Open-File Report 189
Report to the
Waste Consultation Committee
of the
Mexico State Legislature
Radioactive
New
on
SITE IDENTIFICATION FOR
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
IN NEW MEXICO
bY
John W. Hawley, Senior
New Mexico Bureau of
New Mexico Institute
Socorro,
Environmental Geologist
Mines and Mineral Resources,
of Mining and Technology
New Mexico
February 18, 1983
SUMMARY
In accordancewith provisions of the "Site Identification
Act", HENRCS/House Bill 397 (1981), five possible sites for a
low-level radioactive waste disposal facility have been
identified in New Mexico. National, regional and state criteria
for site selection are
shown in Tables 1 and 2. Site locations
1. Major terrain and hydrogeologic features
are shown on Figure
at each site are
shown in figures 2 to 8;.and site descriptions
are given in tables to
3 6. Please note that this is
an
identification of possible sites based 1)onreview of published
and unpublished informationon hydrology, geology, and soils; and
2 ) brief visits to areas with site potential. Onsite
characterization work, and evaluation
of socioeconomic and legal
factors have not been done. This is a state-of-the-art effort
that needs input and constructive 'criticism from public as well
as professional sectors of society.
1
INTRODUCTION
This is a report to the Radioactive Waste Consultation
to site
Committee of theNew Mexico State Legislature relating
identification for disposal of low-level radioactive wastes as
required by the "Site Identification Act", HENRCS/House Bill 397
(1981). According to Section 3: "The purpose of the Site
to permit New Mexico opportunity to avail
Identification Act is
itself of the lead time before 1984-1989 when the present out-ofstate disposal facilities will be closed to the disposal
of New
for selection
Mexico's low-level waste by establishing criteria
of a disposal facility and by requiring the study and
identification of atleast three possible regional sites
for
disposal facilities in this state." According to Section 5 of
the Act the New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and Mineral Resources, in
consultation with the Environmental Improvement Division and the
Environmental Improvement Board, shall:
A.
study low-level waste disposal requirements
of this
state and shall report its findings to the committee:
B.
investigate all geographical areas in this state
determined to be feasible sites
for a disposal facility
for low-level waste generated in this state, and after
such investigation and analysis of the results, identify
at least three possible sites for
a disposal facility
for in the Site
compatible with the criteria provided
Identification Act: and
C.
report its findings and identified sitesto the
committee andto the first session of the thirty-sixth
legislature.
Preliminary reports were made
to the Radioactive Waste
Consultation Committeeon July 31 and December 2, 1981.
The July (1981) report contained
a tabulation of low-level
radioactive waste shipments by New Mexico licensees in 1978, 1979,
of the
1980 prepared by the Radiation Protection Bureau
Environmental Improvement Division. This tabulation (as of April
1, 1981) provided basic documentation
on the waste disposal
requirements of the state as requested in Section
5, Item A.
Additional documentation on waste shipments in 1981 and 1982 is
given in an appendix to this report.
The July (1981) report also established provisional criteria
for selectionof possible sites fora disposal facility in
accordance with Section 3 and Section 5-Item
B of the Act. General
guidance for site selection aatnational level is provided by
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1981) "Licensing Requirements
for Land Disposalof Radioactive Waste" 10 CFR Part 61, Sections
61.40-44 and 61.50 (Federal Register 46FR38081); and basic
criteria for site selection in New Mexico are in accordance with
of 10 CFR 61:
the performance objectives
2
"Protection of the public health and safety
over the
long term is most important and long-term performance
of the land disposal facility after [disposal] operations
cease should be given greater emphasis than short-term
considerations and conveniences..."
"Assuring safety over the long term involves three
considerations: (1) protection of individuals from
inadvertent intrusion into the site and coming in
contact with the waste at some point in the future;
(2) protection of the general public from potential
releases to the environment: and ( 3 ) stability of
the disposed waste and the to
site
eliminate the need
for ongoing maintenance of the site following closure."
Disposal site "requirements are intended to eliminate,
to the extent practicable, those areas with certain
characteristics that are
known to lead to or have high
potential to lead to problems over the long term
(e.g.,
flooding or rapid erosion of the site)".
The 10 CFR 61 site suitability criteria are listed in table
la. Performance objectives, assumptions about waste management
systems, and more specific siting criteria are outlined in table
lb. This information, which applies particularly well to arid
lands of the southwest, is taken from
a recent recommendation by
staff members of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
(Falconer, Hull, and Mizell, 1982).
Criteria used for site selection in New Mexico are listed in
table 2. These criteria follow 10 CFR 61 guidelines (table la)
and the recommendations of Falconer and others (table
lb). They
are designedto be compatible with environmental conditions in
New Mexico, particularly those relating to geology, hydrology,
and geomorphic processes. With minor modification, the criteria
listed in table2 follow the guidelines proposed by Longmire,
Gallaher, and Hawley (1981) for landfill disposal of
(nonradioactive) hazardous wastes. While wastes such as toxic
organic chemicals and metals cannot be placed at
same
the
disposal site as low-level wastes (and a
pose
much more serious
to use similar
environmental threat), it seems reasonable
criteria for site selection. The guidelines proposed by Longmire
and others (1981) and the criteria listed in table
2 are
relatively restrictivewhen compared with those developed
for use
1982, V. 2; and Yalcintas,
in other regions of the country (Post,
1982, v. 2 ) . Strict adherence to these criteria should ensure
that low-level waste repositories will be placed at 5 least
miles
from even small centers of population or farming, mining, and
industrial activity.
The site selection process as applied in New Mexico attempts
to locate those areas of the state where natural conditions
(e.g.
climate, landforms, geology, and subsurface hydrology) provide
containment.
multiple barriersthat assure long-term waste
There should be no
degradation of land, water, and air quality in
opportunities for
surrounding areasfor thousands of years; and
3
human intrusion for resource development (e.g. soil, water,
mineral, energy) should be minimal.
Shallow burial
of solid waste in secure
a
landfill is the
basic disposal strategy envisioned in this study. Sucha
landfill operation wouldbe located i n theupperpart of a
very
thick zone of essentially-unsaturated earth material (vadose
zone). Subsurface water-flow paths should be very long in both
horizontal and vertical directions. Siting criteria require that
the unsaturated zone contain
a large percentage of fine-grained
materials, such as clay or shale, which would physically and
chemically retain waste components. Interbedded layersof clean
to capillarysand or gravel, which provide effective barriers
water movement, should also be present in the unsaturated zone
(Winograd, 1974,1981).
IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE DISPOSAL SITES
The December (1981) report to the Committee illustrated the
results of a preliminary screening process which eliminated large
areas of the state that clearly
did not meet combined geologic
and hydrologic siting criteria. A generalized map in the report
showed remaining areas that appeared
to meet general siting
criteria and merited further consideration as possible disposal
sites.
Final selectionof possible siteswas made in 1982 after
study of the relatively small geographical areas that appear
to
meet basic siting criteria. All areasof the state were
evaluated except for Indian lands, Federally protected areas
(table lb, item12), and most lands administered by the
Departments of Energy and Defense. Several areasshown in the
December (1981) report were eliminated and one area was added.
Location of the sites isshown onfigures 1 to 6 and table 3.
The sites are numbered according to their increasing distance
from Albuquerque. The order does not reflecta ranking of sites.
New Mexico already has a low-level waste site at Los Alamos
(LASL-figure 1) where research has been done during the 4past
decades on site performance (Balo and others,
1982). A second
area of interest noted on figure 1 is the Colfax locality where a
large bodyof hydrogeologic information has been collected that
is pertinent to disposal facilities in shale (Herkenhoff and
Associates, Summers and Associates, 1977).
The site selection process involved
1) review of published
and unpublished informationon geology, hydrology, and soils and
2) brief visits to areas with site potential. It should be
emphasized that no onsite characterization work has been done.
Funding andtime limitations precluded detailed geologic and
hydrologic study of specific localities. The selection of
possible sites definitely reflects the professional experience
and opinionof the principal investigator,
who has been making
local and statewide investigations of geology-soil relationships
for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and the Bureau
of Mines
and Mineral Resources since1962. Other areas that meet siting
criteria probably exist in the state; but the basic geologic and
4
hydrologic data needed for site identification are not available.
The possible sites listed in this report definitely contain areas
that will ultimately prove
to be unsuitedfor any type of waste
disposal. However, the sitesshown on figure 1 also include many
of the best locations in New Mexico for the secure-landfill type
of disposal operation. These areas also deserve consideration
as
places for processing and temporary storage
of other typesof
hazardous wastes. They definitely deserve immediate professional
and public scrutiny (table lb, items8-12).
A very large amount
of background informationhas been
collected and evaluated during this study. Items pertinent to
the six areas discussed are outlined in Tables
3 to 6. Detailed
location data, and important institutional and cultural features
of general areas that include sites are covered in Table
3.
This
of published informationon
table also lists major sources
individual site areas. Table 4 deals with the physiographic
setting of each possible site (e.g. climate, landforms, drainage
network, and soils). Structural geologic setting, geologic
hazards, and major energy and mineral resources are covered in
Table 5; and Table6 is an outline of the major hydrogeologic
factors considered.
The tabular format provides a matrix for making relatively
unbiased site comparisons. Type and fact9al quality of data in
the tables 3-6 obviously varies greatly. Many items will be
easily understood by nonspecialists in the earth sciences
(e.g.
distances to rivers, towns, irrigated farm land, and
climatological data). Other items are expressed in obscure
jargon that will have special significance
to a very limited
technical audience. The material presented in tables3-6
(factual and speculative) clearly indicates the major areas where
there will be conflicts between the public need for secure wastedisposal sites for low-level and other hazardous wastes, and other
willnotbe
types of landuse. M a n y o f t h e legitimate conflicts
easily resolved (e.g. urban expansion or energy resource
development versus siting activities), but at least these
potential areasof conflict are now documented and such problem
areas canbe addressed in future studies.
In the following discussion of very diverse individual sites
there are several
common themes: No single site meets all siting
criteria (Table 2). However, each area listed has certain
environmental characteristics that essentially mandate its
consideration as a viable site candidate. In New Mexico (as in
any arid region) hydrology and geology powerful
are
socioeconomic, cultural, political forces. Historically there
or
has been no intensive land use without a water-,,mineralsoil-resource base. Water availability obviously is the key
factor. A valid question remains:Is the worst place for
economic survival in this region the best place
for low-level (or
any typeof toxic) waste disposal?
5
"_
Area 1
-- Llano
de Albuquerque (figs. 2, 8a)
"
I
to the summit plain of the
Llano de Albuquerque refers
extensive tableland (or mesa) locatedbetween the valleys of the
on the west
Rio Grande and Rio Puerco. The tableland is bounded
and east by steep valley-side slopes, respectively, designated
Ceja del Rio Puerco and Cejita Blanca (Bryan and McCann, 1937,
1938; Lambert, 1968). The Llano de Albuquerque
is a remnant of a
once-more-extensive surfaceof basin fill deposited mainly by
streams ancestralto the Rio Grande-Puerco drainage system.
During the past half million years the present river and arroyo
system has cut deep valleys below the Llano surface. The early
constructional phase lasted
for millions of years and resulted in
deposition of thousands of feet of fill in a deep structural
1977). Much
basin of the Rio Grande rift (Hawley, 1978; Kelley,
of this basin fill, designated the Santa
Fe Formation (or Group)
is saturated with fresh water and forms a major aquifer.
The northern part of the Llano de Albuquerque and flanking
of the
river valleys areshown in figure 2; and a cross section
area is included as figure 8a. The deeply-incised Rio Grande
valley and serves as a giant drainage channel, has provided a
base-level -for the water saturated basin-fill deposits in
adjacent mesa areas. Water table depths exceed500 ft over most
of the Llano surface(fig. 2) and probably exceed1000 ft in a
few areas (Bjorklund and Maxwell, 1961). Recent research on
hydrology of desert basins (Winograd, 1974, 1981)indicates that
500 to 1,000 ft of unsaturated sand, gravel, silt and clay
(vadose zone) would an
be extremely effective barrier
to waste
migration. Moreover, studies of soils and dated volcanic units
of the Llano area indicate summit
the
plain has not been subject
to significant erosion or deposition for the past
500,000 years
(Hawley and others,1976: Machette, 1978). There
also appears to
for development of geothermal energy in
be only limited potential
the area (Jiracek and others,1982).
The major negative aspects of a possible disposal site on
to the major
the Llanode Albuquerque include 1) proximity
regional urban center, 2)
an extensive but deep aquifer
zone to
the east of the site, 3and
) the clear evidence of local seismic
and volcanic activity during the past 200,000 years (Bachman and
a disposal site could
Mehnert, 1978: Machette, 1978, 1982).If
be engineered to withstand seismic shocks,
then Site1 should be
considered as a viable candidatefor low-level waste disposal.
Note that volcanic eruptions
on the Llano de Albuquerque area are
a constructional process that probably will not adversely effect
long-term site performance.
6
"_Site 2 - Prieta
(Figs. 3,8b)
"
with the Albuquerque
The area of site 2 contrasts markedly
intermontane basin (site1). Sandstones and marine shales
(Mancos Shale)of Cretaceous age underlie an extensive erosional
surface cut by the Rio Puerco andRio
theSalado (a tributary to
Jemez River).
The eastern and southern part of this valley
system also occupies a structurally downdropped zone adjacent
to
the Nacimiento Mountains and the Rio Grande rift (Baltz, 1967,
1978; Slack and Campbell, 1976;
Woodward and Martinez, 1974).
The area is flankedon the southwest by basalt-flow-capped Mesa
Prieta; and to the northwest, there are scattered volcanic necks,
such as Cabezon Peak(Ti, fig. 8b), which are erosion remnants
of
early eruptic centers of basaltic rocks.
of Site 2 is a plugged,
Adjacent to the southwest corner
700-ft test hole (15N.2W.3) that did not yield any water
for
aquifer tests by theU.S. Geolgoical Survey and Bureau
of Land
Management. Examination of well cuttings from this test boring
(on file at the State Bureauof Mines and Mineral Resources)
is
clayey to silty
shows that the penetrated section mostly
shale. The area north of the well site is underlain by very
thick depositsof the Mancos Shale, with very
few lenticular beds
of sandstone (Molenaar, 1974). The Mancos contains abundant
or montmorillonites)
magnesilm-rich clay minerals (smectities
with expansive or swelling (bentonitic) properties and high ionic
adsorptive capacity. Geochemically the Mancos Shale is
an ideal
host media for toxic-chemical as well as low-level radioactive
wastes (Longmire and others,
1981). As documented by studiesof
test hole 15N.2W.3, the Mancos is a very impermeable unit in the
immediate site area.
The northern part of the site (dashed outline on fig.
3 ) is
only tentatively being considered because
of its proximityto the
of the upper Rio Puerco (here
an
more deeply entrenched valley
intermittent to ephemeral stream). However, (geomorphically) it
is the most stable part of the area because of its positionnear
the crestof the broad divide between the Puerco-Salado (Jemez)
stream systems. Also, known faults are located only in the
southern part of general areashown on fig. 2 (fig. 8b, Slack and
Campbell, 1976). Well-developed soilson thePuerco-Salado
divide indicate presence offewa areas where the surface has
been relatively stable with
no significant erosion for 1'0,000 to
100,000 years.
There aretwo major drawbacksto repository sitingin the
Mesa Prieta-Cabezon area. First, exposed shaly rocks are very
susceptible to erosion (Table 4-part2); and second, the area
west of the Nacimiento structural uplift includes a general belt
of relatively high seismicity (Sanford and others,
1981).
7
Site
"-
3
-
Huerfano (figs. 4, 8c)
"
TheHuerfanositeintheSanJuanBasinsouthofBloomfield
(SW of Farmington) represents a combination
of a number of
features found at sites 1 and
2.
As in the case
of the Llano de
Albuquerque the major landform is a tableland (mesa)
summit
situated hundredsof feet above adjacent valleys
of the San Juan
River system. Moreover, the site is underlain by thick shalesof
continental origin, with many similarities
to the Mancos Shale.
These ancient floodplain,
swamp, and lake depositsof Paleocene
age are designated the Nacimiento Formation. This unit locally
contains lenticular sandstone beds that form discontinuous
aquifer zones (Brimhall, 1972). Most water wells drilled in the
Nacimiento havevery low yields (Stone and others, 1983)t hand
e,
unit is generally not considered
to be an aquifer. Furthermore,
of Site 3, waterbecause of the upland topographic setting
saturated conditions only sporadically exist and the water table
is at least 300 ft below the surface
(fig. 8c).
The main aquifer in this part of the San Juan
Basin is the
Ojo Alamo Sandstone. This ancient river (fluvial) deposit forms a
confined water-bearing unit that locally qualifies as a major
aquifer (>lo0 gpm sustained yield freshwater).
of
The
approximate piezomentric surface representing the artesian
pressurehead inthe09
Alamoaquiferis
showninprofile
on
figure 9c and is about500 ft below the sitesurface. Flow in
both the unconfined (Nacimiento) and confined aquifer
systems is
northward toward the San Juan River.
an
While the mesasummit north of Huerfano Peak is basically
erosion surface, it is capped
with ancient alluvial deposits and
soils, at least 100,000 years old, and a veneer
of young
windblown (eolian) deposits (mostly<10,000 yrs in age). The
it has not been
broad tableland summit has low local relief and
of thousands of years.
the siteof significant erosion for tens
No geologically-young faults( < 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 yrs) have been noted in
this local areaof the Colorado Plateau province. The major
problem in site selection is finding a place where a disposal
facility would not conflict
with development of the proven oil
and gas resources of the area (Parker and others;1977). Even
considering this very important factor, the Huerfano site should
be evaluated as a possible area for low-level waste disposal.
8
"_Site 4 - Jornada
(figs.
5,
8d)
and
- Site
Desert 5
(figs.6, 8e)
"
The topographic settingof Sites 4 and 5 in south-central
New Mexico contrasts markedly with the landscape positions
of the
other sites discussed. Both sites are located in very broad
intermontane basins (bolsons) where surface drainagenot
is yet
integrated with the adjacent Rio Grande valley system.
Site 4 in the Jornada del Muerto Basin
is on a broad
piedmont slope constructed by coalescing alluvial offans
streams
to sandy clay
heading in the San Andres Mountains. The gravelly
piedmont alluvium interfingers westward with gypsiferous sand and
clay deposited in ancient river-channels and backswamps. These
features were marginal to a broad fluvial plain constructed
by
the ancestral Rio Grande more than 500,000 years
ago. Deposits
are very similar in age and origin toupper
SantaFe
Groupunits
exposed in river-valley wallsof the Albuquerque basin(fig. Ea).
However, clays are common, and both and
sandclay units have
thick gypsum-impregnated zones (King and others,
1971: Seager and
others, , 1982, 1983).
Recent work by Wilson and others (1981) shows that there is
a n a r e a o f about 25 mi2extentinnortheastern Dofia Ana County
where the water table is at least 500 ft below the surface. This
area is. designated as Site
4 (figs. 5 and 8). Geomorphically it
is still part of the bolson constructional topography
has and
yet
to experience any significant erosion.Windblown sand sheets
derived from the bolson-floor areato the west are also moving
into the area. Sedimentation is not rapid, however: and detailed
soil-geomorphic research by the Soil Conservation Service and the
rjew Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources
shows that only
about 25 ft of sediment have been to
added
piedmont slopes during
the past several hundred thousand years (Gile and others,
1981).
Site 5 ison an ancient bolson floor surface at the southern
end o f e - T u l a r o s a Basin (fig. 6, fig. sa). The surfaceis
from the Hueco Mountains
on
flanked by piedmont slopes extending
the east and the Organ Mountains
on the west. This extensive
was constructed bydistributaries
alluvial and lacustrine plain
in Pliocene to early Pleistocene
of the ancestral Rio Grande
time. The river emptied into ancient lakes of the south-central
New Mexico border region and constructed a huge indelta
the
southern Tularosa Basin and northern Hueco Bolson (Hawley,
1978; Seager, 1981). Deltaic and associated lakebeds.are
primarily clay with some interbedded sand. At the southeast
corner of Site 5, a 940-ft section penetrated by a water test
well is entirely clay and shale (Knowles and Kennedy,1958). No
in
aquifer was encountered in this test well, which finished
limestone at 945ft. Clay and sand depositsin the area are
commonly gypsiferous and watersare saline (fig. 8e).
Young faults in the Site
4 and 5 region are concentrated
on
the western side of the Tularosa structural basin (eastern base
of the San Andres-Organ range--Seager, 1980, 1981). No young
faults (<500,000 yrs) have been mapped
in parts of the Jornada
and Tularosa basins inor adjacent to Sites 4 and 5. Work in
of El Paso
progress in the Texas-New Mexico border area northeast
indicates that the southern part Site
of
5may have significnt
geothermal resources (Henry and Gluck,
1981).
"
9
This study recommends that the lands in Sites 4 a n d 5 which
are administered by the Department
of Defense (White Sands
Missile Range, McGregor-Fort Bliss-Range)
be considered as viable
candidates for possible low-level waste disposal sites. All
of
Site 5 is on DOD land, butit includes right-of-ways for U.S.
Highway 54 and the Southern Pacific Railroad. About half
of Site
4 is on White Sands Missile Range (table
3).
I
Koehler Area--figs. 7, 8f
"
is southwest of
The last area considered in this report
Raton near thetown-siteof Koehler, a former coal-mining center
in the Raton Basin. This area has many
of the same hydrogeologic
conditions present at Site2. Cretaceous marine shale (Pierre
Shale) is the dominant rock unit, and it is about 2000 ft thick
at the Koehler locality. Land surface conditions are generally
4) and seismic risk
more stable than at the Prieta Site (table
appears to be low. A large body of good hydrogeologic
information on the Pierre Shale has already been developed by
Herkenhoff and Associates and
Summers and Associates (1977).
This work was done for Chem-Nuclear, Inc. as part
of siting
activity near Colfax (fig.1) for a proposed low-level disposal
facility. This locality is on the terraced terrainof the
Vermejo river, a perennial stream
12 mi southwestof Koehler:
be
because of present siting criteria,the Colfax area can not
considered as a viable site.
In contrastto the Chem-Nuclear site near Colfax the area
near Koehler is situated at least 5 miles
from floodplains of the
two perennial streams, the Canadian and Vermejo Rivers. The
siting criteria (table
2) also necessitated avoiding irrigated
farmland (and associated canal systems) and ultimately limited
the available area for a possible site
to (2 mi2. The proximity
Fe Trail route
of residences, presenceof the historic Santa
within the area, and its very small
size
indicate that the
Koehler locality is probably not a viable site. However, in
terms of geology, hydrology, and geomorphic and structural
stability, the Koehler area compares quite favorably with the
Prieta site(no. 2).
This case history is a good example
of conflicts arising
from varying interpretations of criteria guidelines (table1 vs
table 2). Many other professionals would probably rate the
Koehler locality as one of the best in the state: it
andis here
recommended that the Raton basin not be completely eliminated
from future siting considerations.
10
CONCLUSION
This reportto the Radioactive Waste Consultation Committee
of the New Mexico State Legislature conforms with provisions
of
the 1981 "Site Identification Act" requiring
1) identification of
at least three possible sites for a disposal facility
for lowlevel waste generated in this state 2)
and
a report on identified
sitestothe
committeeandtothe
firstsessionofthethirtysixth legislature.
for conducting
It is hoped that the methodology developed
this study will be useful
to other professional
workers involved in site selection. This methodology includes
the criteria (table2 ) , matrix format for site description
(tables 3 to 6), and design of hydrogeologic cross sections(fig.
8a-f ) .
As previously stated, this state-of-the-art effort
represents an early phase of the site selection process. The
wide range factural and speculative material presented in the
report should receiveimmediate public and professional scrutiny.
Perfect natural repositoriesfor hazardous materials do not
exist, nor are there perfect engineering
or scientific solutions
to the diversity of disposal problems. However, feedback from
of
all sectors of society should promote the ultimate selection
best possible areasfor processing, storage, and disposal
of
hazardous wastes, both radioactive and nonradioactive.
11
REFERENCES
Anderson, G.W., Hilley, T.E., Martin, P.G., Jr., Neal, C.R., and
Gomez, R.C., 1982, Soil Survey of Colfax County, New Mexico:
U.S. Soil Conservation Service,187 p.
Anderson, J.U., and Maker, J.H., 1974, Suitability of New Mexico
Lands for irrigation: New Mexico State University
Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report 276, p.28
Bachman, G.O., and Mehnert, H.H., 1978, New K-Ar dates and late
Rio
Pliocene to Holocene geomorphic history of the central
Grande region,New Mexico: Geological Societyof America,
Bull., v. 89, no. 2, p. 283-292.
Balo, K.A., Wilson, N.E., and Warren, J.L., 1982, Design and
operation of a low-level solid waste disposal site at Los
Alamos, in Waste Management"82, volume 2--Low Level Waste,
R.G. PostTed.: Proceedings of Symposium on Waste Management
of Regents, p. 297-309.
at Tucson, Arizona, Arizona Board
of Raton Basin and
Baltz, E.H, 1965, Stratigraphy and History
notes on San Luis Basin, Colorado-New Mexico: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bull., v. 49, p.
2041-2075.
, 1967, Stratigraphy and Regional Tectonic Implications
of
Part of Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks, east central
San Juan Basin, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey, Prof.
Paper 552, 101 p.
, 1978, R6sum6 ofRio Grande depression in north-central New
-Mexico,
inGuidebooktoRioGrande rift inNew
Mexicoand
ColoradoTNew Mexico Bureauof Mines and Mineral Resources,
Circ. 163, p. 210-233.
Bjorklund, L.J., and Maxwell, B.W., 1961, Availability of Ground
Water in the Albuquerque Area, Bernalillo and Sandoval
Counties, New Mexico: New Mexico State Enqineer,
Technical
Report 2i, 117 p.
Black, B.A., and Hiss, w.L., 1974, Structure and Stratigraphy in
Fe Pacific NO- 1
the Vicinity of the Shell Oil Co.'Santa
Test Well, Southern Sandoval County, New Mexico: New Mexico
Geological Society Guidebook, 25th.field conference, p. 365370.
Brimhall, R.M., 1973, Ground Water Hydrologyof Tertiary Rocks of
the San Juan Basin, New Mexico: Four Corners Geological
Society Memoir Book,p. 197-207.
Bryan, Kirk, and McCann,F. T., 1937, The Ceja del Rio PUerCO--a
border feature ofthe
Basinand
Range province inNew
Mexico, Part I, Stratigraphy and structure: Journal
of
geology, V. 45, p. 801-828.
, 1938, The Ceja del
Rio Puerco--a border feature of the
Basin and Range province in New Mexico, Part 11,
Geomorphology: Journal of Geology, v. 46, p. 1-16.
Bulloch, H.E., Jr., and Neher, R.E., 1980, Soil Survey of Dofia
Ana County Area, New Mexico:U.S. Soil Conservation Service,
177 p.
Craigg, S.E., 1980, Hydrology and Water Resourcesof the Chico
Arroyo/Torreon Wash area, Sandoval and McKinley Counties,
New Mexico: M.S. Thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, 272 p.
12
Derr, P., 1981, Soil Surveyof Otero Area, New Mexico: Partsof
Otero, Eddy, and Chaves Counties: U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, 244 p.
Falconer, K.L., Hull, L.C., and Mizell, S.A., 1982, Site Selection
Criteria for Shallow Land Burialof Low-Level Radioactive
Waste, in Waste Management '82, volume 2--Low Level Waste,
R.G. Post. ed.:
Proceedings of the Symposium on Waste
of Regents, p.
Management at Tucson, Arizona, Arizona Board
199-214.
Fassett, J.E., and Hinds, J.S., 1971, Geology and Fuel Resources of
the Fruitland Formation and Kirtland Shale
of the San Juan
Basin, New Mexico and Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey, .
Professional Paper 676, 16 p.
Griggs, R.L., 1948, Geology and Ground-Water Resourcesof the
Eastern Partof Colfax County, New Mexico: New Mexico
Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Ground-Water Report
1, 186 p.
Gile, L.H., Hawley, J.W., and Grossman, R.B., 1981, Soils and
Geomorphology in the Basin and Range ofarea
Southern New
of
Mexico-Guidebook to the Desert Project: New Mexico Bureau
Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir 39, 222
p.
Hacker, L.W., 1977, Soil Survey of Bernalillo County and parts
of
Sandoval and Valencia Counties, New Mexico:U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, 101p.
Hawley, J.W., compiler, 1978, Guidebook to Rio Grande riftin New
,Mexico and Colorado: New Mexico Bureauof Mines and Mineral
Resources, Circ. 163, 241 p.
, 1983a, Site identificationfor low-level radioactive waste
disposal in New Mexico--report to the Radioactive Waste
Consultation Committeeof the New Mexico State Legislature:
New Mexico Bureauof Mines and Mineral Resources, Open-file
Report 189, 16p.
, 198313, Testimony at theU.S. Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee hearing
on major environmental issues in New
Mexico, in Environmental issues facing the state
of New
Mexico--saring before the Committee
on environmental and
Public Works, United States Senate (Senate Hearing 98-279):
48U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,p.
51, 231-331.
Hawley, J.W., Bachman, G.O., and Manley, Kim, 1976, Quaternary
stratigraphy in the Basin and Range and Great Plains
provinces, New Mexico and western Texas, in Quaternary
stratigraphy of North America,W.C. Mahans, ed:
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross,
Inc., p. 235-274
Hawley, J.W., Lambert, P.W., Kelley, V.C., and Woodward, L.A.,
1982, Road-Log Segment 111-B: Sandia Mountains Tramway
at
Terminal to Placitas via Alameda, Rio Rancho, Ceja del
Puerco, Loma Duran, and Bernalillo: New Mexico Geological
Society Guidebook, 33rd field conference,p. 80-94.
Hawley, J.W., and Love, D.W., 1981, Overview of Geology as
Related to Environmental Concerns in New Mexico: New Mexico
Geological Society, Special Publicationno. 10, p. 1-13.
Henry, C. D., and Gluck, J. K., 1981, A preliminary assessment of
the geologic setting, hydrology, and geochemistry
of the
13
Hueco Tanks geothermal area, Texas and New Mexico:
University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological
Circular 81-1, 47 p.
Herkenhoff, G., and Associates, Inc., Summers, W.K. and
Associates, 1977, Geology and hydrologyof a site proposed
for burial of low-level solid radioactive waste, western
Colfax County,New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and
Mineral Resources, Open-file Rept. 79,V. 1-3, 1035 p.
Hoidale, G.B., Smith, S.M., Blanco, A.J., and Barber, T.L., 1967,
A study of atmospheric dust: Atmospheric Science
Laboratories, White Sands Missile Range,
New Mexico, ECOM
Rept. no. 5067, 132 p.
Holzer, T.L., and Pampeyan, E.H., 1981, Earth Fissures and
Localized Differential Subsidence: Water Resources Research,
v. 17, no. I, p. 223-227.
Jiracek, G. R., Gustafson, E. P., Parker, M. D., 1982,
Geophysical exploration for geothermal prospects west of
Albuquerque, New Mexico: New Mexico Geological Society
Guidebook, 33rd field conference,p. 333-342.
Keetch, C.W., 1980, Soil Surveyof San Juan County, New Mexico,
Eastern Part: U.S. Soil Conservation Services, 173
p.
Kelley, V.C., 1977, Geology of Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico: New
p.
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Memoir6033,
King, W.E., Hawley, J.W., Taylor, A.M., and Wilson, R.P., 1971,
Geology and Ground-Water Resources
of Central and Western
Dofia Ana County,
New Mexico: New Mexico Bureauof Mines and
Mineral Resources, Hydrologic Report1, 64 p.
Knowles, D.B., and Kennedy, R.A., 1958, Ground-Water Resources of
the Hueco Bolson Northeast of El Paso, Texas: U.S. Geological
Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1426, 186
p.
Lambert, P.W., 1968, Quaternary stratigraphy of the Albuquerque
area, New Mexico: Ph.D. thesis, University of New Mexico,
257 p.
Lane, L.J., and Nyhan, J.W., 1982, Use of a State of the Art Model
of Shallow Land Repositories
for Low-Level
in Generic Designs
Wastes, in Waste Management '82, volume 2
Low Level Waste,
R.G. PostTed.: Proceedings of the Symposium on Waste
Management at Tucson, Arizona, Arizona Board
of Regents, p.
235-244.
Longmire, P.A., Gallaher, B.. and Hawley, J.S., 1981, Geological,
for disposal of
Geochemical and Hydrological Criteria
hazardous wastes in New Mexico: New Mexico Geological
Society, Special Publication,no. 10, p. 93-102.
Machette, M.N., 1978, Dating Quaternary faults in the
southwestern United States by using buried calcic paleosols:
U.S. Geological Survey Journal Research,
of
v. 6, no. 3, p.
369-381
and Pliocene Faults
in the La Jencia and
,' 1982, Quaternary
Part
of
the
Albuquerque-Belen
Southern
Basins, New Mexico:
Evidence of Fault Historyfrom Fault-Scarp Morphology and
Quaternary Geology: New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook,
33rd field conference,p. 161-170.
Maker, H.J., Folks, J.J., Anderson, J.U., and Gallman, W.B., 1971a,
Soil Association and Land Classification for Irrigation,
Sandoval and Los
Alamos Counties: New Mexico State University
-
14
Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report 188,
45 p.
Maker, H.J., Neher, R.E., Derr, P.H., and Anderson, J.U., 1971b,
for Irrigation,
Soil Associations and Land Classifications
Dofia Ana County: New Mexico State University Agricultural
Experiment Station, Research Report 183,
40 p.
Maker, H.J., Anderson, G.W., and Anderson, J.U., 1972a, Soil
Associations and Land Classification for Irrigation, Colfax
County: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment
Station, Research Report 239,47 p.
Maker, H.J., Derr, P.S., and-Anderson,J.U., 1972b, Soil
Associations and Land Classification for Irrigation, Otero
County: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment
Station, Research Report 238,63 p.
Maker, H.J., Keetch, C.W., and Anderson, J.U., 1973, Soil
Associations and Land Classification for Irrigation,
San Juan
County: New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment
'Station, Research Report 257,
44 p.
Maker, H.J., Dregne, H.E., Link, V.G. and Anderson, J.UI 1974,
Soils of New Mexico: New Mexico State University
Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Report 285, 132
p.
Molenaar, C.M., 1974, Correlation of the Gallup Sandstone and
Associated Formations,.Upper Cretaceous, Eastern San Juan
Basin and Acoma Basins,
New Mexico: New Mexico Geological
Society Guidebook, 25th field conference,
p. 251-258.
Parker, J.M., Riggs, E.A., and Fisher, W.L., 1977, Oil and gas
potential of the San Juan Basin:
New Mexico Geological
Society, Guidebook 28th field conference,
p. 227-234.
Post, R.G., editor, 1982, Waste Management'82, volume 2 Low Level
Waste: Proceedings of the Symposium on Waste Management at
Tucson, Arizona, Arizona Board of Regents,
655 p.
Reilinger, R.E., Brown, L.D., and Oliver, J.E., 1979, Recent
Vertical Crustal Movements from Leveling Observations in the
Vicinity of the Rio Grande Rift, in Rio Grande Rift: Tectonics
and Magmatism, R.E. Reicker, ed.:
American Geophysical Union,
Washington, D.C., 438 p.
Reiter, M., Mansure, A.J., and Shearer, C., 1979, Geothermal
Characteristics of the Rio Grand rift within the Southern
Rocky Mountain Complex,
&
Rio
I
GrandeRift: Tectonics and
Magmatism, R.E. Riecker, ed.: American Geophysical Union,
Washington, D.C., 438 p.
Sanford, A.R., Olsen, K.H., and Jaksha, L.H., 1981, Earthquakes in
New Mexico, 1849-1977: New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and
Mineral Resources, Circ. 171, 20p.
Seager, W.R., 1980, Quaternary Fault System in the Tularosa and
Hueco Basins, Southern New Mexico and
West Texas: New
Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 31st field conference,
p. 131-136.
, 1981, Geologyof the Organ Mountains and southern San
Andres Mountains, New Mexioc:
New Mexico Bureauof Mines and
Mineral Resources,, Memoir 39,
97 p.
Seager, W.R., Hawley, J.W., Kottlowski, F.E., and Kelley, S.A.,
1983, GeologicMap of Eastern Halfof Las Cruces and
Northeastern Part of El Paso, 10x20 sheets:
New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and Mineral Resources,GM 57, in press.
Siemers, W.T., and Austin, G.S., 1979, Active Mines and Processing
-
-
15
Plants in New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and Mineral
Resources, Resource Maps, RM-9
Slack, P.B., and Campbell, J.A., 1976, Structural Geology of the Rio
Puerco Fault Zone and its Relationship
to Central New
Mexico Tectonics: in Tectonics and Mineral Resources
of
Southewestern NortiiAmerica: New Mexico Geological Society,
Special Publication no. 6, p. 46-52.
Stephens, D.B., and Siegel, J., 1981, Fluid-Waste Movement through
the Vadose Zone: New Mexico Geological Society, Special
Publication no. 10, p. 103-110.
Stone, W.J., Lyford, F.P., Franzel, P.F., Mizell, N.H., and Padgett,
E.T.! 1982, Hydrogeology and Water Resources
of San Juan
Basin, New Mexico: New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and Mineral
Resources, Hydrologic Report6, 70 p.
Summers, W.K., 1979, Hydrothermal Anomalies in New Mexico: New
Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Resource Maps,
R"1.
Titus, F.B. Jr.,
1961, Ground-Water Geology of the Rio Grande
Trough in North-Central New Mexico, with sections on the
Jemez Caldera and the Lucero Uplift: New Mexico Geological
Society Guidebook, 12th field conference,
p. 186-192.
U.S. Geological Survey and New Mexico Bureau
of Mines and Mineral
of New Mexico: U.S.
Resources, 1981, Energy Resources map
Geological Survey Map 1-1327.
Wells, S.G., and Rose, D.E., 1981, Application of Geomorphology
tb Surface Coal-Mining Reclamation, Northwestern New Mexico:
New Mexico Geological Society, Special Publication no. 10,
p. 69-83.
Wilson, L., 1973, Variations in Mean Annual Sediment Yield as a
Function of Mean Annual Precipitation: American Journal
of
Science, vol. 273, p. 335-349.
, 1981, Potential for Ground-Water Pollution in New Mexico:
New Mexico Geological
Society, Special Publicationno. 10,
p. 47-54.
Wilson, L., Anderson, S.T., Jenkins, D.N., and Cristiano, C., 1979,
Program for the Statewide Monitoring
of Ground-water Quality
in New Mexico: unpublished final report
on file in the office
of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, Santa
Fer
New Mexico, 180 p.
Wilson, C.A., White, R.R., Orr,.B.R., and Roybal, R.G., 1981, Water
Resources of the Rincon and Mesilla valleys and adjacent
areas, New Mexico: New Mexico State Engineer, Technical
Report 43, 514 p.
Winograd, I.J., 1974, Radioactive Waste Storage in the Arid Zone:
EOS Transactions American Geophysical Union,
V. 55, no.
10, p. 884-894.
, 1981, Radioactive Waste Disposal in Thick Unsaturated
Zones: Science, Vol. 212, no. 4502, p. 1457-1463.
Woodward, L.A., and Martinez, R., 1974, Geologic Map and Sections
of Holy Ghost Spring Quadrangle, New Mexico:
New Mexico
Geologic.Map 33.
Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources,
Yalcintas, M.G., compiler, 1982, Proceedingsof the Symposium on
Low-Level Waste Disposal-Site Characterization and
Monitoring: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
D.C., 503 p.
16
~.
New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources
Socorro, N M 87801
A DIVISION OF
NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING & TECHNOLOGY
February 18, 1983
Representative James X. Otts, Chairman
Radioactive Waste Consultation Committee
New Mexico S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e
State Capitol Building
SantaFe, Kew Mexico 87503
Dear Etepresentative Otts:
Inclosed is t h e r e p o r t of the New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Nineral Xesources
on " S i t e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n f o r Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal i n N e w Mexico."
I t has been prepared by me i n accordance with provisions of t h e " S i t e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
Act ," HENRCS/House B i l l 397 (1981)
.
The r e p o r t is completeexcept f o r Appendices A t o C. Appendix A on Low-Level
jlaste Generation i n Mew Mexico (1979-1980)needs t o beupdated t o i n c l u d e statistics
f o r 1981 and 1982. Appendix B is a new State Geologic Map t h a t is being published
by t h e New Mexico G e o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y i n e a r l y March. Appendix C is t h e l a t e s t s t a t e
map showinglandownership, which I s t i l l have t o obtain from t h e U. S. Bureau of
Land knagement.
As you and the rest of the committee clearly understand, this has been
a very
tough assignment: and a t t h e same time it has been one of the most worthwhile
service r e q u e s t s ever Fade t o the New Eexico Bureau of Nines. The possible sites
designated i n t h i s r e p o r t are "good sites" when compared with other low-level
waste f a c i l i t i e s i n the nation.
However, is t h e r e r e a l l y s u c h a t h i n g as a "good"
r a d i o a c t i v e waste d i s p o s a l s i t e ? To s a y t h e l e a s t t h i s h a s b e e n a humbling
e x p e r i e n c e f o r me. One d o e s n o t l i g h t l y jump i n t o t h i s typeof work.
Dr. Kottlowski and I f e e l t h a t t h i s e f f o r t deserves public and p r o f e s s i o n a l
W
e would t h e r e f o r e l i k e t h e
a t t e n t i o n a t t h e earliest possibleopportunity.
committee'sand legislature's permission to release t h i s document i n our open-filer e p o r t series. It would then be a v a i l a b l e a t a nominal fee f o r d u p l i c a t i o n c o s t s .
The document could also serve as t h e basis f o r a somewhat more e l a b o r a t e formal
publication a t a later date.
Sincerely yours,
John W. Hawley
Senior Environmental Geologist
JWH/dh
cc:
Frank E. Kottlowski
Xep. Vernon Kerr
NEW MEXICO TECH IS AN EWAL OPPORTUNlTYlAFFlRMATlVE ACTIONINSTITUTION
.N;MEXICO BUREAU OF MINES AN0 MINERAL
RESOURCES
16.-
35'
I
t
34.
-
33.
-
'.
32.7
i
1
1
I
'
109.
108.
107'
106'
105.
104.
Figure 1. Five possible s,iites for disposal of low level radioactive Wastes
1.Llano de Albuquerque 2.Prieta 3.Huerfano 4.Jornad.a
5-Deserk
Figure 4 .
Index map to Site 3 area (Huerfano) and location of section CC'
Figure 5 - Index map to Site 4 area (Jornada) and location of section DD'
30'
-,
I
I
359
i
~
358
351
15'
32'00'i
IO'
1
Figure 7.
Index map to Site 6 area (Raton-Koehler) area and location of section FF'
A
A'
.^
Qs
Qv
QTsf
Tsf
K
Windblown sand
Rio Grande Valley Fill-sand, gravel, silt, clay
Upper Santa Fe Group-sand andgravel; interbedded with some clay and silt
Lower Santa Fe Group-interbedded sand, silt, and clay
UndividedMesozoicrocks-mostly Cretaceous shale andsandstone
0
0
m
c.c
.-
v)
#
32-
Llano de
Albuquerque
QTsf Upper
Santa
Fe
Group-sand
and
gravel
Lower
TsfSanta
Group-sand,
Fe
silt, clay
TgGalisteoFormation-sindstoneandmudstone
Tsj SanJoseFormation-sandstone
TnNacimientoFormation-shalewithminor
sandstone
KToa Ojo Alamo
Sandstone
Kk
Kirtland Shale
Kph PointLookoutSandstone-HostaTongue
Km Mancos Shale
Kd
Dakota
Sandstone
sandstones
J
Jurassic
and mudstones
Huerfana
Peak
C
0
5
10
15
I
I
I
I
Figure 8 a-c.
B'
C'
20 m i l e s
I
Hydrogeologic sections AA', B B ' , CC' of Site 1, 2, and 3 areas
D
D'
- 4000
-3000
-2500
-2000
I
.- .
. ..
..- .
QTsfr river sandandgravel
gypsum
2andsand
QTsfe
mudstone
2clay
3 QTsfc
and gypsum and
QTsfg
fan
gravel
-1500
._
. -.
Tv MiddleTertiaryvolcanics
Ts Tertiary
conglomerate
Lower
2
"
-2.vlg
sandstoneK Cretaceous
sllalo
1% Limestone, sandstone, and shale
and
E Tsfg
fanglomerate
2*
Tsfcclaystoneandmudstone
E
saline wafer
>20,00Omg/LTDS
8e.
..
TKr
Raton
Formation-sandstone,
shale,
coal
Ktv
Vermejo
and
Trinidad
Formations-sandstone,
Kc
shale, coal
KpPierreShale
Kn Smoky Hills Marl (shale)
___
.
"
Knf Fort Hays
Limestone
Carlisle Shale
and Limestone
Kgg Greenhorn
Graneros Shale
8f. F
F'
L
8000,
6000.
KP
5500.
_."
/
"
-.
.
"
"
"
5 0 0 0.
-6000
4500-
0
5
IO
15
20 m l l e s
I
TMLE 1. WLTIW
ANI)
.,
ROGIW SlTING CRITERIA IQR S I W UUID BURIAL OF LLWLLVEL WLDIMCLI'VE rn
la.
1 O W 61 SlTE SUITABILITf WUTERIA
1. Ihs disposal site shall be caplble of being characterized, d e l e d , analyzed and nonitored.
2.
Within the regim or s h t e where the facility is t o be looated, a disposal s i t e s b u l d be selected so tlmt projected poprlatim grwth
erd future developents are mt likely to affect the ability of the disposal facility to Deet p e r f o m e objectives
3.
Ar-
4.
Ih, disposal
must be avoided having e m m i m l l y eignifivint mtural resources Wt~idl, i f exploited, Wmld result i n failure to meet 'the
prfolwvre objectives
site must be generally well drained and free of areas of f l d i n g or f r w n t p
o
d
n
g
. Waste disposal shall m t take
h i g b b z a r d area or wetland.
place i n a 1W-year f l d plain, -tal
-
5.
Upstream drainage areas must be minimized to decrease the mcmt of rmoff whidl muld erode or i-date
6.
Ihs dieposal s i t e must provide sufficient depth to the water table that gmmd
will mt
waste disposal wits
Water intrusion, perennial or otherwise, into the waste
7.
Any granddater d i s h r g e to the surface within the disposal a i t e must mt originate within the h@rqeologic wit used for diaposal
8.
Areas must be avoided where tectonic prmesses such as faulting, folding, aeismfc activity, m wlcaniem ray occur with such freqmlcy
and extent to significantly affect the ability of the disposal S i t s t o ncet pBcfmance objmivos or m y preclula dafensible d o l i n g
an3 prediction of long-term impcte
Areas must be evoided where surface geolcqic pnxesses such as maas wasting, erasim, slunping, landsliding. or weathering D C N ~~ i t h
such frequary and extent to signifivintly affect the ability of the disposal s i t e t o meet performance objectives or my preclule
de€ensible rmdeling and prediction Of l a p t e r m iopacte
9.
10. Ihe disposal e l t e must mt be lomted mere nearby f a d l i t i e s or activities muld adversely
performance objectivea or significantly mask the enviromental mnitoring progrm
lb. -P
OBJECTNES, W--
RsSUGTl(NS,
Aw)
iwct
the ability of the s i t e to meet
lLND MKS=, 1982)
SlTlNG CRITERIA IF-R
Perfomawe miectives
1. Ihs mu1 h e f m redimuclides released f m my shallar land l r i a l s i t e t o p r s m Duteide the site m d a r y shall m t exceed 25
nrers/yr-thFoid, 25 mrdyr-any organ. €or a performance p r i d of 5W years.
Waste shall mt be disposed of i n a shallw land burial site that Would result in an mexwptable &ne t o an inadvertant intm3or a f t e r
an ifvitituticnal mntrol perid of 100 years h m mdd.
2.
A.9mJnPtIcna abart heate n3mq-t
will be selected, designed, uikrated
I
h
,e l t s
2.
Performance objectives
3.
After the i n s t i t u t i u n l m n t r o l plricd, the eitc will be suitable f o r mrml surface use but will m t be designed t o prevent h m
sxcavationa Into the wmte.
4.
Waste fcam will mt j-rdire
CM
and
C l a d
t o m e e t p e r f m e objectives.
ern relevls is
1.
rnt add-ble.
be net by utilizing boeh natural and engineered barriers.
s i t e performance.
Selectim
Criteria
"
Site
Ih, site
I.
.
s l n u l d t e of sufficient &rea and depth t o a m t e the projected vollrme of w t e and a three d i - i d
hlffer
~ne.
To meet s i t e p e r f o m c e objectives for larlevel radioactive waste disposal,the site and its operation must r n t limit the
activity of rn b
e
p
n
d sits tomdaries. A three-diwmi-1 buffer wne will allar waste attentation within t h e s i t e bandary scch
that p e r f o m c e objectives are met. Ilhe essential infornation required to determine w t e e b u d a r i e s of the s i t e 1i.e.. the b u l k
m e ) includes the rate o€ dlange of radimwlide mncentratim as a f w c t i m of distance frcm the disposal facility a l a q a l l
n i g r a t i m p a t h y s and the ancentratim and quantity of radionuclides i n the waste source. Ihs depth t o w h i c h the buffer m e extends
d
e
p
e
d co the hy3ralcqic, geologic, and c l i m t i c s e t t i n g of the disposal facility and whether Yaate is buried i n m a t u r a t e d or
*aturated Mteriais.
evapotranspiration plus -off
equal
In mvirolaients where i n l i l t r a t i c n dws mt rea& the w n o of saturation. such as ar- &re
leached frm the
frcm upper s o i l horizons are deposited i n a m e of aocunulatim.Material
m a t e wxld be deposited i n the wane of accunulatim and -Id
m t ream the saturated wne. Between the m e of a-ulatim
and the
oapillary fringe is a m e of lar geochemical activity. Ilhe buffer m e b m d a r y mrld be i n this imctive m e i f sufficient leaway
is allwed for potential climatic changes or enhanced infiltration
the disposal trerhes.
m
exceed precipitation. solutes dissolved
thrm
In very a r i d c l i m t e s , l i t t l e or 110 water is available for leaching, md a thick m e of lw gecchdcail activity seplrates buried
w t e from m mderlying saturated w n e . ibis envirament -Id
present a nininal probability of release by grand-water plthrays, and
the ller h l f f e r m e bnndary muld be placed a t B d e r a t e distance bell the disposal b r i m .
2.
llle
s i t e s b u l d allow Wdste t o be buried e i t h e r m p l e t e l y above or belo, the transition
mea.
WOMbetween
the vulaturated and eaturated
Ihs r e l i a b i l i t y of performance prediction my be eignificantly decreasedby burial ofWdste i n the transitim wne Nld groatsr
radionuclide release ratea may rcsult fron the increased geocltenical activity aseociated d t h this -0.
To deternine mnpliance d t h
to e-ine
the water table elevatim, the ranga of b t h seascnal and l a p t e m water-table flwttaticw,
t h i s c r i t e r i m . i t Is n-nsary
height of the capillary fringe, thickness
of excavatable material, erd, i f waste is b l e d M
a
r t h e t r a w i t i m m e . the hydraulic
dlaracteristice o€ sarth materials in the saturated wne.
5.
The site should be located in areas Mere hydrwealwic conditions allow reliable prfoormance prediction.
Confident charicterination O f thhe hydrqeolc+ic system in which a waste disposal site is located a a b l e s determination of
p t e n t i a l migration pathways, esrimetion of radioactive contaminantmvemmt rates i n thhe sdsurface environment, ard desion of a
nonitor netwrk to collect data that can be s e d to confirmperformance prediction- of radimuclide transprt. Major h!,&drol.qic
characteristics of the s i t e t h a t mu-t M examined include:subsurface qeolwy, hydralqic bwet, direction and mqnitule of qromiwater flar, permeability tw and diffusion ard dispersion pmpertias of the system.
6.
The Site should be located where qeol&ic hazards will Mt jeopardize p r f o m c c e .
significant land disturbances may destroy site i n w r i t y ard increase the likelihocd Of radionuclides enterirq che biosphere. I"
addition, s i t e hydralwy may be altered to the extent that performameprediceianna are PD lo-er applicable.Specific
oeoliaic even=
that m u s t be considered include earth m3vemenz assmiated w i t h ceisnic activity, mass movement, land subsidence, and voic-nic activity.
The results of these events in the qeolwic past m a y so mmplicate the hydrweolwic system that predictions of site prfonoar.ce cmot
be confidently obtained.
7.
The site shwld b selected with con5ideratian +en t o those characteristics of earth materials ard Water chemistry that favor
increawd residence times and/or attenuation of radionuclide cmcentrations within site boundaries.
leachate mi9ratir.a from buried wastes may carry radionuclides and ocher contaminants Dicked UD from the
waste.
slowino the
11. The s i t e should be selected corsistene with federal lwm and rqulations,
Federal l a w t h a t a d i s p s a l site m w t complyWith includebut a w M t limited to: Clean Air Act (PL95-95),
federal Water
fdllltion Untrol Act(PL95-2171,
Safe Drinking Water Act IPL93-5231, National hVi~ONnental Polio/ Act IPl.91-1901.
12. The site Should rot be locatedwithin aeean that are protected from such use by federal laws and rqulation4.
federal lam hich preclule, by intent. the selection of l o r l e v e l waste disposal Sites within the toundaries of areas p r o t s t e d
W'deL' them i ~ r l u l ebut are cot limited W: Wilderness Actof 1964 IPL 88-577) Wild a d SCeRic Rivers Act (PL 98-5421, mdangwed
SpeEie9 Act of 1973 (PL33-2051,NatiOMI
Wildlife Ref+e A m of 1966 IPL89-6691, t3W estaolishinr National Park+, HIRtoric
PrOperties-P~eservati~~
IPL 89-665),Ar?heolc+ical
ard Historical Preservations Act of 1974 IPL 93-29!].
~
E.
Amid areas with d o u s terrestrial heat flw. See Reiter and others, (1979).
--Intermediate
\ Mixed Permeable
Flow
SedimentaryRocks
not to scale
\
I
ADDZNDUM TO TABLE2 (@ A)
-
TYPE I. MATERIAL OF LONGMIRE ET AL., 1981
t
Anfiltration
t
ranspiration
\ [WasteDisDosol Site
Evapotrakpiration
AlluvialDeDosits
DDENDUM TO TABLE 2
(aE )
-
TYPE I1 MATERIAL OF LONGMIRE ETAL.,
- Si It
1981
mslllP/
W
N
G
E
I
SDXIUI
lUN/L13/1.2
IIN/1E/IO,11,14,l5.22.
23.25.26.35.36
12N/lE/Z1,22,27,2R
26N/10W/10,1L,l4.15.22,
175/2E/20-29.32-36
23S/Ot:/3-5,U-10,
15N/lW/6,7
23.26.27.34.35
1BS/ZE/l-5.0-12
15N/2W/1,12
I~N/IW/I~,L~.~O,~I
IGN/2W/13,14,23-26,36
17N/2W/1
m
15-17.20-22,
28-3Cb31-33
M\
8 mi (Hawell Natl.
Wildlife Refuge)
. .
MeXlmm
(24-hr)
7.9
13.0
4
(3.5
10.1
9.3
-
0.4
6.5 (8/30/35)
15.6
'6.5
6-7 (9/1/42)
42
42
80
28
75
100
75
T-ature
(Up)
MDan Janmry
Mean July
m p t i a n (in1
cln3s-A Pan
(esriwted)
!LNATIW
W
E (ftl
35
79
26
29
69
74
75
-
€0
97
508&6100
5800-6400
6550-6815
1500-5100
79
40604110
6300"s
"1
RtO Grandc r i f t ;
SnamUuE
Wajor Tectonic Features
intenrontane
imsins;
*lightly tilted
blmks
fault
Higtrangle rnml
hanrline
aiming faults
Kram Faults and Folds
E. San J m Raisin:
of Nacimiento
fault T
a
n
% Nl4 Of
Fuerm fault M e
BrOad folds. MI
Distribution
cnmm,
1-1
rqlimal
Rge
Pliarne-llolmne
Cenoll)ia
&mmentwi
(kchette, 1982)
MOB
Fault wltb Displacematt
i n Past 500.W Years
Diatributim
Central San Juul
Basin
W.
very
gentle
f'&?e
faults
dipping
faults
harrcline
rqlima1
Rio Grande rlft:
intenrontane basin:
sligpltfy tilted
fault blocks
Pi0
Grande r i f t .
intermontane Ih,ein:
elightly tilted
fault blmke
Central Ratm
&sin
Higlraqle rnm1
High-mgle m m l
Very gcntle
MI d i p p i q
widely s a w 3
widely sploed
Ilanrline
Plicrene-Pleistocene
PliamncPleialcrene
noted
none
camn;n
____
rEqim.31
C-ic
mne
nearby arcas to
w e S t and east
nearby areas to
wmt and s w t h
widely e a &
widely 8p-d
5-12 m i
6-12 mi
:moderate
1. rcdcrate
derate
modcrate
malerats
2-5 m i e@cirlg
M l n l m Distance
1-2 rnl
"_
"
Seimlc MivityIRiek
L moderate
d e r a t e to high
TerrcsLTIal Heat Flar
d e r a t o to high
high to d e dr ae tdr eae tr ea t e
m e
m e
"_
moderate
-
to high
m e
m e
m e
LitldC$C
Chs&r-
-6011 i&ture
permantly
interbedded
sand, clay, and
e i i t i with sme
grave1 i n upper
200 f t
shale, With
si1tstcne. nW3s t m e , and thin
sandstme, sand
and clay
deficimt
a t depth i n mt
as Saitt e
1
s u e , with
lenticular sand-
thin l q sand
dcpoBits
i"tert&&d
d,silt, and
clay: With
gravelley w n e s
i n upper 300 f t
an Sa it t e
as saitt e
stme
beds, and
1.
local and transitory
saturaticn
below
1
clay, with
* m e interbedded
sand
shale, w i t h
marl, limntcne
and s i l t s t m e .
atxi thin sand
and clay
as a t site 1
as a t s i t e 1
mml size,
limited t o
deeper d e f i a t i m
SiMll
70"-
sand dule
tracts
-rge
mall size,
limited to
arroyos and
playa h i m
'
snwll size,
limited to
arroyos
small size,
limited to
arrqcm and deep
sand areas
amall eize.
limited t o
arroyos
size,
limited t o
arroyos
baaim
f i l l s and
weathered shale
70"-
Water Table
Depth ( f t )
700-1wO
slightly biar
N o Grande level,
rises s t e e d " to
west
..
__
diemntintmus
-3 w
563-700
-3w
eiezanetiic SUrfaoB
"
_"
4W-5W f t depth
-
-
-
-
.___
_.
~~~
J..
Ap,iendix A
A 1
NEW
MmIa3
LLW Generation
1979
Ft3/Yr
Facilitr
Medical
1980
Mci/Yr
190
Percentage
(Volume)
9
6.8
University
2,302.5
467.3
82.5
Industrial
300
83
10.7
TOTAL
'
2,792.5
.
559.3
100
Ft3/Yr
105
1,252.5*
McifYr
Percentage
(Volume)
4.6
0
100
12,784*
0
O*
O*
100 12,788.6
1,357.5
,.
*
Does not include
waste c c . r r e n t l y s t o r e d f o r f u t u r e
disposal.
Waste Forms, Radioisotopes
1980
1979
F ~ ~ I pt3/yr
Y ~
Form
Licensee
Radioisotopes
University of
New Mexico
Xe-133. Ga-67, Se-75, In-111, Ni-63
1-131, 1-125, H-3, C-14, T1-201
1-123, Cr-51,
Co-57,
S-35,
P-32,
Ca-45, K-42, Tc-99,Fe-59,Co-60,
Eu-152. Pa-226, No-99, Se-75, Rb-86
S ool ri d
adsorbed
liquid.
I n t e r s t a t e Indus.trial Laundry
Pu-238.
Pu-239,
Mixed
Solid
O*
150
Eberline
Instrument Corp.
Am-241, Sr-90, Co-60, Pu-238,
Pu-239,
Cr-137, Ba-133
S oolri d s
adsorbed l i q u i d s i n very
small quantities
0
150
105
190
f ips sr oi odnu c t s
. .
,Presbyterian
Hospital
Depleted
TERA (Terminal
Effects Research
6 Analysis Group,
1-125, Co-57, Cr-51, H-3
or Solids
adsorbed
uids
Uranium
NMIMT)
Does not include waste c u r r e n t l y s t o r e d f o r f u t u r e d i s p o s a l .
Sol id
.
1,252.5
liq-
0"
1,522.5
78 0
A 2
LLW Generation
..
19' 8 1
19. 82
Percentage
Ft3/Yr
(Volume)
~ t 3 1 ~ r i-fc i/Yr
Tzcility
0
Ykdical
0-
1414.5
lkiversity
TOTAL
'
P
Hc ilYr
0 .
. .
554.73
599.'0
Industrial
_.
.
.
70
129.0
7
2013.5
683.73
100
'
'
,
u
0
0
460.17
70
0
1313.9
(VO l
572.5
70.87
30
-
1885.4.
530.97
100
>
..
5
.-
~ - *Does
n o t i n c l u d e vaste c u r r e n t l y s t o r e d
for future disposal.
..
Waste Forms, R a d i o i s o t o p e s
.
RadioisotoDes
Licensee
U a i v e r s i t y of
liew Mexico
Xe-133,
1-131,'
'1-123,
Ca-45,
Eu-152,
I z t e - s t a t e Zndust r b l Laundry
Pu-238.
Eerline InstrumentCorp.
Am-241,
Cr-137,
Ga-67, Se-75, In-111, Ni-63
1-125, E-3, C-14,TI.-201
S-35, Cr-51, Co-57, P-32,
K-42, Tc-99, Fe-59, Co-60,
Fa-226, KO-99, Se-75, Rb-86
Pu-230,
Xived f i s s i o n p r o d u c t s
F~~
1981
~
t
1982
3 F/ ~ ~ ~ ~I Y ~
S o l i d o r 1414.5.1313.9
adsorbed
.liquid.
572.5
Solid
599
Sr-OO, Co-60,
Ba-133
Pu-238,Pu-23SY
O*
Solids o r
adsorbed l i q uids in very
small quanti-
ties
. .
Cr-51, H-3
Presbyterian
ilospital
1-125,
E?A ( T e r n i n a l
Depleted Uranium
Co-57,
E f f e c t sR e s e a r c h
h A n a l y s i s Group,
hvm)
Goes notFnclude
..
waste c u r r e n t l y s t o r e d
for f u t u r e d i s p o s a l .
S o l i d s or
0
adsorbed liqu i d s'
O*
Solid
o*
0