ML20234B609
| ML20234B609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/1987 |
| From: | Grimm J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Starmer J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-68 NUDOCS 8707060126 | |
| Download: ML20234B609 (9) | |
Text
- <
JtM 17 TW WM-68/JPG/ TRIP REPORT I
WM Rxord file WM heint h_ l DxhtW._ _.____
MEMORANDUM FOR: John Starmer, Acting Chief pp /' ~ ~ "~~~
Technical Branch LPDR - -
Division of Low-Level Waste Management,m",.
and Decommissioning ,r - - - - --
FROM: Joel Grimm, Geolog',st Technical Branch iRernWWE5In -! '
Division of Low-Level Waste Management I and Decommissioning
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT: URANIUM REC 0VERY FIELD OFFICE, DOE PROJECT OFFICE, AND GREEN RIVER UMTRA PROJECT SITE VISIT, APRIL 23-30, 1987 On April 23-30, 1987, I completed office and site visits to Denver, CO, Albuquerque, NM, and Green River, UT. The purposes of the visits were to discuss geological program matters with technical staff at NRC's Uranium Recovery Field Office (URF0) and resolve technical issues with DOE at the Green River UMTRA Project site.
This meeting was arranged at the suggestion of Ed Hawkins, URF0, and was my first occasion to interact with URF0 staff. The meeting centered around -
sharing information on geological and technical issues at UMTRCA Title I and II sites. Our meeting benefitted URF0 because I had an opportunity to describe the types of geological reviews I complete at headquarters. I benefitted by learning of characterization and design details in the Title II program which differ from Title I. Specific topics of our discussions included: (1) availability of erosion protection materials at various Title I and 11 sites, especially those in Wyoming, (2) proposed erosion protection designs with no-rock or partial-rock covers, (3) levels of geologic data provided in site characterization reports, and (4) continuing interaction between technical staffs at URF0 and LLWM.
During travel to Albuquerque and Green River I was accompanied by Paul Smith and Ronald Rager from DOE / TAC offices in Phoenix and Albuquerque. Our trip's purpose was to resolve specific geologic issues raised from staff's review of DOE's draft Remedial Action Plan (dRAP) for the Green River site. During the trip, we examined rock cuttings and cores sampled from wells drilled at the site and traversed the disposal area making detailed observations of the site's geology. The visit aided the NRC/ DOE remedial action review process because we observed aspects of the site were vaguely or inconsistently described in the dRAP. We also had an opportunity to share differing opinions in an attempt to comprehend more accurately the site's geologic setting. The site visit allowed DOE / TAC staff an opportunity to respond to and resolve all issues I raised in review of the dRAP. Arranging and carrying out this site visit made this ;
direct approach to issue resolution possible. Details of our laboratory and i site observations are found in the enclosure.
B707060126 870617 .
- i
JUN 171987 i
WM-68/JPG/ TRIP REPORT 4 In conclusion, I feel my meeting in Denver was very helpful to my working i relationship with URF0 staff. My site visit to Green River was successful because it allowed direct contact with DOE / TAC staff and resulted in resolution of several geologic issues stemming from NRC's review of the dRAP. If you have .
any questions or comments regarding this trip report, please contact me at your l convenience. I l
Original Signed By Joel Grimm, Geologist Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste !
Management and Decommissioning, NMSS
Enclosure:
As Stated l
l l
l l
l l
, DELOSURE i
TRIP REPORT: OFFICE AND' SITE VISIT GREEN RIVER, UT UMTRAP SITE JOEL GRIMM, NMSS On April 27-29, 1987, I traveled to Albuquerque, NM and Green River, UT to meet-with staff from DOE / TAC and resolve geological issues related to the draft '
Remedial Action Plan (dRAP) for the tailings disposal site at Green River.- 'I was joined on the trip by Ronald Rager, Geotechnical Engineer for Sargent, Hauskins, and Beckwith (SHB) Albuquerque, and Paul Smith, Geologist for SHB-Phoenix.
DOE's Projects Office Lab, Albuquerque i We inspected cores and cuttings from wells drilled at the site to preview l lithology and stratigraphy of sedimentary rocks and alluvium at Green River.
More importantly, our inspection was intended to check inconsistencies in well logs and the way in which they were interpreted in maps and cross-sections. Of greatest interest to me was 1) the extent of Dakota Sandstone beneath the site, and 2) distinctions between rocks overlying and underlying the Dakota. Dakota .l Sandstone is a distinct and easily recognized rock unit. Therefore, ]
determination of its structural and stratigraphic occurrence is a key to j comprehension of the site's geologic setting. ]
Our observations centered on the presence and depth of the Dakota Sandstone, lithologic contrasts between the strata of interest, and the match between samples we inspected and their corresponding logs in the dRAP. We determined that several logs had not been checked or edited prior to their inclusion in the dRAP appendices, as had been previously thought. For example, well log number 581 indicates Mancos Shale where the rock is actually Cedar Mountain Formation.
Several well logs in,the dRAP do not include Dakota Sandstone. Interpretive -
cross-sections in the dRAP, however, show the sandstone underlying the entire )
disposal site. We examined certain samples which include lithologic intervals Mr. Smith interprets as Dakota Sandstone. I disagree with the designation of j these intervals as Dakota and find them ger.erally indistinguishable from '
lithologies in the underlying Cedar Mountain Formation. This difference of opinion remains unresolved. Smith also considers that some samples of overlying unconsolidated sand'and gravel could be derived from weathered Dakota Sandstone.
We checked logs by comparing cuttings and core against logs included in the dRAP. Wells of interest are located on Figure 1. Specific samples which we examined include the following:
- 1. Well no. 562 (beneath proposed disposal area): This well is the only one with core sample. Relatively well preserved samples simplified '
the logging procedure, and our inspection verified the accuracy of
D.1 <
4 a
the log in the dRAP. Uppermostsamples(0-20..ft.)consistof !
unconsolidated gravelly sand.. Underlying Dakota Sandstone consists:
of well-cemented yellow or grey conglomeratic sandstone, chunks' of petrified wood or other plant debris, and lignite. The Cedar Mountain ;
l' Formation, as seen in these samples ' consists mostly of mudstones, is i light brown.or grey in color, weathers yellowish, and contains near-vertical fractures. .Many short intervals of the Cedar Mountain core were considerably shrunken. i l
- 2. Well no. 586 (beneath proposed disposal area): Uppermost samples of alluvium were not inspected. Cuttings samples of bedrock (20-30 ft.
interval) consist of damp, dark grey limy mudstone or limestone.
This lithology does not resemble Dakota Sandstone (see above notes,- i well 568), and is shown in the dRAP as Cedar Mountain Fm.
- 3. Well no. 581 (penetrates present tailings pile): . Samples of tailings interval were not inspected. Samples from 20-30 ft. interval consist of small gravel, gravel cuttings, and sandy matrix material .
interpreted as fluvial gravel (Brown's Wash alluvium). Uppermost bedrock cuttings (interval 30-60 ft.) consist of mudstone or shale, light grey or brown, and poorly lithified. The dRAP log shows this as Mancos Shale, but shows Cedar Mountain Formation in related I
cross-sections.
UMTRA Project site visit, Green River, Utah We made a traverse of the site and environs in order to identify geologic relations not apparent in the dRAP. See the enclosure for a map of the traverse and locations of observations. We followed outcrops, primarily the Dakota Sandstone, in the mill yard (map location A), near the tailings pile (B), westward along Brown's Wash and the site's access road (C), and southward
~
across DOE's proposed disposal area and off-site (D).
We also conducted a brief inspection cf fault groups 1, 2, and 5 (dRAP-nomenclature) which occur approximately 3 to 7.5 miles south of the disposal site (Figure 2). All the faults display topographic relief, apparently due to resistant rocks occurring in one block of the fault juxtaposed against nonresistant rocks in the adjacent block. Where lithology is similar on either L side of a fault, topographic expression is subdued or nil. The faults are not i associated with deposits of Quaternary age. Therefore, determination of-recent fault movement by cross-cutting relations is not possible at the locations we made our observations.
Results of the site visit
- 1. Because DOE's dRAP did not contain a comprehensive and detailed geologic map of the vicinity, my visit provided an understanding of site 4 stratigraphy and structure.
.___...________________m_.___________s
l
- j 3 j
- 2. Bedrock exposures are sparse across DOE's proposed disposal area. Also, Dakota Sandstone is not clearly evident in rock samples (from wells 581 and586). Therefore, I remain uncertain that Dakota Sandstone is continuous beneath the site, as it is portrayed in dRAP Figure D.3.8.
- 3. In light of discussion following the site visit, participants agreed to altering cross-section AA', Figure D.3.8 of the dRAP (page D-93),' as j follows:
- a. . A broad fold in bedrock near the site's escarpment may not exist.
Dakota Sandstone occurs closer to the surface than shown at the southern end of the section (fig. 3).
- b. A revised cross-section (fig. 4) will show strata with general northward dip, outcrop or shallow subcrop of Dakota Sandstone at the southern end of the section, and likely disappearance of.the unit beneath the proposed disposal area,
- c. This portrayal of site geology is supported by: 1) lack of Dakota in wells 581 and 586, 2) outcrop of Dakota at the base of Brown's Wash
- escarpment, 3) outcrop of Dakota in roadcuts near the southern side of the site, and 4) general regional bedrock structure.
- 4. Site visit participants generally consented that disagreements over !
detailed geology of the site are academic relative to the site's geologic stability. The distribution and characteristics of geologic units, however, may be of considerable importance to groundwater protection. DOE's Environmental Assessment refers to the Dakota as a barrier to groundwater movement (page B-57) thus providing a barrier to hydrostratigraphic units in the underlying Cedar Mountain Formation.
If Dakota Sandstone is discontinuous beneath the site, it would not be effective in protecting deeper groundwater resources from tailings contamination.
- 5. Fault exposures south of the site (fig. 2) have topographic expression which appears to be due to lithologic contrasts. At our observation points, the faults do not display clear signs of recent movement or truncation of Quaternary deposits. These observations apply only to fault groups 1, 2, and 5.
. - Enclosuro Figure 2
't I 94 V7 '!8 "9 ' W I s69 3 ,,,
90 m w . .
- ",m_av"o g (
- pp ,
_ 2 80
,-.344/ jr 7
\ 12 ,,f.
s e .ma . l9 g7 f/ .t i ,
s g Green Hiver ;r i,,.n i
,-- . .".. pl h.ety y ; ~'"E*M .~.e ;.E M ',%*. j .4prv e g.,..
s ,
, n .s ~ , . . . ,
~
s -e.l.,, _ _
4y ,i
".,.9.. g
.y.
~ . . .
%.s.,3a>- e.% - m s ;
. $, t
.l
- %;,', 'y o ..;j Q O N. M ' !(- h,k $@p iB ; t ew: i r, j '
. 3 .9 Q ;. g# Y.\.' C f;)k S y J .
-. ,;. H6 W 7 ,M
- .*%. .- ,h.,,,Q.g g
.A % 'hth N . y1 < m
( ~ ,
, f.:
rd C" -" 2 y? b .
A Ns k* A. ,
W%"'. ],f;hWLk h?,&d&pfgj%F W n g66 \
I E Y [ b d hg % ddfh j . y '(9 kh ,(N bNkbE@d $
h sh l
$ s$ g ; 2j .? 2,bb a {
M 'O
~~f f ,,
_. f
- j. [ ?5*}Agfi *'
\
Qa7lqA - y $3 g ~ ~ . n p .
Aa
(' h 4_
?'}Q%
, L z.Q , . . jy , A.h %w, M-Q R sh.h]
~
r..n.-+-
i ,
h Pcd)4 - --+ ..
.@. [. , (!!j(A h,
->. y 94
~ q# , , %C g [j 3-a------- - ey;.,,Q
.kly Q2 .]3 QQl{ng{ ,.
~
C '.g m .*:e' 7 m% : .
7"ts, . o - ,;;r,r s ~ Tc{ l s ~'
g(V( a- v,]. y, ,)a c-Q(['W. %/?Vj~g M. sg ;%
4 j$p3
- pf, ,g ,teq
~
< . s y, y v sy '
r
.. f j h i o ~.
h;,;
c ;. sig%: - ) $l w,g %p &'MENh;, p* O'rg! ec j ~' .$iN L ' Abkh*2h., 8 0 Q/,, .'$ /f 7'Q %L(y^
w
~-% ^~
o W,
- A;=% 19,. Q 7 + 8A 7
_ ,.' e,0
- * ,V .
2, m ,- s s :. w . %y g ,g.: i a
. }. in._ QiM'
- ,v& ...
c .y-p-ew .,
+.,f-
.0 Ar- 7-- -
X'L -
L
-r
?s.
. v -
y ' w 1, .,eem, J%g:y y %j ,
l N, W:' A u m' (
, ; . +. M s.eyeseA M
-V --, lte .
3 ,
_y
~,,. ;: ,,f"," n . _
i
.[nf -
}
% ) f'p i . M ~
', ; k)}'
i i;.
-1 lA j[
ng; g.f#,N.j N a 1,g [ g -]' ? }Lt1-p3'g,4 ~
7.w %4]g[c w d s' .;.t Aj. ;' .dM .
..e 9,
~
,e
- ' - w.f.v. fk . ,. .-
-p.
~
s.
=.A.
.'h. ., / 4U%'.e
. - ' t , ,_i t] M{ f<Tl"?(
'. , : - k ' p 'l Ag G C
)' (4 -
2% g.'
j j
.gg.
- 0n . g!ij' ' 3. A "v;; y af l& ? ^ . My '
s
- ' DQ
'f Lp
.l C '< ,
f.y
"" ~E
> .. . . _ -~.-. - L,,~.~-,-J. ,v.a an A -- a ~ n~ :
N Trip Report Figure 2: Index map to f ault observations j ;
O 1 2 Fault group number 2 mile a Observation area X l -
l
- gy, -
~
.,;W
' NN a
f h~?-c*
n m :.. ~ J
/ BY '
'( s,
.h, s.ry
(
.g$ l.,~c :-
o
',_' /'~.; *o s
l.. - g
- hg.
,, . , h
.g
" f, e
}' ;e
& ~
' Qt
),\ ,
~
~
a d
i p -
'/ Nj. 7 /\
4 s
- . e.
s s e.
d( k~ c'L, ~ 9..i 5 N
3 k 8
o .
y ~~ ~
<u-p -
-N. .~,/ D.
o ~ r.
' ' . r b-
~. ".
p 9 z~ ~
- g . .
y"
~ ~
(~~ "
_ sg .
fj 5
' ' s1
~
- 1, rl ,
o w&:.
' -~[ -s I' -
w~b o -
7 d
.s ~ {'
p' f' .
%Wll[!
s l n -
-.u Dt
/ .,
f-
)w,(:p . ', mopiu g;-
1 ! .i . .,
~E, r
,t i
>>I
>n b\
TQ . _
]
' g '/ .
m,%-
,op .
(g+~(~
) 3, r '
sW nc Q
v CN ,
s
-r,Y
~ : _
r ,
E!@ h,A s
i
- \
'T-AII , .
J ,i .
yQj#
Q'.
g4,)'.h
~
i .
k h y K _v .
- , f ,~ v!
Np/
.fb -
s g r, .
-f
- l
- , 5 x'.
/. ' .
_~
~
t t { ., g w~d ..'n{f+,j*'.,?g>(:
v ' .
i /- e. .
x i U 0) -
h, s
~.
wa'/
n Jd, o
1 9
, 8 s 5
8 ,
f.
n e .
o i.
j i t
a s o
.g m .
c o "
L
?
l l
, e W ?
,U .& )
(
'A
)
~
"- B t
c
~ K 4
o m, y_h h ~ c, c s s s A c s '0 E
d c K; K -
.K c
K ~ K e 7 1
6 ~ - , ~ , -
R 8 ;
A 5 i D L
h
~ T A
S f[ ~
~
O o ne P
~
~ sa S
I ea D 'm )
c y T S
G L
u s u_8"]. K h h /T S T
N u,
" ' s.
sc mts. '0 m E s A L le* lc cc c c m
c 2m E o = E cs I
F0 f L K"* K K 5
2a I
A 2
6 1 h - - K_K
- - K _K ' '
1 D
N 00 g G I 6 0 y T
E3 3 en N 5 t u W T E s C -- s L I
V - - d A: '
= K I c W K o C t, O
T s G .
S / 't r A c
" c- ,, e v
O N L R
=b s_ (
E 7 - e
- T L
7 5
)
h
- n n
A A N- a - '
- t s
c 2e A
p .
K
'/ . N n
~
pK d O
~
Km / u/ I T
[/[
h
- . p' g-s c
'7 C t
E K 5
- E
+ L 1
',~ D S GI
,'yE'.*T N P 0~
7 S
s
- c, I S c 5 S T
SG 1 Pg , _ . - K 8
- O I N 8
' e D R X I 5 P d T E L I 4
G. K H i
C A S 0
T 7 y,j K I c
)
8 (g
e k 3 S )
(
'h 9
NH 3 p
D WS ?
t t
Q) d
)
m E OA m ( + R RW K k A.
B 7 n ( - U e k G
)
H b,
s ( e, fx I T h t z i F
/ ;
R 4 c O a st u N h y i
(
- c. G L4w A s u A
" f, a
-s
- - - ~ - - - - 9 e m s. c a ,u s.e 1
i 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s s A e t G nDa 9 5 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 1
4 71 4
1 4 #'
0 0 0 0 0 4
9 3
9 c 4 4 4 4 3
~e .
yluu 3y . e lj E - .
nt -
A
)
- B g
(
- c K
- - c.
- s *0 E
A u S
- K c 7 1
R 6 g r' . - - . _
D A ._
T L
A " _
S O
_ ,m P ~ _
oe ya S
g I
)
D m x c T S L u K 6 S S h G M , T E 3
- A N - l e* ls. m *0 E E I
L I
L C - K K
c c
K 5
1 o6 2 F N xe 00 G
A D 00 N I
T M T E 36 I
[g d-L E
V S
A + =3 K C r I
T C 0 S eV ** : O O
l 1 A
N )'J* c
$*' (
L R D s, s E E s
- T 7 T 7 C t
- . A L D A
5E I L
C T -
)h s
tc oM z.
A R K IP #-d N O
N K- I T
^
h s '7 C c
K 5 E L 1
' /
D )c S GI 0 T K S P
" [_
N -7 s S
T S I
c 5 r SG I
N i
a f -
s
_K - -
8 D
o O
R X I S d T m E L I T
A 7
4 0
- [ K H
)
S (c )
)
a k (
k e C K + ( n 8
a k e % 3 S ( n
-NH o D
=
T G e o WS ( du d o E OA R RW B m c
m G bF r U
G o s b k i o I uA
)
v F H o <
T L 4e l
n R l a
O a A D C N
( (
y c.
s o
> e A 5 e e e w -
3
<, c e e
- 0 9
0 0
5 0
0 9
0 7
- 1 0
5 0
3 0
1 0
9 0
7
.e l
n Gc sJ e f
r e +
4 r
u
+k e
r c
e 1
7 1
3
' 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 c 4
1 4 4 d 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 TQ c C C 2
- u. ]nc u
r i .
C ,