftA Rti OO COmS XiaT•a TS 38

K.~J~bgmClientIn/ibrmain20-59,54310 11eot~ aiv!540-l0 Rpt~doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, TN 46628
 10.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Weaver Boos has performed this conceptual construction dewatering evaluation consistent with
the principles of hydrogeology in accordance with the prevailing standards for professionals
practicing under similar circumstances. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either
expressed or implied.

This evaluation is conceptual in nature, and the conceptual evaluations presented herein will
require confirmation and refinement prior to development of final designs for the purposes stated
herein. This evaluation was prepared for our client and may not be adequate for use by other
parties for other purposes. Data and information considered during this evaluation was
developed primarily by others, and is assumed correct and complete as it was received by Weaver
Boos. Independent validation of design parameters utilized in this assessment was specifically
considered beyond the scope of services for this assignment by the client. It is noted that
conditions at the time of site explorations completed by others may be subject to change. Soil
and groundwater conditions in areas between soil borings and wells are interpolated or
extrapolated, and may in fact differ from those assumed. Moreover, the application of subsurface
hydraulic assessment methods applied herein is characterized by inherent uncertainty owing to a
necessarily incomplete understanding of subsurface hydrological conditions. If during
construction or at any other time, actual conditions are found to differ from those assumed in this
report, Weaver Boos should be notified immediately so that the impact of the new information to
our conclusions and recommendations contained herein may be properly considered.

The following specific technical qualifications and limitations should be considered by the users
of this report:

0 This evaluation was prepared using subsurface characterization data that are limited in
several respects. Relatively few exploratory borings were drilled in the area of the
cooling towers and ESWEMS pond. Subsurface conditions, including the depth to
bedrock, are therefore uncertain in these areas and may differ significantly from the
interpolations and extrapolations used to develop the excavation plans and groundwater
potentiometric surface maps (prepared by others), which were used by Weaver Boos in
this evaluation.

* Projected groundwater mass budgets, flow rates, drawdowns, and dewatering system
yields are estimated based on digital flow models and manual calculations using
available hydraulic conductivity and specific yield data. The actual groundwater flow
VVkr][•AL-LF1El:: BOO>S CONSK.WI.TMX•,NTS~r1 39
K:0VbgnAC~iefmati0n1 In2954mationl25ReportNarrativ,ý,w2S24301-01-02Rptdoc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 system may therefore differ from the conceptual models used in the digital and manual
calculations.

The dewatering operations, without a flow barrier and to a lesser extent without a flow
barrier, evaluated herein will locally stress the groundwater flow system to a great
degree. The aquifers' actual response to such stress (e.g., actual dewatering system flow
rates, basin drawdown, and changes in the mass flow budgets) has not been verified at
high rates of test pumping and may therefore vary significantly from the estimates
projected herein.

AVE MR OOS COOINSIJX.TAWTS 40

K.IWbgrmCMient nfOfrmatilnl250-25991252413 0 1ReportlNarrativel252431- -02 Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 11.0 REFERENCES CITED

1. Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ 07632.

2. Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000,
the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model -- User guide to modularization
concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-
92, 121 p.

3. Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc. 2010. Response to RFI SL-BBNPP-132, Approved for Use
by UniStar August 12, 2010 (Final Boring Logs).

4. Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Response to RFI SL-BBNPP-111, Approved for Use by
UniStar August 31, 2010 (3-Month Groundwater Monitoring data Report).

5. Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., Response to RFI SL-BBNPP-149, Approved for Use by
UniStar September 13, 2010 (Excavation Plans).

6. Powers, J.P. 1981. Construction Dewatering - A Guide to Theory and Practice. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

7. Sargent & Lundy LLC, Conceptual Design of Stormwater Management, Bell Bend Nuclear
Power Plant Unistar Nuclear Energy, Report SL-009446, Revision 5, July 28, 2010.

8. Sargent & Lundy LLC drawings:

12198-400-015, Sheet 1, Rev. 5, "Conceptual Grading& DrainagePlan, Sheet 1"
* 12198-400-015, Sheet 2, Rev. 5, "Conceptual Grading& DrainagePlan, Sheet 2"
* 12198-400-015, Sheet 5, Rev. 5, "Conceptual Grading& DrainagePlan, Sheet 5"
* 12198-400-015, Sheet 6, Rev. 5, "Conceptual Grading & DrainagePlan, Sheet 6".
9. BBNPP, Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.4.12 - Groundwater, Rev. 2.

10. BBNPP, Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 2.5.4 - Stability of Subsurface Materials and
Foundations, Rev. 2.

11. Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 1971. Dewatering and Groundwater
Controlfor Deep Excavations, Army TM 5-818-5, Navy NA VFAC No. P-418,Air Force AFM
88-5; Chap 6. April.

W BOOS c0s•rlxT
O .NTs 41
K:9VbggniCient Ih~nwnationý2500-259912524ý30OIIOpRepý.tNartie,2524301-0J-02Rpt.doc 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, 1N 46628
 12. USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, Berwick, Pa Quadrangle, 1955, Photorevised
1989.

WpAnIR BOOS CO4SJX WTAMTS 42

K:hWbgm1Client Info ,,nation,25O-25991252453OlOJ
1 R07ortlNarrativel2524301-0
01-02 Rpt.doe 4085 Meghan Beeler Court
South Bend, IN 46628
 STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

SCALE

0 4000 8000

S -Ti

- f<-

VICINITY MAP. LUZERNE COUNTY

SITE LOCATION PLAN

I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I BELLBENDNUCLEARPOWERPLANT
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES QUADRANGLE MAPS OF UNISTARNUCLEAR
PENNSYLVANIA
BERWICK AND SYBERTSVILLE, PA. MAPS PHOTOREVISED 1989. I NON-SAFETY RELATED I
Weaver Boos Consultants
WE*" Rumw
S .
ma
Oldm734

E-F -- td.
T. f5
 31i

N 344 O0•

POWER BLOCK

SITE PLAN
SORAGEPOND
(TEMPORARY)

BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

UNISTAR NUCLEAR
PENNSYLVANIA
Weaver Boos Consultants
D4AWNC
ADAPTED
FROMREFERENCE
8. (574)271-ý7
DAWNowi. Tr T : 9,18/10 FLUE2TG431 0I-1
RLEEM y: SMS cm. FIGURE 2
 4
664

COOLNG TOWERS
EXCAVATION

i •J"

~ ~

ESWEMS POND
EXCAVATION

CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATION PLAN

BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

UNISTAR NUCLEAR
PENNSYLVANIA
EVC0/AF,)
Weaver Boos Consultants
044018 40P0 Ff1 CrECOCE 5 44 8. 4,Im271--=47
ON7) .44m

s•• cAr.oFIGURE 3
 % Observation Well or Cluster (square on map)

FIGURE 4
Groundwater Observation Well Locations
(References 4 and 9)
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non-Safety Related
4085 Mcghan Bccler Court
South Bend. Indiana 46628 Berwick, Pennsylvania
 0 Model Domain
* Grdlmes
Observation Well or Cluster (squane on map)

o;

NE

2399755

FIGURE 5
Groundwater Flow Model Domain
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non-Safety Related
4085 Mcghan Beeler Court Berwick. Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 % Observation Well or Cluster (square on map)

No-Flow Area

Conductivity Zone Border

2399?55 240 000 240o000 2109000 240o000 241r000 2410739

FIGURE 6
Layer I Conductivity Zones and River Boundaries
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non-Safety Related
4085 Meghan Beeler Court
Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 %D Net Recharge (Inlyr)
1. Observation Well or Claster (squara on map

N()-Flow Area

o:

2399755 210ý000 2404000 2406000 2408000

I 2410000 2410t799

FIGURE 7
Layer I Recharge Boundary Distribution (in/yr)
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non-Safcty Related
4085 Meghan Beeler Court
Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 Observatlo Wall or Cluster (square on map)
Ol

No-Flow Area 700 I?,e=

2399755 240o000 2o04000 2061000 240l000 41000 24107991

2

FIGURE 8
Layers 2 - 7 Fixed Head Boundaries
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS
Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non-Safety Related
4085 Meghan Beeler Court
Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 BBNPPBaselineOSW

Ground Surface

Layer Interfaces

FIGURE 9
Block View of Model Area

!WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non-Safety Related
4085 Mcghan Beeler CT Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bend, IN 46628 File 2524301-01-02
 5) Head Equipotentiala (ft)
" Observation Well or Cluster (square on map)

FIGURE 10
Layer I Bascline Simulated Head

WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non-Safety Related
4085 Meghan Beeler Court
Berwick. Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 2 Head Equipotential$ (ft)
Observation Well or Cluster (square on map)

27l03-4

FIGURE I I
Layer 2 Baseline Simulated Head

WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant -Non-Safety Related
4085 Mcghan Beelcr Court Bcrwick, Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 fi Dewatenng Well (solid fill on map)
- ~ a

a I
vs
4
4
'9

o '9

-4-
-~
n 4

a
~
7'
a
"? 'kL•-' Dewaterrf Well a

I."
f " -' 97+

>m NN•• , +D
++0" oow+ý• +
+ LW21

rain Cells (Gray) oi, a

I C145
DW +

1
24+045003
2-I
24+06000 2"106500
I 2107000 2407699
24-0158 2405000 2405500

FIGURE 12
Layer I Dewatering Plan (Without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS)
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Safety Related
4085 Mcghan Beeler Court Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 '% Dewatenng Well (solid fill on map)

brain Cells (Gpay)

4W

<a'
r

'5-' 5

r
8' -~ a

4<
.5-

J 4
I
Dewa+'l1r Well

IN
31.18 ~-
+ .5r

Drain Cells (Gray)

D~.4 ° +
DW .L - *S
-j2 hS

0 0
2ý06500
2401158 2404500 2ý05000 2905500 2406000 2407000 2407699

FIGURE 13
Layer 2 Dewatering Plan (Without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS)
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Safety Related
4085 Meghan Beeler Court
Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 % Dewatenng Well (solid fill on map)
. .. . . .... -

in *

g Ww
b6 AJ

Drain Cels (Ormy) "

-o
.6 1
4-
44 4. F
6~ I
8
g0 a

--- 4.-
..- ~t6
C

4
C
Dewa•ednn Well

V
o
1.
+
-4Dwý6

DW13 OW6
o
DD1.

Drain Cells (Gray) 4+

DW-28 0A o t4jD8 t
Dwf0W4 ... ÷ ÷ ..
+ +

I00
2ý06500 2407000 2402699
2AD4158 2404500 2405000 2405500 2406000

FIGURE 14
Layer 3 Dewatering Plan (Without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS)
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Safety Related
4085 Mcghan Beceler Court Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bcnd, Indiana 46628
 -' Drawdown (ft) (oOrn on map)

FIGURE 15
Drawdown in Overburden Aquifer Without Flow Barrier at ESWEMS

WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Safety Related
4085 Mcghan Beeler Court Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 -)ý Ore"~w, (ft)(brow, on map)

FIGURE 16
Drawdown in Overburden Aquifer With Flow Barrier at ESWEMS

WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Safety Related
4085 Meghan Beeler Court Berwick, Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 ý) Hea Equipotentials (ft)

2404370 240*500 2*05L 00 2405700 2406000 2406154

FIGURE 17
Power Block Dewatered Head, Layer 3
WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS
4085 Meghan Beeler Court Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Safety Related
Berwiek, Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 ý) Hod Equipotenttals (ft)
7•

N1

C)

0_

-- 0 -~
00* -#'

0~
0I
0
7

720 / S

C, - ~ ~
240600024063-

-ox-1) '~'
_ 0l"

24o0579 2405,UC)

FIGURE 18
Cooling Towers Dewatered Head, Layer 2

WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Safety Related
4085 Meghan Beeler Court Berwiek. Pennsylvania
South Bend, Indiana 46628
 5, Dewatenng Well
") Head Equpotentiais (ft)

2406-00 2ý06600 2406800 2407000 2407200 2 CO 2107691

FIGURE 19
ESWEMS Pond Dewatered Head, Layer 2

WEAVER BOOS CONSULTANTS Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant - Non Safety Related
4085 Mcghan Bcclcr Court Berwick. Pennsylvania
South Bend. Indiana 4662K
 0

ESWEMS POND
EXCAVATION

HLAULH

POWER BLOCK
EXCAVATION
i i / t "' / w-
COLLECTION

CONCEPTUAL DEWATERING STRATEGY

POWER BLOCK AND ESWEMS WITHOUT
oM" PONT
(0
FLOW BARRIER

*(f.OSoff SIM Ij~(U

- U
t BELLBEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
UNISTAR NUCLEAR
PENNSYLVANIA

AUPTED
IMR"wNG FROMRFERENCES5 AND &

DW CouKcy -muwwmo 604

 COLLECTION DISCHARGE

ý70oo0
T/0ND

COOLING TOWERS '•

EXCAVATION
N 5 ,

WATER
TREr'bERT
BUILDING

:VT"to: - "-C>"o, -

u / NC

- iM/004"IX O-ff14TIN 4 k

RAPWDFWR
CRWWNC REFERENCES
5 AND&
 ESWEMS POND
EXCAVATION

COLLECTION HEADER
(TYP)

CONCEPTUAL DEWATERING STRATEGY

POWER BLOCK AND ESWEMS
00ýI WITH FLOW BARRIER

, tt,
- ~ PA"u
~
DMTIdt PVW"
U ATOOft
i
~mc, ? clM"e~
t BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
UNISTAR NUCLEAR
PENNSYLVANIA
feaver Boos
DRAdNG
ADAPTED
FROMREFERENCES
5 ANDB.
'I * or q DRr e7B DATE.9/27To Lx.0G252 3ý07-R.-
EKEoBeslim 7C2E FIUE 2
 TYPICAL DEWATERING WELL

DISCHARGE,
1-1/2" PIEZOMETER
HEADER

12. DIA. CASING:-

SILICA GRAVEL PACK #1630
010 0.030"*.-,:
D30 0.034 T WATER TABLE
00D 0.036"::';
D60 0.046"::

• ... .. . . .... :: ..... :.......: .. .

:"•':. :i2 ... ...........

.. .. 4 .. . .
t ..t.....: .: . . . . .. . . . . . . .
...,. ,... ,....,... . . ;.,. . : : . : :

SCREE•S'.:':.: ":':.::.J.::":.:':':.::'::-:':::':
S.S. 12: P.S• 25 SLOT (0.025").:-. SAN
&GRVEL:-
"l 0:'::: ABOVE :::::SHALE ::
JOHNSON HIGH CAPACITY
•7':
.:' i: : .. : .. : .' ': : .- .' ' : .
("HIGH FLOW

D & A.....................
;SUBMERSIBLE PUMP.

.... . . .. ...
.. ... ..

SHALE
N/ N N, /N, \ \\ N, N/ N/ N, /, N N/
/N,

NINNNCNNNNNNN\NNNNNNNN

NOTES: TYPICAL
1) SUBMERSIBLE PUMP RATED AT APPROXIMATELY 100 TO 150 GPM DEWATERING WELL SCHEMATIC
)1 DIA. SAMPPUNG PORT AT EACH PIPE DISCHARGE BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
UNISTAR NUCLEAR
PENNSYLVANIA
NO'W TH~
MS -NTfl, rWNLr
rMC~ltW3 C209WXMoX XffC

DRAWNBY: TAG RATEI09/21/10 FiLEC2524301-01-01

BY:SMS C.,: WEý.SCHE.)OW FIGURE 23
REV1FWVD
 TYPICAL 2-INCH MONITORING WELL SCHEMATIC

'P'ROTECTIVE COVER

CONCRETE PAD

.1.~

ANNULAR BACKFILL
BENTONITE OR
CEMENT BENTONITE

BENTONITE PLUG

z WELL SCREEN
SAND FILTER

NOT TO SCALE

TYPICAL MONITORING WELL

(PIEZOMETER) SCHEMATIC
BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
UNISTAR NUCLEAR
PENNSYLVANIA
W=JAVMM 3E9,01 4Cc3,rn&T=drfJW0
Clw~ix f~

DRWN iYn TAG W-E_ 0-/21/10

/'a 2524010-0
REMEWM9Y. SMS Oh PýIES D.WG FIGURE 24
 TABLE 1
Hydraulic Properties Summary
Proposed BBNPP Facility
Berwick, Pennsylvania

Observation Hydraulic Conductivity Storage Specific Yield,

Test Type Coefficient, S Sy
Well ID
Well__D ft/day cm/s (unitless) (unitless)
Glacial Overburden Pumping Test (Pumping Well = MW302A1)(') (EL. 645 to 630)
MW302A2 Pumping 1.1OE+02 3.88E-02 NA 5.OOE-01
Recovery 1.67E+02 5.89E-02 NA NA
MW302A3 Pumping 1.03E+02 3.63E-02 NA 2.53 E-01
Recovery 3.57E+02 1.26E-01 NA NA
MW302A4 Pumping 1.13E+02 3.99E-02 NA 3.22E-01
Recovery 2.92E+02 1.03E-01 NA NA
Geometric Mean(2) 1.68E+02 5.92E-02 NA 3.44E-01
Median 1.40E+02 4.94E-02 NA 3.22E-01

Shallow Bedrock Pumping Test (Pumping Well = MW404)(31 (EL. 670 to 618)
Pumping 3.45E+00 1.22E-03 2.60E-04 NA
MW405
Recovery 1.75E+00 6.17E-04 1.84E-04 NA
MW407 Pumping 3.25E+00 1.15E-03 1.15E-04 NA
Recovery 2.42E+00 8.54E-04 2.14E-04 NA
Shallow Bedrock Pumping Test (Pumping Well = MW405)(3) (EL. 670 to 618)
Pumping 2.45E+00 8.64E-04 2.88E-04 NA
MW404
Recovery 2.78E-01 9.81E-05 1.43E-04 NA
MW407 Pumping 1.47E+00 5.19E-04 2.33E-04 NA
Recovery 6.59E-01 2.32E-04 1.91E-04 NA
Shallow Bedrock Pumping Test (Pumping Well = MW407)(3) (EL. 670 to 620)
Pumping 2.53E+00 8.93E-04 1.79E-04 NA
MW404
Recovery 1.08E+00 3.81 E-04 1.76E-04 NA
MW409 Pumping 1.64E+00 5.79E-04 7.27E-06 NA
Recovery 1.26E+00 4.45E-04 6.42E-06 NA
Geometric Mean(2) 1.54E+00 5.43 E-04 1.1OE-04 NA
Median 1.64E+00 5.79E-04 1.79E-04 NA

Deep Bedrock Pumping Test (Pumping Well = MW301B1)14) (EL. 582 to 502)
MW301B2 Pumping 2.38E-01 8.40E-05 8.37E-05 NA
Recovery 2.51E+00 8.85E-04 5.50E-04 NA
Pumping 2.58E-01 9.1OE-05 5.37E-05 NA
MW301 B3
Recovery 2.05E+00 7.23E-04 2.52E-04 NA
MW301 B4 Pumping 5.46E-02 1.93E-05 1.25E-05 NA
Recovery 5.77E-01 2.04E-04 7.41E-05 NA
Geometric Mean(2) 4.64E-01 1.64E-04 9.12E-05 NA
Median 4.18E-01 1.48E-04 7.89E-05 NA
- Design value for non-safety related temporary construction dewatering.
(1) - Reference 9, Table 2.4-51.
(2) - Hydraulic conductivities measured by pump test are horizontal (Kh). Vertical (Kv) is considered to be Kh/ 10.
(3) - Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc., August 24, 2010, per SL-BBNP-1 11 Response (Reference 4).
(4) - Reference 9, Table 2.4-54.

K:WbgmýClient Informationl2500-2599ý2524ý301ýOlOllReport\TablesýT1Aquifer Hydraulic Properties.xls

 TABLE2
Head Observations Used in Dewatering Evaluation
Proposed BBNPP Facility
Berwick. Pennsylvania

Screen
Flow Model
Center Head on Head on Head on Head on Head on Head on Calibration
Well ID X (Easting) Y (Northing) Point 01/26/08 03/24/08 5/6-7/2010 05/2012010 06/29/2010 07/27/2010 Value
Elevation (ft) (it) (It) (It) (It) (It) (It)
(It) (NAVD88) (NAVD88) (NAVD88) (NAVD88) (NAVD88) (NAVD88) (NAVD88)
(NAVD88)
Overburden Aquifer
MW301A 2,405,396.73 339,097.64 633.5 657.68 659.33 656.81 NM NM 654.77 661.3
MW302A1 2,406,939.74 339,410.17 637.7 661.57 663.85 660.24 NM 658.47 657.67 665.90)
MW302A2 2,406,925.67 339,410.07 637.8 661.58 663.84 660.22 NM 658.44 657.65 665.8
MW302A3 2,406,899.92 339,410.16 637.1 661.53 663.79 660.14 NM 658.38 657.58 665.8
MW302A4 2,406,939.42 339,495.31 635.6 661.57 663.86 660.27 NM 658.49 657.70 665.9
MW303A 2,405,505.31 341,504.72 711.1 714.32 717.11 713.99 NM 713.22 712.68 719.1
MW304A 2,408,455.38 340,228.16 653.6 671.05 672.16 670.45 NM 668.92 668,16 674.2 ...
MW305AI 2,407,090.85 341,896.43 682.3 706.86 708.01 706.02 NM 704.50 704.02 710.0 ...
MW305A2 2,407,096.81 341,888.61 648.6 706.44 707.23 705.57 NM 704.24 703.76 709.2...
MW306A 2,404,351.67 338,899.63 632.0 655.93 657.07 655.05 NM 653.98 653.59 659.1 )
MW307A 2,407,085.99 337,632.51 659.1 684.65 685.82 684.69 NM 682.22 680.55 687.8 I .51

MW308A 2,405,979.80 338,355.50 637.9 656.21 657.02 655.69 NM 654.45 653.88 659.0
MW309A 2,408,989.20 338,707.94 657.5 669.25 670.57 667.44 NM 665,33 664.47 672.6 I
MW310A 2,405,156.30 339,453.78 660.3 659.25 661.09 657.83 NM NM 655.86 663.1
MW410 2,406,412.50 339,662.11 650.5 NI NI NM 658.91 657.55 656,58 663.5 (21

Shallow Bedrock Aquifer

MW301BI 2,405,384.28 339,098.94 517.4 659.37 660.62 659.05 NM NM 656.99 662.6
MW301B2 2,405,338.53 339,142.99 524.2 660.69 659.28 656.83 NM 655.50 654.78 661.3
MW301B3 2,405,288.63 339,069.30 572.1 657.22 658.64 656.38 NM 654.94 654.58 660.6
MW301B4 2,405,444.97 338,987.79 568.5 657.80 658.98 652.90 NM NM 654.94 661.0
MW303B 2,405,493.42 341,504.61 646.5 717.64 720.27 716.94 NM 715.85 715.28 722.3 I)
MW304B 2,408,443.45 340,245.01 510.3 670.60 671.56 669.58 NM 668.55 667.48 673.6 1

MW305B 2.407,108.09 341,880.51 584.1 706.35 707.09 705.48 NM 704.20 703.71 709.1 ...
MW308B1 2,405,969.62 338,356.71 592.0 600.48 588.69 606.77 NM 607.24 610.66 612.7 i)
MW309B 2A408,999.09 338,708.71 523.2 666.61 667.33 665.17 NM 663.52 662.79 669.3 ...
MW310B 2,405,176.41 339,454.71 595.3 664.81 666.24 668.54 NM 667.17 666.40 668.4 i.
MW311B 2.405,252.94 339,328.29 578.9 659.47 661.17 658.25 NM NM 656.02 663.2 i..
MW312B 2,405.297.70 338,820.62 564.4 656.99 65820 655.77 NM 654.65 654.11 660,2 ..
MW313B 2,405,815.58 338,927.92 567.7 658.24 659.97 656.89 NM 655.55 654.84 662.0 .I
MW313C 2,405,754.79 338,922.54 537.2 658.24 658.01 656.84 NM 655.54 654.84 660.0
MW315B 2,406,234.46 340,738.30 660.1 718.67 719.79 717.15 NM 715.42 714.83 721.8
MW316B 2,406,433.93 340,298.18 632.4 693.54 693.78 696.68 NM 692.84 691.55 698.7
MW317B 2,406,401.48 339,772.49 621.2 660.78 662.91 659.47 NM 657.79 656.92 664.9
MW318B 2,405,516.32 340,493.18 741.3 759.15 761.04 757.47 NM 754.66 751.35 763.0 11.51
MW319B 2,405,528.14 340,239.46 700.6 719.19 721.71 715.26 NM 709.51 707.11 723.7 II
MW401 2,405,097.68 340,753.25 645.4 NI NI NM 696.70 693.78 692.47 701.6
MW402 2,405,855.94 340,870.66 683.2 NI NI NM 720.59 719.54 718.79 725.5 o)
MW403 2,405,542.37 340,579.28 650.0 NI NI NM 700.27 699.08 696,65 705.2 1)

MW404 2,404,985.30 340.170,50 655.4 NI NI NM 700.16 696.92 695.55 705.1 3)

MW405 2,404,646.35 339,970.47 633.4 NI NI NM 680.51 680.08 679.99 685.5 131

MW406 2,404,789.81 339,710,35 637.5 NI NI NM 669.70 668.99 668.36 674.6131

MW407 2,405,144.25 339,784.93 634.8 NI NI NM 697.34 693.99 692.59 702.3 13,

MW408 2,405,819.88 340,342.30 652.0 NI NI NM 705,86 703.68 702.25 710.883

MW409 2,405,905.35 339,760.65 635.8 NI NI NM 696.92 693.64 T 692.23 701.9
Deep Bedrock Aquifer
MW302B 2,406,954,17 339,409.88 460.3 667,42 667,42 666.95 NM 665.19 664.42 669.4AII
MW303C 2,405,483.36 341,503.54 492.9 704.18 704.70 698.39 NM 698.59 697.65 706.7 II
MW304C 2,408,449.59 340.236.49 300.6 670.43 671.14 670.45 NM 669.26 668.23 673.1 II

MW306C 2,404,353.48 338,889.03 357.5 656.79 657.82 657.42 NM 656.4(0 655.84 659.8 ...
MW307B 2,407,096.69 337,632.75 428.3 621.15 637.52 625.42 NM 616.57 613.54 639.5 II
MW3IOC14) 2,405,233.06 339,452.09 590.9 678.35 678.35 678.35 NM 678.35 678.35 680.4 I..
MW311C 2,405413.69 339,313.21 476.1 528.81 534.15 597.64 NM 600.54 601.99 604.01151

Observed maximum head.

- Design value for non-safety related temporary dcwatering (observed maximum, or observed maximum corrected to 2008. plus 2.0 ft).
(1) - Maximum observed head plus 2.0 it.
(2) - Maximum value measured during 20(10 plus 4.6 feet to correct the observed value to the March 2008 maximum.
(3) - Maximum value measured during 201(1 plus 5.0 feet to correct the observed value to the March 2008 maximum.
(4) - Artesian pressure causes this well to flow. The groundwater head is assumed equal to the top of tle well casing (EL. 678.35).
(5) - MW-307A in different basin, omitted. MW318B likely a perched condition, omitted. MW31 IC is non-responsive, omitted.
NM - Not measured.
NI - Not Installed.

K lWu1gmClient
lnformationLt500-2599X2524130flOlllO1sRepodlTableslT2
Head Levels xla
 TABLE 3
Mahantango Shale Formation Elevation
Proposed BBNPP Facility
Berwick, Pennsylvania

Top of Shale
Boring I.D. X (Easting) Y (Northing) Formation El.
(NAVD88)
(__ft)
B-301 2,405,430.7 339,151.8 625.4 (
B-302 2,405,420.6 339,243.1 640.3 (
B-303 2,405,338.5 339,143.0 637.7 ("
B-304 2,405,438.6 339,060.2 617.8 <
B-305 2,405,520.6 339,160.2 623.3 •
B-306 2,405,413.7 339,313.2 649.1 (
B-307 2,405,276.1 339,193.3 638.5 (
B-308 2,405,288.6 339,069.3 623.4 •
B-309 2,405,333.7 338,998.8 614.6 •
B-310 2,405,445.0 338,987.8 607.5 <
B-311 2,405,592.5 339,099.7 615.4 (
B-312 2,405,582.0 339,230.1 634.3 <
B-313 2,405,379.3 338,917.2 602.7 )
B-314 2,405,288.2 338,916.5 596.3 <
B-315 2,405,297.7 338,820.6 596.9 <
B-316 2,405,513.4 338,882.2 602.8 •
B-317 2,405,571.7 338,888.1 601.6 (I)

B-318 2,405,520.5 339,436.1 645.3 )

B-319 2,405,462.4 339,429.9 644.0 (1)
B-320 2,405,516.0 340,491.8 611.3 )
B-321 2,405,830.2 338,752.7 616.7 )
B-322 2,405,754.8 338,922.5 596.2 1
B-323 2,405,815.6 338,927.9 599.2 )
B-324 2,405,191.0 339,323.7 648.5 )
B-325 2,405,252.9 339,328.3 648.0 )
B-326 2,405,176.4 339,454.7 653.8 (
B-327 2,405,233.1 339,452.1 654.9 ()
B-328 2,405,699.7 339,176.8 609.6 (
B-329 2,405,802.7 339,189.6 608.5 (I)
B-330 2,405,916.0 339,200.6 607.7 (
B-331 2,406,407.0 339,872.7 642.7 (
B-332 2,406,874.3 339,907.3 642.6 •
B-333 2,406,421.4 339,667.3 644.3 (
B-334 2,406,888.5 339,700.6 625.3 (
B-335 2,405,475.6 340,767.3 774.7 1
B-336 2,405,516.3 340,492.2 771.3 (I)
B-337 2,405,528.1 340,239.5 771.6 )
B-338 2,406,234.5 340,738.3 697.3 •

KAWbgmýClient Information\2500-2599ý2524ý301Ol1Ol0ReportOTables\T3 Bedrock Surf EI.xls

 TABLE 3, Continued
Mahantango Shale Formation Elevation
Proposed BBNPP Facility
Berwick, Pennsylvania

Top of Shale
Boring I.D. X (Easting) V (Northing) Formation El.
(ft) (NAVD88)
B-339 2,406,149.5 340,480.0 692.7 )
B-340 2,406,433.9 340,298.2 689.9 (
B-341 2,406,458.8 339,825.7 631.3 (
B-342 2,406,467.5 339,721.5 640.2 (
B-343 2,406,467.5 339,772.5 632.8 (
B-344 2,406,301.5 339,762.0 _ 641.1_ _

B-345 2,406,203.7 339,746.4 663.0 ()

G-301 2,405,430.7 339,151.8 626.8

G-302 2,405,219.0 339,297.6 647.3 )
G-303 2,405,865.5 338,699.0 616.7

B-401 2,405,131.3 340,123.5 728.2 (2)

B-402 2,405,121.8 340,214.8 746.8 (2)

B-403 2,405,041.4 340,114.6 717.7 (2)

B-404 2,405,137.0 340,031.7 726.7 (2)

B-405 2,405,221.4 340,131.9 746.6 (2)

B-406 2,405,115.5 340,287.0 760.9 (2)

B-407 2,404,971.7 340,169.2 708.7 (2)

B-408 2,404,983.0 340,045.1 703.4 (2)

B-409 2,405,035.7 339,978.7 717.6 (2)

B-410 2,405,145.9 339,957.9 727.4 (2)

B-411 2,405,273.9 339,979.5 743.7 (2)

B-412 2,405,294.5 340,068.4 741.4 (2)

B-413 2,405,283.0 340,208.1 763.2 (2)

B-414 2,404,983.5 339,887.7 713.8 (2)

B-415 2,405,086.0 339,896.9 724.1 (2)

B-416 2,404,992.4 339,788.7 703.9 (2)

B-417 2,405,095.5 339,799.3 714.7 (2)

B-418 2,405,203.4 339,853.4 724.0 (2)

B-419 2,405,278.2 339,860.4 724.4 (2)

B-420 2,405,150.7 340,403.2 763.3 (2)

B-421 2,405,228.9 340,410.5 768.5 (2)

B-422 2,405,472.5 339,721.4 712.6 (2)

B-423 2,405,533.8 339,727.1 711.0 (2)

K:)Wbgm\Client Information\2500-2599\2524\301\O1\O1(Report\Tables(T3Bedrock Surf E(.xls

 TABLE 3, Concluded
Mahantango Shale Formation Elevation
Proposed BBNPP Facility
Berwick, Pennsylvania

Top of Shale
Boring I.D. X (Easting) Y (Northing) Formation El.
(ft) (NAVD88)
B-424 2,405,458.5 339,869.0 722.0 (2)

B-425 2,405,519.4 339,874.3 721.0 (2)

B-426 2,404,892.7 340,296.2 725.2 (2)

B-427 2,404,955.0 340,301.4 740.3 (2)

B-428 2,404,878.1 340,444.2 732.4 (2)

B-429 2,404,939.6 340,449.2 736.2 (2)

B-430 2,405,389.9 340,147.0 753.6 (2)

B-431 2,405,519.4 340,160.6 762.9 (2)

B-432 2,405,665.6 340,173.5 761.5 (2)

B-433 2,405,380.5 340,485.7 766.3 (2)

B-434 2,404,822.9 339,642.0 693.2 (2)

B-435 2,406,056.3 339,687.6 675.2 (2)

B-436 2,406,180.7 339,698.7 649.0 (2)

B-437 2,406,305.3 339,709.7 647.4 (2)

B-438 2,406,429.6 339,721.4 640.0 (2)

B-439 2,406,541.8 339,757.1 634.6 (2)

B-440 2,406,546.2 339,706.7 625.0 (2)

B-441 2,407,095.2 339,619.8 611.1 (2)

B-442 2,406,579.0 339,570.7 633.0 (2)

B-443 2,405,090.2 341,137.5 693.2 (2)

B-444 2,405,751.3 341,108.6 758.2 (2)

MW301A 2,405,396.7 339,097.6 626.0

MW301AI 2,406,939.7 339,410.2 630.0
MW303A 2,405,505.3 341,505.7 706.1
MW304A 2,408,455.4 340,228.2 643.6
MW305A2 2,407,096.8 341,888.6 631.6
MW306A 2,404,351.7 338,899.6 624.5
MW307A 2,407,086.0 337,632.5 651.6
MW308A 2,405,979.8 338,355.5 627.9
MW309A 2,408,989.2 338,707.9 652.4
MW310A 2,405,156.3 339,453.8 653.5
MW-401 2,405,097.7 340,753.3 764.5 (2)

MW-402 2,405,855.9 340,870.7 755.2 (2)

MW-403 2,405,542.4 340,579.3 741.9 (2)

MW-404 2,404,985.3 340,170.5 702.0 (2)

MW-405 2,404,646.4 339,970.5 653.8 (2)

MW-406 2,404,789.8 339,710.4 692.5 (2)

MW-407 2,405,144.3 339,784.9 719.7 (2)

MW-408 2,405,819.9 340,342.3 756.0 (2)

MW-409 2,405,905.4 339,760.7 713.4 (2)

(1)- Reference 10, Table 2.5.4-17.

(2) - From Weaver Boos review of Reference 3.

K:\Wbgm(Client Information(2500-2599(2524U301(10O101ReportlTables(T3
Bedrock Surf EI.xls
 TABLE 4
Summary of Baseline Flow Model Inputs
Proposed BBNPP Facility
Berwick, Pennsylvania

Description of Input Values Value Units

General Data
Title: BBNPPBaselineO.vmf
Number of layers: 7
Overburden is represented in model Layer I
Shallow bedrock is represented in model Layers 1 through 4
Deep bedrock is represented in model Layers 2 through 7
Approximate area of model domain: 1.8 mi 2
Boundary Conditions
Top Boundary Type: Recharge
Default basin recharge rate (all cells unless otherwise specified): 14.2 in/year
Transition areas from lowland to upland: 21.8 in/year
Upland areas: 29.0 in/year
Horizontal Boundaries:
Basin is encompassed by no-flow boundaries in all layers: Inactive n/a
Constant head north of Power Block in Layers 2 through 7 (bedrock inflow from high upland): 700 to 720 ft msl
Constant head south and east of ESWEMS Pond in Layers 4 through 7 (deep bedrock outflow): 621 to 695 ft msl
General Head to far south (outflow to Susquehanna River): 480 ft msl
Rivers (Walker Run and tributary) within model domain:
Stage based on USGS map and field measurements: variable ft msl
Bottom depth below stage: 2 ft
Bottom thickness: 1 ft
Bottom conductivity: 3.53E-04 cm/s
Bottom Boundary at base of Layer 7 - No Flow: Inactive n/a
Formation Properties
Overburden Aquifer Soil (Layer 1 only)
Thickness (south of Power Block and beneath ESWEMS Pond, variable elsewhere): -60 ft
Horizontal Conductivity: 5.9E-02 cm/s
Vertical Conductivity: 5.9E-03 cm/s
Specific Storage: 2.00E-06 1/ft
Specific Yield (0.322 used in manual calculations): 0.322 N/A
Effective Porosity: 0.322
Total Porosity: 0.322
Shallow Bedrock (Layers I through 4)
Thickness (beneath Power Block and other uplands, variable elsewhere): -200 ft
Horizontal Conductivity: 5.43E-04 cm/s
Vertical Conductivity: 5.43E-05 cm/s
Specific Storage: 2.OOE-06 1/ft
Specific Yield: 0.01
Effective Porosity: 0.1
Total Porosity: 0.1
Deep Bedrock (Layers 2 through 7)
Thickness (beneath Power Block and elsewhere): -600 ft
Horizontal Conductivity: 1.64E-04 cm/s
Vertical Conductivity: 1.64E-05 cm/s
Specific Storage: 2.OOE-06
Specific Yield: 0.01
Effective Porosity: 0.1
Total Porosity: 0.11

K:MWbgm\Client Information\2500-2599\2524ý301OllO1 Report\TablesýT4 Baseline lnputs.xls

 TABLE 5
Steady State Groundwater Flow Model Mass Budgets
Proposed BBNPP Facility
Berwick, Pennsylvania

MODEL SCENARIO Flows to Aquifer Flows to Aquifer Flows to Aquifer

(ft3/day) (ft3/s) (gpM)
BASELINE FLOW MODEL IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT
Constant Head Boundary 181,950 129,774 2.1 1.5 950 670
River Leakage 124,455 169,047 1.4 2.0 650 880
Head Dependent Boundary 0.0 217,971 0.0 2.5 0.0 1,130
Recharge 218,152 0.0 2.5 0.0 1,130 0.0
Totals 524,557 516,792 6.1 6.0 2,720 2,680

DEWATERING WITHOUT FLOW BARRIER AT ESWEMS IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT

Constant Head Boundary 232,523 75,290 2.7 0.87 1,210 390
Power Block Excavation Drains 0.0 9,749 0.0 0.11 0.0 50
Cooling Towers Excavation Drains 0.0 13,880 0.0 0.16 0.0 70
ESWEMS Excavation Drains 0.0 48,165 0.0 0.56 0.0 250
ESWEMS Excavation Dewatering Wells (28 wells) 0.0 129,140 0.0 1.5 0.0 670
Subtotal Dewatering Outflows 1,040
River Leakage 164,679 150,389 1.9 1.7 860 780
Head Dependent Boundary 0.0 217,503 0.0 2.5 0.0 1,130
Recharge 218,140 0.0 2.5 0.0 1,130 0.0
Totals"1 ' 615,341 644,117 7.1 7.5 3,200 3,350

DEWATERING WITH FLOW BARRIER AT ESWEMS IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT

Constant Head Boundary 199,158 121,964 2.3 1.4 1,030 630
Power Block Excavation Drains 0.0 9,749 0.0 0.11 0.0 50
Cooling Towers Excavation Drains 0.0 13,880 0.0 0.16 0.0 70
ESWEMS Excavation Drains 0.0 30,310 0.0 0.35 0.0 160
ESWEMS Excavation Dewatering Wells (14 wells) 0.0 13,462 0.0 0.16 0.0 70
Subtotal Dewatering Outflows 350
River Leakage 137,510 154,932 1.6 1.8 710 800
Head Dependent Boundary 0.0 217,753 0.0 2.5 0.0 1,130
Recharge 218,152 0.0 2.5 0.0 1,130 0.0
Totals"'1 554,821 562,051 6.4 6.5 2,880 2,920

(1) Totals vary slightly from overall budget because drain and dewatering outflows are reported from the zone-specific
mass budgets used to separately estimate flows from the power block, cooling towers, and ESWEMS dewatering systems.
Notes:
Constant Head Boundary - Represents inflows to the model domain originating in the bedrock ridge to the north and deep outflows to southeast.
Drains - Represent trench drains in exposed bedrock surface, used in all excavations, and well point lines in overburden at the ESWEMS pond.
Dewatering wells are used only at the ESWEMS pond excavation to drain high-conductivity overburden aquifer.
River Leakage - Represents exchanges of water between Walker Run and the Aquifer.
Head Dependent Boundary - Represents outflow from the southern edge of the model domain to the Susquehanna River.
2
Recharge - Represents recharge to groundwater at 14.2 to 29 in. per year over the 1.8 mi model domain.

K:lWbgmlClient Informationl2500-2599\2524\301\O1\Ol1Report\Tables\T5Mass Budgets.xls