Historical Information H.4 Pre-Event Reports Book 1 (Rulison Site)

Page 2

Chemical Analysis of Pre-Shot Rock From the Rulison Experiment.................. HPR 1 Project Rulison: Pre-Shot Predictions of Structural Effects.................................. HPR 2 Radioactivity in the Hydrologic Environment Project Rulison

Page 4

This is an informal report intended primarily for internal or limited external distribution. (The opinions and conclusions stated are those of the author and may or may not be those of the laboratory.) This report is not to be given additional external distribution or cited in external documents without the consent of the author or LLL Technical Information Department. LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORY University of CaHtoma/Livermore. Caliloma CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF PRESHOT ROCK FROM THE RULISON EXPERIMENT

Page 5

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF PRESHOT ROCK FROM THE RULISON EXPERIMENT This report contains chemical assays of preshot rock samples from the Rulison When nuclear explosives are used to stimulate gas production, a complex set of chemical reactions occur in the nuclear chimney formed by the nuclear detonation. These reactions determine the production of carbon dioxide and the distribution of radioactive elements. Because the course of these reactions depends on the chemical composition of the rock, the correct interpretation of the postshot reaction history depends on adequate sampling of the preshot environment. In Gasbuggy, the first nuclear gas stimulation experiment, preshot rock samples were taken from an exploratory hole approximately 188-ft from the emplacement hole. Because it was not known how well these samples represented the actual medium at shot point, postshot data could not be interpreted with great confidence. Rulison core samples, on the other hand, were taken from the actual emplace ment hole and should be reasonably representative of the medium at shot point. Because Rulison is only the second experiment in nuclear gas stimulation, these sam ples provide a unique opportunity to extend our knowledge concerning the chemical reactions associated with this technique. The chemical composition of these samples together with Rulison postshot gas analyses are being used to establish a reaction his tory for Rulison. This reaction history can be used to predict the gas quality and radioactive contamination of future gas stimulation projects. Core samples were taken from the Rulison emplacement hole (R-E), Austral Mud was used as a coolant for drilling. Core Laboratories, Inc., Casper, Wyoming, processed the core and furnished us with samples. Samples numbered 361 and 371 were taken from approximately 4-in. lengths of full diameter (4-3/8-in.) core. Sam ples numbered 56-1 through 56-9 were taken from slabs cut lengthwise down the core as shown in Figs, la-le. Slices approximately 1-in. square were cut from the interior

Page 6

of each core section to minimize contamination from the drilling mud. Each slice was taken from the full length of each core section. The slices were crushed in a chipmunk crusher with alumina jaws. Composite samples were prepared from the crushed rock as shown with the lithologic log in Appendix A. The composite samples were pulver ized in a tungsten carbide mill. The lithological description of the core shown in Appendix A was used as a basis for preparing the composite samples. This lithological description is a copy of the description furnished to us by Core Laboratories. The core sections were also exam ined by Donald O. Emerson, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and his examination concurs with Core Laboratory's description. Estimates from thin sections by Iris Y. Borg shows the sandstone grain size to average about 14 5 and the siltstone grain size to range from 13 to 51 Samples numbered 361 and 371 were analyzed on an as received basis. Their HgO assay includes both free and bound water. Samples numbered 56-1 through 56-19 were dried at 110°C prior to analysis. Their U^O assay includes bound water only. The HgO was evolved from the samples by heating them to 1000°C in a vacuum. The I^O was collected and weighed. The probable accuracy of this method is about ±5% of the HgO content for rocks which do not contain hydrocarbons. However, hydrocarbons in all of these samples could react to bias the HgO assay either high or low. Also, these samples were not properly preserved for U^O assay. Therefore, the results shown in Table 1 probably have no relation to the actual content of the in situ rocks. Results from the assay of C,H, and COg are also given in Table 1. The probable accuracy of the results for C,H, and COg is ±5% of the concentration or better. The values shown for C as CH^ and H as CHx were calculated as follows: The accuracy of the values calculated for C as CHx and H as CHx are limited by the accuracy of the parent analyses. In particular, the value for H in CHx is only qualitative because of the indeterminate errors in the HgO analysis. Results for chemical analyses are given in Table 2. The probable accuracy of these results is ±5% of the concentration or better for concentrations >1%. For concen trations <1%, the probable accuracy of the results is ±10% of the concentrations or Emission spectrographic results are given in Table 3. The probable accuracy of these results is ±50% of the concentration.

Page 7

Fig. la. Rulison core samples taken at depths designated. (See Appendix A for pie numbers at designated depths.)

Page 8

Fig. lb. Rulison core samples taken at depths designated. (See Appendix A for sam ple numbers at designated depths.)

Page 9

Fig. 1c. Rulison core samples taken at depths designated. (See Appendix A for sam ple numbers at designated depths.)

Page 10

Fig. Id. Rulison core samples taken at depths designated. (See Appendix A for sam ple numbers at designated depths.)

Page 12

All results are wt% CO2 from carbonates only. bThese two samples were analyzed as received. Their water assay includes both free and bound water. Samples numbered 56-1 through 56-19 were dried at 110°C before analysis. Their water assay includes bound water only. Samples for the mercury assay consisted of small chunks taken from the center of core slabs. Each core slab sampled contained 3-4 cubic inches of rock. Results are given in Table 4. The results given for the individual determinations show the heterogeniety of the mercury content of the rock. These results indicate that the mercury content of the cores varies by a factor of 14 in the depth interval from 8404.5 to 8452-ft. Replicate determinations are given for three core slabs (8404.5-ft, 8443-ft, and 8451-52-ft) to indicate the heterogeniety within each slab. The largest variation is a factor of 6 in the concentration found on the three samples from the 8404.5-ft slab. The probable accuracy of the analytical procedure is ±20% of the concentration or better for concentrations of mercury in the range covered by these samples.

Page 13

Table 2. Chemical analysis. Elemental analyses for samples numbered 361 and 371 were originally reported in a memorandum dated December 10, 1969. At that time, these samples were taken to represent a "typicalM shale (316) and a "typical" sandstone (317) from Rulison. A comparison of the C02 assay for these two samples with the C02 assay for samples 56-1 through 56-19 indicates the errors inherent in attempts to characterize rock formations with too few samples. Based on the C02 assay for samples 361 and 371, and the lithological log which shows approximately 25% shale and 75% sandstone in the interval from 8400-ft to 8462-ft, the average amount of C02 present in the carbonates is 3.54 wt%. The aver age C02 present as carbonate in this same interval as calculated from the assay for samples 56-1 through 56-19 is 5.29 wt%.

Page 14

Table 3. Spectrographic analysis. Robert W. Taylor, Donold O. Emerson, and Robert LaPoint prepared the com posite samples. Robert Lim, Lewis Gregory, Miles Waggoner, and William Sunderland did chemical analyses. William Morris and Edgar Pack did the spectrographic

Page 16

Lithological Log of Corea County Garfield State Colorado Elevation_______________________________ Remarks Field Lithology Log of Emplacement Hole, Cores *1, 42, #3________________ recvrd. Lithological description 56-1 1 8400 06.5 6.5 Ss, gray, fine to med. grain, calcareous, sorting, well cemented. 56-2 1 8406.5 07 0.5 Ss, as above, with gray to black silty carbonaceous shale laminae. 56-3 1 8407 10 3 Ss, gray, very fine grain, calcareous, silty, black carbonaceous shale lami nae, well cemented. 56-4 1 8410 11 1 Siltstone, gray, with gray to black carbo 56-5 1 8411 13 2 Ss, gray, very fine-fine grain, calcare ous, black carbonaceous shale laminae, 56-6 1 8413 15.5 2.5 Ss, gray, very fine grain, silty, very shaly, vertical fractures. 56-7 1 8415.5 18 2.5 Siltstone and shale, gray, sandy 56-8 1 8418 19.5 1.5 Siltstone and shale, gray, sandy with black carbonaceous shale and thin coal 1 8419.5 20.5 1 Ss, gray very fine grain, silty well ( 2 8420.5 21 0.5 Sh, gray, silty, well indurated. 2 8421 22 1 Sh, as above, with stringers of black 1 2 8422 22.5 0.5 Ss, gray, very fine grain, calcareous, 56-11 2 8422.5 25.5 3 Sh, black, carbonaceous, well indurated, with coal stringer at 8425.5. r 2 8425.5 28 2.5 Sh, gray to black carbonaceous, well 56-12 { 2 84 28 29 1 Ss, gray, very fine grain, silty, calcare ous, well cemented, vertical fracture. L 2 8429 30 1 Ss, as above, becoming very calcareous,

Page 17

recvrd. Lithological description 2 8430 32 2 Sh, gray to black, carbonaceous, well indurated, coal stringer at 8430.5. fine grain, slightly calcareous, well cemented; Sh, gray to black, silty carbonaceous, vertical and diagonal 2 8435,5 37 1.5 Sh, gray to black, carbonaceous, silty, 56-14 2 8437 38.5 1.5 Ss and Sh interbedded, as interval 84322 8438.5 39.5 1 Ss, gray, very fine grain, slightly cal careous, well cemented, vertical 2 8439.5 42 2.5 Sh, gray to black, carbonaceous, silty, sandy in 1/2 ft, well indurated, verti cal and diagonal fracture. 56-15 3 8442 43 i Sh, gray to black, carbonaceous, well indurated, vertical fracture. 3 8443 44.5 1.5 Sh, gray to black, carbonaceous, well 3 8444.5 45 0.5 Ss, gray, very fine grain, silty, carbo naceous, well cemented. 3 8445 46 1 Ss, gray, very fine grain, silty, shady, well cemented, diagonal fracture. 3 8446 47 1 Sh, gray, very silty, well indurated, 3 8447 48.5 1.5 Siltstone, gray, shaly, well indurated, 3 8448.5 49.5 1 Ss, gray, very fine grain, silty shaly, well cemented grading to siltstone. 3 8449.5 51 1.5 Sh, gray to black, silty, carbonaceous, 56-18 3 8451 52 1 Siltstone, gray, shaly, carbonaceous. 3 8452 53 1 Ss, gray, very fine grain, silty, well 3 84 53 54.5 1.5 Siltstone, gray, shaly, fossiliferous. 56-19 3 8454.5 62 7.5 Shale, gray to black, silty, carbonaceous aFrom data furnished by Core Laboratories, Inc.

Page 18

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico CER Geonuclear Corporation Las Vegas, Nevada Core Laboratories, Inc. Austral Oil Company, Inc. Applied Nuclear Company La Jolla, California Nevada Operations Office Las Vegas, Nevada El Paso Natural Gas Co. El Paso, Texas Division of Peaceful Nuclear Division of Technical Information Extension, Oak Ridge •Thu report was prepared as an account ot work ipomorvd by the United Slate* Government Neither the Untied States nor the United States Atomic Energy CommiMton. nor any of their employee*, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or these any legal liability or responuhdity for the accuracy, completeness or useful nets of any information, apparal in. product or proevs* doclo*cd. or represents that its use would not infringe pnrately-

Page 20

of Structural Effects John A. Blume & Associates San Francisco, California Prepared under Contract AT(26-l)-99 for the Nevada Operations Office, USAEC

Page 21

PROJECT RULISON: PRE-SHOT PREDICTIONS OF STRUCTURAL EFFECTS STRUCTURAL HAZARD EVALUATION ........................................................... 3 EARTH STRUCTURAL HAZARDS ............................................................................................. 11 HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE AND WATER SUPPLY HAZARDS .............................................. 17 SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND EVACUATIONRECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 22 DAMAGE COST PREDICTIONS ............................................................................................. 24 MAP (in pocket Inside back cover) Jill 1. ILIME I ismims RESfllCI DillSIll

Page 22

This report includes results of pre-RULISON structural response investigations and a preliminary evaluation of hazards associated with ground motion effects on buildings, reservoirs, and earth structures. Total damage repair costs from an engineering judg ment prediction are provided. Spectral Matrix Method calcula tions are now in progress. Also included are general safety A summary of predictions follows: Damaging motions are probable in the region inside 25 kilometers. Structural hazards exist in Grand Valley, at the Anvil Points Research Station, and at various small ranches out to a distance of 14 kilometers from Ground Zero (GZ). The area is much more densely populated than would appear from initial project informa Earth Structure Hazards Rockfall and hazards to slope stability create major problems. Structures, highways, railroads and water courses may suffer extensive damage as a consequence. Snow slides may also be a problem if deep wet snow cover still persists at shot time. Reservoirs and Water Supplies The Harvey Gap dam above Silt presents a serious hazard because of its age and general disrepair. The reservoir is nearly full and will be spilling soon after thaws begin. The spillway over the dam crest and the outlet works are in extremely poor condi

Page 23

Local residents are very much concerned about any possible dam age to local water supplies which are vital to the habitability and livelihood of those areas. Damage Cost Prediction A preliminary engineering judgment estimate of damage costs, based on current Environmental Research Corporation response spectra predictions totals about $130,000. Results from the Spectral Matrix Method prediction are being calculated. Safety Precautions and Evacuation Recommendations Area evacuation is recommended for the region out to 8 kilo meters from Ground Zero and for Grand Valley. Temporary evacua tion of the Anvil Points Research Station, the Union Carbide plant east of Rifle, at small ranches out to a distance of 14 kilometers from GZ, and selected structures in Rifle and Collbran is recommended. Evacuation of the TOSCO facility is also recom mended because of rock fall hazard. Particular concern has been expressed for the deteriorated Harvey Gap Dam and unless further study discloses otherwise, recommendations for downstream evacu ation may be necessary, including the town of Silt. Some sections of major roads and highways, and some creek valleys are suggested for closure, as detailed in the following text. It is further suggested for consideration that the rock fall and land slide hazard could be reduced by rescheduling the event for mid summer, because of the increased stability of slopes during the dry early summer months.

Page 24

This report presents a preliminary evaluation of structural re sponse hazards and earth structure hazards associated with the RULISON event presently scheduled for late May 1969* The evalu ation is based on field and office studies, in progress since late January of this year. The report contains damage predictions and safety recommendations, based on current Environmental Research Corporation predictions of peak ground motion and response spectra An engineering judgment estimate of damage costs totals $129,300 based on the spectra referred to above. Serious damage is predicted inside 8 kilometers of Ground Zero (GZ) and evacuation for the duration of the shot period in these areas is recommended. Temporary evacuation is recommended for Grand Valley, small ranches out to 14 km, the Anvil Points Research Facility, the TOSCO facility, the Union Carbide plant east of Rifle, and for …