:/di sk 14/1 i neharn.a>l /PTP/L1V;,°O UNITED STATES

19 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,- lWASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

PTP:nancc: Tom

Reply to:1050 East Flamingo RoadSuite 319Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

Tel: (702) 388-6125FTS: 598-6125

John J. Linehan, Acting Chief, Operations Branch (HLOB)Division of High-Level Waste Management, M/S 4-H-3

Paul T. Prestholt, Sr. On-Site Licensing Representative

August 18, 1988

EXPLORATORY SHAFT UNDERGROUND GEOLOGIC MAPPING - NNWSI

Please find enclosed the above-referenced memorandum.

Cardone w/enc.

PDR W~STE PvC Id g5l / it/V

<%__

ZN MtPL.Kt.IH I;,

-~' -~ United States Department of the Interiorm 0 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Pt ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH CENTER

P 0 BOX '5007BUILDING 67, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER

D-1570 DENVER. COLORADO 80225-0007

APiR I ss9

Memorandum

To : U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division,MS-421, P.O. Box 25046, Denver, Colorado 80225Attention: Larry Hayes

Through: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Division, MS-913g OP.O. Box 25046, Denver, Colorado 80225Attention: Bob Raup

From: Technical Program Officer, NNWSI/USBR (Nevada NuclearWaste Storage Investigations)

Subject: Exploratory Shaft Underground Geologic Mapping - NNWSI

There is considerable misunderstanding of underground geologic*mapping and resultant personnel needs and costs relative to theESF. Following is a discussion of underground geologic mappingin the NNWSI Exploratory Shaft Facility (ESF). This informationwould be useful in planning and budgeting activities. Explainedare the differences between the mapping requirements at theUnderground Research Laboratory (URL) Canada, the basalt site atHanford, the salt site at Deaf Smith County, and NNWSI needs.Although no active investigations are underway at the basalt orsalt sites; they are included for comparison purposes. Discussedare: 1) impacts of geologic mapping on the excavation cycle and2) when mapping is practicable, both from the geologists' and thecontractors' standpoint. Finally, four mapping scenarios arepresented that relate directly to the cost of geologic mapping atthe ESF.

Underground Research Laboratory. Manitoba. Canada. Rock at theURL consists of unweathered granite. The granite is essentiallyunfractured, structureless and is literally of tombstone quality.Minor, extremely localized zones of fracturing are present.Because of the massiveness of the rock, the material isimpermeable except for small amounts of water on rare fractures.The test areas are located below the water table. There are no

2

plans to use the URL as a repository; it is strictly a researchfacility.

Geologic mapping at the URL is done by conventional methods(photomosaic) with a shift per day dedicated to mapping. Theexcavation is essentially unsupported, unlined, and only oneheading is mined at a time.

HanfOrd. Washington. Rock at the Hanford site consists ofinterlayered basalt flows and interflow material. The rock ispermeable and most of the shaft is below the water table. Thepotential repository location is in a thick basalt layer belowthe water table.

The exploratory shaft was to be drilled, with no geologic mappingplanned in the shaft.

Deaf Smith County. Texas. Rock at the Deaf Smith site consistsof interbedded sediments including a thick salt zone. Some ofthe rock is permeable and most of the shaft is below the watertable. The potential repository location is in bedded salt belowthe water table.

Geologic mapping plans are unknown; this site is still in theplanning stage.

Yucca Mountain. Nevada

Rock at the Yucca Mountain site consists of bedded volcanictuffs. The rock is highly fractured and permeable with theentire ESF and potential repository located above the watertable.

ESF GEOLOGIC MAPPING

The major difference between the sites discussed above and theExploratory Shaft (ES), is the location of the repository abovethe water table. Because the permeability of the unsaturatedzone above the water table is a key factor in characterizing thesite, and fractures are a major path for water movement, extremedetail is necessary when mapping at the ES. Unsaturated zonepermeability studies expand the state-of-the-art, and informationneeds are different than conventional requirements. Extremelydetailed fracture mapping in highly fractured rock is a verylabor-intensive activity. This need for detail requires eitherextensive time for conventional mapping or faster, sophisticatedmapping methods; we have chosen the latter.

An additional factor is that the shaft will be lined as it isexcavated, with a maximum 30 feet of rock exposed at any onetime. The drifts will be covered with chain link fabric one round

3

behind the heading. All geologic mapping must be accomplishedbefore lining or chain link is installed.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

The major impact on shaft and drift construction is the amount oftime the contractor must stand by while geologic mapping isaccomplished. We reduced this time from eight hours (a completeshift) to two hours per round by using photogrammetry. (Note:Prototype testing in G-Tunnel indicates that two hours per roundis a practical time estimate.) This two-hours-per-round timerequirement will allow mapping up to three 6-foot rounds pershift, i.e. six hours to map three rounds.

Figure 1 depicts the advantages and disadvantages of geologicmapping during or between each phase of the excavation cycle.Mapping is possible between several phases of the excavationcycle as shown in Figure la. However, because of the reasonsshown in Figure lb, mapping during all but one interim periodbetween excavation cycle phases is impractical. We rated eachmapping window from the standpoints of the contractor and theUSBR/USGS (with no. 1 being the most preferred). Figure la showsclose agreement between the preferences of the contractor andthose of the mappers. The preferred window, between support andlining, is the most advantageous from the geologists' and thecontractors' standpoint.

Several scenarios have been studied to evaluate data collectionand its relationship to construction costs and personnel needs.Figure 2 shows the staff required to conventionally map the ESFon a three-shift-per-day, seven-day-per-week work schedule. Thisorganization and cost is included for reference becauseconventional mapping is or probably would be the mapping methodused at the other sites. For comparisons, an average cost of$80,000 per person has been assumed. This cost per person is theaverage cost based on the estimates for FY 1992. Cost forconventional mapping is approximately $2,560,000 during maximumeffort by the contractor. Figures 3 through 5 show the threepracticable scenarios for mapping at the ESF usingphotogrammetry; these are discussed below:

Figure 3 shows the organization necessary to map the ES aspresently planned (using photogrammetry). This plan, asformulated through discussions with the Waste Management ProjectsOffice and REECo, assumes that personnel will be available to mapthe shafts and drifts at any time during three shifts per day,seven days a week. This scheme allows maximum flexibility forthe contractor. The number of active headings contributessignificantly to the number of mapping staff. Whether 1, 2, or 3six-foot rounds are mapped at a time does not impact the numberof personnel required for mapping. When not actually underground

4

mapping, these personnel will process data, maps, samples, andsupport other experiments. Mapping logistics also require timefor equipment maintenance, preparation, and travel to and fromthe mapping sites. Cost for mapping is approximately $1,920,000during maximum effort by the contractor.

Figures 4 and 5 present organizations for mapping during one ortwo shifts per day, respectively. These assume that contractoractivity will be restricted with mapping done only on shiftscovered by geologic mapping teams, i.e. day shift. Becausemapping is practical only between the support and lining phases,the contractor is severely restricted. Even though the one- andtwo-shift mapping scenarios show costs of $1,200,000 and$1,680,000 respectively as compared to $1,920,000 for the plannedthree-shift-per-day scheme, overall project costs will be higherdue to restrictions on the contractor. If the contractor hasplaced support and a mapping team is not available, he must delayoperations or do maintenance until a team is available. Thistime can exceed two complete shifts. Assuming the contractorloses an average of a shift per day, or assumes this loss in hisbid or schedule, then the cost and the time required to excavatethe shaft and drifts increases accordingly. Also, total mappingcosts increase because the number of staff required per yearremains high due to the longer duration of maximum contractoreffort. The increase in cost and time (up to one year longer)for construction could easily offset the cost of having mappingteams available three shifts per day.

SUMMARY

Geologic mapping methods and costs between the two other possiblewaste storage sites, URL, and the ES are not directly comparablebecause of:

(1) different geologic conditions i.e. lithology andfracturing

(2) different hydrologic conditions i.e. the ES locatedabove the water table in the unsaturated zone

(3) different purpose, i.e. not a research facility

(4) Construction method, i.e. the ESF shaft will be lined asit is excavated

(5) Number of active headings, i.e. the ESF can have up tofour active headings at one time requiring mapping

Restricting the contractor by permitting mapping during less thanthree shifts per day requires fewer geology staff and results inlower yearly geology personnel costs. Restricting the contractor

5

by mapping less than three shifts also significantly reduces thetime allowed for shaft and drift excavation because of standbytime. This restriction can increase significantly the totalconstruction time and cost, therefore more than offsetting three-shift-per-day mapping costs.

The above factors indicate that the cost of geologic mapping atthe ESF must be evaluated in the context of information needs,construction method, impacts on the contractor, and resultanttotal project costs and schedule.

Enclosures

Copies to: Geologic Division, U.S. Geological SurveyAttn: MS-913 (Bob Raup and Ernie Glick, POBox 25046, Denver Federal Center, DenverColorado 80225

USGS RC/123242Z/I/Underground Geologic Mapping

P

-U.S D EPAHrTWNT OF EfERGY

C0 N..-aaaON uiear4C WasseR S ~~or ageR Js lv.estigat ions

W PROJECT

Exploratory Shaft FacilityTiming of Geologic Mapping

During Shaft Excavation Cycle

IVExcavationCyc/l phase

13-

b.Z

.l

4b

I-

q..

06a

I Drill I Load 11/ Shoot IV Muck V Support V/ Utlift/es * Vll Lining

a,b, e, c.eg,h e h 0 b,h,i @ a,bje,h @ c,d a,b,e,h

, i S g 7 S C ~7 7 7 7 7

IMAPPING. POSSIIL hAPPING POSIL | APPING POSSIBLE]LAPN OSIL RFREIDLE ~h FM FrB MAPPG0SILJ iINGPSI~q PREFERRED

1) contractor may need except for last MAPPINGto find shot holes attar round. since muck Elmapping is stil in place WNO

2) shot holes may needcleaning after mapping

(

l-

i:3

Contractor 6 3 2 5 4 1Preference I

CGUSBR/USGS 2 35Pre ference 1

(

' These operations occurabout every 3rd round

Figure - la

- U.S. rA-PARIMEENT OF

N o Ivat

R1 turdQ&Invos t igati

WM ROJEC

LOGR 1

-1-

NevadaIts Nuclear Waste-. 3. Storage Investigations ProjectNP

CONSIDERATIONSfor

MAkPPIJTRVqG liMIPASOm @C"ON$UIRI©I)

HHWSR, Elz1pormor 7 e 3nh $fi 1 Fmdnllnqy

C

a.b.C.

d.e.f.g.h.i.

Mapping always consists of washing and mappingMust be able to move galloway (up and down) during mappingMust have power for lightingMust have water and air for washingMust be able to see wallsMust be able to overlap photo with last mapped roundLimited exposure without support (no chain link until photographed)General SafetyBucket well will be covered during mapping

(

Figure - lb

SHAFT AND DRIFT WALL MAPPING

ORGA NIZA TIONA L CHA R T

Conventional Mapping

IUSGS Data In rin. Invest

I

IProj.Geologist

______-F-

re gist I

rAssat w.,

rIIL3eoog-st

; aTjL -

I I[eologisd

[Assistanl|

.[Geologist

r-T- -IAssislanj

I- r-I[Geologist I

rL

A s st

- r-_ 1 I L~IL1 Lu4 IL

r(ssl lsns I [Assisstj G ant1 [Assist afi an l| s isjantII J _-i Lt___J L J E

I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CI

Drif)' Teams Shaft Teams

r P-ST I r PST- I r I- 7S r I. _ . -_ . L- * . . , I .. . . _ .-AL Z Denver Personnel

r-- -|__ j Las Vegas Personnel

Diall - Dralt speson

Peol. Geologisl = PNuvedt G..ohkxj

Pun. Investliator - I 'uwiupil hiveA HJ;lol USGS Dala Inletp. = IJW.GS D1). I r.s ItI we'tIm i

PSI = F14.ycaI SCience 1. 1111111A,111

Figure 2

SHAFT AND DRIFT WALL MAPPING

ORGA N/ZA TIONA L CHARTPhotogrammetric Method

(Three Mapping Shifts per Day)

C

Shaft Teams Drift Teams Sample Handling andData Entry

F-------] Deriver Pot tonnel 7-- -- LaS Vieps~ I-i'I s o'aw51 I

I .LII Hiry-wici S-cienctv 1t:cldiIicia h in. hvv�n ; ilot - I 'III -4 11 J 11 II illk- ' .1 V I- II � ;I 11 il�,, 1). III It II 11.1 h t. 11,1.. I411"I I

I I 1 I. t H.l I I..,I.i*Finure 3

t I6

SHAFT AND DRIFT WALL MAPPINGORGA NIZA TIONA L CHA R TPhotogrammetric Method

(One mapping shift per day)

I-- 1TechLI

(A

Shaft Teams Drift Teams Sample Handlingand Data Entry

I - Deriver Personnel I I.PI$ V -(jdas PeŽr,(n

II-, it II- ¶I : qijtf c e? I ic I Ihn ic i I

I J .1. .. . ' 1' I I I j ." 1 .

I'IIII. Illvc .114F.ilr I 14111 . Ip A .-A w , $

Fiatire 4

I I �, .: . f ).I I a III I 4 II,. t I'.(. 'I. I ';II -I 11 I I. I I I - I I I it ; I

-'S

SHAFT AND DRIFT WALL MAPPINGORGA NIZA TIONA L CHARTPhotogrammetric Method

(Two mapping shifts per day)

I .I

- -- --- I

I Proj.Geologist iL_____

1J

I I IShaft Teams Drift Teams Sample Handling

and Data Entry)nnel | I Las Vegas Personnel

I _ . _ _,' Denver Persc

Ii ' Pyicad 4".civnce Techniciati

I I . . I m I fut! I (woI.iAJpt

rtinol. Ir~v. t1 ,1or :- F'lim ur), e 5

Fi Lure 5

W U1D.Aj I(Itel I). � I I).;[: III b I 14, -II 11t)II