'Simulations of Paradox Salt Basin.'3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0 - 2 - Paradox Basin, Rocky Mountain...
Transcript of 'Simulations of Paradox Salt Basin.'3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0 - 2 - Paradox Basin, Rocky Mountain...
-
&>.; -A , - f %'
. / _ I
SIMULATIONS OF PARADOX SALT BASIN
Ellen J. Quinn and Peter M. Ornstein
8402060151 620824PDR WASTEWM-16PD
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 1 -
Purpose
This report documents the preliminary NRC in-house modeling of a bedded
salt site. The exercise has several purposes:
1) to prepare for receipt of the site characterization report by
analyzing one of the potential salt sites;
2) to gain experience using the salt related options of the SWIFT code;
and
3) to determine the information and level of detail necessary to
realistically model the site.
Background
The Department of Energy is currently investigating several salt deposits
as potential repository horizons. The sites include both salt beds and
salt domes located in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah. Site
investigations will be occuring in all locations until receipt of the
Site Characterization Report.
In order to narrow the scope of this preliminary modeling effort, the
staff decided to focus their analysis on the Paradox Basin. The site was
chosen principally because of the level of information available about
the site. At the time this work began, two reports on the Paradox had
just been received by NRC: Permianland: A Field Symposium Guidebook of
the Four Corners Geological Society (D. L. Baars, 1979), and Geology of the
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 2 -
Paradox Basin, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists (DL Wiegand,
1981). This in conjunction with the data information from topographic map
of Paradox area (USGS Topographic Maps) and the Geosciences Data
Base Handbook (Isherwood, 1981) provided the base data necessary for the
modeling exercise. The primary goal of all numerical modeling performed
to date was to simulate the contoured piezometric distribution seen on
maps as compiled by Thackson (1981).
The Paradox Basin, located in southeastern Utah and southwestern
Colorado, is underlain by a sedimentary sequence including thick salt
units (Figure 1). The basin itself is defined by the zero salt line
which is the axis separating areas of salt formation from nondepositional
areas. Within the basin, intrusion of igneous features and faulting
associated with dissolution has modified the distribution of the
sedimentary layers (Figure 2).
Two rivers flow through the basin, the Colorado and the Green. The
Colorado River is one of the principal sources of water for the region.
During preliminary studies sites were being investigated both north and
south of the Colorado River (Figure 3). Recently, however, the preferred
sites have been narrowed to an area near Gibson Dome (ONWI 291). The
region selected for modeling is centered around this smaller area.
Use of this basin also provided a parallel effort to the Sandia site
description of the Permian basin. When the modeling began, data
collection on the Permian basin was in the preliminary stages. Sandia
had not developed the conceptual hydrologic flow field and the boundary
conditions remained uncertain. For this reason Paradox represented a
simpler site for modeling purposes. Most of the values selected for
-
- 3 -
1140 1120 1100 1080 1060420 ---------------- I
I i WYOMING
-N- L W M I N G B A S I N
it | _COLORADO Z400
NEVADA UTAH O
0
380 0Z
-
-4-
e .. uRS,''> \ , -'~~~--~ ..
.'9 WA-7 )~&,
_ \ A fautr s | V ~ ~ >-Q----. IMIpOXIAT
\/ r \ VERDURE GRAfEN < \ 9 /
X9LRGABNATINSUC E''--'
FAUL. DSHEDZONE APROPATP125,00SCLIMPSMAAITE193
9~ ~~ 20, 40 60 8MIWLAS, 1964
;/,~~~~~~~~~~~WLIM AN HACMA, 1971;Crez
~~~~~~~(e. Wie,-nd, 1981
ARIZONA | W _~~~~~~~~~~ARDO
4AN ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~HCortez AN YNT 93
FAULT DASED WHRE APROXIATE,(1:25A 00SA LE MAPES) CASIO,2; 73
0 20 40 60 80 l WILLIAMS, 1964:-- - WILLIAMS AND HACKMAN, 1971;WITKIND AND OTHERS, 1978
-Figure .2..(Ref. Wiegand, 1981)
-
- 5 -
SALT VALLEYGreen River ,UDY
rescent Junction
B Ci ) t )> ~~~~~Uravan\
STY Y AR ESTUDY AREA
| ~~~~~~~~~Monticello \
N~~
25 S sBI~~~~~~~.3lnding ZI j
ELK RISTUDY AE A
! rav\Durango
A R I Z N A -- o -N EW M EX IC O
/7k,' ~ |9F
;~ ̂ EXPLANATI ON
Approximate location of zerothickness of saline facdes
\(boundary of Paradox Basin Study Region)
a- 1 0 20 30 40 Miles
/7; * I - l g
o 10 20 30 40 km
Figure 3.u(Ref. ONWI 290)
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 6 -
material properties will be reviewed following receipt of the Permian
basin site definition. It is expected that the basic set up will be
transferable to the Permian basin.
Hydrostratigraphic Units
These analyses have been done on a three dimensional gridding system.
This allowed both examination of the flow in the plane of each layer and
the potential for interaction between layers.
For the initial exercise, three layers were used. These layers
correspond to the three hydrostratigraphic units outlined by Thackston
(1981). The upper hydrostratigraphic layer corresponds to the Permian
and the upper Pennsylvanian strata (Figure 4, 5). The character of the
beds varies from a fairly productive sandstone aquifer in the Permian to
a tight shale layer, the Honaker Trail, overlying the salt. The
variation in conductivity relates to the facies transitions as well as
the fractures associated with igneous intrusions. For initial modeling,
this layer was assigned a thickness of 1500 feet and a conductivity of .5
ft/day.
The middle hydrostratigraphic layer corresponds to the middle
Pennsylvanian units. These include the lower Hanaker Trail and the
Paradox Formation. The rock types are principally shales, salts and
interbed layers. The layer was assigned a thickness of 1500 feet and a
horizontal conductivity of 10 5 ft/day. The lowest layer corresponds to
the lower Pennsylvanian and Mississippian age formations. The lower
Pennsylvanian units, the Molas and the Pinkerton Trail formations, are
-
- 7 --7-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erathem System Rock Unit
c Alluvial, Eolian ColluvIaland Glacial Deposits
o z Geyser Creek Fanglomerate
Igneous Rock
_ -
Mesaverde Group
a Mancos ShaleDakota Sandstone
Cedar Mtn. Burro CanyonO Formation Formatlon
C.) Morrison Formation
_ _Bluff Sandstone
o o San Summerville FormationIaa Curtis Formation
Group Entraoa Sandstonen ~~~Carmel Formation
CInVo n No a entao rnston
X ~~Chinle FormationF~~~~~~4 enkopi
LI,0N0wi-J
a.
CC
0
Cc
C:C
.C
~i
0
VVnite Rim iDe Chelly)n Sandstone,
O Organ Rock Shale C uter
s ~~~~~~o m tiona Cedar Mesa SFomndo
U Eleonant Can.T_von iosmation$? 1-algeito Shale'Q
o ' Hona er Trail Formation
'UE 8 Paradox FormationI Pinkerton Trail Formation
Molas Formation
Leadville Limestone(Redwsall oQuivaient)
Ouray Limestone
Upper Elbert MemberElbert Formnation
5-McCrackenSandstone Member
Aneth Formation
Lynch Oolomite
Muav Limestone
Bright Angel Shale
lgnacio Formation (quartzites
Upper Hydrostratigraphic Unit
Middle Hydrostratigraphic Unit
iLower Hydrostratigraphic Unit
C
UiB
_-
U00
cra.'
C
.0
E V0
Basement Complex of Igneous
and Metamodphic Rock.
_ C._
Figure 4.(Ref. ONWI 290)
-
- 8 -
GeneralizedStratigraphicy Column
3 LayerModel
5 LayerModel
. Cutler.' Group
s .
aHonaker
oTrail FM
,Paradox
,Pinkprtpn
- Molas FM
LeadvilleLimestone
0u
,
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer 5
Figure 5.
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0 _ 9 _
low permeability units while the Mississippian Leadville Limestone is
moderately transmissive. This layer was given a thickness of 1000 feet
and a conductivity of .5 ft/day.
For brine simulations, the three layer stratigraphy was subdivided into
five layers. The upper layer was divided into two to represent the
Permian and the Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail formation. The thickness and
properties of the middle hydrostratigraphic layer, the Paradox salt,
remained unchanged. The lower layer was also divided into two layers to
represent the Pinkerton Trail and the Mississippian formations. The
units have the following thickness, conductivities and brine
concentrations:
1) Layer 1, 1200 ft, .5 ft/day, 0 brine concentration
2) Layer 2, 300 ft, .5 ft/day, .5 brine concentration
3) Layer 3, 1500 ft. 10-5 ft/day, 1.0 brine concentration
4) Layer 4, 300 ft, .5 ft/day, .8 brine concentration
5) Layer 5, 700 ft, .5 ft/day, .8 brine concentration
Description of Geometry
The gridding system used is shown in Figure 6. The northwest boundary
has been extended past the river to ensure that water is not forced into
that discharge point. The northeast and southwest boundaries correspond
approximately to the zero salt lines. They were designed to incorporate
the potential recharge areas along the Abajo and La Salle Mountains. The
choice of the southeast boundary is more arbitrary and is located inside
the zero salt line.
-
- 10 -
% Approximate location ot zerox thicKness of saline acies
\b'ounirarv ot Praaox dasin .ituav Reqaorr
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 11 -
Wells with constant bottom hole pressure were used to simulate recharge
in the mountains. One well was used in the Lasalles and 4 in the Abayos.
For the preliminary study the upper and lower hydrostratigraphic units
are assumed to have no interconnection. Wells are either completed in
the upper or lower hydrostratigraphic unit.
The river is also simulated using wells with constant bottom hole
pressures. The water level in the river was approximated from the
topographic surface map. Future work will require more accurate measures
of the water elevation along the river. No increase in conductivity was
assumed either along the river or around the intrusives.
The pressures assigned to the boundaries are interpolations of the
contours given by Thackston. The number of control points vary a great
deal from boundary to boundary (Figure 7, 8); aquifer influence functions
were used to simulate these boundaries (Figure 9, 10). The salt layer
because of its low conductivity and lack of continuous flow was assigned
a no flow boundary.
Steady State Analysis
Initial runs were performed as steady state. The contours produced
correspond fairly closely to Thackston's contours (Figure 11 a-f). Flow
in-the upper layers were generally toward the Colorado river from both
the north and the south. One exception is the area, south of the La Salle
Mountains where water is moving radially away from the recharge zone
toward the boundary. This reflects our choice of the boundaries as
interpolations of contours rather than structural breaks to flow.
-
- 12 -
3a Us. *0*
IjeEXPLANATION
AREA OF PRIMARY FOCUSFOR THIS INVESTIGATION
5200 SPRING ELEVATION
*5579 OST POTENTIOMETRIC LEVEL
-- ELEVATION CONTOUR OFPOTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE,SHORTER CDASHES INDICATELESS CERTAINTY
i I
U T A H
LOCArION MAP
- 10 O 20 am
10 0O 3 km
,0,,.
Figure 7. Potentiometric Surface of Upper Hydrostratiqraphic Unit(Ref. Wiegand, 1981)
-
- 13 -
W !.c- 4,. ¶.
-N-I1EXPLANATION
AREA OF PRIMARY FOCUSFOR THIS INVESTIGATION
4701 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACEELEVATION
'4ON5 NO POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACEELEVATION GETERMINABLE
T VERY LOW TO ZERG FORMA-TION FLUID RECOVERED
G GAS RECOVERED
c OIL RECOVERED
s SALT WATER RECOVERED
POTENTIOMETRIC RFACEELEVATION CONTOUR
I !__ U T A H
A ~etOA o n I
LOCATION MA1P
0
0
5 IO I5
O 20
*O km
_ 0 ri
Figure 8. Potentiometric Surface of Lower Hydrostratigraphic Unit
f (Ref. Wiegand, 1981) -
-
- 14
I-4
I
I
N N\
I~
\
'1
Durangt X |
IDuago
I
I" EXPLANAT,0,. 4
N. A "C cnxj-are icar on Of ero
~- - )tOWflfl P300 asin Sj~vR
i' ' latl0 4
o ? 20 20 : 0 I
9s,
* Pressures Used For Te
agraphic Unit
I
-
- 15
/IIILI
I
I
oUran 90
-Ic~~~~~nI
* *LA
I =N=
E W M E X 5Z-C--I--.
/
1ra 3x d sin ~ L u
:0 -
=
v I
791 )
,IT)
seef NW 2)
Pressures Used For The
Lowr Hdota.Ui
-
- 16 -
Green River
2.4 00t75207 no... 1.700 ~ ~ ~ 7.1 9~~.(7U7 0.. bo ...... S" ......*5500055P0C405000*0500005.75 5.os c..........
................ . 5 5 % 5 ss. 545555555*
qs54400040.0000 440004000554550 545550004s045o44
0400000500.-. 04ss 55549%%5555 5550955455555 5o*s040t55450,555555sssS 5 "SS * 040400'"0"007005577050755
"S' 55s '4s5
00590
"'sSS5SS5SSSsS 55 5S55
N^^"^^^^^.e-f.--*^^.o~e.K**..I ...............
I ;11.....................ee
I -be 77 *0* 77 ?777?777'7
77777777 970- 00(0 77777777777
,b* '77 777777 ,777'7'7777777
7777777777^-70^*0440 t7777777''7
_~~~~~~~o? 7? r?''7 77 7777'7?'77' 7 77777?????? 7 77ST~t 7 77777070777
_7* t I*^ r wT--?77tr .... It*s! Itszon .......................
_< / q ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7777077- 77777?77??S
77777,77,77.7e7¶7777^ ,7Y
007 7??'? 777777,7''n7?7.-77
77777777 77'?77?'7 777?777777777.77 777'-?71?
7005 -7777 ??070 f 777777.77..7.''7777.7 7 7 o7?7-777?777 ?777777777777777'7-7
Ooooo 7"77 777* 00 77777o7?w 7'7 o7 f -. 777777777777777?70'??7' ,,7777*7 I.5 .777 7.
77. ...............7'(* ........ 77 7?','0'r?
77???77? 777 .7 7l -. ?.
eo ..os. 7777 7^^ ..0 0".0* 777777.7,.,. ...
777f7-7-77777777777777z7 -777?7777
000000 777eeta0*S 7777777' ,??2S77--T--~-t77-71-* 0000 '7777 ,77 .. 77777f7'7777t777-7-
7000007750.0. 777-.77
* 000. .0 077000700000700-00A00070074000,000
Col oradoRiver
wIur.t:4?AL r n P.tuc, _or , , c ' I T'l l9ErttCAL c-rSn zI CK p,*r4F. ro I I 7n OFPE'OrFNr VfPfA4s. 4 4141 -.Q r
0'PAC7E
217, * 33. t43. - ASS.650. . .,* . o4 k, , I. ^F .s 3I .O13C. oS * .200F-3
I1.2(997.01 - .SIAE.47j.516E.isr - I. 7 r., 41.7 3?'')' - ,9~
*2.tsA2roc3ŽIeso .4 -.2|eF;
2.7155.q0 - 2.3A2'-02 .3A ' .e b _ o;.o7r 3 2.5 5F 0'703 o0 I 5n x
3.04
10*vI3 - ' * 'E.,75.II4'.O5 .I 5.77)7.0
Figure Ila.SWIFT Output For Layer 1 Steady State Analysis
-
---
- 17 -
* PARAOOX ASIN FLON MODEL.DARCY VELOCITY
Green River
�13Z1III
1:
q
9
I
eL-
/* f
A . I I . ../I I I I . I Colorado- _4 _ _ D _ ._
vlfft#11�1 14, k%,
�1 4� t �t I
.II II , I II II
II /II \ \,\I//.1
,4 / , I t- ,--/f
t K vul
A7'N,
-
- 18 -
Green RiverJ.b OOtS'!A$t '^... X tf 4r "E Vew~ru I.e It O"E nl!*! ^ Ciit Ira A.? = 4%e thnt I
abtVtb'abCsbb sassssssssssb5ss5ssssbsssss~seaVsssbss~l
A sabbbabbb A Abb Ss lbSAiab
-
- 19 -
PAPADOX ASIN FLCW MODELDARCY VELOCI TY
Green River
I'
1-'i
. I ..
I , / ,J I %
a I I
. = = _
N
I:"0~
h L 4 4
% . I.
%4 a A 4
I I 4 A
. . I.
A . . I
A I P I
* 4 b 4 4 a & 4
4 . . & I a 4 4
* . , , b .
A . . I I . I
4 . . .
. h . I . I .
I I I 7 5 P P A
.
.1
I
I
. I,
Colorado
River
2
1,1.r
1,
rn
Pressure Distribution In Feet
PARADOX eASIN FLOW VCCELPRESSURE -0. DAYS
Green River
_ LQCoIorado
River
_. _ 7
'''
- .
N
. _
Figure 11d.
CRSEC Plots Of Layer 2
-
- 20 -
N
Green River)n7 0O(5iiiO .f (- l *.. tI zr* ' rer vqftuvxt.vt (,.. O& o t. ~,C~ -tl~w ez > e ...t
. . . . . .* xss sssssss555s 5SSSCS4 SSSSS5c s.('; csSc.9S..I ..
* 5 5 5 5 5 5 % 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 S 5 S 5 5 5 5I'I 5 %5 5 5 5 5 5 P 5 5 * 5 ~ 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 s 5 5 ~ 5s I .. .... t 5 5
C C 5 5 5 5 5 5 C t C 5< S C% g sP 5 5 5 5 & 5 5 5 5 5 5 5;5 5 5 c5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 c t s s ss 5; S 5t55w %s~t555t5cs~5tSss c555555I5ss S 5SSC55555 KS SSS S5S tNEt55515..s.IsSS
. 4 i Ss~~~~ssc~5t5555 -.5 5 s5 ~ 5%s55555c 4 ;55q~55 (5 5
-
- 21 -
I
i-
iz
!I
1. N
!37
I
,
PARPAOX BASIN FLCW MOELDARCY VELCCITY
Green Ri ver. ~ ~~~~~~ /
Coloradoi River
K \, b1
\ t , * .,, ,,
-,\ / s a 4 4 4 b
,, ^ * , .4. ,
,,--- - -,, . . .-. , 4 .
.'--- _, , - . -, . .
..-
K 3
Pressure Distribution In Feet
PARPR
I
/ N~~~~~~~
C~~~ ,N
I;K -
t
RAOX ASMN FLOW MCCELRESSLA R-- Green RiWfS
Figure llf.
CRSEC Plots of Layer 3
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 22 -
Flow in the lower unit does not reflect as strongly the topography and
structures of the area. This is due to the presence of the salt layer
which buffers the effects of the overlying units. The lower unit
reflects a larger flow sytem which extends beyond the limits of the
Paradox Basin (Thackston, 1981). The only exceptions to this pattern are
the areas of interconnection along the structures.
The contours produced did not always correspond to the reported contours.
The principal difference occurred along the intrusives (recharge wells)
where calculated heads were higher than those observed. To correct this,
the number of wells simulating recharge was reduced but the calculated
heads still remained high. This could be further corrected by increasing
the conductivity or changing the well index to reflect higher k values
around the recharge zone. This would be consistent with the tectonic
induced fracturing pressumed in the area. Additional refinement may be
obtained by more precisely correlating the locations of wells in the
grid.
Modeling of Brine
Salt concentrations in the Paradox Basin groundwaters cause density
gradients within the overall system, which in turn impacts the
groundwater flow regime. Inclusion of brine in the SWIFT simulations is
an.1mportant step toward creating a more realistic numerical and
conceptual model. In the five layer system the lower four layers contain
varying concentrations of brine while the top layer is considered to be
fresh.
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 23 -
The SWIFT steady state flow model was altered to allow the inclusion of
the brine. The first alteration was done by initializing each of the
five layers to a brine concentration and specifying constant brine
concentrations on all boundaries. The middle layer, representing the
salt (Paradox fm), was assigned initial and boundary brine concentrations
of 1.0. Dissolution of the salt layer was not accounted for since the
dissolution parameter contains time units not compatable to steady state
flow.
Results of this simulation were not satisfactory since the brine
concentrations were not correct. Brine concentrations in all layers were
zero, indicating that salt was purged from the system despite constant
concentration boundary conditions. The mass balance calculated on brine
was approximately 1%. This indicated that considerably more salt was
leaving rather than entering the basin. The problem appears to be the
introduction of fresh water in the recharge wells. The analysis will
need to be rerun with brine introduced into the wells.
The next phase in the study was to modify the previous SWIFT set-up to be
a transient simulation. A transient simulation would allow for inclusion
of a salt dissolution term and would enable the SWIFT treatment of brine
to be monitored. First a non-saline steady-state flow regine was
established to initialize flow, and then a transient solution using
saline boundary conditions and a salt dissolution term for the middle
la-er was implemented.
In the transient runs, brine remained in the system but resulted in a
poor mass balance. When SWIFT was allowed to choose its own time step,
the smallest specified step (0.01 days) was chosen with only slightly
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0
- 24 -
improved results. It should be noted that the mass balances obtained are
consistent with results obtained by Sandia (Finley and Reeves, 1982) and
other SWIFT users performing brine studies (Personal Communications).
Clarification is needed from Sandia on what would constitute an
acceptable value.
Variations on the brine dispersion coefficient were included in an
attempt to correct the poor mass balance. Previously, the dispersivity
of brine was assumed to be zero and thus grossly violated the numerical
criteria for brine transport (Reeves and Cranwell, 1981). In order to
satisfy the criteria, the dispersivity coefficient would need to be at
least one half the length of a grid block, or three miles. It should be
noted, however, that the vertical dimensions of the grid blocks are
approximately an order of magnitude smaller than the horizontal. A
dispersivity coefficient chosen on the basis of the numerical criteria
will result in too much dispersion in the vertical direction.
Simulations were performed where the dispersivity criteria was violated,
and also where it was exceeded. Brine mass balance improved with
increased dispersivity values. Where the dispersivity was equal to one
half the horizontal grid block length (satisfying the criteria), the mass
balance was poor. However, at this value complete mixing occurred in the
top two layers contaminating all of the fresh water, and contaminating
the river wells.
Further evaluation of the above results needs to be performed before the
SWIFT modeling study proceeds. A smaller scale study using smaller grid
blocks may be one way of avoiding the brine transport problems
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 25 -
encountered above. Incorporation of different logitudinal and transverse
dispersivity will also be useful.
USGS Code
The USGS Trescott, Pinder, Larson (1979) flow code was employed to check
the SWIFT code. SWIFT requires a very complex data set; the results
obtained from the much simpler USGS code would give confidence in the
analyses using the more complicated methods. Although both are finite
difference codes, the different treatments of boundary conditions and
recharge/discharge locations within the respective codes will probably be
revealed in the results. These differences, should they occur, will be
beneficial in analysis and subsequent data calibration.
A steady-state simulation with the USGS code was performed on the top
layer of the steady-state 3 layer SWIFT simulation. The grid
configuration and hydrologic parameters used were identical to those used
with SWIFT. Boundary conditions and recharge/discharge locations were
set by indicating a constant head over each of the specified elements.
This differs from SWIFT where boundary conditions are set by assigning
constant head values to element edges and recharge/discharge locations
are simulated by injection/production wells. The input used for the
codes is contained in Appendix A.
Reasonably good results were obtained with both codes, however, the USGS
code yielded a closer approximation to the real field data (Figure 12).
Preliminary analysis indicates that the head discrepancies are due
primarily to the SWIFT well index values used at the recharge locations
-
- 26 -
a0.00
O 2
o 2 7. C OS 7.
O 3 50 0 55 bO 6 bl II 52 56 3 2
7 o 5b 05 o b 58 57 * I
x ; *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0.00
7 2 50 3 S *2 6s 60 5 s. 52 4
o II I
X 2 50 - 53 aS 58 57 Sb 57 5b ' 2
.0 2 52 Ss 5 0 S7 Sb S7 4 2
2 R 50 12 56 i5 57 56 S T 6 3
II R 47 R 53 5S 57 bl b7 b7 00 I S 2
* 2 ~So a 53 5D b6 7 S S S I
2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 22 .2 0.00
* q SO R 53 51 1 53 6 b7 59 I 0
o 7.
S a 50 a 51 b 6 b1 59 S7 57 2 2
2 2
3 R2 7 53 7 7 62 67 67 20 ' 2
I.....................,,,,..,,. ...... ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 0.00
0.0 1.0 2030 30 00 60.00 50.00 60 0 70.00
OTSTANCE MRIN ORIGIN TN CS CTIC4. 1N " ILE3
T 2
2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7
]~ ~~~~~ R A '4 R R R S
2X 1 '3 50| 57 59 57 bO 2
0 R Ss 5 S7 S1 4
s o a s .\ 5 5 7~~~~~S 5* 5 t R
% 5 O 5\Nb 5 7 S 5b 5b
a s 57 is5 5 5b 5D 50 56 ' I
* 0.00
O '3 °2 0 53 .I Sb 67 53 50 -: 2
,~ ~~~~5 _6 6 S. S. N
o 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- a
0 2
. ,.,,,,,,,,,,,,..............................................................__.-._. _ ........... :.. 0
.0 2..0 '30.0 30.0 00.00 5.0 20.0 70.00
00063324r'11G2 TN I 0700001.. "ILL
FigureOL 12 Helad 1ito n t rom 1 1 0m a o
.iur 20.02 itiuto rm SSsmuajn
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 27 -
which is allowing excessive amounts of fluid to be injected for a
specified pressure. Further work needs to be done on isolating the
discrepancies.
Recommendations
1. A decision must be made on the level of effort devoted to modeling
the salt sites. The alternatives are either to model each of the
salt sites on a limited scale or to concentrate on one location.
NRC should attempt to find out how much reliance will be placed on
modeling for selection of a salt site. This will determine how many
sites it is necessary to model.
2. Before conclusions can be reached from this modeling exercise, a
more extensive data base should be used. Once additional data has
been compiled, the model would need to be altered to include: (1)
smaller grid blocks around structures to provide better resolution;
(2) inclusion of more layers to reflect the changes in stratigraphy;
(3) spatially variable conductivity to reflect despositional
sequences and structural deformations; and (4) inclusion of
structures such as Lockhart Basin and the Needles dissolution zone.
3. To improve the model given current data limitations, the Siting
Section would need to review the data and recommend the best
characterization of the material. The Siting Section should also
review the head distribution in the drill holes to aid in making
more reasonable estimates of boundary conditions. The recent
.-
-
- 28
., z0o ,,.
-YN EXPLANATIONAREA OF PRIMARY FOCUSFOR THIS INVESTIGATIONAPPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OFTHE SALINE FACIES IN THEPARADOX FORMATION; ALSOREFERRED TO AS THE ZEROSALT LINE
FAULT SHOWING RELATIVED DISPLACEMENT AT SELECTED
LOCATIONS, DASHED WHEREINFERRED, SOLID WHERE PRE-SENT IN ONLY THE PRE-SALTSTRATA
FAULT DISPLACING STRATA INTHE SALINE FACiES ANDABOVE
G GIBSON DOME NO I BOREHOLEGD-1
i Ii U T A H !i iI I
i L C I O N M A _
LOCATION MAP
C) 5
;k 10
iS 20 m
20 2 Dm.
., ,~
Fiqure 13.
(Ref. iegand, 1931)
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 29 -
receipt of ONWI 290 should provide a better data base for future
model studies.
4. A smaller scale model should be developed to analyze faults and
dissolution areas like Lockhart Basin and Shay Graben (Figure 13).
Various interpretations have been proposed to explain the
interactions in the areas. Modeling may be able to aid in
interpreting these collapse features.
5. The USGS code has been successfully used to simulate flow in the
upper aquifer. Since this code has been shown to be simple to use,
use of this code should be expanded to simulate regional flow in the
lower aquifer as well. Such simulation might identify areas of
hydrologic uncertainties and support assumptions that will be made
on boundary conditions in smaller scale simulations.
6. Current contours of flow in the lower aquifer indicate apparent
movement into the region beneath the Colorado River. If correct,
flow could be moving in a more permeable channel beneath the river,
or migrating upward into the river. Such migration would be
introducing salt into the Colorado. SWIFT should be used to
determine the amount of salt that would be transported into the
river by this mechanism' if upward migration would occur. SWIFT
should also be used to investigate the hydrological effects, if any,
that would be caused by more permeable zone underneath the river. A
comprehensive water balance analysis should be performed to
determine the amount of flow from both units seeping into the river
as well as its salt contribution.
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0 - 30 -
7. The errors associated with the brine mass balance in SWIFT need to
be reviewed to determine the problem. SWIFT must be able to provide
reasonable mass balance to ensure reliable representations of
salinity concentrations.
-
3104.1/EJQ/82/08/09/0- 31 -
References
1. Baars, D. L., 1979, Permianland, Four Corners Geological Survey, p.186.
2. Finley, N. C. and Reeves, M., 1982, SWIFT Self-Teaching Curriculum,NUREG/CR-1968, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., p. 169.
3. Isherwood, D., 1981, Geoscience Data Base Handbook for Modeling aNuclear Waste Repository, V. 1., NUREG/CR-0912, U. S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington, D. C., p. 315.
4. ONWI-290, 1982, Geologic Characterization Report for the ParadoxBasin Study Region, Utah Study Areas, Battelle Memorial Institute,Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation.
5. ONWI-291, 1982, Paradox Area Characterization Summary and LocationRecommendation Report, Battelle Memorial Institute, Office ofNuclear Waste Isolation.
6. Reeves, M. and Cranwell, R. M., 1981, User's Manual for the SandiaWaste-Isolation Flow and Transport Model (SWIFT), Release 4.81,NUREG/CR-2324, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., p. 145.
7. Thackson, J. W., McCully, B. L., and Preslo, L. M., 1981,Groundwater Circulation in the Western Paradox Basin, Utah, Geologyof the Paradox Basin, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists,Denver, Colorado, pp. 201-226.
8. Trescott, P. C., Pinder, G. F., and Larson, S. P., 1976, Finite-Difference Model for Aquifer Simulation in Two Dimensions withResults of Numerical Experiments, Techniques of Water-ResourcesInvestigations of the United States Geological Survey, Chapter C1,Book 7, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, p. 116.
9. U. S. G. S. Topographic Maps, NJ 12-2, NJ 12-3, NJ 12-5, NJ 12-6, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
10. Wiegand, D. L., 1981, Geology of the Paradox Basin, Rocky MountainAssociation of Geologists, Denver, Colorado, p. 285.
-
- 32 -
Appendix A
-
Input Deck for GS Code
PARA((lXSAL GSL')PISTET I1,mijtll i
hAlf
13 loLON7 52tR0
I I.
I I
4 uo ,450k i.
, 5 j,
55S5*i
50 U0*
5 0 0.5"555 (I i
50)555.Sol,3,5555.500.5555.
555 5000.5555*
SI00.
5100,s5o .
Lsf)P CHEC
52t'u5
I
oS (5 5
5snn,
5559.
555,
S955,6 0 ,
555
5555.
5559.
555,
555S.5?S 0.bOO)).
2 0I 0I)
0 2
0
HE AD
500.LI 5o .5555.SSS.
45 .) .rr 7 0.C55S 9555,SSS5.ss .5555.q9O(0 .
555 .9555.5955.5555559 5.555q.555.555.,5 0.hI o0.
5sss.
5555.,
555,
5 5 5,
55sS.
5F550.
S5559.
Ms9 00.
!9959 555.
C555S.
r55s5.
4s0
Q000*
r55`
555.
5555*
5,555
9000,
b?00.
LISO0.4 5 1) 0 450n 3.
5555,5555,
470 0.
C5 555.5559.
5555
9555 ,55 55.15555.
9555.5 55 5.S5555.
5555,5555.SSSS,S550,5 55 .
555,(I555 O
0500.4500.
4500.500.,
4R00,S5555555.555S.
500.
5555.6500.5555.b9on,
6p500.5555.hSOO.5hv0,
4 J 00.
,01 1IILES
5 555 .
55 5 9.
S5595.
5555.ww'
5555 .
5555.
57uoi
I
. - I 1 . - I .
-I,
_1, * -1, - -1.I.,
-I .-I. .I.
-1.
-. .-I . -.-I .
.5?50 0,
02
I t)
-I. -1, -1.- ,
- . * , _ I.
.1, .1,I
-. -t.
-I. -1. -.
*I. -I. -1 .
I.
*. -I..I.
-1 ...1,
-1.
- I.
.1. -1.
sr S I I 2 4 .
-
Input Deck for SIr I
I'ATj - -/ '2
;,,.11), ;
:, I (; . t.~* I
3 , * I * o
I, , 31 k
I t ,J j ,\
I * ) ', 'i C ' ( .
.0 x, ~ ~ .
, I
I . ((I, .j
oI ,n
t) I
I .0*t o
o 1 9 n1. 00
I .
1 2 Ii),.l~i I , (3 31 4-
I -5Rl 2,5;R12.5-
1 2 3
R 17HI -SH-It
RiI -I I
9I -12.9I-lb
(C. .) t * 2 4
I .0(
I '' ' ' 'i
.5
2. (I f b.
3.5
.2
.2
O .n
0 .
,) 0
O 0
0 .1
o' .
(3. (
. O'3 ( .(I
. 2 .0
RI-2i.RI .
I -21RI -21RI -1RI -21RI -21RI -21RI -2,RI -27RI -2A
I
w4:t�-
I
5.
3 3 33
S ,5 .(
4
3 3,I, 9
3.uI I I1
3 .j5..)
I. II 4. ,J
I I
2 I,.0
I /112 i;,',
I I
1 .I 7.
I S ., .
I I
1 I
1 i9,I I
I 0"9*.?
J 752.
I I
I I
I ' 5 21 1 li1IS e,,2
3 .
; 3.5
5 .5
3 3
i 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
1* 3
-
t )
i, 'J
I . 1
I' I
l: I
I I
I t
; ,J
I I-
1 1
l II ,U
I ,0
.I
1 Y .4 . U
Ii I 4
I , J
II II
I III *
II III -Ic.
II It17 �
II III n
11 IIjb .'�
I IIlb..?.
II IIIc'i�.
II III 7IG�
I iiI? 1?
IA I?.I �
I Ic-'..4
.'
4)I � I &*
I, I�
I 3'Th*1 1
1 4)4)44
I �'4.,) 4;
I 2�4.I;)
I -) '-' 4*.�? L'
I? �.I I
cl 7.I I II
44 lb.II II
4)e? I*II II
%II II
I IIt-..
II IItVl
II II754,.
II II1*p.4.
II II
II IIt. 1�*
II II'4
5, 5
4. 3
3 i
5 3
i 3
S s
S
*1 3
j 3
3 3
1 *4
3 3
3 3
4 3
3 .3
' 3
3 3
i 4,S 5
S SS S
3 I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I II I1 1
I I
I I1 I
1' 1
IwAU-,
-
s il Ii I 1l
I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R 2
I I ) ? I I
I f ,r .
L , 2 2 5
. 14 2 ) I
E,
F2 5~~~ 2 2 t 1
177C
19 14 1
I . '1 b 5 I I
7 1 4 i * I 7
R I C l
I 7
-- t. j 5
gu, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .I I ., '- ie-
2 I.E'f5S I, F 25" I .f 2Sb I.)tf 5
*o I, JF?57' I. ; E2 5
II I *. tf 25I; I, 'f 9I I ,UF25
1 4 - I , 'F 2 5I S -I,'
17 i.1, F25I 1 - I vF2S
I c. 2 I 1 -3
2i 2 5 i I -32,s 7 21 7,
S, 5 3 I I -32.1-t7 2I7*
- 3 1 1 .
Z* t Z 217,
7 7 S I I -32nE 7 217,
sk S ~I I -3S
-
I I t I I '-
1I 11 i i I -%
, 12 . I I $ ,tt 1 43
2. 1S I I
I. 2 n5 ro I 142, t 7 Iui9*1 ,
.. i o ¶ I 3.
&i 7 lf I,
I 4 9 3 I -1
I 1 -I 01 1 o-1l 0 100 1 tI 12.0 s.o P2-I UI I, I I) 1 3 '4130.0 (1:100.0
) J V I
w~-4