WM DOCKET CNTRol CENTER0 WfrxITASCA · 2012. 11. 18. · are no ISRM standard procedures for rock...

1<' K>._~~~~~~~ H OCE CN,~

WM DOCKET CNTRolCENTER0

'86 OC -3 A:5WfrxITASCA

Consulting Group, Inc.

2 October 1986

David Tiktinsky - SS623U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionDivision of Waste ManagementWashington, D.C. 20555

"NRC Technical Assistancefor Design Reviews"Contract No. NRC-02-85-002FIN D1016

Dear David:

Enclosed is Itasca Review No. 001-02-24, "Chapter 2 - Geoengi-neering," Site Characterization Plan for NNWSI (Pink Draft).Please call me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Roger D. HartProgram Manager

Wrd ecrFl1//

I Add*

WM Project /.Z /Docket lNo. _

LPDR , eSDistribution:

(Reti

- 1 ~~-_

urn to VV11,623-SS) gcc: J. Greeves, Engineering Branch

Office of the Director, NMSSE. Wiggins, Division of ContractsDWM Document Control Room

Encl.rdh/ks

8PDR WiRES EEC ITAS

P.O. Box 14806 * Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 * (612) 623-9599

J30

ITASCA DOCUMENT REVIEW

File No.: 001-02-24

Document: "Chapter 2 - Geoengineering," Site Characteriza-tion Plan for NNWSI (Pink Draft)

Reviewer: Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.(L. Lorig and J. Daemen)

Date Approved:

Date Review Completed: 1 October 1986

Significance to NRC Waste Management Program

This document "summarizes available information on geoengineeringproperties which contribute to the demonstration that performanceobjectives and technical criteria will be met. Performance objec-tives of the geologic operations area for the time period throughpermanent closure are described in 10CFR60.111, 60.112, and60.113" (p. 2-1). Whereas this document is labeled "draft", itappears to be very nearly a final version, requiring only typedlabels for a few figures and some typing corrections. It is un-likely that significant changes will occur between this draft andthe final version.

The document often cites information obtained from tests at G-Tunnel or on Grouse Canyon Member tuff as properties "At theSite". In other cases, Grouse Canyon Member tuff properties arelisted as "Other Rocks". There appears to be no rational reasonfor this other than to "fill-the-gaps" in information aboutTopopah Spring Member tuff at Yucca Mountain.

Summary of the Document

The document summarizes available geoengineering data in thefollowing areas.

2.1 Mechanical Properties of Rock Units - Intact Rock

2.2 Mechanical Properties of Rock Units - Discontinui-ties

ITASCA

K>

-2-

2.3 Mechanical Properties of Rock Units - Large-Scale

2.4 Thermal and Thermomechanical Properties - IntactRock

2.5 Thermal and Thermomechanical Properties - Large-Scale

2.6 Existing Stress Regime

2.7 Special Geoengineering Properties

2.8 Excavation Characterization of Rock Mass

The document follows closely the Annotated Outline for Site Char-acterization Plans (Rev. 4), February 15, 1985, prepared by MutualAgreement of Basalt Waste Storage Information Project, Salt Repos-itory Project, and DOE-HQ. Much of the information (with the ex-ception of Sections 2.7-2.8) is available elsewhere (e.g., Binnallet al, 1986). The document relies heavily on information fromtests at G-Tunnel to "fill-the-gaps" in information about geoengi-neering properties at Yucca Mountain.

Review of this document consists, for each section, evaluation ofthe following:

(1) content relative to what is prescribed (required) bythe annotated outline;

(2) new information;

(3) technical content; and

(4) new documents recommended for review.

For Section 2.0, other documents are listed as recommended for re-view. This list is not meant to be exhaustive but, rather, isprovided to indicate that we are not familiar with their content.Time limitations did not allow an opportunity to prepare a similarlist for the remaining sections.

ITASCA

\-J

-3-

Detailed Comments

Section 2.0 Introduction

Content Comparison with Annotated Outline

The content is essentially the same as prescribedby the outline.

New Information

The requirement for mined openings and waste em-placement holes to remain stable for 84 years (p.2-4)-a shorter time period than cited in earlierreferences. The Environmental Assessment lists a92-year period for stability maintenance (p. 5-23).MacDougall (1985, p. 2-8) lists stability for ap-proximately a 100-year period. Johnstone et al(1984, p. 7) assume a 110-year period.

A thermal/mechanical stratigraphy is proposed (pp.2-21/22). It would be worthwhile to compare thisstratigraphy in detail with previously-proposedones.

Technical Comments

Point 6 (p. 2-5) identifies future trade-off stud-ies, including ramp versus shaft access.

The second paragraph on p. 2-7 states that the pre-existing temperature field will be altered by theemplacement of heat-producing waste but does notmention that the temperature field also will be al-tered by ventilation.

The list of parameters in the last paragraph on p.2-7 is incomplete and notably omits thermal conduc-tivity, heat capacity, and density.

some inconsistencies exist between various listingsof boreholes from which core has been tested-e.g.,compare pp. 2-8, 2-16, 2-19, and 2-23.

ITASCA

-4-

A very important observation (p. 2-19) is that manylithophysae are larger than 6 cm and, as recognizedhere, small (e.g., 2.5 cm diameter) core testingcannot conceivably reflect the influence of suchlithophysae on rock properties.

New Documents for Review

Flores, 1986Myers et al, 1986Ortiz et al, in preparation

(Note: Ortiz et al is not included in the list ofreferences at the end of Chapter 2.)

Other Documents for Review

Blacic et al, 1982Guzowski et al, 1983Olsson, 1982Olsson and Jones, 1980Price, 1983Price and Jones, 1982Price and Nimick, 1982Price, Jones and Nimick, 1982Price, Nimick and Zirzow, 1982Price, Spense and Jones, 1984

Data from these reports are discussed in Section2.1.2. (NOTE: ISRM References on p. 2-11 are notincluded in the list of references at the end ofChapter 2.)

Section 2.1 Mechanical Properties of Rock Units - Intact Rock


No geologic borehole logs, geologic cross-sections,or photographs accummulated during preliminary siteexploration are provided as prescribed under Sec-tion 2.1.2 of the outline (p. 16).

ITASCA

-5-

New Information

The dynamic elastic moduli reported on pp. 2-31 and2-33 have not been previously mentioned.

The least squares fit of Young's modulus to func-tional porosity reported on p. 2-33 is similar toprevious correlations but includes more datapoints. It should be noted that the correlationincludes all tuff units (except welded vitric tuff(vitrophyre)-not just the Topopah Spring Member.

Technical Comments

The number of compression tests listed in Table 2-3(p. 2-30) does not appear to add up to the numbercited in the first paragraph of Section 2.1.2.1 (p.2-29)-approximately 280+30.

It is to be noted (last paragraph, p. 2-29) thatall Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio data, aswell as the majority of the compression tests data,have been obtained on saturated samples. (The re-pository will not be in a saturated rock and espe-cially not in the thermally-disturbed zone.)

The authors argue (first paragraph, p. 2-31) thatFig. 2-6 demonstrates linearity up to 95 percent ofthe failure stress. An argument can be made that achange in slope occurs at about 112 MPa- i.e., atabout 74 percent of the failure stress. This pointmight deserve further investigation (i.e., study ofcomplete set of stress-strain curves and of strainrate effects), especially if claims are made any-where (e.g., in analyses) about linear elastic be-havior up to peak strength (see Section 2.9.4,second paragraph).The logic leading to the conclusion that creepdeformations in the matrix of Topopah Spring areunlikely (second paragraph, p. 2-47) is not con-vincing. (This statement does not imply that creepis likely.)

The next-to-last paragraph on p. 2-49 states thatthe statistically-determined relation between uni-axial compressive strength and functional porosityis considered valid for 0 to 350 MPa and 0 to 0.60,

ITASCA

* l b 4 i.

-6-

respectively. The upper range of both parametersseems extremely high and deserves independentchecking of the source material (Price and Bauer,1985).

Section 2.1.1 (Mechanical Properties of OtherTuffs) includes a discussion of tuff from theNevada Test Site. However, a large portion of in-formation in Section 2.1.2 (Mechanical Propertiesof Rocks at the Site, is based on results of test-ing of rocks (Grouse Canyon Member) at G-Tunnel atRainier Mesa, NTS.


Nimick et al, in preparationPrice and Bauer, 1985

Section 2.2 Mechanical Properties of Rock Units - Discontinu-ities


The outline for Section 2.2 (p. 16) prescribes thatthe compressibility of fractures and filling mater-ials and the effect of heating on discontinuitiesbe discussed. These items are not addressed, ex-cept to say that tests are in progress to obtaininformation on the normal stiffness of joints.

New Information

none

Technical Comments

Studies of the time-dependent effects of frictionalbehavior of discontinuities are interesting scien-tifically. It is not at all clear how such infor-mation would be, or should be, incorporated intodesign or performance assessment studies.

The issue of scale effects (Section 2.2.2.5) is ad-dressed in this section. This issue deserves muchdeeper attention. See, for example, Itasca Docu-ment Review 001-02-17 (G-Tunnel Heated Block Test).

ITASCA

1 I * .

-7-

Although statistical analysis of shear tests indi-cates some available cohesion, it is not clear thatany cohesion should be relied on for design or per-formance assessment studies. This comment appliesto Table 2-9 as well.

The last paragraph on p. 2-54 suggests that thereare no ISRM standard procedures for rock jointtesting. However, Brown (1981) lists three ISRMsuggested methods for determining joint shearstrength.


none

Section 2.3 Mechanical Properties of Rock Units - Large-Scale


Discussion in this section includes no site-speci-fic data. Most information results from analysisof the G-Tunnel Block Test at NTS.

Discussions concerning rock mass classificationsystems used to predict properties is contained inSection 2.3.2 rather than in 2.3.3 as prescribed bythe outline.

New Information

none

Technical Comments

Discussion in this section focuses on modulus ofdeformation, which is a compressive loading modu-lus. However, at the very least, it is also neces-sary to describe shear deformational responsethrough Poisson's ratio or otherwise in order todescribe the response of any deformable body.

ITASCA

K>-t

-8-


Nimick, 1985aNimick, 1985b

Note: These documents might not be readilyavailable-but should be, even if not reviewed.

Section 2.4 Thermal and Thermomechanical Properties - IntactRock


The content agrees with the outline.

New Information

The results of matrix conductivities studies ofTopopah Spring Tuff apparently allow estimations ofin-situ conductivity of that tuff for any givenporosity and saturation.

Technical Comments

It deserves noting that thermal expansion is givena very broad definition (p. 2-81, top paragraph),encompassing a variety of volume change effects.It is not clear whether and how all such effectscan be correctly represented by a single parameter.

The possibility of the formulation of micro-cracksduring heating is identified (p. 2-82, last para-graph). The great complexity of thermal effects inzeolitized tuffs is recognized (p. 2-83, top twoparagraphs).

The likely influence of lithophysae on thermal con-ductivity is recognized (p. 2-89, last paragraph)and will be a major concern in extrapolating labor-atory test results to field-scale analysis.

It is to be noted that the nonlithophysal part ofthe Topopah Spring Member has a lithophysae contentthat can range up to 8.5 percent (p. 2-95, lastparagraph).

ITASCA

K'-

-9-


Lappin and Nimick, 1985aLappin and Nimick, 1985bNimick and Lappin, 1985

Section 2.5 Thermal and Thermomechanical Properties - Large-Scale


The content agrees with the ouline.

New Information

The results of small-scale cylindrical heater testsin the Grouse Canyon Member are reported.

Technical Comments

Surprisingly little attention is paid to the possi-ble influence of lithophysae on thermal properties-particularly thermal conductivity. This rendersquestionable the conclusions that little additionalin-situ thermal conductivity testing is required(p. 2-102, second paragraph) or that values of rockmass thermal conductivity are assumed to be thesame as those for intact rock (p. 2-103, top para-graph).


Johnstone et al, 1985

Section 2.6 Existing Stress Regime


The content agrees with the outline.

ITASCA

--

-10-

New Information

This section reports relatively recent results ofhydraulic fracturing stress measurements and numer-ical and analytic analyses in an attempt to explainthe stress measurements.

Technical Comments

Some of the details in the discussion on stressmeasurement methods (pp. 2-104/5) are questionable:

* overcoring results in stress re-lief, not strain relief, and therock within, not around, the over-cored region is stress relieved

* neither technique necessarily re-quires an assumption of isotropy

Section 2.6.2.2 (on finite element calculations)does not provide a clear indication (i.e., numeri-cal evidence) as to whether or not the analysissatisfactorily matches the measurements.

Much of the discussion in this section is relatedto the gravity-induced component of in-situ stress.The estimate of the average principal verticalstresses of 7.0 MPa agrees with this assumption.However, no justification is given for the 4-10 Parange reported on Table 2-15.


Bauer et al, 1985Stock et al, 1985Swolfs and Savage, 1985

Section 2.7 Special Geoengineering Properties


The outline provides for a wide range of possibletopics under this heading. The document discussesthe following.

ITASCA

*-11-

Section 2.7.1 Near-Field Rock Mass Decrepitation

Section 2.7.2 Thermally-Induced Water Migration

Section 2.7.3 Geoengineering Properties of SurfaceMaterials

New Information

Virtually all of the information contained in thissection is new.

Technical Comments

Bounding calculations concerning fluid-inducedfracturing resulting from temperature increases (p.2-115) are not referenced.

The attention given to thermally-induced water mi-gration appears reasonable, but technical aspectsshould be checked by those more familiar with thephenomena.


Bauer and Schwartz, 1985Neal, 1985Pruess et al, 1985

Section 2.8 Excavation Characteristics of the Rock Mass


The section describing excavation characteristicsof similar rocks does not address excavation withtechniques in similar rocks as prescribed by Sec-tion 2.8.1 of the annotated outline (p. 18).Rather, the document cites the extensive data baseused in rock-mass classification schemes. By thisinference, the document suggests that all rockshave excavation characteristics similar to TopopahSpring tuff. However, the NGI classification

ITASCA

1.

-12-

scheme reports 200 cases-only two in tuff (p. 2-132). It is not clear that the other classifica-tion scheme RSR) contains any tuff sites in itsdata base.

The discussion of changes resulting from excavationis superficial.

New Information

Estimates of groundwater inflow are presented.

Technical Comments

none


none

Section 2.9 Summary


The content is essentially the same as prescribedby the outline.

Section 2.9.2 (Relation to Design) appears superfi-cial. The preliminary priority of informationneeded to complete site characterization is notprovided as specified by Section 2.9.3 of the anno-tated outline (p. 19).

Significant New Information

none

ITASCA

-13-

Technical Comments

On page 2-149, it is stated that as "discussed inSection 2.1.2.3.1.4 of this report, inelasticdeformation of the matrix of the Topopah SpringMember is considered to be unlikely at YuccaMountain." See Technical Comments for Section 2.1.


none

Problems, Limitations and Deficiencies

The nature of summary documents, such as this one, is to reportprimarily average values. In some cases, ranges are provided forsome values (see, for example, Table 2-7). The document would bemore useful if reported values were more consistently treated(e.g., average, one standard deviation, number of tests).

Recommended Action

It appears that NRC should develop a policy(?) as to whether ornot G-Tunnel data should be considered as information concerning(a) "rocks at the site", (b) "other rocks", or (c) "other tuffs"--as used in Section 2.1.1.

It appears that DOE is unclear as to what specific data are re-quired to assess "particular sources of uncertainty in predictingthe performance of the geologic repository", and it is looking fordirection from NRC (p. 2-143). Is this an area in which NRCshould provide specific direction at this time?

The lists of new documents for review is limited to those docu-ments of which were previously not aware. This does not implythat we are completely familiar with the content of the otherdocuments or that they do not deserve review. It is recommendedthat the new references be acquired, provided to Itasca and, pre-ferably, reviewed.

In addition, a list of previous (i.e., "older") documents for re-view should also be prepared. These documents, then, should alsobe acquired, provided to Itasca and, preferably, reviewed.

ITASCA

-14-

References

Binnall, E. P., H. A. Wollenberg, S. M. Benson, L. Tsao, and E. M.Didwall. Critical Parameters for a High-Level Waste RepositoryVolume 2: Tuff. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Draft.February 1986.

Brown, E. T., Ed. Rock Characterization Testing and MonitoringISRM Suggested Methods. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.

Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Itasca Document Review 001-02-17("Final Report: G-Tunnel Heated Block Experiment" by R. M.Zimmerman, R. L. Schuch, D. S. Mason, M. L. Wilson, M. E. Hall, M.P. Board, R. P. Bellman, and M. P. Blanford), July 1986.

Johnstone, J. K., R. R. Peters, and P. F. Gnirk. "Unit Evaluationat Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test Site: Summary Report and Recommen-dation," Sandia National Laboratory SAND83-0372, 1984.

MacDougall, H. R. "Two-Stage Repository Development at YuccaMountain: An Engineering Feasibility Study," Sandia NationalLaboratories, SAND84-1351 (revised), 1985.

U.S. Department of Energy. Environmental Assessment: YuccaMountain Site, Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada.Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management DOE/RW-0073.1986.

ITASCA

I . ~

-15-

Bibliography for Recommended Reviews

Bauer, S. J., and B. M. Schwartz. "Near-Field Thermal Degradationin Topopah Spring Tuff," Memo to J. R. Tillerson, Sandia NationalLaboratories, 1985.

Bauer, S. J., J. Holland, and K. Parrish. "Implications About InSitu Stress at Yucca Mountain," Research and Engineering Applica-tions in Research (Proceedings of the 26th U.S. Symposium on RockMechanics, Rapid City, June 1985), pp. 1113-1120. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1985.

"'-' Blacic, J., J. Carter, P. Halleck, P. Johnson, T. Shankland, R.Andersen, K. Spicochi, and A. Heller. Effects of Long-Term Ex-posure of Tuffs to High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Conditions.Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-9174-PR, 1982.

Flores, R. J. Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations Project- Retrievability: Strategy for Compliance Demonstration. SandiaNational Laboratories SAND84-2242, 1986.

Guzowski, R, V., F. B. Nimick, M. D. Siegel, and N. C. Finley.Repository Site Data Report for Tuff: Yucca Mountain. Nevada.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-2937; Sandia NationalLaboratories SAND82-2105, 1983.

Johnstone et al, 1985.

U, Lappin, A. R., and F. B. Nimick. Bulk and Thermal Properties ofthe Functional Tuffaceous Beds in Holes USW G-1, UE-25a 1, andUSWG-2, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Sandia National LaboratoriesSAND82-1434. 1985a.

Lappin, A. R., and F. B. Nimick. Thermal Properties of the GrouseCanyon Member of the Belted Range Tuff and of Tunnel Bed 5, G-Tunnel, Nevada Test Site. Sandia National Laboratories SAND82-2203, 1985b.

Myers, C. W., et al. Test Plan for Exploratory Shaft at YuccaMountain. U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations OfficeNVO-244 (Rev. 1), 1986.

Neal, J. T. Location Recommendation for Surface Facilities forthe Prospective Yucca Mountain Waste Repository. Sandia NationalLaboratories SAND84-2015. 1985.

Nimick, F. B. "Letter from F. B. Nimick (SNL) to T. E. Blejwas(SNL), October 7, 1985, Regarding Relationship Between Mohr-Coulomb Parameters and Porosity," 1985a.

ITASCA

* v, - . t Ky~ K)

-16-

Nimick, F. B. "Letter from F. B. Nimick (SNL) to R. M. Zimmerman(SNL), December 11, 1985, Regarding Goodman Jack Test Results,"1985b.

Nimick, F. B., and A. R. Lappin. Thermal Conductivity of SilicicTuffs from Yucca Mountain and Ranier Mesa, Nye County, Nevada.Sandia National Laboratories SAND83-1711/1J. 1985.

Nimick et al, in preparation.

Olsson, W. A. Effects of Elevated Temperature and Pore Pressureon the Mechanical Behavior of Bullfrog Tuff. Sandia NationalLaboratories SAND81-1664, 1982.

Olsson, W. A., and A. K. Jones. Rock Mechanics Properties ofVolcanic Tuffs from the Nevada Test Site. Sandia NationalLaboratories SAND80-1453, 1980.

Ortiz et al, in preparation

Price, Ronald H. Analysis of Rock Mechanics Properties of Vol-canic Tuff Units from Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test Site. SAND82-1315. 1983

Price, R. H., and A. K. Jones. Uniaxial and Triaxial CompressionTest Series on Calico Hills Tuff. Sandia National LaboratoriesSAND82-1314, 1982.

Price, R. H., and K. G. Nimick. Uniaxial Compression Test Serieson Tram Tuff. Sandia National Laboratories SAND82-1055, 1982.

Price, R. H., A. K. Jones, and K. G. Nimick. Uniaxial CompressionTest Series on Bullfrog Tuff. Sandia National LaboratoriesSAND82-0481, 1982.

Price, R. H., K. G. Nimick, and J. A. Zirzow. Uniaxial and Tri-axial Compression Test Series on TopoPah Spring Tuff. SandiaNational Laboratories SAND82-1723, 1982.

Price, Spense and Jones, 1984

Pruess, K., Y. W. Tsang, and J.S.Y. Wang. "Modeling of StronglyHeat-Driven Flow in Partially Saturated Fractured Porous Media,"Proceedings of the 17th Int. Congress, Int. Assoc. Hydrogeologists(Tucson, 1985). In press.

ITASCA

i ^- f '<v#'

-17-

Stock, J. M., J. H. Healy, S. H. Hickman, and M. D. Zoback. "Hy-draulic Fracturing Stress Measurements at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,and Relationship to the Regional Stress Field," J. GeophysicalRes., 90(B1O), 8691-8706 (1985).

Swolfs, H. S., and W. Z. Savage. "Topography, Stresses, and Sta-bility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada," Research and Engineering Appli-cations in Research (Proceedings of the 26th U.S. Symposium onRock Mechanics. Rapid City, June 1985), pp. 1121-1129. Rotterdam:A. A. Balkema, 1985. 1985

ITASCA

WM DOCKET CNTRol CENTER0 WfrxITASCA · 2012. 11. 18. · are no ISRM standard procedures for rock...

Documents

Transcript of WM DOCKET CNTRol CENTER0 WfrxITASCA · 2012. 11. 18. · are no ISRM standard procedures for rock...