Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-r7bls Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-19T18:50:47.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Geohydrology Surrounding a Potential High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in the Paradox Basin, Utah

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Albin Brandstetter
Affiliation:
Battelle Project Management Division, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201
Levy Kroitoru
Affiliation:
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
Robert W. Andrews
Affiliation:
INTERA Environmental Consultants, Inc., 11999 Katy Freeway, Houston, TX 77079
John W. Thackston
Affiliation:
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 100 Pringle Avenue, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
Get access

Abstract

The Gibson Dome area in the Paradox Basin in southeastern Utah (Figure 1) has been identified as a potential location for a high-level nuclear waste repository on the basis of an adequate thickness of bedded salt formations at desirable depths, suitable topography for surface facilities, few known archaeological sites, less resource potential than otherwise similar areas, and long-term geologic and tectonic stability [1]. The area appears also suitable from a geohydrologic viewpoint, on the basis of data collected and analyses performed to date. The regional geohydrologi information was obtained from three deep boreholes drilled as part of the Department of Energy's exploration program and from other existing sources. The upper, near-surface, geologic formations include both regionally continuous water-bearing formations and locally perched ground waters that discharge into nearby surface streams and into the Colorado River. These are underlain by the Paradox formation, which consists of a series of essentially impermeable salt layers and of nonsalt interbeds with negligible ground water. Below the Paradox salts, the formations of interest with respect to repository safety include regionally continuous water-bearing formations, with the Leadville limestone being the principal water-transmitting unit. Flows in all water-bearing formations are essentially horizontal. If a vertical connection were established through a potential repository, hydraulic gradients indicate that the flow would first be downward from the upper to the lower formations and then laterally, principally in the Leadville formation. Surface discharge of Leadville formation ground water from the Gibson Dome area has not been detected. There are some indications that minor leakage could occur into the Colorado River as close as Cataract Canyon, about 20 to 25 km (10 to 15 miles) from a potential repository location in Davis Canyon, or into the Colorado River in Marble Canyon (Arizona), about 240 km (150 miles) to the southwest. The computed ground-water flow time in the Leadville formation from below Davis Canyon is about 90,000 years for the first 10 km (6 miles) and about 200,000 years to below Cataract Canyon. The ground-water flow time is estimated to exceed 500,000 years to Marble Canyon. Groundwater flow from a repository to these locations is unlikely, however, since water would first have to penetrate the essentially impermeable salt layers before it would reach the Leadville formation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1 Bechtel Group and Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Paradox Areav Characterization Summary and Location Recommendation Report, ONWI-291 (1982).Google Scholar
2 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Geological Characterization Report for the Paradox Basin Study Region, Utah Study Areas, ONWI-290 (1982).Google Scholar
3 McCleary, J., Rogers, T. and Ely, R., Stratigraphy, Structure, and Lithofacies Relationships of Devonian through Permian Sedimentary Rocks of the Paradox Basin and Adjacent Areas in Southeastern Utah, ONWI-485 (1983).Google Scholar
4 Thackston, J. W., Preslo, L. M., Hoexter, D. F., and Donnelly, N., Results of Hydraulic Tests at Gibson Dome No. 1, Elk Ridge No. 1, and Kubat Boreholes, E. J., ONWI-491 (1983).Google Scholar
5 Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Overview of the Regional Geology of the Paradox Basin Region, ONWI-92 (1983).Google Scholar
6 Nelson, R. A., Kocherhaus, J. A., and Schnapp, M.R., In Situ and Laboratory Geotechnical Results from Borehole GD-1 in Southeast Utah, ONWI-400 (1982).Google Scholar
7 Lorenz, J., Haas, J. L. Jr., Clynne, M. A., Potter, R. W., II, and Schafer, G. M., “Geology, Mineralogy, and Some Geophysical and Geochemical Properties of Salt Deposits”, in Physical Properties Data of Rock Salt, Geventman, L.H., ed., National Bureau of Standards Monograph 167, pp. 343 (1981).Google Scholar
8 INTERA Environmental Consultants, SWENT: A Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Code for the Simulation of Fluid, Energy, Solute, and Radionuclide Transport, ONWI-457 (1983).Google Scholar
9 INTERA Environmental Consultants, First Status Report on Regional Ground-Water Flow Modeling for the Paradox Basin, Utah, ONWI-503 (1984).Google Scholar
10 Sykes, J. F., Pahwa, S. B., Ward, D. S., and Lantz, R. B., “The Validation of SWENT, a Geosphere Transport Model,” in Proceedings, Vol. 2, 10th IMACS World Congress on System Simulation and Scientific Computation, Montreal, Canada, August 8–13, 1982.Google Scholar
11 Pearson, F. J. Jr., Noronha, C. J., and Andrews, R. W., “Mathematical Modeling of the Distribution of Natural 14C, 234U, and 238U in a Regional Ground-Water System,” Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 291300 (1983).10.1017/S0033822200005609CrossRefGoogle Scholar