Grout Cost

7/26/2019 Grout Cost

1/38

MARTIN MARIETTA

ENERGY

SYSTFMS

I IRP191cc

b

3 4 4 5 b 02bb32L 3

...


2/38

-

his report was prapared as

an

accnoiit of wotk sponsored by

ar,

acJwcy

of

the

IJnrteilStates Govcrnariant Nettheiihei nited StatesGounrnmw t nor aity aosncy

thereof, nor a n y of

their

employees makes

any warranty,

exi)ioss

or implied.

or

asstimes any legal

liability

or responsibility for ih:: accuracy.

compicteness.

or

usefulnsss

of

any

infoiii-iatlon,

arwiatus. product,

0 1 proce;s

dwloszd . o r

rmresents

that i s

use

~ u ~ ~ l dot infringi.

p r ~ v a t d ~

cwned rights

Referevce herpin

to

any

specnfic

comtrrerclal

product.

process. or sawiceb y fr?do n a r m ~ radpwark

manufacturer. or otherwise, do52 pot necasswtly constitutc or imply its

endorsement. rac omn mdat ion . or favoring by the Il mtnd States Governmerri

o i

any agency

thereof The views , a ~ r l i)inions of

authors

expressed h c r m do

not

necessarily state

or

reflect

those

of

the United States Governnor it

01-any

agency

th-o?f


3/38

C h e m i c a l

TechnDlogy D i v i s i o n

COST ESTIMATE

OF GROUTING rm PROPOSED

TEST PITS

AT

IDAHO

NATIONAL ENGINEERING JABORATORY USING

THE

ORNL- RE

C O W

DED GROUTS

R.

D. Spence

Date Issued

-

August

1987

Prepared by

the

OAK RIDGE

NATIONAL LABORATORY

Oak Ridge,

T e n n e s s e e

37831

O p e r a t e d

by

MARTIN

W I E T T A ENERGY S YS TE MS , I NC .

f o r

t h e

U .S .

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

under

c o n t r a c t

D E - A C O E . 8 4 0 R 2 1 4 0 0

MARTIN

MARIFTrA ENERGY SYSTENS I

iR i lAR lES

3 4 4 S b 0 2 6 6 3 2 3 3


4/38


5/38

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

Page

A B S T R A C T .

1

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N .

.

.

1

2. P I T D E S I G N .

.

. .

3

3. E S T I M A T I O N OF

VOIDS.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4 .

GROUT EMPLACEMENT.

e e 5

4.1

LANCE INJECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.2

J E T

GROUTING.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2

4 . 3

OTHER COSTS 16

5.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 7

6 . REFERENCES m

.

e

2 1

A P P E N D I X E S .

e e 2 2

A P P E N D I X A .

23

A P P E N D I X B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

APPENDIX C

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 9


6/38


7/38

COST ESTIMATE OF GROUTING THE

PROPOSED

TEST PITS AT

I D A H O NATIONAL

ENGINEERING LABORATORY USING THE

ORNtRECOWdENDED

GROUTS

R.

D.

Spence

ABSTRACT

EGdG I da ho p l a n s t o c o n s t r u c t t h r e e e x p e ri m e n t a l p i t s t o

s i n u l a t e t h e TRU

waste

t r e n c h e s a t I d ah o N at i o n a l E n g i n e e ri n g

La bo ra to ry (INEL). Two of t he se p i t s w i l l be grouted and then one

w i l l b e d e s t r u c t i v e l y e x a m i n e d as soon as t h e g ro u t c u r e s a nd t h e

o t h e r will be m o n i t o r e d f o r

10

years . Oak Rfdge Nat ional Laboratory

(ORNL) i s e v a l u a t i n g g r o u t s a n d w i l l recommend a g r o u t t o EG&G

I d a h o t o r ed u c e t h e p e r m e a b i l it y of t h e p i t , f i l l t h e l a r g e v oi ds ,

a n d e n c a p su l a t e t h e

waste.

A p r e v i o u s

ORNL

r e p o r t (ORNL/TM-9881)

di s cu ss es th e gr ou ts ev aluat ed and the gro ut recommended based on

tho se eva lua tons . This rep or t eva lua tes th e economics of g rou t in g

t h e e x p er i m en t a l p i t s .

The co st of double grout ing two

of

t h e E G G I d a h o d e s i g n p i t s

a t t h e I d a h o N a t i o n a l E n g i n e e r i n g L a b o r a t o r y u s i n g l a n c e i n j e c t i o n

was est imated t o be $100,000. Je t g r o u t i n g t h e same t w o p i t s was

e s t im a te d t o c o s t 85,000. Both tech niqu es have advantages, and i t

i s s u g g es t e d t h a t b o t h b e t r i e d as p a r t o f the

t e s t EG&G

Idaho is

conduc t fng.

1. INTILODUCTION

Approximately 2.2 x lo6 f t 3 of t r an s u ra n ic

(TRU) waste i s

b u r i e d i n

s h a l l o w l a n d b u r i a l a t th e Idaho Nat ion al Engin eer ing Laborator y (INEL).

EG&G I d ah o , I n c . , p ri me o p e r a t i n g c o n t r a c t o r a t t h e INEL, has developed a

long-term management plan

f o r

INEL Buried

TRU Waste.

F Y - 1 9 8 6 ,

t h e im p ro v et i co n fi n em e nt t e ch n o lo g y i n - s i t u g r o u t i n g w i l l be

i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e EG&G Idaho Waste Technology Programs Branch. Oak Ridge

Nat iona l Labora tory

(ORNL)

i s

p r o v i d h g t e c h n ic a l s u p p or t and c o n s u l t a t i o n

s e r v i c e s t o EG&G I da ho i n t h e area of g r o u t s e l e c t i o n . ORNL w i l l provide

(1) t h e r a t i o n a l e ,

( 2 )

l a b o r a t o r y c o m p a r a t i v e r e s u l t s of d i f f e r e n t g r ou t

formula t ions and grout c h em i ca l s w i t h I d ah o s o i l s ,

( 3 )

cost comparisons,

and

4)

h e f i n a l s e l e c t i on

of

t h e recommended grou t fo rmu la t ion s f o r t he

INEL i n - s i t u g r o ut i ng t e s t . A p r e v i o u s O W e p or t d e a l t s p e c i f i c a l l y with

g r o u t f o r mu l a ti o n and s e l e c t i o n ' , b u t t h i s r e p o r t d e a l s s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h

cost comparisons and grout placement . ,

During

FY-1985

and


8/38

2

L a b or a to r y s t u d i e s o f (1) c o a rs e p a r t i c u l a t e g r o u t s ,

( 2 )

s o i l g r o u ts ,

and

( 3 )

f i n e p a r t i c u l a t e g r ou ts were r e p o r t e d p r e v i o u s l y . 1

g r o u t s w er e d i s c u s s e d as a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e f i n e p a r t i c u l a t e g r ou ts .

S i n c e t h a t s t u d y h a d a l i m i t e d s co p e, s o l u t i o n g r o u t s

were

n e v e r s t u d i e d

i n

t h e l a b o r a t o r y ; b u t t he y

were

kept

as

a n a l t e r n a t i v e i n

case

t h e m i c r o f i n e

p a r t i c u l a t e g r o u t w a s c o n s i d er e d u n sa t i s f a c t o r y . A c c ep t a bl e g r o u t s were

ones t h a t

m e t

t h e fo l low ing per formance

c r i t e r i a :

so,

s o l u t i o n

Q 7

d d r a i n a b l e water

0 v o l

e

2 8

d compress ive s t reng th

50 p s i , e x p e c t e d

200-800

p s i

e

Compress ive s t re ng th a f t e r f reeze i thaw >200 p s i

e

H y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y

i 1 0 ~ m/s

e

10

min g e l s t r e n g t h -

e

S h r i n k a g e d u r i n g c u r i n g


9/38

3

2. PIT

DESIGN

T h e p i t d e s i g n u se d as

a

b a s i s f o r t h i s c o s t

estimate was

t aken

from an EG&G Idaho document. Three id en t i ca l t e s t p i t s

w i l l b e

c o n s t r u c t e d

for t h i s

i w s i t u

grou t ing exper iment w i th one se rv ing

as a

con t r o l and che

other two w i l l be grou ted . The p i t s will be 6 f t w id e, 18 f t l o n g , a nd

e x ca v at ed t o t h e b a s a l t u n d e rl y in g the e n t i r e

area.

The basa l t w i l l . be

covered wi th the e xc av at ed s o i l t o a dept h of approximate ly 3 f t , i . e . , t h e

underburden. The next 10 f t w i l l b e t h e waste zone, followed by 3 ft of

overburden. One w a l l of t he p i t w i l l have a

45

s l o p e , u n l i k e t h e

a c t u a l

waste p i t s . T h i s s l o p e w a s r e q u i r ed f o r s a f e t y r e a so n s d u r in g c o n t a i n e r

emplacement and w i l l b e b a c k f i l l e d .

One end of t h e

waste

zone w i l l conta in s t acked boxes wi th

h o r i z o n t a l d i m e n s i o n s o f 4 f t w id e a nd

8 f t long.

The

p i t w i l l

be widened

t o 8 f t f o r t h i s s e c t i o n t o a ccommodate t h e long dimensions

of

the boxes.

Three boxes

w i l l

be st ac ke d t o make up t h e 10 f t

waste

zone: two 4 f t high

wi th one

2

f t high on top. Adjacent to th e s tack ed boxes w i l l be s t acked

drums followed by dumped drums. The volumes as s o ci at ed wi th one of

t h e s e

p i t s i s given

in

Table 1.

Table

1.

Volumes

of

p a r t s

of

one

EG&G

Idaho des ign

p i t

D e sc r i p t i o n

Volume

f t 3 >

Waste zone

Box sec t ion

Drum section

S u b t o t a l

Unde rbu r de n

Overburden

T o t a l or t e s t p i t

320

840

1160

324

348

1832

45' Slope (excava ted) 1 5 2 2


10/38

4

3. ESTIMATION OF

V O I D S

The fol lowing assumpt ions2 were used to

est imate

the void volume i n t h e

d e s i g n p i t .

1.

2.

3 .

4.

5.

6.

7.

8 .

9.

Dis turbed s o i l b u l k d e n s i t y i s 85% of u n di s tu r be d s o i l bu lk d e n s i t y ,

i . e . , 85% compaction fa c t or .

Volume of waste a n d b a c k f i l l

s o i l

i s 30% less t han

ihe

volume exca-

v a te d i n t h e waste zone.

The bu lk dens i ty of t h e as -r ec ei ve d I da ho s o i l t e s t e d by OKNL i s t h e

d i s t u r b e d s o i l b u lk d e n s i ty .

The m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t of t h e as - r e ce i v ed I d ah o s o i l i s t y p i c a l .

The boxes co nt a i n 80% voids.

The drums c ont a in ing s cr ap

metal,

c o m b u s t l b l e s , c o n c r e t e / a sp h a l t ,

and

f i l t e r s

are

80% voids .

The drums con ta i n in g s lud ge

a re

20% voi ds.

N o b a c k f i l l

soil

i n the box s e c t i o n of t h e waste zone.

The volume

of

one drum i s 7.4 ft3.

Measurement re su l t s on

t he

Idaho s o i l received by ORNL i n c l u d e a t r u e

den s i t y (d ry and vo id les s ) of 2.75 g /cm3, an a s - rece ived bu lk den s i t y

( s t i l l m oi s t )

of

1.17 g/cm3, and an as- rece ived mois tu re con te n t nf

13.0

w t

.

p p l y i n g t h e s e r e s u l t s f o r t he s o i l samples and th e a ssumpt ions

l i s t e d abo ve t o t h e d e s l g n

p i t

r e s u l t e d i n t h e v o i d vo lu mes g i v e n i n T a bl e

2.

From Tables 1 and 2, 671 f t 3

of

l a r g e v o id s r e s i d e w i t h i n t h e 1160 f t '

o f the

waste zone,

or 57.8%. The b a c k f i l l s o i l i s e s t i m a te d t o c o n t a i n

143 fc 3 , o r 12.3%,

of

t i g h t a i r voids.

70.1% of t h e waste zone. The di st ur be d s o t 1 areas are e s t i m a t e d t o c o n t a i n

47.8%

a i r

voids and th e undi s tu rbed s o i l 38.4%

a i r

voids.

Toge the r the se vo ids account fo r

The e f f e c t i v e g r a i n d i a m e t er of t h e I da ho s o i l

is 0.03

mm ( s e e

Appendix A)

which

i m p l i e s a h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t iv i t y of about LO- c m / s . 3

The l a rg e vo ids

a r e

e s t i m a t e d t o i nc r e a se the ringrouted p i t h y d r a u l i c

c o n d u c t i v i t y t o 4 x cm/s (see Appendix

A) .

F i l l i n g t h e la rge voids

w i t h c o a r s e g r o u t d e c re a s e s t h e h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y t o a b ou t

2.4

x loe5

c m / s and g r o u t i n g f u r t h e r w i t h

a

f i n e g ro u t w i l l r e du c e t h e h y d r a u l i c

c o n d u c t i v i t y t o a b o ut

1Cr6 c m / s ,

e s t i m a t e d u s i n g a simple model. and

m ea su re d g r o u t h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t i e s ( s e e Ap pen dix A ) . J e t g r o u t i n g i s


11/38

5

assumed to g ive

a

s o l i d bl o ck h a vi ng t h e h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i ty of s o i l

g r o u t

o r

c o a r s e g r o u t (-10-9 cm/s).

Tab le

2.

Es tim ate d void vo;Lumes c on tai ne d i n and arou nd

one

EG&G

I d a h o d e s i g n p i t

De sc ri pt io n Void volume

t t 3 )

1. Waste

zone

L a r g e v o i d s

Drum sect ion

B a c kf i l l s o i l

Sludg e drums (13)

Oth er drums (32)

S u b t o t a l

Boxes

Pack ed s o i l v o i d s

A i r

H20

Subto

t

a1

2.

Underburden

A i r

H20

S u b t o t a l

3

Overburden

A i r

H 2 0

S u b t o t a l

4. 45 S l o p e s i d e w a l l

A i r

p e r

f t 3 of s i d e w a l l

H 2 0 p e r

f t 3

o f s i d e w a l l

S u b t o t a l p e r f

t

of s i d e w a l l

5. U n d i s t u r b e d s i d e w a l l s

A i r

p e r

f t 3 of s i d ew a l l

H 2 0 p e r f t 3

of

s i d e w a l l

S u bt o ta l pe r f t 3 of s i d e w a l l

207

19

189

256

67

1

143

46

189

155

49

2

04

166

53

2

19

_

0.478

0.152

0.630

0.384

0.179

0.563

~

4

GROUT

3MPLACEMENT

The grou t ing

of

t h e p i t s c an be done i n e s s e n t i a l l y t h r e e ,

OF

perhaps

more , ways. The th re e th a t

were

c o ns i de r ed f o r t h i s r e p o r t

were

(1)

i n j e c t i o n w e l l s , ( 2 ) i n j e c t i o n l a n c e s , and ( 3 ) j e t g r o u t i n g .

The

f l e x i b i l i t y and m o b i li t y of t h e l a t t e r two techniques were cons ide red

d e s i r a b l e e n o u g h

t o

r e j ec t t h e f i r s t t ec hn iq ue

f o r

t h e p u r p o se s

of

t h i s

ana lys i s . Th i s does no t imply tha t tha t t echn iqu e would no t work and

s h o u l d b e r e j e c t e d f o r a l l s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n s . B u t, f o r t h e l i m i t e d s c op e


12/38

6

of t h i s p ro je c t , some se le c t io ns had t o be made - p r i o r i , b as ed o nl y on

r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n and su b j e c t i v e ju dg me nt . Bot h of t h e o t h e r

t e c h n i q u e s w a r r an t c o n s i d e r a t i o n

o r

t h i s exper iment and

a r e

d i s c u s s e d

s e p a r a t e Ly below.

4 . 1 LANCE

I N J E C T I O N

T he l an c e t e c hn i q u e b a s i c a l l y i n v o l v e s f o r c i n g

a

h o l l o w l a n c e i n t o t h e

s o i l

o r

m a t r i x t o t h e d e s i r e d d e p t h and pressixre i n j e c t i n g t h e grout f rom

tha t po in t and up as t h e l a n c e i s withdrawn ( o r th e process can be revers ed

a n d g r o u t i n j e c t e d as t h e l a n c e i s forced down). 4 d o u b l e i n j e c t i o n

has

been suggested t o accompl ish

EG&G

Idaho 's goals . '

would be with

a

c o a r s e

p a r t i c u l a t e

g r o ut t o f i l l t h e l a r g e v oi ds e xp ec te d

i n s i d e and around the waste conta ine rs . Th i s in j e c t io n would be fo l lowed

by a sec on d i n j e c t t o n w i t h a p e n et r at i ng g ro u t t o f i l l t h e smalL v o i d s ,

i n c o r p o r a t e as much of t h e b a c k f i l l so f l as p o s s i b l e i n t h e g r o u t

s t r u c t u r e , a n d t o p e n e t r a t e t h e s i d e w a l l s t o f orm

a

g r o u t c u r t a i n .

4.1.1 Coarse Grout Quant i ty

The f i r s t i n j e c t i o n

To est imate the amount of coarse grout needed,

assume

t ha t a l l of the

l a r g e v o i d s

are

a c c e s s i b l e and c h a t t h e c o a r se g r o u t w i l l n o t p e n e t r a t e any

p ac ke d s o i l s ( b a c k f i l l , o v e r b ur d en , u n de r bu r d en , o r s i d e w a l l s ) .

From

Table

2 , 671 f t 3 o r about 5020 g al of g ro ut

w i l l

be r e q u i r e d t o f i l l

t h e

l a r g e

void s i n one exp erim enta l p i t . The gro ut f ormula recommended t o I X & G Ld,iho

c o n s i s t s o f 35 wt. t ype I,II Por t l and cement, 25 w t c l a s s C f l y

a sh ,

5

w t

b e n t o n i t e , and 35 w t water an d f l u i d i z e r ( f l u i d i z e r rnakes up 0 . 5

wt

o v e r a l l ) . 2

73,000

lb

of coa rse g rou t w i l l b e r e q u i r e d f o r o ne

p i t ,

or

a

t o t a l of

146 ,000 l b Table 3 g iv es th e qu an t i t y r equ i red of each component t o make

up

146,000

l b of t h i s c o a r s e g r ou t .

T h i s g r o u t h a s

a

de ns i t y of 14.5 l b / g a l l , meaning about

T a l l e n t

e t

a1.2

f ou nd i n s i m p l e l a b o r a t o r y

t e s t s

t h a t

this

coarse

g r o u t

would f i l l 37% of t h e v o id s i n d i s t u r b e d I da ho s o i l . We s h a l l assume t h i s

would b e i n d i c a t i v e of p e n e t r a t i o n i n t o t h e b a c k f i l l s o i l f o r t h e a c t u a l

grout emplacement (i .e . , n o p e n e t r a t i o n of c o a r s e g r o u t i n t o o v e r b ur d en ,

underburden, o r si de wa l l s) . From Table 2 , 189 f t 3

of

voids

p e r

p i t a r e

a v a i l a b l e i n t h e p acked s o i l v o i d s ; and t h e n u s in g T a l l e n t ' s v oi d

b a s i s

( i . e . , i n c l u d i n g w a t e r v o i d s ) a b ou t 7 0 f t 3 p e r p i t r e p r e s e n t s 37X of

t h i s vo id volume, a n i n c r ea se of about 10% i n th e amount of gro ut needed.


13/38

7

Thus, i n c r e as i n g t h e q u a n t i t i e s i n Ta b le

3

by 10%o r m u r e w i l l e n s u r e

enough c o a r s e gr o u t t o f i l l t h e l a r g e v o i ds i n s i d e t h e c o n t a i n e r s and

o u t s i d e t h e c o n ta i ne r s p l us f i l l i n g 37%

of

t h e s m a l l v oi ds i n t h e b a c k f i l l

s o i l .

4.1.2 Fi ne Grout Quant i ty

From t h e f i r s t s e t

of

a s su m pt i on s i n

Sect.

4 . 1 . 1 ,

a l l o i

t h e v o i d s

i n s i d e t h e c o n t ai n e r s and t h e l a r g e v oi d s i n t h e b a c k f i l l a ro un d t h e

c o n t a i n e r s w i l l b e f i l l e d w i t h c o a r se g r o u t . T h i s a s su m p ti o n i s t o o

o p t i mi s t i c f o r t h e rea l

case ,

though we hope t o approach i t ; but

is

reas onab le f o r e s t i ma t ing how much coa r se g ro u t w i l l be needed. F o r t h e s e

a s su m p t i o n s , t h e

small

v o i d s i n t h e u n d er b ur d en , o v e r b ur d e n , s i d e w a l l s , arid

b a c k f i l l w i l l

s t i l l

ne ed t o be f i l l e d by t h e f i n e g r o ut . Also, assume that

t h e water p r e s e n t i n t h e s o i l c an n ot b e f o r c ed o u t by t h e g r o u t. With

t h e se a s su m p t i o n s a n d u s i n g T a b l e

2 ,

464 f t 3

of

voids a r e p r e se n t in t h e

u n d er b ur d en , t h e o v e r b u rd e n , a nd t h e b a c k f i l l .

I n

a d d i t i o n , t h e b a s a l t

w i l l ta ke up some gro ut

i n

e x i s t i n g f i s su r e s . Assum ing t h e

p i t s

are

l o c a t e d o v e r t i g h t b a s a l t ( i . e ., no l a v a t u b e s , e t c . ) , w e fu r the r a ssume

t h a t t h e b asa l t

w i l l

t a k e

10% of wha: th e under burden t ake s4 which adds

a b o u t a n o t h e r 16 f t 3 of v o id s .

T a b l e 3 Component q u a n t i t i e s f o r c o a r se g r o u t t o f i l l a l l

t h e Large vo ids i n two EG&G I d a h o p i t s

Q u a n t i t y r e q u i r e d

Component W t ( l b ) ( t o n )

-

Type

1,II

Portland cement

3 5

51,000 25.6

Class

C f l y a s h 25 36,500

1 8 . 3

B e n t o n i t e 5

7,300 3 . 7

F l u i d i z e r 0 5 7 30 0.4

T he amount r e q u i r e d f o r t h e s i d e w a l l s r e q u i r e s

a n es t imate of

how f a r

t h e g r ou t

w i l l

p e n e t r a t e t h e s i d e w a l l . No

one

can say d e f i n i te l y how and

where

a

g r o u t

w i l l

p e n e t r a t e i n t o a s i v e n s o i l matr ix .

The

g r o u t w i l l

f o l l o w t h e p a t h o f

l e a s t

r e s i s t a n c e , w h e t h e r

i t is

a s o l u t i o n g r o u t o r

a

p a r t i c u l a t e g r ou t. Thus, i t could e:id up as

a

s t r in ge r many f ee t f rom

where one wants

i t

r a t h e r t h a n

as a

m i f o r m c u r t a i n

o r

f r o n t .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , w e sh a l l a s su m e a u n i fs r m p e n e t r a t i o n of 6 i n . o r t h e


14/38

u n d i s t u r b e d s i d e w a l l s a n d

7

i n . f o r t h e d i s t u r b e d s i d e w a l L 5 T hi s

assumpt ion g ives about 2 8 0 f t 3 of u n d i s tu r b e d s o i l and 177 f t 3 of

d i s tu r b ed s o i l

( 4 5

s l op e ) pen e t r a t e d by grou t . On t h i s bas i s and us ing

T a b l e

2 ,

192 f t 3

of

voids

a re

p r e s en t i n t h e s i d e w a l l s t o be f i l l e d .

A l t o g e t h e r , a b o u t 6 7 2

f t 3

of voids a r e p r e s e n t i n t h e g r o u t a b l e r e g io n o f

o n e p i t .

What f r a c t io n of t h i s volume w i l l a c t u a l l y b e f i l l e d w i th g r o u t c an

only

be

guessed

a t a t

t h i s

t i m e .

T a l l e n t e t

al.

assumed that a f i n e

cement g rou t would be used fo r th i s second grou t ing .2 The p os s ib i l i t y of

s y n e r e s i s l e d t o t h e r e j e c t i o n o f s o l u t i o n g ro u t s i n f a vo r of p e n e t r a t in g

cement g rou t s . Th i s conc lus ion w a s a r e a s o n a b l e as s um p ti on f o r t h e

l i m i t e d s c o p e of t h i s s t u d y , a nd i t does not imply t h a t s o l u t i o n g r o u t s

w ou ld d e f i n i t e l y n ot work f o r t h i s o r any o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n . The f i n e

g r o u t t e s t e d b y

T a l l e a t

e t a l . f i l l e d a b ou t 5 2 % of the a i r and water voids

o r

ahou t 69% of th e

a i r

v o i ds ( i . e . , t h e v o i d s

used as

a b a s is f o r t h i s

s e c t i o n ) . 2

would be requ i red f o r one exper imenta l p i t . O f c o u r s e , a d d i t i o n a l v o id s

may b e a v a i l a b l e i n t h e c o n t a i n e r s t h a t t h e c o a r s e g r o u t f a i l e d t o

pe ne tr at e. On th e o th e r hand, how

w e l l

can a secondary gro u t i ng be done?

W i l l t h e l a n c e s be a b le t o p en e tr a t e t he f i r s t g r ou t a f t e r i n i t i a l

s e t ?

Are

s e t

r e t a r d e r s r e q u i r e d ?

T h e i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t a b o u t 464 f t 3 of T a l l en t ' s f i n e gr ou t

The

excess

f i n e g r o u t q u a n t i t y u se d as

a

b a s is f o r t h i s r e p or t was

based

on

t h e l a c k of q u i c k a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h e f i n e l y g ro un d ce me nt s.

Both types of cement cons ide red f o r t h i s r ep or t come f rom Japan wi th

a

d e l i v e r y

t i m e

of t h r e e weeks or more compared t o th e 24-h de li ve ry t i m e

f o r t h e P o r t l a n d cem ent u se d i n t h e c o a r s e g r o ut . A lt ho ug h t h e f i n e

cements are much more expensive tha n t he P or t la nd c e m e n t , severe economic

p e n a l t i e s r e s u l t f ro m u n d er o rd e ri n g s i n c e t h e g r o u t i n g c o n t r a c t o r

m st

be

p a i d w h i l e w a i t i n g f o r d e l i v e r y . The o n ly a l t e r n a t i v e i n s u ch a

case

i s

t o n o t g r o u t c o mp le te ly w i t h t h e f l n e g r o u t w hich i s n o t t e c h n i c a l l y

a c c e p t a b l e . F o r t h i s r ea so n , t h e vo i d volume e s t i m a t e d , 6 72 f t 3 o r 5027

g a l

p e r

p i t ,

w a s

used as t h e q u a n t i t y of f i n e g r o u t r e q u i r ed . T hu s,

1 0 , 0 5 4 g a l

of f i n e g r o u t w i l l be required.

The f i n e g r o u t t e s t e d by T a l l e n t e t a l .

w a s

a w a t e r c e m e n t m i x t u r e o f

8

t o 1 0 l h cement/gal water c o n t a i n l n g 0.02 w t CFR-1 sugar . Using a mix


15/38

9

r a t i o of 8 l b / g a l , t h e d e n s i t y of t h e g r o u t is 12.5 1 b / g a l e 2

approx imate ly

125,000 l b of g r o u t are needed con ta in ing 61,190 l b 30.6

to n ) of cement and 25 l b of C F S 1 .

T h e r e f o r e ,

4.1.3

Cost of Lance In je c t io n

T h e c o s t s

of

g r o u t i n g t h e two e x p e r i m e n t a l t r e n c h e s i n c l u d e : (1)

materia l , ( 2 ) sh i p p i n g , 3 ) c o n t r a c t o r ' s m o b i l i z a t i o n , a n d

4)

h e

co nt rac to r ' s emplacement cos t s . Grout materials may be bought and su pp li ed

by

EG&G

Idaho o r t h e c on t r ac t or may b e r e s po n s ib l e f o r h i s own su p p l i e s .

I n t h e

l a t t e r case,

an ad di t i on al hand l ing f e e may be added by th e

c o n t r a c t o r . I n t h e f o rm e r case, l o g i s t i c s and t im i n g

( i.e. ,

t h e materials

must be th er e when th e co nt ra c t or needs them)

must

be handled by

EG&G

Idaho, The same su pp l i er s used by

ORNL

f o r t h e

materials

i n t h e i r l a b

t e s t s i s recommended f o r t h e a c t u a l g r o u t i n g s i n c e any su b s t i t u t i o n c an

c h a n g e g r o u t p r o p e r t i e s .

p r o c e d u r e s t h a t r e q u i r e them t o p u r c ha se t h e m a t e r i a l s . T h e r e f o r e , i t

w a s

assumed that

EG&&

Idaho would pur chase th e materials and have them

a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e c o n t r ac t o r . T ab le 4 g i v es t h e s u p p l i e r s , prices , and

f r e i g h t c o s t s f o r t h e gr o u t

materials.

Also,

EGSG I da ho may wi sh t o ha ve

QA/QC

S ac k c o s t s r a t h e r t h a n bu l k c o s t s are u se d i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s in t h i s

repor t . Sacks

w i l l

i n c r e a s e t h e l a b o r f o r g r o u t i n g , b u t t he y w i l l

e l i m i n a t e

t h e n eed f o r b u l k s t o r a g e and h a n d l i n g o n - s i t e .

do

g i v e a n i d e a of t h e c o s t s a v i n gs f o r s c a l i n g up t o t h e TRU tr en ch es . Of

c o u r s e , a c t u a l

TRU

t r e n c h e s w i l l a dd o p e r a t i o n a l c o s t s n o t Co n si d er e d f o r

t h e e x p er i me n ta l p i t s , j u s t f ro m t h e f a c t t h a t

TRU

waste is involved.

The bu lk cos t s

T h e m o b i l i z a t i o n c o s t

w i l l

be

$5000 t o

$10,000

depending OQ t h e

c o n t r a c t o r and h i s l o c a t i o n . T h i s c o s t c a n be c o n s i d e r e d

a

f i x e d c o s t , b u t

i t

would l i k e l y i n c r e a s e i f a c t u a l

TRU

t r e n c h e s were involved. The co st

f o r e m pl ac in g

t p l e

g ro ut i n t h e p i t s

ranges f rom $2000 t o $3000 per day wi th

t i m e

estimates

r a n g i n g

from

10

t o

25

d

2

t o

5

work weeks).

c o n t r a c t o r s c o n ta c te d f o r t h e s e c o s t s are l i s t e d i n t h e Appendix. T h i s

l i s t is by no means a complete l i s t

oE

t h e g r o u t i n g c o n t r a c t o r s i n t h e

country and does not imply b idd ing should be l imi t e d t o these few. The

c o n t a c t s

were

l i m i t e d t o

a

few w e l l - e st a b l i s h ed names i n t h e f i e l d j u s t f o r

g e n e r a l cos t i n format ion .

A

m o b i l i z a t i o n cost of $10,000, a d a i l y c h a r g e

of $2500, arid 20 d t o comple te the g r ou t ing of two E G G I d a h o p i t s were

The

g r o u t i n g


16/38

10

T a b l e

4 .

Grout mater ial s u p p l i e r s a n d c o s t s

Mat

e r i a

1

S u p p l i e r P r i c e s F r e i g h t C o s t s

Type

I,II

P o r t l a n d

cement

Class

C

f l y a s h

(Laramie Rive r

f l y a s h )

MC103 Bentonite

D o w e l l D-65

F l u i d i z e r

Col lo ida l Cement

Microfine Cement

and NS-200

d i s p e r s a n t

(add -1% to the

l i s t e d c os t f o r

t h e d i s p er s a n t)

Coarse Grout

Ash Grove Cement Co. $4.40/94 l b $0.32194 l b

Poc a te l lo , Idaho sac k sack (min.

B i l l

Mahorney 50,000 l b )

Bois e . Idaho $73/ ton bul k $7.8O/ton bulk.

(2 08 ) 344-8460 (min. chg.

-24 h n o t i f i c a t i o n 50,000

Ib)

Pozza lan ic Nor thwes t , $47 .80 /ton bu lk

I n c . , M e rc er I s l a n d ,

Washington

Tom Fox

( 8 0 0 ) 4 2 6 5 1 7 1

24 h n o t i f i c a t i o n

Ro s s I s l a n d

Dry

Mix $2.85180 l b


17/38

1 I

assumed. Table 5 summarizes the

c0st.s

f o r

a

d o u b l e g r o u t i n g of two EG&G

I da ho e x p e r im e n t al p i t s u s i n g l a n c e I n j e c t i o n .

T a b l e

5.

Cost

est imate

f o r l a n c e i n j e c t i o n g r o u ti n g

a t

two EG&G Idaho des ign p i t s


c o s t

( 1

~

_ _

Material c o s t s :

Coarse g rou t

Por t l and cement ; 1 t ruck load ;

532

s a c k s

Fly ash ; p a r t i a l t ruck load ; 500 sacks

Be n t o n i t e ; p a r t i a l t r u c k l o a d ; 80 s a c k s

F l u i d i z e r ;

p a r t i a l

t r u c k l o a d ; 1 6 s a c k s

2 , 5 1 1

1,700

3,610

300

Subtot a1 8,121

F ine grou t :

Col lo ida l cement ; 2 c o n t a i n e r s ; 7 6, 00 0 l b

Sugar ; 25 l b

E m p l a c e m e n t c o s t s :

F i x e d ( m o b i l i z a t i o n )

Co a r se g r o u t ; 3 d / p i t

C

$2500/d

31,440

-...

10,000

15,000

Fine

g r o u t ;

7

d / p i t

@

$2500 /d

35,000

Subt o

t

a1

60,000

T o t a l

99,561

-100,000

The quantity of Portland cement i n Table 5 i s l e s s t ha n t h a t l i s t e d i n

Table 3 because of the awkwardness

of

t h e size

o f a

t r u c k l o a d a n d t h e

q u a n t i t y e s t i m a t e d t o b e r e q u ir e d.

I t

was assumed that one t ruckload would

be used and th a t t he su pp l i e r would qu ick ly re spond

i f

more

was

needed.

Cons ide r ing t he cheapness

o f

t h e c o a r s e g r o u t , EG&G Idah o may op t t o

p u r c h a se two t r u c k l o a d s ( o r

an

a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i a l t r u ck l o a d) . The o t h e r

components of t h e c o a r s e g ro u t are l i s t e d i n g r e a t e r a mounts i n T a b l e

5

t h a n i n T a bl e

3.


18/38

1 2

T he two se a t r a f n c o n t a i n e r s u sed i n T ab l e 5 g i v e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more

f i n e ce me nt t h a n i s e s ti m at ed t o b e re qu i re d t o f i l l a l l of th e vo ids

r e a c h a b l e d u r i n g f i n e g r ou t in g . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e i s some doubt t h a t

a

s e c o n d a r y i n j e c t i o n w i l l work that w e l l . I n o t h e r words, t h e i n i t i a l s e t

of th e coa rse g rou t may preven t the l a nce s f rom pe ne t r a t i ng i n some

areas

t h a t r e qu i r e f i n e g rou t . Thus, t h e amount of

f i n e

gr ou t may be gr os sl y

o v e r es t i m at e d . Of c o u r se , t h e l a n c e s may b e d e s ig n ed t o p e n e t r a t e ,

f r a c t u r e i f n e c e s sa r y , t h e h a rd e n in g c o a r se g r o u t . T h at would c rea te voids

t h a t t h e f i n e g r o u t s ho u ld t h e n f i l l . Such s p e c i a l l a n c e s

may

r e q u i r e

development and w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e c o n t r a c t o r s c o s t s . I n o u r o p in i on , t h e

r e q u e s t f o r b i d s s h o ul d s p e c i f y t h a t s uc h p e n e t r a t i o n i n t o t h e c o a r s e g r o u t

w i l l b e e x p e c t e d f o r

a

d ou b le l a n c e i n j e c t i o n .

Prom Table

5,

t h e c o s t of t h e g r o u t s i s about $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 wi th more th an

75% be ing the f i n e g rou t . I f t h e supposedly more pen e t r a t ing mic rof ine

cement s o l d by Geoch emical Corp. i s u se d, t h e n 57 p a l l e t s (57 metric t o n s )

would be requ t red a long wi th

i t s

d i s p e r s a n t a t a c o s t of 5 7 , 5 7 0 . Thus,

t o t a l c o s t f o r c o a r s e a nd f i n e g r o u t would i n c r e a s e t o a bo u t $ 6 6 , 0 0 0 .

S i n c e T a l l e n t s r e p o r t * i s b ased o n A v a n ti s c o l l o i d a l ce me nt , t h i s c o s t

a n a l y s i s Ls b ased on t h a t c em en t. S u b s t i t u t i o n wo uld r e q u i r e t e s t i n g o f

t h e new cement i n th e same manner as t h e o ne i n T a l l e n t s r e p o r t . 2

I n c o n c l u s i on ,

a

d o u b l e l a n c e i n j e c t i o n g r o u t i n g

of

two of

t h e

E666

I da ho d e s i g n p i t s i s e s t i m a t e d t o c o s t a b o u t $100,000.

4 .2 J E T GROUTING

J e t g r o u t i n g w a s developed t o cement g rou t f i n e sands or s i l t s , i . e . ,

s o i l s th a t cou ld no t normal ly be pene t ra t ed by

a

cement grout . Us ual ly ,

t h e j e t

i s

mounted on a d r i l l r i g j u s t above t he d r i l l b i t . Th is d r i l l b i t

b o r e s

a

h o l e s l i g h t l y b i g ge r t ha n t h e

j e t

t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e d e pt h . N ex t,

t h e g r o u t ( u s u a l ly a water-cement mixture) i s f o r c e d

a t

v e r y h i g h p r e s su r e

t h r o u g h t h e

j e t as

t h e

j e t

i s

ro ta te d i n t he h ole and sLowly wi thdrawn from

t h e hole . The j e t c o n v e r t s t h e p o t e n t i a l e n er gy of t h e hi g h p r e s s u r e i n t o

k i n e t i c e n e r g y t h a t c h u rn s t h e su r r o un d i n g s o i l an d f or ms a well -def ined

column of s oiL -cce te,

s imi lar

t o t h e s o i l g r o ut s t e s t e d

by

T a l l e n t e t a l . 1

A cc o rd in g t o o ne c o n t r a c t o r , t h i s t e c h n iq u e w i l l form columns 3

f t i n

diameter composed of 20 wt cement,


19/38

I.3

The ques t ion

i s

w h et he r t h i s t e c h ni q u e

w i l l

work on

a

waste t r e n c h

f i l l e d w i th

la rge

v o i d s , s c r a p

metal , metal,

drums, and

a

p o t p o u r r i of o t h e r

i t e m s . W i l l metal shadow voids and /or s o i l ? One con t ra c to r e s t ima ted

t h e cos t of making one

EG&G

I d a h o p i t i n t o a s o l i d b l o c k u s i n g

j e t

g r o u t i n g

a t

$30,000 t o $33,000 ( inc lud i ng the cos t of cement ). Tab le

6

c o n t a i n s t h e

breakdown of t h i s co s t es t imate .

T h e f o l l o w i n g o p t i o n s w e r e c o ns i de r ed i n t h i s s t ud y :

1. Je t g r ou t t h e e n t i r e p i t as

a

E ' o il g r o u t ,

2. Je t g r o u t t h e c u r t a i n as a s o i l gro ut and th e remainder of th e p i t

w i t h t h e c o a r s e g r o u t .

A

v a r i s t i o n of t h i s o p ti o n

i s

t o

u s e

t h e s a i l

g r o u t

as

t h e b a s i s f o r t h e o v e rb u r de n an d un d er b ur de n as w e l l ,

T a b l e

6 .

Cost

est imate

of

j e t

g r o u t i n g t u o EGdG Idaho

d e s i g n

p i t s

u s i n g

a

cement-water grout

M o b i l i z a t i o n , 1400 miles

Personne l

Mixing and pumping equipment

Port land cement ,

2200

f t 3

T o t a l

Es t ima ted t i m e - 11 d

6,900

12,650

37,950

7,590

65,090

3.

Je t g r ou t t h e e n t i r e p i t w i t h t h e c o a r s e g r o u t ,

4 .

Lance double g rou t the waste zcne and j e t g r o u t t h e res t of t he p i t

( i n c l u d i n g t h e p e r i m e t e r ),

5. L a n c e i n j e c t g r o u t w i t h t h e c o a r s e g r o u t

f i r s t

i n t h e

waste

zone t o

f i l l t h e l a r g e v o id s f ol lo we d by j e t g r o u t i n g of t he e n t i r e p i t .

Opt ion 2 I .s f a vo r ed i f b o th l a n c e i n j e c t i o n a nd j e t g r o u t i n g w i l l be t r i e d

i n separa te p i t s a nd O p ti o n 5 i f o nl y t h e o r i g i n a l t h r e e p i t d e s ig n

w i l l

be

t r i e d . O p t i o n 5 reduces some of the unc e r t a in ty i n us ing j e t g r o u t i n g i n

waste t r e nc h e s by f i l l i n g t h e l a r g e v oi d s w i th c o a r se gr o u t p r i o r t o j e t

grout ing . P resumably th e emplaced coa r se g rou t w i l l

be

c u t up and blended

i n wi t h t h e f r e s h g r o ut u se d

in

t h e j e t grout ing . The d i sadvan tage of t h i s

o p t i o n

i s

t h a t

one

c o n t r a c t o r may not be ab le t o do bo th , which cou ld


20/38

14

s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n cr e a s e t h e c o s t . S i n ce t h i s s e c t i o n a d d r es s e s

j e t

g r o u t i n g s e p a r a t e l y fr om l a n c e i n j e c t i o n , o n ly O p ti o n

2

is a n a l y z e d f o r

i t s c o s t s in t he remainder of t h i s s e c t b o n .

The g r ou t c u r t a i n f o r t h i s t e ch n iq u e

is

assumed t o be

a

s o i l - C r e t e

e x t e n s i o n 3 f t beyond the nomina l p i t d imens ions

of

18

x 6

f t . T h e

c o n t r a c t o r u s u al l y u s es

a

cement-wa te r mix ture , bu t he be l i ev es the

j e t

can

h a n d le f l y a s h i n t h e g r o u t and b e n t o n i t e t o o

i

properly homogenized

(meaning ext ra equipment nay be required) .

Also,

t h e c o n t r a c t o r b e l i e v e s

t h e

j e t

c an b e h y d r a u l i c a l l y i n s e r t e d down t o t h e b a s a l t l a y e r f o r t h i s

a p p l i c a t i o n . T h u s , no c u t t i n g s f ro m t h e p i t

w i l l

h e br o u gh t t o t h e su r -

f a c e . To c a l c u l a t e t h e q u a n t i t y of g r o u t r e q u i r e d , any

soil

i n t h e g r o u t e d

r e g i o n

is

assumed 20 vol g r o u t a nd t h e l a r g e v o i d s are assumed

100%

g r o u t .

r e q u i r e d f o r

j e t

gro ut in g , compared t o the

2200

f t 3 t o t a l used

in

Table

4 .

The pe rsonne l cos t , equ ipment cos t , and t i m e est imate f rom Table 6 w i l l be

i n c r e a s e d by t h e r a t i o of t h e s e two t o t a l q u a n t i t i e s t o es t imate t h e c o s t s

based on the above assumpt ions fo r

j e t

g r o u t i n g t h e EG&G I d a h o p i t s .

From Table 7 ,

1 4 2 7

f t 3 of g r o ut p er p i t , o r

2 8 7 4

f t 3 t o t a l ,

w i l l

be

T a b l e

7.

E s t i m a t i o n of g r o u t q u a n t i t y r e q u i r e d f o r on e

EG&G

Idaho

d e s i g n

p i t

f o r

j e t

g r o u t i n g

Volume Gro ut volume

D e s c r i p t i o n

ut3

U t 3 )

S o i l

G r o u t c u r t a i n

2880 576

Underburden

324

65

Overburden

324 6 5

Backf

i

11

300

60

Large vo ids

T o t a l

67 P 47

1

1437

T h e c o s t b a s i s

w i l l

b e f o r t h e g r o u t s s t u d i e d b>- T a l l e n t e t

a l .

o r t h e

c l o s e s t a pp ro xi ma ti on . F o r t h e s o i l g r o u t s , t h e d x t u r e s u se d by

T a l l e n t e t a l . w i l l n o t b e d u p l i c a t e d w i t h t h i s ir. s i t u m ix in g t e ch n i qu e .

I n s t e a d , a grout made from a mixture of P o r t l a d c ement and f l y a s h ( t h e

r a t i o of th es e two component q u an t i t i es based on T a l l e n t e t d . s s o i l

g r o u t ) w a s assumed for t h e g r o u t c u r ta i n . T a l l e n t e t al.'s p a z t i c u l a t e


21/38

g r o u t

w a s

assumed f o r t h e p i t p r op e r, (The c o n t r a c t o r

may

b e a b l e

t o u s e

t h e so i l g r o u t f o r t h e o v er b ur d en and u n de rb ur d en

as

i n Option

2 ,

but

su c h was not assumed here . ) The gr ou ts sugges ted by Ta l l en t et

al.

meet

c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t h a t a s u b s t i t u t e d g r ou t

may

n o t ,

e.g.,

t h e

b e n t o n i t e w i l l b e i m p or t a n t i n o r d e r t o h av e no bleed

water

f o r t h e g r o u t

in

t h e l a r g e v o id s . Any su b s t i t u t t o n

requires

t h e

same

t e s t i n g T a l le n t et

a l . performed on h i s recommended gro ut s. ('Chis m e a n s t h a t t h e g r o ut

a ssum ed f o r t h e g r o u t c u r t a i n n ee ds t o be t e s t e d . ) T a b l e

8

c o n t a i n s t h e

estimate

of component quant i t ies f o r j e t g r o u t i n g t o f o r m a

3

f t s oi l.

g r o u t c u r t a i n and a block of p a r t i c u l a t e g r o u t e n c a p su l a t i n g t h e w a st e

i n s i d e t h i s c u r t a in . Combining t h e q u a n t i t i e s e s t i m a t ed i n T a bl e 8 w i t h

t h e c o s t i n f or m a ti o n

in

Tables 4 and

6

l e d t o t h e c o s t

est imate

summarized

i n T ab le 9 f o r j e t g r o u t i n g tw o of the EG&G Idaho

de s ign

p i t s .

From

Table

9,

t h e g r o u t c o s t s less than $10,000, t h e emplacement cos ts more than

$75,000,

and t h e t o t a l c o s t s o r j e t g r o u t i n g

i s

about $85,000.

Table 8. Component q ua n t i t i e s fo r j e t grout ing two

EG&G Idaho

d e s i g n p i t s

Q u a n t i t y r e q u i r e d

Component

W t

( l b ) (ton)

Cu rt a i n grouta (assume 13.5 I b / g a l ,

125,814 l b g r o u t ) :

Type 1,II Portland cement 42 52,842 26 .4

Class C f l y a s h

16 20,130 10,

1

P i t g r o u t b ( 14.5 lb/gal ,

186,511

L b

g r o u t ) :

Type 1,II Portland cement 35 6 5 , 2 9 3 32,7

C la ss C

f l y

a sh 2 5 4 6 ,6 3 8 23. 3

Bent

m i

t

e

5 9,328 4.7

F l u i d i z e r

0.

5

933 0 5

_ _

~~~

_ _

Basis:

bBased on T a l l e n t

e t a l . ' s

se r ies 1 3 . p a r t i c u l a t e g r ou t mix No.

1 , s a m e as

t h e c o a r se g r o u t f o r S e c t. 4.1 i n T a b l e 3.

1160 f t 3

of c u r t a i n

grout arid

1 7 2 0 E t 3 of p i t gruut .

un te s t ed g rou t mix , bu t based on Ta l l en t e t al.'s soil g r o u t mix No. 1.


22/38

16

Table 9. Cost

estimate

f o r j e t g r o u t i n g two EG&G Idaho des ign p i t s

cost


( 1

Material

c o s t s :

Por t l a nd cement ; 2 t ruck loa ds ; 1064 sack s

Fly ash; 1 .34 t ruck loa ds; 835 sack s

B e n t on i t e; p a r t i a l tr u c k l o a d ; 94 s a c k s

F l u i d i z e r ; p a r t i a l t r u c k l o ad ; 19 s a c k s

S u b t o t a l

Emplacement c o s t s :

Fixed (mobf.Lization)

P e r s o n n e l f o r 1 5 d

Equipment o r 15 d

S u b t o t a l

5,022

2,650

848

300

8,820

6,900

17,250

51,750

75,900

TOTAL 84,720

4.3 OTHER COSTS

The o t h e r c o s t s , m ai nl y i n v o l v e d i n t h i s e x p e r i m en t ,

are

t h e QA/QC

c o s t s a nd e x p e r i m e n t a l m o n i to r i n g an d a n a l y s t s c o s t s . EG&G Idaho w i l l

deve lop t h e i r own programs o r t he se a sp ec t s o f th e exper iment and no

a t t empt was made t o

assess

t h e c o s t s i n vo l ve d . N e v e r t h e l es s , t h e f o l l o w i n g

two

items

were c o n s id e r ed : ( 1 ) a c c e p t a b i l i t y

of

t h e mater ia ls purchased

an d ( 2 ) h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y of t h e p i t s .

Since EG&G Idaho may no t have th e l ab ora tor y ca pa b i l i ty

t o

t e s t t h e

purchased grou t mater ia ls , ORNZ may be asked

t o

p er fo rm t h i s s e r v i c e f o r

EG&G

Idaho. Since a quick answer may be nec ess ary , samples may have t o be

hand d e l i v e r e d t o ORNL and then

a

t e c h n i c i a n u se d t o p er fo rm t h e 24-h

t e s t s .

Although t h i s may s uf f i c e fo r th e qu ick answer ,

EG&G Idaho

may want

the comple te se t of t e s t s f o r t h e p u r ch as ed mater ia l (i n cl u di ng t h e 2%-d

c u r e t i m e and long

term

f r e e z e - t h aw t e s t s ) . N e g o t i a t io n s b et we en

ORNL

and

EG&G

Idaho w i l l s e t t l e what i s n e c e s sa r y an d t h e c o s t .

To h e l p a s c e r t a i n t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of g r o u t i ng t h e p i t s , t h e h yd ra uL ic

c o n d u c t i v i t y of the p i t s can be measured be f ore and a f t e r g rou t ing . One

way

t o d o t h i s w ould u s e t h e a p p a r a t u s a c t u a l l y u se d i n t h e g ro u t in g .


23/38

17

Co n c e p t u a l l y , s e v e r a l p r o b es w ou ld b e f o r c e d i n t o t h e p i t a nd u nc ou pl ed

f rom th e hyd rau l i c and pumping equipment. Then, th e hyd rau l i c cond uc t iv i ty

w ou ld b e m ea su re d u s i n g t h e p r o b e s s t u c k i n t o t h e p i t . I f a p r o b e c a n n o t

be

i n s e r t e d a f t e r g r o u t i n g , t h e n t h a t would b e c o n s id e r e d a s u c c e s s f u l l y

g r o u t e d

area

and re l a t i ve ly impermeable. However, t h i s appraach req u i r es

two a d d i t i o n a l t r i p s

by

t h e c o n t r a c t o r w i t h t h e a t t e n d a n t m o b i li z at i o n

c o s t s a n d a t l e a s t o ne d a y ' s o p e r a t i n g c o s t s ( i .e . , about $25,000 f o r both

h y d r a u l ic c o n d u ct i v it y t e s t s ) .

t e s t s a p p e a r s more a t t r a c t i v e an d may o n l y c o s t a t e n t h as much. This

d e s t r u c t i v e e x a m i n a t i o n

t e s t

should be conduc ted on ly

on

t h e sh o r t - t e r m

grou ted t rench . The second hydr au l fc Condu c t iv i ty t e s t could be done

s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e d e s t r u c t i v e e xa mi na ti on of t h i s p i t .

A g e o t e c h n ic a l f i r m s p e c i a l i z i n g i n such

Another method that could be

u s e d

i s s o n i c e v a l u a t i o n oE t h e

p i t .

With

th e des igned and documented p i t s p roposed , so n ic eva lua t io n of one p i t

b e f o r e g r o u t i n g

w i l l

h e l p e v a l u a t e t h e t e c h n i q u e a nd

a f t e r

g r o u t i n g

w i l l

h e l p e s t a b l i s h t h e s u c c es s of g r o u t i n g .

O t h er m i s c el l a ne o u s c o s t s i n c l u d e t h e c o s t and a v a i l a b i l i t y

of water.

Not b e i n g f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e s i t e , i t

was

unknown whether an adequate supply

w a s a v a i la b l e a t t h e t e s t s i t e .

A d d it i o na l c o s t s t h a t need t o be c o ns i de r ed f o r a c t u a l

TRU

wastes

i n c l u d e h e a l t h p h y s i c s p e r so n n e l, c o nt a in m en t s t r u c t u r e s , a nd p e r s o nn e l

p r o t e c t i o n .

I n

add i t io n , bo th emplacement t echn iques w i l l r e s u l t i n f l u i d s

a n d / o r g r o u t com ing t o t h e su r f a c e ( a r o u nd t h e p r o b e s , i nowhere e l se ) .

E G G Idaho should be p repa red

f o r

t h i s and have t h e c o n t r a c t o r c a p t u r e t h i s

material

and recyc le

i t

i n t o t h e p i t o r d is p os e

of i t

i n some

acceptable manner . I n ad di t i on , one way of i n c r e a s i n g t h e s u c c e s s of t h e

l a n c e i n j e c t L o n i s t o a dd t o t h e o v e rb u rd e n s o h i g h e r p r e s su r e s c a n be

used. Thi s co s t w a s not eva lu a te d , though i t would l i k e l y be minor , un les s

t h i s e x t r a o v er b ur de n n e ed s t o be reaoved (which cou ld be cos t ly

i n

t h e

case of

TRU

waste t r e nc h e s, b u t n o t i n t h e case of the exper ime nta l p i t s ) .

5. CONCLUSIONS

AYD RECOMMENDATIONS

Based

on

t h e g i v e n as s u mp t io n s an d t h e g r o u t s t h a t h av e be en t e s t e d

t h u s f a r , l a nc e i n j e c t i o n g r o ut i ng

of

two

of

t h e

EG&G

I d a h o d e s i g n

p i t s


24/38

18

w i l l c o s t a b o u t $100,000 and j e t g r o u t i n g o f t h e same p i t s

w i l l

c o s t a b o u t

$85,000. The advantages

of

t h e l a n c e t e c h n i q u e are :

1.

I t

i s

developed

for

p r e s s u r e i n j e c t i o n i n t o l o o s e and vo idy s o i l s ;

2.

deve loped f o r shal low grou t ing , though l anc es a r e a v a i l a b l e

40

f t

long ;

3 has been used fo r g rou t ing waste t r e n c h e s ;

4

machines a r e a v a i l a b l e t h a t h a n d le m u l t i p l e l a n c e s ; a nd

5.

l a n c e s are m o b il e , a l l o w i n g an o p e r a t o r t o t h or o ug h ly c o v e r a n

a rea

as

needed.

The advantag es of th e j e t g r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e are:

1.

The placement of th e gro ut i s p o t e n t i a l l y w e l l - d e f i n e d ;

2. no p e n e t r a t i n g g r o u t i s r e q u i r e d ;

3 waste, s o i l , a n d g r o u t will p o t e n t i a l l y b e on e so l i d m at r i x ; a n d

4 . th e placement probe

i s

mobile.

The d i sadvantag es of th e l an ce t echn ique

are:

1. The placement t h e g r o u t i s u n c e r t a i n s i n c e t h e g r o u t f o l l o w s t h e

path of

l e a s t

r e s i s t a n c e . L a r g e voids u s u a l l y fill f i r s t ;

2.

a n e x p e n s i v e p e n e t r a t i n g g r o u t i s n ee de d t o g r o u t t h e s o i l m a t r i x

( u n de r bu r de n , ov e rb u rd e n, b a c k f i l l , a nd c u r t a i n ) ;

3 ooz ing of g r o u t t o t h e s u r f a c e ar ou nd t h e l a n c es ; and

4. t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e f i r s t g r o ut i ng w i th t h e c o ar s e g r o ut

will

i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e s e co nd g r o u t i n g wi t h t h e f i n e g r o u t.

The disadvantages

of

t h e j e t g r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e are:

1. I t is d ev el op ed f o r u s e i n t i g h t s o i l s b u t n o t w i t h l a r g e v o i d s;

2. flow a ro un d l a r g e o b j e c t s su c h

as

drums i s u n c e r t a i n ;

3 .

waste w i l l be well-mixed wi th gr ou t (which may be an advant age or

d i sadvantage ) ; and

4 f l ow of g r o u t t o t h e su r f a c e a r ou nd t h e p ro be .

From the se advantages and d i sadvan tages , t h e l ance t echn iqu e seems t o

have an ed ge i n g r o u t i n g l a r g e v o i d s , b u t t h e j e t t eehn ique seems t o be

b e t t e r for g r o u t i n g t i g h t l y pack ed s o i l s or matrices. Se lec t ion depends o n

o n e ' s o b j e c t i v e s as w e l l as the p a r t i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n . The outcome of


25/38

19

n e i t h e r t e c h n i q u e

is

c e r t a i n ,

a

p r i o r i , an d b o th s h o ul d be t e s t e d b e f or e

r e j e c t i o n of g r o u t i n g

as

a s o l u t i o n f o r s t a b i l i z i n g t h e INEL

TRU

t r enches .

Both tech nique s can be expected t o have gro ut (ca rr yin g some waste)

p ush t o t h e su r f a c e a ro un d t h e pr o be p e n e t r a t i o n . T h i s material should be

captured and disposed

of

proper ly . I t i s su g g e s t e d t h a t su c h mater ia l be

recyc l ed back in to the p i t . One method t o he lp co n t ro l such emiss ions

and

i n c r e a s e t h e p r e s s u r e f o r l a n c e i n j e c t i o n ) would b e t o

increase

t h e

o ve rb ur de n l a y e r f o r t h e g r o u tl n g o p s r a t i o n ( b u i l d i n g a s o i l c ap ar ou nd t h e

j e t gr ou t probe may reduce th e flow from th e ov er si ze d probe hol e). Some

emiss ions should

s t i l l

be p lanned f o r and t rapped . De ta i l s such as t h i s

should be inc luded in t h e

request

o r b i d s , and t h e g r o u t i n g c o n t r a c t o r s

should propose

a

s o l u t i o n a nd g i v e c o s t s .

The disadva ntage of mixing waste wi th t he g ro ut , mentioned f o r

j e t

gro ut in g , concerns com pa t i b i l i t y of :he

waste

wi th the g rou t . Both

techniques a re faced wi th a problem

a t

t h e g r ou t -w a st e i n t e r f a c e , b u t

j e t

g r o u t i n g i n c r e a s e s t h i s i n t e r f a c e by e s s e n t i a l l y making t h e

waste p a r t

of

t h e g r o u t ( l o c a l l y ) . T h i s a s p e c t

of

t h e g r o u t t o be s e l e c t e d ha s n o t been

addressed , as y e t ; b u t i t must be before a f i n a l g r o u t f o r m ul a c an be

s e l e c t e d , r e g a r d l e s s of which technique

i s

chosen. Cement gr ou ts us ua ll y

r e q u i r e a d d i t i v e s f o r u s e w i th a c i d s , b a s e s , o r o rg a ni cs . No i n t e r a c t i o n

problem

i s

a n t i c i p a te d f o r t h e

metal,.

wood, combu st ibl es , concr e te ,

o r

f i l t e r s . However, s l u d g e w i l l be th e main prob lem and aspha l t cou ld a l so

be a problem i n j e t g r o u t i n g . Th e e x p e r i m en t a l p i t s

w i l l

c o n t a i n

a

s imula ted s ludge (wi th a c o mp o si t io n g i v e n i n t h e

p i t

design) which should

h e t e s t e d f o r c o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h t h e g r ou t .

Based on t h e a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m at i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g su g g e s t i o n s are

recommended:

1. The number of

t e s t

p i t s t o be g r o u t e d sh o u l d b e do ub le d so t h a t b o t h

l a n c e i n j e c t i o n a nd j e t gro ut i ng can be t r i e d and compared.

t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of t h i s su g g e s t i o n i s u n ce r t ai n ( s i t e a v a i l a b i l i t y ,

e t c . )

i t

c an b e s t a t e d t h a t i t would be desi rable .

Although

2. Of th e above recommendat ion i s re j ec ted , cons i de r ways

of

e v a l u a t i n g

both t echn iques ( such as g r o u t p a r t one way and p a r t t h e o t h e r ).

S e l e c t i o n of o n ly one technique depends on EGCG I d a h o ' s o b j e c t i v e s .

.

4 . The com pa t i b i l i t y of the waste and grout needs t o be eva lua ted .


26/38

2 0

5. The a b i l i t y of t h e g ro u t in g co n t r a c t o rs t o h an dl e e d s s i o n s t o t h e

s u r f a c e and t o pr op os e i d e a s f o r b e t t e r p e n e t r a t i o n ( r e v e r s e

g r o u t i n g , e x t r a o v e rb u r de n , e t c . ) sh o u l d b e p l a nn e d

f o r ,

a n d e v a l u a t e d

i n , t h e

t e s t .

6 . E v a l u a t e as b e s t

as

p o s s i b l e ) t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a c co m pl is h in g EG&G

I d a h o ' s g o a l s

by

s t u d y i n g t h e

p i t s

w i t h a v a i l a b l e n o n d e s t r u c t i v e

exper imenta l t echn iques . (EG&G Idaho is w or ki ng h a r d t o d o t h i s , b u t

a u n iq u e o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t s t o e v a l u a t e n o n d e s t r u c t i v e t e s t s on a

p re de s ig n ed p i t t h a t w i l l be d e s t u c t i v e l y e v a l ua t e d s h o r t l y a f t e r

grou t ing .

)


27/38

1. 0 K. Ta

21

REFERENCES

lent et al., Grout Testing an1 Characterization f o r Sha

Land Burial Trenches

a t

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,

ORNL/TW9881, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, September 1986.

low

2.

J. 0

Low,

EGdG

Idaho, personal communication, August

1985

3.

J.

Herndon et al., Grouting i n S o i l s , Volume I: A S t a t e - o f - t h e A r t

Report, Halliburton Services,

U , S .

Department of Commerce, June

1974.

4.

T.

Tamura,

O W L ,

personal communication, August 1985.

5.

Steven Jaques,

W. G.

Jaques Co., personal communication, August 1985.


28/38

2 2

APPENDIXES


29/38

2 3

APPENDIX A: ESTIMATION OF

P I T HYDRAULIC

CONDUCTIVITY

The p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n

of

t h e Idaho s o i l sample rece ived by

ORNL

i s

g i v e n i n Ffg

1.

From t h i s f i g u r e , t h e e f f e c t i v e g r a i n d i a me t er ,

d l o ( i . e . ,

10

by w t

of

t h e s o i l p a r t i c l e s are

smaller

t h a n t h i s d i a m e t er ) ,

i s

about 0.03 m.

Herndon e t a1.3 g i v e a h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y of a b o u t

cm/s i n t h e i r Fig.

34 f o r t h i s d lo . D is tu rb in g t h i s s o i l

w i l l

i n c r e a s e

i t s

hydr au l i c cond uc t iv i ty some, bu t the hyd rau l i c condu c t iv i t y

w i L L

d e c r e a se

o v e r t i m e

as

t h e s o i l r e se t t l e s and recompacts. The pres ence of th e l a rge

voids

w i l l

have a much g r e a t e r e f f e c t t h a t i s not easy t o eva lua te . Some

of t h e l a r g e v o i d s w i l l not be immedia te ly , i f e v e r , a v a i l a b l e . Water

w i l l

permeate through t he path of

l e a s t

r e s i s t a n c e an d t hu s t e n d t o f o l lo w t h e

la r ge vo ids . The l a r ge vo ids

w i l l

o f f e r l i t t l e r e s i s t a n c e t o p er me at io n,

so t h e h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y

w i l l

b e d i c t a t e d by t h e ov e rb u rd e n, b a c k f i l l ,

underburden, and sid ewa l ls . Assume t h a t t he ove rburden

i s i n

se r ies w i t h

t h e l a r g e

voids

and t h a t t h e b a c k f i l l

i s

i n p a r a l l e l w i th l a r g e v oi ds . F or

r e s i s t a n c e s i n ser ies , t h e r e s i s t a n c e s ( i n v e r s e h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c ti v i t y f o r

t h e p r es e n t c a s e) a r e a d d i t i v e . For p a r a l l e l r e s i s t a n c e s , t h e i n v e r s e

of

t h e r e s i s t a n c e s ( t h e h y d r a u li c c o n d u c t i v i r i e s ) a r e a d d i t i v e . Co n c e p t u a l l y

f o r t h i s m od el , t h i s m eans water flow t h rough the

waste

zone

i s v i a

t h e

l a rge

voids and the f low

ra te

i s

d i c t a t e d by t h e su r r o u n di n g

matrices

(ove rburden , underburden , and s idewa l l s ) .

Co n s i d e r t h e

case

of permeat ion through t he overburden and

waste

zone

and ignore th e pa thways ou t of t h e waste zone ( i . e . , t h e water

w i l l

permeate

i n t o t h e b o t t o m

of

s i d ew a l ls o r c o l l e c t

a t

th e bot tom). Permeat ion w i l l

o n ly e f f e c t i v e l y o cc u r i n

the

area represen ted by l a r ge vo ids and the

permeat ion

w i l l

be d i c t a t ed by the ove rburden i n t h a t area.

(1)

PA

Permeat ion

r a t e

a-

L

where

P

= h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y ,

A =

area of

permeation, and

L = l e n g t h

of

permeation.


30/38


31/38

2 5

S e r i e s

P a r a l l e l

where

P A =

a v e r ag e h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y

f o r

t r e n c h ,

Po = o v er b u rd e n h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y ,

Pw =

waste

z o n e h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y ,

PL

= l a r g e v oi d h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y ,

PR remainder of waste z o n e h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y ,

A

= area

of p i t ,

AL

=

area

o f la rge

v o i d s ,

AR = area

of remainder ,

L

= h e i g h t of p i t above underburden ,

Lo =

h e i g h t

of

overburden , and

= h e i g h t of

waste

zone.

S i n c e

PL >> ' w e

c an n e g l e c t t h e s ec o n d

term of

Eq.

3

a n d d e r i v e ,

AL

Pw

= L

A

S u b s t i t u t i n g i n

Eq. 2 , we

o b t a i n

S i n c e

PL >>

t he second term

of

Eq. 5 may be ne gl ec te d, and

( 4 )

Po

PA --.

LO


32/38

26

A s

e x p e ct e d , t h e h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y

i s

i n c r e a se d by t h e l a r g e v o i d s

r e d u ci n g t h e d i s t a n c e of p e rm e at i on and b y p a ss in g t h e b a c k f i l l ( a ssu mi ng

l a r g e v o i d s a r e i n t e r c o n n e c t e d as i n t h i s s i m p l e m odel). W it h a n

o v er b u rd e n h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y of

loe4 c m / s ,

a t o t a l h e i g h t of 13 f t and

an overburden he igh t of 3 f t , t h e e f f e c t i v e hy d r a u l ic c o n du c ti v i ty i s

e s t i m a t ed t o b e 4 x

c m / s .

Apply ing th i s same model

t o

a

p i t

w i t h t h e l a r g e v oi d s f i l l e d by

c o a r s e g r o u t , i . e , PL - 1 ~ 9 m / s , l r e s u l t s i n PR >> PL,

p0

>> PL ( t h e

r e v e r s e

of

t he p rev ious a ssumpt ions) , and

*K

Pw

= - -

PR , and

A

( 7 )

Assume

Po

-.

PR

and AR = 2 3 f t 2 ( a r e a f o r b a c k f i l l s o i l o nly) .

l T 4

c m / s ,

Lo = 3

f t , L =

13

f t , I ,,

= 10

f t , A = 116 f t 2 ,

Thus, PA

= 2.4

x l C r 5 cm/s.

F u rt h er m o re , i f 52% of t h e s o i l ' s water and a i r v o i d s

are

assumed

f i l l e d w i t h f i n e g r ou t1 , i .e . , t h e area a v a i l a b l e f o r permeat ion reduces

by

69%

i n t h e o ve rb ur de n and b a c k f i l l , t h en s u b s t i t u t i n g i n Eq s .

7

and 8

0 .3 1AR

A

P = PR , and

PA

= 0.31c2.4 x lr m/s) = 7.4 x

c m / s .

11)

The r e d u c t i o n i n a r e a p r o p o r t i o n a l l y r e du c es t h e h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y

w i t ho u t t a k i n g c r e d i t o r

a

l ow e r s o i l h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y by v i r t u e of

f i l l i n g t h e bi gg er s o i l v oi ds l e av in g

a

s o i l m a tr ix w i t h a r e d u c e d e f f e c t i v e

g r a i n d ia m et e r. Assume t h a t 6 9% ( d r y w t ) of t h e l a r g e r s i z e s i l L u s t r a t e d

i n F ig . 1 i s g r o u te d l e a v i n g 3 1% of t h e f i n e r mater ia l as t h e lo o se s o i l

matrix

t o de te rmine th e approx imate hydr au l i c conduc t iv i ty . Thus , t h e


33/38

2 7

D3.1

of 0.006 mm from Fig.

1

rep res en t s the new Dlo g i v l n g a new hydraulic

c o n d u c t i v i t y o f a b o u t 5 x

lo-

c m / s f o r t he remain ing ungrou ted s o i l com-

p a r e d t o a b ou t

l T y

cm/s f o r t h e c o a r se g r o u t a nd a b ou t T8 m/s,

f o r

t h e

f i n e g r o u t. Th us k e ep i ng t h e

same

a s sum p ti o ns ( i n c l u d i n g t h e h y d r a u l i c

c o n d u c t i v i t y of s o i l b ei ng much greacer t h an e i t h e r g ro u t ) and s u b s t i t u t i n g

t h e new h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y

f o r s a i l s

into Eq. 10 g i v e s

a

h y d r a u l i c

c o n d u c t i v i t y

of

4 x

lT

cm/s f o r t h e p i t g r o ut e d f i r s t by c o a r s e g ro u t

than

by f i n e g rou t .

For j e t grout ing, assume

a

s o l i d b lo c k of s o i l g r o u t o r

coarse

g r o u t ,

g i v i n g

a

h y d r a u l i c c o n d u c t i v i t y

of

about 10-

cm / s .


34/38

28

APPENDIX

B :

L I S T OF GROUTING CONTRACTORS CONTACTED

Gelco Grout ing Service

Salem, Oregon

Steve Warig

Kent, Washington

( 206 ) 872 - 2550

H a l

1

bu

r

t o

n

E r n i e

Carter

Duncan, Oklahoma

( 405 ) 25 I- 2095

Dr.

Paul P e t t F t

Gaithersburg, Maryland

( 3 0 1 ) 2 5 8 - 6 0 4 5

W . G.

Jaques Co.

Steven Jaques

Des Moines, Iowa

( 5 1 5 ) 2 7 6 5 4 6 4

Woodbine, Inc.

A r t

Penge l ly

Fo rt worth, Texas

( 8 1 7 ) 6 2 % 4 24 2


35/38

29

APPENDIX C: EXTRAPOLATING THE COSTS FOR GROUTING

THE

TEST PITS

INTO COSTS

FOR

GROUTING THE TRU WASTE TRENCHES AT

INEL

The volume sca le up f a c t o r go i n g f ro m t h e two e x p e r i m e n ta l p i t s

t o t h e a c t u a l

T R U

t r e n c h e s

i s 1000.

T hu s, t h e s i m p l e s t e x t r a p o l a t i o n g i v e s

$85,000,000

t o

$100,000,000

t o gr0L.t t h e TRU tr en ch es . Th is si mp le

a pp ro ac h i g n o r e s s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c l u d i n g (1) t h e f a c t t h a t TRU waste

is now inv ol ve d which will I n c r e a s e c o s t s , ( 2 ) a t i m e sp a n of s e v e r a l

years

i s i nvo lved , (3) economies of s c a l e w i l l apply, and 4) some of t h e c o s t s

a re f i x e d a nd do n o t sca le up p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e j o b s i ze . Tak ing

into

a cc ou n t t h e f i x e d c o s t s i n Ta b le s 5 and

9 w i l l

d e c r e a se t h e s i m pl e

e x t r a p o l a t i o n a bo ve

$7,000,000 t o

S10,000,000 t o make the ex t rap o la t ed

estimate

$80,000,000

t o

$90,000,000.

Any such

est imate

u s i n g t h e

cos ts

in

t h i s r e p o r t w i l l be much more i n a c c u r a t e t h a n a n a l yz i n g t h e a c t u a l c o s t s i n

g r o u t i n g t h e d e s i g n p i t s .


36/38


37/38

ORNL/TM-

10025

INTERNAL

D I S T R I B U T I O N

1. D . A.

Costanzo

2 .

L .

R. Dole

3.

T. M.

G i l l i a m

4. R. W. Glass

5 . T. T.

Godsey

6. R.

A. Wannaford

7 .

F.

J .

Homan

8 .

E .

K. Johnson

9. R. S. Lowrie

10-12.

E.

W. McDaniel

13. C. P. McGinnis

14.

M. M.

Osborne

15.

W. W.

P i t t

16

T.

H. Row

17.

18.

19-23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

2 8 .

2

9.

3 0 .

31.

32.

33

EXTERNAL, D I S T R I B U T I O N

T .

L. Sams

F.

M.

S c h e i t l i n

R. Spence

M.

G. Stewar t

D . P. S t i n t o n

s. H stow

0.

K.

T a l l e n t

R. G. Wymer

Ce n t r a l Re se a r c h L i b r a r y

ORNL-Y-12 Tech. Library

(Doc. Ref.

Sect.)

Laboratory Records

Laboratory Records-RC

O W L P a t e n t S e c t o n

34. R. L. Berger, University uf I l l i n o i s a t Urbana, 208 N. Romaine

35. O f f i c e of As si st an t Manager f o r Energy Resea rch and Development,

36.

T.

L.

Clements, Jr . , EGdG Id ah o, In c. , P. 0 . Box 1525, Idaho

37.

J. 0 Low,

EG&G Idaho, Inc., P. 0. Box 1525, Idaho F a l l s ,

ID

83415

38.

C.

L.

Miller,

EG&G

Idaho,

Inc.,

F. 0.

Box

1525,

Idaho F a l l s ,

I D

39. T. H. Smith, EG&G Idaho, Tnc. ,

E .

0. Box 1525, Idaho F a l l s , ID

S t . , Urbana, I L 61801

DOE-ORO, E'.

0

Box E , Oak Ridge, TN 37831

F a l l s , I D

83415

834 5

834 5

40-69. Tech nica l Inf orm at io n Cen ter , Oak Ridge, TN 37831


38/38

Grout Cost

Documents

Transcript of Grout Cost