Geology and Hydrology of the Piqua Area, Ohio · GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF THE PIQUA AREA, OHIO By STANLEY E. NORRIS and ANDREW M. SPIEKER ABSTRACT This report on the geology and hydrology

Geology and Hydrology of the Piqua Area, Ohio

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1133-A

Prepared on behalf of theU.S. Atomic Energy Commission

Geology and Hydrology of the Piqua Area, OhioBy STANLEY E. NORRIS and ANDREW M. SPIEKER

STUDIES OF SITES FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1133-A

Prepared on behalf of theU.S. Atomic Energy Commission

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1961

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Thomas B. Nolan, Director

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.G.

CONTENTS

Page Abstract__._________________.__________________-__---------__-- A-1Introduction.______--_________-___-..___,___-__-----------------_-- 1

Purpose and scope__-__-____-_-________-_____-----_---_------__ 1Location of area__________-________________-------_-_----_-_--_ 2Topography and drainage_---__--______--__--------_----------- 2Culture.----_---------_---_---------------------------------- 2Acknowledgments _____________--____________------------------. 4

Geology.______________-____-___-_--___-_--------_-------------_-- 6Soils._._____...____.__.__.____ - --- 6Surficial deposits_____-_--______-______-___-_-_-----_---------_ 6Consolidated rocks._________________________-_--------------_-- 8

The bedrock surface------__-__-_-_--__---_---------------- 12Ground water._____________--_____---____-__-_---_--------------__ 12

Source and occurrence. ______________________________________ 12Rate of ground-water flow_______-.________________--_---_--.-__ 14

Surface water_________________________._-_______---_---_-------_._ 16Chemical quality of water_________________.________--__--_-----__ 17Earthquake activity._-____-__---_---____---_-----_---------------_ 19Summary and conclusions______________________-__-_-_-__------____ 20References cited___________________________________________________ 22Basic data_______-__-_____-___--___-_____-----__________-------_ 23

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1. Aerial photograph of Piqua, Ohio________________________ A-32. Map of Ohio showing location of the Piqua area___________ 43. Topographic map of the Piqua area______________________ 54. Map showing glacial deposits_____-__-______--_____----_-_ 75. Map showing consolidated rocks and bedrock contours.______ 96. Exposure of Brassfield and Dayton limestones_____________ 107. Exposure of Brassfield limestone___._-_-__________----___ 118. Map showing location of wells_-___-___-____------------__ 149. Flood-frequency diagram.________________________________ 18

TABLES

TABLE 1. Records of wells in the Piqua area, Ohio__________________ A-242. Flow-duration data at two gaging stations near Piqua______ 263. Monthly and annual discharge-at three gaging stations_______ 284. Momentary maximum, minimum daily, and annual mean

discharge at two gaging stations near Piqua______________ 315. Chemical analyses of water near Piqua_____________________ 33

in

STUDIES OF SITES FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES

GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF THE PIQUA AREA, OHIO

By STANLEY E. NORRIS and ANDREW M. SPIEKER

ABSTRACT

This report on the geology and hydrology of the Piqua area, Ohio, was pre pared as an aid in determining the feasibility of operating a nuclear-power reactor at a site on the west bank of the Miami River in the southern part of Piqua.

Piqua is in Miami County in west-central Ohio, which is in the Till Plains sec tion of the Central Lowlands physiographic province. The city is in the valley of the Miami River at an altitude of about 870 feet, about 100 feet below the surrounding till plain. The Dayton and Brassfield limestones of Silurian age and the Richmond group of Ordovician age, which compose the bedrock, are overlain by 20 to 40 feet of glacial till west of the Miami River and by a thick section, as much as 200 feet of till, east of the river. The Silurian limestones and the Pleistocene till and outwash deposits yield supplies adequate for domestic, rural, or limited industrial use. Several buried lenses of sand and gravel in the thick till east of Piqua are especially productive aquifers. The ground water is characteristically hard and has a high iron content.

The rate of movement of ground water in the Piqua area is probably on the order of 10 feet per day in the sand and gravel and a few inches per day in the till. Owing to the highly variable permeability of the limestones, the rate of ground-water movement in them has not been estimated.

The only significant use of surface water at Piqua is at locations upstream from the proposed reactor site. Downstream from Piqua, however, the Miami River is important as a source of municipal and industrial water supply, either directly or by induced infiltration to wells. About 200 mgd (million gallons per day) of ground water is pumped from wells in the outwash sand and gravel deposits in the Miami River valley downstream from Piqua, most of it at Dayton, Middle- town, and Hamilton. Probably 75 to 90 percent of the ground water has the Miami River as its source.

The site for the nuclear-power reactor is on the flood plain of the Miami River, and it requires protection against occasional floods.

Owing to the proximity of the site of the proposed nuclear reactor to the Miami River and to the hydraulic gradient of the aquifer, which slopes from the site toward the river, the greatest danger in the event of a leak in the reactor cell would be that the effluent could enter the river, either overland or through the ground water. Dilution and time of travel of a contaminant, once it entered the river, would depend on river conditions at the time. Detailed time-of-travel and dilution computations to individual water supplies located downstream cannot be made on the basis of presently available information.

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this report is to present the geology and hydrology of the Piqua area, Ohio, with special reference to the effects of acci-

A-l

A-2 STUDIES OF SITES FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES

dental loss of radioactive fluid to the ground. The report was pre pared on behalf of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission as an aid in determining the feasibility of operating a nuclear-power reactor at a site on the west bank of the Miami River in the southern part of Piqua (fig. 1).

Well data on which this report is based were obtained from the files of the Ohio Division of Water, and were supplemented by a field investigation made by the authors on July 15-17, 1958.

LOCATION OF AREA

Piqua is in west-central Ohio, about 80 miles west of Columbus and 30 miles north of Dayton, in the valley of the Miami River at an altitude of about 870 feet. (See fig. 2.)

TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE

Piqua is the Till Plains section of the Central Lowland physio graphic province, a region characterized by generally flat topography except for minor relief along the streams and in areas of glacial moraines. The terrain west of Piqua, underlain by only a thin mantle of till over limestone, is nearly flat, whereas the terrain east of town, underlain by as much as 200 feet of glacial drift over shale, has a much more pronounced relief. The town of Piqua is in the valley of the Miami River, about 100 feet lower than the adjacent till plain. North and east of Piqua is a belt of higher, hummocky land, a few miles wide, whose southern boundary forms a broad arc that extends through Lockington and Kirkwood (fig. 3). This belt of higher land is a recessional moraine formed during a temporary halt in the re treat of the final stage of the Wisconsin glacier.

The Miami River, the principal stream in western Ohio, has a drainage area above Piqua of 842 square miles. South of Piqua it flows through Troy, Dayton, Middletown, Hamilton, and several other cities, to a junction with the Ohio River near Cincinnati. Down stream from Piqua the Miami River is an important source of muni cipal and industrial water supply, either directly or by induced in filtration to wells.

An important tributary of the Miami River is Loramie Creek, which joins the Miami about 3 miles north of Piqua. Loramie Creek is regulated by a dam at Lockington, which is one of five detention dams built by the Miami Conservancy District to protect Dayton and other downstream cities from floods. The dams have automatic outlets and the reservoirs are kept empty except during flood periods.

CULTURE

Piqua, which has a population of about 20,000 (1957 estimate), is primarily an industrial community; 50 manufacturing establishments

GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY, PIQUA AREA, OHIO A~3


FIGURE 2. Map of Ohio showing location of the Piqua area.

and 11 utility companies are located there. Most of the surrounding rural area consists of productive farmland. Piqua is served by the Baltimore and Ohio and Pennsylvania Railroads and by U.S. High ways 25 and 36.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

General information on the Piqua area and aerial photographs of the proposed reactor site were supplied by Mr. John P. Gallagher, Director of Municipal Utilities, Piqua, Ohio. Most of the well records used in this report were supplied by the drilling firm of Hole and Middlebrook, Piqua, Ohio. Mr. Herbert Hole was very helpful to the authors in discussing with them general ground-water conditions in the Piqua area.

E. S. Simpson, U.S. Geological Survey, made a brief reconnaissance of the site and vicinity in company with the authors and made help ful suggestions with respect to the preparation of the report.


40'

°5' Planimetry from U. S. Geological Survey Covington (1909) and Troy (1912) topographic maps

1 0 I i i i I

1 2

INTERVAL Ip

3 MILES

CONTOUR INTERVAL Ip FEETDATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

FIGURE 3. Topographic map of the Piqua area, Ohio.

6026010-fcl-2


GEOLOGY

SOILS

The soils in the Piqua area are derived from glacial deposits in which fragments of limestone are an important constituent. Richard B. Jones, Ohio Division of Lands and Soils (in Cross and Hedges, 1959, p. 51) stated:

The soils are derived from glacial deposits of both early and late Wisconsin Age. Miami, Celina, Crosby, and Brookston are the dominant soils of the late Wisconsin till area, and Russell, Xenia, and Fincastle are the principal soils of the early Wisconsin area. Classification of these soils depends on the drainage condition under which they developed. The less well-drained soils are relatively impermeable. Rather extensive terrace and alluvial soils occur, generally with good drainage and high permeability. Fox and associated soils are prevalent on the terraces. Genesee soils are the dominant alluvial soils.

The soil and underlying alluvium in the vicinity of the proposed reactor site are about 5 feet thick and directly overlie limestone. The soil is probably correlative with the Genesee series. The Genesee series (Conrey and others, 1934, p. 15) consists of nonacid silt loam that has fair to good natural drainage properties.

SUBFICIAL DEPOSITS

The surficial deposits (fig. 4) in the Piqua area are of glacial and allu vial origin and consist of till on the uplands and generally of sand and gravel outwash in the Miami River valley. The flood plain of the Miami River is underlain by alluvial deposits of silt and clay, de posited by the stream during times it has overflowed its banks. At the proposed reactor site the alluvium is less than 5 feet thick and rests directly on the limestone bedrock.

The outwash sand and gravel deposits in the area are thickest and most extensive immediately north of Piqua at the site of a large commercial sand and gravel pit; they are thinner and of smaller areal extent both north and south of this pit. The deposits are less than 10 feet thick near the center of Piqua and pinch out entirely a few blocks north of the proposed reactor site. The sand and gravel deposits are absent in the narrow part of the valley between the reactor site and a point near Farrington, about 2 miles downstream. Below Farrington, along the rest of its course, the Miami valley contains extensive deposits of sand and gravel. For example, at well 54, about 3 miles south of the reactor site (fig. 8), the sand and gravel is 68 feet thick.

On the upland west of Piqua the till is thin, 20 to 40 feet thick, and lies directly on the limestone bedrock. East of the town the till is comparatively thick, as much as 200 feet or more thick, and is interbedded with three or more fairly extensive sand and gravel layers which are sources of water to farm and domestic wells. These


84°15' 84°10r

__ SHELBY COUNTY " MIAMI COUNTY

Outwash sand and gravel veneered by Recent alluvium

05'

Planimetry from U. S. Geological Survey Covington (1909) and Troy (1912) topographic maps

1 0I i t . I

3 MILESJ

FIGURE 4. Map of the Fiqua area. Ohio, showing the distribution of the glacial deposits.

A-8 STUDIES OF SITES FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES'

buried sand and gravel lenses represent outwash fans or valley trains deposited by melt water as glacial fronts advanced or retreated over a lowland eroded by preglacial streams. These streams had cut through massive limestone into the underlying, less resistant shale. Some or all of the buried sand and gravel deposits may be absent from the stratigraphic sequence at specific sites east of Piqua, for they are not reported consistently by drillers. Detailed logs, however, usually show these layers, and the authors believe that some of these layers are generally extensive. The following logs are typical of the well records (table 1) that show these deposits.

Thickness (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

Depth (feet)

Well 10

Soil and till.. _ -Sand and gravel, __ Till ___ ________Sand and gravel___

253

3210

2528 6070

Till____ __ _ ____Sand and graveL __ Till_______ ______Sand and gravel. __

5010 1020

120130 140160

Well 18

Soil and till___ _Sand and graveLTill-___ _ _ . -_Sand and graveLTill___ _ ________

2311198

45

23345361

106

Till. _ __________16271043

12'.14<15<ie;16(

Well 56

Soil and till. _ _ _Sand and graveL _Till______ ___ ___Sand and gravel . _Till_____. ________Sand and gravel

1517851357

9

1532

117130187196

TilL -_______-_-_Sand. _____ _Clay_____________Sand__-__-.______Till. ____________Shale ___ _ __

85124

19

204209210212216235

Well 56 was logged by a gamma-ray logging device, owned by the driller, D. J. Roe, Vandalia, Ohio, and this log probably is the most accurate of the three. The well was screened between depths of 120 and 130 feet and 190 and 196 feet. A pumping test of well 56, at a rate of 400 gpm (gallons per minute), produced a sizable drawdown in well 21, nearly 3,000 feet distant (fig. 8); this drawdown indicates continuity of the princiapl aquifer between these points.

CONSOLIDATED BOCKS

The distribution of consolidated sedimentary rocks of Ordovician and Silurian age that underlie the Piqua area is shown in figure 5.


EXPLANATION

Dayton and Brassfield limestones

Richmond group

Contour on bedrock surface Contour internal is SO feet

X Limestone quarry

41

Well drilled to bedrockLarge number is that of well; small

number w attitude of bedrock

800-

Well not drilled to bedrockLarge number is thai of well; small number is altitude of bottom of well

Planimetry from U S Geological Survey Covington (1909) and Troy (1912) topographic maps

FIGURE 5. Map of the Piqua area, Ohio, showing the distribution of the principal consolidated-rock units and approximate contours on the bedrock surface.

Rock unit

bone __ _ _

Approximate thickness

(feet)_______ 7_______ 30_______ 100±

A generalized geologic section follows:

System ., . [Dayton limestone Silurian. ___________ < _, J ....

[Brassneld limestoneOrdovician_________ Richmond group

These strata lie on the west flank of the Cincinnati arch, near the crest, and dip northwest at a low angle, probably about 10 feet per mile. The altitude of the top of the Richmond group is approximately 826 feet at the proposed reactor site, where the Richmond lies beneath a few feet of the Brassfield limestone and alluvial deposits.

The Brassfield limestone and the Dayton limestone are exposed across the river from the proposed reactor site in a large quarry


owned by the Armco Steel Corp. (figs- 6 and 7). The section was described by Stout (1941, p. 187) as follows:Dayton limestone: Ft in

Dolomite, gray to buff, medium to massive layers, rather uniformlybedded, fine-grained, hard, few fossils. _-_-----_-____-______-_ 7 0

Shale, blue, irregular in thickness..____-__----_-----_.__--___-_ 2Brassfield limestone:

Limestone, hard, light to buff, parts pinkish tint, fossiliferous_-___ 9 4 Bedding plane, irregular with stylolites________-__--_-________-_Limestone, light to drab, mainly porous texture, grainy._________ 4 8Shale, irregular, with stylolites above__________________________ %Limestone, light, hard, part porous, massive layers_____________ 4 9Shale, greenish, with stylolites above____________________________ 1Limestone, light, massive, rather porous, crystalline, some fossils __ 6 9 Floor of quarry, limestone, gray, earthy.

The Richmond group consists principally of soft greenish-blue or blue-gray shale, interbedded with layers of hard limestone. The

FIGURE 6. Exposure of the Brassneld limestone and Dayton limestone In a quarry on the east bank of the Miami River opposite the proposed reactor site.

GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY, PIQTJA AREA, OHIO A-ll

FIGURE 7. Exposure of the Brassfleld limestone in a quarry on the east bank of the Miami River oppositethe proposed reactor site.

limestone layers average 1 to 5 inches in thickness and may make up 25 to 50 percent of the whole sequence. The Richmond group is similar lithologically to the shale units of the Maysville group which it overlies; the strata are differentiated on the basis of fossils. The aggregate thickness of the Richmond group and the underlying Mays ville and Eden groups is a little more than 1,000 feet, according to the record of a well drilled for oil or gas in 1886 (Orton, 1888, p. 273). Shale of the Richmond group is very poorly permeable and generally marks the lower limit of ground-water supplies in the area. ,

Locally in western Ohio the uppermost unit of the Richmond group, the Elkhorn formation, is a soft greenish-blue puttylike shale, in which the limestone layers are few and thin. The Elkhorn forma tion is as much as 50 feet thick in places. At Piqua the lithologic character of the Richmond group was not determined, owing to lack of exposures. t


THE BEDROCK SURFACE

Figure 5 shows contours on the bedrock surface in the Piqua area, based largely on drillers' records of wells listed in table 1. East of Piqua the surface of the consolidated rocks forms a broad lowland east of and parallel to U.S. Highway 25. A narrow channel in the bedrock surface leads off northwestward from this lowland and under lies the area immediately northeast of Piqua. Such buried valleys were eroded by streams which drained the area prior to the Pleistocene glaciation, probably by northward-flowing tributaries of the ancient Teays River. The Teays River was the main stream of the principal preglacial drainage system in Ohio, and flowed northwestward across the State a few miles north of Piqua (Stout and others, 1943, p. 51-53; Norris and Spicer, 1958, fig. 16).

GROUND WATER

SOURCE AND OCCURRENCE

Ground water in the Piqua area has its source in local precipitation which percolates downward into the various aquifers and moves through these aquifers to points of discharge along the Miami River. In the areas immediately west and south of Piqua the Brassfield limestone is the principal source of water for farm and domestic wells, which generally yield as much as about 20 gpm. A much larger yield than this was reported at the Decker Packing Co., in the eastern part of Piqua, but the packing-company wells draw from both the limestone and an overlying sand and gravel bed. Where the Brassfield limestone has been thinned by erosion, as it is near the center of Piqua, it commonly yields less than 5 gpm or is totally unproductive.

East, north, and northwest of Piqua, in the immediate vicinity of of the city, most wells tap sand and gravel aquifers interbedded in till. These aquifers generally range from 5 to 10 feet in thickness and underlie areas at least a few square miles in extent. The buried sand and gravel deposits show wide variation in character from place to place. Locally the deposits may consist of clean well-sorted coarse sand and gravel, ideally suited to the development of wells, but else where they may be clayey, or made up chiefly of fine sand, making well development difficult or impractical. Because of these variable characteristics, wells located within a comparatively small area may be drilled to different depths and tap different sand and gravel aquifers. The elevations of water levels in such wells usually show correspond ingly wide differences.

Generally the depth to water in wells in the Piqua area is roughly proportional to the depth of the well; that is, the deeper the well, the farther the water level is below the surface. Wells 7 and 8, located near each other about 3 miles northeast of Piqua, illustrate this

GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY, PIQUA AREA, OHIO A-13

point. Well 7 is 205 feet deep and the water level, in April 1955, was 97 feet below the surface. Well 8 is 142 feet deep and the water level in April 1955 was only 65 feet below the surface. Both wells are open in sand and gravel aquifers interbedded in till at the re spective depths indicated by the wells.

The buried sands and gravels are sources adequate for farm and domestic wells, and locally these aquifers yield sufficient water for limited industrial use. Well 56, drilled for the F. S. Royster Guano Co., about 3 miles east of Piqua, yielded, during a 24-hour pumping test, 400 gpm with a drawdown of 48 feet at the end of the test. This relatively high yield is not representative of these aquifers, however. Well 56 is screened in two aquifers, separated by 60 feet of till. More over, the water level in the well was still declining at a fairly rapid rate at the end of the test. Pumping in well 56 also produced a draw down of 37 feet in well 21, nearly 3,000 feet away, which is evidence of the lateral continuity of these aquifers and the pronounced inter ference effects caused by pumping from them at a relatively high rate. No doubt a pumping rate in the magnitude of 100 gpm would be more practical for well 56, and more representative of the water-yielding properties of the buried sand and gravel aquifers.

The most productive source of ground water in the Piqua area is the outwash sand and gravel deposits in the Miami River valley. This source is not used extensively at Piqua, however, because at most places within the city the deposits are thin or absent. About 1900 Piqua obtained its municipal supply from 14 wells (Stout and others, 1943, p. 465) drilled in outwash deposits in the north end of town, but the wells were abandoned in favor of the present surface- water supply. At the present time a theater and one or two other commercial establishments have the only wells that tap the outwash deposits in Piqua.

The small use made of the valley-fill deposits at Piqua as sources of ground water is by no means representative of the importance of these aquifers generally in the Miami valley. Downstream from Piqua the outwash deposits are the source of about 200 mgd (million gallons per day) of ground water, or nearly one-sixth the total pumped in the State. The pumping is most concentrated at Dayton, where pumpage at two plants, the Frigidaire Div., General Motors Corp. and the National Cash Register Co., totals more than 25 mgd. Closer to Piqua, the municipal wells at Troy, which range in depth from 45 to 84 feet, yield 350 to 1,500 gpm each from sand and gravel deposits along the Miami River. Most wells drilled in the valley- fill deposits receive recharge by the induced infiltration of streamflow. Probably 75 to 90 percent of the water pumped from wells in the Miami valley has the river as its source.

602801 O -61 -3


84°10'

SHELBY COUNTY oJvMIAMI COUf

Planimetry from U. S. Geological Survey Covington (1909) and Troy (1912) topographic maps

1 0I i i i I

3 MILESJ

FIGURE 8. Map of the Piqua area, Ohio, showing location of wells listed in table 1.


RATE OP GROUND-WATER PLOW

The rate of ground-water movement in the Piqua area varies greatly from place to place, owing to the complexities of the geology and local hydrologic conditions, and it is difficult to estimate with confidence the rate of movement in most areas. Water movement in the lime stone is along joints and cracks, commonly along the contact with shale of the underlying Richmond group. Where the limestone is thinly covered and lies close to the point of ground-water discharge, as it does in the area of the proposed reactor site, water probably moves at a comparatively high rate, probably measurable in feet or tens of feet per day.

Of importance with respect to hazards of contamination to down stream wells is the rate of ground-water movement through the outwash deposits in the Miami valley. Under natural hydraulic gradients in the Mad River valley near Dayton, where geologic con ditions are similar to those in the Miami valley, W. C. Walton, of the U.S. Geological Survey (written communication, 1954), calculated the rate of ground-water flow through the outwash deposits as about 7 feet per day. In the Miami valley at a site near Hamilton, where pumpage from two ground-water collectors is in the magnitude of 15 mgd, G. D. Dove, of the U.S. Geological Survey (written communica tion, 1958), calculated the rate of movement of water through the outwash deposits from the river to the collectors as being as much as 13 feet per day. Hydraulic gradients at the site near Hamilton are not very steep, however, compared to the gradients at certain sites near Dayton notably at the National Cash Register Co. plant, whose wells are very close to the stream and it may be assumed that water moves through the outwash deposits in some areas at rates considerably greater than 13 feet per day.

The rate of travel of ground water into and through the sand and gravel aquifers interbedded with till on the uplands east and north of Piqua is conjectural. Water moves relatively slowly'in the till, perhaps a few inches per day at most. The rate of movement would be many times greater once the water entered a buried sand and gravel lens, particularly in the vicinity of a pumped well.

The Richmond group, especially the clayey Elkhorn formation, transmits water very slowly. Tolman (1937, p. 219) reports that the effective velocity of water moving through clay under a hydraulic gradient of 1 percent is less than 0.004 foot per day. This figure is probably in the correct order of magnitude for the rate of movement of water through the Elkhorn formation.

The direction of movement of subsurface water at the reactor site is a matter of some uncertainty. The land-surface altitude is about 858 feet. The static level of ground water on September 3, 1958, in


borings drilled for foundation exploration at the reactor site, was about 846 feet. The river is about 200 feet to the east, and its level was about 837 feet. There is a dam in the river about 300 feet upstream from the reactor site, and the river level above the dam was about 845 feet. These measurements suggest that ground water is flowing from the site toward the river. An element of uncertainty results from two unknowns, however:

1. The effect of the buried Miami-Erie Canal: the reactor site is on the old Miami-Erie Canal. There is evidence indicating that the old canal bottom may still be relatively watertight and may perch water above the water table. If so, the levels measured in the founda tion borings may have been indicative of a perched body of water along the old canal.

2. The effect of pumping from wells to the northwest and south west within about a thousand feet from the site: One commercial well has a reported capacity of 12 gpm (Piqua Granite Co.) and an undetermined but small number of domestic wells pump water from the same limestone formation that underlies the reactor site. Drillers' records for two wells of measurements made at the time the wells were drilled show both static and pumping levels to be above river level, but present levels are not known.

SURFACE WATER

The only appreciable use of surface water in the Piqua area takes place upstream from the proposed reactor site. The municipal supply of Piqua comes from the Miami River and two impounding reservoirs (Swift Run Lake and Echo Lake), and the main pumping station is 2 miles north of town. Municipal water use averages about 3 mgd. The Piqua municipal powerplant circulates for cooling purposes as much as 44 mgd from the Miami River. The plant intake and dis charge are immediately upstream from the proposed reactor site.

A 3-year record (1915-17) of streamflow at Piqua is listed in table 3A. This record is too short to be very meaningful, however, and is included only as supplemental data. The most significant streamflow data collected in the Piqua area come from gaging stations on Loramie Creek at Lockington (tables 2A, 3B, and 4A) and on Miami River at Sidney, about 10 miles upstream from Piqua (tables 2B, 3C, and 4B). The drainage area of Iôramie Creek above Lockington is 261 square miles, and the drainage area of the Miami River above Sidney is 545 square miles; the area gaged, therefore, is 806 square miles, only 36 square miles less than the total drainage area above Piqua. The records from Lockington and Sidney taken together, therefore, give a close approximation of flow at Piqua.


The lowest daily flow recorded at Sidney, since the beginning of record, in February 1914, was 8.0 cfs (cubic feet per second) on September 23, 1935. The minimum dp'ly flow recorded at Locking- ton since October 1915 was 2.4 cfs, on August 18, 1931, and Sep tember 19-21, 1936. Thus, the daily flow at Piqua, under extreme drought conditions, might be expected to be in the magnitude of 10 to 15 cfs, or between 6 and 10 mgd. The flow equaled or exceeded at Piqua 90 percent of the time, based on the records from Lockington and Sidney, is in the magnitude of 53 cfs, or about 35 mgd.

Two lakes in the Miami drainage basin upstream from Piqua have a decided effect on streamflow. Lake Loramie (capacity 13,000 acre-feet, area 70 square miles), on Loramie Creek in the western part of Shelby County, and Indian Lake (capacity 45,900 acre-feet, area 110 square miles), on the Miami River in the northwest corner of Logan County (fig. 2), act as reservoirs and tend to stabilize the dry-weather flow of the two streams. Gate openings are seldom changed on either reservoir.

Inasmuch as the proposed reactor site is on the flood plain of the Miami River, the frequency and magnitude of floods merit considera tion. Figure 9 shows the probable recurrence interval of floods on the Miami River based on the records of the U.S. Weather Bureau gaging station at Ash Street, Piqua, about \% miles upstream from the reactor site, from 1930 to 1959. The approximate altitude of the site is 858 feet. Because the site is 1% miles downstream from the gaging station, the altitude of flood crests at the site is several feet lower.

The 1913 flood, the most serious on record, reached an altitude of 873 feet at Main Street, three-quarters of a mile upstream from the Ash Street gaging station and 2% miles upstream from the reactor site. Lockington Dam, completed in 1922 on Loramie Creek, would reduce by several feet the height of a flood comparable to that of 1913 flood in Piqua. Even considering the reduction, a flood of the 1913 magnitude would be on the order of twice the 1959 flood discharge. The site requires protection, perhaps a levee, against rare floods.

CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER

No analyses of ground-water samples in the Piqua area are available. Table 5A shows several analyses from wells drilled in Montgomery County into aquifers similar to those in the Piqua area. These analyses are believed to be characteristic of water that would be found in the various aquifers at and near Piqua. Such water is generally hard and high in iron content. As a general rule the iron content increases with depth, other things being comparable. (See wells 184 and 197, table 5.A.)


859

EXPLANATION

X

Altitude of the 14 highest annual flood peaks, 1930-59'

2 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 100 RECURRENCE INTERVAL, IN YEARS

FIGURE 9. Flood-frequency diagram, Miami River at Piqua, Ohio, 1930-59.

Table 5B shows analyses of three samples from streams in the vicinity of Piqua. The samples from Miami River at Sidney and Loramie Creek at Lockington were taken upstream from the proposed reactor site, and the sample from Miami River near Troy was taken downstream from the reactor site.

Table 5(7 shows analyses of water from three public supplies near Piqua. The Piqua supply is taken from the Miami River above the proposed site. The Troy and Vandalia supplies come from wells which are recharged by infiltration from the Miami River below the proposed reactor site.

The analyses shown in tables 5A and 5B were made by the U.S. Geological Survey. Those shown in table 5C were made by the Ohio Department of Health.


It may be of interest that Miami Kiver at Venice, 70 miles down stream from Piqua, was found in June 1958 to contain 0.7 ppm strontium, a relatively high concentration for a stream water. No other analyses for strontium have been made in or near the area under investigation.

Besides the data presented herein, the Geological Survey has a daily sediment record at Dayton for the period October 1951 to September 1953, and a record of periodic and daily determinations of chemical quality of Miami Kiver at Dayton for the period July 1946 to September 1948.

EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY

At least 11 earthquakes have been recorded whose epicenters were in the State of Ohio. According to Heck (1947), 6 of these shocks had an intensity of 6 or greater on the Rossi-Forel scale (see table below), and 5 of these had epicenters in the vicinity of latitude 40° to 41° N., longitude 84° W., not far from Piqua.

Earthquakes in Ohio

[After Heck, 1947]

Date

June 18, 1875... ___ ..._._Sept. 19, 1884 ___ ... _ ...May 17, 1901. ______ ___ ...Sept. 20, 1931 __ . _ _______Mar. 2, 1937 _____ _ _____Mar. 9, 1937____._____._____

Hour

0743 1414 0100 1705 0948 0045

Locality

Lat. N.

40.2 40.7 39.3 40.2 40.7 40.6

Long. W.

84.0 84.1 82. 5 84.3 840 840

Area felt (square miles)

40, 000 125, 000

7,000 40, 000 90, 000

150, 000

Intensity (Rossi- Forel scale)

6-7 6 6 8 8 8

The earthquakes of March 2 and 9, 1937 (Rouse and Priddy, p. 25-27), both had their epicenters near the village of Anna, 17 miles north of Piqua. These tremors were felt in most of Ohio, but damage was apparently restricted to a radius of about 4 miles from the epi centers. Chimneys toppled, windows shattered, and cracks appeared in the walls of houses at Anna. A school and two churches were severely damaged. The walls of the school were so severely cracked that the building had to be condemned.

No damage from these quakes was reported in Piqua or anywhere else in the Miami valley, according to the Dayton Journal and the Sidney Daily News. Many Miami valley residents were awakened by the quake of March 9, which occurred at 12:45 a.m. Ominous rumbling was reported by some residents of Dayton.

The cause of these earthquakes has never been established. Plaus ible hypotheses are that the quakes were due to collapse of limestone


caverns about 25 miles northeast of Piqua or that they were the result of movement along the Bowling Green fault.

The Bowling Green fault can be traced from the Michigan line near Toledo southward to Kenton hi Hardin County, where it is lost under a thick cover of glacial drift. A continuation of the trace of this fault passes through the east edge of Logan and Champaign Counties, about 30 miles east of Anna and Piqua. The relation of this fault to earthquake activity has not been established.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The proposed reactor site is on the west bank of the Miami River at Piqua, Ohio, about 30 miles upstream (north) from Dayton, Ohio. The estimated daily flow of the river at Piqua under drought condi tions would be 10 to 15 cfs; the flow expected to be equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the time is about 53 cfs.

The site is underlain by horizontally bedded, highly fractured lime stone about 25 feet thick which is underlain by shale interbedded with limestone of undetermined thickness. The site is, hi part, on the now-abandoned and buried Miami-Erie Canal, which here paralleled the river. Hence, the surficial material, as much as 9 feet thick, consists of dumped rock used to fill in the canal. In the vicinity of the site, and for a mile or two downstream along the river, the natural unconsolidated overburden (glacial drift) is thin or absent, and the limestone is at or near the land surface. However, thick and extensive deposits of glacial till overlie the limestone to both the east and the west of the site. At the site and for about 2 miles downstream, the flood plain of the Miami River is relatively narrow; beginning about 2 miles downstream and continuing to Dayton and beyond, the flood plain of the river is considerably wider and is underlain by permeable sand and gravel deposits.

The Piqua municipal water supply is pumped from the Miami River upstream from the reactor site. Downstream from the site virtually all water used for municipal and industrial purposes is pumped from wells that tap the sand and gravel underlying the river flood plain. Total daily pumpage from such wells is estimated to average 100 million gallons, most of it pumped in or near Dayton. Of particular importance is the estimate that 75 percent or more of the water pumped from wells is derived from the river by induced infiltration to the various well fields. The nearest downstream well field open to recharge from the river is that of the municipal supply of Troy, about 8 miles downstream. Pumpage at Troy is on the order of 1 or 2 mgd.


Owing to possible effects of nearby ground-water pumping and to the presence of the buried Miami-Erie Canal, the direction of ground-water movement in the vicinity of the site is unknown.

What, then, might happen to a liquid spilled on the land surface at the reactor site? According to the soil condition at the time of the spill, the volume of liquid spilled, the rate of spill, and other factors:

1. The liquid might be absorbed by the soil in whole or in part. However, the soil and unconsolidated overburden are quite thin and cannot be dependend on for significant hold-up of a spilled contaminant.

2. The liquid might flow overland to the river some 200 feet away.3. The liquid might percolate down to the water table and thence

move with ground water to the river. Because the aquifer is a fractured limestone, it would not be prudent (without evidence to the contrary) to depend on a tune of travel of more than several hours before the liquid reached the river. However, the relatively impermeable fill in the old canal bed might act to delay movement of the contaminant to the river.

4. The liquid might percolate down to the water table and thence move with ground water westward toward one or more pumped wells. The evidence available to the authors, however, favors the previous assumption that is, that ground water at the site moves to the river and away from the wells. But even if this is true for existing conditions, there is no guarantee that future development of ground-water supplies in the immediate vicinity could not reverse the natural gradient at the reactor site.

In short, the on-site retention by the natural environment of a spilled liquid contaminant cannot be depended on to be more than a matter of a few hours, or at most a few tens of hours. The most probable assumption is that the liquid would enter the river either by overland flow or by subsurface flow, or by both. Once in the river it would, of course, move downstream with the river water. Dilution and time of travel would depend on river conditions at the time. Travel time to Dayton, which would vary greatly with dis charge, might range from a few hours to several days. Where river water recharges a subjacent aquifer the rate of flow through the aquifer is estimated to range from a few feet to several tens of feet per day. Detailed time of travel and dilution computations for a "slug' 1 of contamination to individual well fields cannot be made on the basis of presently available information.


REFERENCES CITED

Conrey, G. W., Paschall, A. H., and Burrage, E. M., 1934, A key to the soils ofOhio: Ohio State Univ. Eng. Expt. Sta. Circ. 44, 51 p., 1 fig., 15 tables.

Cross, W. P., and Hedges, R. E., 1959, Flow duration of Ohio streams: OhioDept. Nat. Resources, Div. Water Bull. 31,152 p., 22 pis., 219 tables.

Heck, H. H., 1947, Earthquake history of the United States, pt. 1, ContinentalUnited States (exclusive of California and western Nevada) and Alaska:U.S. Coast and Geod. Survey Serial 609, rev. ed.

Lamar, W. L., and Schroeder, M. E., 1951, Chemical character of surface watersof Ohio: Ohio Dept. Nat. Resources, Div. Water Bull. 23, 100 p., 3 pis.

Norris, S. E., Cross, W. P., and Goldthwait, R. P., 1948, The water resourcesof Montgomery County, Ohio: Ohio Dept. Nat. Resources, Div. WaterBull. 12, 83 p., 48 pis.

Norris, S. E., and Spicer, H. C., 1958, Geological and geophysical study of thepreglacial Teays Valley in west-central Ohio: U.S. Geol. Survey Water- Supply Paper 1460-E, 33 p., 2 pis., 1 fig.

Ohio Department of Health, 1952, Analyses of municipal water supplies in Ohio:Ohio Dept. Health brochure (no text), 8 tables.

Orton, Edward, 1888, Economic geology: Ohio Geol. Survey, v. 6, 831 p. Rouse, J. T., and Priddy, R. R., 1937, Recent earthquakes in western Ohio:

Ohio Jour. Sci., v. 38, no. 1, p. 25-35. Stout, Wilber, 1941, Dolomites and limestones of western Ohio: Ohio Geol.

Survey Bull. 42, 468 p., 2 tables, map. Stout, Wilber, Ver Steeg, Karl, and Lamb, G. F., 1943, Water in Ohio: Ohio

Geol. Survey Bull. 44, 694 p., 1 table, 8 maps. Tolman, C. F., 1937, Ground water: New York, McGraw-Hill, 593 p.

BASIC DATA

A-23

TA

BL

E 1.

Rec

ords

of

wel

ls i

n t

he P

iqu

a a

rea,

Ohi

o

Cha

ract

er:

g, g

rave

l; I

s, l

imes

tone

G

eolo

gic

unit

: PI

, P

leis

toce

ne;

Sil,

Sil

uria

n.D

raw

dow

n: L

ower

ing

of th

e w

ater

leve

l at

rat

e of

pum

ping

ind

icat

ed-

Use

: D

om,

dom

esti

c; I

nd,

indu

stri

al;

PS,

publ

ic s

uppl

y.

Wel

l (S

ee

fig. 8

fo

r lo

catio

n) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Ow

ner

or u

ser

....

.do..

-----

Hen

ry R

edli

nbau

gh...

--

Ohi

o D

ept.

of H

ighw

ays.

Ella

Per

kin

s.

B.

L. W

eb

ster.

.. ..

Alti

tude

at

wel

l (f

eet

abov

e se

a le

vel) 93

0 93

0 96

0 99

0 1,

000

980

1,01

0 1,

010

1,01

01,

035

880

1 00

099

5 1,

010

985

950

900

960

950

975

980

980

965

940

920

920

935

975

955

930

860

890

Dep

th

to b

ed

rock

(f

eet) 10

8 00 16 76 55

Dep

th

of w

ell

(fee

t) 81

102

161

126 88

13

4 20

5 14

2 11

3 16

0 46

131

105 98

15

1 32

41

166

134

145

126

220

145 81

102 58

10

4 11

4 91

109 31

82

Prin

cipa

l w

ater

-bea

ring

m

ater

ial

Cha

r

acte

r

g g g Is fs

g g g fs g g g g g t g g g g g g g g g fs Is g g s

Geo

logi

c un

it

PI

PI

PI

Sil

PI

Sil

PI

PI

PI

PI

Sil

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

Sil

Sil

PI

PI

PI

Wat

er le

vel

Bel

ow

land

su

rfac

e (f

eet) 33

30

68

60

49

67

97

65

53

46

16

20

85

10

86

16

6 63

48

66 6 00

68

22

30

38

22

35

15

40

18

Flo

ws

Dat

e

5-22

-56

8-15

-56

9-16

-54

2-11

-57

4-18

-56

8-24

-55

4-14

-55

4- 4

-55

2-11

-57

9-18

-56

11-2

4-58

8-

17-5

3 5-

7 5

24-

20-5

6 6-

10-5

6 9-

29-5

4 4-

12-5

4 8-

31-5

7 6-

4-

56

6-28

-56

7-16

-58

5-20

-54

6- 3

-53

4-18

-58

7-25

-54

10-3

1-52

5-

27-5

4 10

- 8-

55

7-10

-56

3-12

-57

11-1

0-54

11-

7-55

Yie

ld

Cap

acit

y

(gpm

) 6 20

30

15

10

10 10

24 5 20

10 8 20 5 20 6 8 6 10 20

15

30 7 8 20

20

10

30

10

20

Dra

w

dow

n (f

eet)

2 10 1 5 18 2 15

15

15 2 25 5 8 5 25 5 14 4

130 2 3 4 12

5 15

10

10 2

Di

am

eter

of

wel

l (in

ches

) 4 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Use

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

D

om

Dom

Rem

arks

Wat

er l

evel

dec

lined

3'

feet

whe

n w

ell

56 w

a pu

mpe

d at

400

gpm

.

O ^ S H

IS CO ^ O Ed 92

00

M 35 36 17 38 QQ 40 41 4,9 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

56

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Cla

renc

e A

uste

rman

Six

Indu

stri

es C

orp

.--

F. S

. R

oyst

er G

uano

Co.

920

900

Q7n

990

985

950

900

870

965

950

870

930

875

885

945

870

870

870

865

860

945

860

860

1,00

0 88

088

093

092

5

870

930

860

126

122 53 63 67 6 6 33 18 22 19 4 5 37 2

216 20 79 10

128

125

113

190

210 74 92 70 79 63 178

123 75

60 56 57 54 40 45 38 50 70 30

23

5 43 84 83 54 116 47 103 45

g g e is Is g e Is Is g f Is

Is Is Is Is Is Is Is Is e Is g g g g g ft Is Is

PI PI PI Sil

Sil PI

PI

Sil

PI PI

Sil

Sil

S

il Sil

Sil

Sil

Sil

Sil

Sil

Sil PI

Sil

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

PI

Sil

Sil

Sil

32 26 65 75 72 44 37 30 4 55 12 34 10 6 18 17 15 17 32 10

16

10 43 21 25 45 21 30

10-1

2-56

10-2

7-56

9-27

-55

5- 8

-54

4- 6

-57

6-12

-53

8-20

-56

11-1

6-53

8-22

-55

4-19

-55

9- 3

-55

6-12

-56

9-15

-52

3-10

-55

11-1

7-57

5- 5

-54

9-10

-52

6- 2

-55

6-13

-56

6-29

-55

6-25

-56

9-11

-56

3-24

-54

6- 2

-57

7-23

-53

5-26

-52

12-2

2-52

1-15

-54

10-2

4-54

9-18

-54

8-14

-56

20 24 6 20 10 7 13 15 20 10 8 5 10

10 20 5 7 12 8 15 400 20

40

0 20 6 10 20 20 3 15 80

44 3 15 47 4 5 30 1 7 70 40 60

50 30 15 4 10

48 5 4 18 16 20 20 45

4 6 4 4 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 8 8 4 6 4 4 8 6 8 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 8

Dom

Dom

Dom

Dom

Dom

Dom

Dom

Ind

Ind

Ind

Ind

Dom

PS

Ind

Ind

Dom

Dom

Dom

Dom

Dom

Ind

O H

grou

p at

120

fee

t. Q

grou

p at

56

feet

.

grou

p ar

56

feet

. 3 (~H

grou

p at

36

feet

. g 0

See

wel

l 21.

§ i_

j s d 1 ra I O Oi

A-26 STUDIES OF SITES FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES.

s

1 *

*"ieo i-tN o»>-i t-iN ^ ^ ^ "'

°sa -a g§ s§

O Tt* t*» i-4 CO 1O N *-f N ̂ O3J Q OO O ** »OOQ ICC 2? 2C '9E *" .44^ ®r? ? ? S ("«aS ^ &

NSg TOO3 X5K3 O^ »» OOO5 ° JC w °* *"" £J ^ S b* O "5 O c4 »-l NO OO NO TjS o OO 00 C

»g TJIO ION OO WN OTO NfH Og Or-l «3O»

orp o»« ogo oeo ogj o«o oo iog w^" c<n-*Oi-t C^ <-^ NN CON 00 N O»-l CC »-l TÔ irf t-f *»-( * . TO_. tO . "5 . «0_, TO . CO . N j * . W .oooooooooo

'

OO i-lt^. OO t~00 <#00

o o o o o

t-i cow ooo «5t^ t-iHCO f-Ûi i-lb* fH»O W

00*00fls

o o o o

oo"o*o* . fH ^* t-^ t*- i-t »O W . W t*»o"o"o f"'l o*

8? I s. 1* I s: §8 BI I s? §1 1® 1 s?

O »O ON OOO OOOOO g>O OOS 1-400

**< O "* O »-l OO QOO ON

B.

Mia

mi

Riv

er a

t Si

dney

, O

hio

[Aft

er C

ross

and

Hed

ges,

195

9, p

. 13

7]

1917-18.

1921-55

1921-45

1921-20

1926-30

1931-35-

1936

-40

1941-45

1946-50

1951-55 .

....

....

.

1,930

3.54

1,940

3.56

2,03

03.

73

2,600

4.77

1,30

02.

39_

1,90

03.

49

1,460

2.68

2,35

04.

31

1,87

03.

43

1,16

02.

13

1,100

2.02

1,11

02.

04

1,59

02.92

790

1.45

1,08

01.

98

900

1.65

1,50

02.

75

1,20

02.20

805

1.48 784

1.44

895

1.64

1,07

01.

96

525

0.963

790

1.45

600

1.10

1,09

02.00

848

1.56

630

1.16 588

1.08

705

1.29

820

1.50

370

0.67

9

580

1.06

455

0.83

5

830

1.52

605

1.11

500

0.917

463

0.850

550

1.01

680

1.25

272

0.499

455

0.835

345

0.633

660

1.21

442

0.811

395

0.72

5

369

0.67

7

450

0.826

580

1.06

210

0.38

5

370

0.67

9

262

0.481

520

0.95

4

330

0.606

262

0.481

246

0.451

300

0.550

400

0.734

142

0.261

247

0.45

3

160

0.29

4

350

0.64

2

200

0.367

167

0.306

166

0.30

5

177

0.325

308

0.56

5

102

0.18

7

170

0.31

2

112

0.206

250

0.459

130

0.23

9

117

0.215

112

0.20

6

110

0.202

225

0.41

3

79.0

0.14

5

123

0.226

77.0

0.141

180

0.330

86.0

0.158

85.5

0.157

83.9

0.154

78.0

0.14

3

150

0.275

62.5

0.11

5

84.0

0.154

58.0

0.106

127

0.233

64.0

0.117

73.7

0.13

5

74.0

0.136

68.5

0.126

127

0.233

56.5

0.10

4

72.0

0.13

2

51.0

0.094

106

0.194

56.5

0.104

63.7

0.117

63.2

0.116

61.5

0.113

106

0.194

50.0

0.092

62.5

0.115

46.0

0.08

4

86.0

0.15

8

50.5

0.09

3

54.8

0.10

1

53.9

0.099

57.0

0.105

90.0

0.165

43.0

0.079

55.0

0.10

1

42.0

0.077

72.1

0.132

46.1

0.085

45.9

0.084

44.5

0.082

54.0

0.099

76.0

0.139

34.5

0.063

45.5

0.08

3

38.3

0.070

59.8

0.110

40.1

0.074

36.

0.06 35.

0.06

45.

0.08

49.

0.091

26..

0.04

34.

O.Of

r

32.

0.06

1

47.;

0.08

35.

(0.

06-

Loc

atio

n.

Drain

age .

Peri

od o

f record

. .........

Max

imum

dai

ly d

ischarg

e.

Min

imum

dai

ly d

isch

arge_

...

Mea

n dis

charg

e____._

__

Mea

n dis

charge

Max

imum

reco

rded

dis

char

ge..

Min

imum

rec

orde

d di

scha

rge.

. R

em

ark

s___.................

Lat

40

°12'

35",

lon

g 84

°14'

32",

at

hig

hway

bri

dge,

l,300

ft

dow

nstr

eam

from

Loc

king

ton

Dam

, ha

lf a

mile

nor

thw

est

of L

ocki

ngto

n, S

helb

yC

ount

y, a

nd 1

^ m

iles

upst

ream

fro

m m

outh

.26

1 sq

mi_

______________________________________

Oct

ober

191

5 to

Sep

tem

ber 1955___________ ...________.

6,59

0 cf

s, M

ay 7

,191

6, a

nd A

pr. 2

1,1

92

0.-

- _

..._

........

2.4

cfs,

Aug

. 18

, 19

31, a

nd S

cot.

19-2

1,1

936 .............._..........

40 y

ears

, 19

16-5

5; 2

07 c

fs, 0

.793

cfs

per

sq

mi,

10.7

6 in

____________

1921

-45;

194

cfs

, 0.7

43 c

fs p

er s

q m

i, 10

.09 in

....

....

....

__

.

....

.10

,400

cfs

, M

ay 7

, 1916 __......................_-_

__...._...

2.0

cfs,

Aug

. 19,1

931 .

_....... _

...____ .

Slig

ht r

egul

atio

n by

Lak

e L

oram

ie (

13,0

00 a

cre-

ft,

70 s

q m

i).

Floo

d fl

owre

gula

ted

by

Loc

king

ton

reta

rdin

g ba

sin

(70,

000

acre

-ft,

261

sq m

i)be

ginn

ing

in 1

921.

B

Lat

40°

17'1

4",

long

84°

08'5

7",

100

ft u

pstr

eam

fro

m N

orth

Str

eet

Bri

dge

in S

idne

y, S

helb

y C

ount

y, a

nd h

alf

a m

ile d

owns

trea

m

from

Taw

awa

Cre

ek.

545

sq m

i.F

ebru

ary

1914

to S

epte

mbe

r 19

55.

17,4

00 c

fs,

Mar

. 21

, 19

27.

8.0

cfs,

Sep

t. 23

, 19

35.

41 y

ears

, 19

15-5

5; 4

84 c

fs, 0

.888

cfs

per

sq

mi,

12.0

5 in

.19

21-4

5; 4

75 c

fs, 0

.87

cfs

per

sq m

i, 11

.83

in.

20,7

00 c

fs,

Mar

. 20,

1927

.7.

4 cf

s, S

ept.

23,1

935.

Flow

reg

ulat

ed b

y In

dian

Lak

e (4

5,90

0 ac

re-f

t, 11

0 sq

mi)

. R

ecor

ds

incl

ude

flow

in M

iam

i-E

rie

Can

al,

aban

done

d in

192

5.

s > > I £

TAB

LE 3

. M

onth

ly a

nd a

nnua

l di

scha

rge,

in c

ubic

feet

per

sec

ond

Wat

er y

ear

Oct

.N

ov.

Dec

.Ja

n.Fe

b.M

ar.

Apr

.M

ayJu

neJu

lyA

ug.

Sept

.A

nnua

l

A.

Mia

mi

Riv

er a

t P

iqua

, O

hio

[Dra

inag

e ar

ea 8

42 s

quar

e m

iles]

1915

1916-

1917-

310

739 98.4

28.5

473 67.3

208

821

264

587

4,300

972

2,590

1,70

0864

143

2,690

1,530

210

1,08

0685

117

1,790

688

794

723

710

2,800 84.2

1,360

1,280 71.9

77.5

952

228 56.7

824

1,230

615

B.

Lor

amie

Cre

ek a

t L

ocki

ng to

n, O

hio

[Dra

inag

e ar

ea 2

61 s

quar

e m

iles]

00 GO H d O h-1 H

GO O

1916

1917-

1918

1919-.

1920

1921

19

22

.

19

23

-.

1Q9d

1925-

1926

1927

19

28

.

19

30

.

1931

1932

19

33

1934...

19

35

..

193

6..

1937

193

8-

1939.. _

19

40

78.2

17.2

25.6

29.0

210 75

.161

.412

.5 7.74

6.06

77.5

432 9

269

489

d Q

10.1

91

9

124 K.

7d

Q

Q1

28.6

38.9

20.0

136 12

.014

d

34.8

396

336

359 11

.78.

378.

30

541

109 M

ft

19 n 7.93

52.0

280 18

.86.

35

16.3

87.5

25.0

1Q Q

11.0

209 62

.425

.635

911

7

233

356

105 72

.245

.0VQ

A

d9

Q

9.15

337

537

160 7.

61

4Q

Q

300 30

.511

.8

1,42

059

813

011

1 45.0

319

115

374

573 96

.3

167

470

1QR

614

1,45

0 15.4

7d

ft

429

QQ

7

34 0

86.6

71.4

lift 45

.3

507

439

959 60 232

325

250

174

256

206

488

437

375

498 ox

9

229

100

97

1

9d

d

EQ

Q

381

530

381

255

825

636

QQ

Q

800

583

936

521

436

QA

1

319

11

7

939

oo

j.

320

1OQ 86

.015

1K

OQ

365

166

420

147

761

563

285

360

180

105

1,04

0

1,30

012

020

8 53.3

474

19

7

327

109

919 94

.4Q

7A 99

3Q

7 7

1Q

O

475

649

712

593

390

250 82

.5

72.2

102

460 95

.720

.3

568 33

.9

1Q

4

25.1

1,02

0 17.7

581 84

.084

.917

4 9ft

n12

7

280 44 5

60 51.9

110 41

.71Q

1

39.4

20.1

174

ere 137 32

.6

15.6

29.3

30.0

31.5

17

9

11.0

164 QI n

209

25.7

513 31

.840 10

2 51.1

584

IR

Q

41.2

15.0

91

d

13.6

QQ

ft

39

Q

20.6

11.6

35.2

5.35

«M 14

2 13.5

10.8

28.1

29.2

35.8

43.5

50.0

28.2

20.4

11.1

7.81

31.5

12.0

14.5

55.2

8.86

66.0

7.27

Q.J

. Q

36.6

A A

9

3.37

139

176 69

.79.

26

Aft

Q

13.0

Af.

Q

17.4

57.9

52.9

14.1

on

9

5.67

83.9

1,09

0 15.1

999.

11.3

9.72

67.8

12.3

OO

Q 8.16

6.69

3.70

14.2

20.0

7.24

5.20

irU

367

,£

161

d18

1 Q

246

g

237

g31

0 W

14ft

, _

.29

6 |

79.4

|

07K

£3

307

S20

4 ^

211

M24

8 >

53.0

B

149

£31

4 h3

84.2

S

QQ

0

H88

.^

jp

120

323

247

175

140

1Q4.

11942.

19

43

... -

1Q

AA

1945.-

1CU

fi19

47

-

19

48

--

1949.- -

19

50

--

1951

.-

19

52

.

1953... -.

1954

.

1955-.

-

1956--

1957

1958

.-.

4.78

45.5 7.35

11.4

4.98

228 6.

948.

679.

8012

.6

150 6.

0411

.54.

2999

.4

92.8 6.08

14.7

10.8

49.5

17.9

11.8

9.40

106 13

.114

.126

9 8.54

381 30

.317

.56.

3437

.5

449 6.

7880

.9

45.6

120

185 8.

448.

24

86.3

24.7

488 27

.4

638

537

160 7.

8714

5 43.1

33.1

713

70.8

52.8

203 8.

898.

15

263

457

303

1,29

71,

630

644

986

398 60

.631

3 30.3

162

119

118

532

250 96

.553

1

297

146

448

462

1,11

9

839

495

200 37

.254

3

749

283

168

21.4

350

714

691

848

302

277

783

518

363

561

614

351

212

545

355 86

.516

2

71.8

495

105

783

469 53

.966

478

621

430

8

283

537 61

.225

812

9

292

1,14

822

8

11.9

94.3

723 83

.123

5

188

534

306 86

.513

6

129

106

567 53

.427

.5

271

186

228

173 32

.624

1 22.9

495

193

623 31

.048

.911

4 29.7

20.7

55.0

57.4

27.5

123

406

1,75

4

187 63

.825

.66.

3614

5 40.0

85.0

18.6

63.2

82.1

14.7

12.6

14.8 7.31

25.1

24.4

453

456

10.2

65.5

375 28

.683

.5 8.81

27.0

29.0

27.3

18.0 6.52

44.0

25.0

121 9.

65

12.2

14.3

188

5.01

15.8

12.2

4.94

114 5.

1918

.2 7.08

9.10

22.9 5.73

56.7

6.15

6.79

14.3

9.43

11.2

123

60.4

157

240

146

243

167

245

229

291

316

304

287

156 69

.415

8

201

231

352

C.

Mia

mi

Riv

er a

t S

idn

ey,

Ohi

o

[Dra

inag

e ar

ea 5

45 s

quar

e m

iles]

1914- _ .

1915- __

1916

1917

1918

- _

1919. ___

1920 --

1921

1922 --

1923

.-

_ .

1924-.

1925

1926

__ ....

1927

__ ..

.

1928. __ . _ _

1929... ____

1930-

1931 -

1932

__ ..

_ .

1933 .

228

466

100

107

210

209

123 89.7

56.9

92.4

44.1

178

1,710

122 78.5

<)A(

\

66.7

113 62.9

22.1

336 43.6

235

167

716

931

855 54.4

70.8

54 4

896

598

327

112

535 55.5

145

531

113

510

167

207

585

458

789

667

168

CWQ

227

282

259

1,68

0

243

1,09

1 63.4

628

859

442

2,^20

547

204

338

150

644

OQQ

873

1 ion

173

188

1,220

585

1,430

3ftd.fi 75.0

1,60

0951

676

1,44

01,130

527

1,25

0

109

300

1,070

487

538

628

621

921

1,10

0853

1,390

1 A.(V7

155

702

304

1,11

025

41,

810

816

589

1,210

1,170

2,25

01 040

826

Ioc

fl

677

707

2,510

1,160

693

327

Aftd

1.390

1,210

137

596

388

196

737

2,330

1,120

2,590

357

157

1,13

01,

210

741

1,01

0287

547

299

914

515 64.1

940

335

431

446

520

781

865

1,18

0

227 88.9

1S4

1,46

016

5

992

134 83.9

121

2.010

36 302

489

416

106

150

176

293

216

154

1,90

0 79.6

99.3

734

1,11

0

244

135 75.8

227

183

35.1

1,180 56.4

625

118

100

364 88.9

408 61.3

376

188

269

396

416 57.4

129

118

134

88.1

510 53.4

60.4

59.5

70 98.1

91.3

81.7

63.1

64.1

48.1

231

202 83.6

417 37.2

58.3

32.5

89.7

144

450

104 38.4

170 49.5

162 67.2

115 94.8

105

146

2,360

268

176 65.2

78.0

57.9

38.1

293

423

762

338

300

350

553

685

639

370

669

195

606

963

568

627

711

141

376

648

TAB

LE 3

. M

onth

ly a

nd a

nnua

l di

scha

rge,

in

cubi

c fe

et p

er s

econ

d C

onti

nued

Wat

er y

ear

Oct

.N

ov.

Dec

.Ja

n.F

eb.

Mar

.A

pr.

May

June

July

Aug

.Se

pt.

Ann

ual

C.

Mia

mi

Riv

er a

t Si

dney

, O

hio

Con

tin

ued

[Dra

inag

e ar

ea 5

45 s

quar

e m

iles]

1934

_ _

.

1935

19

36

1937- -

1938

. _

1939

19

40

19

41

-

1942

... _

_ .-

1943

_ . ..

194

4 .

. _ ..

.......

1945

1946--. . _ ..

..1947

19

48

1949 .

1950-

1901 .

1952

. __ . _

..... .

..... .

1953

_ . _

_ ....

1954

- __ . _

1955....... _

19

56..

. _

_1

957 . _

19

58 _

. _ ..

......

151 29

.378

.976

.816

8

116 82

.836

.758

.636

.2

53.2

41.4

470 49

.019

2 59.8

86.3

370 42

.743

.5

36.8

170

141 62

.292

.4

145 36

.310

520

415

2

110

112 80

.311

1 68.1

67.4

59.8

374 69

.027

4 67.7

762

Sfi

d

49.6

43 9

125

607 92

.934

9

250 41

.332

8 82.5

585

124 91

.520

018

932

6 92.1

45.6

252

230

888

151

1,50

281

512

9 51.6

254

141

144

1,26

6

225 88

.546

33,

334

293

227

185

269

135

597 67

.147

.361

891

387

8

2,23

83,

433

1,38

92,

198

552

124

534

114

V7i

419

68.6

73.9

1,17

493

51,

170

781

597

297

737

631

193

724

777

456

1,15

0

1,20

32,

186

1,52

199

735

1

111

1,14

11,

478

492

370

608

281

1,12

340

41,

678

1,48

896

410

668

21,

668

1,18

31,

958

741

462

1,47

7

1,01

590

71,

072

1,25

557

5

330

1,40

71,

170

314

448

226

277

569

990

1,53

9

1,24

41,

653

204

1,08

228

8

1,44

494

816

41,

237

1,88

9

655

1,04

282

21,

200

214

577

302

636

2,50

055

5

70.6

826

169

408

331

197

232 77

.915

794

3

253

902

297

1,28

11,

103

272

432

547

376

1,16

6

120

110

W7

710

635

58.1

114 60

.843

318

7

1,05

432

551

716

234

9

217

1,51

3A

A1

1,49

916

8

305

216

184

138

166

366 67

.238

31,

101

2,07

3

24.6

449 39

.957

540

7

426 71

.119

8 68.0

188 42

.636

014

.4.

333

151

128 92

.864

.087

.0

43.6

150

O71

925

970

37.7

398 33

.912

411

9

246 43

.635

.774

.188

2

134

356

47 Q

278 67

.7

203 95

.247

.862

.017

7

319 51

.511

1 93.3

589

27.9

40.1

37.8

65.9

187 60

.130

.925

.439

.363

.0

34.9

253 33

.129

4 42.3

103

152 45

.365

.138

.2

33.2

44.9

108

293

159

223

346

636

564

502

363

169

287

506

314

599

384

593

633

641

734

692

609

297

179

359

471

573

672

CO o GO


TABLE 4. Momentary maximum, minimum daily, and annual mean discharge, incubic feet per second

YearWater- supply paper

Water year ending Sept. 30

Momentary maximum

Amount Date

Minimum daily

Mean

Mean for calendar

year

A. Loramie Creek at Lockington, Ohio

1916 ............1917-.... _ . __ .1918 . _ . _ ....1919... ____ ....1920-. ___ ... _ .1921 ............1922 . _ . __ ..1923 __ ........1924........ ___ .1925 . .. _1926 ............1927 ___ .1928 1929 ..... __ ..1930 1931 1932 . _ ... .....1933...... ......1934 ............1935 _ ..1936 _1937 1938 1939... ............1940 . __ . 1941 _ .... .1942 ...1943 1944 1945 1946 __ .1947 1948 ... ... .1949 1950 1951 1952 ..1953 ......1954 _ ...1955 _ .... _ .1956... ............1957 _____ ..

523,923523523523523523543563583603623643663683698713728743758783803823853873893923953973

10031033105310831113114311731205123512751335138514351505

in inn1 6, 110i 7,000i 7,23018,19016,590

4,9003,7505,9702,1905,2805,8704,1705,4204,7101,6603,1905,8102,4304,1304,1305,2904,1203,5503,3401,8003,5504,9604,8404,8402,6804,1604 2604,5805,3004,8204,9403,2002,4203,1804,700A. am

TWaTT 7 1Q1AMar. 13, 1917 - Feb. 12,1918--- -Mar. 16, 1919. .... .Apr. 20, 1920--- - Mar. 27, 1921 __ ..Apr. 15, 17, 1922 .......May 15, 1923. _ ... A/Tor 9O Tn no 8 1Q94Mar. 14, 1925.. __ Sept. 5, 1926 __Mar. 21, 1927 Dec. 14, 1927-. _ Feb. 26, 1929.-. Tan 11 1 Q3AApr. 3,1931-.. Jan. 15, 1932.. May 13, 1933- ___ Mar. 27, 1934 __ May3, 1935.. ... Feb. 27, 1936--.- _ ..Jan. 15, 1937 Apr. 7, 1938 -June 19, 1939- . __A TV* on i run

June 15, 1941. Apr. 10, 1942-- Mar. 20, 1943 Apr. 11, 1944- -June 18, 1945..- ___Feb. 27, 1946-.- . .Tim A 0 1 047Mar. 24, 1948 - Jan. 5, 1949 ___ Feb. 15, 1950---- ~Feb. 21, 1951.-- .......Jan. 27, 1952- _ . .....May 17, 1953 Mar. 30, 1954 Feb. 21, 1955. .- Nov. 16, 1956. _ ... _TUTIA 9Q 1 Q4.7

51211

243212

559.58.8887.22.44.15.83.43.82.47.18.05.23.82.62.85.43.74.44.44.35.86.17.44.54.74.03.83.53.83.0

3672641611812462373101469QR79.4

27630720421194853.0

11031484.288.2

12032324717514060.4

15724014624316724522929131630428715669.4

158201231

3402641902052392482531752701262682961712571QR89.3

18126960.192.8

12734022117414273.3

15622514529712124028923141025425514291.8

182157

See footnotes at end of table.

A-32 STUDIES OP SITES FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES

TABLE 4. Momentary maximum, minimum daily, and annual mean discharge, in cubic feet per second Continued

YearWater- supply paper

Water year ending Sept. 30

Momentary maximum

Amount Date

Minimum daily

Mean

Mean for calendar

year

B. Miami River at Sidney, Ohio

1914 1915 1916 1917.. -1918 1919 1920 1921. .1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946. 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951. 1952..... 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957

403403433523523523523523543563583603623(U1

663683698

79JJ

7437587QQ

803832853873893923953973

10031033105310831113114311731205123512751335138514351505

*5,53014,77012,20014,94015,100i 6, 73015,50019,30029,300

5,08014 gnn2 AQf\

m &nn20,700

9 7J2A

i s nnn13,800

2 9J2O

3,87017,7002,3605,2007,110

12,4007,0405,6606,7402,3005,450

11,6008 d.on9,0203,550R don8 8406,510

11,6008,470

10,8003,4606,5104,4706,6509 9in

Apr. 8, 1914- Feb. 6, 1915... ....Jan. 31, 1916 Mar. 14, 1917 Feb. 12, 1918---- Mar. 17, 1919 Apr. 21, 1920 Mar. 28, 1921 Apr. 17, 1922 i ..... .May 13, 15, 1923 ... .Mar. 29, 1924 Mar. 14, 1925 Sept. 5, 1926. Mar. 20, 1927 Dec. 14, 1927- ...Feb. 26, 1929- Jan. 13, 1930 Apr. 4,1931-.. Jan. 17, 1932 May 13, 1933.. . Mar. 4, 1934 May 3, 1935. Woh 97 1 CWfi

Jan. 15, 1937-. Apr. 8,1938- -Mar. 12, 1939.. A nr on i Q4.n

June 15, 1941.. Apr. 10, 1942... Mar. 19, 1943. A TYT 11 1 O44

June 18, 1945.. ... .Feb. 14, 1946.. ..

A nr 13 1 CU8

Jan. 5, 1949 .Jan. 16, 1950 Dec. 3,1951. Jan. 27, 1952 May 24, 1953

Feb. 21, 1955.- Feb. 25, 1956-. June 29, 1957--

1838

920

333346333116fid

111434427

3272034148 fl

11343433141222182530283034424836363026253636

423762338300350553685639370669195606963£68627711141376648159223346636564502363169287506314599384593633641734692609297179359471573

502678358335384591666529440603280710926424747570200423572122258333682516497365173293487309701301620697544930550548290215387423

i Not previously published. * Revised. > Corrected.

O

> WeU log 184 from Norris and others, 1948, pi. 48. 2 WeU log 197 from Norris and others, 1948, pi. 48. ' Well log 137 from Norris and others, 1948, pi. 48.

'

ti!2<3

oooo

PW -J

gggs

-)<0

P t->eo

\

is11 ' g2i i

GC*.

i ;

" C. Drilled wells for public water supplies near Piqua, Ohio

[After Ohio Dept. of Health, 1952]

Stream

Loramie Creek at Lockington. Miami River:

At Sidney _______ Near Troy. .- _ At Piqua. - .

O9 Cft Cft OS

[^ ^ ^

WOi Cn GOUb*- ba

p Oi Cfl *q rf£

^§S S

tOMM CO

CO ^JOO OS CO ®*

Cnow r

ill 1£§S 3

OS 00 OS ^

pCOCn OS CO

toos to co

fOO tO OS

to co co co

S3S 3

£81 1»JMpO M

sj 00 O CO

5SE3 ^

B. Streams near Piqua, Ohio After Lamar and Schroeder, 1951]

Owns well

City of Dayton i. ... ...... .....Do 2... ..... ........ Village of Farmersville ...... >.. R. E. Miller- -

United Fireworks Co... ~

SSStr

Sand and gravel . __ do __ . .do... .... Silurian h'mestone Ordovician shale ....

i i

§2iis

tooooocooo

~35^P

ieses£**SB

SsaS:COCn to f {-> 00 en -q rf>. OO

CO t*fc ^. 00 to

38883

COO OOOO<9

f to Ocoooco*-

00 * ' OSOOOCO

IS oo to co as

en co co to us

i i i i i

2S22Sooo tot-

X . Wells in Montgomery County, Ohi[After Norris and others, 1948, table IS

Date of collection

Aquifer

Mean discharge (cfs)

Depth (feet)

Silica (SiO2)

Iron (Fe)

Calcium (Ca)

Magnesium (Mg)

Sodium (Na)

Potassium (K)

Bicarbonate (HCOs)

Sulfate (SOi)

Chloride (Cl)

Fluoride (F)

Nitrate (N03)

Dissolved solids (residue on evap oration at 180°C)

Calcium, 8 W magnesium nS5

Non carbonate o^

Specific conductance (micromhos at 25° C)

PH

Color

OIHO <