ML20236A009
| ML20236A009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/13/1989 |
| From: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Starmer R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8903160251 | |
| Download: ML20236A009 (43) | |
Text
_
t.
/.
]
L MAR f8 1ggg MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. John Starmer, Section Leader Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning FROM:
Michael F. Weber Technical Branch Division of' Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT F0P. THE UMTRA C0VER DATA REVIEW, MARCH 7-9, 1989 As requested by the Operations Branch, I organized and participated in the DOE-NRC Data Review on March 7-9, 1989, about water flux through earthen covers on tailings disposal units.
DOE hosted the review at its offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This memorandum sumarizes the data review, as well as several informal meetings that occurred Thursday afternoon after the conclusion of the review. provides the signed sumary meeting notes for the data review.
Data Review The purpose of the data review was for NRC staff and its consultant to evaluate the data and analyses used by DOE to estimate water fluxes through the earthen cover at the Shiprock UMTRAP site in Shiprock, New Mexico.
DOE estimated the flux based on measurements of saturated hydraulic conductivity and in-situ moisture contents, estimated moisture characteristic and relative conductivity curves, and an assumed unit hydraulic gradient for the radon barrier.
DOE concluded that moisture contents in the radon barrier have remained relatively constant since the barrier was constructed.
Thus, DOE asserts that water fluxes down through the radon barrier are expected to remain at approximately the current estimated flux of IE-9 cm/s.
In addition, DOE proposes to extend this low flux rate to represent the
.long-term flux at the Green River UMTRAP site.
The NRC review team consisted of myself, Myron F11egel (LLOB), Ed Hawkins (VRFO), Tom Olsen (URFO), Gary Konwinski URF0), and Tim Jones (NRC consultant; Pacific Northwest Laboratory)(.
We met on Monday afternoon in Albuquerque to prepare for the data review.
The data review began on Tuesday morning, March 7, with an extensive orientation of the reviewers to the data and an overview of the objectives, implementation, and results of DOE's cover study at the Shiprock site. The NRC team reviewed the data on Tuesday afternoon and all day on Wednesday. Mr. Konwinski departed the data review at the end of Tuesday afternoon.
The remainder of the NRC team developed l
consensus observations and prepared sumary meeting notes on Wednesday evening.
We presented the summary meeting notes to DOE on Thursday morning, March 9.
After DOE and its contractors discussed the preliminary observations internally, we met with DOE to discuss our preliminary comments and conclude the data review.
8903160251 890310 39 PDC
.s 2
WM,39/MFW/89/03/ TRIP MAR 181999 Based on the information that we evaluated in the data review, the NRC review team observed that typical earthen covers used at the UMTRAP sites are likely to remain unsaturated over the design life of the disposal units.
However, we concluded that DOE had not demonstrated that current and future water fluxes down through the radon barrier at Shiprock will be on the order of IE-9 cm/s.
Furthermore, we encouraged DOE to consider alternative approaches to demonstrating compliance with EPA's proposed groundwater protection standards because it may not be possible to collect sufficient information to demonstrate the long-ter:n stability of deep flux rates.
The enclosed summary meeting notes summarize the data review, present preliminary NRC observations and conclusions based on our review of the data, and identify specific action items for DOE and NRC.
We committed to providing any appropriate modifications for the record to provide an opportunity for NRC staff to review our observations prior to finalizing our position.
In addition, NRC and 00E agreed to determine the need for and timing of the next meeting of the UMTRA Groundwater Working Group.
Informal Meetings Following the conclusion of the data review, Ed Hawkins and Tom Olson returned to Denver and the remainder of the NRC team participated in several informal meetings.on groundwater protection aspects at UMTRAP sites.
In the first meeting, 00E and its Technical Assistance Contractor (TAC) discussed the similarities and differences between the cover designs at the Shiprock and Green River UMTRAP sites.
The TAC also responded to NRC's request for information on the Green River site that was telefaxed to DOE on March 1, 1989. DOE's handout from this response is included as Enclosure 2.
The next meeting consisted of an informal discussion about Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) at UMTRAP sites. Based on earlier discussions about ACLs during the data review, we convened this meeting to communicate NRC's position that ACLs can be established at the sites with a reasonable amount of effort. This view contrasted the TAC's impression that ACLs would require significant amounts of time, money, and additional site characterization to justify and would be extremely difficult to obtain from NRC.
In the last meeting, Mike Fliegel asked me to discuss the deficiencies of DOE's application for supplemental standards at the Spook UMTRAP site.
This topic came up earlier during the week and the meeting provided an opportunity to communicate our suggestions on how to improve future supplemental standards applications for groundwater protection at UMTRAP sites.
I began the meeting by stating that Lynn Deering was the hydrogeologist responsible for the Spook review.
Thus, I only discussed the two p(articular deficiencies with which I was f amiliar for the Spook UMTRAP site:
- 1) the application did not clearly identify the proposed supplemental standards for groundwater protection and (2) the application did not demonstrate that widespread ambient contamination could not be cleaned up.
I stated that future applications
1 WM-39/MFW/89/03/ TRIP 3
MAR 13 tggg should explicitly propose the supplemental standards for groundwater protection (e.g., numerical or narrative standards).
In addition, I stated that DOE should follow EPA's guidance on groundwater classification to demonstrate that widespread ambient contamination cannot be cleaned up using treatment methods that are reasonably employed in public water supply systems.
Specifically, I suggested that DOE consider application of the cost analyses methodology provided in Appendix G of EPA's 1986 " Guidelines for Ground-Water Classification under the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy."
l I encouraged DOE to contact Ms. Deering to obtain additional suggestions about i
how to improve future supplemental standards applications for groundwater protection at UMTRAP sites.
In response to DOE's request, we agreed to provide documentation of the cost analyses used to support NRC's review and approval of the Spook supplemental standards application.
Observations Overall the data review was successful.
Both agencies benefited from the evaluation of the Shiprock data and the accompanying discussions.
Our independent review of the data enhanced the NRC staff's confidence in DOE's characterization of the geotechnical properties of radon barrier materials (e.g., gradation, density, saturated hydraulic conductivity).
This l
confidence should benefit NRC by accelerating reviews of these aspects in support of groundwater protection assessments at disposal sites. DOE and its contractors were candid and cooperative throughout the data review.
Based on the success of the review, NRC should consider the merits of conducting similar data reviews in the future.
l The participation of Mr. Tim Jones (PNL) on the NRC review team was invaluable. Mr. Jones quickly familiarized himself with the flux issue at mill tailings' sites and focused on significant issues.
He routinely shared his insights about unsaturated zone characterization and modeling with other members of the review team and provided constructive and valuable comments through the data review. Mr. Jones also contributed towards the development of the team consensus, which is embodied in NRC's preliminary observations and conclusions. Mr. Jones should be commended for his excellent performance during the data review.
Finally, the data review provided NRC staff with direct insight into the technological limitations in attempting to demonstrate very low flux rates j
with sufficient assurance to comply with EPA's proposed groundwater protection standards for 1000 years.
Throughout the review, the team focused on not only the limitations of DOE's analysis, but also on what types of approaches may be acceptable to demonstrate compliance.
Based on our observations, it may be appropriate to modify NRC's approach in confirming compliance with the standards prior to concurring with proposed remedial actions. At sites where very low fluxes are required to demonstrate compliance with the standards, DOE may wish to propose ACLs or to increase its reliance on geochemical processes to demonstrate compliance with Maximum Contaminant Levels at the point of compliance rather than pursue a rigorous l
.w I
WM-39/MFW/89/03/ TRIP MAR 13 jggg i
demonstration of compliance based on hydraulic flux alone.
Similarly, NRC may
.need to revise its review strategy and allow DOE to take credit for monitoring after completion of the disposal units.
Performance monitoring is consistent with the standards and would trigger corrective actions should they be necessary in the future.
In addition, such a strategy would appear more appropriate because several of the characteristics that influence flux (e.g., moisture contents and tensions) cannot be measured until after the disposal units have been constructed.
Requiring a rigorous compliance demonstration prior to unit construction could place DOE in a " catch-22" situation. Therefore, NRC reviewers should consider technical feasibility in assessing compliance with EPA's proposed groundwater protection standards.
I appreciated the opportunity to participate in the data review.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments about this report.
Q/iginal Signed Ily Michael F. Weber Technical Branch Division of Low Level Waste Management and Decommissioning
Enclosures:
Summary Meeting Notes Response to Data Needs DISTRIBUTION:
% Central: Files C PDR:WASTEEWM-39 4 NMSSLSubject' File.406;1 NMSS r/f i
LLTB r/f RBangart JGreeves JSurmeier PLohaus l
MBell RJStarmer MFliegel L0eering BJagannath EHaw kins, om MWeber SWastler No (SL's initials)
ACNW Yes PDR/NUDOCS Yes /
N o,__
(SL's initials)
SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
Infiltration into earthen covers for uranium tailings 1.
i OfC
- LLTB / IM
....:..../.ff.....:............:............:............:............:............:...........
30AME :MWeber 4....:............:............:............:............:............:............:...........
ATE:89/03/g OFFICIAL REEURU CDPY
~o q
e Fummary Meeting Notes DOE-NRC Data Review Horkshcp cri Water Flux through the Radon Barrier at Shiprock l
Dates: Mardt 7-9,1989 Iocation: First National Bank m41dLrg, Alhg=rque, New Mexico
Participants:
See attadied list
Purpose:
Ib review the data and analyses used by DOE to estimate deep water fluxes through the radon barrier at the Shiprock Uranium Mill Tallirgs Remedial Acticri Prorject Site, Shiprock, New Mexico.
i Agenda: See attached agenda Sunnary:
DOE attetpted to estimate the water. flux through the radon barrier at the Shiprock uranium mill tailings site at Shiprock, New Mexico. Estimation of water flux can be divided into two related issues:
(1) what is the current water flux through the radon barrier and (2) how is this flux expected to change over the design life of the tailings disposal unit (i.e.,1000 years). DOE estimated the current flux of approximately lE-9 cng/s based on maastuamr: sits of the saturated hydraulic conductivity, the moisture characteristic and relative conductivity curves, measurements of the in-situ moisture contents, ard essumed unit gradients for the barrrier. DOE concluded that moisture contents in the barrier have remained relatively constant since the radon barrier was constructed.
Thus, DOE asserts that water fluxes through the radon barrier are likely to remain at approximately the present estimated flux.
Preliminary nhaarvations:
A. NRC 1.
Earthen covers W _ of moderately thick layers of silty clay and clay are likely to remain unsaturated over the long time periods required for conpliance with the EPA standards (40 CFR 192).
2.
DOE selected an intermediate value of the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the radon barrier at the Shiprock site 1
as the basis for estimating the current flux through the radon barrier. The saturated hydraulic conductivity values prwsented appear reasonable for the radon barrier. Because of the limited number (7) of the values, however, NRC observes that the saturated hydtaulic conductivity of the barrier should 1
p.
-w, womest
.e*
i 1
be ingh as the range of values currently available for the site rather than a sirxJ e value.
l 3.
DOE prefers to use, the geciinic mean of the saturated hydraulic conductivities to represent the average conductivity _. u of the radon bhrrier. NRC is not presently prepared to determine whether this is an appropriate approach. His generic issue should be considered as an issue for resolution by the NRC-DOE Groundwater Working Group.
4.
DOE has estimated moisture characteristic curves for the radon barrier at Shiprock. % ese curves were determined for the range of tensions from 10 to 1500 centibars. However, the curves have not been established with sufficient certainty at teasions near and below 10 centibars, which are more representative of measured tension ranges in the radon barrier at Shiprock. Consequently, extension of the characteristic curves to lower tensions may be r===an to assess the
~
performance of the radon barrier at Shiprock. NRC notes that DOE independently identified the need to extend the characteristic curves to lower tensions and has already collected such information for materials at the Green River I M RA site.
5.
DOE prefers to use the Van Genuchten polyncaial fit for approximating waisture characteristic curves and unsaturated hydraulic conductivities. NRC notes, however, that DOE has not considered alternative curve fits to the available data or alternative approaches for fitting the data (e.g., Brooks-corey method). Such assessments are m=ary to a====
the confidence and uncertainties associated with the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity curves, especially because of the low tensions present in the radon barrier and the limited number of tension vs. moisture content measurements in this range. In addition, DOE should consider the merits of measuring unsaturated conductivities directly at low tensions.
6.
DOE measured gravimetric moisture contents in the radon barrier and averaged the values to select the value of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity that is used in the estimating deep flux. However, the moisture contents vary significantly in space. W us, moisture content and saturations should be considered as ranges rather than as single expected values in estimating fluxes through the radon barrier.
7.
DOE supported the assunption of a unit hydraulic gradient i
for the flux calculation based on measured moisture contents l
within the radon barrier. 21s assumption and the use of a unit gradient approach for estimating water flux through the barrier appears reasonable.
8.
DOE attenpted to characterize tensions in the radon barrier using tensiemeters and concluded that wetting fronts have not l
penetrated the radon barrier deeped than i foot. In addition, 1
~.
s
.c l
i DOE ocncluded that any water that p-n-Lated tp to the 1-foot depth has since been runcwed frun the radon barrier via.
evaporation. NRC r+aarved, however, that tensions at this and greater depths in the radon barrier at Station II may have been perturbed by wetting and that recent tensies are' lower than the ~' ~ ~~'
o tensions observed during Summer and early Fall 1988. Pbr memple, the tension recently maamived at the 4-foot depth has not recovered fran the earlier tensions. Thus, the maanwed tensions may indicate that wettire fronts have penetrated to 'at least 4 feet into the radon barrier and have caused not-incraaaan in saturation at these depths. Therefore, the current tensiamoter data, albeit limited, do not support DOE's assertion that moisture contents and tensions runnin relatively constant at depth in the radon barrier.
9.
NRC r+aatves that it may not be possible to collect sufficient tensionater and neutron probe data to demonstrate,
long term stability of deep flux rates. Small and possibly L=namelrable increaaae in saturation percentages could cause significant increases in deep flux.
B. DOE Cemclusions:.
A.
NRC.
Raamd on preliminary observations listed above, DOE has not demonstrated.that current and future water fluxes down through the radon barrier at Shiprock will be on the order of lE-9 cm/s. Therefore, DOE may wish to reconsider its current reliance on such low fluxes in desie>Lating coupliance with EPA's pi W groundwater protection standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts A-C.
B.
DOE Action Items:
1.
NRC (Fliegel) will review the sumary meeting notes and provide any modifications to its htvations and conclusions for the record to DOE (Cormier) by March 23, 1989.
2.
DOE (Cormier) will review the sumary meeting notes and will hnnant any modifications to its r+aarvations and conclusions for the recx>rd in the final sumary notes by March 30, 1989.
These final notes will include the modifications provided by NRC (Fliegel).
~
I Qi 3.
NRC (Fliegel) ani DOE (Cormier) will consult with eacts other 1
by Martti 23, 1989, and determine the need for an1 timing of the next meeting of the Groundwater Working Group to resolve i=====
that arise cut of this data wsMg and other inanum, as i
I appropriate.
Signatures:
'Ihe sumary meeting notes yietal above provide an accurate and ocupleta sumary of the data review workshop. Signatures of cne agency do not nanamaarily inilcate a tei=nt of that agency s
with the preliminary nhaamtions and conclusions of the other
- agency, the f,
Pbr the DOE staff,
/m2
/
Ff W
(* uw' d (bums o
Signed and dated this day of Martti.198h
Dc N/2C-(ww-Ih58m-Iaf IAIrfshp su.;,, a N
{
4@
.o Pts 15%-(2.o]
ht(.-wM o Mc.wt.
MDE I'
ff4(d 'l31 O Mr h brat 4.
NRc./M pg 492-or6r L.
- ro w r-s Po t-(m3 2n-2rd F-<$
$ YCib'AS NR
- f%. --
P T5 7T' ~280[
//egel NRclgtg if9g-or s~s~
nn f a.*1 0L > e N.
liRC/ U K i= O 97~S 17(=~kVCG~
day kawi,is x,
sec/uno.
ers n s - 2 s o s....
VL'W fWWL Tbc-(yAc w S b% i2 %
N r 4 A W /cc.s
/40-Nf dr/
F16 BfP.--
h d e r E Wj
~/ At" FYd~/2M n
Semru/ha 7K Bf6 YOJo 7
GkcL (bym>+
poe-/un7en Frs 846-4 m 7 ht tTdY hEfV'/*INU4-f? T $ 9 0 - /2 3 d bd E D b 24cQ TA -
84~/333
- x O*/ ( 2h ~h) h 'B RA.--.__.. _
@*9 f38-67?+
b cr kAM Dh ~'i)
RAC-
@s) 4+2 - 7 +3 Peu P_^6c4 N"9 T4C Pg. e 46. ts r.3 _
7% newcu. (Ag TA c-840 - iss 3 t 4ay Cw (6/..j )
rac/Wo B +6 - i e-s o
P u
i DOE-NRC DATA REVIEW WORKSHOP ON PERFORMANCE OF EARTHEN COVERS AT UMTRAP SITES March 7-8, 1989 Albuquerque, New Mexico 4
1.
Overview of Data DOE / TAC' (1-2hr) 1.1 Objectives of Shiprock Cover Study 1.2 Design ana Construction of the Tailings., Radon Barrier, Filter, and Rock Riprap Layers at the Shiprock Site 1.2.1 Layer thickness and configuration 1.2.2 Material properties 1.2.2.1 Particle size distributions 1.2.2.2 Texture 1.2.2.3 Mineralogy 1.2.2.4 Porosity 1.2.2.5 Specific capacity 1.2.2.6 Saturated hydraulic conductivity 1.2.2.7 Relative conductivity curves (conductivity vs.
i suctionhead) 1.2.2.8 Optimum moisture content 1.2.2.9 Compaction Effort 1.2.2.10 Retention curves (suction head vs. moisture content) 1.3 Moisture Content Monitoring 1.3.1 Techniques 1.3.2 Instruments and construction 1.3.3 Frequency 1.3.4 Evaluation 1.3.5 Quality assurance 1.3.6 Problems (ifany) 1.4 Suction Head Monitoring 1.4.1 Techniques 1.4.2 Instruments and construction 1.4.3 Frequency 1.4.4 Evaluation 1.4.5 Quality assurance 1.4.6 Problems (if any) 8 T 8ee-A 2M,Q 3cC % Af/e4/
I L-_ _ _ _ -
)
l
?
l l
WM-39/MFW/89/02/27 l )
1.5 Meteorological Monitoring 1.5.1 Techniques 1.5.2 Instruments 1.5.3 Frequency 1.5.4 Evaluation 1.5.5 Quality assurance 1.5.6 Problems (if any) 1.6 Other Monitoring / Experimental Activities 1.6.1 Purpose 1.6.2 Techniques 1.6.3 Instruments and Installation 1.6.4 Frequency of Measurements 1.6.5 Evaluation 1.6.6 Quality Assurance 1.6.7 Problems (if any) 1.7 Conclusions of the Shiprock Cover Study 2.
Data Review NRC(6-12 hrs) 2.1 Raw and Treated Data 2.1.1 Measured moisture contents (construction / post-construction) 2.1.2 Moisture contents inferred from neutron logging 2.1.3 Calibration measurements for neutron logging 2.1.4 Saturation measurements 2.1.5 Porosity measurements 2.1.6 Storage capacity measurements 2.1.7 Hoisture retention data (capillary head vs. moisture content curves) 2.1.8 Gypsum block data 2.1.9 Saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements 2.1.10 Relative conductivity data (hydraulic conductivity vs.
capillary head) 2.1.11 Tensiometer measurements (continuous and periodic) 2.1.11.1 As a function of depth at one location 2.1.11.2 As a function of locations at one depth i
2.1.12 Borehole and installation completion information i
2.1.12.1 Neutron probe access tubes 2.1.12.2 Tensiometer 2.1.12.3 Thermocouple 2.1.12.4 Soil samples 2.1.13 Precipitation measurements 2.1.14 Temperature measurements from thermocouple 2.1.15 Air temperature measurements 2.1.16 Solar flux measurements 2.1.17 Pan lysimeter measurements 2.1.18 Water level measurements
~*
o WM-39/MFW/89/02/27 2.2 Data Analysis 1
2.2.1 Relative conductivity es*1mation (Mualem and Van Genuchten fitting) 2.2.2 Moisture flux estimation through radon barrier 2.2.3 Evaporative flux estimation through riprap layer 2.2.4 Net flux through the Shiprock tailings 2.2.5 Transient vs. steady-state moisture flux 2.2.6 Coraparison of moisture contents during and after i
construction 1
3.
Summary and Observations NRC/ DOE (2-4 hrs) 3.1 NRC Caucus /D0E Caucus 3.2 Preparation of Summary Workshop Notes 3.3 Disclosure of Observations and Discussion 3.4 Sunnary and Concluding Remarks
.l l
i i
i l
l
{
i
']
e WM-39/MFW/89/02/27 DOE-NRC WORKSHOP ON TRANSFERABILITY CRITERIA FOR C0VER PERFORMANCE l
March 9, 1989 Albuquerque, New Mexico introduction and Workshop Purpose DOE /NRC Developrnent of Similarity Criteria L0E/NRC
- Material Properties
- Disposal Unit Design
- Disposal Unit Performance
- Summary and Conclusion DOE /NRC l
l o
l
1
?
l WM-39/MFW/89/02/27 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE OF THE GREEN RIVER TAILINGS DISPOSAL UNIT March 1, 1989 1.
Material Characteristics 1.1 Radon Barrier (Silty Clay w/3% Bentonite) 1.1.1 Texture (Particle Size Distribution) 1.1.2 Saturated hydraulic conductivity (for admixed material) 1.1.3 Porosity 1.1.4 Field capacity 1.1.5 Retention curves (capillary head vs. moisture content) 1.1.6 Relative conductivity (conductivity vs. capillary head) 1.2 Tailings and Windblown Materials 1.2.1 Texture 1.2.2 Porosity 1.2.3 Effective porosity 1.2.4 Field capacity 1.2.5 Retention curves or representative Van Genuchten parameters 1.2.6 Relative conductivity 1.3 Select Fill (Buffer w/ potential admixtures) 1.3.1 Texture 1.3.2 Porosity 1.3.3 Effective porosity 1.3.4 Field capacity 1.3.5 Retention curves or representative Van Genuchten I
parameters 1.3.6 Relative conductivity 1.4 Foundation materials (Fractured Bedrock) i 1.4.1 Porosity 1.4.,2 Effective porosity 1.4.3 Field capacity and specific yield 1.4.4 Retention curves 1.4.5 Relative conductivity curves 1.4.6 Saturatea hydraulic conductivity
.a
.0 Wii-39/MFW/89/02/27 2.
Performance Assessment 2.1 Conceptual Model 2.1.1 General Description 1
2.1.2 Justification for Steady-State Assumption-
-l t
2.1.3 Justification for One-Dimensional Assumption 2.2 SUTRA Model 2.2.1' Material Properties 2.2.2 Boundary Conditions 2.2.3 Initial Conditions 2.2.4 Estimated Darcy velocities 2.2.5 Estimated Moisture contents-2.2.6 Estimated Capillary and Total Heads 2.2.7 Mass Balances 2.2.8 SUTRA Model Input / Output 2.2.9 Verification of SUTRA 2.2.10 Calibration of SUTRA Model 2.2.11 Sensitivity analysis 2.2.12 Limitations and Uncertainties of Output 2.3 Travel Time Estimation 2.3.1' Effective porosities 2.3.2 Estimated Darcy velocities 2.3.3 Distances 2.3.4 Estimated travel times 2.4 ContaminantTransportAssessment(ifneeded) 2.4.1 Conceptual model 2.4.2 Assumed source term 2.4.3 Initial conditions
.2.4.4 Attenuathe properties 2.4.4.1 Retardation 2.4.4.2 Dispersion 2.4.5 Effective porosities 2.4.6 Estimated distribution of contaminants through time 2.4.7 Comparison with concentratica limits at POC 2.4.6 Mass balances 2.4.9 Model calibration 2.4.10 Code verification 2 A.11 Limitations and uncertainties of results i
7
DOE-NRC REVIEW WORKSHOP DN PERFORMANCE OF EARTHEN COVERS AT l
UMTRAP SITES MARCH 7-8, 1989 ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO I. OVERVIEW OF DATA 1.1 DATA INTRODUCTION s
1.1.1 INTEGRATED NATURE OF DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS 1.1.2 ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTED SINCE COMPLETION OF THE UNSATURATED REPORT 1.1.3 ATTEMPTS TO ANALYTICALLY QUANTIFY THE EVAP-ORATION PHENOMENON 1.1.4 CONCEPTS OF CAPILLARITY, INITIAL GRADIENT, ETC.
1.1.5 CONTINUATION OF LITERATURE SEARCH 1.2 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE TAILINGS, RADON BARRIER, FILTER, AND ROCK RIPRAP LAYERS AT THE SHIPROCK SITE 1.2.1 LAYER THICKNESS AND CONFIGURATION 1.2.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 1.2.2.1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS t
1.2.2.2 TEXTURE 1.2.2.3.
MINERALOGY 1.2.2.4.
POROSITY 1.2.2,5 SPECIFIC CAPACITY 1.2.2.6 SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
1.2.2.7 RELATIVE CONDUCTIVITY CURVES (CONDUCTIVITY VS. SUCTION HEAD) 1.2.2.8 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT l
1.2.2.9 COMPACTION EFFORT 1.2.2.10 RETENTION CURVES (SUCTION HEAD VS.
MOISTURE CONTENT) 1 l
1.3 MOISTURE CONTENT MONITORING 1.3.1 TECHNIQUES i
1.3.2 INSTRUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION 1.3.3 FREQUENCY 1.3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE i
1.3.5 PROBLEMS (IF ANY) 1.4 SUCTION HEAD MONITORING 1.4.1 TECHNIQUES 1.4.2 INSTRUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION 1.4.3 FREQUENCY 1.4.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE 1.4.5 PROBLEMS (IF ANY) 1.5 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING 1.5.1 TECHNIQUES 1.5.1 INSTRUMENTS 1.5.3 FREQUENCY 1.5.4 0'JALITY ASSURANCE 1.5.5 PROBLEMS (IF ANY)
l-1.6 OTHER. MONITORING / EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITIES 1.6el PURPOSE i
1.6.2 TECHNIQUES l
l l
1.6.3 INSTRUMENTS AND INSTALLATION l
1.6.4 FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENTS 1.6.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE 1.6.6 PROBLEMS (IF ANY) 1.7 DATA
SUMMARY
1.7.1 EVALUATION OF THE DATA 1.7.2 ALTERNATE HYPOTHESES THAT FIT (AND DON'T FIT) THE DATA 1.7.3 INTENT OF THE
" UNSATURATED" STUDY AND FINAL i
l REPORT
/
I l
-==pa+.
- = -es< se g same,
+ <
my e ye w.+
... =
Ewu asuer 2-.
,o A RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS FOR EVALUATING PERFORMANCE 0F THE GREEN RIVER TAILINGS DISPOSAL UNIT
- 1. Material Characteristics 1.1 Radon Barrier (Silty Clay w/3% Bentonite) 1.1.1 Texture (Particle Size Distribution) greater than 50 percent passing No. 200 sieve CL,CL-ML gradation figures in the RAP: D.4.3.BM-D.4.3.BY 1.1.2 Saturated hydraulic conductivity l
presented in the RAP: Table D.4.4 1.5E10-8 to 3.4E10-8 ave. 2E10-8 1.1.3 Porosity n=.29.32 1.1.4 Fiold Capacity
,.ae retention curves
.1.5 Retention curves i
presented in the RAP: Fig. D.4.8.J-D.4.8.L for unamended material i
none were performed on the-amended radon barrier
( 1.1.6 Relative conductivity not avail able __.-.
l 1.2 Tailings 1.2.1 Texture MKE calc. 10-536-01-00, 6 to 20 percent passing No. 200 sieve j
gradations figures in the RAP: D.4.3.E-D.4.3.G, D.4.3.AF, D.4.3.AG, D.4.3.AK, D.4.3.AL, D.4.3.AM, D.4.3.AR, D.4.3.AS, D.4.3.AV, D.4.3.BG-D.4.3.BJ, D.4.3.BZ-D.4.3.CB 1.2.2 Porosity g t. n=.34 1.2.~3 Effective porosity same as porosity 1.2.4 Field capacity see retention curves 1.2.5 Retention curves presented in the RAP: Fig. D.4.8.G, 0.4.8.H, D.4.8.M-0.4.8.0, D.4.8.V, D.4.8.W 1.2.6 Relative conductivity not available (can be derived from retention curves)- V~ C" Ik 1.3 Select Fill and Wind Blown Materials i
1.3.1 Texture gradation figures in RAP: D.4.3.A-D.4.3.D, D.4.3.CC-D.4.3.CE new data attached: from buffer stockpile 1.3.2 Porosity n.32.38 + sw' AcM
)
)ll0 g ^, n "
1.3.3 Effective porosity gl f same as porosity M7 l
1.3.4 Field capacity see retention curves 1.3.5 Retention curves presented in the RAP: Fig. D.4.8.P-D.4.8.0 1.3.6 Relative conductivity not available (can be derived from retention curves) 1.4 Foundation bedrock 1.4.1 Porosity presented in the RAP Tables D.5.8 and D.5.10 1.4.2 Effective porosity presented in the RAP Tables D.5.8 and D.S.10 1.4.3 Field capacity and specific yield not determined or required 1.4.4 Retention curves see attached data 1.4.5 N1ative conductivity curves tan be :alculated from retention curves (not appropriate for fractured rock) 1.4.6 Saturated hydraulic conductivity presented in RAP Tables D.5.4, D.5.8 and D.5.10 I
l i
i lL_______.
l Lo L
j
- 2. Performance Assessment 2.1 Conceptual Model 2.1.1 General Description (Sec. E.3.2.1), paragraph 2.1.2 Justification for Steady-State Assumption (Sec. E.3.2.1),
also F.2.1.2, Subsection 2) 2.1.3 Justification for One-Dimensional Assumption (Sec. E.3.2.1) paragraph 2.2 SUTRA Model 2.2.1 Material properties (Sec. E.3.2.1, Subsection 3) 2.2.2 Boundary conditions (E.3.2.1, Subsection 1) 2.2.3 Initial conditions (Steady-state, therefore irrelevant) j 2.2.4 Estimated Darcy velocities )From Table E.3.5 2.2.5 Estimated moisture contents) 2.2.6 Estimated capillary and total heads )
2.2.7 Mass balances
) Copies of output i
2.2.8 SUTRA Model input / output 2.2.9 Verification of SUTRA (See reference documentation, containing comparisons with analytical solutions 2.2.10 Calibration of SUTRA Model.
No experimental data, therefore l
no calibration 2.2.11 Sensitivity analysis 2.2.12 Limitations and uncertainties of output 1
2.3 Travel Time Estimation 2.3.1 Effective porosities
)
Distances, E.3.2.1 Subsection 1, 2.3.4 Estimated travel times
)all others Table E.3.5 l
I I
l
q l. JACOBS ENGHNEERNG GROUP NO.
J
- Aovanceo YSMMS Dnns@N, ALSUGUlteUE OPSRADONS
(('.:
PHYSICAL PROPERTY TEST RESULTS 8ITE ID:
GRN-01 LOCATION ID:
807 DATE:
1-4-8R CHECKED BY: LAB M1 LAB NAME:
CHA TAC l
SAMPLE DEPTH LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY SPECIFIC ID INTERVAL
(%)
(%)
INDEX GRAVIT Appargn}[Y (FT)
(%)
A N/A 2.69/2.59 B
N/A 2.69/2.46 l
l (b
i l L_
u>n_ns_o
.,_no o n no a
g l. JACOBS ENGNEERNG GRCRP NC.
Jf AnvAucan sy:Tenes omsmu, Atsveusence opseADON:
PHYSICAL PROPERTY TEST RESULTS SITE ID:
GRN-01 LOCATION ID:
813 DATE:
l~k'88 CHECKED BY: LAB LAB NAME: __CHA TAC-SAMPLE DEPTH LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY SPECIFIC ID INTERVAL
(%)
(%)
INDEX GRAVITY (FT)
(%)
A N/A Absolute 2,72 Apparent /
Bulk 8
N/A 2.M/2.41
{
anagt M
l (b)
~~
e UG-AL-ENG-26 i S/85 )
d g l. JACOBS N M NC.
,ja Aovancso svams: omsmM, ALautuGDSU OpstADON:
PHYSICAL PROPERTY TEST RESULTS 816 SITE ID:
GRN-01 LOC ATION ID:
M DATE: 1-4-88 CHECKED BY: LAB l
LAB NAME:
rHA TAC 4
i 1
l l
l SAMPLE DEPTH LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY SPECIFIC ID INTERVAL
(%)
(%)
INDEX GRAVITY (FT)
(%)
Absolute A
N/A
= 2.67 f
Apparent /
Bulk B
N/A 2.41 l
l L
dl$4-A L-E N G-2 6 ( S /8 5 I w______-______________________
_a ld NN J 9 ADVANCIO SYSWM8 DM840N. ALSUGUlttUE OPSRATIONS 1
PHYSICAL PROPERTY TEST RESULTS i
SITE ID:
GRN-01 LOCATION ID:
818 DATE:
1 -le-88 CHECKED BY: LAB CHA LAB NAME:
TAC SAMPLE DEPTH LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY SPECIFIC ID INTERVAL
(%)
(%)
INDEX GRAVITY (FT)
(%)
Absolute =
A N/A 2.78 (C )
(b dE G-AL-ENG-25 ( S /8 5 )
E M 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
M x
x x
x x
x x
R (C 7
4 3
0 5
4 0
E 4
2 1
7 3
2 5
P E) T R
L U (F AT S D 0
6 7
3 4
4 0
OS T E A 7
5 5
4 6
4 5
R E 9
9 9
9 9
P H L
NO A
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 N
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 IT I
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 A )%
F R
B C U(
T.
8 7
7 0
6 8
5 A A T
I A
N 1
7 9
7 2
2 0
L T S
3 4
8 1
9 2
9 I
C 4
0 Y
L 3
7 2
8 4
0 9
S B
Y A
YP 9
3 0
9 5
1 3
T T) N 5
5 2
4 2
4 2
NU L
D Y
I O
F 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
IS F
AR U
E R
C PG 3
8 2
8 2
N P T.
4 9
S K
D AG C
E(
9 3
7 9
3 1
9 O M E
R I
E D
N 5
5 3
4 3
4 3
R H
CW I
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 D
T C
L SG S
E T A
5 0
9 8
6 0
6 RN R N N
3 5
4 4
2 7
4 E
EE U E)
I 1
1 1
S T
F TB T TN (%
S s.S O Y
b T.
6 8
5 6
0 1
4 I
C O O
.Y A T
8 tBJ M C N
1 2
7 0
8 i
I I
F L
SO I
BM B
N OK A
O S
I CM E
TC)
AD M
A%
A A
A A
A A
A
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
JA R
P(
N N
N N
N N
N gE E
M
_gd P
O C
1 TH 0
w ST X
X X
X X
X X
N r
EE T
T T
T T
T T
R 8 TM G 8 4
- E L
1 A
M
.H D
A T V)
N P RT A
A A
A A
A A
I E
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
E E
E T B D T N
N N
N N
N N
N T
A A I
IS D L E
L P
D A
8 A
8 A
8 A
MI AS N
O Mj I
~
T D 7
7 3
3 6
6 8
AI 0
0 1
1 1
1 1
C 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
O L
_r n
q u scoes e*mEERtG GROUP NC.
,19 aovaweso systaus oevision.4tsveuseous ocesanows CAPlLLARY - MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP i
SITE ID:
GRN-01 LOCATION ID:
813 DATE: 1-4-88 CHECKED BY: LAB LAB NAME:
CHA TAC DEPTH DRY MOISTURE SAMPLE COMPACDON TENSION MOISTURE INTERVAL DENSITY CONTENT I")
ID (PCF)
(%)
(BARS)
CONTENT (FT)
(%)
i A
N/A 137.0 7.0 N/A 05 18.96 1.0 17.50 2.0 16.45 j
4.0 15 92 7.0 14.95 15 0 14.27 I
f i
u i t-Us-AL-ENG-33 i S/0 5)
f..,,
__________O
\\
\\
l l
a 1
.e 1
i,l 1
l\\
h 1
15 q
,i t
f 1.
t
- *, ::1 l...
- y
.1 - *.*. l
.v................
......._.i....._..._...
_. _ 2.
. - - - -...i.._...
l 1
.n:
..:..;.0..-
..:.=...., _.
l :.
r.:
..n...
w _..
. = -
4 c== T i=2 *- *. i.:.,. L ':. !..
,E.:* -l*&lin.E2l. ii:.
.. a _.
l
....:.=..... u....._:.
a ;.
m
.: _.. c s... = = r _ =_: _:.... " :.n t....-
..._..-...-.r
.1......__.
...... ~
_._.4
,. g m
_._i i
i x
.._.4 9
-e m
4 i
I l
3
._ d, _,
6 i
i.
i.
-_=.
i 1
. i.
i ii 1
~. - -
-T._.
.r = ma-m. t.... =._.'r-.
. :.=. - :a. -r. s -- : =.- :-.
..=.-s
.:=-.... =.
- ~::==--
- .=.. 4.:. _
- ..v.-
.___..={=-...____:..-= _,.. _. _..
~
-. =. = ~
_.. r...
r ~ :..
.4
........J.
0*5 h-;.. v.n t..
- .-92.4. r.1: -.
_ --p gr_ -.7..==nspi-:_ Tn.5=L _ _ =;=.==T;.g - _
==-5:.T:.r... w
.~.:.:..:.
- n... p,:.:....
. - - ~.=._ ::~~ *f : = =._ :..... :-=_y __: : :.:.~ n -
-..u.
..; m -.
2..
.=._-: =___ _..:.
w..
_...=.:..=--- -
_.---.... ~ _.
- --m : :--.-m-
....._......2.
.1.._.
....t..._.. :.. _..,.;;. =, 2 ::. _ _.....__. _.. ::..:.n. u
.. = -
. =. =..
i
_._.t...... _._ _
i
._........__...._......__..._...._._..._:_.__.+_.
-"~'
~ ---
..'"--"._-'.~.~.~....._3___
~
0.3
. _.... "., ' ~ - - - - ~ ~
~-
.._..,..._.r.__...._.-
m._...
- a. -
4.
.i..
i.
{
=
l
..4._...
q
... {........ j. :.a :.. l.
!.c._....i_.
..4._
Q
__L.....'
L
.;..... 9.
t p
. 4... _,
g
.t..
..e s.
..s s
.s i:
1 o.2 o
WATER CONTENT % (wt3 LOCATION:
N" N ^ / "' V' N/J
'M ~
~
- e. p5 HOLE:
DEPTH:
SAMPLE NO:
DESCRIPTION:
'*6#
'O O
- DRY DENSITY pcf:
WATER CONTENT X:
4
'M N
UQUID t. WIT:
PLASTIC LNIT:
ELASTIC INDEX:
-200:
l-E(,l-3 7 Chen & Associates car LLAny-wOisTuaE nELAriossN:es
=
__-.n.~
l SN M N.
e a
ADVANCED SYSTEMS OtvillON, ALSUtutetWE OpgeATNHit CAPILLARY - MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP, i
SITE ID:
GRN-01 LOCATION ID:
816 DATE:
1-4-BR CHECKED BY: LAB LAB NAME:
CHA TAC I
I SAMPLE COMPACTION INTERVAL DE S TY TENT TENS ON S
j ID (p7)
(PCF)
(%)
(%)
(BARS)
CONTENT
(%)
A N/A 136.4 7.6 N/A O.5 17.65 1.0 16.54 2.0 15.42 4.0 14.81 1
70 13 91 15 0 13 21 O
n __ _
1 1
1 l
l l
l e
l J
l 15 g
--~.
t l
.t i
.9 I
.. _. =
f
\\
i
{
\\
~a j
. '1 t
..m.=.=....
=,
j 7
- - e --
..4 l.
..1 6
.........1._......,.
1 I.._..
..t._.....
- .-fd. _. _Q..
i %i *.
. & --, =
L l
i '5. t
...- H,
?.=..n. M R
.l
..:== -,
.i l-
- t_. t._..:._=..._-p=.
.... w j.-. - - -
.4 4
.j
.. g.
....:..=..-_..:._.:
s.
- 1..:...
- q..,.: :
. :}
... + -.
n
.. u z.....=.,.,,
...... +.
.4_.
...e
---1_..._..,._.
.. _4... s -
4 9
2
_I.
g b
i
. &..... g...
.4..
.._4 6..
.-i.-_
.m
.3
... 4
.....\\.,',,,,..
t._
l l
1
- i ii i 6
i i
1 Wi-
- .i1
. =:.m
==:-.=.....- -
- :.:-- - = = -
.T u.
.-1
.-._.==. g.= _
.. g ~==:.. - =_.c.-.;==.
==......:.= a l=.__=_:a.=--...-:
v=-..:..:....s.
..u.
.=
. s.-
... = =
..r
...~._._.. :. :. v:. e.
x
. ~.
\\
i i
4,
_......s_.
0.5
__.__.n
_.... -.... - ::= 1 a., = z= ; a,...
l
....= = - - =. = _..
- 4
.... =. =
a rv.v...
. J e v w.n--
t -- :
= V. :::.". " ~ '"
~
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_..;*---."._~~~'-
^
2:
- ~.*.~'"".~2.*; 7 L.6
- a.a~
a.
.a s a..~."".* ' ' - "
?, 1 M.
.,}..
_';._...~.:~
._.4,,-
J
?? ?* : *
- ..=.==.:....
.. a-. a
.: : a :. a..
.w----
i
.1*.**."*.~.*'..*d.1'*..;m.
.n....,.-.... _.:.*.*'."..******'
.".'"....a"M.**.**~~*
2
- ".*.*"....*.**..**.'."."*T........
I
.. - - -.--..s_-.
0 2._..._.*__-...-..
._._..6...
.t............
....... 1........-.m._......
...1._..
+
L.._..............
.1.
........ +... _
- 1...... _...............
. _.4._.. _ ; _.. -.
4
._ L..
...._..u...-..
......f..
i 4.
i
.l,............
l I _..
......l...-.
..g...
.t
...... f i
r.._
l 0.1 l
6 10 L
WATER CONTENT 5 (wt.)
LOCATION:
A; *
/
W _# ~ #_
HOLE:
N A DEPTH:
SAMPLE NO:
b E
- Y WATER CONTENT E:
DESCRIPTION:
DnY DENSITY pcf:
Y
O PLASTIC INDEX:
O
-200:
UQUlO LIMIT:
PLASTIC LNIT:
l
' W-E 7 Chen & Associates eAPn.LAny-wol rune nELArlon nip.
yis
TRIAXIAL PRbPARATikDN.
p WORKGHEET -
Jos NO.
I '~ % l -M PART NO.
PREP.BY XA-DATE II I D>I 6 7
^
h' b5 b CALC.BY U'S CKED.BY M
JOB NAME l
HOLE NO. #>67 A DEPTN S AMPLE NO. #>d A STAGE NO. ~
CELL NO. f TYPE OF TEST'f""" EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION STRESS !2,f,g p
S AMPLE DESCRIPTION: nemykt)
MOISTURE CONTENT SEFORE TEST AFTER TEST SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS DISH NO.
9;6A)T pL)I o L.$7 WT. OF WET SOL & DtSH
} - g, o l
\\
[
wr. OF DRY SOL & DISH 3.ty.4r s,/
WT. OF DISH "J 4 7,. I 'y
( "M,4 Os WT. OF WATER b,
WT. OF WET SOL M,3 G
'd/p 's D
/
\\
j
'N,9 L /
WT. OF DRY SOL We Q,$t O MOISTURE j,ll /
/,Tf4
/
E SAMPLE DATA VOL.OF 3 ID.'Ofm G.
3 SOLIDS ys o,,-
INITIAL SATURATEO C ONSOLID ATED FIN AL DIAMETER D
- 2. M l in.$.92l crm 7 13l HEIGHT CHANGE AH DIAL NITIAL in.
-, p y () '
HEIGHT H,4~7/p in.
cm
. M ") Is aM7L AREA A
7,q G, j T. S. 'E 3. '
.s VOLUME CHANGE AV7 0
' I * '. ~ ' '
/
4'l.*
r VOL. OF W ATER Vw
,q(
l,5(g VOL. OF AIR VA k.9 (p
$iN
,09 % /
, 7 ~~ '.
VOID R ATIO e
S ATUR ATION S%
3l.6 [%
_v M /
y N
))
MOISTURE CONTENT w%
l.li
/%
N*
+4 1 WET DENSITY.
1 f
DRY DENSITY Yd g/cclCo.E Pet G/cc ?.3Pcf Sample Failure Diagram A is. se. * ; e.:,,,,,,,,, n,,
L-14-1 (!r-45)
_ _ _. __--~
j TRIAXIAL PREPARATION.
)W WORKOHEET -
JOS NO. I -OM - 67 PART NO.
PREP.SY tJL DATE UlL0I W JOB NAME b abs CALC.BY % CKED.SY b b~
NOLE NO. OD 6 DEPTH SAMPLE NO.
9=-
STAGE NO."
CELL NO. 4 TYPE OF TEST '3" EFFECTIVE CONSOLID ATION STRE88. Ipsi 0
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION. isegh I
3 l
Mol87URE CONTENT i
SEFORE TEST AFTER TEST SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS DISH NO.
@ yt E E WT. OF WET SOL & DISH q g (, j q WT. OF DRY SOIL & DISH g l 9, g WT. OF DISH p q $, 8 9 WT. OF WATER l
WT. OF WET SOL l l 9, [, O l'2.l,3%,
WT. OF DRY SOL Ws I I l). 4-
' /,. 7 h* '
% MOISTURE
/, g /,,
3, ?,4 y '
/cm3
^T VOL.OF y
' '/.*18
~
SOLIDS ya g,,-
INITIAL SATURATED CONS OLID ATED FINAL DIAMETER D
Z,'M) In. 5.Ul em
'2. 33 /
HEIGHT CHANGE aH DIAL NfTIAL in.
,poo" HEIGHT H els9;9 in.
cm
. /p ojo *'
. (0 9,7.-
AREA A
tg ($,3 i
- 7 VOLUME CHANGE AVT 3
/
I*',.
TOTAL VOLUME V7 i'--
VOL. OF W ATER Vw
),1 b h,Q VOL. OF AIR VA
@, @*L VOlO R ATIO e
+.lM f
/
~. / 39f /
77, j #
g$7, 4,/ %
S ATUR ATION 85.
v e
MOISTURE CONTENT wt 2.%
W/ / cob-r - c.o JAc WET DENSITY.
1 DRY DENSITY Vd g/cclG/YPc 9 / c c E.'.P c f Sample Fallure Diagram REW ARKS *1'
,t
.I' n & 3,,:V,lp"/h
~
' y, 4
p L.,.
.,_......a....,
L-14 1 (6-45)
f TRIAXIAL PREPARATI@N.
h WORKGHEET ~
. JOS WO.
l'Wo / ~E/7 PART NO.
PREP.5Y h'L -
DATE I 1 I l' I 917
~~ ~
9'N CKED. spy %
JOB NAME 1 **b S CALC.BY HOLE NO. E '#>"A D E P T H SAMPLE NO.
STAGE NO. ^
CELL NO. f_. TYPE OF TESTMEFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION STRE88MpSi SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: nemh
]
I Mol3TURE CONTENT BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS SPECIMEN TRIMMING 3 DGH NO.
M lNO A fr V e.k WT. OF WET SQL & D6H M1, d [
WT. OF DRY SOIL & D6H gf(,hak
/J 7. $O WT OF DISH 7 4C.99 I $ ~I 1 WT. OF WATER WT. OF WET SOL 44]41
/
[I' O
/
WT. OF DRY SQL W.
nC l
, ;-l f,
)
(,( } '
S MOISTURE E
"/, (- r
/44,{Tf 3
v 1
' ' 91 3
G..
8 AMPLE DATA VOL.OF 3 cm SOLIDS ys g,,-
INITIAL SATURATED CONSOLIDATED FIN AL l
DIAMETER D '2,t 14' in.T.% cm
~Z. '6 7. 7.,
HEIGHT CHANGE AH DIAL INfflAL
_.in.
. voi
I HEIGHT H-,'30 (p gn,,," 7 cm "30i"
,' v 4,.. i 313 l
(
AREA A
g,,, ; g e,ji.
[,c,. J,
'i.
f-VOLUME CHANGE AVy
,t I
T 5 f :.
.' ~ ' #'
Mb
~
' t-VOL. OF W ATER Vw Q,jl 3,hl h,}O VOL. OF AIR VA YOlO R ATIO e
, rt *J 07- /
e S ATUR ATION 85' 79,~J d
g/
.s
"/, (,6 [%
/U #[ "
MolSTURE CONTENT wt WET DENSITY.
J l
/
~
g/ccM*??_p}g l gg, s'
p g, DRY DENSITY Id Sar5ple Failure Diagram
(
R E M A R K S *B'...._ _,
~
l emb.ase.=8; a.
.,,n,
.,og a
L-14 1 @-46)
~
N.'
TRIAXIAL PRdPARAT[ON.
~d WORKCHEET -
J O B N o.
'~ @ '' 7 PART NO.
PREP.BY
'9 DATE '
"J O B N A M E Id e d e " 'I ' ' **
E"*
t CALC.BY O l CKED.BY [#
(C HOLE NO.
DEPTH S AMPLE NO. D-8 STAGE NO, ~
CELL NO. S TYPE OF TEST *-* EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION STRESS 1 ~ hal S AMPLE DESCRIPTION: R 6 m.-ME b * ' $ #
- 4'
- MOISTURE CONTENT BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS DISH NO.
4,, ;
WT. OF WET sot. & DISH a.;, ',,
5 WT. OF DRY SOIL & DISH gg, y )
WT. OF DISH
^ % >.1 a WT. OF WATER h%
W7. OF WET SOIL 70,/7
~
WT. OF DRY SOIL W.
'T '.. r,r)
T.,
,' /
% MOISTURE
'),,T T,,, [
I, (, -7 d(
'7
/
0.s SAMPLE DATA VOL.0F 3,, ' * ~, 3 gm3 SOLIDS ys Gs
HElGHT CH ANGE AH DIAL INITIAL tri.
yed[h bet'd'i y.
HEIGHT H
', '.. 'In.
cm 4
X AREA A
77p.,, - [
VOLUME CHANGE AV T
TOT AL VOLUME V.
T t ',
, 7, VOL. OF W ATER Vw
,ff
,. 3
/
f.79 VOL.OF wtR VA
?
2.47
/
J.69 VOID R ATIO e
1, 'e - /
, t ?.* i 113 l S ATUR ATION S%
l *7, O v%
py0 Q/
76'7 MOISTURE CONTENT w%
Cl' N
, ((92, fM tr ^ <!,*.t r e l
WET DENSITY,
T DRY DENSITY Yd g/cc ) 10,, PcI 9/CC Y10.~. P C I t
- e * * "I Sample Failure Diagram
)
..*er e
REMARKS *g*
j
'..., '.s. 4 i L/7 S
'M.O t.'. '
'e.,e*.
.* T, 5
- 7. "
.s
., 4'
~. -d I
f m, ' -
V. ~. o g
. p...e
...e,,
\\-
ese b et aseenh esJ s.coiotsa,,a se e s., e g 4
cs.t
,/
i L-14*1 (6 85)
.i t
TRIAX1AL PREPARATION.
- f WORKONEET -
JOB NO.
l - 6/o'-67 PART NO.
PREP.SY /C DATE
'l'd807 i
JOB NAME % e o b '>
CALC.SY
11 CKED.SY (e
HOLE NO. #' / /e N
.DEPTN SAMPLE NO.
I STAGE NO.
CELL NO. d2 TYPE OF TEST '*. EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION STRE88Epsi S AMPLE DESCRIPTION : mesi.,h/.'ad M5h om l
1 Mol8TURE CONTENT SEFORE TEST AFTER TEST SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS SPECIMEN TRIMMIN GS D6H NO.
Q O G G. *(
l WT OF WET SOL & DGH gg 7g WT. OF DRY SOL & D6H Jg/,g4 WT. OF DGH i'27,9 6 l
WT. OF WATER WT OF WET SOL l *.,',. 3 7,
'7, "~ 33
/
6 WT. OF DRY SOL W.
T,
- p 1 MOISTURE s
$, ') 7, l'.7 y /
s g,
.'5' c!
ME SAMPLE DATA 0.3 3, '
3 VOL.OF m
SOLIDS INITIAL SATURATED CONSOLIDATED FIN AL' l
116 DIAMETER D 7 '.6 0 in. 5.'; T cm
]
HEIGHT CHANGE AH DIAL INfTIAL M.
, poc" 1
HEIGHT H,' 7)$ in.
cm
.T 7
MD I
~
AREA A
VOLUME CHANGE AVT L
' ' ' ' " /
"5-TOTAL VOLUME VT
?
VOL. OF W ATER Vw Q,[
%Ney VOL. OF AIR VA
\\ ).L\\q
/
/
VOID R ATIO e
S ATUR ATION 8%
F..., /%'
/
I
' ~'
WOISTURE CONTENT w%
t' "C
E WET DENSITY.
1
[
DRY DENSITY Vd g/ccl" ' Pct
\\76,0 g/cc,,
Pct Sample Failure Diagram
.=5 is.se. =8; e=8
. cosen a n.8iseee.,eg L-14-1 (6-45)
, _ _ ~
I' TRIAXIAL PREPARATION.
..,J WORKCNEET -
~
PREP.BY
'M DATE_
JO'8 NO. **
- M C PART NO._
- }M-At-Cr*~
M# M
-CALC.BY '?'M CKED.BY 6 JOB NAME I
- IM STAGE NO.
b HOLE NO.
DEPTN S AMPLE NO.
CELL NO. N TYPE OF TEST _. r
- EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION ST i
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: R o m..
fi; mJ--
-U
~
l1 MOISTURE CONTENT 1
AFTER TEST BEFORE TEST l
SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS
,,,, y DISH NO.
WT. OF WET SOL & DGH
+ p ggj go3, @
Wr OF DRY Soll & DISH
M, ") /
f, ;.
/
wT.OrORv sOit w.
$,' E
/
% MOISTURE
/,77 SAMPLE DATA
E '
Q,,
VOL.OF 3, ', 'j.! " [m3 SOLIDS ys Os~
INITIAL SATURATED CO NS OLID ATED FtN AL DIAMETER D
S in. "S.' E cm HEIGHT CH ANGE aH DIAL NTTIAL in.
.V
')de) b.)[h{ n.preIoa, M'M 0
'. m i.'I,,'- / _
HEIGHT H Q ',, *.a ln.
cm
- /
~<
AREA A
VOLUME CH ANGE AVT
/
TOT AL VOLUME V7
? ;'y VOL. OF W ATER Vw l, g g h1h 6.66 VOL. OF AIR VA
, l c T "/ /
. l 'i ' ' /
VOID R ATIO e
f 7, g /5
[nh /
p':. i v' S ATUR ATION S%,
f g.'": d MI,M) L.C l <4. ' T : (,.l'4 % alc
MOISTURE CONTENT w%
k WET DENSITY.
I g/cc N'.9Pci k (
g/cc' ' ! S P'ct DRY DENSITY Td
~
- ~
b***
REMARKS *B' k
f
$*IM
"~
Y,, g**
'47 0
- 4 9. 0 Pn 1r.. o l -
~
'..e l.
%,6 W 'i s
C:;e l 1 W.. >.
T,'? ~ w
.b i-. a s.
i n : vt,,.,...., r,. ~ / _.,
[
/
.. +.
d am. mh d a.ooion. eih s.. e.,. g
}
y
- g-* Capp,.c,/
s A-DC-MM93____
---__ _ _~ - _
i TRIAXIAL PREPARATION I
WORKCHEET -
J 2 8 N O. ' 9 /o ' ~ d '7 PART NO.
PREP.BY
'- L-DATE8IIH I O j JOB NAME %ob5 b*
CALC.BY T 'A' CKED. BY b/N HOLE NO.
bM DEPTH SAMPLE NO.
STAGE NO.
CELL NO. 4 TYPE OF TESTH EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION STRESS @hsl SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: nom.thW MOISTURE CONTENT BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS SPECIMEN TRIMMINGS DISH NO.
p4 re, n::
tcd 4 tr T WT. OF WET sot. & DISH
- 9 6, "3
}g,Q g
~
WT. OF DRY COIL & DSSH 3 p, jQ,
3j 7. f'3 l3 ~. ' l WT.OF Ot3H
- A I, o t,
'" W /,). y I
(.'2 - {}
WT. OF WATER WT. OF WET SOtL 3 1. O,,, ",:.
- A ' % k /,
9 *L WT. OF DRY SOlt W.
7'
/,.
"}
/
, ' y
/
% MOISTURE El
- Ce 9
(,, o (
/d.'f O _ h 4 -
y 3,, ~4'.U h
G,,
SAMPLE DATA VOL.OF g
SOLIDS s o, -
INITIAL SATURATED CO NS OLID ATED FIN AL DIAMETER D 2,7 W in, t's.7 *.'cm '
./
e HEIGHT CH ANGE AH DIAL INTTIAL 6n.
,ooi HEIGH 1 H ' O 'I in.
cm
.$1 i
s AREA A
9f. ?y ;
VOLUME CHANGE OV T i iG
^
TOT AL VOLUME V7
', :. 4 a.16 k
, -j VOL. OF W ATER Vw
/,,.
e,1,7, VOL. OF AIR VA W.,
n.O VOID R ATIO e
,7,y $ '
X r Mb. N S ATUR ATION S%
.J(.6
%.\\
go e l'
MOISTURE CONTENT w%
/ f'
% /
..,,)
,e e
f WET DENSITY.
v, s DRY DENSITY TU g / c c l ,p e t
\\
p,$p\\%fggj\\pg, REM ARKS *B'
\\_ A Sampli Failure Diagram
{
/
)
Q j
Nb.
(*4 _ _
.s.m. a m..
- a.....g f
~
L_-_-_--- 1 (5 8 5)
R E
T V
E S
S S
I E
E E
E R
F H
H H
C C
C N
0 N
N F
N E
7 I
I 0
I E
0 2
6 0
5 0
R G
4 6
1 N0 T
S E
S S
S I
K E
E E
E R
C F
H H
H A
O C
C C
P R
0 N
N F
N M
P 6
I I
0 I
O I
9 2
6 8
5 4
C H
S 4
6 E
TA M
I L
C N
L LO L
L AN AI A
A UO UT U
U NI NA NE N
NT NR NR N
O T
P T
L I
EI EA EA EL T
GP GV GR GA A
AI AE AE AF V
RC R
VR VA VE VN E
E S
V E
I T
H T
R O
C E
O N
E N
F I
F E
E 1
6 3
R G
S N
K E
0 C
T H
T S
O O
C E
I R
O N
E R
P F
I F
A I
P H
1 6
7 M
S O
C N
O I
TC UR S
S T
S S
S E
E N
N N
O K
K C
C C
I I
S H
H S
T T
E N
R R
K E
E C
Y I
I A
R H
L R
T A
G B
P N
A I
N R
D 0
P D
D I
E A
R B
R
j*
SIMILARITIES OF RADON BARRIERS MATERIAL PROPERTIES SHIPROCK GREEN RIVER GREATER THAN 50%
GREATER THAN 50%
PASSING NO 200 SIEVE PASSING NO.
200 SIEVE SANDY SILT (ML)
SILTY CLAY AND CLAY (ML-CL, CL)
UNAMENDED AMENDED WITH 3%
)
S0DIUM BENTONITE
]
PLACEMENT DENSITY ESTIMATED PLACEMENT 121 PCF (AVE)
DENSITY:
116 PCF LABORATORY KSAT (AVE)
LABORATORY KSAT(AVi) 6X10-7 CM/SEC 2X10-8 CM/SEC
d COMPARISON OF CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES SHIPROCK GREEN RIVER 95% OF STANDARD PROCTOR 100% OF STANDARD PROCTOR WET OF OPTIMUM OPTIMUM TO +3%
M0ISTURE CONDITIONING t
WITHIN 2 HOURS OF COMPACTION MAINTAIN RAD 0N BARRIER AT 0 TO -1% OF 0.M.C.
12-INCH LOOSE LIFT 4 LIFTS (COMPACTED)
THICKNESS MECHANICAL MIXING OF BENTONITE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT TAMPING FOOT ROLLER TAMPING FOOT ROLLER l
l l
SCARIFY EACH LIFT TO 2" 1-INCH LIMITING CLOD SIZE i
e p
J
.s LIST OF HYDROGE0 LOGIC FEATURES l
\\
HYDROGE0 LOGIC FEATURE NUMBER Major Minor Disposal Cell Hydrclogic and Geochemical P ro p e r ti e s.................................................. 12 M ate r i a l pr op e r ti e s............................................. 01 Relation of hydraulic conductivity to moi s tu re c on te n t............................................. 02 Hy d r a u l i c g r a d i e n t.............................................. 03 S eepa ge fl ux through the cover.................................. 04 5
T ransi ent tai li ngs drai nage..................................... 05 Seepage fl ux from the di sposal ce11............................. 06 Source Concentration; weighted lysimeter data, back calculated from groundwater beneath tailings, Batch-leach or col umn extract analyses......................... 07 Geochemical modeling of Speciation and sa turation indices of tailings f1 uids........................... 08 Soil Hydrologic and Geochemical Properties................... 13 M a t e r i a l p r o p e r t i e s.................. ~.......................... 01 Relation of hydraulic conductivity to moi s tu r e c o n ten t............................................. 02 Hy d r a u l i c g r a d i e n t............................................... 03 Travel time of scepage to groundwater........................... 04 Geochemical modeling; speciation and saturation indices of soil solution, pH buffering or mixing of tailings fl uids and soll geochemi stry........................ 05 Geochemical attenuation of contamination by soil.................
4...................................... 06 Aquifer Hydraulic and Geochemical Properties................. 14 M a t e r i a l pr o p e r t i e s............................................. 01 S l ug te s t an a l y s i s..,........................................... 02 P umpi ng te s t an aly si s.......................................... 03 D i s p e r s i v i ty a n a ly s i s........................................... 04 Distri bution coef fici ent analysi s............................... 05 Hy d r a u l i c g r a di e n t............................................. 06 Average li near groundwater veloci ty............................. 07 Potential for vertical flow of groundwater....................... 08 Wel l yi el d (C lass III groundwater).............................. 09 Stati stical analysi s of background waterquali ty................. 10 Statistical analysis of existing groundwater c o n t an i n a t i o n.................................................... 11 B 1 vari ate analy si s of wa ter quali ty............................. 12 Trilinear or Stiff Diagram analysis of wa t e r q u al i ty ty p e.............................................. 13 Geochemical modeling; speciation and saturation indices of groundwater, pH buffering or mixing of talli ngs fluids wi th aqui fer geoc hemi stry.................... 14
"~
.m_______.__
f 6
/
2 l
l i
l Kf0ROGE0 LOGIC FEATURE NUMBER l
Ma,jor Minor
- !ater Resources Protection Strategy......................... 15 I denti fication of hazardous consti tuents........................ 01 C on c e n tra ti on li mi ts............................................ 02 Simulation of concentration of hazardous constituents at POC in uppermost aquifer........................
03 Simulation of concentration of hazardous consti tuents at poi nt of exposure............................... 04
[Mfq j'[(e
-hlY N*
nain Stua,;uy Volva. o f &+a,. n J.J 6'o v-s M 4..
)
_m
____.______.___w