Pfoceedmo<; r»f ^ Workshop on CA9200535 - CA9200561 AtCL —9085 GEOPHYSICAL AND REUTED GEOSCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AT CHALK RIVER, ONTARIO held at Ottawa, Ontario December 14 - 15th, 1983 Editors: M.D. Thomas and D.F. Dixon ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED October 1989 Proceedings of a Workshop on AECL-9085 GEOPHYSICAL AND RELATED GEOSCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AT CHALK RIVER, ONTARIO held at Ottawa, Ontario December 11 - 15th, 1983 Editors: M.D. Thomas and D.F. Dixon ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED October 1989 FOREWORD In 1973, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ap- where they have been supported by, and/or have proached the Federal Department of Energy, Mines utilized, about thirty boreholes sunk into bedrock. and Resources for geoscientific advice with respect The boreholes provide subsurface geological infor- to assessing the suitability of various geological for- mation that can be used as a reference to compare mations in Canada for disposal of radioactive waste. the responses of various geophysical methods and The Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Pro- equipment. Studies of a regional nature (e.g., geol- gram was thus initiated and is currently focused on ogy and airborne geophysical surveys) have also the concept of disposal of radioactive waste in crys- been conducted. talline rock in the Canadian Shield. A large part of Increased involvement in other research areas, the program is geoscience research and develop- such as Atikokan in 1979 and East Bull Lake in ment aimed at obtaining information to quantify the 1980, led to a movement of effort away from Chalk transport of radionuclides through the geosphere River. The increasing demands on personnel re- and at determining the geotechnical properties re- sulted, in some cases, in projects being unfinished, quired for disposal vault design. The general ap- either because of insufficient analysis or insufficient proach adopted is to try to characterize the geo- documentation. This is not to say that a wealth of sphere at potential disposal sites using a combina- data has not emerged from the Chalk River pro- tion of remote-sensing (geophysics) methods, surface gram: over one hundred and fifty documents have geological mapping and geological history, detailed been produced. Unfortunately, as far as the outside information obtained from core extracted from a geoscientific community is concerned, many of these limited number of boreholes and hydrologic studies. documents remain as unpublished internal reports An important factor governing the consideration and contractors reports. of prospective waste disposal sites was the realiza- In 1982 a proposal was made to produce a sum- tion that the province of Ontario would be the mary volume devoted to the results of geophysical main area of nuclear power in Canada. A decision studies at the Chalk River research area. To this was made, therefore, to study igneous rock types end, a workshop on Geophysical and Related Geos- in the Canadian Shield of Ontario. In 1975, propo- cientific Studies at Chalk River, Ontario, was or- sals and budgets for the inclusion of geoscientific ganized for 1983 December 14th and 15th. The prin- activities in the AECL program were formulated. cipal objectives of the workshop and the ensuing One of the activities that year was a preliminary summary volume were 1) to provide an incentive to examination of igneous rock masses in Ontario. conclude unfinished business, and 2) to provide a Another was the evaluation of exploration tech- medium for producing comprehensive documenta- niques for determination of the structural integrity tion of the most significant results of geophysical of igneous rock masses. studies and to ensure that these are made available In 1976, geoscientific field work was expanded to as wide a sector of the geoscientific community in Ontario, but early in 1977 growing concern by as possible. The volume and workshop, by and the public regarding the disposal of radioactive large, have been successful in meeting these objec- waste resulted in field work being curtailed and re- tives. With few exceptions, most disciplines are stricted to the site of Chalk River Nuclear Laborato- covered. The reference lists in the various papers ries (CRNL). This site became the principal area for provide further related reading. A secondary objec- geoscientific studies throughout the remainder of tive of the workshop was an evaluation of the the seventies. Although the CRNL property is not geophysical techniques in terms of their utility to likely to be used for disposal of significant quan- the requirements of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Man- tities of high-level wastes, it is a potential site for agement Program. Although no specific paper is de- disposal of low- and intermediate-level wastes. dicated to that subject, the topic is extensively dis- There is thus a direct interest in its geological and cussed in Chapter 10 - Panel Discussion. hydrologic characteristics. The prime objective, how- ever, has been to use the site to develop, evaluate This special volume provides an interim docu- and compare various techniques in order to op- ment that will facilitate any future attempt at a timize the methods for obtaining geoscience infor- comprehensive synthesis of all data from the re- mation. The intent was to apply methods tested at search area. Although the region is not considered Chalk River to other research sites; this goal has a potential site for high-level nuclear waste, it is been realized. being evaluated for suitability as a site for a dis- Data have been collected in three discipline posal vault to store intermediate- and low-level categories: geophysics, geology and hydrogeology. waste. In this regard, therefore, the volume pro- Most of the investigations have been carried out in vides many data and information pertinent to char- a concentrated area around Maskinonge Lake, acterization of the site. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS One of the principal objectives of compiling this K.S. Novakowski, National Hydrology Research volume on Geophysical and Related Geoscientific Institute, Ottawa Studies at Chalk River, Ontario, was to provide a R. Pearson, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, comprehensive reference on the results of such Pinawa studies. Tn some cases, results are biased in favour of descriptive material and/or presentation of raw K.G. Raven, National Hydrology Research Institute, data at the expense of detailed interpretation. This Ottawa is entirely acceptable because for some papers the P.B. Robertson, Earth Physics Branch, Ottawa subject matter necessitates such treatment and any apparent lack of interpretative dialogue is not to be W.W. Shilts, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa regarded as a shortcoming. The volume is intended as a medium for disseminating data-oriented presen- J. Toth, University of Alberta, Edmonton tations also. Nevertheless, an attempt has been G. van der Kamp, Saskatchewan Research Council, made to achieve an acceptable scientific standard by Saskatoon having the papers, almost without exception, re- viewed by an external referee. This procedure has J.B. Walsh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology enhanced the quality of the volume and for this we extend thanks to the following people and to sev- One of the highlights of the workshop was the eral additional referees who wish to remain panel discussion. This lively interaction between anonymous: panelists and other participants (see Chapter 10) ad- dressed many aspects of the geophysical program P.A. Brown, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa as it relates to the overall requirements of the Nu- R. Brown, Carleton University, Ottawa clear Fuel Waste Management Program. Consensus regarding data analysis and interpretation was not PJ. Chernis, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, always achieved and several problem areas re- Ottawa mained unresolved. Nevertheless, discussion served L.S. Collett, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa to focus on items that require further consideration in order to obtain the maximum benefit to the I.F. Ermanovics, Geological Survey of Canada, waste management program. For providing stimulat- Ottawa ing leadership throughout the discussion we extend thanks to our distinguished panel consisting of R.I.. Grasty, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa A.G. Green, Earth Physics Branch, Ottawa J.A. Cherry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo R.A.F. Grieve, Earth Physics Branch, Ottawa D.H. Charlesworth, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Chalk River Z. Hajnal, University of Saskatchewan, J.S. Scott, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa Saskatchewan F.L. Jagodits, Excalibur International Consultants S.H. Whitaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Limited, Mississauga Pinawa P.H. McGrath, Geological Survey of Canada, Further thanks are due to M.R. Dence and R.A. Ottawa Gibb, Earth Physics Branch, Ottawa, and J.S. Scott, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, for support- A.G. Menzel-Jones, Earth Physics Branch, Ottawa ing the initial proposal to hold a workshop and for H.G. Miller, Memorial University of Newfoundland, encouragement during the course of compiling this St. John's volume. CONTENTS FOREWORD (i) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (") CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTORY PAPERS 1 1. Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories - Its History and Purpose. D.F. Dixon. 3 2. Geology of the Region Surrounding Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Ontario. M.D. Thomas. 7 3. Neotectonism of the Region Surrounding Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories, Ontario. M.D. 17 Thomas. CHAPTER 2 - GEOLOGICAL STUDIES 23 4. Quaternary Sedimentology and Stratigraphy of the Chalk River Region, Ontario and Quebec. N.R. 25 Catto, W.A. Gorman and R.J. Patterson. 5. Fractures and Faults at Chalk River, Ontario. P.A. Brown and N.A.C. Rey. 39 6. Lithology, Fracture Intensity, and Fracture Filling of Drill Core from the Chalk River Research 53 Area, Ontario. J.J.B. Dugal and D.C. Kamineni. 7. Petrography of Rocks in Borehole CR-9, Chalk River Research Area, Ontario. P.J. Chernis and 75 K.T. Hamilton. CHAPTER 3 - ROCK PROPERTIES 91 8. Magnetic Susceptibility of Rocks from Boreholes CR-1 to CR-9 at Chalk River.