Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations REV 00

CAL-EBS-PA-000010  

December 2001

1. PURPOSE 
The objective and scope of this calculation is to assist Performance Assessment Operations and 
the Engineered Barrier System (EBS) Department in modeling the geochemical effects of 
evaporation on potential seepage waters within a potential repository drift. This work is 
developed and documented using procedure AP-3.12Q, Calculations, in support of Technical 
Work Plan For Engineered Barrier System Department Modeling and Testing FY 02 Work 
Activities (BSC 2001a). 
The specific objective of this calculation is to examine the sensitivity and uncertainties of the 
Precipitates/Salts model. The Precipitates/Salts model is documented in an Analysis/Model 
Report (AMR), In-Drift Precipitates/Salts Analysis (BSC 2001b). The calculation in the current 
document examines the effects of starting water composition, mineral suppressions, and the 
fugacity of carbon dioxide (CO2) on the chemical evolution of water in the drift. 
2. METHOD 
The High Relative Humidity (HRH) submodel of the Precipitates/Salts model was used to 
perform the calculations in this document. This submodel, explained in detail in In-Drift 
Precipitates/Salts Analysis (BSC 2001b, Section 6.4.2), is summarized in Section 4, as are the 
methods of calculation. Any deviations from these methods are explained in detail in Sections 3 
and 5. The control of electronic management of data was accomplished in accordance with 
methods specified in the Technical Work Plan (TWP) (BSC 2001a). 
3. ASSUMPTIONS 
The model assumptions for this calculation are identical to HRH submodel assumptions 
described in Section 5 of In-Drift Precipitates/Salts Analysis (BSC 2001b) and Section 3 of 
Precipitates/Salts Model Results for THC Abstraction (CRWMS M&O 2001). 
Assumptions were also made for the first seven input data sets listed in Table 1 (i.e., waters #1 
through #7). These input assumptions are described in detail in the following subsections. 
3.1 IN SITU AVERAGE J-13 WELL WATER 
The mean pH and mean concentrations of major ions in average J-13 well water have been 
qualified based on Harrar et al. (1990) and documented in DTN: MO0006J13WTRCM.000. 
Although these data are qualified, the pH value in the qualified reference does not represent the 
average value for J-13 water in situ (Harrar et al 1990, p. 4-9). Therefore, based on additional 
information from Harrar et al. (1990), five assumptions are made as described below to adjust 
the J-13 water composition for in situ aquifer conditions. These five assumptions are justified 
because 1) they are based on the same report (Harrar et al. 1990) used to qualify the average J-13 
well water measurements, and/or 2) they correct the data set for electrical balance. These 
assumptions are used in Section 6.1.2.1. 
December 2001 12 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
Assumption 3.1.1. The pH is set at the approximate mean field measurement of 7.0 (Harrar et 
al. 1990 p. 4-9). 
Rationale: This assumption is justified because many of the pH values averaged in the Harrar et 
al. (1990) report are lab measurements (Harrar et al 1990, p. 4-9), which are typically higher than 
field measurements, likely due to loss of dissolved CO2 (Harrar et al 1990, p. 4-9). As shown in 
the results (DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025, file: J13.3O), a pH of 7.0 for this data set implies 
an equilibrium in situ log fugacity of CO2 around -1.86. This fugacity is reasonable for ground 
water in aquifers containing calcite (Drever 1988, p. 67) and further justifies the in situ pH 7.0 
value. No further confirmation is required for this assumption. 
Assumption 3.1.2. The mean measured alkalinity from DTN: MO0006J13WTRCM.000 is 
entered as 128.9 "free mg/L" as bicarbonate (HCO -). 3 
3 
3 
3 
Rationale: This treatment of the alkalinity measurement fixes the HCO - species concentration at 
128.9 mg/L and assumes that all of the mean measured alkalinity is from the HCO - species. This 
assumption is justified by the results, which indicate that the HCO - species accounts for more 
than 99 percent of the alkalinity at pH 7.0 (DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025, file: J13.3O). No 
further confirmation is required for this assumption. 
This treatment of alkalinity allows EQ3NR to determine how much H2CO3 (aq) to add to the 
solution to bring it into equilibrium with the pH of 7.0. This is important because the H2CO3 (aq) 
concentration is not included in an alkalinity measurement. For water with a pH in the neutral or 
acid range, H2CO3 (aq) accounts for a considerable portion of the total dissolved carbonate 
(Drever 1988, p. 55). 
3 Assumption 3.1.3. The water is charge balanced by allowing EQ3NR to adjust the HCO - 
concentration as needed. 
3 
Rationale: According to the results (DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025, file: J13.3O), charge 
balancing with HCO - causes the equilibrated alkalinity to be about one percent below the mean 
measured alkalinity. This assumption is justified because the relative standard deviation of the 
alkalinity data in the Harrar report is 6.7 percent (DTN: MO0006J13WTRCM.000). No further 
confirmation is required for this assumption. 
Assumption 3.1.4. Redox is set by setting the log fugacity of O2 (g) to -0.818, which yields an 
O2 (aq) concentration of 5.6 mg/L (DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025, file: J13.3O). 
Rationale: This value is justified and confirmed because Harrar et al. (1990, p. 4-9) reports 
values of 5.5 to 5.7 mg/L for O2 (aq). The actual log fugacity of O2 (g) for this water is not 
important in the current document, however, because no redox reactions are important in the 
calculations. It is only included in the input because EQ3NR requires a redox parameter value. 
No further confirmation is required for this assumption. 
Assumption 3.1.5. Temperature is set at the downhole temperature of 31C reported in Harrar et 
al. (1990, p. 4-9). 
December 2001 13 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
Rationale: This temperature is justified because it is reported in the same report (Harrar et al. 
1990) used to qualify the average J-13 well water measurements. No further confirmation is 
required for this assumption. 
3.2 NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS 
Nitrate was added to three of the waters listed in Table 1, the Topopah Spring tuff pore water 
(water #2) and THC abstraction waters (waters #6 and #7). Nitrate concentrations are not 
reported for these waters. The concentration of nitrate added was determined based on an 
assumed nitrate to chloride molar ratio. The primary reason nitrate was added was to track the 
concentration factor during evaporation because nitrate behaves conservatively in the 
calculations. 
Assumption 3.2.1. The molar ratio of nitrate to chloride for pore water from the Topopah 
Spring welded hydrogeologic unit (TSw) and for abstracted THC model seepage water is 
assumed to be 0.1. This assumption is used in Sections 6.1.2.2, 6.1.2.6, and 6.1.2.7. 
Rationale: This molar ratio is justified based on a rounded average of the molar ratios in the four 
TSw pore water samples listed in Table 6 of CRWMS M&O (2000a, pp. I-17 and I-19). No 
further confirmation is required for this assumption. 
3.3 PERCHED WATER COMPOSITION 
Assumption 3.3.1. Because perched water is a subset of ambient fluids that could seep into 
drifts and contact waste packages, a potential fluid composition representing perched water has 
been selected for use in the sensitivity calculations presented below. The assumed representative 
perched water composition is identical to a perched water sample collected on 8/3/1993 from 
borehole USW UZ-14 within the Topopah Spring welded unit. This composition is documented 
in Table 8 of CRWMS M&O (2000a, p. I-22). This assumption is used in Section 6.1.2.3. 
Rationale: The assumed representative perched water composition is corroborated by other 
perched water sample measurements listed in Table 8 of CRWMS M&O (2000a, p. I-22). This 
composition has been used in previous sensitivity studies using previous versions of the 
Precipitates/Salts model (Mariner 2001). The use of this assumed input allows for direct 
comparison to previous sensitivity calculations. Because results for sensitivity studies are not 
generally used as direct input into TSPA models, this composition is sufficient to evaluate the 
representative potential effects. Therefore, this assumption is justified and requires no further 
confirmation. 
3.4 SINGLE HEATER TEST WATER COMPOSITION 
Assumption 3.4.1. Because Single Heater Test waters are a potential subset of thermally 
perturbed waters that could seep into drifts and contact waste packages, a potential fluid 
composition representing Single Heater Test water has been selected for use in the sensitivity 
calculations presented below. The assumed representative composition of Single Heater Test 
water is a Single Heater Test water sample collected on 2/3/1997 from borehole 16, Suite 2. 
December 2001 14 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
This composition is documented in Table 5-19 of CRWMS M&O (1997, p. 5-49). This 
assumption is used in Section 6.1.2.4. 
Rationale: The assumed representative Single Heater Test water composition is corroborated by 
Suite 1 Single Heater Test water composition measurements (CRWMS M&O 1997, p. 5-49) and 
other Single Heater Test water compositions reported in DTN: LL970409604244.030. This 
composition has been used in previous sensitivity studies using previous versions of the 
Precipitates/Salts model (Mariner 2001). The use of this assumed input allows for direct 
comparison to previous sensitivity calculations. Because results for sensitivity studies are not 
generally used as direct input into TSPA models, this composition is sufficient to evaluate the 
representative potential effects. Therefore, this assumption is justified and requires no further 
confirmation. 
3.5 DRIFT-SCALE HEATER TEST WATER COMPOSITION 
Assumption 3.5.1. Because Drift-Scale Heater Test waters are a potential subset of thermally 
perturbed waters that could seep into drifts and contact waste packages, a potential fluid 
composition representing Drift-Scale Heater Test water has been selected for use in the 
sensitivity calculations presented below. The assumed representative composition of Drift-Scale 
Heater Test water is a Drift-Scale Heater Test water sample collected on 1/26/1999 from 
borehole 60-3. This composition is documented in DTN: LL990702804244.100. This 
assumption is used in Section 6.1.2.5. 
Rationale: This water composition is corroborated by other Drift-Scale Heater Test water 
compositions reported in DTN: LL990702804244.100 and has been used in previous sensitivity 
studies using previous versions of the Precipitates/Salts model (Mariner 2001). The use of this 
assumed input allows for direct comparison to previous sensitivity calculations. Because results 
for sensitivity studies are not generally used as direct input into TSPA models, this composition 
is sufficient to evaluate the representative potential effects. Therefore, this assumption is justified 
and requires no further confirmation. 
December 2001 15 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
4. USE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND MODELS 
4.1 MODELS 
The Precipitates/Salts model, developed and validated in In-Drift Precipitates/Salts Analysis 
(BSC 2001b), was used to perform the calculations in this document. The model incorporates 
two submodels, the Low Relative Humidity (LRH) model and the High Relative Humidity 
(HRH) model. Only the HRH model is used in this calculation. The HRH model is simulated 
using the geochemical code EQ3/6 version 7.2b. 
Use of the Precipitates/Salts model in this calculation is justified because the model was 
specifically designed to perform these calculations (BSC 2001b). 
4.2 SOFTWARE 
All computer calculations were performed on a Hewlett Packard Pavilion 7410P, an IBMcompatible 
personal computer, serial number US72352516. This computer uses a Microsoft 
Windows 95 operating system and is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 
The evaporation calculations were performed using the code EQ3/6 v7.2b [CSCI: URCL-MA- 
110662, Wolery 1992a and 1992b, Wolery and Daveler 1992, CRWMS M&O 1998a] with the 
solid-centered flow-through addendum [EQ6 V7.2bLV, STN: 10075-7.2bLV-00, CRWMS 
M&O 1999a and 1999b]. These software were obtained from Configuration Management. 
They were appropriate for the application and were used only within the range of validation in 
accordance with AP-SI.1Q Software Management and the Precipitates/Salts AMR (BSC 2001b). 
The Precipitates/Salts AMR restricts the use of these codes to a water activity of about 0.85 and 
higher. 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR-2, a commercially-available spreadsheet software package, was used to 
chart data and to calculate the ionic strength approximation (ISa) and concentration factor 
(C/Co). Spreadsheet calculations were validated by hand calculations using the equations 
presented in Section 5.2, and charts were validated by visual inspection. These actions confirm 
that the spreadsheet application provided correct results. No macros or software routines were 
developed for, or used by, this software, and consequently it is an exempt software application in 
accordance with Section 2.1 of AP-SI.1Q. 
December 2001 16 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
5. CALCULATION 
Section 5.1 describes the input to the calculations while Section 5.2 describes the calculations 
performed. 
5.1 INPUT 
The calculations required the following types of input: 1) thermodynamic constants for 
potentially important ground-water constituents, and 2) values for model input variables. 
5.1.1 Thermodynamic Database 
The thermodynamic database used in each evaporation calculation was the PT5v2 Pitzer 
thermodynamic database (DTN: MO0110SPAPT245.017). This database is developed in the 
Precipitates/Salts AMR (BSC 2001b). 
5.1.2 Input Variables 
The input variables for the simulations include temperature, pH, fugacity of CO2, redox 
potential, and initial concentrations of the aqueous components. Table 1 lists the sources of the 
acquired input data used in the EQ3/6 input files in this calculation. 
Not all waters identified in Table 1 have a complete set of values for input variables. The redox 
potential is only specified for a few of the waters. However, no redox reactions were simulated, 
so the values entered for redox potential did not affect the results presented. Waters #1 through 
#5 were evaporated at 96C and were evaporated at three different values for CO2 fugacity: 10-1, 
10-3, and 10-6. Temperature and CO2 fugacity values used for waters #6 through #9 correspond 
to the source input values. 
The following minerals were suppressed in each of the model runs: K-feldspar, maximum 
microcline, dolomite, magnesite, quartz, albite, tridymite, diaspore, enstatite, wollastonite, 
anorthite, talc, chrysotile, and anhydrite. These minerals were suppressed because their 
formation is likely too slow at the temperatures and pressures modeled (BSC 2001b, Table 16; 
Klein and Hurlbut 1999) or their precipitation would be inconsistent with the minerals predicted 
to precipitate in the thermal hydrological-chemical (THC) model. An example of the latter is 
that gypsum is used in the THC model instead of anhydrite. Several of the suppressed minerals 
never became supersaturated in the calculations (Section 6); they were included as suppressed 
minerals in the input files simply to prevent rerunning calculations in the event an undesired 
mineral became supersaturated. 
December 2001 17 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
Water 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 a 
8
9
a The EQ3/6 calculations performed for water #7 are documented in Precipitates/Salts Model Calculations for Various Drift 
Temperature Environments (BSC 2001c). DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 includes EQ3/6 output files. These data are included in 
this document for comparison purposes. 
b $ is a wildcard for the different abstraction time periods described in Table 3. 
c ?? is a wildcard for pc, bc, cd, xd, ta, and am, corresponding respectively to time periods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in Table 3. 
Table 1. References for Data Used in EQ3/6 Input Files 
Description of Data Used 
Recommended mean values of major constituents in J-13 well water DTN: MO0006J13WTRCM.000 
Parameter adjustments to represent average in situ J-13 well water Assumptions 3.1.1 through 3.1.5 
Pore water composition and CO2 partial pressure input to REV 01 thermal DTN: LB0101DSTTHCR1.001 
hydrological-chemical (THC) simulations 
Nitrate to chloride molar ratio 
Chemical composition of perched water sample collected from borehole 
USW UZ-14 within the Topopah Spring welded unit on 8/3/1993 
Chemical composition of Single Heater Test water sample collected from 
borehole 16, Suite 2 
Chemical analysis of Drift-Scale Heater Test water sample from borehole 
60-3 on 1/26/1999 
Abstraction of THC REV 00 model chemical boundary conditions for 
abstraction periods 2, 3, and 4 
Nitrate to chloride molar ratio 
Abstraction of the REV 01 THC model results for seepage at the crown of 
the drift in the Tptpmn lithology 
Nitrate to chloride molar ratio 
Cement grout leachate predicted to result from contacting cement with 
water #7 
Cement grout leachate predicted to result from contacting cement with 
water from the REV 01 THC model abstraction at the crown of the drift of 
the high temperature and high carbon dioxide partial pressure case in the 
Tptpll lithology, initialized using water composition of UZ-14 perched water 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 18 
Reference 
Assumption 3.2.1 
Assumption 3.3.1 
Assumption 3.4.1 
Assumption 3.5.1 
DTN: MO9912SPAPAI29.002 
Assumption 3.2.1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Files: mc$.6ob 
Assumption 3.2.1 
DTN: MO0111SPATHC14.040 
Files: tb2??cm.6o c 
DTN: MO0111SPATHC14.040 
Files: tb14??cm.6o c 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
5.2 CALCULATIONS 
Each evaporation calculation was performed using EQ3/6 according to the procedures described 
in Section 6.4.2.1 of the Precipitates/Salts AMR (BSC 2001b). Water was evaporated by 
declaring it a special reactant with a rate constant of -1.0. The maximum reaction progress 
was iteratively adjusted to achieve a final water activity of 0.85. Before each run, the water 
composition was electrically balanced by allowing EQ3/6 to adjust the bicarbonate, Na, Cl, or 
other major ion concentration, depending on which ions concentration would be changed the 
least to achieve electrical balance. 
Model predictions were exported to text files using the EQ3/6 postprocessor (PP.EXE) included 
in the EQ6 software package. These text files were imported into Excel worksheets where the 
ionic strength approximation (ISa) and concentration factor (C/Co) could be calculated and the 
results plotted. C/Co was calculated by dividing the total nitrate concentration by the initial 
nitrate concentration. Nitrate does not precipitate in the high relative humidity range modeled in 
these calculations. 
The ionic strength approximation (ISa) parameter of the Precipitates/Salts model is not the true 
ionic strength. Instead, it is an approximation of the true ionic strength (I) according to the 
following equation: 
+ + C ) C + ( 4 C C ISa = (Eq. 1) Mg Ca K Na 
where Ci is the molality of component i, and i represents sodium (Na), potassium (K), calcium 
(Ca), or magnesium (Mg). This approximation is included in the results because it is identical to 
the approximation used by the Precipitates/Salts model (BSC 2001b, Section 6.3.2) and colloids 
model (CRWMS M&O 1998b, Section 4.4.3.3.1). 
December 2001 19 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6. RESULTS 
In this section, the results of the sensitivity calculations are presented. They focus on the 
sensitivity of evaporative evolution to the following input parameters: (1) starting water 
composition, (2) mineral suppressions, and (3) CO2 fugacity. These sensitivity calculations are 
presented in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3, respectively. Uncertainty and limitations are addressed in 
Section 6.4. 
6.1 EFFECTS OF STARTING WATER COMPOSITION ON EVAPORATIVE 
EVOLUTION 
An important uncertainty in the Precipitates/Salts model calculations is the sensitivity of the 
starting water composition on the evaporative chemical evolution of water in the drift. The REV 
00 TSPA model makes the assumption that nitrate salts will set the lower limit on the relative 
humidity at which liquid water is stable within the drift (CRWMS M&O 2000b, Appendix F). To 
investigate the uncertainty in the different types of brines that might develop from evaporation, a 
set of sensitivity calculations was performed. The results show that the chemical composition of 
the remaining evaporated solution can be highly sensitive to the starting water composition. 
Furthermore, they suggest that basing the relative humidity threshold assumption on the 
properties of a sodium/potassium nitrate salt solution may not be appropriate in some instances. 
These results illustrate the importance of chemical divides encountered during evaporation. 
6.1.1 The Chemical Divide 
Evaporation of water is the net transfer of water molecules from liquid to vapor. As water 
evaporates from an aqueous solution, each solute concentrates until it becomes supersaturated 
with respect to a mineral phase and thereafter precipitates. If the mineral phase is a binary salt 
and the concentrations of the two reactants (multiplied by their stoichiometric coefficients) are 
not equal, then the reactant having the lower relative concentration (multiplied by its 
stoichiometric coefficient) will become depleted in solution while the other reactant will 
continue to concentrate (Eugster and Hardie 1978, pp. 243-247; Eugster and Jones 1979, pp. 
614-629). This mechanism is known as a chemical divide (Drever 1988, pp. 235-236). A 
chemical divide establishes which reactant concentrations are predominantly controlled by the 
solubility of a precipitating phase (i.e., those that become depleted in solution) and which 
reactant concentrations are only partially controlled by a precipitating phase (i.e., those that 
continue to concentrate in solution despite partial precipitation). 
A chemical divide is demonstrated in the following example. If, as water evaporates, halite 
(NaCl) reaches saturation and begins to precipitate and the Na:Cl molar ratio is greater than one, 
then Cl will become depleted in solution while excess Na will continue to concentrate. 
Inversely, if the ratio is less than one, then Na will become depleted while excess Cl will 
continue to concentrate. This mechanism implies that a small difference in the original Na:Cl 
ratio can determine whether a Na or Cl brine develops beyond the halite chemical divide. 
Chemical divides are useful in explaining the chemical evolution of natural saline waters. The 
earliest example of this concerned the evaporative evolution of Sierra Nevada spring water 
December 2001 20 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
(Garrels and Mackenzie 1967). Upon evaporation, the first chemical divide encountered was the 
calcite chemical divide. Calcite precipitation is an important evolutionary step because the 
relative concentrations of Ca and carbonate (CO3) determine whether the evaporating water 
becomes carbonate-poor or carbonate-rich (Eugster and Hardie 1978, pp. 244). In this case, 
there was excess CO3 so the water became carbonate-rich and Ca was depleted. Next, 
precipitation of sepiolite depleted Mg. Continued evaporation resulted in a sodium carbonate 
brine with a pH near 10, which is common for natural saline lakes in the western United States 
(Eugster and Hardie 1978, p. 240). In the late stage of evaporation, the highly soluble 
components precipitate. In carbonate-rich brines, these salts include, but are not limited to, Na, 
Cl, SO4, CO3, and SiO2 (Eugster and Hardie 1978, p. 244). 
Evaporation of simulated J-13 well water produces an alkaline sodium carbonate brine 
(Rosenberg et al. 1999a). This is similar to the brine predicted for the evaporation of Sierra 
Nevada spring water (Garrels and Mackenzie 1967). Calcite and aragonite, both having a 
molecular formula of CaCO3, are observed to precipitate in laboratory J-13 evaporation 
experiments (Rosenberg et al. 1999a). Because carbonate alkalinity exceeds the Ca 
concentration in the starting water composition, Ca becomes depleted as CaCO3 precipitates. 
Evaporation of simulated Topopah Spring tuff pore water gives the opposite result (Rosenberg et 
al. 1999b). This water has excess Ca relative to carbonate alkalinity and results in depletion of 
CO3 and concentration of excess Ca. It results in a decrease in pH below 7 as the water 
continues to evaporate. 
These two sets of results show that the evolution of waters at Yucca Mountain due to evaporative 
processes can be highly sensitive to the starting water composition. Section 6.1.2 presents 
evaporation predictions for several waters observed or predicted to occur at Yucca Mountain. 
6.1.2 Evaporative Evolution of Observed or Predicted Yucca Mountain Waters 
Evaporation calculations were performed for nine waters observed at Yucca Mountain or 
predicted to potentially occur in the drift. These waters, presented as waters #1 through #9 in 
Table 1, include the following (described and referenced in Section 5.1.2): 
2 degassing), 
1. in situ J-13 ground water (i.e., average J-13 well water from Harrar et al. (1990) corrected for 
CO 
2. Topopah Spring tuff pore water, 
3. water perched on top of the Calico Hills formation at the base of the Topopah Spring tuff, 
4. water collected from the Single Heater Test, 
5. water collected from the Drift-Scale Heater Test, 
6. water predicted by the REV 00 THC model to seep into the crown of the drift, 
7. water predicted by the REV 01 THC model to seep into the crown of the drift, 
8. water predicted to result from reaction of cement with water #7, and 
9. water predicted to result from reaction of cement with water from the REV 01 THC model 
abstraction of the high temperature and high CO2 partial pressure case, initialized using water 
composition of UZ-14 perched water. 
December 2001 21 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
Figures 1 through 72 show the predicted evaporative evolution of these waters. A crossreference 
for the outputs is presented in Table 2. Waters #6 through #9 are divided into 
abstraction periods. To simplify comparisons and identification of results, these periods are 
numbered in this document as described in Table 3. The results are summarized in Section 6.1.3. 
Water 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
a The input for this run is mistakenly from the invert instead of the crown. However, the differences in 
these inputs are small (BSC 2001d, Tables 4 and 5) and easily within the range of uncertainty in the 
derived abstracted input values (BSC 2001d, Section 6.3). The crown seepage values are within 2 
percent of the invert values, except for Mg, which is nearly 10 percent higher in the invert seepage 
(BSC 2001d, Tables 4 and 5). 
Table 2. Output Files and Figures Cross-Reference 
Output Figures 
Figure 1 & Figure 2 
Figure 3 & Figure 4 
Figure 5 & Figure 6 
Figure 7 & Figure 8 
Figure 9 & Figure 10 
Figure 11 & Figure 12 
Figure 13 & Figure 14 
Figure 15 & Figure 16 
Figure 17 & Figure 18 
Figure 19 & Figure 20 
Figure 21 & Figure 22 
Figure 23 & Figure 24 
Figure 25 & Figure 26 
Figure 27 & Figure 28 
Figure 29 & Figure 30 
Figure 31 & Figure 32 
Figure 33 & Figure 34 
Figure 35 & Figure 36 
Figure 37 & Figure 38 
Figure 39 & Figure 40 
Figure 41 & Figure 42 
Figure 43 & Figure 44 
Figure 45 & Figure 46 
Figure 47 & Figure 48 
Figure 49 & Figure 50 
Figure 51 & Figure 52 
Figure 53 & Figure 54 
Figure 55 & Figure 56 
Figure 57 & Figure 58 
Figure 59 & Figure 60 
Figure 61 & Figure 62 
Figure 63 & Figure 64 
Figure 65 & Figure 66 
Figure 67 & Figure 68 
Figure 69 & Figure 70 
Figure 71 & Figure 72 
EQ6 Output File 
J13-1.6O 
J13-3.6O 
J13-6.6O 
TSW-1.6O 
TSW-3.6O 
TSW-6.6O 
PERCH-1.6O 
PERCH-3.6O 
PERCH-6.6O 
SHT-1.6O 
SHT-3.6O 
SHT-6.6O 
DST-1.6O 
DST-3.6O 
DST-6.6O 
ABS2.6O 
ABS3.6O 
ABS4.6O 
MC1.6O 
MC2.6O 
MC3.6O 
MC4.6O 
MC5.6O 
MC6.6O a 
MCC1.6O 
MCC2.6O 
MCC3.6O 
MCC4.6O 
MCC5.6O 
MCC6.6O 
HHCPC1.6O 
HHCPC2.6O 
HHCPC3.6O 
HHCPC4.6O 
HHCPC5.6O 
HHCPC6.6O 
Output DTN 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 22 December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
Abstraction 
Time Period 
1
2
3
4
5
6
% 
not defined 
DTN: MO9912SPAPAI29.002, #MO0110SPAEBS13.038 
Table 3. Key to Abstraction Time Periods Cited in This Report 
%Water #6 
not simulated 
50-1,000 years 
1,000-2,000 years 
2,000-100,000 years 
not defined 
#Waters #7 and #8 
0-50 years 
51-1,200 years 
1,201-2,000 years 
2,001-20,000 years 
20,001-100,000 years 
100,001-1,000,000 years 100,001-1,000,000 years 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 23 
#Water #9 
0-50 years 
51-1,500 years 
1,501-4,000 years 
4,001-25,000 years 
25,001-100,000 years
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.1.2.1 In Situ J-13 Well Water (Water #1) 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 1. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of In Situ J-13 Well Water at fCO2 of 10-1 
Figure 2. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of In Situ J-13 Well Water at fCO2 of 10-1 
pH pH 
12 
Chalcedony pH 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
Sepiolite 
24 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+0 
Trona Sellaite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 3. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of In Situ J-13 Well Water at fCO2 of 10-3 
12 
Calcite pH 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 4. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of In Situ J-13 Well Water at fCO2 of 10-3 pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Sepiolite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1000 
Chalcedony 
1000 
25 
1.E+2 
1.E+1 
pH 
IS 
ISa 1.E+0 
1.E-1 C
Ca 
Cl 
F
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 
1.E+0 
Fluorite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 5. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of In Situ J-13 Well Water at fCO2 of 10-6 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
Sepiolite pH 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 6. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of In Situ J-13 Well Water at fCO2 of 10-6 pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite Gyrolite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1.E+2 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
Villiaumite Chalcedony 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001 26
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.1.2.2 Topopah Spring Tuff Pore Water (Water #2) 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 7. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Topopah Spring Tuff Pore Water at fCO2 of 10-1 
12 
pH 
Gypsum 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 8. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Topopah Spring Tuff Pore Water at fCO2 of 10-1 
pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Chalcedony 
Sepiolite 
Calcite 
Montmor-Mg
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 27 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+0 
Sellaite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 9. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Topopah Spring Tuff Pore Water at fCO2 of 10-3 
12 
pH 
Chalcedony 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 10. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Topopah Spring Tuff Pore Water at fCO2 of 10-3 pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Gypsum 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
Sepiolite 
Albite_low 
28 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+0 
Fluorite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 11. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Topopah Spring Tuff Pore Water at fCO2 of 10-6 
12 
pH 
Fluorite 11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 12. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Topopah Spring Tuff Pore Water at fCO2 of 10-6 pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Gypsum 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1000 
Sepiolite 
Analcime 
1000 
29 
1.E+1 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 
1.E+0 
Gyrolite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
6.1.2.3 
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations
C
S 
UZ-14 Perched Water (Water #3) 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 pH 
Mg 
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 13. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Perched Water at fCO2 of 10-1 
12 
pH 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 14. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Perched Water at fCO2 of 10-1 
pH pH 
IS ISa 
N Na 
10 100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
10 100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
Ca 
Si 
Chalcedony 
30 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
K Cl 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+0 
Sepiolite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 15. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Perched Water at fCO2 of 10-3 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 16. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Perched Water at fCO2 of 10-3 pH pH 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
pH 
Mg 
IS 
N 4 
10 1 
12 
pH 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
ISa 
Na 
C
S 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
Sepiolite 
31 
1.E+0 
Chalcedony 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 K Cl Ca 
Si 1.E-9 
10000 1000 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7 
IS pH 6 
N Mg 
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 17. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Perched Water at fCO2 of 10-6 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
pH 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 18. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Perched Water at fCO2 of 10-6 pH pH 
C ISa 
S Na 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
Ca K Cl 
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
Gyrolite Sepiolite 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001 32
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.1.2.4 Single Heater Test Water (Water #4) 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
pH 
Fe 
IS 
K 4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 19. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Single Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-1 
12 
pH 
Sepiolite 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 20. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Single Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-1 
pH pH 
ISa 
Mg 
CN 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Hematite 
Trona 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
Ca 
Na 
1000 
Chalcedony 
Sellaite 
1000 
33 
1.E+0 
Calcite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
100000 10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 F
Si 
Cl 
S 1.E-9 
100000 10000 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
pH 
Fe 
IS 
K 4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 21. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Single Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-3 
12 
Calcite pH 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 22. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Single Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-3 pH pH 
ISa 
Mg 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Sepiolite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
Ca 
Na 
CN 
1000 
Hematite
1000 
34 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 F
Si 
Cl 
S 1.E-9 
10000 
1.E+0 
Chalcedony 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 
Moles Precipitated Molality 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 pH 
Fe 
IS 
K 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 23. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Single Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-6 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
Sepiolite pH 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 24. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Single Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-6 pH pH 
ISa 
Mg 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Hematite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 Ca 
Na 
F
Si 
Cl 
S 
CN
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
Chalcedony Calcite Gyrolite 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Moles Precipitated Molality 
December 2001 35
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.1.2.5 Drift-Scale Heater Test Water (Water #5) 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
IS 
Mg 
pH 
K 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 25. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Drift-Scale Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-1 
12 
Chalcedony pH 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 26. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Drift-Scale Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-1 
pH pH 
C
Na 
ISa 
N 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 36 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 F Ca 
S 
Cl 
Si 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+0 
Sepiolite Sellaite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
IS 
Mg 
pH 
K 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 27. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Drift-Scale Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-3 
12 
Chalcedony pH 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 28. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Drift-Scale Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-3 pH pH 
C
Na 
ISa 
N 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Sepiolite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
Ca 
S 
1000 
Calcite 
1000 
37 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 F Cl 
Si 
1.E-9 
10000 
1.E+0 
Fluorite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 pH 
K 
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 29. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Drift-Scale Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-6 
12 
pH 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026 
Figure 30. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Drift-Scale Heater Test Water Sample at fCO2 of 10-6 pH pH 
C
Na 
ISa 
N 
IS 
Mg 
100 10 
Concentration Factor 
Sepiolite Chalcedony 
100 10 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 38 
1.E+0 
Fluorite Gyrolite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
F 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 Ca 
S 
Cl 
Si 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.1.2.6 THC REV 00 Model Abstracted Seepage (Water #6) 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 31. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution for THC Abstraction REV 00 Period 2 
12 
11 
pH 
Gyrolite 
Gypsum 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 32. Mineral Evaporative Evolution for THC Abstraction REV 00 Period 2 
pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Nontronite-Ca 
Montmor-Ca 
Nontronite-Na
100 
Concentration Factor 
1000 
Sepiolite 
Fluorite 
Chalcedony 
Albite_low 
1000 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 39 
1.E+1 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+0 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 33. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution for THC Abstraction REV 00 Period 3 
12 
11 
pH 
Montmor-Ca 
Nontronite-Na 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 34. Mineral Evaporative Evolution for THC Abstraction REV 00 Period 3 
pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Fluorite 
Sepiolite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
Chalcedony 
Gypsum 
40 
1.E+1 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+0 
Nontronite-Ca 
Albite_low 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 35. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution for THC Abstraction REV 00 Period 4 
12 
11 
pH 
Fluorite 
Montmor-Na 
Glauberite 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 36. Mineral Evaporative Evolution for THC Abstraction REV 00 Period 4 
pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Montmor-Ca 
Clinoptilolite-hy-Na 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 41 
1.E+1 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+0 
Chalcedony 
Gypsum 
Albite_low 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.1.2.7 THC REV 01 Model Abstracted Seepage (Water #7) 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 37. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 1 
pH 
Calcite 
Montmor-Na 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 38. Mineral Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 1 
pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Chalcedony 
Montmor-Mg 
Nontronite-Na
100 
Concentration Factor 
1000 
Sepiolite 
Gypsum 
Glauberite 
Nontronite-Ca 
Fluorite 
Albite_low 
1000 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 42 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 39. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 2 
pH 
Chalcedony pH 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 40. Mineral Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 2 
pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Sepiolite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
Sellaite Gypsum 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001 43
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 41. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 3 
pH 
Calcite 
Albite_low 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 42. Mineral Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 3 
pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Chalcedony 
Montmor-Ca 
Nontronite-Na
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1000 
Nontronite-Ca 
Fluorite 
1000 
44 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 
Sepiolite 
Gypsum 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 43. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 4 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 44. Mineral Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 4 
pH pH 
10 
pH 
Nontronite-Ca 
Montmor-Na 
Clinoptilolite-hy-Na 
Glauberite 
10 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Montmor-Mg 
Nontronite-Na 
Sepiolite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1.E+1 
1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
Chalcedony 
Fluorite 
Gypsum 
Albite_low 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 
December 2001 45
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 45. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 5 
pH 
Nontronite-Ca 
Montmor-Mg 
Gypsum 
Sellaite 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 46. Mineral Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Seepage at the 
Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 5 
pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Nontronite-Mg 
Nontronite-Na 
Clinoptilolite-hy-Na 
Glauberite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 46 
10000 1000 
Chalcedony 
Fluorite 
Montmor-Na 
Sepiolite 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 47. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Matrix Imbibition 
into the Invert in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 6 
pH 
Nontronite-Ca 
Montmor-Mg 
Gypsum 
Sepiolite 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024 
Figure 48. Mineral Evaporative Evolution for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction for Matrix Imbibition into 
the Invert in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 6 
pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Nontronite-Mg 
Nontronite-Na 
Clinoptilolite-hy-Na 
Glauberite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 47 
10000 1000 
Chalcedony 
Fluorite 
Montmor-Na 
Sellaite 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.1.2.8 Cement Grout Leachate (Water #8) 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 49. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 1 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 50. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 1 
pH pH 
10 1 
pH 
Fluorite 
10 1 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Hematite 
Illite 
Calcite 
Gypsum 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 48 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
Kaolinite Gibbsite 
Analcime 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 51. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 2 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 52. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 2 
pH pH 
10 1 
Calcite pH 
10 1 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Analcime 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1000 
Gypsum Fluorite 
1000 
49 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 
Gibbsite 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 53. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 3 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 54. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 3 
pH pH 
10 1 
pH 
Fluorite 
10 1 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Hematite 
Illite 
Calcite 
Kaolinite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 50 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
Gypsum Gibbsite 
Analcime 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 55. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 4 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 56. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 4 
pH pH 
10 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Fluorite 
Glauberite 
pH 
Kaolinite 
Analcime 
10 
Concentration Factor 
100 
100 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1000 
Hematite 
Gypsum 
1000 
51 
1.E+1 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 
Gibbsite 
Nontronite-Na 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 57. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 5 
pH pH 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 58. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 5 
10 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Kaolinite 
Gypsum 
pH 
Nontronite-Ca 
Clinoptilolite-hy-Na 
10 
Concentration Factor 
100 
100 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1000 
Hematite 
Fluorite 
Albite_low 
1000 
52 
1.E+1 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
Gibbsite 
Chalcedony 
Glauberite 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+0 
1.E-3 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 59. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 6 
pH pH 
12 
11 
pH 
Gibbsite 
Fluorite 
Clinoptilolite-hy-Na 
Glauberite 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 60. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction at 
the Crown of the Drift in the Tptpmn Lithology, Period 6 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Nontronite-Ca 
Chalcedony 
Gypsum 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 53 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
Hematite 
Kaolinite 
Nontronite-Na 
Albite_low 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.1.2.9 Different Cement Grout Leachate (Water #9) 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
pH 
Fe 
IS 
K 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 61. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction 
(for SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure 
Case in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 1 
pH 
12 
Calcite 
Gypsum 
pH 
Kaolinite 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 62. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction (for 
SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure Case 
in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 1 
pH 
C
Na 
ISa 
Mg 
Ca 
S 
Al 
N
100 
Concentration Factor 
Fluorite 
Glauberite 
Hematite 
Analcime 
1000 100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1000 
54 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 F Cl 
Si 
1.E-9 
10000 
1.E+1 
Gibbsite 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 63. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction 
(for SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure 
Case in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 2 
pH pH 
12 
Calcite pH 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 64. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction (for 
SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure Case 
in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 2 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Fluorite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
1000 
Analcime 
1000 
55 
1.E+1 
Brucite 1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 65. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction 
(for SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure 
Case in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 3 
12 
Calcite 
Kaolinite 
pH 
Gypsum 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 66. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction (for 
SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure Case 
in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 3 
pH pH 
100 
Concentration Factor 
Hematite 
Analcime 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 56 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
pH 
IS 
ISa 
Al 
C
Ca 
Cl 
F 
1.E-4 Fe 
K
Mg 
N
Na 
S
Si 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
Gibbsite 
Glauberite 
Fluorite 
Thenardite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
pH 
Fe 
IS 
K 
pH 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 67. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction 
(for SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure 
Case in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 4 
12 
pH 
Fluorite 
Nontronite-Na 11 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 68. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction (for 
SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure Case 
in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 4 
pH 
ISa 
Mg 
Al 
N
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Gibbsite 
Analcime 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
C
Na 
57 
1.E+2 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 F Cl 
Si 
Ca 
S 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
Hematite 
Kaolinite 
Sellaite 1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
pH 
Fe 
IS 
K 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 69. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction 
(for SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure 
Case in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 5 
pH 
12 
11 
pH 
Gibbsite 
Kaolinite 
Analcime 
Sepiolite 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 70. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction (for 
SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure Case 
in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 5 
pH 
ISa 
Mg 
Al 
N
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Fluorite 
Nontronite-Na 
Clinoptilolite-hy-Na 
Sellaite 
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
C
Na 
58 
10000 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
Hematite 
Nontronite-Ca 
Albite_low 
Chalcedony 
Gaylussite 1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 F Cl 
Si 
Ca 
S 
1.E-9 
1000 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
12 
11 
10
9
8
7
6
5 
pH 
Fe 
IS 
K 
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 71. Aqueous Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction 
(for SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure 
Case in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 6 
12 
11 
pH 
Fluorite 
Kaolinite 
Albite_low 
Gaylussite 
10
9
8
7
6
5
4 
10 1 
DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025 
Figure 72. Mineral Evaporative Evolution of Cement Leachate for the REV 01 THC Model Abstraction (for 
SSPA) at the Crown of the Drift of the High Temperature and High Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure Case 
in the Tptpll Lithology, Initialized Using Water Composition of UZ-14 Perched Water, Period 6 
pH pH 
ISa 
Mg 
Al 
N
100 
Concentration Factor 
Calcite 
Gibbsite 
Nontronite-Na 
Chalcedony 
Trona
100 
Concentration Factor 
CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00 
C
Na 
59 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 F Cl 
Si 
Ca 
S 
1.E-9 
10000 1000 
1.E+1 
1.E+0 
Hematite 
Nontronite-Ca 
Clinoptilolite-hy-Na 
Sellaite 
1.E-1 
1.E-2 
1.E-3 
1.E-4 
1.E-5 
1.E-6 
1.E-7 
1.E-8 
1.E-9 
1.E-10 
1.E-11 
1.E-12 
10000 1000 
Molality Moles Precipitated 
December 2001
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.1.3 Summary of Effects of Starting Water Composition 
The evaporation predictions presented in this calculation reveal several important chemical 
divides for the waters investigated. These chemical divides play a major role in the type of brine 
that could develop in the potential repository. 
The first important chemical divide encountered in most simulations is the calcite chemical 
divide. The effects of the calcite chemical divide are apparent during the early stages of 
evaporation because the starting waters are usually either saturated or nearly saturated with 
respect to calcite. 
Figures 1 through 6 show the Precipitates/Salts model prediction of the evaporative evolution of 
in situ J-13 ground water (water #1 in Table 1) at CO2 fugacities of 10-1, 10-3, and 10-6. For this 
water, a carbonate-rich, Ca-poor water evolves similar to that observed in the laboratory for 
synthetic J-13 well water (Rosenberg et al. 1999a). Perched water (#3) and waters collected 
from the Single Heater Test (#4) and Drift-Scale Heater Test (#5) give similar results, as shown 
in Figures 13 through 30. In each of these cases, regardless of the fixed fugacity of CO2, Na 
becomes the dominant cation and CO3 (except for water #5) becomes the dominant anion. For 
water #5, the Drift-Scale Heater Test water, Cl becomes the dominant anion for the maximum 
concentration factors simulated. 
It is not clear what happens as a result of further evaporation of the Drift-Scale Heater Test water 
(#5) beyond the range of the HRH model. As evaporation generates higher salinities, the 
chemical divides for the Na-(K)-Cl-CO3-SO4 system will be encountered. CO3 is highly soluble 
under highly alkaline conditions (Stumm and Morgan 1996, Figure 4.5). If it is the most soluble 
of the three anions under these circumstances, then Cl and sulfate (SO4) would be depleted by 
the precipitation of halite and sodium sulfate salts, and this water (#5) would also be predicted to 
generate a sodium carbonate brine. 
For Topopah Spring tuff pore water (#2) and predicted REV 00 seepage water (#6), the calcite 
chemical divide causes depletion of CO3 and concentration of aqueous Ca. The predicted 
evaporative evolution of these waters are displayed in Figures 7 through 12 (#2) and 31 through 
36 (#6). The reason CO3 is depleted instead of Ca is that these waters have excess equivalent Ca 
relative to carbonate alkalinity. 
3 (Figures 37 through 60). 
3 concentrations are very low in these waters, the calcite chemical divide 
The REV 01 THC abstraction water (#7) and cement leachate predicted to result from 
contacting this water (#8) show excess equivalent Ca relative to CO 
However, because CO 
has a limited effect on the depletion or concentration of Ca and CO3 as the water evaporates. In 
one case, as shown in Figure 40, calcite does not precipitate at all. In this case and many of the 
other simulations for waters #7 and #8, gypsum is the predominant control on Ca concentrations. 
Evaporation of cement grout leachate for the REV 01 THC abstraction of the high temperature 
and high carbon dioxide partial pressure case (#9) shows both sides of the calcite chemical 
divide, depending on the period simulated. For periods 1 and 3, CO3 concentrations remain low 
and excess Ca concentrates until the gypsum chemical divide is encountered. In periods 2, 4, 5, 
December 2001 60 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
and 6, however, CO3 concentrations are much higher relative to Ca, resulting in the depletion of 
Ca concentrations as the water evaporates. 
4 
For the waters with high Ca concentrations relative to CO3 alkalinity, the gypsum (CaSO42H2O) 
chemical divide is usually encountered after the calcite chemical divide (Drever 1988 p. 236). 
Accordingly, waters #2, #6, #7, #8, and some of #9 follow this pattern. The gypsum chemical 
divide generally causes either Ca or SO4 to become depleted, depending on the Ca:SO4 molar 
ratio in solution. In waters #6 and #9 and most of waters #7 and #8, there is excess SO 
compared to Ca, so Ca becomes depleted. For water #2 and period 3 of waters #7 and #8, there 
is excess Ca, so SO4 becomes depleted and Ca continues to concentrate in solution. The chemical 
divides of other Ca minerals, such as fluorite and various Ca (hydroxy)silicates, may be 
encountered anywhere during the reaction progress, but they do not affect the Ca concentration 
appreciably unless the concentrations of the non-Ca reactants are within a factor of about 10 of 
Ca or are greater than Ca. 
Another important chemical divide is the halite (NaCl) chemical divide. This divide is 
encountered beyond the range of the HRH model. For waters in which there is more Na than Cl, 
Cl will become depleted. For water #2, and period 3 of waters #7 and #8, there is excess Cl, so 
Na will become depleted. Thus, these are the waters in which a chloride brine is likely to 
develop. 
Other important divides at the approximate salinity of halite precipitation include divides for 
villiaumite (NaF), sylvite (KCl), fluorite (CaF2), and sellaite (MgF2). If there is excess Ca and 
Cl, as in the case of water #2, a calcium chloride brine will develop because Na and K would be 
depleted by the precipitation of halite and sylvite. If there is excess Na and K, as in waters #6 
and #9, a Na/K nitrate brine will likely develop because the other potential Na and K salts are not 
as soluble as the nitrate salts (CRWMS M&O 2000c, Table 9). Although the generation of a 
potassium fluoride/nitrate brine is possible, it does not occur in the waters evaluated because it 
requires an excess of fluorine (F). The solubilities of salts of the Na-K-Ca-Mg-F-NO3 system 
(CRWMS M&O 2000c, Table 9) indicate that an excess of F would deplete Ca, Mg, and Na 
through precipitation of fluorite, sellaite, and villiaumite. KF and KNO3 are extremely soluble 
in comparison (CRWMS M&O 2000c, Figure 8 and Table 9). 
Thus, out of the 36 evaporation simulations presented in this report, five (i.e., 14%) are predicted 
to evolve into a chloride brine: water #2 and period 3 of waters #7 and #8. Water #2 was used to 
initialize the Topopah Spring tuff matrix and fracture water composition in the THC model for 
the REV 01 calculations. These results may have important implications for the relative 
humidity threshold assumption used by TSPA because chloride brines can occur at lower relative 
humidity than a brine composed largely of sodium nitrate. Overall, the results of the sensitivity 
calculations indicate that the evaporative evolution of water in the drift is highly sensitive to the 
incoming seepage water composition. 
6.2 EFFECTS OF MINERAL SUPPRESSIONS ON EVAPORATIVE EVOLUTION 
In a multi-component hydrogeochemical system, such as pore water in tuff, it is difficult to 
predict each mineral that would precipitate as a result of evaporation. Precipitation of some 
minerals may be inhibited by a lack of nucleation sites or by slow kinetics. Often, however, data 
December 2001 61 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
needed to determine what would likely happen for potential minerals are either unavailable or 
inconclusive. In the sensitivity calculations, the sensitivity of mineral suppressions to 
precipitates/salts model output was assessed by varying the set of suppressed minerals and 
evaluating the effects on the precipitates/salts model predictions. 
The first sensitivity calculation performed on mineral suppressions is documented in Section 5.4 
of In-Drift Precipitates/Salts Analysis (BSC 2001b). Albite-low was suppressed in one set of 
calculations and then unsuppressed in an identical set of calculations. The results indicated that 
while the mineral assemblage changed (albite-low precipitated in one set but not in the other) 
and the Al concentration was affected, the suppression had no effect on the output (pH, Cl, and 
ionic strength) to TSPA. Al was a minor constituent in the incoming seepage water and 
therefore albite-low was a minor constituent of the mineral assemblage. This calculation 
suggests that minerals that involve minor constituents will not markedly affect Cl and ionic 
strength predictions. However, it is theoretically possible that suppression of minor constituents 
may affect pH because the hydrogen ion activity may also be low (e.g., 10-8 at pH 8) and poorly 
buffered. 
The addition of several minerals to the PT5v2 Pitzer database provided another opportunity to 
assess the sensitivity of mineral suppressions. The PT4 Pitzer database was used in the REV 00 
TSPA calculations (CRWMS M&O 2001). These original calculations are plotted in more detail 
in Figures 16 through 21 of Mariner (2001). Of the minerals added to the PT5v2 database, only 
okenite and gyrolite were allowed to precipitate upon supersaturation. The largest change in the 
calculations resulted from the precipitation of gyrolite. During the boiling period (period 2) of 
the REV 00 THC abstraction, precipitation of gyrolite lowered the pH nearly a full unit from 
around 9.3 to around 8.5 (Figure 17 of Mariner 2001 versus Figure 32 above). However, Cl and 
ionic strength were essentially unaffected. For periods 3 and 4 the pH, Cl, and ionic strength 
predictions were unaffected because gyrolite was no longer favored to precipitate. 
While the above calculations suggest that the uncertainty in mineral suppressions may have only 
minor effects on the pH, Cl, and ionic strength outputs to TSPA, more work is warranted to 
evaluate the uncertainty and sensitivity of mineral suppressions on TSPA calculations. 
6.3 EFFECTS OF CO2 FUGACITY ON EVAPORATIVE EVOLUTION 
Evaporation of waters #1 through #5 in Table 1 was simulated at three different CO2 fugacities: 
10-1, 10-3, and 10-6. The results are displayed in Figures 1 through 30. 
(H 
CO 
The CO2 fugacity has a large effect on pH. In each case, the pH increases 2 to 3 pH units as the 
2 fugacity decreases from 10-1 to 10-6. This is not surprising because CO2 reacts with water 
2O) to produce carbonic acid (H2CO3) (Drever 1988, p. 48). 
The CO2 fugacity also has a large effect on dissolved CO3. At early stages of evaporation, the 
CO3 concentration is 2 to 3 orders of magnitude lower at a CO2 fugacity of 10-6 than at 10-1. 
Although the large difference persists at later stages of evaporation for the Topopah Spring tuff 
pore water (#2), it nearly disappears for the other waters (#1, #3, #4, and #5). The reason 
appears to be largely due to the differences in pH values. At a CO2 fugacity of 10-6, water #2 has 
a pH around 8 at high concentration factors whereas the other waters have pH values around 11 
December 2001 62 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
under the same conditions. High pH values increase the equilibrium dissolved CO3 
concentration when the CO2 fugacity is fixed (Stumm and Morgan 1996, Figure 4.5). 
Mineral assemblages often change depending on the CO2 fugacity. For example, when the 
fugacity is 10-6, gyrolite (a calcium hydroxysilicate) precipitates. This is likely due in part to the 
higher pH values at this CO2 fugacity. Another observation is that trona (Na3CO3HCO32H2O) 
begins to precipitate within the range of the HRH model for the Single Heater Test sample (#4) 
when the CO2 fugacity is 10-1 (Figure 20). If the model is accurate, it suggests that the lower pH 
values caused by the increased CO2 fugacity, combined with the high concentrations of Na and 
CO3 relative to other dissolved solids at high concentration factors, allow trona to precipitate at 
ionic strengths within the range of the HRH model. Trona might actually precipitate at lower 
CO2 fugacities and for waters #1, #3, and #5, but if so, it would require concentration factors 
higher than allowed by the HRH model. 
Cl concentrations are essentially unaffected by the CO2 fugacity. Cl does not precipitate in any 
of the evaporation simulations within the range of the HRH model. 
Unlike Cl, ionic strength is noticeably affected by CO2 fugacity. The effects are most apparent at 
the earliest and latest stages of evaporation. At the early stages, Ca contributions to ionic 
strength are important. However, for waters #1, #3, #4, and #5, Ca becomes depleted by mineral 
precipitation before evaporation raises the concentration factor to about 10. Once Ca begins to 
precipitate, Ca contributions to ionic strength become negligible and a change of slope is 
observed for the ionic strength. As shown in the figures, the changes in ionic strength at low 
concentration factors are slightly affected by the CO2 fugacity. The CO2 fugacity affects both 
pH and CO3 concentrations, which in turn affect Ca concentrations. 
At high ionic strength, CO2 fugacity generally has little effect in the range of the HRH model. 
The major exception is the evaporation of the Single Heater Test water at a CO2 fugacity of 10-1 
when trona is predicted to begin precipitating (Figure 19). This is the only case in which the 
dominant cation and anion begin exclusively precipitating. 
For the Topopah Spring tuff pore water (#2) evaporation, the effects of CO2 fugacity on ionic 
strength are negligible. In this water, Ca concentrations are not controlled by the carbonate 
system because there is a large excess of Ca relative to CO3. Instead, Ca concentrations are 
largely controlled by the SO4 concentration by the precipitation of gypsum at concentration 
factors greater than 10. SO4 concentrations do not change in these simulations as the CO2 
fugacity changes. 
As for the effects of CO2 fugacity on the overall type of brine that develops in these simulations, 
they are minimal for these waters. In each case, the dominant ions at the highest concentration 
factors simulated do not change as a result of varying the CO2 fugacity. However, the relative 
concentrations of these ions do change slightly. As discussed in Section 6.1.3, these small 
changes may have important effects when chemical divides are encountered beyond the range of 
the HRH model. 
December 2001 63 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
6.4 UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS 
The model results for each water composition evaluated in this calculation are designated as 
qualified technical product output (TPO) for the purposes of sensitivity analysis. The output 
DTNs produced or compared in this calculation are listed in Section 7.2.2 and Table 2. Five of 
the waters (#1, #2, #6, #8, and #9 in Table 1) use data from qualified DTNs as input. Their 
results are documented in DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.025. Three of the waters (#3, #4, and #5 
in Table 1) do not use data from qualified DTNs. Instead, they are qualified for use in the 
sensitivity calculations using assumptions and corroborative data. The results for these three 
waters are documented in DTN: MO0112MWDHRH10.026. Output for water #7 is qualified 
TPO developed in Precipitates/Salts Model Calculations For Various Drift Temperature 
Environments (BSC 2001c, DTN: MO0112MWDTHC12.024). The uncertainty and limitations 
of the high relative humidity salts submodel used to produce the results in this calculation are 
summarized in Section 7.3 of the In-Drift Precipitates/Salts Analysis (BSC 2001b). 
December 2001 64 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
7. REFERENCES 
7.1 DOCUMENTS 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001a. Technical Work Plan For Engineered Barrier System 
Department Modeling and Testing FY 02 Work Activities. TWP-MGR-MD-000015 Rev 01. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. URN-0993 
BSC 2001b. In-Drift Precipitates/Salts Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-000045 REV 00 ICN 03. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. URN-0957 
BSC 2001c. Precipitates/Salts Model Calculations For Various Drift Temperature 
Environments. CAL-EBS-PA-000012 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
URN-0956 
BSC 2001d. EBS Incoming Water and Gas Composition Abstraction Calculations for Different 
Drift Temperature Environments. CAL-EBS-PA-000013 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. Submit to RPC URN-0960 
CRWMS M&O 1997. Single Heater Test Status Report. BAB000000-01717-5700-00002 REV 
01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980416.0696. 
CRWMS M&O 1998b. "Near-Field Geochemical Environment." Chapter 4 of Total System 
Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment (TSPA-VA) Analyses Technical Basis Document. 
B00000000-01717-4301-00004 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19981008.0004. 
CRWMS M&O 1999b. Addendum to: EQ6 Computer Program for Theoretical Manual, Users 
Guide, & Related Documentation. Software Change Request LSCR198. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990305.0112. 
CRWMS M&O 2000a. Analysis of Geochemical Data for the Unsaturated Zone. ANL-NBS-HS- 
000017 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000725.0453. 
CRWMS M&O 2000b. Total System Performance Assessment for the Site Recommendation. 
TDR-WIS-PA-000001 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.20001220.0045. 
CRWMS M&O 2000c. Environment on the Surfaces of the Drip Shield and Waste Package 
Outer Barrier. ANL-EBS-MD-000001 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.20001219.0080. 
CRWMS M&O 2001. Precipitates/Salts Model Results for THC Abstraction. CAL-EBS-PA- 
000008 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20010125.0231. 
Drever, J.I. 1988. The Geochemistry of Natural Waters. 2nd Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New 
Jersey: Prentice-Hall. TIC: 242836. 
December 2001 65 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
Eugster, H.P. and Hardie, L.A. [1978]. "Saline Lakes." Lakes, Chemistry, Geology, Physics. 
Lerman, A., ed. Pages 237-293. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 240782. 
Eugster, H.P. and Jones, B.F. 1979. "Behavior of Major Solutes During Closed-Basin Brine 
Evolution." American Journal of Science, 279, 609-631. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale 
University, Kline Geology Laboratory. TIC: 234258. 
Garrels, R.M. and Mackenzie, F.T. 1967. "Origin of the Chemical Compositions of Some 
Springs and Lakes?." Equilibrium Concepts in Natural Water Systems. American Chemical 
Society Advances in Chemistry Series 67. Pages 222-242. Washington, D.C.: American 
Chemical Society. TIC: 246519. 
Harrar, J.E.; Carley, J.F.; Isherwood, W.F.; and Raber, E. 1990. Report of the Committee to 
Review the Use of J-13 Well Water in Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations. UCID- 
21867. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ACC: 
NNA.19910131.0274. 
Klein, C. and Hurlbut, C.S., Jr. 1999. Manual of Mineralogy. 21st Edition, Revised. New York, 
New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 246258. 
Mariner, P. 2001. "Informal Calculation Regarding Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Analyses 
in Support of SSPA Volume 1." Memorandum from P. Mariner (BSC) to B. MacKinnon, May 
30, 2001, PROJ.05/01.075, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20010531.0029. 
Rosenberg, N.D.; Knauss, K.G.; and Dibley, M.J. 1999a. Evaporation of J13 Water: Laboratory 
Experiments and Geochemical Modeling. UCRL-ID-134852. Livermore, California: Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory. TIC: 246322. 
Rosenberg, N.D.; Knauss, K.G.; and Dibley, M.J. 1999b. Evaporation of Topopah Spring Tuff 
Pore Water. UCRL-ID-135765. [Livermore, California]: Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory. TIC: 246231. 
Stumm, W. and Morgan, J.J. 1996. Aquatic Chemistry, Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural 
Waters. 3rd Edition. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 246296. 
Wolery, T.J. 1992a. EQ3/6, A Software Package for Geochemical Modeling of Aqueous Systems: 
Package Overview and Installation Guide (Version 7.0). UCRL-MA-110662 PT I. Livermore, 
California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. TIC: 205087. 
Wolery, T.J. 1992b. EQ3NR, A Computer Program for Geochemical Aqueous Speciation- 
Solubility Calculations: Theoretical Manual, Users Guide, and Related Documentation 
(Version 7.0). UCRL-MA-110662 PT III. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19980717.0626. 
Wolery, T.J. and Daveler, S.A. 1992. Theoretical Manual, User's Guide, and Related 
Documentation, Version 7.0. Volume IV of EQ6, A Computer Program for Reaction Path 
Modeling of Aqueous Geochemical Systems. UCRL-MA-110662. Draft 1.1. Livermore, 
California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. TIC: 238011. 
December 2001 66 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
7.2 DATA, LISTED BY TRACKING NUMBER 
7.2.1 Input Data and Corroborative Data 
LB0101DSTTHCR1.001. Pore Water Composition and CO2 Partial Pressure Input to Thermal- 
Hydrological-Chemical (THC) Simulations: Table 3 of AMR N0120/U0110 Rev01, "Drift-Scale 
Coupled Processes (Drift-Scale Heater Test and THC Seepage) Models". Submittal date: 
01/26/2001. 
LL970409604244.030. Second Quarter Results of Chemical Measurements in the Single Heater 
Test. Submittal date: 04/17/1997. 
LL990702804244.100. Borehole and Pore Water Data. Submittal date: 07/13/1999. 
MO0006J13WTRCM.000. Recommended Mean Values of Major Constituents in J-13 Well 
Water. Submittal date: 06/07/2000. 
MO0110SPAEBS13.038. EBS Incoming Water and Gas Composition Abstraction Calculation 
Results. Submittal date: 10/16/2001. URN-0968 
MO0112MWDTHC12.024. High Relative Humidity Salts Model Predictions for THC REV 01 
Using PT5v2 Thermodynamic Database. Submittal date: 11/28/2001. URN-0996 
MO9912SPAPAI29.002. PA Initial Abstraction of THC Model Chemical Boundary Conditions. 
Submittal date: 01/11/2000. 
MO0111SPATHC14.040. Seepage Grout Interactions Calculations for THC Seepage Waters. 
Submittal date: 11/21/01. URN-0995 
MO0110SPAPT245.017. PT5 Pitzer Database for EQ3/6, Version 2. Submittal date: 10/04/2001. 
URN-0994 
7.2.2 Developed Data 
MO0112MWDHRH10.025. High Relative Humidity Salts Model Predictions for Sensitivity 
Calculations for Waters 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9. Submittal date: 12/12/2001. 
MO0112MWDHRH10.026. High Relative Humidity Salts Model Predictions for Sensitivity 
Calculations for Waters 3, 4, and 5. Submittal date: 12/12/2001. 
7.3 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, PROCEDURES, AND SOFTWARE 
AP-3.12Q, Revision 0, ICN 4. Calculations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20010404.0008. 
AP-SI.1Q, Rev. 3, ICN 2, ECN 1. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20011030.0598. 
December 2001 67 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00
Precipitates/Salts Model Sensitivity Calculations 
CRWMS M&O 1998a. Software Code: EQ3/6. V7.2b. LLNL: UCRL-MA-110662. 
CRWMS M&O 1999a. Software Code: EQ6, Version 7.2bLV. V7.2bLV. 10075-7.2bLV-00. 
December 2001 68 CAL-EBS-PA-000010 REV 00