ehjwt erY<7- --

UCRL-ID-105340

A ScopingInduced

Study of Water Table Excursionsby Seismic and Volcanic Events

Charles R. CarriganGeoffrey C.P. King

George E. Barr

November 1990

This is an informal report intended primarily for internal or limited externaldistribution. The opinions and conclusions stated are those of the author andmay or may not be those of the Laboratory.Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by theLawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48.

9103280162 910319PER WASTEWM-11 PDR

t

t

- Fault/Dike Geom

Displacements

BoundaryElement

Fig. 2

I0 I

I

PI I

Hydrologic DomainPhys. Properties -

Boundary Cond.

HydrologicSolver(NOR IA)

I

* I

* Fig. 4

Pore Pressure Profiles Across Dikes1 km Depth

80

60 I

.0 ~ 4

CL~~~~~~~~~

4~~~~~ x~~

0~~~~~~~

0 200 400 600 2oo 1000

X (m)

Fig. 6

Water Table Response - 2 m DikeCHv - Anisotropic Vert. Perm. Case (10:1)

2020

2015 -

2010-

E_E 2005-

V2000A

; 05

V 1990-

1985 -

1 980

9

II

. *v M M*#

. + * - * 0

- M a-- -v 0 a -a p of D eI

B aa :El

Y)*' Y(61 k)a Y(l 00 Ms)

rip of Dike250 m Below Water Table

4.0 200 400 600 800

x (m)

Obtained with 100 m grid over vadose zone

1000

0

I

. t

I P

Fig. 8

Water Table Response - 4 m DikeDifferent Vertical Perm. Enhancements

E

0-j

0Bco

A-4)(5

2020

2015

2010

2005

2000

1 995

1990

1985

1980

.......... rax @ 128E6 s

max @ 2.89ES s

max@ 214E4 s

max @ 1.49E3 s

0 200 -400 600 800

*X (m)

1000

Fig. 10

Saturation i Vadose ZoneCHv - (10:1) Enhanced Vert Perm

50 m Each Side of Dike

0UC

-

a

.

0

2120

2100

2080

2060

2040

2020

2000

1980C

I.U

-a

.~~~~~~~~ #B-#

Water Table at tO

to

* t=1.72E5

).2 0.4 0.6

Liquid Saturation -0.8 1.0

0

eFig. 12

Volumetric Strain Profileat Water Table Level

C

-

-

E=

_ Poisson=0.17-*-- Poisson.028

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

X ()

-0

.3

I Fig. 14

Water Table Response - 0.10 m SlipChv - Isotropic Permeability

'B

-

I.-

I-C

A.

1020

1015

1010

1005

1000

995

990

985

9802

-- --- - -- - --- - - -- - ------

Normal fault locked 250 mbelow water table

--------t=0.918t=6.87E2t=6.02E4

!50 500. . . . . .

750 1000

X ()

. . .

1 250 1500

I

Fig. 16

Water Table Response - 0.5 m SlipCHv - Isotropic Permeability

1020-

1015 -

E

-

0C;

L.

4)co

.0I-

1010

1005

1000

995

990

Normal fault locked 250 mbelow water table

-- --- t=1 58E2......... ... -3.12E3

t=1.92E4t=1 .296E5

985

an 0 -_

2505 I

500I . . . . I .

750 1000

X ()

1250 1500

-0

Fig. 18.

Maximum Rise VersusNormal Fault Slip

20

E

0

2

.0B

c.-S

EES

m=8 (extrap)-

.2A

orOV

V0OV

V0V0

eV0

0VOP

V0OV

V0V0

V0O.

or

V0le

OV&P

0V

00~~~~

10 - - 0- Calculated-~ - - - - Extrapolated

0 *1 I

0 1 2Slip

3 4

. 0

K>3'

vFig. 20

Water Table Response - 1 m SlipDifferent Vertical Perm. Enhancements

1020

.0.-

0

I-

J)

8O

..........

max@ 1.39E5 s

max @ 2.4E4 s

max @ 3.5E3 s

max @ 348 s

980 a250 750 1 250

X (m)

.0

Fio. 22

Decay of Pore Pressures > 25 Bars

11 v~flf ..

1250 -

1 000 i- - - - .

EC

.

u,

750 -

500 -

Water Table

6 sec

C d 74 k s

I

I

I

i~~~~ 14

250

0 .4.

0 250 500 750X (m)

1000 1250 1500

Fig. 24

4

Volume Produced per Unit Area at 250 m

O.020

d

- 3i

0.0015-

0.0010-

0.0005 -

0.0000.

3 x 27 micron fracturesper cubic meter

_____ _uuaa-g-a . U -.� U

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

X ()

1500

1250

1000

E... 750

500

250

00 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

X ()

I. Fig. 26

Excess Ground Water Volume

50

40

2a

30

C0

CD 20-

0

0E

10

0 *Oe+0 Ile+5 2e+5

Time s)

REAC11VE TRACER TESINGAT THE C-WELL COMPLEX

Bruce RobinsonLos Alamos National Laboratory

.

Objectives of the Study

* Demonstrate applicability of laboratory-determined sorption parameters

* Validate transport model for saturated zone

* Evaluate potential for colloid transportI

I

.1r

jFI

f et

:(.

. -

Approach

;

Test transport models at the field scale usingcarefully selected, well-characterized tracers.

* Radionuclide sorption: LIBr

* Colloid transport: polystyrene hcrospheres'I

Test Procedure

* Identify and characterize tracers In the laboratory

* Conduct field tests

* Simulate hydrologic and conservativetracer behavior

* Determine the applicability of laboratory sorptiondata for predicting field behavior

il

I

i

I

I I

II

Fracture FlowWith Matrix Diffuslon

4 4 4

V�1JW�WT1�......Ii...... _______________

.vI.e¶.

1111±1!.tz-�.

r. III__________________________ �.� *.

IAI I.' LI I -

Effect of Matrix Porosity

. 0

0.6 rp-v o~v i,.." 8 .1O~~~~e -~~9

a I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l

0 02

0.0 I I IIIIJ "OT-1-Ty I Ia I11o' r liI 11 I IIIT

10 iCTime, years

,10v

a

_. 116 27!30 .

d 4 ~~~~~LE-25

3. d..,_.; -

to .d - -- il -4_-. .e~s' ;d;2S ,

- -. * . -- -~~~~~~~~~it

W - 'C~~~~~~~~~~P ~ mraDUIFTc1

* U %\l~~~i.~~UE2SC93dPO

1.000 0 .00 7,000 FT1 .5 O 1 KILTStRI . cmmmc===

- 3 'W r~ o.A.r - rWJ% .-� - I I - - I - - - -- ) 2 -a - -- --- - )-

I

0I do

0Iv-

K.

.10Lo)

I::

MF.

.

; ';

C

aA 4

ii I 50 0.0

!! VE-t: -s North

jii lII

0.0

. �1. ..==v., .

iI

III

i

1500.0 -

1000.0 -

: X

t.

0

500.0

0.0 -

500.0 -..1.lit \' '' t. *' j3- . . '' '; i:. 'i Ii ' '-: ' .0 ;:,'.: . ;. ! Ax, ; IV A i ' j.-. tjAo , I

. 1 - - 1I

50.0 100.0 en1.0I.0.0Wo

Mc0t; NorthWl'eiitr II b t

, F

I .

Breakthrough Curves -Dif ferent Flow, Rates

1.0-

00.8 50 gpm

4-dC

C0.60

U

C

0

E 0.2

0.0-0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.06

Produced Volume, cubic meters

Ix O.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2DLUO.

.- UPSd

1 0 1 2 s.Obm

- Best ELo Pup d. L

Sorbing Tracer Behavior

1.50

cC)4.-,

C)

9N

CO

0-o

0

a

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

i

aI

0.000.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Time, days5.0

-

Colold Transport Through Fractures 9A A A

Transport With and Without Matrix Diffusion

a0Co._

cc

C,

a0

0VN

E0z

I0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

Time, days20.0

. I z

-I

Issues Addressed by a

* QA Level 1 Core

* Density of Vertical Fractures

Other Issues:

* Fracture Mineral Coatings

* Scale Dependent Transport

Fourth Well

Conclusions

*Test plan provides a means for validatingmatrix diffusion model

* UBr tracer will justify the use of laboratory-determined sorption parameters to site-scalemodeling

* Colloid mobility will be examined

OU H e,~.c eL - .2 hc i4es / .

ArI W0 O %T(A!WEF.&x

�l F %A7LA t1k gM�b

do~ A-T 8/L4qWQA MMAIrAW

MO 10 � UlP, ot� ri %.u t*3 Ok

qz�4. 04

.ftft at

uowj) R 140 I i

004bA r4

k't h .~ Giftieaka cm-k %Nx- !� ,,I

"� eMwJILYIIeo

aGtIAiTt -

OLI\W a \ Wt. t %&

c V;W; " a t t Oss,a'.~~~~~

UWo r A rov ' WA~~~~s any~~~

-

£ omlwaexk% N\tmN

O\C "I 4;1,a lwk it s TOL m vYtok% \v'

~LA% U e . ' 2e .~ OlAe S

i

0 \� k v em A e " ttx

4

WKN.�J

evi

(�,k e, v. �kQ cite 0 T6

>

(�r a Ite"IEb I

zA�4e

C eV

VowtecL

~C % emfok . a 4 u W +

1%16 m osA~ehV 1ew

uw0 Io % 1 k or t

0 eo. AOA e.

It\>y. fK .%%s; *.

" t

0

A �6

To \*. \***A% 0414qlt

a T q. S. ev\ I

I

cO\cerV\ Ic

SXA Ak te..IY G e

b.^&%~A C\4o o T %K :b3 r A" ) ui c

0 %4* Gt

* R~

&> ej C%44 4L %b %b

ttse c~Memsonf

Ww J , ;&t Atolrot

0

�u UJO. et SŽ\L*4f c o4

'*000% t qc.,Ar k LAW -

bC �,� tv teA. Atop

0 tt\4 mwlS 1 ~

I0 0 CAW4IMN it '� V*44b

0~~~~~~~~~~~~. CkkANIV, C.

0 V

I .

to vaew kx ;A~ u til

. 4 m

o u~ c 0 'A Q Wvtwo

0 0%b U4& 0 vi ow evb V.Y. 0� emaw

a% s \\Ota,%,* 40 0 r%4jIS

\& } Q ce.

a w cnA S

xwtVuV A

Bestow

LkXt

W.0" et

Co M4ALIkCAlorT(ON%

* V~ouyc-i&-(AeY%~~~~~~~a Llxcoo - Ma;~

~~~ 60 Ii*

us a

a0 C` I

I to VW w A VAlI% I

,*t~s-#t Ats tA Y\(x\~ coO

4:l+=N H ah~,. , NAGvl st e

GJ&%V0'a AS

I* 01% 11

e -�, -, C.. I.

S

,k~k~ me,& \4

%I % Q0 "\

Cu) UvAe 4

t, \ iLk; *

IEq

omi

Ies %mckhr ��

4?Lk% Eu

4tS~tw O'ie s'OS'%4o" alI:

?Pts&4 L&: . 2 to

Lb L 4 VWm/yle

\~s'%We ou m M S

k to - a0,11

L E L 1 4rar

-

-(9

EmmU U

-I L

FEBRUARY TPO MEETING

RELEASE OFSITE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM

BASELINE (SCPB)

RESENTED BY

TOM BJERSTEDTACTING CHIEF, REGULATORY INTERACTIONS BRANCH

,

U FEBRUARY 22, 1991 r U

I .U I~~~~~~~~~~~0

SCP WAS RELEASED IN 1988 WITHOUTAN EXPLICIT MEANS TO STRUCTURE

CHANGES TO IT

* MUCH INTERNAL DOE DEBATE, AND CONCERNABOUT SCP's FLEXIBILITY AMONG SCIENTISTS

* CONCERN EXPRESSED BY NRC, STATE OF NEVADA,AND OTHER SCP COMMENTORS REGARDING"CHANGEABILITY" AND WHAT CONSTITUTES ACONTROLLED PROGRAM

* DOE NEEDED TRACEABILITY AND "RECORD OF* DECISION" FOR CHANGES

* DOE NEEDED A MEANS TO KEEP SCP AND STUDYPLANS (SP) IN AGREEMENT

FEBTPOSP 125/2-22-91

TECHNICAL PLANNING BASIS (TPB)

* EARLY 1989 OGD/YMPO TOOK INITIATIVE ANDRELEASED "TECHNICAL PLANNING BASIS" ASMEANS TO CONTROL SCP TECHNICAL PROGRAM- SCP STUDY AND ACTIVITY OBJECTIVESM PERFORMANCE ALLOCATION TABLES- HYPOTHESIS TESTING TABLES

CHANGES TO THESE ITEMS INVOLVEDPROJECT CCB

FEBTP05P. 125/2-22-91

TPB SOUGHT TO CONTROL TECHNICALPROGRAM AT A HIGH-LEVEL

* SCP/TPB WAS THE ONLY CCB-CONTROLLEDDOCUMENT AFFECTING SPs

* BECAUSE TPB WAS HIGH-LEVEL, FEW CCBACTIONS WERE NEEDED TO MAINTAINAGREEMENT BETWEEN SCP/SPs

FEBTPO5P 125/2-22-91

SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAMBASELINE (SCPB)

* SCPB (REV 0.) RELEASED 2/7 - SUPERSEDES TPBESSENTIALLY THE TPB WITH FULL-TEXT BASELINING OFACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS

* BECAUSE SCPB CONTROLS TECHNICALPROGRAM IN GREATER DETAIL, MAY BE MOREOCCASIONS WHERE SCPB AND APPROVED SPsDISAGREE

FEBTPO5P 125/2-22-91

WHAT IS IN SCPB

SCPB CONTAINS MOST OF SCP CHAPTER 8* 8.0 INTRODUCTION* 8.1 RATIONALE* 8.2 ISSUES* 8.3.1 SITE PROGRAM

- PROGRAMS 8.3.1.1 TO 8.3.1.17* 8.3.2 REPOSITORY PROGRAM

- 8.3.2.1 AND 8.3.2.2* 8.3.3 SEAL PROGRAM

- 8.3.3.1 AND 8.3.3.2* 8.3.4 WASTE PROGRAM

- 8.3.4.1 TO 8.3.4.48.3.5 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM- 8.3.5.1 TO 8.3.5.20

* 8.4 PLANNED SITE PREPARATION ACTIVITIES- 8.4.1 TO 8.4.38.7 DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING

* REFERENCES* GLOSSARY FEBTPO5P.12W-22-91

WHAT IS NOT IN SCPB

SCPB DOES NOT CONTAIN:

* SECTION 8.5 MILESTONES, DECISION POINTS,AND SCHEDULE

* SECTION 8.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMSCHEDULES AND MILESTONES DISCUSSIONS INOTHER SECTIONS

* METHODS AND TECHNICAL PROCEDURESSECTIONS AND TECHNICAL PROCEDURES TABLES

* APPLICATION OF RESULTS SECTIONS

FEBTPO5P 1P.W-?21

or

SCPB IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING

* TPOs REQUIRED TO REVIEW THEIR CONTROLLEDDOCUMENTS (INCLUDES APPROVED SPs) FORCONSISTENCY WITH SCPB

* IDENTIFY IMPACTED CONTROLLED DOCUMENTSINCLUDING SPs ON AFFECTED DOCUMENT NOTICES(ADNs) DUE 1/21/91

* TPOs NEED TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION

FEBTPO5P 125/2-22-91

-

SPs AND SCPB MUST BE CONSISTENT. . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

* IF THE SCPB AND SP ARE NOT CONSISTENT,THEN EITHER1.) SCPB MUST BE REVISED BY SUBMITTING CHANGE

REQUEST (CR) FOR CCB ACTION THROUGH AP-3.3Q2.) THE SP MUST BE REVISED USING AP-1.1OQ

* EITHER 1 OR 2 IS ACCEPTABLE: CONSISTENCYBETWEEN SCPB AND SP IS THE GOAL

FEFlTPO5P 125,27-*21

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF AP-1 .1 OQ INTERIMCHANGE NOTICE (ICN) FOR SPs?

PAST REVISIONS OF AP-1.10Q PROVIDED FORICNs, BUT HAD NO IMPACT ON SCP

YMPO NOW USES ICNs TO INDICATE ATEMPORARY CHANGE TO AN SP PRIOR TO AREVISION- USE ICN AS 'QUICK CHANGE' MECHANISM

FEBTPO5P. 12512-22-91

wF

EFFECT ON DRAFT SPs

* DRAFT SPs TO BE COMPARED TO THE SCPB TODETERMINE IF DIFFERENCES EXIST- Ps DETERMINE-IF SP CONSISTENT WITH SCPB- T&MSS SP COORDINATORS WILL VERIFY

* ANY DIFFERENCES WILL BE RESOLVED BY THE TPOSUBMITTING A CHANGE REQUEST AGAINST THESCPB TO THE CCB USING AP-3.3Q

* A STUDY PLAN CAN ONLY BE APPROVED AFTERTHE CCB AGREES TO THE CHANGE

FFRTPOSP 125/2-22 Al

or

SPs NOT YET SUBMITTED TO YMP

* PRIOR TO SUBMISSION, P REVIEWS SCPB ANDDRAFT SP

* IF NECESSARY, PREPARES CR (AP-3.3Q) TO REVISESCPB

* TPO SUBMITS CR TO CCB

* YMP STUDY PLAN REVIEW INCLUDES SP AND ANYCRs THAT ARE SUBMITTED- IF REVIEW FINDS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCPB AND SP

THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN A CR, THEN MANDATORYCOMMENT(S) ARE MADESP CAN NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL CRs ARE APPROVEDBY CCB

FEBTPO5P. 125/2 22-91

BECOMING AWARE

OUTREACH PROGRAM FOR AP-3.3QIMPLEMENTATION

* POINT OF CONTACT- SAM C. MATTHEWS,CCB SECRETARY, FTS 544-7633

* ORIENTATION OF RESIDENT INTEGRATORSCOMPLETED

SNL AND LANL VISITED ON SEPTEMBER 16-18, 1990

* ONGOING INTERFACE WITH RSN AND REECo

* SCHEDULING VISITS WITH LLNL AND USGS

FEBTPO5P. 1252 22 91