UZ Flow Models and Submodels Rev 00, ICN 00

MDL-NBS-HS-000006

March 2000

1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this Analysis/Model Report (AMR) is to document the unsaturated zone (UZ) 
fluid flow and solute transport models and submodels as well as the flow fields generated utilizing 
the UZ Flow and Transport Model of Yucca Mountain, Nevada (UZ Model). This is in accordance 
with the AMR Development Plan for U0050 UZ Flow Models and Submodels (CRWMS M&O 
1999a). The flow fields are used directly by Performance Assessment (PA). The model and 
submodels evaluate important hydrogeologic processes in the unsaturated zone as well as 
geochemistry. These provide the necessary framework to test conceptual hypotheses of flow and 
transport at different scales and predict flow and transport behavior under a variety of climatic 
conditions. The AMR supports the UZ Flow and Transport Process Model Report (PMR); PA 
activities including abstractions, particle tracking transport simulations, and conversion of flow 
fields for use in the RIP model; and the UZ Radionuclide Transport Model. 
The UZ Model is an important process model for the YMPs Repository Safety Strategy and for 
support of the License Application (LA). The Total System Performance Assessment for Site 
Recommendation (TSPA-SR) will use the unsaturated-zone flow simulation to provide input to 
other models such as ambient and thermal drift-scale models, and the mountain-scale 
thermohydrological model. 
The base case flow fields are generated using the UZ Model, with input parameters based on the 
calibrated property sets documented in the AMR Calibrated Properties Model (CRWMS M&O 
2000b) and in this AMR. The flow fields are developed for spatially varying maps representing 
the mean, lower, and upper bounds of estimated net infiltration for the current climate and two 
projected future climates (Monsoon and Glacial Transition). Each net infiltration case is evaluated 
using two different perched water models, providing a total of 18 flow fields. These flow fields 
have been submitted to the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) for use by PA and for 
Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) activities. 
The process submodels documented in this AMR include the temperature, geochemistry, and 
groundwater travel and tracer transport submodels. The temperature submodel characterizes 
ambient geothermal conditions with temperature data for use in the UZ Model. The geochemical 
submodel includes two specific constituents (chloride and calcite). The chloride submodel 
represents the conceptual model for the spatial and temporal variations in chloride chemistry and 
is compared with pore-water concentrations measured in samples from boreholes and the 
Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF). The strontium submodel incorporates the effects of ratelimited 
dissolution and precipitation on the concentration of a solute, in addition to dispersion, 
radioactive decay, and linear equilibrium adsorption. 
The caveats for use of the modeling results and flow fields documented in this AMR are that the 
model development and calibrated properties on which these modeling results and flow fields 
were based are limited by the available site data, and the flow fields reflect only the conceptual 
models and quantitative approaches utilized in the models and submodels, as discussed in the 
AMR Conceptual and Numerical Models for UZ Flow and Transport (CRWMS M&O 2000c).

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 18 March 2000 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 19 March 2000 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
This AMR was developed in accordance with AP-3.10Q, Analyses and Models. Other applicable 
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 
Administrative Procedures (APs) and YMP-LBNL Quality Implementing Procedures (QIPs) are 
identified in the AMR Development Plan for U0050 UZ Flow Models and Submodels, Rev 00 
(CRWMS M&O 1999a). 
The activities documented in this Analysis/Model Report (AMR) were evaluated with other 
related activities in accordance with QAP-2-0, Conduct of Activities, and were determined to be 
subject to the requirements of the U.S. DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 
(OCRWM) Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (QARD) (DOE 1999). This 
evaluation is documented in CRWMS M&O (1999b, 1999c) and Wemheuer (1999, Activity 
Evaluation for Work Package WP 1401213UM1).

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 20 March 2000 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 21 March 2000 
3. COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND MODEL USAGE 
The software and routines used in this study are listed in Table 3-1. These are appropriate for the 
intended application, were used only within the range of validation. These codes were submitted 
and obtained from software configuration management in accordance with AP-SI.1Q, Software 
Management. The codes were obtained after these simulations were completed and an impact 
review per AP-3.17Q, Impact Reviews, is being conducted, but no impact is expected. The 
qualification status of this software is given in Attachment I. 
The codes listed in Table 3-1 were qualified under AP-SI.1Q. The software code TOUGH2 VI.4 
was used to generate flow fields (Section 6.6), conduct model calibrations (Sections 6.2 and 6.3). 
T2R3D VI.4 was used for tracer transport simulations and groundwater travel-time estimates 
(Section 6.7) and modeling pore-water chemistry (Section 6.4). ITOUGH2 V3.2, 
TOUGHREACTE9 (TOUGH Code for Multiphase multi-species reactive transport with EOS9 
flow module) V1.0 and were TOUGHREACT V2.2 used for modeling of calcite geochemistry 
(Section 6.5). ITOUGH2 V3.2 was used for Alcove 1 tests. Infil2grid V1.6 was used to apply 
infiltration maps onto the grids used for simulating flow and transport (Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 
6.6 and 6.7). The routines in Table 3-1 were qualified per Section 5.1 of AP-SI.1Q. 
Standard spreadsheet (Excel 97.SR-1) and plotting programs (Tecplot v 7) were also used but are 
not subject to software quality assurance requirements. 
Table 3-1. Computer Software 
Software Name, 
Codes 
Version 
Software Tracking Number 
(STN) 
Computer Type, 
Operational 
System 
TOUGH2 1.4 10007-1.4-01 Win95/98, SUN and 
DEC w/ Unix OS 
T2R3D 1.4 10006-1.4-00 Win95/98, SUN and 
DEC w/ Unix OS 
ITOUGH2 3.2 10054-3.2-00 SUN and DEC w/ 
Unix OS 
TOUGHREACTE9 1.0 10153-1.0-00 SUN w/ Unix OS 
TOUGHREACT 2.2 10154-2.2-00 SUN and DEC w/ 
Unix OS 
Infil2grid 1.6 10077-1.6-00 Win95/98 PC,SUN 
and DEC w/ Unix OS 
EARTHVISION 4.0 30035-2 V4.0 UNIX 
EXT 1.0_MEOS9 10227-1.0MEOS9-00 UNIX 
Software Routines: 
Read- TDB 1.0 MOL.19990903.0031 Win95/98 or DOS 
Frac_Calc 1.1 MOL.19990903.0032 Win95/98 or DOS 
TBgas3D 1.0 MOL.19991012.0222 SUN and DEC w/ 
Unix OS 
ECRB-XYZ .03 30093 V.03 PC

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 22 March 2000 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 23 March 2000 
4. INPUTS 
Inputs to the modeling activities described in this AMR are obtained from TDMS include the 
following: 
 Matrix property data from the ESF (Exploratory Studies Facility) and boreholes 
 Stratigraphy data from borehole logs 
 Infiltration maps 
 Calibrated fracture and matrix properties 
 Hydrologic property data for CHn (Calico Hills non-welded hydrogeologic unit) 
 Geochemistry data from the ESF and boreholes 
 UZ Model grids 
 Temperature data for boreholes 
 Pneumatic pressure data 
 Locations and elevations of perched water in boreholes 
 Uncalibrated fracture and matrix properties 
 Water-potential data 
 Matrix liquid-saturation data 
4.1PARA METERS 
The key input data used in the UZ Model and its submodel development include the following: 
 Fracture properties (frequency, permeability, van Genuchten a and m parameters, 
aperture, porosity, and interface area per unit volume rock) for each UZ Model layer 
 Matrix properties (porosity, permeability, and the van Genuchten a and m parameters) for 
each UZ Model layer 
 Thermal properties (grain density, wet and dry thermal conductivity, grain specific heat, 
and tortuosity coefficients) for each UZ Model layer 
 Fault properties (matrix and fracture parameters) for each major hydrogeologic unit as 
defined by Table 6-2.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 24 March 2000 
The calibrated parameter sets also include an estimate of the active-fracture parameter, ., (Liu et 
al. 1998) for each model layer that accounts for the reduction in interaction between matrix and 
fracture flow resulting from flow fingering and channelization. Specific input data sets, associated 
Data Tracking Numbers (DTNs) and Accession Numbers (ACC) are tabulated below. Quality 
assurance status is provided in Attachment 1. 
Table 4-1. Input Data Source and Data Tracking Numbers 
Data Description 
Section Used 
In 
DTN or Reference 
SO4 infiltration flux 6.4.4.3 GS910908315214.003 
SO4 infiltration flux 6.4.4.3 GS931008315214.032 
NRG-6 and NRG-7a pneumatic pressure and 
temperature 
6.3 
6.8.4 
GS951108312232.008 
GS950208312232.003 
NRG#5 pneumatic pressure 6.8.4 GS960208312261.001 
SD-12, UZ-7a, NRG-6, and NRG-7a pneumatic 
pressure and temperature 
6.2 
6.3 
6.6 
6.8.4 
GS960308312232.001 
Perched water elevation UZ-14 6.2 
6.6 
GS960308312312.005 
NRG-6 and NRG-7a pneumatic pressure and 
temperature 
6.4 
6.8.4 
GS960808312232.004 
Matrix hydrologic property data 6.2 
6.3 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8.1, 6.8.2 
6.8.3 
GS960908312231.004 
In situ gas pressure - SD-7 6.8.4 GS960908312261.004 
Chemical composition of pore water samples 6.4.2.1 GS961108312261.006 
In situ borehole instrumentation and monitoring for 
NRG-7a, NRG-6, UZ#4, UZ#5, UZ-7a and SD-12- 
temperature, pressure, and water potential 
6.3 GS970108312232.002 
Perched water elevation - G-2 6.2 
6.6 
GS970208312312.003 
In situ borehole instrumentation and monitoring for 
NRG-7a, UZ#4, UZ#5, UZ-7a and SD-12 - 
temperature, pressure, and water potential 
6.3 GS970808312232.005 
In situ borehole instrumentation and monitoring for 
NRG-7a, UZ#4, UZ#5, UZ-7a and SD-12- 
temperature, pressure, and water potential 
6.3 GS971108312232.007

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 25 March 2000 
Detailed line survey data from ESF station 0+60m 
to 0+80m 
6.8.1 GS971108314224.020 
In situ borehole instrumentation and monitoring for 
NRG-7a, NRG-6, UZ#4, UZ#5, UZ-7a and SD-12- 
temperature, pressure, and water potential 
6.3 GS980408312232.001 
WT-24 perched water observations 6.2 
6.6 
6.8.3 
GS980508312313.001 
WT-24 saturation data 6.2 
6.6 
6.8.3 
GS980708312242.010 
SD-6 saturation data 6.2 
6.6 
6.8.3 
GS980808312242.014 
Water potential data along ECRB tunnel 6.8.2 GS980908312242.036 
Perched water elevation G-2 6.2 
6.6 
GS981008312313.003 
Matrix diffusion coefficients for Tc and 237Np 6.7 LAIT831341AQ96.001 
Mineral abundance in fractures 6.5 LASL831151AQ98.001 
Chemical composition of pore water samples 6.4.2.1 LASL831222AQ98.002 
Model input and output files for Mineralogic Model 
(borehole SD-9 XRD data) 
6.5 LA9908JC831321.001 
Flow fields and calibrated hydrologic properties 6.2 
6.3 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8.1, 6.8.2 
6.8.3 
LB971212001254.006 
Air-injection, tracer test, and fracture porosity data 6.2 
6.3 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8 
LB980912332245.002 
Table 4-1. Input Data Source and Data Tracking Numbers 
Data Description 
Section Used 
In 
DTN or Reference

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 26 March 2000 
Uncalibrated hydrologic property data 6.2 
6.3 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8 
LB990501233129.001 
1-D grid for flow property calibration 6.5 LB990501233129.002 
3-D UZ Model calibration grid 6.1 
6.2 
6.3 
6.8.2 
6.8.3 
LB990501233129.004 
3-D UZ Model TSPA grid 6.1 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8.4 
LB990701233129.001 
3-D UZ Model calibration grid for non waterperching 
model 
6.1 
6.2 
6.3 
6.8.2 
6.8.3 
LB990701233129.002 
Calibrated fault property 6.2 
6.3 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8 
LB991091233129.003 
Calibrated fault property 6.8.4 LB991091233129.004 
Kinetic Data 6.5 LB991200DSTTHC.001 
Calibrated parameters for the base case infiltration 
scenario - flow through perched water conceptual 
model 
6.2 
6.3 
6.4 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8.2 
6.8.3 
6.8.4 
LB991121233129.001 
Table 4-1. Input Data Source and Data Tracking Numbers 
Data Description 
Section Used 
In 
DTN or Reference

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 27 March 2000 
Calibrated parameters for the base case infiltration 
scenario - by-passing perched water conceptual 
model 
6.2 
6.3 
6.4 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8.4 
LB991121233129.002 
Calibrated parameters for the upper bound 
infiltration scenario - flow through perched water 
conceptual model 
6.2 
6.6 
6.7 
LB991121233129.003 
Calibrated parameters for the upper bound 
infiltration scenario - by-passing perched water 
conceptual model 
6.2 
6.6 
6.7 
LB991121233129.004 
Calibrated parameters for the lower bound 
infiltration scenario - flow through perched water 
conceptual model 
6.2 
6.6 
6.7 
LB991121233129.005 
Calibrated parameters for the lower bound 
infiltration scenario - by-passing perched water 
conceptual model 
6.2 
6.6 
6.7 
LB991121233129.006 
Calibrated parameters for the base case infiltration 
scenario - non-perching perched water conceptual 
model 
6.2 
6.6 
6.7 
LB991121233129.007 
Calibrated flow and thermal parameters base case 6.2 
6.3 
6.4 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8.2, 6.8.3 
6.8.4 
LB997141233129.001 
Calibrated flow and thermal parameters upperbound 
6.2 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8.4 
LB997141233129.002 
Calibrated flow and thermal parameters lowerbound 
6.2 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8.4 
LB997141233129.003 
Table 4-1. Input Data Source and Data Tracking Numbers 
Data Description 
Section Used 
In 
DTN or Reference

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 28 March 2000 
Saturation data from cores for boreholes USW SD- 
7, USW SD-9, USW SD-12, USW UZ-14, UE-25, 
UZ#16 & USW UZ-7a 
6.1 
6.2 
6.6 
DTN: GS000399991221.004., 
ACC: MOL.19991027.0149 
Mean, lower-bound, and upper-bound infiltration 
rates for present-day, future monsoon, and future 
glacial transition climates 
6.1 
6.2 
6.3 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8.2, 6.8.3 
DTN: GS000399991221.002., 
ACCN: MOL.1991014.0102 
Alcove 1 infiltration and tracer test data 6.8.1 DTN: GS000399991221.003., 
ACCN: MOL.20000118.0092 
Perched water elevation for well SD-12 6.2 
6.6 
DTN: GS960908312232.006., 
ACCN: MOL.19991213.0041 
Table 4-1. Input Data Source and Data Tracking Numbers 
Data Description 
Section Used 
In 
DTN or Reference

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 29 March 2000 
This AMR documents the flow models and submodels in the UZ Flow and Transport Model. It 
utilizes properties from the Calibrated Properties Model. The input and output files for the model 
runs presented in this AMR are listed in Tables 6-9, 6-16, 6-17, 6-18, 6-26, 6-27, and 6-28, and 
some of the model input fracture and matrix parameters are given in Attachment II. 
4.2 CRITERIA 
This AMR complies with the DOE interim guidance (Dyer 1999). Subparts of the interim 
guidance that apply to this analysis or modeling activity are those pertaining to the 
characterization of the Yucca Mountain site (Subpart B, Section 15). The compilation of 
information regarding geology of the site is in support of the License Application (Subpart B, 
Section 21(c)(1)(ii)), and the definition of geologic parameters and conceptual models used in 
performance assessment, (Subpart E, Section 114(a)). The compilation of information regarding 
hydrology of the site is in support of the License Application (Subpart B, Section 21(c)(1)(ii)) and 
the definition of hydrologic parameters and conceptual models used in performance assessment 
(Subpart E, Section 114(a)). The compilation of information regarding geochemistry and mineral 
stability of the site is in support of the License Application (Subpart B, Section 21(c)(1)(ii)), and 
the definition of geochemical parameters and conceptual models used in performance assessment 
(Subpart E, Section 114(a)). 
4.3 CODES AND STANDARDS 
No specific formally established standards have been identified as applying to this analysis and 
modeling activity.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 30 March 2000 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 31 March 2000 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
The assumptions documented below are required to develop the UZ flow models and submodels. 
This section presents these assumptions and the rationale which are used throughout the 
development of the UZ models. 
1. The water table is used as the bottom model boundary which is subject to constant water 
pressure (equal to the atmospherical pressure). Rationale: The water table is a surface 
where the water pressure is a fixed single value. Within the numerical models, only one 
single set of model primary variables for solving Richards equations is specified for the 
bottom boundary and this is equivalent to specifying a constant saturation. 
2. The bottom model boundary representing the water table is subject to fixed gas 
pressure. Rationale: Due to limitations in the way boundaries may be specified in the 
numerical models used, a constant gas pressure must be specified when a constant water 
pressure (saturation) is specified. The impact of this assumption on all but simulations 
of barometric pumping is insignificant (see assumption 4 below for an alternate 
assumption used for simulations of barometric pumping). 
3. The bottom model boundary representing the water table is subject to spatially varying 
but constant temperature conditions. Rationale: This assumption is corroborated by data 
reported by Sass et al. (1988) and the actual temperature distribution along the water 
table and further confirmed by matching qualified temperature profiles from a number 
of boreholes. 
4. For simulations of barometric pumping, the bottom model boundary representing the 
water table is assumed to be a no-flow boundary. Rationale: At the water table, a 
connected gas phase does not exist, so gas phase flow does not occur across this 
boundary. Due to the limitations of the code used for simulation, this boundary must 
also be no-flow for the liquid phase (heat flow is not considered in these simulations). 
Liquid flow across the boundary over the time span of the simulation (360 days) is not 
large enough to significantly change the gas flow in the TSw (Topopah Spring welded 
hydrogeologic unit) and above where data is available. 
5. The lateral boundaries of the model domain are subject to no-flow boundary conditions. 
Rationale: The boundaries of the northern and southern model domain are located so far 
away from the potential repository area that lateral flow effects along these boundaries 
on flow at the potential repository should be small. The eastern boundary is for most 
parts along the Bow Ridge fault, and no lateral flow crossing the fault is reasoned. The 
western boundary is separated from the potential repository by the Solitario Canyon 
fault, therefore this boundary condition effects are expected to be insignificant. 
6. Perched water occurrence results from permeability barrier effects. Rationale: 
Consistent with the conceptual model that ambient conditions reflect long-term, steadystate 
or transient flow through the unsaturated zone, perched water under steady-state 
flow conditions may only be due to a permeability barrier.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 32 March 2000 
7. Under steady-state flow conditions, moisture flow and tracer transport processes can be 
decoupled. Rationale: Steady-state flow conditions result in an unchanging flow field, 
and as long as the concentrations of tracers and/or radionuclides are such that they do 
not significantly change the properties of the fluid, which is the case for simulations 
documented in this AMR, then the flow field does not have to be coupled to transport. 
8. Water flow through the UZ is assumed to occur under steady-state conditions. Transient, 
fast-pathway flow, such has conveyed 36Cl to the ESF horizon, is assumed not to 
contribute significantly to the total flow through the UZ. 
9. The dual-permeability formulation is assumed to be appropriate for simulating flow and 
transport through fractured tuffs. 
10. The time required for moisture conditions within the UZ to adjust to changes in the 
spatial and temporal distribution of net infiltration at land surface induced by climatic 
change is assumed to be short compared to the time over which climatic conditions 
change so that simulated conditions within the UZ reflect the present-day and estimated 
future net-infiltration rates imposed on the upper land-surface boundary of the UZ 
model. 
11. Regarding calcite deposition in the unsaturated zone, the following assumptions are 
made: (a) the gas phase is at a constant (atmospheric) pressure, and air flow is neglected 
for the purpose of solving water flow; (b) a constant infiltration rate and water 
chemistry over the entire simulation period is applied to the top boundary; (c) steadystate 
water flow condition remains during chemical transport and fluid-rock 
interactions. 
All the assumptions made are justifiable based on the rationales stated and the scientific principles 
and practices used in conducting modeling studies of flow and transport in porous media. 
The methodological premises used for specific modeling studies are more appropriately discussed 
in the context of the modeling methodologies in Section 6.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 33 March 2000 
6. ANALYSIS/MODEL 
As outlined in Section 1, this AMR documents the development and results of the unsaturated 
zone (UZ) flow and the temperature and geochemistry submodels. This section consists of the 
following: 
 Model description 
 3-D (three-dimensional) UZ flow calibrations 
 Geothermal model 
 Geochemical model for chloride 
 Calcite analysis 
 3-D flow fields for performance analyses 
 Groundwater travel and tracer transport 
The UZ flow and temperature model and submodels of geochemistry have been developed to 
simulate past, present, and future hydrologic, geothermal and geochemical conditions in the UZ 
of Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain has been studied extensively, and many types of data have 
been collected. These data have been used in developing conceptual and numerical models for the 
hydrological, geothermal and geochemical behavior of the site. These models simulate ambient 
conditions and perform predictive studies of changes in the mountain caused by climatic, thermal, 
and geochemical perturbations. The comprehensive model that integrates all pertinent data from 
the UZ at Yucca Mountain is the 3-D site-scale UZ flow and transport model, developed over the 
past decade at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) by Bodvarsson et al. (1999) 
and Wu et al. (1999a), among others. Model development described in this AMR results from the 
continued modeling investigations on flow and transport behavior in the UZ system of Yucca 
Mountain. 
The primary objectives of developing the UZ flow model and its submodels are: 
 To integrate the available data from the UZ system into a single, comprehensive, and 
calibrated 3-D model for simulating the ambient hydrological, thermal, and geochemical 
conditions and predicting system response to future climate conditions 
 To quantify the flow of moisture, heat, and gas through the UZ, under Present-Day and 
hypothesized future climate scenarios 
 To evaluate the effects of potential repository thermal loading on moisture, gas, and heat 
flow within the mountain 
 To perform detailed studies of perched water, percolation through the Paintbrush nonwelded 
(PTn) unit flow, through Calico Hills non-welded (CHn) zeolitic units, and the 
pore-water chemical and calcite analyses. 
 To predict the migration of potential radionuclide releases after waste emplacement 
 To contribute model parameters and boundary conditions for drift seepage studies

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 34 March 2000 
 To provide Performance Assessment and Repository Design with a scientifically 
defensible and credible model of all relevant UZ processes 
The UZ Model is a process model whose results directly address Principal Factors within the 
YMP Repository Safety Strategy (CRWMS M&O 2000e) and for support of the License 
Application (LA). The Total System Performance Assessment for Site Recommendation (TSPASR) 
will use the unsaturated-zone flow simulation to provide input to other models such as 
ambient and thermal drift-scale models, the mountain-scale thermohydrological model, and the 
radionuclide transport model. The UZ Model and its submodels evaluate processes that are 
important to the performance of the potential repository, all of which contribute to the TSPA-SR 
and TSPA-LA, such as: 
 The spatially distributed values of the percolation flux at the potential repository horizon 
 The components of fracture and matrix flow within and below the potential repository 
horizon 
 The perched water zones and associated flow barriers 
 The probable flow paths from the potential repository to the water table 
 Groundwater travel/tracer transport times and radionuclide migration paths from the 
potential repository to the water table, and breakthrough curves and areas at the water 
table for tracers and radionuclides. 
In developing the UZ Model, much emphasis has been placed on preparing a defensible and 
credible UZ Model for Yucca Mountain to evaluate its potential as an underground radioactive 
waste potential repository. Major activities, as reported in this AMR, include updated model 
calibration studies of 3-D UZ flow, perched water, geochemistry, geothermal conditions, 
estimates of groundwater travel time and radionuclide transport, and model validation efforts. 
The other activities involving generating 28 3-D flow fields (Sections 6.2 and 6.6) to evaluate the 
uncertainty and sensitivity of the UZ Model relative to fracture-matrix parameters and infiltration 
rates over the mountain by using three sets of model parameters and nine infiltration scenarios. 
Eighteen of the 28 flow fields are submitted for use in TSPA calculations of radionuclide transport 
through the UZ system and other activities such as drift seepage abstraction. 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 35 March 2000 
Key scientific notebooks (with relevant page numbers) used for modeling and validation activities 
described in this AMR are listed in Table 6-1. 
6.1MODEL DESCRIPTION 
The conceptual and numerical models used for the modeling studies documented in this AMR are 
fully documented in the AMR: Conceptual and Numerical Models for Flow & Transport 
(CRWMS M&O 2000c). Elements of the conceptual and numerical models are included in this 
section so that a complete discussion of the model is presented. 
6.1.1 Geological Model and Numerical Grids 
The geological model used in this AMR for developing the UZ Model and its submodels is based 
on the Geological Framework Model (GFM) 3.1 and Integrated Site Model (ISM) 3.0, and the 
development and features of the two 3-D model grids with the geological model are documented 
in the AMR entitled, Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling 
(CRWMS M&O 1999d). Table 6-2 lists the geological units/layers for different hydrogeologic 
units and the associated UZ Model numerical grid-layer information. These geologic formations 
have been reorganized into layered hydrogeologic units based primarily on the degree of welding 
(Montazer and Wilson. 1984). These are the Tiva Canyon welded (TCw) hydrogeologic unit, the 
Paintbrush nonwelded unit (PTn), the Topopah Spring welded (TSw) unit, the Calico Hills 
nonwelded (CHn), and the Crater Flat undifferentiated (CFu) units. 
Table 6-1. Model Development Documentation Scientific Notebooks 
LBNL Scientific Notebook Page #/Related Contents 
Accession Number 
(ACC) 
YMP-LBNL-GSB-YSW-2 p. 132-188/ 
UZ Model calibrations, TSPA flow fields and 
groundwater travel times and tracer transport 
MOL.20000308.129 
YMP-LBNL-UZJL-1.0 P.1 - 104 / Chloride modeling studies and analyses MOL.20000308.130 
YMP-LBNL-YSW-WZ-1 p. 73-93, 122-127/Post-processing and analyses of 
results for calibrations, flow fields and transport 
MOL.20000308.131 
YMP-LBNL-GSB-1.6.3 p. 74-104/Geothermal calibrations MOL.20000308.132 
YMP-LBNL-GBS-TX-1 p. 17-59/Calcite calibrations MOL.20000308.133 
YMP-LBNL-JSW-CFA-6.1 
YMP-LBNL-GBS-1.1.2 
p. 1-26, 39-48, 72-88/Alcove 1 simulations 
p. 153-157-D pneumatic & Alcove 1 simulations 
MOL.20000308.134 
MOL.20000308.135 
YMP-LBNL-GSB-LHH-2 p. 67-73/Alcove1 modeling MOL.20000308.136 
YMP-LBNL-YWT-ELS-1 p. 37-42, p. 49-52 / Reactive surface areas MOL.20000308.137

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 36 March 2000 
Table 6-2. GFM3.1 (CRWMS M&O 1999d) Lithostratigraphy, UZ Model Layer, and Hydrogeologic Unit Correlation 
Used in the UZ Flow Model and Submodels 
Major Unit 
GFM3.1* Lithostratigraphic 
Nomenclature 
FY 99 UZ 
Model Layer 
Hydrogeologic 
Unit 
Tiva Canyon welded 
(TCw) 
Tiva_Rainier tcw11 CCR, CUC 
Tpcp tcw12 CUL, CW 
TpcLD 
Tpcpv3 tcw13 CMW 
Tpcpv2 
Paintbrush 
nonwelded 
(PTn) 
Tpcpv1 ptn21 CNW 
Tpbt4 ptn22 BT4 
Tpy (Yucca) 
ptn23 TPY 
ptn24 BT3 
Tpbt3 
Tpp (Pah) ptn25 TPP 
Tpbt2 ptn26 BT2 
Tptrv3 
Tptrv2 
Topopah Spring welded 
(TSw) 
Tptrv1 tsw31 TC 
Tptrn 
tsw32 TR 
Tptrl, Tpt fts w33 TUL 
Tptpul 
Tptpmn tsw34 TMN 
Tptpll tsw35 TLL 
Tptpln tsw36 TM2 (upper 2/3 of 
Tptpln) 
tsw37 TM1 (lower 1/3 of 
Tptpln) 
Tptpv3 tsw38 PV3 
Tptpv2 tsw39 PV2 
Calico Hills nonwelded 
(CHn) 
Tptpv1 ch1 (vit, zeo) BT1 or 
BT1a (altered) 
Tpbt1 
NOTE: * GFM3.1 (CRWMS M&O 1999d) refers to the Geologic Framework Model Version 3.1.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 37 March 2000 
The 3-D model domain and the two 3-D numerical grids for this study are shown in plan view in 
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 respectively. The first model grid, shown in Figure 6-1, is referred to as the 
3-D calibration grid. It includes refined gridding along the Enhanced Characterization of 
Repository Block (ECRB) and ESF tunnels and is primarily used for the purpose of model 
calibration. The second grid (Figure 6-2), the TSPA grid, is designed for simulations of 3-D flow 
fields delivered for use in TSPA calculations. This TSPA grid uses a refined mesh in the vicinity 
of the potential repository, located near the center of the model domain. Also, shown in Figures 
6-1 and 6-2 are the locations of several boreholes used in model calibrations and analyses. The 
model domain is selected to focus on the study area of the potential repository area and to 
investigate the effects of different infiltration scenarios and major faults on moisture flow around 
and below the potential repository. Faults are represented in the model by vertical or inclined 30- 
meter thick zones. 
Tac (Calico) ch2 (vit, zeo) CHV (vitric) 
or 
CHZ (zeolitic) 
ch3 (vit, zeo) 
ch4 (vit, zeo) 
ch5 (vit, zeo) 
Tacbt (Calicobt) ch6 BT 
Tcpuv (Prowuv) pp4 PP4 (zeolitic) 
Tcpuc (Prowuc) pp3 PP3 (devitrified) 
Tcpm (Prowmd) pp2 PP2 (devitrified) 
Tcplc (Prowlc) 
Tcplv (Prowlv) pp1 PP1 (zeolitic) 
Tcpbt (Prowbt) 
Tcbuv (Bullfroguv) 
Crater Flat undifferentiated 
(CFu) 
Tcbuc (Bullfroguc) bf3 BF3 (welded) 
Tcbm (Bullfrogmd) 
Tcblc (Bullfroglc) 
Tcblv (Bullfroglv) bf2 BF2 (nonwelded) 
Tcbbt (Bullfrogbt) 
Tctuv (Tramuv) 
Tctuc (Tramuc) tr3 Not Available 
Tctm (Trammd) 
Tctlc (Tramlc) 
Tctlv (Tramlv) tr2 Not Available 
Tctbt (Trambt) 
Table 6-2. GFM3.1 (CRWMS M&O 1999d) Lithostratigraphy, UZ Model Layer, and Hydrogeologic Unit Correlation 
Used in the UZ Flow Model and Submodels (Cont.) 
Major Unit 
GFM3.1* Lithostratigraphic 
Nomenclature 
FY 99 UZ 
Model Layer 
Hydrogeologic 
Unit 
NOTE: * GFM3.1 (CRWMS M&O 1999d) refers to the Geologic Framework Model Version 3.1.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 38 March 2000 
DTN: LB990501233129.004 
Figure 6-1. Plan View of the 3-D UZ Calibration Model Grid, Showing the Model Domain, Faults 
Incorporated, ESF and ECRB, and Several Borehole Locations. 
168000 170000 172000 174000 
230000 
231000 
232000 
233000 
234000 
235000 
236000 
237000 
238000 
239000 
UZ-14 
SD-9 
WT-24 
G-2 
SD-12 
SD-7 
G-3 
UZ#16 
SD-6 
H-5 
NRG-7a 
UZ#4 
Solitario 
West 
Fault 
SolitarioCanyonFault 
ECRB 
ESF 
Ghost Dance Fault 
Dune 
Wash 
F 
ault 
Imbrica 
te 
Fault 
Drillhole 
Wash 
Fault 
Pagany 
Wash 
Fault 
SeverWashFault 
East Nevada Coordinates (m) 
North Nevada Coordinates (m) 
N 
Borehole

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 39 March 2000 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Figure 6-2. Plan View of the 3-D UZ TSPA Model Grid, Showing the Model Domain, Faults 
Incorporated and Several Borehole Locations. 
168000 170000 172000 174000 
230000 
231000 
232000 
233000 
234000 
235000 
236000 
237000 
238000 
239000 
UZ-14
NRG-7a 
SD-9 
WT-24 
G-2 
SD-12 
SD-7 
G-3 
UZ#16 
SD-6 
H-5 
UZ#4 
Solitario 
West 
Fault 
Solitario Canyon Fault 
Ghost Dance Fault 
ImbricateFault 
Dune Wash Fault 
Drillhole 
Wash 
F 
ault 
Pagany 
W 
ashFault 
SeverWash 
Fault 
East Nevada Coordinates (m) 
North Nevada Coordinates (m) 
N

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 40 March 2000 
The calibration grid, as shown in Figure 6-1, has 1,434 mesh columns of both fracture and matrix 
continua and a maximum of 37 computational grid layers in the vertical direction, resulting in 
104,156 gridblocks and 421,134 connections in a dual-permeability grid. The TSPA grid (Figure 
6-2) has 1,324 mesh columns for the TSPA grid, a maximum of 37 computational grid layers in 
the vertical direction, with 97,976 gridblocks and 396,770 connections in a dual-permeability 
grid. 
6.1.2 Numerical Codes and Modeling Approach 
The simulation results presented in this AMR were carried out using TOUGH2 V1.4 (STN: 
10007-1.4-0.1, Version 1.4); T2R3D V1.4 (STN: 10006-1.4-00, Version 1-4), TOUGHREACTE9 
V1.0 (STN: 10153-1.0-00), and TOUGHREACT V2.2 (STN: 10154-2.2-00, Version 2.2), as 
summarized in Section 3. The single active liquid phase flow module (EOS9) (Wu et al. 1996) 
was used to calibrate the UZ Model and several submodels and to generate 3-D TSPA flow fields. 
For temperature simulation, the TOUGH2 V1.4 EOS3 module (Pruess 1991) was used. Tracer 
transport and chloride studies were performed using the decoupled module of T2R3D V1.4 and 
flow fields from the EOS9 module. The TOUGHREACTE9 V1.0 code was used for calcite 
calibration. 
To model the flow and transport processes occurring in the UZ at Yucca Mountain, mathematical 
models or governing equations are needed to describe the physical processes quantitatively to 
model the flow and transport processes occurring in the unsaturated zone. The physical processes 
associated with flow and transport in porous media are governed by the fundamental conservation 
laws, i.e., conservation of mass, momentum, and energy governs the behavior of fluid flow, 
chemical transport, and heat transfer through fractured porous media. The macroscopic 
continuum approach has been most commonly used in practical applications. In this approach the 
physical laws governing flow of several fluids, transport of multicomponents, and heat transfer in 
porous media are often represented mathematically on the macroscopic level by a set of partial 
differential or integral equations. Fluid and heat flow and chemical transport processes in fracture 
and matrix systems in the UZ are described using a macroscopic continuum approach. 
In addition to the conservation or continuity equations of mass and thermal energy in fracture and 
matrix systems, specific relationships or mechanisms are needed that describe why and how fluid 
flow, solute transport, and heat transfer occur in porous and fractured media. The following 
specific laws act as such mechanisms by governing local fluid flow, component transport, and 
heat transfer processes in porous and fractured media: 
1. Darcys law is applied to describe the two-phase flow of gas and water in both fractures 
and matrix. In particular, Richards equation is used in describing isothermal, 
unsaturated liquid flow through the UZ at Yucca Mountain. Relative permeability and 
capillary functions of both fractures and matrix follow the van Genuchten model (van 
Genuchten, 1980). 
2. The migration of dissolved mass components or chemical species within a fluid in the 
two-phase fractured-porous media system is governed by advective, diffusive, and 
dispersive processes. It is also subject to other processes such as radioactive decay, 
adsorption, dissolution and precipitation, mass exchange or partition between phases,

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 41 March 2000 
and other chemical reactions under local thermodynamic equilibration or kinetic 
reactions. 
3. The generalized Ficks law, including hydrodynamic dispersion effects in a multiphase 
system, is used to evaluate diffusive and dispersive flux of chemical transport. 
The multiphase extension of Darcys law, Richards equation, and the generalized Ficks law have 
been used as fundamental laws that govern flow and transport processes within porous medium 
rocks in both research and application. These fundamental laws or correlations, mainly based on 
experimental and field studies, reflect our current understanding of porous-medium physics. 
A key issue for simulating fluid and heat flow and chemical transport in the fractured-porous rock 
of Yucca Mountain is how to handle fracture and matrix flow and interactions under multiphase, 
multicomponent, and isothermal or nonisothermal conditions. The available methods for treating 
fluid flow in fractures and the rock matrix using a numerical approach include: (1) an explicit 
discrete-fracture and matrix representation; (2) the dual-continua method, including double- and 
multi-porosity, dual-permeability, or the more general "multiple interacting continua'' (MINC) 
method (Pruess and Narasimhan 1985); and (3) the generalized effective continuum method 
(ECM). For the work documented in this AMR, the dual-permeability conceptual model is 
applied to evaluate fluid and heat flow and transport in the fracture-matrix system of the UZ 
system of Yucca Mountain and the active fracture model is adopted to modify fracture-matrix 
interface areas for flow and transport between fracture and matrix systems. 
The dual-continua method provides an appropriate representation of flow and transport processes 
within the UZ at Yucca Mountain (Doughty 1999; CRWMS M&O 2000c) and is computationally 
much less demanding than the discrete-fracture-modeling approach and therefore has become the 
main approach used in the modeling studies of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project. 
The dual-permeability methodology for handling fluid flow, tracer transport, and heat transfer 
through fractured rocks treats fracture and rock matrix flow and interactions with a multi-continua 
numerical approach. It considers global flow occurring not only between fractures but also 
between matrix grid blocks. In this approach, fracture and matrix are each represented by one 
gridblock, connected to each other. Because of the one-block representation of fracture or matrix, 
the interflow between fractures and matrix has to be handled using some quasi-steady-state flow 
assumption, and this may limit its application in estimating effects of gradients of pressures, 
temperatures, and concentrations within the matrix. Under steady-state flow conditions, however, 
the gradients near the matrix surfaces become minimal, and the model is expected to produce 
accurate solutions (Doughty 1999). When applied as documented in this AMR, the traditional 
dual-permeability concept is further modified using an active fracture model (Liu et al. 1998) to 
represent fingering effects of flow through fractures and to limit flow into the matrix system. As 
an alternative, use of the discrete fracture or weeps type model will face extremely high 
uncertainties in fracture distribution data within the mountain and extensive computational 
burden that cannot be solved in the near future. On the other hand, the ECM approach, although 
the most computationally efficient, may not capture important, rapid transient interactions in flow 
and transport between fractures and matrix. For temperature calibration, the ECM modeling 
approach is used instead of the dual-permeability formulation because at ambient geothermal 
conditions, fractures and matrix are in thermal equilibrium and the ECM provides a good 
approximation.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 42 March 2000 
Ambient variably saturated flow in the UZ underlying Yucca Mountain is approximated as an 
isothermal, steady-state flow system. This is considered to be a good approximation within the 
UZ below the PTn unit because the relatively unfractured nonwelded PTn unit is expected to 
damp and homogenize downward moving transient pulses arising from episodic surface 
infiltration events. 
6.1.3 Model Boundary Conditions 
The ground surface of the mountain (or the tuff-alluvium contact in areas of significant alluvial 
cover) is taken as the top model boundary; the water table is treated as the bottom model 
boundary. Both the top and bottom boundaries of the model are treated as Dirichlet-type 
conditions with specified constant but spatially distributed temperature, gas pressure, and 
constant liquid saturation values along these surfaces. For flow simulations using the EOS9 
module, only pressure or saturation values are needed along the top and bottom model 
boundaries. Surface infiltration, as discussed below in Section 6.1.4, is applied using a source 
term in the gridblocks within the second grid layer from the top. This method was adopted 
because the first layer is treated as a Dirichlet-type boundary with constant pressure, saturation, 
and temperature to represent average atmospheric conditions. 
All lateral boundaries, as shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2, are treated as no-flow (closed) 
boundaries, which allow flow only within the faults. This treatment should be reasonable for the 
eastern boundary, which is along the Bow Ridge fault, because high vertical permeability and 
lower capillary forces are expected for the faults (see fault properties estimated in the AMR, 
(CRWMS M&O 1999d). For the southern, western, and northern lateral boundaries, no lateral 
flow boundaries would have little effect on moisture flow within and near the potential repository 
areas because these boundaries are far away from the potential repository. 
The spatially distributed values of temperatures along the top and bottom boundaries are based 
on field observation. The pressure conditions at the bottom boundary of the model are based on 
observed gas-pressure values. The water table, which is the bottom boundary of the UZ Model, is 
assumed to be a flat, stable surface (CRWMS M&O 1999d). The flat water table specification has 
little effect on the flow simulation results because flow is essentially determined by upstream, not 
downstream conditions. In the eastern part of the site to the Solitario Canyon fault, the water table 
elevation is about 730 meters above sea level (masl); however, the water table elevation increases 
by 46 meters west of the Solitario Canyon fault. The gas pressures are estimated using a pressure 
value of 0.92 bars at an elevation of 730 m. Surface gas pressures are determined by running the 
TOUGH2 code, EOS3 module to steady-state under given temperature, bottom pressure, and 
surface-infiltration conditions. This is necessary to generate a steady-state, equilibrated gaspressure 
boundary to avoid artificial air flow or circulation, which may occur when 
nonequilibrated pressures are imposed on the ground surface boundaries. 
6.1.4 Infiltration Scenarios 
Water entering the UZ as net infiltration from precipitation at land surface is the major control on 
overall hydrologic and thermohydrologic conditions within the UZ at Yucca Mountain. Net 
infiltration is the ultimate source of percolation through the UZ, and water percolating downward

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 43 March 2000 
through the UZ will be the principal means by which radionuclides may be transported from the 
potential repository to the water table. 
A total of nine net infiltration maps are implemented with the UZ Model and its submodels. These 
infiltration maps are documented in the two AMRs (Climate Model; Infiltration Model) for 
infiltration and climate models. They include present-day, Monsoon, and Glacial Transition  
three climatic scenarios, each of which consists of lower-bound, mean and upper-bound rates. The 
nine infiltration rates are summarized in Table 6-3 for average values over the model domain. 
As shown in Table 6-3, the average rate for the present-day mean infiltration with the calibration 
grid is 4.56 mm/yr distributed over the model domain, which is considered as a base-case 
scenario. The lower- and upper-bound infiltration values are intended to cover the uncertainties in 
the infiltration models of possible higher or lower rates. The two future climatic scenarios, the 
Monsoon and Glacial Transition periods, are used to account for possible higher precipitation and 
infiltration conditions in the future at Yucca Mountain. Note that the Glacial Transition has higher 
infiltration rates except for the lower-bound use. The average values in Table 6-3 are based on the 
TSPA grid shown in Figure 6-2. 
A plan view of the spatial distribution of the three mean infiltration maps, as interpolated onto the 
TSPA grid, is shown in Figures 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5 respectively, for the present-day, Monsoon, and 
Glacial Transition mean infiltration scenarios. The figures show similar flux distributions of the 
three infiltration rates, with higher infiltration rates in the northern part of the model domain and 
along the mountain ridge east of the Solitario Canyon fault from south to north. 
Table 6-3. Infiltration Rates (mm/year) Averaged over the Model Domain 
Scenario 
Lower Bound 
Infiltration 
Mean Infiltration 
Upper Bound 
Infiltration 
Present-Day 1.20 4.56 11.24 
Monsoon 4.60 12.36 20.12 
Glacial Transition 2.40 17.96 33.52 
ACC and DTNs: MOL.19991014.0102:, LB990501233129.004, LB990701233129.001

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 44 March 2000 
DTN: GS000399991221.002 
Figure 6-3. Plan View of Net Infiltration Distributed Over the 3-D UZ TSPA Model Grid for the 
Base-Case, or Present-Day, Mean Infiltration Scenario. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
15 
14.25 
13.5 
12.75 
12 
11.25 
10.5 
9.75 
9
8.25 
7.5 
6.75 
6
5.25 
4.5 
3.75 
3
2.25 
1.5 
0.75 
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 45 March 2000 
DTN: GS000399991221.002 
Figure 6-4. Plan View of Net Infiltration Distributed Over the 3-D UZ TSPA Model Grid for the 
Monsoon, Mean Infiltration Scenario. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 46 March 2000 
DTN: GS000399991221.002 
Figure 6-5. Plan View of Net Infiltration Distributed Over the 3-D UZ TSPA Model Grid for the Glacial 
Transition, Mean Infiltration Scenario. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
(mm/yr) 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 47 March 2000 
6.1.5 Model Parameters and Rock Properties 
The key input rock and fluid-flow parameters used in UZ Model development are summarized in 
Section 4. They include (1) fracture properties (frequency, permeability, van Genuchten a and m 
parameters, aperture, porosity, interface area, and residual and satiated saturations) for each UZ 
Model layer; (2) matrix properties (porosity, permeability, the van Genuchten a and m parameters, 
and residual and satiated saturations) for each UZ Model layer; (3) thermal and transport 
properties (grain density, wet and dry thermal conductivity, grain specific heat, and tortuosity 
coefficients) for each UZ Model layer; and (4) fault properties (matrix and fracture parameters) 
for each of the major hydrogeologic units (Table 6-1). The development and estimation of these 
parameters are presented in the AMR: Calibrated Properties Model (CRWMS M&O 2000b) and 
DTN: GS000399991221.004. 
The rock parameter specification in the 3-D UZ Model and its submodels is, in general, layer by 
layer, but certain portions of grid layers representing the CHn unit are altered. In these layers, 
zeolitic tuff properties are specified for altered zones. We treat all of the geological units, including 
those representing fault zones, as fracture-matrix systems using a dual-permeability approach. 
The van Genuchten relative permeability and capillary pressure functions (van Genuchten 1980) 
are used to describe flow in both fractures and matrix. 
6.2 3-D UZ FLOW MODEL CALIBRATION 
A critical step in developing the 3-D UZ flow model was to use field-measured liquid saturation, 
water potential, and perched water data for calibrations of the 3-D model. This is part of the 
important iterative processes of model calibration and verification which increases confidence in 
model predictions for the site conditions. A detailed modeling investigation is reported in the 
AMR (CRWMS M&O 2000b) using one-dimensional (1-D) models for estimating model 
parameters with water potential, saturation and other types of data. However, these 1-D models do 
not predict perched water occurrence in several hydrogeological units below the potential 
repository level. This section documents a further model calibration effort, focusing on the 3-D 
perched water calibrations using the 3-D calibration grid (Figure 6-1). 
The calibration was conducted using the three sets of parameters (CRWMS M&O 2000b), three 
present-day infiltration rates (See Table 6-3), and the geological model and numerical grid for 
calibration (CRWMS M&O 1999d). Two water perching models were investigated in which rock 
properties were locally modified in several gridlayers of the lower basal vitrophyre in the TSw 
unit and upper zeolites in the CHn unit. The objective of using these different water-perching 
models was (1) to match occurrences as observed at the site with different conceptual models for 
perched water and (2) to investigate effects on groundwater travel and radionuclide transport by 
varying the percentage of flow-through and by-passing flow of the perched bodies. 
6.2.1Cali bration Data 
Calibration data used in the 3-D UZ flow model calibration are matrix liquid saturations, matrix 
water potentials and perched water elevations, as observed from boreholes and the ECRB.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 48 March 2000 
Table 6-4 shows the types of data from boreholes and the ECRB used in the calibration, and 
Figure 6-1 shows the locations of the boreholes and the tunnel at Yucca Mountain. 
6.2.2 Perched Water Conceptual Models 
Conceptual models involving perched water in the unsaturated zone below the potential 
repository horizon are of particular interest in assessing the system performance of the potential 
repository. Waste- isolation strategies at the potential repository depend in part on sorption within 
the zeolitic portions of the CHn and on groundwater travel times between the potential repository 
horizon and the water table. The genesis of perched water at Yucca Mountain is much debated 
among Yucca Mountain project scientists, and several conceptual models have been discussed 
(e.g., Wu et al. 1999b). 
Perched water may occur where percolation flux exceeds the capacity of the geologic media to 
transmit vertical flux in the unsaturated zone. Perched water has been encountered in a number of 
boreholes at Yucca Mountain, including UZ-14, SD-7, SD-9, SD-12, NRG-7a, G-2, and WT-24. 
These perched water occurrences are found to be associated with low-permeability zeolites in the 
CHn or the densely welded basal vitrophyre (Tptpv3, Table 6-2) of the TSw unit. Possible 
mechanisms of water-perching in the unsaturated zone of Yucca Mountain may be permeability or 
capillary barrier effects at faults, or a combination of both. 
A permeability-barrier conceptual model (Conceptual Model #1) for perched water occurrence 
has been used in the UZ flow-modeling studies since 1996, as summarized in Wu et al. (1999b). 
In this model, perched water bodies in the vicinity of the ESF North Ramp (near boreholes UZ- 
14, SD-9, NRG-7a, G-2 and WT-24) are observed to occur above the base of the TSw, underlain 
by a zone of low-permeability zeolitized rock. The perched bodies in this northern area of the 
potential repository may be interconnected. However, the perched water zones at boreholes SD-7 
and SD-12 are considered here as local, isolated bodies. In this conceptual model, both vertical 
and lateral water movement in the vicinity of the perched zones is considered to be controlled 
mainly by the fracture and matrix permeability distribution in these areas. The major aspects of 
the permeability-barrier conceptual model are: (1) no large-scale vertically connected potentially 
Table 6-4. Data Used for 3-D Flow Model Calibration 
Borehole/ECRB 
Matrix Liquid 
Saturation 
(core) 
Matrix Liquid 
Water Potential 
(in situ) 
Perched Water 
Elevation (masl) 
USW NRG-7a . . 
USW SD-6 . 
USW SD-7 . . 
USW SD-9 . . 
USW SD-12 . . . 
USW UZ-14 . . 
UE-25 UZ#16 . 
USW WT-24 . . 
USW G-2 . 
ECRB .

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 49 March 2000 
fluid-conducting fractures transect the underlying low-permeability units, (2) both vertical and 
horizontal permeabilities within and below the perched water zone are small compared with 
permeabilities outside perching zones, and (3) sufficient percolation flux (>1 mm/yr) exists due to 
the lower permeability of the matrix rock. Previous modeling studies (Wu et al. 1999b) 
concluded that this conceptual water-perching model is able to match the observation data of 
perched water in the unsaturated zone of Yucca Mountain. 
Another perched water conceptual model (Conceptual Model #2) is the unfractured zeolite model. 
Similar to the permeability barrier model discussed above, this model presumes that the 
occurrence of perched water at Yucca Mountain results mainly from the lack of globally 
connected, fluid conducting fractures within zeolitic units. This model can be considered a 
special case of the permeability-barrier model, in which a water-perching mechanism is 
controlled by the low-permeability zeolitic matrix only, i.e., it is assumed that fractures are not 
present in perching layers. The concept of an unfractured zeolite model is partially supported by 
the fracture data presented in an AMR for the analysis of hydrologic properties data (DTN: 
LB990501233129.001), which suggests a very small fracture frequency within zeolitic units. 
In the present numerical studies, the occurrence of perched water is assumed to follow either of 
the two conceptual models, i.e., permeability-barrier and unfractured-zeolite models. In other 
words, perched water bodies are formed as a result of permeability-barrier effects. There are three 
conceptual flow scenarios investigated in this AMR, as described in Table 6-5. In addition to the 
two conceptual water-perching models, Table 6-5 also lists a third scenario called the non-waterperching 
model. This scenario cannot predict perched water in the UZ, and therefore provides an 
extreme case in which maximum flow through the zeolites occurs. This non-perching model is 
used for sensitivity analyses and comparative studies with the two water-perching models. 
Table 6-5. Conceptual Flow Scenarios 
Conceptual 
Model 
Description 
#1 
Flow-through 
Model 
Conceptual Model #1 (flow-through model) is the permeability-barrier model, 
using the calibrated, perched water parameters for fractures and matrix in the 
northern part of model domain. Properties are modified property layers in the 
tsw38, tsw39, ch1z, and ch2z, where the lower basal vitrophyre of the TSw is 
above the perching zeolites of the CHn. For local regions near boreholes SD-7 
and SD-12 in the southern part of the model domain, properties are modified 
only for the gridblocks to which the borehole grid columns are directly 
connected, as well as the gridblocks along the two boreholes, for blocks 
representing ch5z, ch6z and pp4z for SD-7 and tsw38 and tsw39 for SD-12, 
respectively.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 50 March 2000 
The simulations with respect to the three water-perching modeling scenarios are realized and 
carried out by modifying the two grid files. For Conceptual Model #1 (flow-through model), a 
dual-permeability mesh for the UZ calibration grid is modified by the following: 
 Replace property cards of grid layers of tsw38 (tswF8/tswM8), tsw39 (tswF9/tswM9), 
ch1z (ch1Fz/ch1Mz) and ch2z (ch2Fz/ch2Mz) by (pcF38/pcM38), (pcF39/ pcM39), 
(pcF1z/pcM1z), and (pcF2z/pcM2z), respectively, where the basal vitrophyre of the TSw 
is underlain by zeolitic units. 
 Near Borehole SD-7, properties are modified for the gridblocks in grid columns, i62, k88, 
l43, l44, and k90, over grid layers of ch5z (ch5Fz/ch5Mz), ch6z (ch6Fz/ch6Mz) and pp4 
(pp4Fz/pp4Mz) by (pcF5z/pcM5z), (pcF6z/pcM6z), and (pcF4p/pcM4p), respectively. 
 Near borehole SD-12, properties are modified for the gridblocks in grid columns, k64, 
b93, b99, k61, k62 and k67, over grid layers of tsw38 (tswF8/tswM8) and tsw39 (tswF9/ 
tswM9) by (pcF38/pcM38) and (pcF39/pcM39), respectively. 
For Conceptual Model #2 (unfractured zeolite or by-passing model), the dual-permeability mesh 
is modified by reassigning rock properties only at SD-12 over two gridlayers: 
 Near gridblocks in grid columns, k64, b93, b99, k61, k62 and k67, over grid layers of 
tsw38 (tswF8/tswM8) and tsw39 (tswF9/tswM9) by (pcF38/pcM38) and (pcF39/ 
pcM39), were modified respectively. 
 Assigning the fracture blocks in the zeolitic CHn layers of model to matrix parameters, 
effectively removing the fractures. 
The two perched models and the non-perched model are represented using three sets of 3-D, 
dual-permeability calibration model grids: 
 3d2kcalib_pc1.mesh for perched water Conceptual Model #1 
(DTN: LB990501233129.004). 
 3d2kcalib_pc2.mesh for perched water Conceptual Model #2 
(DTN: LB990501233129.004). 
#2 
By-passing Model 
Conceptual Model #2 is the unfractured zeolite model, excluding all fractures in 
the zeolitic units of the CHn and using the permeability values of 1-D calibration 
results directly for matrix rocks in the zeolitic and transitional units of the CHn. 
For a local region near Borehole SD-12, properties are modified of the direct 
neighboring blocks as well as the borehole gridblocks, for representing tsw38 
and tsw39. 
#3 
Non-perching 
Model 
Conceptual Model #3 is a non-perched-water model, in which the property sets 
from the 1-D inversion are directly used. 
Table 6-5. Conceptual Flow Scenarios

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 51 March 2000 
 MESH_CAL.V1 for non-perched water or Conceptual Model #3 of this AMR 
(DTN: LB990701233129.002). 
6.2.3 Calibrated Parameters for Perched Water Zones 
As discussed above, to calibrate the 3-D UZ flow model against observed perched water 
conditions at Yucca Mountain, some local modification of rock properties is necessary. In 
general, permeability was adjusted only within the model layers associated with the perched water 
occurrence. At Yucca Mountain, a common example of water-perching caused by a permeability 
barrier is the case in which the highly fractured basal vitrophyre of the TSw unit overlies bedded 
units of low permeability. In addition to a permeability barrier, two other conditions are required 
for perched water to exist: a certain lateral flow resistance and sufficient percolation flux. 
For perched water Conceptual Model #1, calibrated parameters of fracture and matrix 
permeabilities within perched zones are results from a series of modeling studies of 3-D 
simulations. Matrix permeabilities of potential perched layers/zones, as identified in the model 
grid layers of Section 6.2.2, are based on average values of the measured matrix permeabilities, 
while fracture permeabilities used for the northern perched zones are 10 times higher than matrix 
permeabilities under the mean and upper-bound infiltration scenarios. In the lower infiltration 
case, the same permeability values exist for both fractures and matrix for perched zones near SD- 
7 or SD-12 effectively removing fractures and making this into a special case of Conceptual 
Model #2. Other than intrinsic permeabilities, van Genuchtens a and m parameters, as well as 
residual saturations for matrix blocks within perched zones, are identical to parameters estimated 
from the 1-D inversions (CRWMS M&O 2000b). The active-fracture parameter, ., is set to zero 
for all the perched zones, causing the fracture-matrix interface area factor to be equivalent to 
liquid saturation (Liu et al. 1998). Tables 6-6, Table 6-7 and 6-8 present the final three sets of 
calibrated rock properties at zones with perched water using Conceptual Model #1, with base-case 
(mean), upper-bound, and lower-bound present-day infiltration scenarios, respectively. 
Table 6-6. Calibrated Parameters for Perched Water Conceptual Model #1 (Flow-Through Model) for the Base-Case 
Present-Day Infiltration Scenario 
Model Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
Tsw38/pcM38/ 
pcF38 
3.00E-19 6.94E-6 0.324 3.00E-18 6.94E-6 0.324 0.00 
Tsw39/pcM39/ 
pcF39 
6.20E-18 2.29E-5 0.381 6.20E-17 2.29E-5 0.381 0.00 
ch1z/pcM1z/pcF1z 9.30E-20 2.68E-7 0.316 9.30E-19 2.68E-7 0.316 0.00 
ch2z/pcM2z/pcF2z 2.40E-18 3.47E-6 0.245 2.40E-17 3.47E-6 0.245 0.00 
ch5z/pcM5z/pcF5z 2.40E-18 3.47E-6 0.245 2.40E-18 3.47E-6 0.245 0.00 
ch6/pcM6z/pcF6z 1.10E-19 3.38E-7 0.510 1.10E-19 3.38E-7 0.510 0.00 
pp4/pcM4p/pcF4p 7.70E-19 1.51E-7 0.676 7.70E-19 1.51E-7 0.676 0.00 
DTN: LB991121233129.001

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 52 March 2000 
The modified fracture properties in the three tables are more close to those of matrix, in other 
words, fractures in water perching layers are effectively removed. For perched water Conceptual 
Model #2 of the unfractured zeolite or by-passing model, rock properties of all the fractures 
within the potential perched layers/zones are replaced by the corresponding matrix properties 
from the 1-D inversions (CRWMS M&O 2000b). In addition, properties of the blocks adjacent to 
SD-12 and the borehole column itself were adjusted. The actual perched water parameters are 
given in Tables 6-6, 6-7, and 6-8 under layer names tsw38/pcM38/pcF38 and tsw38/pcM38/ 
pcF38. 
6.2.4 Numerical Treatment and Solution Convergence 
Numerical modeling of large-scale 3-D flow and transport in the UZ beneath Yucca Mountain is 
mathematically challenging. The difficulty mainly stems from the highly nonlinear coupling of 
Table 6-7. Calibrated Parameters for Perched Water Conceptual Model #1 (Flow-Through Model) for the Upper- 
Bound Present-Day Infiltration Scenario 
Model Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
tsw38/pcM38/pcF38 3.00E-19 5.56E-7 0.314 3.00E-18 5.56E-7 0.314 0.00 
tsw39/ pcM39/ 
pcF39 
6.20E-18 1.82E-5 0.377 6.20E-17 1.82E-5 0.377 0.00 
ch1z/pcM1z/pcF1z 9.30E-20 4.23E-7 0.336 9.30E-19 4.23E-7 0.336 0.00 
ch2z/pcM2z/pcF2z 2.40E-18 1.13E-6 0.229 2.40E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 0.00 
ch5z/pcM5z/pcF5z 2.40E-18 1.13E-6 0.229 2.40E-18 1.13E-6 0.229 0.00 
ch6/pcM6z/pcF6z 1.10E-19 3.57E-7 0.502 1.10E-19 3.57E-7 0.502 0.00 
pp4/pcM4p/pcF4p 7.70E-19 1.83E-7 0.683 7.70E-19 1.83E-7 0.683 0.00 
DTN: LB991121233129.003 
Table 6-8. Calibrated Parameters for Perched Water Conceptual Model #1 (Flow-Through Model) for the Lower- 
Bound Present-Day Infiltration Scenario 
Model Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
tsw38/pcM38/pcF38 3.00E-19 3.72E-6 0.291 3.00E-19 3.72E-6 0.291 0.00 
tsw39/ pcM39/ 
pcF39 
6.20E-18 2.37E-5 0.321 6.20E-18 2.37E-5 0.321 0.00 
ch1z/pcM1z/pcF1z 9.30E-20 7.26E-7 0.304 9.30E-20 7.26E-7 0.304 0.00 
ch2z/pcM2z/pcF2z 2.40E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 2.40E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 0.00 
ch5z/pcM5z/pcF5z 2.40E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 2.40E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 0.00 
ch6/pcM6z/pcF6z 1.10E-19 5.06E-7 0.445 1.10E-19 5.06E-7 0.445 0.00 
pp4/pcM4p/pcF4p 7.70E-19 1.83E-7 0.653 7.70E-19 1.83E-7 0.653 0.00 
DTN: LB991121233129.005

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 53 March 2000 
the flow system. First, the hydrogeologic system is distinctly heterogeneous on all model scales, 
and there are orders-of-magnitude contrasts in permeabilities across geological layers and 
between fracture and matrix rock. Secondly, the two-phase flow functions of relative 
permeability and capillary pressure for Yucca Mountain tuffs are extremely nonlinear for both 
fractures and matrix systems. The mathematical difficulties become even more severe when 
using the dual-permeability modeling approach for handling fracture-matrix interactions. In this 
case, flows through fractures and matrix are on very different time scales, with fracture flow being 
orders of magnitude faster than matrix flow. In addition, fracture elements have a much smaller 
storage space than matrix elements. In general, it takes simulation times of thousands to millions 
of years for the system to equilibrate. Rapid flow through fractures, plus the slow response in the 
matrix, makes it very difficult to obtain steady-state solutions numerically. 
For all flow simulations (this section and Section 6.6), the EOS9 module of TOUGH2 VI.4 is 
used to solve Richards equation in the unsaturated flow calculations. In this method, air/gas flow 
dynamics are ignored by using a constant gas-phase pressure in an isothermal system. The reason 
for using this simplified two-phase flow solution for the 3-D model calibrations and TSPA flow 
field simulations is that it is the most computationally efficient approach and at the same time 
provides accurate results for isothermal two-phase flow. We solve two-phase flow problems with 
one equation per gridblock instead of solving two or three equations as required by the EOS3 
module. Secondly, numerical tests conclude that for moisture flow and distributions at steady 
state, the EOS9 solutions always provide almost identical answers to EOS3, true two-phase 
flow solutions ((LBNL Scientific Notebook: YMP-LBNL-YSW-2, p. 152). 
Model calibrations and flow-field simulations are based on steady-state solutions using the EOS9 
module. In each simulation, fracture, fault, and zeolitic element volumes are increased by a factor 
of 10,000 to overcome convergence difficulties associated with these nodes while keeping all 
other mesh geometric information unchanged. This approach does not affect the final solution as 
long as a true steady-state solution is obtained for a given run. The initial condition for a new 
scenario run is estimated using a default (uniform) initial condition or results of a previous, 
different run with a similar modeling condition. Each simulation is usually subdivided into 
stages. For the first-stage runs, a large convergence tolerance on the order of 10,000 or more is 
used to keep simulation progressing with a large time step size. It has been found that at this stage 
using large residual tolerance has no effects on final, steady-state solutions as long as no 
oscillations or unphysical solutions occur. After running the solution to 109 years or more with a 
large tolerance, the convergence tolerance is reduced to 10-4, and the model is run until a 
steady-state solution is reached. The final steady-state solutions are confirmed using a global 
mass-balance check, as discussed in the next section. 
6.2.5 Simulation Scenarios, Results and Analyses 
This section summarizes the seven flow model calibration scenarios performed for this AMR, 
including simulation results and analyses. The seven model calibrations are performed using (1) 
the calibration grid (Figure 6-1), and three present-day infiltration maps, as discussed in Section 
6.1.4; (2) the seven parameter sets in Attachment II of this AMR; and (3) the three conceptual 
models and the calibrated perched water parameters of Section 6.2.3. 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 54 March 2000 
Simulation Scenarios: Table 6-9 summarizes these seven simulation scenarios, associated 
conceptual models/grids, parameter sets, and infiltration rates used. 
Table 6-9. Seven UZ Flow Simulation Scenarios: Data Files, Conceptual Models/Grids, Parameter Sets, Infiltration 
Maps for the UZ Model Calibrations 
Designation/ 
Simulation 
Conceptual Model/Grid 
(Table 6-5) 
Parameter Set/ 
Calibration 
Infiltration Map 
uz99_m 
#3 
Non-perching model/ 
MESH_CAL.V1 
DTN:LB990701233129.002 
Parameter set from Table II-7, basecase/
present-day, mean infiltration 
(AMR: CRWMS M&O 2000b) without 
3-D calibration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.007) 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pch1_L2 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kcalib_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990501233129.004 
Parameter set from Table II-1, 
lower-bound/present-day infiltration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.005) 
Present-day, lowerbound 
infiltration 
pch2_L2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kcalib_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990501233129.004 
Parameter set from Table II-2, lowerbound/
present-day infiltration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.006) 
Present-day, lowerbound 
infiltration 
pch1_m2 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kcalib_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990501233129.004 
Parameter set from Table II-3, 
base-case/mean/present-day 
infiltration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.001) 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pch2_m2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kcalib_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990501233129.004 
Parameter set from Table II-4, 
base-case/mean /present-day 
infiltration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.002) 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pch1_u2 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kcalib_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990501233129.004 
Parameter set from Table II-5, upperbound/
present-day infiltration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.003) 
Present-day, upperbound 
infiltration 
pch2_u2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kcalib_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990501233129.004 
Parameter set from Table II-6, upperbound/
present-day infiltration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.004) 
Present-day, upperbound 
infiltration

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 55 March 2000 
As shown in Table 6-9, only one simulation is conducted for the non-perching model, which uses 
the present-day mean infiltration map. For perched water Conceptual Models #1 or #2, 
simulations are carried out for all the three infiltration scenarios. 
Mass Balance and Solution Convergence: Table 6-10 shows the mass-balance results for the 
seven simulation scenarios. In Table 6-10, Inflow is the total infiltration rate over the entire 
model top boundary, representing a net water recharge rate into the system for the infiltration 
scenario simulated. Outflow is the cumulative total-flow rate out of the model and into the 
lower boundary representing the water table. Global mass-balance errors of inflow and outflow 
out of the system, as shown in Table 6-10, are less than 0.001% for the seven simulations leading 
to the conclusions that steady-state solutions are obtained. 
Model Calibrations and Results: As listed in Table 6-9, there are seven scenarios for model 
calibrations, consisting of one non-perching simulation (uz99_m) and the rest  six water 
perching simulations with the two perched water conceptual models and three infiltration rates. 
Six out of the seven simulations, except the non-perching one, have been calibrated against the 
field-observed data of perched water. The observed matrix liquid saturations and water potentials 
(when available), are used to examine modeling results. A perched water body is defined as fully 
liquid saturated gridblocks with zero capillary pressure or possible waterbend for calibration. The 
data source used in the calibrations are listed in Section 4-1. Only in-situ measurement water 
potentials are used. In this section, the simulation results are presented and discussed in terms of 
(1) comparisons with matrix liquid saturation, water potential, and perched water data, (2) 
examination of simulated perched water bodies, and (3) examination of simulated percolation flux 
and fracture-matrix flow components. 
All the seven simulations are checked against observed saturation, water potential and perched 
water data. However, only a few of these comparisons are shown in the report and boreholes UZ- 
14 and SD-12 are selected to show the match between observed and modeled vertical-saturation 
profiles and perched water locations for six simulations with perched water occurrence. Matches 
to other borehole data are similar. 
Table 6-10. Mass Balance Results for Flow Simulations Using the Calibration Grid 
Simulation 
Scenarios 
Inflow from 
infiltration 
(kg/s) 
Outflow to water 
table 
(kg/s) 
Relative error 
(%) 
uz99_m 5.6190232 5.6190755 0.00093 
pch1_L2 1.4704485 1.4704460 0.00017 
pch2_L2 1.4704485 1.4704472 0.00009 
pch1_m2 5.6190232 5.6190643 0.00073 
pch2_m2 5.6190232 5.6190252 0.00004 
pch1_u2 13.842166 13.842181 0.00011 
pch2_u2 13.842166 13.842169 0.00002 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.022, LB990801233129.023, LB990801233129.024, 
LB990801233129.025, LB990801233129.026, LB990801233129.027, LB990801233129.028, respectively.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 56 March 2000 
Comparisons with Liquid Saturation, Water Potential and Perched-Water Data: Measured 
matrix liquid saturation, water-potential data and perched water elevations are compared against 
3-D model results from the seven simulations. Matrix liquid saturation, water potential, and 
perched water data used for comparisons are taken from nine boreholes (NRG-7a, SD-6, SD-7, 
SD-9, SD-12, UZ-14, UZ#16, WT-24 and G-2). The locations of these boreholes are shown in 
Figure 6-1. 
The comparisons of simulated and observed matrix liquid saturations along the vertical column 
representing boreholes UZ-14 and SD-12 are shown in Figures 6-6 and 6-7 for the two perched 
water conceptual models under the present-day, mean infiltration scenario. Figure 6-8 shows 
comparison with water potentials for SD-12. In general, the modeled results from all the six 
simulations with perched water Conceptual Models #1 and #2 are in reasonable agreement with 
the measured saturation and water potential profiles, as shown in Figures 6-6, 6-7 and 6-8. 
Data - CRWMS M&O (2000a), DTN: 65960308312312.005 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.025, LB990801233129.026 
Figure 6-6. Comparison to the Simulated and Observed Matrix Liquid Saturations and Perched-Water 
Elevations for Borehole UZ-14, Using the Results of pch1_m2 and pch2_m2 with 
Present-Day, Mean Infiltration Rate. 
0.0 0.5 1.0 
Saturation 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
Elevation (m) 
USGS Data 
Hydro. Unit 
pch1-m2 
pch2-m2 
TSw 
TCw 
CHn 
Perched Water 
PTn

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 57 March 2000 
DTN: GS960908312232.006 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.025, LB990801233129.026 
Figure 6-7. Comparison to the Simulated and Observed Matrix Liquid Saturations and Perched-Water 
Elevations for Borehole SD-12, Using the Results of pch1_m2 and pch2_m2 with 
Present-Day, Mean Infiltration Rate. 
DTN: GS960908312232.006 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.025, LB990801233129.026 
Figure 6-8. Comparison to the Simulated and Observed Matrix Water Potentials and Perched-Water 
Elevations for Borehole SD-12, Using the Results of pch1_m2 and pch2_m2 with 
Present-Day, Mean Infiltration Rate. 
0.0 0.5 1.0 
Saturation 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
Elevation (m) 
USGS Data 
Hydro. Unit 
pch1-m2 
pch2-m2 
TSw 
TCw 
CHn 
Perched Water 
PTn 
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 
Logarithm of Water Potential (Pa) 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
Elevation (m) 
USGS In-situ Data 
Hydro. Unit 
pch1-m2 
pch2-m2 
TSw 
TCw 
CHn Perched Water 
PTn

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 58 March 2000 
Also shown in Figures 6-6, 6-7 and 6-8 are the perched water elevations at the two boreholes, 
indicating a good agreement between observed and simulated data. For borehole UZ-14 under 
Conceptual Model #2, Figure 6-6 shows that the modeled perched water elevation is a little lower 
than the observed elevation. In addition, each of the six simulations has been compared to perched 
water data as observed from the seven perched water boreholes of Table 6-4 (See Appendix A of 
YMP-LBNL-GSB-YSW-2 for detailed comparisons), and the results are as follows: 
 Under the present-day, mean infiltration scenario (pch1_m2 and pch2_m2, Table 6-9), 
both perched water conceptual models generally match water perching conditions in the 
UZ Model domain. 
 Under the present-day, upper-bound infiltration scenario (pch1_u2 and pch2_u2, Table 6- 
9), the two perched water conceptual models generally reproduce water perching 
conditions in the UZ Model domain. 
 Under the present-day, lower-bound infiltration scenario (pch1_L2 and pch2_L2, Table 
6-9), the perched water conceptual models generally reproduce water-perching 
conditions at G-2, NRG-7a, SD-12, and WT-24 only. The models do not match the 
perched water data very well in SD-7, SD-9 and UZ-14 because of the low percolation 
fluxes at these borehole locations (0.01, 0.01 and 0.005 mm/year, respectively). 
Examination of Simulated Perched Water Bodies: Figures 6-9 and 6-10 present examples of a 
simulated perspective view of 3-D perched water bodies and their volumetric extensions. 
Figure 6-9 shows a perspective view of fracture-water saturation contours along the bottom of the 
TSw or the low basal vitrophyre layer for perched water Conceptual Model #1. The blue 
isosurfaces on the figure reflect the regions of 100% liquid saturations, or perched water zones, 
within fractures along the model layer, while the green isosurface represents a portion of the 
model layer with fracture liquid saturations less than 100%. Figure 6-9 shows clearly several 
extensive perched water bodies predicted in the northern part of the model domain, located near 
the basal vitrophyre of the TSw, and separated by faults. Figure 6-9 also indicates that boreholes 
G-2, WT-24, UZ-14, NRG-7a, SD-9, as well as SD-12, intersect perched water bodies at this 
layer. 
Figure 6-10 shows perched water bodies simulated using perched water Conceptual Model #2, 
along the top, zeolitic layer of the CHn. The perched water zone (Blue) on Figure 6-10 is similar 
to that or Figure 6-9 (Conceptual Model #1), but slightly larger.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 59 March 2000 
Based on - DTN: LB990801233129.025 
Figure 6-9. Simulated Perspective View of 3-D Perched Bodies Along the Base of the TSw, Using the 
Results of Simulation pch1_m2 of Conceptual Model #1 (Flow-Through) with Present-Day, 
Mean Infiltration Rate.(Blue 100% Saturation, Green < 100%)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 60 March 2000 
Based on - DTN: LB990801233129.026 
Figure 6-10. Simulated Perspective View of 3-D Perched Bodies Along the Top of the CHn, Using the 
Results of Simulation pch1_m2 of Conceptual Model #2 (By-Passing) with Present-Day, 
Mean Infiltration Rate. (Blue 100% Saturation, Green < 100%)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 61 March 2000 
Percolation Fluxes and Fracture-Matrix Flow Components: Percolation flux through the 
unsaturated zone is one of the most critical factors affecting potential repository performance for 
TSPA calculations. The quantity and spatial and temporal variations in percolation flux directly 
affect: (1) the amount of water flowing into potential waste-emplacement drifts; (2) moisture 
conditions and the corrosion environment of waste packages within the drifts; (3) waste 
mobilization from the potential repository; and (4) radionuclide migration from the UZ to the 
saturated zone. However, because percolation fluxes of unsaturated flow cannot be readily 
measured in the field, indirect data and model results are used to estimate these fluxes. 
Model studies (Wu et al. 1999a, 1999b) indicate that accuracy of model predictions of percolation 
fluxes at Yucca Mountain depend on many factors. The most important factors are (1) net 
infiltration rates over the surface boundary; (2) representative geological and conceptual models; 
(3) reliable distributed rock-property values of fractures and matrix blocks; and (4) treatment of 
fracture-matrix flow and interactions. In this section, percolation fluxes at the potential repository 
horizon are analyzed using the seven simulation results of Table 6-9. The percolation flux is 
defined as total vertical liquid mass flux through both fractures and matrix, and is converted to 
mm/yr per unit area using a constant water density. 
Figures 6-11, 6-12, and 6-13 show percolation fluxes at the potential repository level for the three 
present-day infiltration scenarios with perched water Conceptual Model #1. Percolation fluxes at 
the potential repository are nearly the same if the same infiltration map is used, regardless of the 
perched water conceptual model. This occurs because the perched water models are different in 
the rock properties only in the bottom layers of the TSw and zeolitic units in the CHn, which have 
little effect on flow at and above the potential repository level. Figures 6-11, 6-12 and 6-13 
display a nonuniform pattern of flux distributions (the darker blue spots on the figure indicate the 
higher modeled percolation fluxes). The high percolation fluxes are located primarily north of the 
potential repository, but also along the Solitario Canyon fault in the middle portion of the model 
domain. A comparison of the present-day surface infiltration maps (e.g., Figure 6-3) and the 
modeled, corresponding flux maps shown in Figures 6-11, 6-12 and 6-13 indicate similar flux 
patterns. Especially for the lower-bound and upper-bound infiltration cases, the simulation results 
show little lateral diversion occurring during flow from surface to potential repository level. For 
the mean infiltration, the simulated percolation fluxes at the potential repository level show that 
small lateral movement occurs in the middle of the model domain, and higher fluxes are seen to 
move down the faults in these areas.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 62 March 2000 
Based on model results from this AMR submitted under DTN: LB990801233129.023 
Figure 6-11. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Potential Repository Horizon Under Present-Day, 
Lower-Bound Infiltration Using the Results of Simulation pch1_L2. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
5
4.75 
4.5 
4.25 
4
3.75 
3.5 
3.25 
3
2.75 
2.5 
2.25 
2
1.75 
1.5 
1.25 
1
0.75 
0.5 
0.25 
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 63 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.025 
Figure 6-12. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Potential Repository Horizon Under Present-Day, 
Mean Infiltration Using the Results of Simulation pch1_m2. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
15 
(mm/yr) 
14.25 
13.5 
12.75 
12 
11.25 
10.5 
9.75 
9
8.25 
7.5 
6.75 
6
5.25 
4.5 
3.75 
3
2.25 
1.5 
0.75 
0 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 64 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.027 
Figure 6-13. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Potential Repository Horizon Under Present-Day, 
Upper-Bound Infiltration Using the Results of Simulation pch1_u2. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
20 
19 
18 
17 
16 
15 
14 
13 
12 
11 
10 
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 65 March 2000 
Table 6-11 lists fracture-matrix flow components at the potential repository horizon and the water 
table within the model domain, calculated based on vertical flow along each grid column. These 
statistics indicate that fracture flow is dominant both at the potential repository horizon and at the 
water table. At the potential repository level, fracture flow consists of more than 80% of the total 
percolation fluxes. Fracture flow at the water table takes 70-90% of the total flow, whereas the 
second perched water conceptual model predicts consistently lower fracture-flow components at 
the water table for all three infiltration scenarios. 
Flow-Through and By-Passing Perched Water Zones: The percentage of water flowing 
through or by-passing perched water bodies below the potential repository may have an effect on 
groundwater flow paths and travel times. This may in turn affect the adsorbtion of radionuclides 
onto zeolitic and vitric rocks, directly impacting potential repository performance. The percentage 
of flow-through or by-passing perched bodies can be further analyzed using the 3-D model 
calibration results. Figures 6-14 and 6-15 show vertical flow at locations near SD-6 and UZ-14 
from the seven calibration simulations. The locations of the two boreholes are shown in Figure 6- 
1, with SD-6 and UZ-14 located in the southern and northern parts of the potential repository, 
respectively. 
Figure 6-14 shows that at SD-6, perched water Conceptual Model #1 permits much larger (almost 
complete) flow through the CHn unit than Conceptual Model #2. For the location near UZ-14, 
Conceptual Model #1 also predicts more percentage (50%) of flow through perched water layers 
with the mean infiltration rate than Conceptual Model #2. In both cases, the non-water-perching, 
Conceptual Model #3 predicts the highest, most complete flow through for the mean infiltration 
scenario (Figures 6-14b and 6-15b). Figures 6-14 and 6-15, as well as the analyses of the seven 
calibration runs, indicate the following: 
 Perched water zones may only partially block vertical water flow; a certain percentage of 
water is always flowing through perched bodies. 
 The higher the infiltration rates, the higher the by-passing percentages predicted by 
Conceptual Model #2. 
Table 6-11. Comparison of the Water Flux Through Matrix and Fractures as a Percentage of the Total Flux at Two 
Different Horizons (1) at the Potential Repository and (2) at the Water Table. 
Simulation 
Designation 
Flux at Potential Repository Horizon 
(%) 
Flux at Water Table 
(%) 
Fracture Matrix Fracture Matrix 
uz99_m 80.80 19.20 
pch1_L2 86.13 13.87 84.23 15.77 
pch2_L2 86.00 14.00 70.04 29.96 
pch1_m2 82.44 17.56 87.28 12.72 
pch2_m2 82.44 17.56 72.70 27.30 
pch1_u2 94.06 5.94 95.46 4.54 
pch2_u2 93.97 6.03 82.67 17.33 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.022, LB990801233129.023, LB990801233129.024, 
LB990801233129.025, LB990801233129.026, LB990801233129.027, LB990801233129.028, respectively.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 66 March 2000 
 Conceptual Model #1 results in consistently higher flow-through rates than Conceptual 
Model #2. 
 Non-water-perching model (#3) predicts nearly complete flow through the zeolites in the 
CHn. 
As a result, perched water Conceptual Model #1 is defined as the flow-through model, even 
though it is only partially flow-through, and Conceptual Model #2 is called the by-passing 
model. These results are consistent with the conceptual models used to develop the modeling 
scenarios. 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.022, LB990801233129.023, LB990801233129.024, LB990801233129.025, 
LB990801233129.026, LB990801233129.027, LB990801233129.028 
Figure 6-14. Comparisons between Simulated Vertical Percolation Fluxes at the Location of SD-6 using 
Different Perched-Water Conceptual Models. 
(a) 
(c) 
(b) 
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 
Total Liquid Flux (mm/year) 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
pch1-L 2 
pch2-L 2 
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 
Total Liquid Flux (mm/year) 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
pch1-m2 
pch2-m2 
uz99-m 
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 
Total Liquid Flux (mm/year) 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
pch1-u2 
pch2-u2 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
CHn 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
CHn 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
CHn 
(a) Conceptual Model #1 versus #2 for lower-bound infiltration rate. (b) Conceptual Model #1 versus #3 for mean infiltration rate. 
(c) Conceptual Model #1 versus #2 for upper-bound infiltration rate.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 67 March 2000 
Model Results - DTN: LB990801233129.022, LB990801233129.023, LB990801233129.024, LB990801233129.025, 
LB990801233129.026, LB990801233129.027, LB990801233129.028 
Figure 6-15. Comparisons between Simulated Vertical Percolation Fluxes at the Location of UZ-14 
using Different Perched-Water Conceptual Models. 
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 
Total Liquid Flux (mm/year) 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
pch1-L 2 
pch2-L2 
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 
Total Liquid Flux (mm/year) 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
pch1-m2 
pch2-m2 
uz99-m 
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 
Total Liquid Flux (mm/year) 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
pch1-u2 
pch2-u2 
(a) 
(c) 
(b) 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
CHn 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
CHn 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
CHn 
(a) Conceptual Model #1 versus #2 for lower-bound infiltration rate. (b) Conceptual Model #1 versus #2 and #3 for mean infiltration rate. 
(c) Conceptual Model #1 versus # for upper-bound infiltration rate.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 68 March 2000 
6.3 TEMPERATURE CALIBRATION 
For thermo-hydrological studies, the steady-state, ambient temperature and saturation 
distributions are needed to serve as initial conditions for the UZ model to evaluate various 
thermal-load and infiltration scenarios. Temperature data are required to describe the geothermal 
conditions of the UZ Model using measured field data. A steady-state, ambient temperature 
distribution for Yucca Mountain can be obtained using TOUGH2 simulation under fixed top and 
bottom temperature-boundary conditions. 
6.3.1 Top Boundary Temperature 
To account for differences in temperature in the mountain caused by variations in elevation, 
measured mean surface temperature and an equation that correlates surface temperature with 
elevation are used. The surface temperature was measured for mean surface temperature in 
boreholes NRG-6 and NRG-7a (DTN: GS950208312232.003), with several years of continuous 
temperature monitoring data. The surface temperature Ts at any elevation Z is computed and 
fixed according to the following equation (Driscoll, 1986, pp. 4951; Wu et al. 1999a, p. 196): 
(Eq. 1) 
where Tref is mean surface temperature at reference elevation Zref and . is the dry adiabatic 
atmospheric lapse rate in oC/m. This lapse is 0.01oC/m (Driscoll 1986, p. 50). In this model, the 
reference temperature used is 18.23oC, the mean value at an elevation of 1231.0 m measured in 
borehole NRG-6 (DTN: GS950208312232.003). The mean temperature at NRG-7a at an 
elevation 1282.2 m is 17.78oC. The calculated mean lapse rate, based on these field 
measurements, is 0.009oC/m. 
6.3.2 Bottom Boundary Temperature 
For the bottom boundary at the water table, temperatures were interpolated from unqualified 
borehole temperature profile data reported in Sass et al. (1988). Because several of these 
boreholes do not actually extend to the water table, temperatures at the water table were obtained 
by linear extrapolation of the measured profiles. The resulting temperature distribution was 
plotted and interpolated over the entire model domain. This interpolated temperature distribution 
was calibrated against recently acquired qualified temperature data in boreholes NRG-6, NRG-7a, 
SD-12 UZ#4, UZ#5 and UZ-7a. 
To obtain accurate bottom-temperature boundary conditions for use in thermo-hydrological 
simulations, the initial distribution of boundary temperature was adjusted so that the computed 
steady-state temperature profiles matched measured temperature profiles in the six boreholes with 
Q-temperature data. Several non-Q measured temperature profiles (Sass et al. 1988) were used as 
corroborative data. 
6.3.3 Calibration of Ambient Temperature 
The temperature profiles are controlled by many factors, such as the formation thermal 
conductivity, the geothermal gradient, and the ambient infiltration. Because of the small range of 
) ( ref ref s Z Z T T - - = .

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 69 March 2000 
uncertainties associated with measured thermal conductivities, the temperature calibration may be 
conducted using either ambient infiltration or temperature gradient data or both. In this report, we 
fixed the ambient infiltration rate and only calibrated the temperature conditions along the bottom 
and top boundaries because there is insufficient temperature data collected along these 
boundaries. The ambient temperature condition was calibrated using the 3-D calibration grid 
(DTN: LB990501233129.002 and CRWMS M&O 1999d), an ECM mesh. The simulations were 
performed using TOUGH2 V1.4 with the EOS3 module. The rock properties of the ECM 
formulation were obtained from the 1-D inversion (DTN: LB997141233129.001), thermal 
properties (DTN: LB991091233129.001), and UZ fracture properties 
(DTN: LB990501233129.001). We use the definition of parameters in the ECM model to obtain 
an equivalent set of ECM properties directly from the dual-permeability property set (Table II-7). 
Thermal conductivities are treated as a linear function of liquid saturation between their dry and 
wet values. The infiltration was the base-case, present-day, mean infiltration scenario. Table 6-12 
shows the boreholes and the corresponding column names used in the 3-D calibration of model 
ambient temperature. The last three columns give the x- and y-coordinates of grid columns, the 
absolute distance between the coordinates of the boreholes (in GFM 3.1) and the nearest 
gridblock center. 
The corresponding simulated temperature profiles for the boreholes were extracted from the 
TOUGH2 output. Figure 6-16 shows the calibrated and measured temperature profiles in the 
Q-temperature boreholes. The figures show a reasonable match between measured and simulated 
temperature using the specified boundary conditions and the infiltration rate. However, near the 
ground surface in five of the boreholes, observed temperature show significant seasonal 
variations. However, these seasonal changes in surface temperature have little impact on steadystate 
heat flow in the deeper (more than 20 meters) UZ. 
Table 6-12. Boreholes with Qualified Data Used in Calibration of UZ Ambient Temperature Distribution 
Borehole 
Element 
Column 
Nevada Coordinates of Element 
Columns 
Distance to 
Boreholes 
(m) 
E-W 
(m) 
N-S 
(m) 
NRG-6 I61 171956.0 233687.0 13.8 
NRG-7A k 3 171569.5 234372.4 33.2 
SD-12 k61 171169.6 232292.8 49.0 
UZ#4 i67 172551.0 234293.0 14.4 
UZ#5 i67 172551.0 234293.0 26.9 
UZ-7 e37 171379.7 231799.8 59.4 
DTN: LB990501233129.004 
NOTES: 1. XXXXq = boreholes with Q-temperature data used in model calibration 
2. dist (m) is the absolute distance between the nearest grid column coordinates (x_ele, y_ele) 
and the borehole location (in GFM 3.1). 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 70 March 2000 
Data - See Table 4.1 
Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.004, GS970808312232.005 
Figure 6-16. Measured and Modeled Ambient Temperature Profiles for the Q-boreholes, with the 
Present-Day Mean Infiltration. 
model temperature 
0 10 20 30 40 50 
-100
0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
UZ#4 3/31/98 
UZ#4 12/20/97 
UZ#4 6/29/97 
Temperature (degC) 
model temperature 
model temperature 
0 10 20 30 40 50 
-100
0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
NRG-6 3/31/98 
NRG-6 12/20/97 
NRG-6 8/31/96 
Temperature (degC) 0 10 20 30 40 50 
-100
0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
SD-12 9/30/97 
SD-12 6/29/97 
SD-12 6/30/96 
model temperature 
Temperature (degC) 
model temperature 
0 10 20 30 40 50 
-100
0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
NRG-7a 3/31/98 
NRG-7a 12/20/97 
NRG-7a 9/30/97 
Temperature (degC) 
model temperature 
0 10 20 30 40 50 
-100
0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
UZ#5 3/31/98 
UZ#5 12/20/97 
UZ#5 9/30/97 
Temperature (degC) 
0 10 20 30 40 50 
-100
0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
UZ-7a 3/31/98 
UZ-7a 12/20/97 
UZ-7a 12/31/96 
Temperature (degC) 
Depth (m) 
Depth (m) 
Depth (m) Depth (m) 
Depth (m) Depth (m)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 71 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB991131233129.004 
Figure 6-17. Model Ambient Temperature Distribution at the Water Table with the Present-Day, Mean 
Infiltration. 
Figure 6-17 shows the contour plot of calibrated temperature distribution at the water table. This 
temperature distribution can be used for simulations in which the model boundary temperature 
needs to be fixed at the water table. The average temperature at the water table (730 masl) ranges 
from 2833oC over the model domain. 
1.68E+05 1.70E+05 1.72E+05 1.74E+05 1.76E+05 
Nevada Coordinate (m) (E-W) 
2.30E+05 
2.31E+05 
2.32E+05 
2.33E+05 
2.34E+05 
2.35E+05 
2.36E+05 
2.37E+05 
2.38E+05 
2.39E+05 
Nevada Coordinate (N-S) (m) 
temp 
33.0 
32.5 
32.0 
31.5 
31.0 
30.5 
30.0 
29.5 
29.0 
28.5 
28.0 
27.5 
27.0 
26.5 
26.0 
C o 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 72 March 2000 
Based on calibration results, the simulated ambient temperature distribution in the UZ Model can 
be used to specify steady-state, mountain-scale temperature conditions. The distribution was 
computed using an ECM formulation of the calibration grid and using present-day, mean 
infiltration, and base-case properties. Although this temperature distribution is strictly calibrated 
only under these ECM model conditions, it should be applicable with different model 
formulations such as the dual-permeability approach. This is because the ambient heat flow is 
controlled by the steady-state heat conduction process, in which case the ECM model predicts 
similar results to those from dual-permeability model (Doughty 1999). 
6.4 ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF PORE-WATER CHEMICAL DATA 
This study is part of continuing efforts to analyze and model the geochemical data in the 
unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain. The studies use the geochemical model to evaluate the 
hydrologic system, and assess the magnitude and spatial distribution of surface net infiltration 
over time (Sonnenthal and Bodvarsson 1999). 
The UZ system of Yucca Mountain has been the subject of intensive geological, hydrologic, and 
subsurface engineering studies. One of the main issues is the percolation flux at the potential 
nuclear waste potential repository. Percolation flux strongly depends on the infiltration rates and 
their spatial distribution. Much work has been done to estimate the infiltration flux based on 
various evapotranspiration models (Hevesi et al. 1992; Flint and Flint 1994), and the present 
mean infiltration rate across the study area has been estimated as low as one millimeter per year 
to as high as several tens of millimeters per year. The climate change over the past 100,000 years 
has been used to estimate the possible range in infiltration rates over the next 10,000 years 
(Sonnenthal and Bodvarsson 1999). 
Geochemical data provide additional information to analyze the UZ system. Pore-water chemical 
concentration data have been used to calibrate the UZ model to bound the infiltration flux, flow 
pathways, and transport time. Distribution of chemical constituents in both liquid and solid phases 
of the UZ system depends on many factors, such as hydrological and geochemical processes of 
surface precipitation, evapotranspiration, the fracture-matrix interactions of flow and transport, 
large-scale mixing via lateral transport, and history of climate changes and recharge. A dualpermeability 
transient model is necessary to investigate fluid flow and chemical transport 
phenomena and represent the large spatial and temporal chemical variations. 
In this study, pore-water chemical concentration data are analyzed and modeled by 3-D chemical 
transport simulations and analytical methods. Water infiltration-rate calibrations are performed 
using the pore-water chloride concentrations. Model results of chloride distributions were 
improved in matching the observed data when the calibrated infiltration rates were used. In 
addition, an analytical method was applied to analyze transient transport of chemicals. This 
method was verified by 3-D simulations as able to capture major chloride and chlorine-36 
transient behavior and trends. The combined data of chloride and chlorine-36 distributions in the 
UZ groundwater furnish important information for the UZ Model calibrations.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 73 March 2000 
6.4.1 Available Data 
6.4.1.1 Pore-water Chemical Concentration Data 
Geochemical data available and applied to this study were pore-water concentrations of chloride 
(Cl), sulfate (SO4), strontium (Sr), and bromine (Br), and the ratio of chloride-36 (36Cl) to 
chloride (36CI/Cl). Pore-water samples were mainly collected from eight boreholes: NRG-6, 
NRG-7A, SD-7, SD-9, SD-12, UZ#4, UZ#14, and UZ#16 (Data Sources: DTN: 
LA9910JF12213U.007), the ECRB tunnel, the ESF tunnel, including South Ramp, North Ramp, 
and Main Drift (Data Sources: DTN: LASL831222AQ98.002, DTN: LA9910JF12213U.013). 
The detailed description of these data was given in several reports (e.g. Yang et al. 1998). 
6.4.1.2 Infiltration Flux Data 
The net infiltration flux in the base-case study was from the present-day, mean or modern 
infiltration map (Table 6-3 and Figure 6-18). Based on studies of Cl chemistry presented in 
Sonnethal and Bodvarsson (1999, p. 148, Figure 23), the glacial maximum infiltration rate was 
about 28 mm/year and the modern mean infiltration was approximately 5 mm/year. As an 
approximation, a glacial infiltration scenario in this section was obtained by multiplying the 
present-day mean infiltration rate by a factor of 5 with the same distribution pattern. 
Surface chloride flux includes dissolved material in rain, particulate in snow, and a contribution 
from windblown dusts (Tyler et al. 1996). Either chloride concentration in infiltrating water or 
total surface chloride flux can be input into the model. Combining the mean annual precipitation 
of about 170 mm/year with a present day chloride surface flux of 106 mg/m2 year yields a mean 
chloride concentration of about 0.62 mg/l (Fabryka-Martin et al., 1997, Sonnenthal and 
Bodvarsson 1999). Surface chloride flux of this study was obtained applying the mean chloride 
concentration of precipitated water (which combines infiltrating water in the form of 
precipitation, run on, and runoff). The same mean chloride concentration was applied to glacial 
total water precipitation to derive a glacial chloride flux. The 36Cl/Cl ratio in infiltrated water was 
assumed to be 500 x 10-15 during modern times and 1000 x 10-15 during glacial times (Sonnenthal 
and Bodvarsson 1999). 
6.4.2 Modeling Approaches 
6.4.2.1T hree-Dimensional Simulations 
The system was assumed to be under two-phase isothermal flow conditions of water and air. A 
three-dimensional dual-permeability model and the T2R3D V1.4 (Section 4) of the TOUGH2 
code, which takes into account tracer diffusion, dispersion, radioactive decay, and linear firstorder 
adsorption (Sonnenthal and Bodvarsson, Section 5.1, 1999), were employed for the 
simulations. The steady-state liquid-flow fields were obtained using the EOS9 module of T2R3D, 
as discussed in Section 6.1. Chemical distributions were then computed from transport equations 
using the decoupled T2R3D module. The flow boundary conditions, simulation grids, basic 
hydrologic properties of rock matrix and fractures are the same as those used in the 3-D UZ nonperched 
water model flow simulations described in Section 6.1. Boundary conditions for

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 74 March 2000 
chemical components were treated similarly to those for flow simulations, with mass fluxes 
described at the top boundary, and no-flow and water table conditions at the lateral and bottom 
boundaries, respectively. The dispersivities for both fracture and matrix continua in the simulation 
were assumed to be zero (Sonnenthal and Bodvarsson 1999). Diffusion coefficients used were 
those for chemical ions at 25oC and infinite dilution in water (Lasaga 1998). The tortuosity was 
set to 0.7 for fracture and 0.2 for matrix (Section 6.8.1), respectively. 
6.4.2.2 Analytical Method 
For transport dominated by vertical flow and porous media of ECM type, the analytical method 
provides an alternative interpretation of chemical transient transport, which could be difficult by 
3-D simulations. It is also efficient in conducting flow parameter sensitivity studies qualitatively. 
Transient transport modeling in this section was analyzed using an analytical solution for a onedimensional 
semi-infinite chemical-transport system (Javandel et al. 1984, p.14-18): 
(Eq. 2) 
where C0 [mg/l] is the system initial chemical concentration at t=0 [s], C1 [mg/l] the 
concentration at the surface (z=0 [m]}, v [m/s] the pore velocity, D [m2/s] the dispersion 
coefficient, and . [1/s] the chemical decay constant. The dispersion coefficient is evaluated by 
(Eq. 3) 
with the dispersivity a [m] and the molecular diffusion coefficient Dm [m2/s]. 
The solution becomes 
(Eq. 4) 
in the case of no decay, and 
(Eq. 5) 
for steady state. 
The analytical solution was applied to 1-D columns extracted from 3-D simulation model domain. 
Average column porosity was calculated by the total pore volume and bulk volume of the column, 
including both fracture and matrix volumes. 
. .
.
. 
. .
.
. 
.. 
. .. . + 
. ..
. 
. .
.
. + + + .. 
. .. 
. - 
. .
.
. 
. .
.
. + - - + = 
Dt 
vt z 
erfc z 
D 
D v v 
Dt 
vt z 
erfc z 
D 
D v v 
C C C z t C 
2 2 
4 
exp 
2 2 
4 
exp ) ( 
2
1 
) , ( 
2 2 
0 1 0 
. . 
m D v D + = a 
.. 
. 
.. 
. 
.. 
. .. 
. + 
.. 
. .. 
. + .. 
. .. 
. - - + = 
Dt 
vt z 
erfc 
D
vz 
Dt 
vt z 
erfc C C C z t C 
2 
exp 
2 
) ( 
2
1 
) , ( 0 1 0 
. .
.
. 
. .
.
. + - - + = z 
D 
D v v 
C C C z C 
2 
4 
exp ) ( ) ( 
2 
0 1 0 
.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 75 March 2000 
6.4.3 Modeling Results and Analyses 
Pore-water chemical-concentration data were analyzed using 3-D transport simulations and 
analytical methods. Water infiltration rate calibrations were performed by calculating infiltration 
rates with measured pore-water Cl concentrations. As a result, modeled results of Cl and 36Cl/Cl 
distributions were improved with the calibrated infiltration rates. 
An analytical method was applied to the transient-transport analysis. This method, verified by the 
3-D simulations under the same flow and transport conditions, was able to capture major Cl and 
36Cl transient transport behavior and trends. 
6.4.3.1 Water Infiltra tion Cali bration 
A base-case simulation was conducted using the present-day (modern), mean infiltration rate 
(Table 6-3 and Figure 6-18) to compare the uncalibrated model with observed chloride data. Note 
that Figure 6-18 uses different scales of flux from Figure 6-3 for the same infiltrate map. 
Input: DTN: GS000399991221.004 
Figure 6-18. Present-Day, Mean Infiltration Map 
Chloride concentrations predicted by the steady-state transport simulation were compared with 
measured pore-water chloride concentration data. The results of the simulated and measured 
concentrations along the stations in the ESF, ECRB, and borehole UZ#16 are shown in Figures 6- 
19 through 6-21, respectively. Compared to the measurements, the simulated Cl concentrations 
are higher at the North Ramp (0-2,000 m), South Ramp (6,400 m-8,000 m), the northeast side of 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
10 
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 
PRESENT DAY (MEAN) INFILTRATION (mm/year) 
mm/year 
=

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 76 March 2000 
the ECRB (left side of the figure), and borehole UZ#16, and lower at the southwest end of the 
ECRB (right side of the figure). These differences may result from the infiltration variations, as 
demonstrated in Figure 6-22, showing a plot of Cl infiltration along the ECRB. At the entrance of 
the ECRB, higher simulated Cl concentrations correspond to very low infiltration rates, while at 
the end of the ECRB, extreme higher infiltration leads to lower simulated values of Cl 
concentrations. The distribution of Cl concentration in infiltrated water shown in Figure 6-23 
confirms the significant effect infiltration rates have on Cl distributions and the need to calibrate 
infiltration. 
The infiltration rate calibration proceeds from the relationship between water and Cl influxes, and 
Cl concentration at the surface (Sonnenthal and Bodvarsson 1999, p. 121). 
(Eq. 6) 
where JI [kg/s] is the water infiltration (mass) flux, JCl [kg/s] the chloride flux, CCl,I [kg/kg] the 
mass fraction of Cl in the infiltrated water. 
Applying Equation 6 with Cl concentration in infiltrated water estimated by the measured porewater 
Cl concentration data, a modified water infiltration map can be developed, as shown in 
Figure 6-24. The domain was divided into nine regions based on the observation of the measured 
Cl data range. The infiltration rate is approximated using an average value of the present-day, 
mean infiltration scenario (Figure 6-18) in regions where pore-water data is unavailable (Regions 
I, II and VIII). A comparison of infiltration rates in different regions of the model domain is given 
in Table 6-13. 
Simulation results using the calibrated water infiltration map are shown in Figures 6-25 through 
6-27. Improvements can be seen when these results are compared with the results in Figures 6-19 
through 6-21 using the original calibration rates. 
6.4.3.2 Transient Transport 
The 36Cl/Cl ratios have been used to infer the ages of waters at depth and to locate rapid flow 
regions. Chloride and 36Cl concentrations at ESF and ECRB stations were calculated using the 1- 
D analytical solution to each column of the 3-D calibration grid over the model domain. The 
assumed glacial infiltration rates, corresponding Cl and 36Cl fluxes, and zero initial Cl and 36Cl 
concentrations were first applied to estimate a glacial steady-state distribution of Cl and 36Cl 
concentrations. Chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios at different modern times were then 
computed using the calibrated present-day infiltration rates and modern Cl and 36Cl fluxes with 
the glacial steady-state Cl and 36Cl results as initial concentrations. 
I Cl 
Cl 
I C
J 
J 
, 
=

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 77 March 2000 
Transport parameters and the radioactive-decay constant were the same as those used in the 3-D 
simulations. Porosity input was based on the simulation input rock data and converted from dualcontinua 
type to effective-continuum type. 
The analytical solutions were first verified by 3-D transport simulations, in which flow fields of 
both glacial and modern times were assumed at steady state, with all other input parameters the 
same as those used for the analytical solutions. Figure 6-28 shows good agreement in the 
comparisons of ESF Cl concentrations at 15,000 years by the two methods. 
Chloride concentrations at ESF and ECRB stations, and (36Cl/Cl ratio at ESF stations at 10,000, 
15,000 and 18,000 years modern times) were computed and plotted in Figures 6-29 through 6-31 
against the observed pore-water concentration data. The model solutions are within the range of 
measured data and able to match major transient-transport behavior and trends. 
6.4.3.3 Analysis of Sulfate Data 
The sulfate analysis provides an alternative interpretation to estimate infiltration rates. The 
calibration results can be important at places where significant amount of pore-water chemical 
data are available. The sulfate discussion demonstrates an example of uncertainties in the 
interpretation of chemical data, and additional information on infiltration, flow mechanism, and 
climate-change effects is needed in further chemical transport investigations. To study the SO4 
distributions, pore-water SO4 concentrations from all available boreholes (NRG-6, NRG-7A, SD- 
7, SD-9, SD-12, UZ-14, and UZ#16) and the ESF were averaged by each hydrologic unit, and the 
results were compared with the same Cl averages in Figure 6-32. The SO4/Cl ratio indicates that 
SO4 concentrations are higher than Cl concentrations in TCw and PTn, but lower than Cl 
concentrations in the TSw and CHn units. A preliminary 3-D simulation with SO4 precipitated 
concentration and SO4 molecular diffusion coefficient was unable to predict these vertical 
variations. 
Additional information on infiltration, flow and transport mechanism, and climate-change effects 
may be needed in further investigations of the geochemistry at Yucca Mountain.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 78 March 2000 
Data - DTN: LAJF831222 DQ99.004, Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-19. ESF Cl Concentrations by 3-D Simulation with the Present-Day, Mean Infiltration. 
Data - DTN: LAJF831222 DQ99.004, Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-20. ECRB Cl Concentrations by 3-D Simulation with the Present-Day Mean Infiltration. 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 
ESF Station [m] 
Cl [mg/L] 
Field Data 
Simulation 
North Ramp South Ramp 
Cl[mg/L] Concentration 
0 
20 
40 
60 
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 
ECRB Station [m] 
Cl [mg/L] 
Field Data Simulation 
SW NE 
Cl Concentration [mg/L]

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 79 March 2000 
Data - DTN: LA9910JF12213U.0007 Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-21. Borehole UZ#16 Cl Concentrations by 3-D Simulation with the Present-Day, Mean 
Infiltration. 
Data - DTN: LAJF831222 DQ99.004, Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-22. Infiltration at ECRB Stations and Cl 3-D Simulation Results Using the Infiltration. 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
0 100 200 300 400 500 
Cl [mg/L] 
Elevation (m) 
Field Data Simulation 
PTn 
TSw 
CH 
PP 
TCw 
0 
20 
40 
60 
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 
ECRB Station [m] Cl Concentration [mg/L] 
0
20 
40 
60 
Water Infiltration [mm/yr] 
Cl Field Data 
Simulation 
Infiltration

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 80 March 2000 
Data - DTN: LAJF831222 DQ99.004, Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-23. Cross Drift Cl Infiltration Concentration Based on the ECRB Infiltration. 
1 
10 
100 
1000 
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 
ECRB Station [m] 
Field Cl Data 
Using USGS-99 Infiltration

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 81 March 2000 
DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-24. Calibrated Infiltration Map 
Table 6-13. Infiltration Data by Region 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
10 
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 
mm/year 
Region 
Present-Day Mean Calibrated 
I 9.9 25.5 104732 59 104708 58 10.60 10.60 
II 5.3 13.8 12353 7 12262 7 2.32 2.30 
III 3.7 9.6 26341 15 25910 14 7.12 7.00 
IV 3.6 9.4 8844 5 8718 5 2.43 2.40 
V 4.6 11.9 12545 7 13835 8 2.72 3.00 
VI 2.2 5.6 2486 1 2168 1 1.15 1.00 
VII 1.8 4.6 3355 2 2662 1 1.89 1.50 
VIII 3.0 7.7 2162 1 2140 1 0.73 0.72 
IX 4.7 12.0 5010 3 6993 4 1.07 1.50 
Overall 38.7 100.0 177828 100 179396 100 4.6 4.6 
Infiltration Rate Infiltration Volume Area 
Present-Day Mean Calibrated 
mm/yr km2 % m3/yr % m3/yr % mm/yr

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 82 March 2000 
Data - DTN: LAJF831222 DQ99.004, Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-25. ESF Cl Concentrations by 3-D Simulation with Calibrated Infiltration. 
Data - DTN: LAJF831222 DQ99.004, Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-26. ECRB Cl Concentrations by 3-D Simulation with Calibrated Infiltration. 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 
ESF Station [m] 
Cl [mg/L] 
Field Data 
Uncalibrated Infiltration 
Calibrated Infiltration 
Cl Concentration [mg/L] 
0 
20 
40 
60 
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 
ECRB Station [m] 
Cl [mg/L] 
Field Data 
Uncalibrated Infiltration 
Calibrated Infiltration 
Cl Concentration [mg/L] 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 83 March 2000 
Data - DTN: LA9910JF12213U.0007 Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-27. Borehole UZ#16 Cl Concentrations by 3-D Simulation with Calibrated Infiltration. 
Data - DTN: LAJF831222 DQ99.004, Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-28. ESF Cl Concentrations by Analytical Method and 3-D Simulation. 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
0 100 200 300 400 500 
Cl Concentration [mg/L] 
Elevation (m) 
Field Data 
Calibrated Infiltration 
Uncalibrated Infiltration 
PTn 
TSw 
CH 
PP 
TCw 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 
ESF Station [m] 
Cl [mg/L] 
Field Data 
Analytical Solution 
3D Simulation 
t=15,000 yrs 
Cl Concentration [mg/L] 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 84 March 2000 
Data - DTN: LAJF831222 DQ99.004, Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-29. Analytical Results of Cl Transient Distributions at ESF Stations. 
Data - DTN: LAJF831222 DQ99.004, Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-30. Analytical Results of Cl Transient Distributions at ECRB Stations. 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 
ESF Station [m] 
Cl [mg/L] 
Field Data 
10,000 yrs 
15,000 yrs 
18,000 yrs 
Analytical Solutions 
0 
20 
40 
60 
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 
ECRB St at ion [m 
Field Dat a 
1 0 ,0 0 0 yrs 
1 5 ,0 0 0 yrs 
1 8 ,0 0 0 yrs 
Analy t ica l Solut ions

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 85 March 2000 
Data - DTN:LASL831222AQ98.002 Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.003 
Figure 6-31. Analytical Results of 36Cl/Cl Transient Analyses at ESF Stations. 
DTN: LA9910JF122130.007 
Figure 6-32. Pore-water Cl, SO4 Concentrations and SO4/Cl Ratios by Hydrogeologic Units. 
0 
200 
400 
600 
800 
1000 
1200 
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 
ESF Station [m] 
36Cl/Clx10-15 
Field Data 10,000 yrs 
18,000 yrs 15,000 yrs 
Analytical Solutions 
0 20 40 60 80 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
CH 
PP 
Cl, SO4 Concentrations [mg/L] 
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 
SO4/Cl Ratio 
SO4 Cl SO4/Cl ratio




I Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels uooso 
The CHn unit (below the TSw) was not considered in the geochemical simulations because: (1) 
lateral flow may occur in the CHn and (2) the CHn has abundant zeolites and volcanic glass for 
which thermodynamic and kinetic data are more poorly known. The exclusion of the CHn unit 
doesnt affect the results on upper units because flow is predominantly gravity-driven, and 
backward diffusion is not important over the large vertical distance between the potential 
repository horizon and the CHn. 
Boundary water and gas chemistry: Two types of chemical compositions were used for the top 
boundary of the hydrochemical transport simulations. The first water type (Table 6-14) was the 
average Topopah Spring Tuff water calculated from several observation samples (Scientific 
Notebook: YMP-LBNL-YWT-NS-1, pp. 78-79). The second water type was a measured TSw 
pore water extracted from a drill core from Alcove 5 in the Tptpmn (CRWMS M&O 2000d, 
Table 3), which has a higher Ca concentration. These two waters are slightly oversaturated with 
respect to calcite. These two water compositions merely provide some possible compositions that 
span a fairly wide range Ca concentration for the UZ pore waters that have been analyzed above 
the zeolitic units. Oxidizing conditions were considered for both waters. The boundary water type 
applied here is considered to be the water after transformation by soil zone processes. Finally, the 
initial water chemical composition used was uniform throughout the column for both the fracture 
and matrix blocks, and was adopted from the average TSw water (Type 1). 
LTable 
6-14. Aqueous and Gaseous Chemical Concentrations (mg/L) Used for Initial and Boundary Conditions of 
Hydrochemical Transport Simulations. 
Water type I 1 2 . 
Component 
Ca2+ 
Mg2+ 
Na+ 
K+ 
Average TSw water 
27 
5
91 
4 
Measured TSw water 
101 
17 
61.3 
6 
SiWaq) 60 70.5 
AIJ 9.92x10- (5) 9.92x10-(1) 
HCOj (3) 219 200 
C l 41 117 
SO4
2- 40 116 
F- 0.86 0.86 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 8 9 March 2000

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
Table 6-14. Aqueous and Gaseous Chemical Concentrations (mg/L) Used for Initial and Boundary Conditions of 
Hydrochemical Transport Simulations. (Cont.) 
PC02 (bar) (4) 1.322x10-3 
DTN: L6991131233129.001 
NOTES: 
8.565x10-4 
(1) Calculated by equilibrating with Ca-smactite at 25 C 
(2) Calculated by equilibrating with hematite at 25 C 
(3) Total aqueous carbonate as HCO3, calculated from charge 
balance computed by speciation at 25 C. 
(4) Calculated at equilibrium with the solution at 25 C. 
(5) Total aqueous Al and Fe are set equal to those of Type 2 water. 
In addition to aqueous species transport and reaction in water, we considered the diffusive transport 
of CO, in the gas phase and equilibration with pore water. The CO, gas partial pressures used 
for initial and top boundary conditions are in equilibrium with the corresponding aqueous chemical 
composition (the bottom row of Table 6-14). The elevated gas partial pressure (relative to 
atmospheric value 0.344~10-~ bar) at the upper boundary is uncertain, depending on soil-zone 
CO, production capability, which varies from location to location. The water chemical composition, 
especially pH, is controlled primarily by the CO2 partial pressure. 
Simulations: Two groups of simulations were performed. The first group of simulations were 
designed to analyze calcite deposition affected by infiltration (percolation) rate and reaction rate. 
These simulations were based on the NRG-IA borehole column with a simple mineralogy. For 
reporting purposes, this set of simulations is called NRG-IA simulations. 
The second group of simulations was based on the borehole WT-24 column where measured 
calcite deposition data are available for comparison. Both sets of simple and complex mineralogy 
were used. The second group of simulations is called WT-24 simulations. 
A total simulation time of 10 million years was carried out for all simulations. This simulation 
time was selected based on mineral growth having remained approximately constant over the past 
eight million years, as indicated by radiocarbon, 23%I-VU, and U-Pb ages, and on all dated 
surfaces indicated by ages of outer mineral surfaces being young compared to the 12.7-million 
year age of the host tuffs (CRWMS M&O 2000a). 
6.5.4 NRC-7A Simulations 
In this section, the sensitivity analysis results of calcite deposition to infiltration (percolation) rate 
and reaction rate are reported. 
Simulation setup: First, we used a base-case infiltration rate of 0.2119 mm/yr 
(DTN GSOOO399991221.002.; ACC: MOL. 19991014.0102), then two additional infiltration 
rates of 2 and 10 mm/yr. yr. Water Type 1 presented in Table 6-14 were used for the top boundary 
chemical transport conditions. Estimates of field mineral dissolution and precipitation rates 
MDL-NBS-HS-OOOOO6 REV00 90 March 2000

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 91 March 2000 
rates of 2 and 10 mm/yr. Water Type 1 presented in Table 6-14 were used for the top boundary 
chemical transport conditions. Estimates of field mineral dissolution and precipitation rates 
covered a wide range of values. We first used the reactive areas based on the initial estimated data. 
For the purpose of this analysis, we then reduced the areas by one order and two orders of 
magnitude. Scaling all rate constants (surface areas) by the same factor is justified for calcite 
precipitation in the simple mineralogy system because silica mineral dissolution and precipitation 
are not directly related to calcite precipitation. However, for the complex mineralogy system, 
scaling all rate constants (surface areas) by the same factor may not be sufficient. In the complex 
case, relative scaling of the reactive surface areas may be more appropriate, but there is no 
information on which to base such an approach at present. Simulations were performed using a 
different infiltration rate and reactive surface area (indicator of reaction rate). (Details are given in 
Xu's Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-GSB-TX-1, p. 30). 
Results: We expressed the simulated changes of calcite volume fraction as the average among the 
matrix and the fractures (calculated by calcite volume in the matrix and fractures divided by the 
total matrix and fracture solid volume). The calcite precipitation generally increases as infiltration 
rate increases, especially in the TSw unit (Figure 6-33; more results are given in Xu's Scientific 
Notebook YMP-LBNL-GSB-TX-1, p. 33). An increase of infiltration results in a slight change in 
the amount of calcite at the bottom of the PTn unit. 
DTN: LB991131233129.001 
NOTE: (a) Estimated reactive surface areas denoted by Ao, (b) Use of reactive surface areas Ao10-1 
Figure 6-33. Change of Calcite Volume Fraction with Infiltration Rate after 10 Million Years in the 
NRG-7A Column Using the Type 1 Water for the Top Boundary of Chemical Transport 
The calcite distribution is also dependent on reaction rate, which was achieved by changing the 
reactive surface area (Figure 6-34). For the welded TCw unit close to the land surface, the higher 
the reaction rate, the higher the calcite precipitation. For the deeper welded TSw unit, the highest 
surface areas (estimated) result in the lowest calcite precipitation. The shift of calcite precipitation 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 
Change o f volume f raction (ppmV) 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
Elevation (m) 
------------------------------------------- 
TCw 
--------------------------------------------- 
PTn 
TSw 
10 2 0.2119 
Infiltration rate (mm/yr) 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 
Change o f volume f raction (ppmV) 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
Elevation (m) 
------------------------------------------- 
TCw 
--------------------------------------------- 
PTn 
TSw 
10 
2 
0.2119 
Infiltration rate (mm/yr):

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 92 March 2000 
from the TCw to the TSw mainly results from the TCw being close to the top boundary, where 
percolation water and reactants of calcite are applied. Therefore, much more calcite precipitation 
occurs in the TCw than in the TSw. Increasing the areas by two orders of magnitude showed the 
same general trend as the initial estimated areas. The surface areas reduced by one order of magnitude 
from the initial estimated data give the most favorable conditions for calcite formation in 
the TSw unit. 
Based on DTN: LB991131233129.001 
NOTE: (a) 10 mm/yr infiltration rate, (b) 2 mm/yr infiltration rate 
Figure 6-34. Change of Calcite Volume Fraction with Reactive Surface Area after 10 Million Years in 
Borehole NRG-7A Column Obtained Using the Average TSw Water for the Top Boundary 
of Chemical Transport 
6.5.5 WT-24 Simulations 
In this section, we report the WT-24 simulation results using two different sets of mineralogy 
(simple and complex) and water chemistry. 
Simulation setup: We used three infiltration rates, a base-case rate of 5.92 mm/yr 
(DTN: GS000399991221.002.; ACCN: MOL. 19991014.0102), an additional lower rate of 2 
mm/yr, and a higher rate of 20 mm/yr. An upper rate of 10 mm/yr was not chosen as it was for the 
previous NRG-7A simulations because the base-case rate is greater than that of the previous (5.92 
over 0.2119 mm/yr). Two boundary types of water chemical compositions, average TSw water 
and measured TSw water (Table 6-14), were employed for the top boundary of the model. A total 
of nine simulations were performed using different infiltration rates, boundary water and gas 
chemistries, and reactive surface areas, which are summarized in Table 6-15. 
(a) (b) 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 
Change of volume f raction (ppm V) 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
Elevation (m) 
------------------------------------------- 
TCw 
--------------------------------------------- 
PTn 
TSw 
A0 
A0E-1 
A0E-2 
A0: initial estimated reactive surface areas 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 
Change o f volume f raction (ppmV) 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
Elevation (m) 
------------------------------------------- 
TCw 
--------------------------------------------- 
PTn 
TSw
A0 
A0E-1 
A0E-2 
A0: initial estimated reactive surface areas

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 93 March 2000 
.
Results: Simulations 1, 2, and 3 use the same average TSw water (Type 1), simple mineralogy, 
and reactive surface areas. The reactive surface areas used for the welded TCw and TSw units 
were reduced by one order of magnitude from the initial estimated data, and those for the 
nonwelded PTn unit were reduced by two orders of magnitude. The surface-areas were reduced 
because at the field-scale multimineral system all mineral surfaces may not be in contact with the 
percolating waters. Reactive surface areas used in the simulations were modified somewhat to 
match measured calcite data. One order more surface-area reduction in the PTn was according to 
fewer fractures in this unit. A different infiltration rate was employed for each simulation. The 
changes of calcite volume fraction are presented in Figure 6-35 for Simulations 1-3, together with 
measured calcite deposition data in the WT-24 cuttings (the comparison with the measured data 
will be discussed in a later section). The resulting calcite precipitation in the nonwelded PTn was 
decreased because of the reduction of the reactive surface areas (compare Figure 6-35 with 
Figures 6-33 and 6-34). 
Table 6-15. List of Simulations Performed for Borehole WT-24 Column Using Different Combinations of Infiltration 
Rate, Boundary Water Chemical Composition, Initial Mineralogy, and Reactive Surface Areas. 
Simulation 
Infiltration 
Rate (mm/yr) 
Water and Gas 
Chemistry 
Mineralogy 
Surface Area 
(A0 are referred areas of minerals) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 
5.92 
2
20 
5.92 
5.92 
5.92 
2
20 
5.92 
Type 1 in Table 6-14 
 
 
 
 
Type 2 in Table 6-14 
 
 
 
Simple 
Simple 
Simple 
Complex 
Complex 
Complex 
Complex 
Complex 
Simple 
A0x10-2 for PTn unit, A0x10-1 for others 
same as simulation 1 
same as simulation 1 
A0x10-1 
A0x10-1 for calcite, A0x10-3 for others 
same as simulation 5 
same as simulation 5 
same as simulation 5 
same as simulation 1

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 94 March 2000 
Data - CRWMS M&O (2000a; Figure 53) Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.001 
Figure 6-35. Simulated Changes of Calcite Volume Fraction (Lines) Using Simple Mineralogy with 
Infiltration Rate after 10 Million Years in Borehole WT-24 Column Together with Measured 
Calcite Deposition Data (In Diamond Symbols) that are Taken from the Analysis of 
Geochemical Data for the Unsaturated Zone (CRWMS M&O 2000a, Figure 53). 
Unlike Simulation 1, Simulation 4 used complex mineralogy. Both simulations employ the same 
infiltration rate (5.92 mm/yr) and average TSw water-chemical composition (Type 1). The 
reactive surface areas used in Simulation 4 are reduced by one order of magnitude from the initial 
estimated data. No calcite precipitation was obtained from Simulation 4 because the other 
minerals (such as clay) were given very large reactive surface areas. Therefore, Ca was taken up 
by the Ca-bearing clay and zeolite minerals. (In a field-scale multimineral system, all the clay 
mineral physical surface areas may not effectively be in contact with the infiltration water). In 
Simulation 5, we reduced the surface areas by three orders of magnitude for all minerals except 
for calcite, whose area remained the same (reduced by one order of magnitude) to reflect the 
lesser water contact by the clays. Results for Simulations 1 and 5 are presented in Figure 6-36. 
Generally, calcite precipitation obtained with the complex mineralogy was much smaller than that 
with the simple mineralogy. Only one model layer at the bottom of the PTn unit was exceptional. 
This layer had a higher matrix water content (or higher water saturation and porosity) than that at 
the top layer of the TSw unit (Xu, Scientific Notebook, YMP-LBNL-GSB-TX-1, p. 41, Figure 
14). Water can reside in the bottom of the PTn for a longer time, potentially precipitating more 
calcite. 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 
Change of volume f raction (ppmV) 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
5.92 20 2 
Wate r type 1 
In filtration rate (mm/yr) 
-------------------- 
--------------------- 
(average TSw water)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 95 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB991131233129.001 
Figure 6-36. Change of Calcite Volume Faction after 10 Million Years in the WT-24 Column under 
Different Mineralogy Conditions. The values of changes of calcite volume fraction under 
complex mineralogy in the PTn layers are much smaller than 2, and they are increased to 
a value of 2 for display purposes. 
Simulation 6 employs the measured water-chemical composition (Type 4) with a much greater Ca 
concentration (Table 6-14) than the average TSw water (Type 1) used in Simulation 5. The results 
for Simulations 5 and 6 are presented in Figure 6-37. More calcite precipitation occurs in the 
welded TCw and TSw units using the greater Ca concentration water. In both simulations, again 
no calcite precipitation occurs in the nonwelded PTn unit except at the bottom layer. 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 
Change o f vo lume fraction (ppmV) 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
inf iltration rate: 5.92 mm/yr 
Average TSw water (Type 1) 
S imple 
Mineralogy: 
Complex 
Infiltration rate: 5.92 mm/yr

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 96 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB991131233129.001 
Figure 6-37. Change of Calcite Volume Fraction with Water Type after 10 Million Years in the WT-24 
Column. 
Simulations 7 and 8 employ, respectively, 2 and 20 mm/yr infiltration rates to analyze the 
dependence of calcite deposition on infiltration rate under the complex mineralogy conditions 
(Figure 6-38). Calcite precipitation increases in the welded TCw and TSw units as infiltration rate 
increases. This is consistent with the result under the simple mineralogy condition (Figure 6-35). 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 
Change o f volume fraction (ppmV) 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
Inf iltration rate: 5.92 mm/yr 
Water type: 
Complex mineralogy 
(measured TSw water) 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
---------------------------- 
------------------------- 
1 
2 
(average TSw water)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 97 March 2000 
Data - CRWMS M&O (2000a; Figure 53) Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.001 
Figure 6-38. Simulated Changes of Calcite Volume Fraction (Lines) Using Complex Mineralogy with 
Infiltration Rate after 10 Million Years in the WT-24 Column, Together with Measured 
Calcite Deposition Data (Diamond Symbols) that are Taken from the Analysis of 
Geochemical Data for the Unsaturated Zone (CRWMS M&O 2000a, Figure 53). 
Under the complex mineralogy condition, most of the calcite precipitates in the rock matrix 
(Figure 6-39), especially in the TCw unit, whereas under the simple mineralogy condition (Figure 
6-40), almost all calcite precipitation occurs in the fractures for the TCw and PTn units. Some 
calcite precipitation in the matrix can be observed in the TSw unit, but its density is much lower 
than that in the fractures. The results indicate that chemical interaction of fracture-matrix is more 
significant in the complex mineralogy condition than in the simple mineralogy condition for 
calcite deposition. In the simple mineralogy system, the reactant Ca for calcite precipitation 
comes only from percolation water. Therefore, calcite precipitation occurs mostly in the 
preferential water flow path in the fractures. 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 
Change of volume fraction (ppmV) 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
5.92 
20 
(measured TSW water) 
In filtration rate (mm/yr) 
Water type 2 
2

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 98 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB991131233129.001 
Figure 6-39. Change of Calcite Volume Fraction in Fracture (Calculated by Fracture Calcite Volume 
Divided by Total Fracture and Matrix Solid Volume) and in Total (Same as the Previous 
Figures, or Calculated by Fracture and Matrix Calcite Volume Divided by Total Fracture 
and Matrix Solid Volume) under Complex Mineralogy Conditions (Using an Infiltration Rate 
of 5.92 mm/yr). 
Based on DTN: LB991131233129.001 
Figure 6-40. Change of Calcite Volume Fraction in Fracture and in Total under Simple Mineralogy 
Conditions (Using an Infiltration Rate of 5.92 mm/yr). 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 
Change of volume f raction (ppmV) 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
Complex minerology 
Total (f racture + marix) 
Only f racture 
1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 
Change of volume f raction (ppmV) 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
1500 
Elevation (m) 
TCw 
PTn
TSw 
Simple minerology 
Total (fracture + matrix) 
Only f racture

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 99 March 2000 
6.5.6 Discussion and Conclusions 
Calcite precipitation values for the welded TCw unit obtained by using the simple mineralogy and 
the average TSw water (Type 1) are closer to the measured data than those obtained by using 
complex mineralogy and the measured TSw water (compare Figures 6-35 and 6-38). The simple 
mineralogy simulations also capture the calcite abundances in the nonwelded PTn unit more 
closely, except for the bottom layer. The improved agreement for the PTn unit is achieved by 
reducing the reactive surface area, which is consistent with the fact that fewer fractures occur in 
this unit. The simulated calcite precipitation values at the bottom of PTn unit may be 
overestimated for the WT-24 column, especially values from the complex-mineralogy simulation. 
However, according to measurements presented in the Mineralogic Model 
(DTN: LA9908JC831321.001) the high calcite concentrations at this layer have been observed at 
several other locations such as (USW G-2 Core). 
According to Analysis of Geochemical Data for the Unsaturated Zone (CRWMS M&O 2000a, 
Section 6.10), calcite coatings are frequently found on fractures and lithophysal cavities in the 
welded TCw and TSw tuffs. This finding is better represented by simple mineralogy simulations 
such as presented in Figure 6-40, where calcite precipitation occurs primarily in the fractures. 
This is especially true for the TCw unit close to the land surface, in which reactants of calcite 
deposition come primarily from percolation water. The calcite precipitation occurs mostly in the 
preferential water flow paths in the fractures. Thus, the simple mineralogy simulations may be 
closer to calcite deposition condition. The effects of complex mineralogy on simulations may 
result from the uncertainty of thermodynamic and kinetic data for clay minerals, which are poorly 
known at present. 
Measured calcite deposition varies significantly from location to location and depth to depth. 
Studies for the WT-24 column can give some general insight into calcite deposition conditions, 
but may not represent the whole picture at Yucca Mountain. For example, the peak values in the 
TSw observed in WT-24 cuttings are in contrast with calcite deposition in the Exploratory Studies 
Facility (ESF). According to the conclusion regarding calcite measurements in the ESF (CRWMS 
M&O 2000a, Section 6.10), calcite abundance decreases with depth in the TSw unit. The mean 
calcite abundance in the ESF is 0.034% which is close to the lower bound of calcite observed in 
WT-24 well cuttings. The mineral abundance in the ESF was determined for 30-m intervals. 
Thickness, length, and orientation of the mineral deposits were measured. The measured mineral 
in the ESF is calcite together with opal, with calcite the dominant phase. 
The simulated results are sensitive to infiltration (percolation). Calcite deposition values obtained 
from the highest infiltration rate (20 mm/yr) are close to the high bound of the measurements 
(Figure 6-35). Those from the base-case (5.92 mm/yr) and lower infiltration rate (2 mm/yr) fall in 
the middle of the TSw measured data range. This may imply that the 20 mm/yr percolation rate is 
an upper bound for the WT-24 location, whereas the base infiltration (5.92 mm/yr) used in the 
flow model may be a moderate value. As pointed out in the previous "sensitivity simulation" 
section, the reactive surface area for calcite reduced by one order of magnitude from the initial 
estimation provides the most favorable condition for calcite formation in the deeper welded TSw 
unit. Therefore, the simulated values may be slightly overestimated. 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 100 March 2000 
The calcite data obtained from the sensitivity simulations for the NRG-7A column are generally 
in agreement with the wide range of the WT-24 measured data, except for the simulations with an 
infiltration equal to or less than 2 mm/yr and the initial estimated surface areas (Figure 6-33a and 
Figure 6-34b). 
Calcite deposition data gives some constraints on infiltration-percolation flux, but cannot give a 
definite value or a narrow range of values. This is because calcite precipitation depends not only 
upon infiltration-percolation flux, but also water and gas chemistry, reaction rate, and mineralogy. 
The main reason for calcite precipitation with depth is its inverse solubility with temperature. 
However, the partial pressure of CO2 and Ca concentration in percolating water controls the 
abundances of calcite and its stability. The reaction rate, and therefore the reactive surface area, 
influences its distribution with depth in the preferential fast water flow path in fractures. 
A number of major uncertainties and approximations are involved in the numerical simulation 
results. The kinetics of heterogeneous reactions is scale and history-dependent, and cannot be 
reliably quantified. Reactive surface areas are uncertain and subject to poorly quantifiable 
phenomena such as armoring of mineral phases. Scaling all rate constants (surface areas) by the 
same factor is justified for calcite precipitation in the simple mineralogy system, but may not be 
sufficient in the complex mineralogy system. The effect of changing rate constants (surface areas) 
in the complex mineralogy system relative to one another may be more appropriate; however, 
there is no information at present on which to base such an analysis. Variations in water and gas 
chemistry data could considerably affect rock alteration and deposition patterns. The uncertainties 
associated with water and gas chemistry also needs to be addressed. In addition, uncertainties 
could arise from climate and infiltration variations over time, transient water flow condition, and 
possible lateral water recharge. An alternative conceptual model for calcite deposition would 
consider its formation as episodic, rather than as steady-state. Because of the kinetics of fracture 
calcite precipitation, an episodic fluid pulse would tend to change the distribution of calcite with 
depth. During more typical smaller infiltration events, more precipitation might take place near 
the surface and less at depth. This does not necessarily change the underlying conceptual model 
for calcite precipitation (kinetic rate law), but would change the parameters for matching 
measured abundances. 
In summary, an analysis of calcite deposition using modeling tools can be used to build some 
constraints on hydrological parameters such as infiltration-percolation flux. Such an analysis also 
provides additional evidence for validation of flow and transport model. Over a range of 
2-20 mm/yr infiltration rate, the simulated calcite distributions using simple mineralogy capture 
the measured data from the WT-24 well cuttings. The modeling results can provide useful insight 
into process mechanisms such as fracture-matrix interaction as well as conditions and parameters 
controlling calcite deposition. The modeled calcite abundances generally increased as infiltration 
rate increased. The simulated calcite abundances are also sensitive to water and gas chemistry, 
and reaction kinetics. However, it should be noted that similar calcite abundances could possibly 
be obtained by consideration of calcite precipitation under equilibrium conditions with different 
thermodynamic properties, water compositions, or under transient flow conditions. Hence the 
kinetic rates and infiltration rates are likely to be nonunique. To refine and improve the present 
simulations, we need additional studies on the major uncertainties and limitations as discussed 
above. Furthermore, the model presented here can be used to investigate processes for seepage in

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 101 March 2000 
cavities, which has been used as an analog for seepage into the potential repository waste 
emplacement drifts. 
6.6 SIMULATIONS OF TSPA 3-D FLOW FIELDS 
This section analyzes and summarizes the 21 simulation scenarios, 18 of which are based on 
perched water Conceptual Models #1 and #2 and are submitted to TSPA for performance 
analyses. The 21 model simulations are performed using (1) the TSPA grid (Figure 6-2), and nine 
infiltration maps, as discussed in Section 6.1; (2) the seven parameter sets in Attachment II of this 
AMR, and the two conceptual perched water models and a non-water perching model. 
6.6.1 Simulation Sc enarios 
Tables 6-16, 6-17 and 6-18 summarize the 21 simulation scenarios, associated conceptual models/ 
grids, and parameter sets for the nine infiltration maps, respectively. 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 102 March 2000 
Table 6-16. Seven TSPA Simulation Scenarios: Data Files, Conceptual Models/Grids, and Parameter Sets for Three 
Present-Day Infiltration Maps. 
Designation/ 
Simulation 
Conceptual Model/Grid 
Name and DTN 
Parameter Set/ 
Calibration 
Infiltration Map 
(DTN: GS000399991221.002) 
pa99_m 
#3 
Non-perching model/ 
3d2kpa.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-7, basecase/
present-day, mean infiltration 
(AMR: CRWMS M&O 2000b) 
without 3-D calibration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.007) 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pa_pchL1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-1, 
lower-bound/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-8) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.005) 
Present-day, lowerbound 
infiltration 
pa_pchL2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-2, 
lower-bound/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-8) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.006) 
Present-day, lowerbound 
infiltration 
pa_pchm1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-3, basecase/
mean/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-6) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.001) 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration (Figure 6-3) 
pa_pchm2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-4, basecase/
mean/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-6) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.002) 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration (Figure 6-3) 
pa_pchu1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-5, 
upper-bound/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-7) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.003) 
Present-day, upperbound 
infiltration 
pa_pchu2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-6, 
upper-bound/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-7) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.004) 
Present-day, upperbound 
infiltration

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 103 March 2000 
Table 6-17. Seven TSPA Simulation Scenarios: Data Files, Conceptual Models/Grids, and Parameter Sets for Three 
Monsoon Climatic Infiltration Maps. 
Designation/ 
Simulation 
Conceptual Model/Grid 
Name and DTN 
Parameter Set/ 
Calibration 
Infiltration Map 
(DTN: GS000399991221.002) 
mon99_m 
#3 
Non-perching model/ 
3d2kpa.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-7, 
base-case/present-day, mean 
infiltration (AMR: CRWMS M&O 
2000b) without 3-D calibration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.007) 
Monsoon, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pa_monL1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-1, 
lower-bound/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-8) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.005) 
Monsoon, lower-bound 
infiltration 
pa_monL2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-2, 
lower-bound/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-8) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.006) 
Monsoon, lower-bound 
infiltration 
pa_monm1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-3, 
base-case/mean/present-day 
infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-6) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.001) 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pa_monm2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-4, 
base-case/mean/present-day 
infiltration with 3-D calibration 
(Table 6-6) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.002) 
Monsoon, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pa_monu1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-5, 
upper-bound/present-day 
infiltration with 3-D calibration 
(Table 6-7) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.003) 
Monsoon, upper-bound 
infiltration 
pa_monu2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-6, 
upper-bound/present-day 
infiltration with 3-D calibration 
(Table 6-7) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.004) 
Monsoon, upper-bound 
infiltration

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 104 March 2000 
As shown in Tables 6-16, 6-17 and 6-18, only one simulation is conducted for Conceptual Model 
#3 (non-perching model) using a mean infiltration map for each climatic scenario. For perched 
water Conceptual Models #1 and #2, calibrations are carried out for all three climatic scenarios 
Table 6-18. Seven TSPA Simulation Scenarios: Data Files, Conceptual Models/Grids, Parameter Sets for Three 
Glacial Transition Infiltration Maps. 
Designation/ 
Simulation 
Conceptual Model/grid 
Name and DTN 
Parameter Set/ 
Calibration 
Infiltration Map 
(DTN: GS000399991221.002) 
gla99_m 
#3 
Non-perching model/ 
3d2kpa.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-7, 
base-case/present-day, mean 
infiltration (AMR: CRWMS M&O 
2000e) without 3-D calibration 
(DTN: LB991121233129.007) 
Glacial Transition, 
mean infiltration 
(Figure 6.13) 
pa_glaL1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-1, 
lower-bound/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-8) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.005) 
Glacial Transition, 
lower-bound infiltration 
pa_glaL2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-2, 
lower-bound/present-day infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-8) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.006) 
Glacial Transition, 
lower-bound infiltration 
pa_glam1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-3, 
base-case/mean/present-day 
infiltration 
with 3-D calibration (Table 6-6) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.001) 
Glacial Transition, 
mean infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pa_glam2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-4, 
base-case/mean/present-day 
infiltration with 3-D calibration 
(Table 6-6) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.002) 
Glacial Transition, 
mean infiltration 
(Figure 6-3Figure 6-3) 
pa_glau1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-5, 
upper-bound/present-day 
infiltration with 3-D calibration 
(Table 6-7) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.003) 
Glacial Transition, 
upper-bound infiltration 
pa_glau2 #2 
By-passing perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN:LB990701233129.001 
Parameter set from Table II-6, 
upper-bound/present-day 
infiltration with 3-D calibration 
(Table 6-7) 
(DTN: LB991121233129.004) 
Glacial Transition, 
upper-bound infiltration

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 105 March 2000 
(i.e., present-day, Monsoon, and Glacial Transition), and mean, lower-bound and upper-bound 
infiltration scenarios. 
6.6.2 Simulation Results 
Similar to the calibration simulations, the mass-balance check has been conducted for the 21 
simulations using the TSPA grid. Tables 6-19, 6-20 and 6-21 list the global mass balance results. 
Global mass-balance errors between inflow and outflow of the system for the 18 flow fields 
(Conceptual Models #1 and #2), as shown in Tables 6-19, 6-20 and 6-21, are about 0.01% or less, 
indicating that solutions approximate steady state for these cases. 
Table 6-19. Mass-Balance Results for TSPA simulations using the Present-Day Infiltration Rates. 
Simulation 
Scenarios 
Inflow from 
infiltration 
(kg/s) 
Outflow to water 
table 
(kg/s) 
Relative error 
(%) 
pa99_m 5.6404383 5.6350245 0.09598 
pa_pchL1 1.4745351 1.4745216 0.00092 
pa_pchL2 1.4745351 1.4745337 0.00009 
pa_pchm1 5.6404383 5.6404290 0.00016 
pa_pchm2 5.6404383 5.6404462 0.00014 
pa_pchu1 13.796545 13.796548 0.00002 
pa_pchu2 13.796545 13.796567 0.00016 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.001, LB990801233129.002, LB990801233129.003, 
LB990801233129.004, LB990801233129.005, LB990801233129.006, LB990801233129.019 
Table 6-20. Mass-Balance Results for TSPA Simulations using the Monsoon Infiltration Rates. 
Simulation 
Scenarios 
Inflow 
(kg/s) 
Outflow (kg/s) 
Relative Error 
(%) 
mon99_m 15.168606 15.198690 0.19833 
pa_monL1 5.6404075 5.6409797 0.01014 
pa_monL2 5.6404075 5.6397595 0.01149 
pa_monm1 15.168606 15.168599 0.00005 
pa_monm2 15.168606 15.168625 0.00013 
pa_monu1 24.696920 24.697014 0.00038 
pa_monu2 24.696920 24.696911 0.00004 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.013, LB990801233129.014, LB990801233129.015, 
LB990801233129.016, LB990801233129.017, LB990801233129.018, LB990801233129.020

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 106 March 2000 
6.6.3 Result Analyses and Flow Fields 
Model Examination: 18 out of the 21 3-D flow fields, as delivered for TSPA calculations, have 
been compared against the field-observed data of perched water. The observed matrix liquid 
saturations and water potentials (when available) are used for checking model results. The other 
three flow fields from the non-water perching model were used in sensitivity analyses. The 
available data used in the calibrations are listed in Table 6-4. One example of the simulation 
results is given in Figure 6-41, comparing the result for UZ-14 with the results using the three 
mean infiltration rates of the three climatic scenarios with perched water Conceptual Model #1. 
The figure shows a good match between simulated and observed saturation and perched water 
data at this location from the three simulations. Overall, we have the following calibration results: 
 The simulation results, used for generating the 18 flow fields, matched the available 
saturation and water potential data from the nine boreholes (Table 6-4) reasonably well. 
 For calibrations with perched water data, the six simulations with mean, lower-bound and 
upper-bound present-day infiltration rates and two conceptual perched water models 
(Models #1 and #2), are similar to the results of the corresponding six calibration 
simulations of Section 6.2, which match perched water data reasonably well. 
 The 8 simulations with 4 infiltration scenarios having both mean and upper-bound 
infiltration rates of two future climates (Monsoon and Glacial Transition) and two 
perched water conceptual models can reproduce water-perching conditions well in all the 
observation boreholes. The four lower-bound infiltration simulations could also match 
perched water data for six of the seven perched water boreholes (at SD-7, the simulations 
do not match the observed perched water data well). 
Table 6-21. Mass-Balance Results for TSPA Simulations using the Glacial Transition Infiltration Rates. 
Scenarios 
Inflow 
(kg/s) 
Outflow (kg/s) 
Relative Error 
(%) 
gla99_m 22.045112 22.045138 0.00012 
pa_glaL1 2.9508085 2.9508075 0.00003 
pa_glaL2 2.9508085 2.9507693 0.00133 
pa_glam1 22.045112 22.045136 0.00011 
pa_glam2 22.045112 22.044842 0.00122 
pa_glau1 41.139432 41.139387 0.00011 
pa_glau2 41.139432 41.139337 0.00023 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.007, LB990801233129.008, LB990801233129.009, 
LB990801233129.010, LB990801233129.011, LB990801233129.012, LB990801233129.022

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 107 March 2000 
Data - DTN: GS000399991221.004 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.003, LB990801233129.009, 
LB990801233129.015 
Figure 6-41. Comparison to the Simulated and Observed Matrix Liquid Saturations and Perched Water 
Elevations for Borehole UZ-14, Using the Results of pa_pchm1, pa_monm1 and 
pa_glam1 Simulations for Three Mean Infiltration Scenarios of Three Climates. 
Percolation Fluxes and Fracture-Matrix Flow Components: Percolation fluxes at the potential 
repository horizon, simulated using the three mean infiltration scenarios of the present-day and 
two future climates, are shown in Figures 6-42, 6-43, and 6-44. The figures show that simulated 
total (matrix+fracture) percolation fluxes at the potential repository level have very nonuniform 
distributions, similar to the infiltration maps used for the top boundary conditions. By comparing 
the three percolation fluxes at the potential repository horizon with the corresponding surfaceinfiltration 
maps (Figures 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5), we find that little lateral diversion, except near faults, 
occurs during flow from surface to potential repository level, as predicted in these three 
simulations with the 3-D calibration grid. 
0.0 0.5 1.0 
Saturation 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
Elevation (m) 
Hydro. Unit 
pa-pchm1 
pa-glam1 
pa-monm1 
TSw 
TCw 
CHn 
Perched Water 
PTn
Field Data

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 108 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.003 
Figure 6-42. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Potential Repository Horizon Under Present-Day, 
Mean Infiltration Using the Results of Simulation pa_pchm1. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
15 
14.25 
13.5 
12.75 
12 
11.25 
10.5 
9.75 
9
8.25 
7.5 
6.75 
6
5.25 
4.5 
3.75 
3
2.25 
1.5 
0.75 
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 109 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.015 
Figure 6-43. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Potential Repository Horizon Under Monsoon, Mean 
Infiltration Using the Results of Simulation pa_monm1. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 110 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.009 
Figure 6-44. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Potential Repository Horizon Under Glacial 
Transition, Mean Infiltration Using the Results of Simulation pa_glam1. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 111 March 2000 
Figures 6-45 through 6-53 show the simulated percolation fluxes at the water table also using the 
three mean infiltration scenarios with the three conceptual models. When comparing the 
percolation fluxes at the potential repository (e.g., Figures 6-42, 6-43, and 6-44) we find the 
following: 
 Conceptual Model #3 (non-perching model) predicts a possible maximum, nearly 
vertical flow through the CHn zeolitic rocks. 
 Conceptual Model #2 (by-passing model) predicts the least flowing-through or maximum 
by-passing of perched water zones or zeolites of flow through the CHn. 
 Conceptual Model #1 (flow-through model) predicts significant vertical flow-through in 
the southern part of the vitric zones, and large lateral diversion occurring in the northern 
portion of the potential repository (where thick zeolitic layers are located), but an overall 
much higher vertical flow rate and much less lateral flow than Conceptual Model #2.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 112 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.003 
Figure 6-45. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Water Table Under Present-Day, Mean Infiltration 
Using the Results of Simulation pa_pchm1Conceptual Model #1. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
15 
14.25 
13.5 
12.75 
12 
11.25 
10.5 
9.75 
9
8.25 
7.5 
6.75 
6
5.25 
4.5 
3.75 
3
2.25 
1.5 
0.75 
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 113 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.004 
Figure 6-46. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Water Table Under Present-Day, Mean Infiltration 
Using the Results of Simulation pa_pchm2  Conceptual Model #2. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
15 
14.25 
13.5 
12.75 
12 
11.25 
10.5 
9.75 
9
8.25 
7.5 
6.75 
6
5.25 
4.5 
3.75 
3
2.25 
1.5 
0.75 
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 114 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.019 
Figure 6-47. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Water Table Under Present-Day, Mean Infiltration 
Using the Results of Simulation pa99_m  Conceptual Model #3. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
15 
14.25 
13.5 
12.75 
12 
11.25 
10.5 
9.75 
9
8.25 
7.5 
6.75 
6
5.25 
4.5 
3.75 
3
2.25 
1.5 
0.75 
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 115 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.015 
Figure 6-48. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Water Table Under Monsoon, Mean Infiltration Using 
the Results of Simulation pa_monm1  Conceptual Model #1. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 116 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.016 
Figure 6-49. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Water Table Under Monsoon, Mean Infiltration Using 
the Results of Simulation pa_monm2  Conceptual Model #2. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 117 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.020 
Figure 6-50. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Water Table Under Monsoon, Mean Infiltration Using 
the Results of Simulation mon99_m  Conceptual Model #3. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 118 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.009 
Figure 6-51. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Water Table Under Glacial Transition, Mean Infiltration 
Using the Results of Simulation pa_glam1  Conceptual Model #1. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 119 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.010 
Figure 6-52. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Water Table Under Glacial Transition, Mean Infiltration 
Using the Results of Simulation pa_glam2  Conceptual Model #2. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 120 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB990801233129.021 
Figure 6-53. Simulated Percolation Fluxes at the Water Table Under Glacial Transition, Mean Infiltration 
Using the Results of Simulation gla99_m  Conceptual Model #3. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
40 
38 
36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 
8
6
4
2
0 
(mm/yr) 
>_

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 121 March 2000 
Tables 6-22, 6-23, and 6-24 list the percentage of fracture-matrix flow components at the potential 
repository horizon and the water table, respectively, predicted using the 21 simulation results. 
These statistics show that fracture flow is dominant both at the potential repository horizon and at 
the water table in all the 21 flow fields. Specific predictions are as follows: 
 Table 6-22 indicates that for the three present-day infiltration scenarios, simulated 
fracture-matrix flow components with the TSPA grid are similar to those (Table 6-11) 
using the calibration grid. At the potential repository level, fracture flow consists of more 
than 80% of the total flow; at the water table, consists of about 70-90% of the total flow. 
 Tables 6-23 and 6-24 show, for two future climatic scenarios, a higher percentage of 
fracture flow at both the potential repository (86-96%) and water table level (71-96%) 
compared to the results of the present-day infiltration (Table 6-22). The second perched 
water conceptual model predicts consistently lower fracture-flow components by more 
than 8% for the two climatic scenarios. 
Table 6-22. Comparison of the Water Flux through Matrix and Fractures as a Percentage of the Total Flux at two 
Different Horizons (1) at the Potential Repository and (2) at the Water Table, using the Three 
Present-Day Infiltration Scenarios. 
Simulation 
Designation 
Flux at Potential Repository 
(%) 
Flux at Water Table 
(%) 
Fracture Matrix Fracture Matrix 
pa99_m 83.76 16.24 80.35 19.65 
pa_pchL1 86.61 13.39 84.66 15.34 
pa_pchL2 86.38 13.62 69.37 30.63 
pa_pchm1 83.69 16.31 86.69 13.31 
pa_pchm2 83.66 16.34 71.19 28.81 
pa_pchu1 94.45 5.55 95.40 4.60 
pa_pchu2 94.32 5.68 82.07 17.93 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.001, LB990801233129.002, LB990801233129.003, 
LB990801233129.004, LB990801233129.005, LB990801233129.006, LB990801233129.019 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 122 March 2000 
6.7 GROUNDWATER TRAVEL TIMES AND TRACER TRANSPORT 
This section summarizes our studies of groundwater travel times and tracer transport using the 21 
TSPA flow fields as well as one flow field with the calibration grid (Figure 6-1) for chloride-36 
studies. These studies are conducted to obtain insights into groundwater travel times and 
radionuclide transport from (a) the potential repository to the water table, and (b) the ground 
surface to the potential repository level. The results present an evaluation of transport processes of 
Table 6-23. Comparison of the Water Flux through Matrix and Fractures as a Percentage of the Total Flux at Two 
Different Horizons (1) at the Potential Repository and (2) at the Water Table, using the Three Monsoon Infiltration 
Scenarios. 
Simulation 
Designation 
Flux at potential repository 
(%) 
Flux at Water Table 
(%) 
Fracture Matrix Fracture Matrix 
mon99_m 89.60 10.40 85.31 14.69 
pa_monL1 89.97 10.03 90.10 9.90 
pa_monL2 89.90 10.10 76.55 23.45 
pa_monm1 89.53 10.47 90.21 9.79 
pa_monm2 89.50 10.50 80.87 19.13 
pa_monu1 95.61 4.39 96.47 3.53 
pa_monu2 95.50 4.50 83.86 16.14 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.013, LB990801233129.014, LB990801233129.015, 
LB990801233129.016, LB990801233129.017, LB990801233129.018, LB990801233129.020 
Table 6-24. Comparison of the Water Flux through Matrix and Fractures as a Percentage of the Total Flux at Two 
Different Horizons (1) at the Potential Repository and (2) at the Water Table, using the Three Glacial Transition 
Infiltration Scenarios. 
Simulation 
Designation 
Flux at potential repository 
(%) 
Flux at Water Table 
(%) 
Fracture Matrix Fracture Matrix 
gla99_m 91.46 8.54 83.26 16.74 
pa_glaL1 86.92 13.08 87.15 12.85 
pa_glaL2 86.78 13.22 71.38 28.62 
pa_glam1 91.38 8.62 90.47 9.53 
pa_glam2 91.37 8.63 83.43 16.57 
pa_glau1 96.53 3.47 96.92 3.08 
pa_glau2 96.44 3.56 88.97 11.03 
Model Results - DTNs: LB990801233129.007, LB990801233129.008, LB990801233129.009, 
LB990801233129.010, LB990801233129.011, LB990801233129.012, LB990801233129.022 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 123 March 2000 
radionuclides from the potential repository to the water table (saturated zone) and groundwater 
travels within the mountain, including effects of different perched water conceptual models, 
infiltration scenarios, and adsorption.Methodology and Transport Parameters. Studies of this 
section on tracer transport are intended for insight of the transport processes and PA may use other 
models/codes for radionuclide transport predictions in TSPA. 
6.7.1M ethodology a nd Transport Parameters 
Simulation results and analyses of this section are based on transport studies of conservative and 
reactive tracers using the T2R3D V1.4 code. The dual-permeability modeling approach, the 3-D 
TSPA grid (Figure 6-2) and the calibration grid (Figure 6-1) are used in the transport simulations. 
The 21 steady-state, 3-D flow fields, as discussed in Section 6.6, are directly used as input to the 
T2R3D code for runs for transport from the potential repository to the water table. Groundwater 
travel times or 36Cl transport is modeled using the calibration grid with the present-day, mean 
infiltration rate. 
Transport from the potential repository to the water table: This study is to assess groundwater 
travel times from the potential repository to the water table. Tracer or radionuclides are treated as 
conservative (nonadsorbing) and reactive (adsorbing) components transported through the UZ. 
For both cases, the hydrodynamic dispersion effect through the fracture-matrix system is ignored 
because sensitive studies indicate insignificant effect of hydrodynamic dispersion on the 
cumulative breakthrough curves of tracers at the water table. A constant molecular diffusion 
coefficient of 3.2  10-11 (m2/s) is used for matrix diffusion of the conservative component, and 
1.6  10-10 (m2/ s) and is used for the reactive component (DTN: LAIT831341AQ96.001). In the 
case of a reactive or adsorbing tracer, several Kd values are used, as given in Table 6-25, and these 
values were selected to approximate those for neptunium (237Np) transport (DTN: 
LAIT831341AQ96.001). For a conservative tracer, Kd is set to zero. These molecular diffusions 
coefficients and Kd values are selected to represent technitium and neptunium, respectively. All 
transport simulations were conducted for 1,000,000 years with a constant infiltration and an 
initial, constant source concentration condition injected into the fracture continuum at the 
potential repository horizon. A tracer is released at the starting time of a simulation. 
Transport from the ground surface: This is to investigate groundwater travel times from the 
ground surface to the potential repository level as well as 36Cl transport phenomena under steady- 
Table 6-25. Kd Values used for Reactive Tracer Transport in Different Hydrogeologic Units. 
Hydrogeologic Unit Kd (cc/g) 
Zeolitic matrix in CHn 4.0 
Vitric matrix in CHn 1.0 
Matrix in TSw 1.0 
Fault matrix in CHn 1.0 
Fractures and the matrix in the rest of units 0.0 
DTN: LAIT831341AQ96.001

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 124 March 2000 
state UZ flow conditions. A tracer with 36Cl transport properties (Section 6.4.2) is introduced into 
the second top grid or infiltration layer of the calibration grid with the climate scenario of the 
present-day, mean infiltration for the modeling studies. There are four simulation scenarios with 
different surface tracer boundary conditions specified with a small area above the potential 
repository and the entire model domain, respectively. Use of the small area of the tracer source 
boundary condition on the land surface is to reduce the possible effects of lateral boundaries and 
to focus on transport behavior in the immediate vicinity above the potential repository. The small 
tracer-source area is defined as an area directly above the potential repository, bounded by the 
Solitario Canyon, Drill Hole Wash and Ghost Dance faults in the western, northern and eastern 
directions, with the southern boundary in alignment with the south ramp of the ESF. Two types of 
boundary conditions were specified for the tracer, one being constant initial tracer concentration 
and the other constant tracer mass injection rate in the fracture gridblocks of the boundary. In the 
four simulations, the tracer was treated as a conservative, (nonadsorbing) and decaying 
component. For all cases, the hydrodynamic dispersion effect through the fracture-matrix system 
was included with longitudinal dispersivities of 20 and 5 m and transverse dispersivities of 4 and 
1 m, respectively, for fracture and matrix systems. Also, transport simulations were conducted for 
1,000,000 years. 
6.7.2 Simulation Scenarios 
For each TSPA flow simulation, as listed in Tables 6-16, 6-17 and 6-18, there are two transport 
runs, one for conservative (*_tr1) and one for reactive (*_tr2) tracer transport, respectively. 
Tables 6-26, 6-27 and 6-28 summarize a total of 21  2 simulation scenarios, associated with conceptual 
models/grids and corresponding TSPA flow fields for the nine infiltration maps of three 
climates, respectively. 
Table 6-26 also includes the four simulations using the calibration grid for studies of groundwater 
travel or 36Cl transport times from the land surface. Among the four scenarios, cam1_CL1 uses a 
constant initial tracer concentration boundary condition within the small source area; cam1_CL2 
uses a constant tracer mass flux boundary condition that is proportional to net infiltration rate for 
each fracture block, within the small source area; cam1_CL2 uses a constant initial tracer 
concentration boundary condition over the entire top model area; and cam1_CL4 uses a constant

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 125 March 2000 
tracer mass flux boundary condition (Section 6.4.1.2) with each fracture block, over the entire top 
model area. 
Table 6-26. Transport Simulation Scenarios: Data Files, Conceptual Models/Grids, Corresponding TSPA Flow Fields 
with Three Present-Day Infiltration Rates. 
Designation/ 
Transport 
Simulation 
Designation/ 
Flow Simulation 
Perched Water Conceptual Model/Grid Infiltration Map 
(DTN: GS000399991221.002 
pa99_tr1 
pa99_tr2 
pa99_m #3 
Non-perching model/ 
3d2kpa.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
paL1_tr1 
paL1_tr2 
pa_pchL1 #1 
Flow-through perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Present-day, lowerbound 
infiltration 
paL2_tr1 
paL2_tr2 
Pa_pchL2 #2 
By-passing perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Present-day, lowerbound 
infiltration 
pam1_tr1 
pam1_tr2 
pa_pchm1 #1 
Flow-through perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pam2_tr1 
pam2_tr2 
pa_pchm2 #2 
By-passing perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6-3) 
pau1_tr1 
pau1_tr2 
pa_pchu1 #1 
Flow-through perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Present-day, upperbound 
infiltration 
pau2_tr1 
pau2_tr2 
pa_pchu2 #2 
By-passing perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Present-day, upperbound 
infiltration 
cam1_CL1 pch!_m2 #1 
Flow through perched water model/ 
3d2kcalib_pc1.mesh 
(DTN: LB997141233129.001) 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6.1.3) 
cam1_CI2 pch1_m2 #1 
Flow-through perched water model/ 
3d2kcalib_pc1.mesh 
DTN:LB997141233129.001) 
Present-day, lowerbound 
infiltration 
(Figure 6.1.3)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 126 March 2000 
cam1_CL3 pch1_m2 #1 
Flow through perched water model/ 
3d2kcalib_pc1.mesh 
DTN: LB997141233129.001 
Present-day, lowerbound 
infiltration 
(Figure 6.1.3) 
cam1_CL4 pch1_m2 #1 
Flow-through perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Present-day, mean 
infiltration 
(Figure 6.1.3) 
Table 6-26. Transport Simulation Scenarios: Data Files, Conceptual Models/Grids, Corresponding TSPA Flow Fields 
with Three Present-Day Infiltration Rates. 
Designation/ 
Transport 
Simulation 
Designation/ 
Flow Simulation 
Perched Water Conceptual Model/Grid Infiltration Map 
(DTN: GS000399991221.002

Table 6-27. Transport Simulation Scenarios: Data Files, Conceptual Models/Grids, Corresponding TSPA Flow Fields 
with Three Monsoon Infiltration Rates 
Conceptual Model/Grid Infiltration Map 
Non-perching mode!f 
w-through perched water model/ 
By-passing perched water mode!J 
monmltR 
Flow-through perched water model/ 
3dZkpqxl.mesh 
DTN: L8990701233129.001 
monm2-trl 
monm2-tr2 
By-passing perched water mod&l 
3d2kpampc2.mesh 
Flow-through perched water mode!J 
3d2kpagcl .mesh 
By-passing perched water mod& 
3dZkpagc2.mesh 
DTN:LS990701233129.001 
MDL-NBS-HS-m REV00 127 March 2000

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 128 March 2000 
Table 6-28. Transport Simulation Scenarios: Data Files, Conceptual Models/Grids, Corresponding TSPA Flow Fields 
with Three Glacial Transition Infiltration Rates. 
Designation/ 
Transport 
Simulation 
Designation/ 
Flow Simulation 
Conceptual Model/Grid Infiltration Map 
gla99_tr1 
gla99_tr2 
gla99_m 
#3 
Non-perching model/ 
3d2kpa.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Glacial Transition, 
mean infiltration 
(Figure 6-5) 
glaL1_tr1 
glaL1_tr2 
pa_glaL1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Glacial Transition, 
lower-bound 
infiltration 
glaL2_tr1 
glaL2_tr2 
pa_glaL2 #2 
By-passing perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Glacial Transition, 
lower-bound 
infiltration 
glam1_tr1 
glam1_tr2 
pa_glam1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Glacial Transition, 
mean infiltration 
(Figure 6-5) 
glam2_tr1 
glam2_tr2 
pa_glam2 #2 
By-passing perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Glacial Transition, 
mean infiltration 
(Figure 6-5) 
glau1_tr1 
glau1_tr2 
pa_glau1 #1 
Flow-through perched water 
model/ 
3d2kpa_pc1.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Glacial Transition, 
upper-bound 
infiltration 
glau2_tr1 
glau2_tr2 
pa_glau2 #2 
By-passing perched water model/ 
3d2kpa_pc2.mesh 
DTN: LB990701233129.001 
Glacial Transition, 
upper-bound 
infiltration

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 129 March 2000 
6.7.3 Simulation Results and Analyses 
Groundwater travel and tracer transport times from the potential repository to water table: 
Groundwater travel times (since release from the potential repository to the water table) may be 
analyzed using a cumulative or fractional breakthrough curve, as shown in Figures 6-54, 6-55, 
and 6-56 for 1 million years. The fractional mass breakthrough in these figures is defined as the 
cumulative mass of a tracer or radionuclide arriving at the water table over the entire bottom 
model boundary over time, normalized by the total mass of the component initially introduced at 
the potential repository. In the figures, solid-line curves represent simulation results of conservative/
nonadsorbing tracer transport and dotted-line plots represents reactive, adsorbing tracer transport. 
The three figures show a wide range of groundwater travel or tracer transport times with 
different infiltration rates, tracers, and perched water conceptual models from the 42 simulations. 
The predominant factors in groundwater travel times or tracer transport, as indicated by Figures 6- 
54, 6-55 and 6-56, are (1) surface-infiltration rates or net water recharge and (2) adsorption 
effects, whether the tracer is conservative or reactive. To a certain extent, perched water conceptual 
models also affect groundwater travel/ transport times. However, the overall impact of the 
perched water conceptual models on tracer breakthrough at the water table is secondary compared 
to effects of infiltration and adsorption. 
Statistics of groundwater travel or tracer transport times of 10% and 50% mass breakthrough at 
the water table for the 42 simulation scenarios are given in Tables 6-29, 6-30 and 6-31, respectively. 
Figure 6-57 correlates average infiltration rates and groundwater travel or tracer transport 
times at 50% mass breakthrough for the 42 simulation scenarios. Figures 6-54 to 6-57 and the statistical 
data of Tables 6-29, 6-30 and 6-31 show the following: 
Groundwater travel or tracer transport times are inversely proportional to average surface infiltration 
(net water recharge) rate over the model domain (Figure 6-57). When an average infiltration 
rate increases from 5 to 35 (mm/yr), average groundwater travel (50% breakthrough) times 
decrease by one to two orders of magnitude. As infiltration decreases, the adsorbing species has a 
lower increasing rate in transport times than that of a nonadsorbing tracer because of retardation 
effects. 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 130 March 2000 
._ 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-54. Simulated Breakthrough Curves of Cumulative Tracer Mass Arriving at the Water Table, 
Since Release from the Potential Repository, Using the Three Present-Day Infiltration 
Scenarios and Three Conceptual Models for Nonadsorbing and Adsorbing Transport 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-55. Simulated Breakthrough Curves of Cumulative Tracer Mass Arriving at the Water Table, 
Since Release from the Potential Repository, Using the Three Monsoon Infiltration 
Scenarios and Three Conceptual Models for Nonadsorbing and Adsorbing Transport. 
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 
TIME (years) 
0 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 
0.4 
0.5 
0.6 
0.7 
0.8 
0.9
1 
Fractional Mass Breakthrough at Water Table 
pa99-tr1 
pa99-tr2 
L pal 1-tr2 
paL2-tr1 
paL2-tr2 
pam1-tr1 
pam1-tr2 
pam2-tr1 
pam2-tr2 
pau1-tr1 
pau1-tr2 
pau2-tr1 
pau2-tr2 
PaL1-tr1 
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 
TIME (years) 
0 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 
0.4 
0.5 
0.6 
0.7 
0.8 
0.9
1 
Fractional Mass Breakthrough at Water Table 
mon99-tr1 
mon99-tr2 
monL1-tr1 
monL1-tr2 
monL2-tr1 
monL2-tr2 
monm1-tr1 
monm1-tr2 
monm2-tr1 
monm2-tr2 
monu1-tr1 
monu1-tr2 
monu2-tr1 
monu2-tr2

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 131 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-56. Simulated Breakthrough Curves of Cumulative Tracer Mass Arriving at the Water Table, 
Since Release from the Potential Repository, Using the Three Glacial Transition Infiltration 
Scenarios and Three Conceptual Models for Nonadsorbing and Adsorbing Transport. 
 Nonadsorbing tracers migrate one to two orders of magnitude faster than an adsorbing 
tracer when traveling from the potential repository to the water table under the same 
infiltration condition. 
 The non-perching-water conceptual model (Conceptual Model #3) predicts the shortest 
arrival times for both nonadsorbing and adsorbing tracers during the first 1,000 years, 
using the results of the three conceptual models for the three mean infiltration scenarios 
of the three climates. 
 In later times (>1,000 years), the results are mixed when comparing travel/transport times 
from the different conceptual perched water models. For nonadsorbing tracers, 
Conceptual Model #1 in general has a longer arrival time than Conceptual Model #2. For 
adsorbing tracers with retardation effects, however, Conceptual Model #1 predicts shorter 
travel times than Conceptual Model #2 for lower-bound and mean infiltration scenarios. 
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 
TIME (years) 
0 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 
0.4 
0.5 
0.6 
0.7 
0.8 
0.9
1 
Fractional Mass Breakthrough at Water Table
gla99-tr1 
gla99-tr2 
glaL1-tr1 
glaL1-tr2 
glaL2-tr1 
glaL2-tr2 
glam1-tr1 
glam1-tr2 
glam2-tr1 
glam2-tr2 
glau1-tr1 
glau1-tr2 
glau2-tr1 
glau2-tr2

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 132 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-57. Correlations of Average Infiltration Rates and Groundwater Travel or Tracer Transport 
Times at 50% Mass Breakthrough for the 42 Simulation Scenarios. 
Table 6-29. Groundwater Travel/Tracer Transport Times at 10% and 50% Mass Breakthrough Times for 14 Transport 
Simulation Scenarios, Corresponding to TSPA Flow Fields with Three Present-Day Infiltration Rates. 
Designation/ 
Transport 
Simulation 
Types 
of Tracer 
10% 
Breakthrough 
Times (years) 
50% 
Breakthrough 
Times (years) 
pa99_tr1 Nonadsorbing 8 3,300 
pa99_tr2 Adsorbing 17,000 210,000 
paL1_tr1 Nonadsorbing 20,000 320,000 
paL1_tr2 Adsorbing 500,000 > 1,000,000 
paL2_tr1 Nonadsorbing 24,000 280,000 
paL2_tr2 Adsorbing 450,000 > 1,000,000 
pam1_tr1 Nonadsorbing 75 3,700 
pam1_tr2 Adsorbing 12,000 170,000 
pam2_tr1 Nonadsorbing 100 4,300 
pam2_tr2 Adsorbing 11,000 140,000 
pau1_tr1 Nonadsorbing 5 560 
pau1_tr2 Adsorbing 1,600 36,000 
pau2_tr1 Nonadsorbing 6 570 
pau2_tr2 Adsorbing 1,600 26,000 
Model Results - DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
1.0E+01 
1.0E+02 
1.0E+03 
1.0E+04 
1.0E+05 
1.0E+06 
1.0E+07 
1 10 100 
Average Infiltration Rate Over the Model Domain (mm/year) 
Travel Times for 50% Mass Breakthrough (years)
Model 1, Non-adsorbing 
Model 2, Non-adsorbing 
Model 3, Non-adsorbing 
Model 1, Adsorbing 
Model 2, Adsorbing 
Model 3, Adsorbing 
Non-adsorbing 
Adsorbing

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 133 March 2000 
Table 6-30. Groundwater Travel/Tracer Transport Times at 10% and 50% Mass Breakthrough Times for 14 Transport 
Simulation Scenarios, Corresponding to TSPA Flow Fields with Three Monsoon Infiltration Rates. _ 
Designation/ 
Transport 
Simulation 
Types 
of Tracer 
10% 
Breakthrough 
Times (years) 
50% 
Breakthrough 
Times (years) 
mon99_tr1 Nonadsorbing 3 740 
mon99_tr2 Adsorbing 1,100 55,000 
monL1_tr1 Nonadsorbing 600 5,300 
monL1_tr2 Adsorbing 25,000 120,000 
monL2_tr1 Nonadsorbing 820 5,500 
monL2_tr2 Adsorbing 26,000 110,000 
monm1_tr1 Nonadsorbing 12 630 
monm1_tr2 Adsorbing 1,500 35,000 
monm2_tr1 Nonadsorbing 6 670 
monm2_tr2 Adsorbing 1,200 26,000 
monu1_tr1 Nonadsorbing 3 210 
monu1_tr2 Adsorbing 570 15,000 
monu2_tr1 Nonadsorbing 3 260 
monu2_tr2 Adsorbing 600 12,000 
Model Results - DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Table 6-31. Groundwater Travel/Tracer Transport times at 10% and 50% Mass Breakthrough for 14 Transport 
Simulation Scenarios, Corresponding to TSPA Flow Fields with Three Glacial 
Transition Infiltration Rates. 
Designation/ 
Transport 
Simulation 
Types 
of Tracer 
10% 
Breakthrough 
Times (years) 
50% 
Breakthrough 
Times (years) 
gla99_tr1 Nonadsorbing 2 380 
gla99_tr2 Adsorbing 200 28,000 
glaL1_tr1 Nonadsorbing 2,400 17,000 
glaL1_tr2 Adsorbing 70,000 400,000 
glaL2_tr1 Nonadsorbing 2,900 18,000 
glaL2_tr2 Adsorbing 66,000 380,000 
glam1_tr1 Nonadsorbing 7 310 
glam1_tr2 Adsorbing 740 18,000 
glam2_tr1 Nonadsorbing 4 330 
glam2_tr2 Adsorbing 620 12,000 
glau1_tr1 Nonadsorbing 2 90 
glau1_tr2 Adsorbing 220 5,400 
glau2_tr1 Nonadsorbing 2 120 
glau2_tr2 Adsorbing 240 4,300 
DTN: LB9908T1233129.001

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 134 March 2000 
Potential locations of tracer breakthrough at the water table: The 42 tracer-transport simulation 
results can also be used to estimate potential locations or areas where radionuclides are most 
likely to break through at the water table. This information may be useful for modeling saturated 
zone transport. Figures 6-58a, 6-58b, 6-59a, and 6-59b show mass fraction contours at the water 
table at 1,000 years as examples after release from the potential repository for conservative and 
reactive tracer transport with Conceptual Models #1 and 2, respectively, using the present-day, 
mean infiltration rate. 
Figures 6-58a and 6-58b are for comparison between mass fraction contours of a conservative 
tracer at the water table after 1,000 years, simulated using the present-day, mean infiltration and 
Conceptual Model #1 (flow-through), and Conceptual Model #2 (by-passing), respectively. The 
two figures clearly indicate a significant difference in distributions of tracer mass fraction or concentration 
along the water table with the two conceptual model results. Conceptual Model #1 
(Figure 6-58a) predicts a large area of high concentration covering the entire area directly below 
the potential repository, indicating that transport is predominantly vertical for this case. In contrast 
Conceptual Model #2 (Figure 6-58b) shows only three high-concentration areas, which are associated 
mainly with faults. This indicates the significant effects of by-passing flow in the CHn unit 
on the tracer transport using Conceptual Model #2 (by-passing model). 
For an adsorbing tracer, Figures 6-59a and 6-59b show similar concentration contours to those on 
Figures 6-58a and 6-58b for a nonadsorbing tracer, but smaller areas and much lower 
concentration values for the same flow conditions. Figure 6-59a indicates that after 1,000 years, 
breakthrough occurs mainly below the southern portion of the potential repository in the vitric 
zones. In the northern part below the potential repository, breakthrough occurs along only a small 
portion of the Drillhole Wash fault. A comparison between high-concentration contours in Figures 
6-58a and 6-59a shows that adsorption effects are expected to have a significant impact on 
arriving concentration values and distributions on the water table for the same flow conceptual 
model (flow-through model). This impact is especially apparent in the northern part below the 
potential repository, where thick zeolitic layers are located. The tracer has not yet broken through 
in 1,000 years (with retardation effects included  Figure 6-59a), when compared with Figure 6- 
58a without adsorbing effects using the same flow field. Since Conceptual Model #1 predicts a 
higher percentage of flow-through in the zeolites than Conceptual Model #2, as discussed in 
Section 6.2, these zeolitic units may effectively retard further transport of the tracer, carried (with 
this conceptual model) by flow-through waters even under water perching conditions. 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 135 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-58. (a) Simulated Mass Fraction Contours of a Conservative Tracer at the Water Table after 
1,000 Years, Indicating Potential Breakthrough Locations at the Time, Using the Present- 
Day, Mean Infiltration with Conceptual Model #1. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
1.00E-05 
9.50E-06 
9.00E-06 
8.50E-06 
8.00E-06 
7.50E-06 
7.00E-06 
6.50E-06 
6.00E-06 
5.50E-06 
5.00E-06 
4.50E-06 
4.00E-06 
3.50E-06 
3.00E-06 
2.50E-06 
2.00E-06 
1.50E-06 
1.00E-06 
5.00E-07 
0.00E+00 
(a) Conceptual Model #1

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 136 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-58 (b) Simulated Mass Fraction Contours of a Conservative Tracer at the Water Table after 
1,000 Years, Indicating Potential Breakthrough Locations at the Time, Using the Present- 
Day, Mean Infiltration with Conceptual Model #2. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
1.00E-05 
9.50E-06 
9.00E-06 
8.50E-06 
8.00E-06 
7.50E-06 
7.00E-06 
6.50E-06 
6.00E-06 
5.50E-06 
5.00E-06 
4.50E-06 
4.00E-06 
3.50E-06 
3.00E-06 
2.50E-06 
2.00E-06 
1.50E-06 
1.00E-06 
5.00E-07 
0.00E+00 
(b) Conceptual Model #2 (By-Passing)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 137 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-59. (a) Simulated Mass Fraction Contours of a Reactive Tracer at the Water Table after 
1,000 Years, Indicating Potential Breakthrough Locations at the Time, Using the Present- 
Day, Mean Infiltration with Conceptual Model #1. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
1.00E-06 
9.50E-07 
9.00E-07 
8.50E-07 
8.00E-07 
7.50E-07 
7.00E-07 
6.50E-07 
6.00E-07 
5.50E-07 
5.00E-07 
4.50E-07 
4.00E-07 
3.50E-07 
3.00E-07 
2.50E-07 
2.00E-07 
1.50E-07 
1.00E-07 
5.00E-08 
0.00E+00 
(mm/yr)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 138 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-59 (b) Simulated Mass Fraction Contours of a Reactive Tracer at the Water Table after 
1,000 Years, Indicating Potential Breakthrough Locations at the Time, Using the Present- 
Day, Mean Infiltration with Conceptual Model #2. 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
1.00E-06 
9.50E-07 
9.00E-07 
8.50E-07 
8.00E-07 
7.50E-07 
7.00E-07 
6.50E-07 
6.00E-07 
5.50E-07 
5.00E-07 
4.50E-07 
4.00E-07 
3.50E-07 
3.00E-07 
2.50E-07 
2.00E-07 
1.50E-07 
1.00E-07 
5.00E-08 
0.00E+00 
(mm/yr)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 139 March 2000 
Groundwater travel and 36Cl transport times from the land surface: Groundwater travel or 
36Cl transport times to the potential repository since release from the ground surface may be estimated 
using a cumulative or fractional breakthrough curve, as shown in Figures 6-60 for the four 
simulation scenarios. The figure shows a similar range of groundwater travel or tracer transport 
times for the four different surface source conditions with the same present-day, mean infiltration 
rate. Except for the scenario with a constant initial concentration within the small surface source 
area (cam1_CL1), there is about 1% mass breakthrough during 10 to 100 years after tracer release 
on the ground. This indicates the existence of possible fast flow pathways with a travel time of 50 
years, travelling from the ground surface to the potential repository level, under the steady-state UZ 
flow condition. However, the cumulative mass breakthrough is small (~1% of the total mass 
released on the ground) for the early breakthrough at 50 years. The average groundwater travel 
times from the surface to the potential repository level is estimated between 5,000 to 20,000 year 
using the 50% mass breakthrough curves of Figure 6-60 from the four simulation results. 
Figures 6-61 shows spatial profiles of tracer mass fraction or concentrations in the UZ model at 50 
years of release from the small source area of the top boundary. In a plan view, Figure 6-61 
indicates very localized breakthrough at the potential repository level, with all the high mass 
fraction/concentration zones associated with faults. Examination of the simulated tracer 
concentration distributions along vertical cross sections, and the ESF and ECRB tunnels indicates 
that in the vertical direction, tracer plumes penetrates faster only along high-permeability faults 
during the earlier travel times of 50 to 1000 years

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 140 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-60. Simulated Breakthrough Curves of Cumulative Tracer (36Cl) Mass Arriving at the Potential 
Repository Level, Since Release from the Ground Surface, Using the Present-Day, Mean 
Infiltration and Four Simulation Scenarios 
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 
TIME (years) 
10-3 
10-2 
10-1 
100 
Fractional Mass Breakthrough at Repository Level 
cam1-CL1 
cam1-CL2 
cam1-CL3 
cam1-CL4

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 141 March 2000 
Based on DTN: LB9908T1233129.001 
Figure 6-61. Simulated Spatial Distribution of Tracer (36Cl) in the US System at 50 Years since Release 
from the Ground Surface, Simulated Normalized Mass Fraction Contours at the Potential 
Repository Level (Note X3 denotes tracer mass fraction normalized to mass fraction 
values at source).
170000 172000 174000 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
-3 
-3.25 
-3.5 
-3.75 
-4 
-4.25 
-4.5 
-4.75 
-5 
-5.25 
-5.5 
-5.75 
-6 
-6.25 
-6.5 
-6.75 
-7 
-7.25 
-7.5 
-7.75 
-8 
log(X3 
170000 172000 174000 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
230000 
232000 
234000 
236000 
238000 
Nevada Coordinate N-S (m) 
-3 
-3.25 
-3.5 
-3.75 
-4 
-4.25 
-4.5 
-4.75 
-5 
-5.25 
-5.5 
-5.75 
-6 
-6.25 
-6.5 
-6.75 
-7 
-7.25 
-7.5 
-7.75 
-8 
FRACTURE MASS FRACTION AT REPOSITORY LEVEL 
log(X3) 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 142 March 2000 
6.8 MODEL VALIDATION 
6.8.1Alcove 1 Test Results 
The continuum approach has been used in the UZ Flow and Transport Model. The reasons for 
using this approach are documented in the AMR describing conceptual and numerical models for 
UZ flow and transport (CRWMS M&O 2000c). One way to confirm the validity of the continuum 
approach is to compare simulation results based on these approaches with field observations 
(Pruess et al. 1999, p. 312). The same continuum concept is used in this modeling study, although 
grid spacings near the alcove are significantly smaller than those used in the site-scale model. 
Recently, an infiltration and tracer transport test was performed in the ESF Alcove 1. Alcove 1 is 
located near the North Portal of the ESF in the upper lithophysal zone of the Tiva Canyon Tuff 
(Tpcpul) unit, corresponding to hydrogeologic unit CUL (Flint, 1998, p. 3). The Tpcpul unit 
extends above the alcove to the ground surface, with the crown of the drift approximately 30 m 
below the ground surface. The infiltration test at Alcove 1 involved applying water at the ground 
surface directly over the end of Alcove 1. At a late stage of the test, a conservative bromide tracer 
was introduced into the infiltrating water. The seepage into the alcove and the tracer arrival time 
were recorded. The experimental observations are directly related to the flow and transport 
processes in the unsaturated fractured rocks and, therefore, provide a useful data set for evaluating 
the continuum approaches used in the UZ flow and transport model. The test consisted of two 
phases. Phase I was performed from March to August in 1998 and corresponds to a relatively 
large degree of temporal variability in the infiltration-rate data. Phase II was performed from 
January to June in 1999. This study was documented in Scientific Notebooks (YMP-LBNL-JSWCFA-
6.1 pp. 1-26; 39-48; 72-88, YMP-LBNL-GSB-1.12 p. 153, YMP-LBNL-GSB-1.6.3 pp. 74- 
78, and YMP-LBNL-GSB-LHH-2 pp. 67-73). 
6.8.1.1 Numerical Model 
A radially symmetric, two-dimensional (2-D) grid in cylindrical coordinates was constructed for 
simulation of the infiltration test (Figure 6-62). The grid extended 45 m in the vertical dimension 
and 30 m in the radial (horizontal) dimension (the diameter is 60 m). The ground surface was 
approximated as horizontal. A square opening representing the alcove has created in the grid from 
30 m to 35.5 m below the ground surface. The grid was regular, with 10-cm grid spacing around 
the alcove and 1-m grid spacing away from the alcove. The active fracture model (Liu et al. 1998, 
pp.2633-2646) was employed to describe flow and transport within fractures and between 
fractures and the matrix. Because of the highly transient nature of the infiltration test, the multiple 
interacting continua (MINC) approach was used. Three matrix continua were used for developing 
the numerical grid. The development of the grid is documented in Scientific Notebooks (YMPLBNL-
JSW-CFA-6.1 pp. 9; 17-18; 45-46 and YMP-LBNL-GSB-1.1.2 p. 153).

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 143 March 2000 
DTN: LB991131233129.002 
Figure 6-62. Numerical Grid for the Model of the Infiltration Test 
Because the test site is located in the same hydrogeological unit, hydraulic properties for fractures 
and the matrix are assumed to be homogeneously distributed within the model domain. The initial 
estimate for these properties was taken from different sources for the model calibration (Table 6- 
32) because a systematic calibrated property set for the CUL unit, where the test site is located, 
was not available. Matrix properties were directly taken from those for hydrologic unit CUL in 
(DTN: GS960908312231.004.) Fracture permeability, residual saturation and van Genuchten a 
were from DTN: LB971212001254.006 (Table A-2a, tcw11) and fracture van Genuchten m was 
taken from DTN: LB990501233129.001. The initial estimates of fracture porosity was assumed 
to be 0.01, based on the porosity data in DTN: LB980912332245.002. The fracture spacing was 
calculated using fracture-frequency data between ESF stations 0 + 60 m and 0 + 80 m [from the 
Detailed Line Survey (DTN: GS971108314224.020)]. Software routines Read_TDB (version 1.0) 
and Frac_Calc (Version 1.1), were used for calculating the fracture frequency. Since the objective 
of this study is mainly to evaluate the numerical approach, it should be considered as a 
corroborative study. 
0 10 20 30 
-40 
-30 
-20 
-10
0 
depth (m) 
seepage face 
water and tracer
2-D NUMERICAL GRID 
distance from center (m)

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 144 March 2000 
The temporally variable inflow rates are imposed on the top boundary, representing the 
infiltration condition. The side boundary away from the alcove corresponds to a zero-flow 
condition in the radial direction, considering that the side boundary is far away from the alcove. 
The alcove wall boundary is modeled using a zero-capillary-pressure condition, corresponding to 
100% humidity within the alcove. The bottom boundary was assigned a constant matrix saturation 
of 0.61, which is the average matrix saturation of the unit CUL (DTN: GS960908312231.004). 
Initially, rock mass within the model domain was considered to be in gravity-capillary 
equilibrium with the low boundary and to be solute-free. 
6.8.1.2 Results and Discussion 
Figure 6-63 shows a comparison between observed seepage rate data for Phase I of the test and 
the simulation result from model calibration with ITOUGH2 (version 3.2). Table 6-33 gives the 
rock properties calibrated with Phase I data. Although arrival times of three major peaks in the 
Phase I seepage rate data are matched, large differences exist between the simulated and observed 
seepage rate values at these peaks. While it is possible that the homogeneity assumption and the 
continuum approach underestimates the variability of seepage rates, we believe that the more 
important reason is the simplicity of the model in representing the site conditions during the Phase 
I test. 
Table 6-32. Initial Estimated Hydrologic Properties for Infiltration Test Model 
Parameter Fracture Matrix 
Porosity [-] 0.01 0.164 
Permeabilitya [m2] 2.29 x10-11 1.2Ex10-15 
Van Genuchten a [Pa-1] 2.37 x10-3 7.12x10-6 
Van Genuchten m [-] 0.633 0.346 
Residual saturation [-] 0.01 0.06 
Fracture spacing [m] 0.377 NA 
DTNs: GS960908312231.004; LB971212001254.006; LB990501233129.001; LB980912332245.002 
GSa71108314224.020 
NOTES: aIn both the vertical and horizontal directions

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 145 March 2000 
Data - CRWMS M&O (1999f) Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.002 
Figure 6-63. Model Calibration Using the Seepage Rate Data of the Phase I of the Test and Prediction 
for Phase II of the Test. 
We modeled liquid-water flow with the EOS9 module, which ignores vapor transport. An 
isothermal condition was also assumed for simplicity. Since the Phase I test was conducted from 
March to August in 1998, temperatures were relatively high in the late stage of the test, which 
may have caused considerable vapor transport and evaporation through highly permeable and 
well-connected fractures. The matrix saturation near the fracture-matrix interface becomes very 
high with time between the alcoves ceiling and the ground surface, resulting in very small 
simulated matrix imbibition between 100 and 200 days. Simulated results consequently show a 
strong response to the infiltration pulses during this period. In reality, the vapor transport might 
remove a portion of the liquid water from the fractures and the matrix near the fracture-matrix 
interface area. This could give rise to a weaker response of the seepage to the infiltration, as 
indicated by the data (Figure 6-63). Because of the temporally variable infiltration rates in Phase I 
of the test, a complex wetting and drying process was involved in the matrix. Under these 
conditions, hysteresis might considerably affect seepage into the alcove. However, not enough 
data were available for characterizing the matrix hysteresis. Instead, a single matrix water 
retention curve was used for both the wetting and drying procedure. However, these issues are not 
specific to the continuum approach used for this study. 
100 200 300 400 
Time [day] 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
seepage rate [L/day] 
Data 
Calibration 
Prediction

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 146 March 2000 
Figure 6-63 also shows a comparison between the predicted seepage rates and the data for Phase 
II of the test. Properties calibrated against Phase I test data were used for the prediction. The 
comparison is fairly reasonable considering that a relatively poor match was obtained for the 
Phase I test using the inverse modeling. The comparison confirms that ignoring water loss 
through evapotranspiration for periods of high temperature is a major reason for the poor match of 
the Phase I data. For the Phase II test, simulated seepage occurs earlier than the observation, and 
the simulated seepage rates are generally higher in the 350.380 day period (Figure 6-63). As a 
result of the models inability to deal with vapor transport, the fracture-matrix system in the 
numerical model was wetter than the actual system during the initial stage of the Phase II test. The 
wetter condition reduces the matrix imbibition and therefore increases the seepage rate. After 380 
days, the performance of the model prediction improves, possibly because during this period the 
actual system is very wet, and actual matrix saturations approximate the modeled results. 
The Phase II test data, shown in Figure 6-63, were collected from January to May in 1999. In this 
period, the vapor transport is not considered to be important because the temperature is not very 
high. More importantly, Figure 6-63 shows that the infiltration and seepage processes can be 
reasonably represented by the model, considering the complexities of the problem and the 
simplicity of the model. In other words, a continuum approach is shown to be valid for capturing 
the complex flow and transport processes in an unsaturated fractured porous medium. 
Table 6-33. Calibrated Hydrologic Properties for Infiltration Test Model Based on the Phase I Seepage Rate Dataa 
Parameter Fracture Matrix 
Porosity [-] 0.028 0.164 
Vertical Permeability [m2] 2.90Ex10-11 3.64x10-16 
Horizontal Permeability [m2] 3.14Ex10-11 9.35x10-16 
Van Genuchten a [Pa-1] 2.07Ex10-3 1.43x10-5 
Active fracture parameter . [-] 0.28 NA 
DTN: LB991131233129.002 
NOTE: aParameters that are not shown is this table are the same as those in Table 6-32. They are fixed in 
the inversion.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 147 March 2000 
Data - DTN: GS000399991221.003 Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.002 
Figure 6-64. Model Calibration Using Seepage Rate Data from Phases I and II Test. 
To further improve the accuracy of rock property estimates, we conducted the second inversion 
based on data from both Phase I and Phase II of the test. The initial estimate for rock properties, 
used in the model calibration, was based on those in Table 6-32. Figure 6-64 shows the 
comparison between the simulated and observed seepage rates, which is similar to that in Figure 
6-63. The calibrated properties are given in Table 6-34. Note that these properties are very 
comparable to the base case properties of model layer tcw11 (DTN: LB990501233129.001) in 
terms of order of magnitude. 
Table 6-34. Calibrated Hydrologic Properties for Infiltration Test Model Based on the 
Phases I and II Seepage Rate Dataa 
Parameter Fracture Matrix 
Porosity [-] 0.03 0.164 
Vertical Permeability [m2] 3.23x10-11 3.23x10-16 
Horizontal Permeability [m2] 3.53x10-11 8.08x10-16 
Van Genuchten a [Pa-1] 2.04x10-3 1.84x10-5 
Active fracture parameter . 0.23 NA 
DTN: LB991131233129.002 
NOTE: a Parameters that are not shown is this table are the same as those in Table 6-32. They are fixed in 
the inversion. 
100 200 300 400 
Time [day] 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
seepage rate [L/day] 
Data 
Model calibration

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 148 March 2000 
Figure 6-65 shows tracer transport simulation results obtained with T2R3D (Version 1.4). The 
tracer test was carried out over a 51 day period, beginning on May 18, 1999. First detection of the 
tracer within the seepage occurred after 28 days. To predict the tracer arrival time, we assumed 
zero dispersivity for the fracture continuum since no data for the dispersivity are available. Note 
that Figure 6-65 shows the predicted breakthrough curve is not sensitive to the fracture 
dispersivity value. A molecular diffusion coefficient of 2.0E-9 m2/s was used for bromide 
(Domenico and Schwartz 1990, p. 368). According to Francis (1997, p. 5), while experimental 
data for tortuosity are not available for the Yucca Mountain tuff, a representative value of the 
matrix tortuosity is 0.7. Figure 6-65 shows simulation results for a number of tortuosity values. 
Since pore velocities in the matrix are generally small, the mechanical dispersion is ignored for 
the matrix. The calibrated hydrologic properties based on both Phases I and II seepage data (Table 
6-34) were used in the simulation. 
Data - DTN: GS000399991221.003 
Model Results - DTN: LB991131233129.002 
Figure 6-65. Comparison between Simulation Results of Tracer Transport and Observations. (Note that 
alpha-l, alpha-t, phi refer to longitudinal dispersivity, transverse dispersivity and fracture 
porosity, respectively.) 
As shown in Figure 6-65, the simulated breakthrough curve is closely matched with the tracer 
concentration data for a tortuosity value of 0.75, which is close to the representative value of 0.7 
given by Francis (1997, p. 5). This indicates that our model correctly predicts the tracer transport 
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 
Time (days) 
0.0 
0.2 
0.4 
0.6 
0.8 
1.0 
1.2 
Relative tracer mass fraction (X/X0) 
threshold 
tracer test resuslts 
test results 
X X 
alpha-l=30.0m, Dm=2.0e-9, tortuosity=0.75 
alpha-l=30.0m,Dm=2.0e-9, tortuosity=0.5 
alpha-l=30.0m,Dm=2.0e-9,tortuosity=0.25 
alpha-l=0m,Dm=2.0e-9,tortuosity=0.5 
alpha-l=0m,Dm=1.0e-10,tortuosity=0.5 
X 
Note : in all cases, phi=0.3 and alpha-t=alpha-l/10

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 149 March 2000 
behavior without calibration of transport parameters. Again, this validates the continuum 
approach and shows that it can capture important features of the UZ transport processes. 
An important finding from the tracer simulations is that the breakthrough curve is considerably 
sensitive to the matrix molecular diffusion coefficient and tortuosity (Figure 6-65), suggesting 
that matrix diffusion is an important mechanism for UZ transport. This sensitivity also implies 
that flow and transport between the two continua (fracture-matrix interaction) is correctly 
simulated with the active fracture model, although complex fingering of flow and transport 
occurred in the fracture networks during the Alcove 1 test. On the other hand, the simulation 
result is not sensitive to the fracture dispersivity, possibly because in a dual-continua system, the 
chemical transport is mainly determined by the largest heterogeneity, the property difference 
between the matrix and fracture continua. In this case, heterogeneity in each continuum, resulting 
in the corresponding macroscopic dispersion process, becomes secondary. 
In summary, the results from this study indicate that the continuum approach is valid for modeling 
flow and transport in unsaturated fractured rock. The use of an active-fracture model can capture 
the major features of fingering flow and transport in fractures. The matrix diffusion has a 
significant effect on the overall transport behavior in unsaturated fractured rocks, while the 
dispersion in fractures does not. 
6.8.2 ECRB Results 
An east and west cross drift was constructed in 1997 as part of the Enhanced Characterization of 
the Repository Block (ECRB) program (see Figure 6-1 for the location of the ECRB tunnel). 
Water-potential data (DTN: GS980908312242.036) were collected from heat dissipation probes 
installed in the tunnel wall (at a depth of 2 meters) along the ECRB tunnel inside ESF. The probe 
locations were transferred from station number to Nevada Coordinates system through ECRBXYZ 
Version 03 (STN: 30093). 
Water potential data were collected from heat dissipation sensors that have been calibrated for 
matrix potential. At installation, the borehole was dry drilled, however the sensor was not 
installed with the wet cement. Thus the sensor was fully saturated and surrounded with contact 
media to ensure good contact with rock. The sensor then equilibrated with the matrix potential of 
the rock (took about two to six weeks). Often following the equilibration, the probe would 
gradually dry out. Since this was the first group of probes installed in the tunnel wall, there were 
no steps taken to reduce the effects of ventilation drying in the tunnel. Extra steps such as 
installing double doors were taken during installation and monitoring the first group of probes in 
the ECRB tunnel. Accuracy of heat dissipation probes calibrated intensively and as a function of 
temperature is plus or minus 10% of the matrix potential reading. 
As part of the 3-D flow and transport modeling validation process, modeling results were 
compared to the field observation data collected from the wall of the tunnel to check the accuracy 
of the modeling predictions. 
The 3-D mesh with perched water flow-through model adjustment for the Calibration flow-fields 
was used (DTN: LB990501233129.004). Infiltration boundary conditions were the same as those 
documented in Section 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 for the present-day, base-case infiltration scenario

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 150 March 2000 
CRWMS M&O 1999e, (DTN: GS000399991221.002). The calibrated properties used for the 3-D 
prediction are those developed by inversion of saturation, water potential, and pneumatic data 
using 1-D and 2-D models for the present-day, base-case infiltration scenario. The detail of the 
model development is documented in Section 6.1 and 6.2. 
Figure 6-66 shows a comparison of matrix water potential along the wall of the ECRB drift. As 
shown in the figure, observation data are available only along part of the tunnel. Most of the 
observed water-potential data are distributed between 0.1 and 1 bar, with a maximum of 3.4 bar. 
The model predicted approximately 1 bar for the same section of tunnel, which is higher than 
most of the observed data. The predicted water-potential data from the UZ Model ranged between 
0.1 and 3.3 bar. 
Data - DTN: GS980908312242.036 Model Results - DTN: LB990801233129.003 
Figure 6-66. Predicted Water Potential along ECRB Using the Present-Day Mean Infiltration Rate and 
Perched Water Conceptual Model #1 
Since the probe measurements have an error of plus and minus 10%, field heterogeneity will play 
an important role for a range of data between 0.1 and 1 bar. Even though the data available for 
comparison at the ECRB drift are limited, results indicated that the UZ Model generally predicted 
the range of the water-potential data from in situ measurements. Even though the data available 
for comparison at the ECRB drift are limited, results indicated that the UZ Model results were 
within the range of the water-potential data from in situ measurements. 
170000 170500 171000 171500 
Nevada Coordinate E-W (m) 
10-2 
10-1 
100 
101 
Water Potential (Bar) 
In-situ Data 
pch1-m2

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 151 March 2000 
6.8.3 SD-6 and WT-24 Modeling Results 
Boreholes WT-24 and SD-6 were drilled in 1997 as part of the ECRB program (see Figure 6-1 for 
borehole locations). Observed saturation data were collected from these two boreholes (see 
Section 4-1 for DTNs). No perched water was detected in borehole SD-6. However, perched 
water was detected within the basal vitrophyre of the TSw at an elevation of approximately 985 m 
for borehole WT-24 (DTN: GS980508312313.001). As part of the modeling validation process, 
modeling results were compared to the field-observation data to check the accuracy of the 
modeling predictions. 
The 3-D mesh with perched water flow-through model adjustment for the calibration flow-fields 
was used (DTN: LB990501233129.004). Infiltration boundary conditions were the same as those 
documented in Section 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 for the present-day, base-case infiltration scenario 
(DTN: GS000399991221.002). The details of the model development are documented in Section 
6.1 and 6.2. 
Figure 6-67 shows a comparison of matrix saturation results with field measurement data at 
borehole SD-6. As shown on the figure, the modeling prediction is generally consistent with field 
measurements. The model does not predict perched water occurrence at this borehole, which is 
consistent with field observation. The modeling result predicts higher saturation in this CHn unit; 
however, the field measurement indicates a dry condition in the same unit. This is a result of the 
current geological framework model which specifies this layer as zeolitic layer at the location of 
SD-6. 
Data - DTN: GS980808312242.014; Model Results - DTN: LB990801233129.003 
Figure 6-67. Predicted Matrix Saturation for Borehole SD-6 using the Present-Day Mean Infiltration 
Rate and Perched Water Model #1 
0.0 0.5 1.0 
Saturation 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
Elevation (m) 
USGS Data 
Hydro. Unit 
pch1-m2 
TSw 
TCw 
CHn 
PTn

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 152 March 2000 
Figure 6-68 compares matrix saturation results with the field measurement data at borehole 
WT-24. The observed location of perched water is also shown on the figure. As shown on the 
figure, the field-measurement data for saturation are limited to the deeper section of the borehole 
(mostly in the CHn unit). The UZ Model predicts a saturated condition at the location of observed 
perched water, which matches the field measurement. Even though several low saturation data 
points appear in the vicinity of perched water elevation, most of the data points collected in the 
same vicinity have much higher saturations. There is a low saturation layer within the CHn unit 
(according to the field measurement data) that was not predicted by the UZ Model. 
Data - DTN: GS980708312242.010 Model Results - DTN: LB990801233129.003 
Figure 6-68. Predicted Matrix Saturation for Borehole WT-24 using the Present-Day Mean Infiltration 
Rate and Perched Water Model #1 
The data gaps at the particular units (i.e., CHn) for these two boreholes are due to the inaccuracy 
of the 3-D geological model GFM3.1 at certain locations. High saturations within the CHn are 
strongly correlated with the presence of zeolites (portions of the CHn that are vitric tend to show 
much lower saturations than the zeolitic portions of the CHn). During development of the 
mountain-scale numerical grids, data on the abundance of zeolites within SD-6 of WT-24 in the 
CHn were not available. It was assumed that ch1 through ch6 were zeolitic in WT-24 and that ch2 
through ch6 were zeolitic in SD-6 (based on geostatistically determined hydraulic conductivity 
data from the Rock Properties Model (RPM3.0 of ISM3.0). The accuracy of UZ Model depends 
partly on the accuracy of the Integrated Site Model, which is assumed to represent subsurface 
geology as well as rock properties. The spatial heterogeneity of low-permeability alteration 
products such as zeolites has a profound impact on flow and transport calculations, yet the nature 
0.0 0.5 1.0 
Saturation 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
1100 
1200 
1300 
1400 
Elevation (m) 
USGS Data 
Hydro. Unit 
pch1-m2 
TSw 
TCw 
CHn 
Perched Water 
PTn

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 153 March 2000 
of their distribution is not fully understood. The data gaps should be resolved with the updated 
version of the Integrated Site Model (ISM3.1). 
In general, the UZ Model accurately predicts the location of perched water at borehole WT-24. 
Consistent with field data, this model also indicates no perched water at borehole SD-6. The 
modeling predictions are generally consistent with field measurements for both boreholes. 
6.8.4 3-D Pneumatic Prediction 
As part of the validation effort to build confidence that the calibrated property sets documented in 
the AMR Calibrated Properties Model (CRWMS M&O 2000b), a fully 3-D pneumatic 
simulation was performed. The results of this simulation are compared to both the pneumatic data 
used for the calibration and the pneumatic data for the 30 days immediately following the 
calibration data. Differences between the 3-D pneumatic prediction and the 1-D and 2-D 
calibrated pneumatic simulations (CRWMS M&O 2000b, Sections 6.1 and 6.3) were also 
assessed. Data from 27 instrument stations in six boreholes were then compared to the 3-D 
prediction. 
The 3-D mesh for the TSPA flow-fields was used. This mesh is documented in AMR 
Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling (CRWMS M&O 1999d, 
pp. VI-1 to VI-7; DTN: LB990701233129.001). 
The calibrated properties used for the 3-D pneumatic prediction are those developed by inversion 
of saturation, water potential, and pneumatic data using 1-D and 2-D models for the present-day, 
base-case infiltration scenario (CRWMS M&O 2000b, Sections 6.1 and 6.3; DTNs 
LB997141233129.001 and LB991091233129.004). Infiltration boundary conditions were the 
same as those documented in Section 6.1.3 for the present-day, base-case infiltration scenario. 
Pneumatic boundary conditions are developed using the routine TBgas3D (MOL. 
19991012.0222) and atmospheric barometric pressure data from boreholes USW NRG-6 and 
USW NRG-7a, (YMP-LBNL-GSB-1.1.2, pp. 155-156). 
The 3-D pneumatic predictions were compared to pneumatic data from six boreholes. Table 6-35 
shows the start and end dates for the data used to calibrate the property sets and for validation. 
Data from the first 30 days of each are used for the inversion, as documented in the AMR 
Calibrated Properties Model (CRWMS M&O 2000b, pp. 41 and 62). Data from the second 30 
days are compared to the prediction for validation. 
Table 6-35. Pneumatic Data Used for Inversion (First Thirty Days) 
and Validation (Last Thirty Days). 
Borehole Date/Range 
UE-25 NRG#5 7/17  9/15/95 
USW NRG-6 3/27  5/26/95 
USW NRG-7a 3/27  5/26/95 
USW SD-7 4/5  6/4/96 
NOTE: DTNs are provided in 
Table 4-1.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 154 March 2000 
Comparisons of the 3-D prediction and the data for boreholes USW SD-12 and USW UZ-7a are 
shown in Figures 6-69 and 6-70, respectively. Both figures show a good match between the 
prediction and the data. Also shown are the 1-D and 2-D calibrated simulation results documented 
in the AMR Calibrated Properties Model (CRWMS M&O 2000b, Figures 4 and 11). At USW 
SD-12, the 3-D simulation predicts a larger amplitude signal in the TSw than the calibrated 1-D 
simulation. This difference can be attributed to the presence of the nearby Ghost Dance fault, 
which has a higher permeability through the PTn than does the formation (non fault zone) rock at 
USW SD-12 (CRWMS M&O 2000b, Sections 6.1 and 6.3). At USW UZ-7a, in the Ghost Dance 
fault, the 3-D simulation predicts a slightly smaller amplitude signal in the TSw than the 
calibrated 2-D simulation. This difference can be attributed to lateral losses within the fault zone 
to the north where the PTn is thicker and thus further restricts the propagation of the barometric 
signal. 
Observation - GS960308312232.001 Model Results - DTN: DTNs: LB991121233129.007 
Figure 6-69. Comparison of 3-D Pneumatic Prediction to Data (Observation) from Borehole 
USWSD-12 anda 1-D Calibrated Simulation. 
USW SD-12 12/1/95  1/29/96 
USW UZ-7a 12/1/95  1/29/96 
Table 6-35. Pneumatic Data Used for Inversion (First Thirty Days) 
and Validation (Last Thirty Days). 
NOTE: DTNs are provided in 
Table 4-1. 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 
Time [days from 12/1/95] 86 87 88 89 90 91 
Pressure [kPa] 
1-D calibration period 
observation 
1-D calibrated simulation 
TCw 
PTn 
TSw 
TSw 
3-D prediction

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 155 March 2000 
Observation - DTN:GS960308312232.001 Model Results - DTN: LB991121233129.007, 
Figure 6-70. Comparison of 3-D Pneumatic Prediction to Data (Observation) from Borehole 
USWUZ-7a and 2-D Calibrated Simulation. 
The good match between the 3-D pneumatic prediction and the pneumatic data builds confidence 
that the base-case infiltration-scenario calibrated properties are appropriate for gas-flow 
simulations. The simulations using the upper- and lower-bound infiltration-scenario calibrated 
properties produced results that were virtually identical to those from simulations using the basecase 
infiltration-scenario calibrated properties (CRWMS M&O 2000b, Section 6.1). This is not 
expected to change for the 3-D simulations, and thus the upper- and lower-bound infiltrationscenario 
calibrated properties are also appropriate for gas-flow simulations. While the 
comparisons of the 3-D pneumatic predictions with the 1-D and 2-D calibrated pneumatic 
simulations show that the assumptions of 1-D and 2-D flow (CRWMS M&O 2000b, Section 5), 
respectively, are not completely correct, they do show that they provide reasonable estimates of 
fracture permeability for the 3-D UZ Model. 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 
Time [days from 12/1/95] 
85 86 87 88 89 
Pressure [kPa] 
2-D calibration period 
observation 
2-D calibrated simulation 
TCw 
PTn 
PTn 
TSw 
TSw 
3-D prediction

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 156 March 2000 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 157 March 2000 
7. CONCLUSIONS 
This AMR documents the development, results, and analyses of the UZ flow model and 
submodels, including the: 
 3-D UZ flow calibration model 
 Geothermal calibration model 
 Chloride submodel 
 Calcite submodel 
 3-D UZ flow model for generating 18 flow fields 
 Groundwater travel and tracer transport model 
 Model validation. 
The UZ flow model and its submodels are developed to simulate past, present, and future 
hydrogeologic, geothermal, and geochemical conditions within the unsaturated zone of Yucca 
Mountain to support various TSPA activities. In particular, as part of the output of this AMR, 18 
3-D steady-state flow fields of the Yucca Mountain UZ system have been generated for TSPA-SR 
calculations. This report has documented the UZ flow model and its submodels in terms of 
modeling approach, hydrogeological conceptual model, data source and incorporation, 
methodology of model calibrations, perched water parameter estimation, and model results and 
analysis of the 18 flow fields and associated analyses on groundwater travel times and tracer 
transport. 
7.1UZ FLOW MODEL CALIB RATION 
As a critical step, field-measured saturation, water potential and perched water data have been 
used to calibrate the UZ Model. Such calibrations are part of the important iterative processes of 
model development in order to increase confidence in model predictions of site condition. This 
AMR continues the model calibration effort using the 1-D inversions reported in CRWMS M&O 
(2000b) and focuses on 3-D perched water calibrations using a 3-D calibration grid. 
The calibration was conducted using three sets of parameters CRWMS M&O (1999d), three 
present-day infiltration rates, and the geological model and numerical grid for calibration 
(CRWMS M&O 2000b). Two water-perching models were investigated, in which rock properties 
were locally modified in several gridlayers near the observed perched zones. In addition, one nonperching 
model was also used for comparative studies. 
The model calibration efforts conclude that the UZ Model can reproduce moisture conditions in 
the unsaturated zone of Yucca Mountain in terms of liquid saturations and water potentials, as 
verified by observations. In general, the modeled results from all the six calibration simulations 
with perched water Conceptual Models #1 and #2 are in good agreement with the measured 
water-perching elevations at seven boreholes with perched water occurrence for upper-bound and 
mean present-day infiltration scenarios. However, under the lower-bound present-day infiltration 
rate, the models did not match the perched water data very well in boreholes SD-7, SD-9, and UZ- 
14 because of the low percolation fluxes at these locations. Conceptual Model #1 is a preferred 
one because it has a minimum calibration and match perched water data better.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 158 March 2000 
The UZ Flow model provides steady-state results of flow of fluids and heat as well as tracer 
transport. The steady-state results for model layers above the TSw may be subject to episodic 
infiltration. These model results may not reflect actual conditions; that are scale-dependent and so 
the results are not intended to be valid for other scales such as drift-scale studies. In this report, 
the uncertainties in the results due to input parameter and model gridding uncertainties are 
evaluated by generating a number of flow fields with various parameter sets, infiltration maps, 
and conceptual models. Using the dual permeability model, the matrix is represented by one 
gridblock which is only valid for steady-state flow according to Doughty (1999); and any others 
that apply to this modeling approach. 
7.2 GEOTHERMAL MODEL CALIBRATION 
Field-measured temperature data was used to calibrate the geothermal conditions of the UZ 
Model, using the base-case present-day infiltration parameter set with a 3-D ECM model. The 
calibration results are in good agreement with the observed temperature profiles from boreholes 
and provide the ambient temperature distributions for determining boundary and initial conditions 
for thermohydrologic models. 
7.3 CHLORIDE SUBMODEL 
Pore-water chemical-concentration data have been analyzed by 3-D chemical transport numerical 
simulations. Surface infiltration rate calibrations were performed using the pore-water Cl 
concentrations. Modeled results of chemical distributions were improved when using the 
calibrated infiltration map. In addition, an analytical method has been applied to transient 
transport analysis. The analytic analysis, validated by 3-D simulations under the same flow and 
transport conditions, was able to capture major Cl and Cl36 transient transport behavior and 
trends. This work indicates that chemical transport studies provides an alternative interpretation 
by which to estimate the distribution of net infiltration. The calibration results can be important at 
places where a significant amount of measured pore-water chemical data are available. 
Additional information on infiltration, flow mechanism, and climate effects may be helpful to 
further investigate chemical transport in the UZ system of Yucca Mountain. 
7.4 CALCITE SUBMODEL 
Analysis of calcite deposition using a transport-reaction model not only gives us some constraints 
on hydrology, but also provides useful insights into the hydrogeochemical processes in the 
system. The model considers: (1) fracture-matrix interaction, (2) gaseous CO2 diffusive transport 
and partitioning in liquid and gas phases, (3) ambient geothermal gradient, and (4) kinetics of 
fluid-rock interaction. Calcite deposition values obtained from simulations can reproduce the 
measured data. The calcite precipitation generally increases as percolation increases. This 
interconnection depends on boundary-water types and reaction rates. Calcite deposition is 
sensitive to boundary-water chemical composition indicated by CO2 partial pressure. The higher 
the partial pressure, the lower the calcite precipitation. Calcite depth-dependent distribution varies 
with reaction rate. Simple mineralogy simulations considering most relevant minerals may 
reproduce the calcite deposition condition better than complex mineralogy simulations. A

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 159 March 2000 
thorough understanding of complex mineralogy may be complicated by the uncertainty of 
thermodynamic and kinetic data for clay minerals that are poorly known at present. 
7.5 TSPA FLOW FIELDS 
Eighteen 3-D UZ flow fields are generated for TSPA_SR calculations. These flow fields are based 
on (1) the TSPA grid CRWMS M&O (1999d), (2) nine infiltration maps representing three 
climates; (3) the three parameter sets in CRWMS M&O (2000b); and (4) the two conceptual 
models of perched water with the calibrated perched water parameters. The purpose of studying a 
large number of flow fields for various modeling scenarios is to cover all TSPA-SR scenarios and 
to account for possible current and future site conditions. The main uncertainties currently 
considered in the UZ Model include fracture-matrix properties, present-day and future infiltration 
rates over the mountain, and conceptual models for perched water occurrence. 
The simulation results for 18 flow fields were checked and compared against observed matrix 
liquid saturation, water potential, and perched water data. In general, model results from the 18 3- 
D simulations were able to match observed saturation and water potential data. For calibrations 
with perched water data, the simulations with mean and upper infiltration rates of the three 
climates with both perched water conceptual models can reproduce water-perching conditions in 
all the observation boreholes. For lower-bound infiltration runs, the models are also able to match 
perched water data from most boreholes, except at SD-7 or UZ-14 boreholes (which have zero 
infiltration rates. 
A detailed analysis of simulated percolation fluxes at the potential repository level and at the 
water table was conducted for 18 simulation scenarios of TSPA flow fields. These percolation 
fluxes and their distributions at the potential repository level indicate that there is relatively small 
lateral flow or diversion by the PTn unit for all the 18 simulations using both the perched water 
conceptual models. However, comparing simulated percolation fluxes at the potential repository 
level with those at the water table, using the two perched water conceptual models, we verified 
that perched water Conceptual Model #2 (by-passing model) predicts significant lateral flow at 
perched or zeolitic layers, while Conceptual Model #1 (flow-through model) predicts 
significantly higher vertical flow crossing perched water or zeolitic zones than Conceptual Model 
#2 (by-passing model). 
Fracture-matrix flow components at the potential repository horizon and at the water table were 
also analyzed for the 18 simulation results. The statistics show that fracture flow is dominant in 
the welded tuffs, both at the potential repository horizon and at the water table, in all the 18 flow 
fields. For three present-day infiltration scenarios  fracture-matrix flow components simulated at 
the potential repository level  fracture flow consists of more than 80% of total flow and at the 
water table 7090% of the total flow. For two future climatic scenarios, a higher percentage of 
fracture flow at both the potential repository (about 8696%) and water table level (about 70 
96%), compared to the case with the present-day infiltration, was predicted. At the water table, 
the second perched water conceptual model consistently estimates lower fracture-flow 
components (by 8% or more under the same infiltration).

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 160 March 2000 
7.6 GROUNDWATER TRAVEL TIMES AND TRACER TRANSPORT 
A total of 42 tracer transport simulations were conducted to obtain insight into the various 
impacts of infiltration rates, perched water conceptual models, and retardation effects on tracer 
migration from the potential repository to the water table. All the 18 TSPA flow fields and three 
additional, non-perching flow simulations were incorporated into these 42 transport runs. For 
each flow run, there were two tracer transport runs, one for conservative or nonadsorbing and the 
other for reactive or adsorbing tracer transport, respectively. These tracer-transport studies 
indicate that there exist a wide range of groundwater travel or tracer transport times associated 
with different infiltration rates, type of tracers, and perched water conceptual models. The most 
important factors for groundwater travel/tracer-transport times are (1) surface infiltration rates 
and (2) adsorption effects in the CHn unit. Compared with effects from infiltration and 
adsorption, perched water conceptual effects are of secondary importance to the overall impact on 
groundwater travel/tracer-transport times, but have a primary impact on determining potential 
breakthrough areas of tracers at the water table. 
Statistics of groundwater travel or tracer transport times at 10% and 50% mass breakthrough at 
the water table from the 42 simulations show that groundwater travel or tracer-transport times are 
inversely proportional to average surface infiltration. When an average infiltration rate increases 
from 5 to 35 (mm/yr), average groundwater travel (50% breakthrough) times decrease by two to 
three orders of magnitude. Nonadsorbing tracers migrate two orders of magnitude faster than 
adsorbing tracer when traveling from the potential repository to the water table under the same 
infiltration conditions. The non-perching conceptual model predicts the shortest travel times for 
both nonadsorbing and adsorbing tracers during the first 1,000 years of escape from the potential 
repository. 
In addition, four tracer (36Cl) transport simulations were performed to investigate groundwater 
travel and tracer transport times from the land surface to the potential repository level under 
steady-state flow conditions. These studies indicate the existence of possible fast flow pathways 
with travel times of 50 years, for groundwater to travel from the ground surface to the potential 
repository level. However, the cumulative mass breakthrough carried by the fast flow is relative 
small (1%) for the early times of 50 years. The 50% mass breakthrough times to the potential 
repository level since release from the surface is estimated between 5,000 to 20,000 years under 
the present-day, mean infiltration scenario. The fast flow breakthrough at the earlier time occurs 
mainly along faults. 
7.7 MODEL VALIDATION 
The current model validation efforts have been documented in this AMR. These activities include 
simulation studies of the following: (1) Alcove 1 Test; (2) ECRB observation data; (3) SD-6 and 
WT-24 data; and (4) 3-D gas flow. In all these cases, the results of the UZ Model can reasonably 
match different types of data, such as water potentials, liquid saturation, seepage rate, 
breakthrough concentrations, and pneumatic pressures, as observed from the mountain. These 
efforts have provided validation of the UZ Model and its submodels for their accuracy and 
reliability in describing and predicting flow and transport processes in the UZ system of Yucca 
Mountain.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 161 March 2000 
7.8 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 
The UZ Model and its submodels are appropriate tools for characterizing flow and transport 
processes at Yucca Mountain. The accuracy and reliability of the UZ Model predictions are 
critically dependent on the accuracy of estimated model properties, other types of input data, and 
conceptual models. These models are limited mainly by the current understanding of the 
mountain system, including the geological and conceptual models, the volume-average modeling 
approach, and the available field and laboratory data. 
Past site investigations have shown that large variabilities exists in the flow and transport 
parameters over the spatial and temporal scales of the mountain. Even though considerable 
progress has been made in this area, uncertainty associated with the UZ Model input parameters 
will continue to be a key issue for future studies. The major uncertainties in model parameters are: 
(1) accuracy in estimated current, past and future net-infiltration rates over the mountain; (2) 
quantitative descriptions of heterogeneity of welded and nonwelded tuffs, their flow properties, 
and detailed spatial distributions within the mountain, especially below the potential repository; 
(3) fracture properties in zeolitic units and faults from field studies; (4) evidence of lateral 
diversion caused by zeolites in the CHn units; and (5) transport properties: (e.g., adsorption or Kd 
coefficients in different rock types, matrix molecular diffusion coefficients in different units for 
different radionuclides, dispersivities in fracture and matrix systems). These uncertainties have 
been addressed with the modeling studies in this AMR. 
This document and its conclusion may be affected by technical product input information that 
requires confirmation (identified as TBV in Attachment I). Any changes to the document or its 
conclusion that may occur as a result of completing the confirmation activities will be reflected in 
subsequent revisions. The status of the input information quality may be confirmed by review of 
the Document Input Reference System database. However, the results and conclusions of the UZ 
flow fields will not be affected by the status of temperature and geochemistry data used in the 
calibration studies, because these flow fields are based on flow simulations under isothermal and 
different climate conditions. 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 162 March 2000 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 163 March 2000 
8. REFERENCES 
8.1DOCUM ENTS CI TED 
Bodvarsson, G.S.; Boyle, W.; Patterson, R.; and Williams, D. 1999. Overview of Scientific 
Investigations at Yucca Mountainthe Potential Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste. 
Journal Of Contaminant Hydrology 38 (13), 324. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier 
Science Publishers. TIC: 244160. 
CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System, Management & Operating 
Contractor) 1999a. Analysis & Modeling Development Plan (DP) for U0050, UZ Flow Models 
and Submodels, Rev. 00. TDP-NBS-HS-000011. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19991013.0353. 
CRWMS M&O 1999b. M&O Site Investigations. Activity Evaluation, January 23, 1999. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990317.0330. 
CRWMS M&O 1999c. M&O Site Investigations. Activity Evaluation, September 28, 1999. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990928.0224. 
CRWMS M&O 1999d. Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling. 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990721.0517. 
CRWMS M&O 2000a. Analysis of Geochemistry Data for the Unsaturated Zone. ANL-NBSHS-
000017. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. URN-0048. 
CRWMS M&O 2000b. Calibrated Properties Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000003. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 19990720.0520. 
CRWMS M&O 2000c. Conceptual and Numerical Model for the Unsaturated Zone Flow and 
Transport. MDL-NBS-HS-000005. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19990721.0526. 
CRWMS M&O 2000d Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST, THC Seepage) Models. MDL-NBSHS-
000001. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O ACC: MOL.19990721.0523. 
CRWMS M&O 2000e. Repository Safety Strategy: Plan to Prepare the Postclosure Safety Case 
to Support Yucca Mountain Site recommendation and Licensing Considerations. TDR-WIS-RL- 
000001 REV. 3. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000119.0189. 
CRWMS M&O 2000f. Analyses of Hydrologic Properties Data. ANL-NBS-HS-000002. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O URN-0057. 
Domenico, P.A. and Schwartz, F.W. 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. New York, 
New York: John Wiley and Sons. TIC: 234782. 
Doughty, C. 1999. "Investigation of Conceptual and Numerical Approaches for Evaluating 
Moisture, Gas, Chemical, and Heat Transport in Fractured Unsaturated Rock." Journal of 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 164 March 2000 
Contaminant Hydrology 38 (1-3), 69-106. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science 
Publishers. TIC: 244160. 
Driscoll, Fletcher G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells, 2nd Edition. St. Paul, Minnesota: Johnson 
Filtration Systems. TIC: 225919. 
Dyer, J.R. 1999. Revised Interim Guidance Pending Issuance of New U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) Regulations (Revision 01, July 22, 1999), for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Letter from J.R. Dyer (DOE) to D.R. Wilkins (CRWMS M&O), September 9, 1999, OL&RC:SB- 
1714, with enclosure, Interim Guidance Pending Issuance of New U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) Regulations (Revision 01). ACC: MOL.19990910.0079. 
Flint, A.L. and Flint, L.E. 1994. Spatial Distribution of Potential Near Surface Moisture Flux at 
Yucca Mountain. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference on High Level 
Radioactive Waste Management, 4, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 2226, 1994, 23522358. La 
Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 224142. 
Flint, L.E. 1998. Characterization of Hydrogeologic Units Using Matrix Properties, Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4243. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980429.0512. 
Francis, N.D. 1997. "The Base-Case Thermal Properties for TSPA-VA Modeling." Memo from 
N.D. Francis (SNL) to Distribution, April 16, 1997. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19980518.0229. 
Hevesi, J.A.; Flint, A.L.; and Istock, J.D. 1992. Precipitation Estimation in Mountainous Terrain 
Using Multivariate Geostatistics, Part II: Isohyetal Maps. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 31, 
677688. Boston, Massachusetts: American Meteorological Society. TIC: 225248. 
Javandel, I.; Doughty, C.; and Tsang, C.F. 1984. Groundwater Transport: Handbook of 
Mathematical Models. Water Resources Monograph, 10. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 209908. 
Lasaga, A.C. 1998. Kinetic Theory in the Earth Sciences. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton 
University Press. TIC: 246279. 
Liu, H.H.; Doughty, C.; and Bodvarsson, G.S. 1998. "An Active Fracture Model for Unsaturated 
Flow and Transport in Fractured Rocks." Water Resources Research 34 (10), 2633-2646. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 243012. 
Montazer, P. and Wilson, W.E. 1984. Conceptual Hydrologic Model of Flow in the Unsaturated 
Zone, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water Resources Investigations Report 84-4345. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203223. 
Pruess, K. and Narasimhan, T.N. 1985. A Practical Method for Modeling Fluid and Heat Flow 
in Fractured Porous Media. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 25 (1), 1426. Dallas, 
Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. TIC: 221917.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 165 March 2000 
Pruess, K. 1991. "TOUGH2, a General-Purpose Numerical Simulator for Multiphase Fluid and 
Heat Flow." Report LBL-29400. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 
ACC: NNA.19940202.0088. 
Pruess, K.; Faybishenko, B.; and Bodvarsson, G.S. 1999. Alternative Concepts and Approaches 
for Modeling Flow and Transport in Thick Unsaturated Zones of Fractured Rocks. Journal of 
Contaminant Hydrology (38) 13, 281322. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science 
Publishers. TIC: 244160. 
Sass, J.H.; Lachenbruch, A.H.; Dudly, W.W., Jr.; Priest, S.S.; and Munroe, R.J. 1988. 
Temperature, Thermal Conductivity and Heat Flow Near Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Some 
Tectonic and Hydrologic Implications. Open File Rep. 87-649. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. TIC: 203195. 
Sonnenthal, E. L. and Bodvarsson, G. S. 1999. Constraints on the Hydrology of the Unsaturated 
Zone at Yucca Mountain, NV from Three-Dimensional Models of Chloride and Strontium 
Geochemistry. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 38 (13), 107156. Amsterdam, 
Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers. TIC: 244160. 
Steefel, C.I. and Lichtner, P.C. 1998. Multicomponent Reactive Transport in Discrete Fractures: 
II: Infiltration of Hyperalkaline Groundwater at Maqarin, Jordan, a Natural Analogue Site. 
Journal of Hydrology, 209, 200224. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers. 
TIC: applied for. 
Tyler, S.W.; Chapman, J.B.; Conrad, S.H.; Hammermeister, D.P.; Blout, D.O.; Miller, J.J.; Sully, 
M.J.; and Ginanni, J.M. 1996. Soil-Water Flux in the Southern Great Basin, United States: 
Temporal and Spatial Variations over the Last 120,000 Years. Water Resources Research 32 (6), 
14811499. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 235938. 
van Genuchten, M. 1980. A Closed-Form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of 
Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44 (5), 892898. Madison, 
Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America. TIC: 217327. 
Wemheuer, R.F. 1999. First Issue of FY00 NEPO QAP-2-0 Activity Evaluations. Interoffice 
correspondence from R.F. Wemheuer (CRWMS M&O) to R.A. Morgan (CRWMS M&O), 
October 1, 1999, LV.NEPO.RTPS.TAG.10/99-155, with attachments, Activity Evaluation for 
Work Package #1401213UM1. ACC: MOL.19991028.0162. 
Wu, Y.S.; Ahlers, C.F.; Fraser, P.; Simmons, A.; and Pruess, K. 1996. Software Qualification of 
Selected TOUGH2 Modules. Report LBNL-39490, UC-800. Berkeley, California: Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970219.0104. 
Wu, Y.S.; Haukwa, C. and Bodvarsson, G.S. 1999a. A Site-Scale Model for Fluid and Heat 
Flow in the Unsaturated Zone of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 
38 (13), 185215. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers. TIC: 244160.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 166 March 2000 
Wu, Y.S.; Ritcey, A.C. and Bodvarsson, G.S. 1999b. A Modeling Study of Perched Water 
Phenomena in the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 38 
(13), 157184. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers. TIC: 244160. 
Yang, I.C.; Yu, P.; Rattray, G.W.; Ferarese, J.S.; Rayn, J.N. 1998. Hydrochemical Investigations 
in Characterizing the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water Resources 
Investigation Report 98-4132. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 243710. 
Software Cited: 
Software Code: EARTHVISION V4.0. STN: 30035-2 V4.0. 
Software Code: EXT V1.0_MEOS9. STN: 10227-1.0MEOS9-00. 
Software Code: infil2grd V1.6. STN: 10077-1.6-00. 
Software Code: ITOUGH2 V3.2. STN: 10054-3.2-00 
Software Code: T2R3D V1.4. STN: 10006-1.4-00. 
Software Code: TOUGH2 V1.4. STN: 10007-1.4-00. 
Software Code: TOUGHREACT V2.2. STN: 10154-2.2-00. 
Software Code: TOUGHREACTE9 V1.0. STN: 10153-1.0-00. 
Software Routine: ECRB-XYZ V03. STN: 30093-V.03. 
Software Routine: TBgas3D V.1.1. ACC: MOL.19991012.0222. 
Software Routine: Read_TDB V1.0. ACC: MOL.19990903.0031. 
Software Routine: Frac_Calc V1.1. ACC: MOL.19990903.0032. 
8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
AP-3.10Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Analyses and Models. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19991019.0467. 
AP-SI.1Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0. Software Management. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19990630.0395. 
DOE 1999. Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. DOE/RW-0333P, REV 9. 
Washington D.C.: DOE OCRWM. ACC: MOL.19991028.0012. 
QAP-2-0, Rev. 5. Conduct of Activities. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19980826.0209.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 167 March 2000 
8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
GS000399991221.002. Rainfall/Runoff/Runon 1999 Simulations. 
GS000399991221.003. Preliminary Alcove 1 Infiltration Experiment Data. 
GS000399991221.004. Preliminary Developed Matrix Properties. 
GS910908315214.003. Meteorological, Stream-Discharge, and Water-Quality Data for 1986 
through 1991 from Two Small Basins in Central Nevada. Submittal date: 09/04/1991. Initial 
use. 
GS931008315214.032 Meteorological, Stream-Discharge, and Water-Quality Data for Water 
Year 1992 from Two Small Basins in Central Nevada. Submittal date: 10/08/1993. Initial use. 
GS950208312232.003. Data, including Water Potential, Pressure and Temperature, Collected 
from Boreholes USW NRG-6 and USW NRG -7a from Instrumentation through March 31, 1995. 
Submittal date: 02/13/1995. 
GS951108312232.008. Data, including Water Potential, Pressure and Temperature, Collected 
from Boreholes UE-25 UZ#4 & UZ#5 from Instrumentation through September 30, 1995, and 
from USW NRG-6 & NRG-7a from April 1 through September 30, 1995. Submittal date: 11/21/ 
1995. 
GS960208312261.001. Shut-in Pressure Test Data from April 1995 to December 1995 from 
Select Wells and Boreholes at Yucca Mountain, NV. Submittal date: 02/07/1996. 
GS960308312232.001. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation 
Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, USW NRG-6, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, USW 
UZ-7A, and USW SD-12 for the Time Period 10/01/95 through 3/31/96. Submittal date: 04/04/ 
1996. 
GS960308312312.005. Water-Level, Discharge Rate and Related Data from the Pump Tests 
Conducted at Well USW UZ-14, August 17 through August 30, 1993. Submittal date: 03/15/ 
1996. 
GS960808312232.004. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation 
Program Data for Boreholes USW NRG-7A, USW NRG-6, UE-25, UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, USW 
UZ-7A and USW SD-12 for the Time Period 4/1/96 through 8/15/96. Submittal date: 08/30/ 
1996. 
GS960908312231.004. Characterization of Hydrogeologic Units Using Matrix Properties at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 09/12/1996. 
GS960908312232.006. In-Situ Pneumatic Tests of Boreholes. Submittal Date: 09/18/1996. 
GS960908312261.004. Shut-In Pressure Test Data from UE-25 NRG#5 And USW SD-7 from 
November 1995 to July 1996. Submittal date: 09/24/1996.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 168 March 2000 
GS961108312261.006. Gas Chemistry, ESF Alcoves 2 and 3, 11/95 - 4/96; Water Chemistry, 
Alcove 2 (Tritium), Alcove 3, and ESF Tunnel; and Pneumatic Pressure Response from Boreholes 
in Exploratory Studies Facility Alcoves 2 and 3, 10/95 - 5/96. Submittal date: 11/12/1996. 
GS970108312232.002. Deep Unsaturated Zone, Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation 
Program - Raw Data Submittal For Boreholes USW NRG-7A, USW NRG-6, UE-25 UZ#4, UE- 
25 UZ#5, USW UZ-7A, and USW SD-12, for the Period 8/16/96 through 12/31/96. Submittal 
date: 01/22/1997. 
GS970208312312.003. Water-Level and Related Data from Pump Tests Conducted at Well USW 
G-2, 4/8/96 - 12/17/96. Submittal date: 02/05/1997. 
GS970808312232.005. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation 
Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-2 5 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, USW UZ-7A and 
USW SD-12 for the Time Period 1/1/97 - 6/30/97. Submittal date: 08/28/1997. 
GS971108312232.007. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation 
Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-2 5 UZ #4, UE-25 UZ #5, USW UZ-7A and 
USW SD-12 for the Time Period 7/1/97 - 9/30/97. Submittal date: 11/18/1997. 
GS971108314224.020. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 0+60 to Station 4+00, 
North Ramp Starter Tunnel, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
GS980408312232.001. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation 
Program Data From Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-2 5 UZ #4, USW NRG-6, UE-25 UZ #5, 
USW UZ-7A and USW SD-12 for the Time Period 10/01/97 - 03/31/98. Submittal date: 04/16/ 
1998. 
GS980508312313.001. Water-Level and Related Data Collected in Support of Perched-Water 
Testing in Borehole USW WT-24, September 10, 1997 through February 3, 1998. Submittal date: 
05/07/1998. 
GS980708312242.010. Physical Properties of Borehole Core Samples, and Water Potential 
Measurements Using the Filter Paper Technique, for Borehole Samples from USW WT-24. 
Submittal date: 07/27/1998. 
GS980808312242.014. Physical Properties of Borehole Core Samples and Water Potential 
Measurements Using the Filter Paper Technique for Borehole Samples from USW SD-6. 
Submittal date: 08/11/1998. 
GS980908312242.036. Water Potentials Measured With Heat Dissipation Probes in ECRB Holes 
from 4/23/98 to 7/31/98. Submittal date: 09/22/1998. 
GS981008312313.003. Manually Measured Water-Level Data from Borehole USW G-2 on 02/ 
03/98, Collected in Support of Perched-Water Testing in Borehole USW WT-24. Submittal date: 
10/20/1998. 

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 169 March 2000 
LAIT831341AQ96.001. Radionuclide Retardation. Measurements of Batch Sorption Distribution 
Coefficients for Barium, Cesium, Selenium, Strontium, Uranium, Plutonium, and Neptunium. 
Submittal date: 11/12/1996. 
LASL831151AQ98.001. Mineralogic Characterization of the ESF Single Heater Test Block. 
Submittal date: 08/31/1998. 
LASL831222AQ98.002. Mineralogic Data Chlorine-36 Studies. Submittal date: 09/10/1998. 
LA9908JC831321.001. Mineralogic Model "MM3.0" Version 3.0. Submittal Date: 08/16/1999. 
LB971212001254.006. Three Files Using DKM Weeps Parameter Sets with Mean Fracture 
Permeability, Present Day Infiltration, and Estimated Global FMX for Present Day and Long 
Term Average and Superpluvial Infiltration. Submittal date: 12/12/1997. 
LB980912332245.002. Gas Tracer Data from Niche 3107 of the ESF. Submittal date: 09/30/ 
1998. 
LB990501233129.001. Fracture Properties for the UZ Model Grids and Uncalibrated Fracture 
and Matrix Properties for the UZ Model Layers for AMR U0090, "Analysis of Hydrologic 
Properties Data." Submittal date: 08/25/1999. 
LB990501233129.002. 1-D Grids For Hydrogeologic Property Set Inversions and Calibrations 
for AMR U0000, "Development of Numerical Grids For UZ Flow and Transport Modeling." 
Submittal date: 09/24/1999. 
LB990501233129.004. 3-D UZ Model Calibration Grids for AMR U0000, "Development of 
Numerical Grids of UZ Flow and Transport Modeling." Submittal date: 09/24/1999. 
LB990701233129.001. 3-D UZ Model Grids for Calculation of Flow Fields for PA for AMR 
U0000, "Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling." Submittal 
date: 09/24/1999. 
LB990701233129.002. 3-D UZ Model Calibration Grid for Calculation of Flow Fields using #3 
Perched Water Conceptual Model (Non-Perched Water Model). Submittal date: Will be 
submitted with AMR. 
LB991091233129.003. Two-Dimensional Fault Calibration For AMR U0035, "Calibrated 
Properties Model." Submittal date: 10/22/1999. 
LB991091233129.004. Calibrated Fault Properties for the UZ Flow and Transport Model for 
AMR U0035, "Calibrated Properties Model." Submittal date: 10/22/1999. 
LB991121233129.001. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, mean infiltration scenario, 
used for simulations with perched water conceptual model #1 (flow through) for the mean 
infiltration scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates. Submittal date: 
will be submitted with AMR.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 170 March 2000 
LB991121233129.002. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, mean infiltration scenario, 
used for simulations with perched water conceptual model #2 (by passing) for the mean 
infiltration scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates. Submittal date: 
will be submitted with AMR. 
LB991121233129.003. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, upper-bound infiltration 
scenario, used for simulations with perched water conceptual model #1 (flow through) for the 
upper-bound infiltration scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB991121233129.004. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, upper-bound infiltration 
scenario, used for simulations with perched water conceptual model #2 (by passing) for the upperbound 
infiltration scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB991121233129.005. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, lower-bound infiltration 
scenario, used for simulations with perched water conceptual model #1 (flow through) for the 
lower-bound infiltration scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB991121233129.006. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, lower-bound infiltration 
scenario, used for simulations with perched water conceptual model #2 (by passing) for the lowerbound 
infiltration scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB991121233129.007. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, mean infiltration scenario, 
used for simulations with perched water conceptual model #3 (non-perching) for the mean 
infiltration scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates. Submittal date: 
will be submitted with AMR. 
LB991200DSTTHC.001. Pore water composition and CO2 partial pressure input to Thermal- 
Hydrological-Chemical (THC) simulations: Table 3 of AMR N0120/U0110, "Drift-Scale Coupled 
Processes (DST and TH Seepage) Models." Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB997141233129.001. Calibrated Basecase Infiltration 1-D Parameter Set for the UZ Flow and 
Transport Model, FY99. Submittal date: 07/21/1999. 
LB997141233129.002. Calibrated Upper-Bound Infiltration 1-D Parameter Set for the UZ Flow 
and Transport Model, FY99. Submittal date: 07/21/1999. 
LB997141233129.003. Calibrated Lower-Bound Infiltration 1-D Parameter Set for the UZ Flow 
and Transport Model, FY99. Submittal date: 07/21/1999. 
8.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
LB9908T1233129.001. Transport Simulations for mean, low, and upper infiltration maps from 
AMR U0050. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 171 March 2000 
LB990801233129.001. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #1: Present Day Low Infiltration Map for Flow-Through Perched-Water 
Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.002. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #2: Present Day Low Infiltration Map for Unfractured Zeolite Perched- 
Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.003. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #3: Present Day Mean Infiltration Map for Flow-Through Perched- 
Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.004. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #4: Present Day Mean Infiltration Map for Unfractures Zeolite Perched- 
Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.005. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #5: Present Day Upper Infiltration Map for Flow-Through Perched- 
Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.006. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #6: Present Day Upper Infiltration Map for Unfractured Zeolite 
Perched-Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.007. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #7: Glacial Low Infiltration Map for Flow-Through Perched-Water 
Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.008. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #8: Glacial Low Infiltration Map for Unfractured Zeolite Perched-Water 
Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.009. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #9: Glacial Mean Infiltration Map for Flow-Through Perched-Water 
Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.010. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #10: Glacial Mean Infiltration Map for Unfractured Zeolite Perched- 
Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.011. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #11: Glacial Upper Infiltration Map for Flow-Through Perched-Water 
Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.012. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #12: Glacial Upper Infiltration Map for Unfractured Zeolite Perched- 
Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 172 March 2000 
LB990801233129.013. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #13: Monsoon Low Infiltration Map for Flow-Through Perched-Water 
Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.014. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #14: Monsoon Low Infiltration Map for Unfractured Zeolite Perched- 
Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.015. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #15: Monsoon Mean Infiltration Map for Flow-Through Perched-Water 
Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.016. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #16: Monsoon Mean Infiltration Map for Unfractured Zeolite Perched- 
Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.017. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #17: Monsoon Upper Infiltration Map for Flow-Through Perched-Water 
Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.018. TSPA Grid Flow Simulations for AMR U0050, "UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels." Flow Field #18: Monsoon Upper Infiltration Map for Unfractured Zeolite Perched- 
Water Conceptual Model. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.019. Present day mean infiltration map; #3 or non-perched water model. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.020. Monsoon mean infiltration map; #3 or non-perched water model. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.021. Glacial mean infiltration map; #3 or non-perched water model. Submittal 
date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.022. Present day mean infiltration map; #3 non-perched water model. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.023. Present day low infiltration map; #1 perched water conceptual model. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.024. Present day low infiltration map; #2 perched water conceptual model. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.025. Present day mean infiltration map; #1 perched water conceptual model. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.026. Present day mean infiltration map; #2 perched water conceptual model. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 173 March 2000 
LB990801233129.027. Present day upper infiltration map; #1 perched water conceptual model. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB990801233129.028. Present day upper infiltration map; #2perched water conceptual model. 
Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB991131233129.001. Modeling calcite deposition and percolation. Submittal date: will be 
submitted with AMR. 
LB991131233129.002. Modeling seepage and tracer tests at Alcove 1. Submittal date: will be 
submitted with AMR. 
LB991131233129.003. Analytical and Simulation Results of Cl and Cl36 Analysis. Submittal 
date: will be submitted with AMR. 
LB991131233129.004. Modeling of Thermo-Hydrological Data to Simulate Flow, Transport, 
and Geothermal Conditions of the UZ. Submittal date: will be submitted with AMR.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 174 March 2000 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 175 March 2000 
9. ATTACHMENTS 
Attachment I - Document Input References Sheet 
Attachment II - Calibrated parameter sets, combining from one-dimensional inversions and 
three-dimensional perched water modeling, used in generating the 18 flow fields, 
groundwater travel and tracer transport times 
Attachment III - Software Routines

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 176 March 2000 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels uoosn 
ATTACHMENT I-DOCUMENT INPUT REFERENCE SHEET 
DIRS as of the issue date of this AMR. Refer to the DIRS database for the current status of these 
inputs
r 
I - 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment I-l March 2000






































Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-1 March 2000 
ATTACHMENT II 
Calibrated parameter sets, combining from one-dimensional inversions and three-dimensional 
perched water modeling, used in generating the 18 flow fields, groundwater travel and tracer 
transport times. 
Table II-1. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, mean infiltration scenario, used for simulations with 
perched water conceptual model #1 (flow-through) for the mean infiltration scenarios of the present-day, 
Monsoon and Glacial transition climates. 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
tcw11 3.86E-15 4.00E-5 0.470 2.41E-12 3.15E-3 0.627 0.30 
tcw12 2.74E-19 1.81E-5 0.241 1.00E-10 2.13E-3 0.613 0.30 
tcw13 9.23E-17 3.44E-6 0.398 5.42E-12 1.26E-3 0.607 0.30 
ptn21 9.90E-13 1.01E-5 0.176 1.86E-12 1.68E-3 0.580 0.09 
ptn22 2.65E-12 1.60E-4 0.326 2.00E-11 7.68E-4 0.580 0.09 
ptn23 1.23E-13 5.58E-6 0.397 2.60E-13 9.23E-4 0.610 0.09 
ptn24 7.86E-14 1.53E-4 0.225 4.67E-13 3.37E-3 0.623 0.09 
ptn25 7.00E-14 5.27E-5 0.323 7.03E-13 6.33E-4 0.644 0.09 
ptn26 2.21E-13 2.49E-4 0.285 4.44E-13 2.79E-4 0.552 0.09 
tsw31 6.32E-17 3.61E-5 0.303 3.21E-11 2.49E-4 0.566 0.06 
tsw32 5.83E-16 3.61E-5 0.333 3.56E-11 1.27E-3 0.608 0.41 
tsw33 3.08E-17 2.13E-5 0.298 3.86E-11 1.46E-3 0.608 0.41 
tsw34 4.07E-18 3.86E-6 0.291 1.70E-11 5.16E-4 0.608 0.41 
tsw35 3.04E-17 6.44E-6 0.236 4.51E-11 7.39E-4 0.611 0.41 
tsw36 5.71E-18 3.55E-6 0.380 7.01E-11 7.84E-4 0.610 0.41 
tsw37 4.49E-18 5.33E-6 0.425 7.01E-11 7.84E-4 0.610 0.41 
tsw38 4.53E-18 6.94E-6 0.324 5.92E-13 4.87E-4 0.612 0.41 
tsw39 5.46E-17 2.29E-5 0.380 4.57E-13 9.63E-4 0.634 0.41 
ch1z 1.96E-19 2.68E-7 0.316 3.40E-13 1.43E-3 0.631 0.10 
ch1v 9.90E-13 1.43E-5 0.350 1.84E-12 1.09E-3 0.624 0.13 
ch2v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch3v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch4v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch5v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch2z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 3.12E-14 4.88E-4 0.598 0.10 
ch3z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 3.12E-14 4.88E-4 0.598 0.10 
ch4z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 3.12E-14 4.88E-4 0.598 0.10 
ch5z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 3.12E-14 4.88E-4 0.598 0.10 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.001.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-2 March 2000 
ch6 4.23E-19 3.38E-7 0.510 1.67E-14 7.49E-4 0.604 0.10 
pp4 4.28E-18 1.51E-7 0.676 3.84E-14 5.72E-4 0.627 0.10 
pp3 2.56E-14 2.60E-5 0.363 7.60E-12 8.73E-4 0.655 0.46 
pp2 1.57E-16 2.67E-6 0.369 1.38E-13 1.21E-3 0.606 0.46 
pp1 6.40E-17 1.14E-6 0.409 1.12E-13 5.33E-4 0.622 0.10 
bf3 2.34E-14 4.48E-6 0.481 4.08E-13 9.95E-4 0.624 0.46 
bf2 2.51E-17 1.54E-7 0.569 1.30E-14 5.42E-4 0.608 0.10 
pcM38/ 
pcF38 
3.00E-19 6.94E-6 0.324 3.00E-18 6.94E-6 0.324 0.00 
pcM39/ 
pcF39 
6.20E-18 2.29E-5 0.381 6.20E-17 2.29E-5 0.381 0.00 
pcM1z/ 
pcF1z 
9.30E-20 2.68E-7 0.316 9.30E-19 2.68E-7 0.316 0.00 
pcM2z/ 
pcF2z 
2.40E-18 3.47E-6 0.245 2.40E-17 3.47E-6 0.245 0.00 
pcM5z/ 
pcF5z 
2.40E-18 3.47E-6 0.245 2.40E-18 3.47E-6 0.245 0.00 
pcM6z/ 
pcF6z 
1.10E-19 3.38E-7 0.510 1.10E-19 3.38E-7 0.510 0.00 
pcM4p/ 
pcF4p 
7.70E-19 1.51E-7 0.676 7.70E-19 1.51E-7 0.676 0.00 
Table II-2. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, mean infiltration scenario, used for simulations with 
perched water conceptual model #2 (by-passing) for the mean infiltration scenarios of the present-day, 
Monsoon and Glacial transition climates 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
tcw11 3.86E-15 4.00E-5 0.470 2.41E-12 3.15E-3 0.627 0.30 
tcw12 2.74E-19 1.81E-5 0.241 1.00E-10 2.13E-3 0.613 0.30 
tcw13 9.23E-17 3.44E-6 0.398 5.42E-12 1.26E-3 0.607 0.30 
ptn21 9.90E-13 1.01E-5 0.176 1.86E-12 1.68E-3 0.580 0.09 
ptn22 2.65E-12 1.60E-4 0.326 2.00E-11 7.68E-4 0.580 0.09 
ptn23 1.23E-13 5.58E-6 0.397 2.60E-13 9.23E-4 0.610 0.09 
ptn24 7.86E-14 1.53E-4 0.225 4.67E-13 3.37E-3 0.623 0.09 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.002 
Table II-1. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, mean infiltration scenario, used for simulations with 
perched water conceptual model #1 (flow-through) for the mean infiltration scenarios of the present-day, 
Monsoon and Glacial transition climates. (Cont.) 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.001.

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-3 March 2000 
ptn25 7.00E-14 5.27E-5 0.323 7.03E-13 6.33E-4 0.644 0.09 
ptn26 2.21E-13 2.49E-4 0.285 4.44E-13 2.79E-4 0.552 0.09 
tsw31 6.32E-17 3.61E-5 0.303 3.21E-11 2.49E-4 0.566 0.06 
tsw32 5.83E-16 3.61E-5 0.333 3.56E-11 1.27E-3 0.608 0.41 
tsw33 3.08E-17 2.13E-5 0.298 3.86E-11 1.46E-3 0.608 0.41 
tsw34 4.07E-18 3.86E-6 0.291 1.70E-11 5.16E-4 0.608 0.41 
tsw35 3.04E-17 6.44E-6 0.236 4.51E-11 7.39E-4 0.611 0.41 
tsw36 5.71E-18 3.55E-6 0.380 7.01E-11 7.84E-4 0.610 0.41 
tsw37 4.49E-18 5.33E-6 0.425 7.01E-11 7.84E-4 0.610 0.41 
tsw38 4.53E-18 6.94E-6 0.324 5.92E-13 4.87E-4 0.612 0.41 
tsw39 5.46E-17 2.29E-5 0.380 4.57E-13 9.63E-4 0.634 0.41 
ch1z 1.96E-19 2.68E-7 0.316 1.96E-19 2.68E-7 0.316 0.00 
ch1v 9.90E-13 1.43E-5 0.350 1.84E-12 1.09E-3 0.624 0.13 
ch2v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch3v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch4v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch5v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch2z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 0.00 
ch3z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 0.00 
ch4z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 0.00 
ch5z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 0.00 
ch6 4.23E-19 3.38E-7 0.510 4.23E-19 3.38E-7 0.510 0.00 
pp4 4.28E-18 1.51E-7 0.676 4.28E-18 1.51E-7 0.676 0.00 
pp3 2.56E-14 2.60E-5 0.363 7.60E-12 8.73E-4 0.655 0.46 
pp2 1.57E-16 2.67E-6 0.369 1.38E-13 1.21E-3 0.606 0.46 
pp1 6.40E-17 1.14E-6 0.409 6.40E-17 1.14E-6 0.409 0.00 
bf3 2.34E-14 4.48E-6 0.481 4.08E-13 9.95E-4 0.624 0.46 
bf2 2.51E-17 1.54E-7 0.569 2.51E-17 1.54E-7 0.569 0.00 
pcM38/ 
pcF38 
3.00E-19 6.94E-6 0.324 3.00E-18 6.94E-6 0.324 0.00 
pcM39/ 
pcF39 
6.20E-18 2.29E-5 0.381 6.20E-17 2.29E-5 0.381 0.00 
Table II-2. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, mean infiltration scenario, used for simulations with 
perched water conceptual model #2 (by-passing) for the mean infiltration scenarios of the present-day, 
Monsoon and Glacial transition climates (Cont.) 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.002

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-4 March 2000 
Table II-3. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, upper-bound infiltration scenario, used for 
simulations with perched water conceptual model #1 (flow-through) for the upper-bound infiltration 
scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates 
Model Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
tcw11 3.98E-15 4.27E-5 0.484 2.75E-12 4.67E-3 0.636 0.31 
tcw12 3.26E-19 2.18E-5 0.229 1.00E-10 2.18E-3 0.633 0.31 
tcw13 1.63E-16 2.17E-6 0.416 2.26E-12 1.71E-3 0.631 0.31 
ptn21 1.26E-13 1.84E-4 0.199 1.00E-11 2.38E-3 0.611 0.08 
ptn22 5.98E-12 2.42E-5 0.473 1.00E-11 1.26E-3 0.665 0.08 
ptn23 3.43E-13 4.06E-6 0.407 1.96E-13 1.25E-3 0.627 0.08 
ptn24 3.93E-13 5.27E-5 0.271 4.38E-13 2.25E-3 0.631 0.08 
ptn25 1.85E-13 2.95E-5 0.378 6.14E-13 1.00E-3 0.637 0.08 
ptn26 6.39E-13 3.54E-4 0.265 3.48E-13 3.98E-4 0.367 0.08 
tsw31 9.25E-17 7.79E-5 0.299 2.55E-11 1.78E-4 0.577 0.09 
tsw32 5.11E-16 4.90E-5 0.304 2.83E-11 1.32E-3 0.631 0.38 
tsw33 1.24E-17 1.97E-5 0.272 3.07E-11 1.50E-3 0.631 0.38 
tsw34 7.94E-19 3.32E-6 0.324 1.35E-11 4.05E-4 0.579 0.38 
tsw35 1.42E-17 7.64E-6 0.209 3.58E-11 9.43E-4 0.627 0.38 
tsw36 1.34E-18 3.37E-6 0.383 5.57E-11 8.21E-4 0.623 0.38 
tsw37 7.04E-19 2.70E-6 0.447 5.57E-11 8.21E-4 0.623 0.38 
tsw38 4.47E-18 5.56E-7 0.314 4.06E-13 7.69E-4 0.622 0.38 
tsw39 3.12E-17 1.82E-5 0.377 5.89E-13 1.30E-3 0.633 0.38 
ch1z 8.46E-20 4.23E-7 0.336 5.70E-13 1.29E-3 0.631 0.10 
ch1v 4.36E-14 4.23E-5 0.363 7.90E-13 1.66E-3 0.656 0.10 
ch2v 3.89E-13 4.86E-5 0.312 4.64E-13 1.45E-3 0.626 0.10 
ch3v 3.89E-13 4.86E-5 0.312 4.64E-13 1.45E-3 0.626 0.10 
ch4v 3.89E-13 4.86E-5 0.312 4.64E-13 1.45E-3 0.626 0.10 
ch5v 3.89E-13 4.86E-5 0.312 4.64E-13 1.45E-3 0.626 0.10 
ch2z 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 2.64E-14 8.45E-4 0.628 0.10 
ch3z 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 2.64E-14 8.45E-4 0.628 0.10 
ch4z 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 2.64E-14 8.45E-4 0.628 0.10 
ch5z 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 2.64E-14 8.45E-4 0.628 0.10 
ch6 3.32E-20 3.57E-7 0.502 2.21E-14 1.31E-3 0.631 0.10 
pp4 2.00E-18 1.83E-7 0.683 1.07E-13 7.99E-4 0.633 0.10 
pp3 1.47E-14 1.02E-5 0.395 7.10E-12 1.29E-3 0.749 0.56 
pp2 1.05E-16 2.43E-6 0.367 2.53E-13 1.65E-3 0.629 0.56 
pp1 5.49E-17 1.01E-6 0.393 6.25E-13 8.18E-4 0.630 0.10 
bf3 2.98E-14 3.83E-6 0.490 1.43E-12 1.50E-3 0.636 0.56 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.003

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-5 March 2000 
bf2 3.86E-17 2.29E-7 0.582 2.26E-14 8.18E-4 0.631 0.10 
pcM38/ 
pcF38 
3.00E-19 5.56E-7 0.314 3.00E-18 5.56E-7 0.314 0.00 
pcM39/ 
pcF39 
6.20E-18 1.82E-5 0.377 6.20E-17 1.82E-5 0.377 0.00 
pcM1z/ 
pcF1z 
9.30E-20 4.23E-7 0.336 9.30E-19 4.23E-7 0.336 0.00 
pcM2z/ 
pcF2z 
2.40E-18 1.13E-6 0.229 2.40E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 0.00 
pcM5z/ 
pcF5z 
2.40E-18 1.13E-6 0.229 2.40E-18 1.13E-6 0.229 0.00 
pcM6z/ 
pcF6z 
1.10E-19 3.57E-7 0.502 1.10E-19 3.57E-7 0.502 0.00 
pcM4p/ 
pcF4p 
7.70E-19 1.83E-7 0.683 7.70E-19 1.83E-7 0.683 0.00 
Table II-4. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, upper-bound infiltration scenario, used for 
simulations with perched water conceptual model #2 (by-passing) for the upper-bound infiltration scenarios 
of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates 
Model Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
tcw11 3.98E-15 4.27E-5 0.484 2.75E-12 4.67E-3 0.636 0.31 
tcw12 3.26E-19 2.18E-5 0.229 1.00E-10 2.18E-3 0.633 0.31 
tcw13 1.63E-16 2.17E-6 0.416 2.26E-12 1.71E-3 0.631 0.31 
ptn21 1.26E-13 1.84E-4 0.199 1.00E-11 2.38E-3 0.611 0.08 
ptn22 5.98E-12 2.42E-5 0.473 1.00E-11 1.26E-3 0.665 0.08 
ptn23 3.43E-13 4.06E-6 0.407 1.96E-13 1.25E-3 0.627 0.08 
ptn24 3.93E-13 5.27E-5 0.271 4.38E-13 2.25E-3 0.631 0.08 
ptn25 1.85E-13 2.95E-5 0.378 6.14E-13 1.00E-3 0.637 0.08 
ptn26 6.39E-13 3.54E-4 0.265 3.48E-13 3.98E-4 0.367 0.08 
tsw31 9.25E-17 7.79E-5 0.299 2.55E-11 1.78E-4 0.577 0.09 
tsw32 5.11E-16 4.90E-5 0.304 2.83E-11 1.32E-3 0.631 0.38 
tsw33 1.24E-17 1.97E-5 0.272 3.07E-11 1.50E-3 0.631 0.38 
tsw34 7.94E-19 3.32E-6 0.324 1.35E-11 4.05E-4 0.579 0.38 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.004 
Table II-3. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, upper-bound infiltration scenario, used for 
simulations with perched water conceptual model #1 (flow-through) for the upper-bound infiltration 
scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates (Cont.) 
Model Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.003

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-6 March 2000 
tsw35 1.42E-17 7.64E-6 0.209 3.58E-11 9.43E-4 0.627 0.38 
tsw36 1.34E-18 3.37E-6 0.383 5.57E-11 8.21E-4 0.623 0.38 
tsw37 7.04E-19 2.70E-6 0.447 5.57E-11 8.21E-4 0.623 0.38 
tsw38 4.47E-18 5.56E-7 0.314 4.06E-13 7.69E-4 0.622 0.38 
tsw39 3.12E-17 1.82E-5 0.377 5.89E-13 1.30E-3 0.633 0.38 
ch1z 8.46E-20 4.23E-7 0.336 8.46E-20 4.23E-7 0.336 0.00 
ch1v 4.36E-14 4.23E-5 0.363 7.90E-13 1.66E-3 0.656 0.10 
ch2v 3.89E-13 4.86E-5 0.312 4.64E-13 1.45E-3 0.626 0.10 
ch3v 3.89E-13 4.86E-5 0.312 4.64E-13 1.45E-3 0.626 0.10 
ch4v 3.89E-13 4.86E-5 0.312 4.64E-13 1.45E-3 0.626 0.10 
ch5v 3.89E-13 4.86E-5 0.312 4.64E-13 1.45E-3 0.626 0.10 
ch2z 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 0.00 
ch3z 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 0.00 
ch4z 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 0.00 
ch5z 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 1.16E-17 1.13E-6 0.229 0.00 
ch6 3.32E-20 3.57E-7 0.502 3.32E-20 3.57E-7 0.502 0.00 
pp4 2.00E-18 1.83E-7 0.683 2.00E-18 1.83E-7 0.683 0.00 
pp3 1.47E-14 1.02E-5 0.395 7.10E-12 1.29E-3 0.749 0.56 
pp2 1.05E-16 2.43E-6 0.367 2.53E-13 1.65E-3 0.629 0.56 
pp1 5.49E-17 1.01E-6 0.393 5.49E-17 1.01E-6 0.393 0.00 
bf3 2.98E-14 3.83E-6 0.490 1.43E-12 1.50E-3 0.636 0.56 
bf2 3.86E-17 2.29E-7 0.582 3.86E-17 2.29E-7 0.582 0.00 
pcM38/ 
pcF38 
3.00E-19 5.56E-7 0.314 3.00E-18 5.56E-7 0.314 0.00 
pcM39/ 
pcF39 
6.20E-18 1.82E-5 0.377 6.20E-17 1.82E-5 0.377 0.00 
Table II-4. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, upper-bound infiltration scenario, used for 
simulations with perched water conceptual model #2 (by-passing) for the upper-bound infiltration scenarios 
of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates (Cont.) 
Model Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.004

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-7 March 2000 
Table II-5. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, lower-bound infiltration scenario, used for 
simulations with perched water conceptual model #1 (flow-through) for the lower-bound infiltration 
scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
tcw11 4.63E-15 1.61E-5 0.460 2.70E-12 2.40E-3 0.598 0.25 
tcw12 8.87E-20 2.89E-5 0.241 1.00E-10 2.05E-3 0.608 0.25 
tcw13 6.61E-17 1.42E-6 0.368 1.79E-12 9.21E-4 0.600 0.25 
ptn21 1.86E-13 6.13E-5 0.165 1.00E-11 1.66E-3 0.503 0.01 
ptn22 3.27E-12 1.51E-5 0.390 1.00E-11 9.39E-4 0.651 0.01 
ptn23 4.20E-13 2.04E-6 0.387 1.84E-13 1.28E-3 0.518 0.01 
ptn24 3.94E-13 2.32E-5 0.210 4.31E-13 2.02E-3 0.594 0.01 
ptn25 2.22E-13 2.04E-5 0.296 7.12E-13 7.42E-4 0.555 0.01 
ptn26 5.43E-13 1.82E-4 0.264 3.08E-13 2.00E-4 0.401 0.01 
tsw31 6.38E-17 2.81E-5 0.317 2.55E-11 4.42E-4 0.545 0.06 
tsw32 6.28E-16 6.35E-5 0.279 2.83E-11 1.21E-3 0.603 0.23 
tsw33 1.82E-17 2.44E-5 0.248 3.07E-11 1.36E-3 0.600 0.23 
tsw34 3.50E-19 3.54E-6 0.309 1.35E-11 2.48E-4 0.515 0.23 
tsw35 1.27E-17 7.57E-6 0.187 3.58E-11 6.26E-4 0.612 0.23 
tsw36 1.19E-18 3.74E-6 0.328 5.57E-11 4.90E-4 0.540 0.23 
tsw37 5.63E-19 3.28E-6 0.423 5.57E-11 4.90E-4 0.540 0.23 
tsw38 1.44E-18 3.72E-6 0.291 5.65E-13 4.00E-4 0.603 0.23 
tsw39 1.09E-17 2.37E-5 0.321 3.12E-13 6.43E-4 0.605 0.23 
ch1z 2.75E-20 7.26E-7 0.304 1.87E-13 1.00E-3 0.611 0.12 
ch1v 2.05E-14 9.86E-6 0.402 9.03E-13 1.43E-3 0.658 0.12 
ch2v 3.17E-13 1.91E-5 0.326 1.94E-13 6.84E-4 0.544 0.12 
ch3v 3.17E-13 1.91E-5 0.326 1.94E-13 6.84E-4 0.544 0.12 
ch4v 3.17E-13 1.91E-5 0.326 1.94E-13 6.84E-4 0.544 0.12 
ch5v 3.17E-13 1.91E-5 0.326 1.94E-13 6.84E-4 0.544 0.12 
ch2z 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 4.10E-14 2.08E-4 0.613 0.12 
ch3z 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 4.10E-14 2.08E-4 0.613 0.12 
ch4z 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 4.10E-14 2.08E-4 0.613 0.12 
ch5z 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 4.10E-14 2.08E-4 0.613 0.12 
ch6 8.20E-20 5.06E-7 0.445 1.12E-14 6.10E-4 0.604 0.12 
pp4 2.05E-18 1.83E-7 0.653 3.40E-14 4.86E-4 0.635 0.12 
pp3 1.91E-14 1.53E-5 0.355 2.23E-12 5.93E-4 0.699 0.43 
pp2 1.08E-16 2.08E-6 0.399 1.42E-13 7.62E-4 0.608 0.43 
pp1 6.52E-17 9.40E-7 0.392 7.15E-14 3.90E-4 0.638 0.12 
bf3 9.47E-15 3.75E-6 0.509 3.43E-13 7.60E-4 0.611 0.43 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.005

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-8 March 2000 
bf2 1.27E-17 1.38E-7 0.568 9.21E-15 4.18E-4 0.598 0.12 
pcM38/ 
pcF38 
3.00E-19 3.72E-6 0.291 3.00E-19 3.72E-6 0.291 0.00 
pcM39/ 
pcF39 
6.20E-18 2.37E-5 0.321 6.20E-18 2.37E-5 0.321 0.00 
pcM1z/ 
pcF1z 
9.30E-20 7.26E-7 0.304 9.30E-20 7.26E-7 0.304 0.00 
pcM2z/ 
pcF2z 
2.40E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 2.40E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 0.00 
pcM5z/ 
pcF5z 
2.40E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 2.40E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 0.00 
pcM6z/ 
pcF6z 
1.10E-19 5.06E-7 0.445 1.10E-19 5.06E-7 0.445 0.00 
pcM4p/ 
pcF4p 
7.70E-19 1.83E-7 0.653 7.70E-19 1.83E-7 0.653 0.00 
Table II-6. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, lower-bound infiltration scenario, used for 
simulations with perched water conceptual model #2 (by-passing) for the lower-bound infiltration scenarios 
of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
tcw11 4.63E-15 1.61E-5 0.460 2.70E-12 2.40E-3 0.598 0.25 
tcw12 8.87E-20 2.89E-5 0.241 1.00E-10 2.05E-3 0.608 0.25 
tcw13 6.61E-17 1.42E-6 0.368 1.79E-12 9.21E-4 0.600 0.25 
ptn21 1.86E-13 6.13E-5 0.165 1.00E-11 1.66E-3 0.503 0.01 
ptn22 3.27E-12 1.51E-5 0.390 1.00E-11 9.39E-4 0.651 0.01 
ptn23 4.20E-13 2.04E-6 0.387 1.84E-13 1.28E-3 0.518 0.01 
ptn24 3.94E-13 2.32E-5 0.210 4.31E-13 2.02E-3 0.594 0.01 
ptn25 2.22E-13 2.04E-5 0.296 7.12E-13 7.42E-4 0.555 0.01 
ptn26 5.43E-13 1.82E-4 0.264 3.08E-13 2.00E-4 0.401 0.01 
tsw31 6.38E-17 2.81E-5 0.317 2.55E-11 4.42E-4 0.545 0.06 
tsw32 6.28E-16 6.35E-5 0.279 2.83E-11 1.21E-3 0.603 0.23 
tsw33 1.82E-17 2.44E-5 0.248 3.07E-11 1.36E-3 0.600 0.23 
tsw34 3.50E-19 3.54E-6 0.309 1.35E-11 2.48E-4 0.515 0.23 
NOTE: These data have been dveloped as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.006 
Table II-5. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, lower-bound infiltration scenario, used for 
simulations with perched water conceptual model #1 (flow-through) for the lower-bound infiltration 
scenarios of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates (Cont.) 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.005

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-9 March 2000 
tsw35 1.27E-17 7.57E-6 0.187 3.58E-11 6.26E-4 0.612 0.23 
tsw36 1.19E-18 3.74E-6 0.328 5.57E-11 4.90E-4 0.540 0.23 
tsw37 5.63E-19 3.28E-6 0.423 5.57E-11 4.90E-4 0.540 0.23 
tsw38 1.44E-18 3.72E-6 0.291 5.65E-13 4.00E-4 0.603 0.23 
tsw39 1.09E-17 2.37E-5 0.321 3.12E-13 6.43E-4 0.605 0.23 
ch1z 2.75E-20 7.26E-7 0.304 2.75E-20 7.26E-7 0.304 0.00 
ch1v 2.05E-14 9.86E-6 0.402 9.03E-13 1.43E-3 0.658 0.12 
ch2v 3.17E-13 1.91E-5 0.326 1.94E-13 6.84E-4 0.544 0.12 
ch3v 3.17E-13 1.91E-5 0.326 1.94E-13 6.84E-4 0.544 0.12 
ch4v 3.17E-13 1.91E-5 0.326 1.94E-13 6.84E-4 0.544 0.12 
ch5v 3.17E-13 1.91E-5 0.326 1.94E-13 6.84E-4 0.544 0.12 
ch2z 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 0.00 
ch3z 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 0.00 
ch4z 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 0.00 
ch5z 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 6.28E-18 2.44E-6 0.135 0.00 
ch6 8.20E-20 5.06E-7 0.445 8.20E-20 5.06E-7 0.445 0.00 
pp4 2.05E-18 1.83E-7 0.653 2.05E-18 1.83E-7 0.653 0.00 
pp3 1.91E-14 1.53E-5 0.355 2.23E-12 5.93E-4 0.699 0.43 
pp2 1.08E-16 2.08E-6 0.399 1.42E-13 7.62E-4 0.608 0.43 
pp1 6.52E-17 9.40E-7 0.392 6.52E-17 9.40E-7 0.392 0.00 
bf3 9.47E-15 3.75E-6 0.509 3.43E-13 7.60E-4 0.611 0.43 
bf2 1.27E-17 1.38E-7 0.568 1.27E-17 1.38E-7 0.568 0.00 
pcM38/ 
pcF38 
3.00E-19 3.72E-6 0.291 3.00E-19 3.72E-6 0.291 0.00 
pcM39/ 
pcF39 
6.20E-18 2.37E-5 0.321 6.20E-18 2.37E-5 0.321 0.00 
Table II-6. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, lower-bound infiltration scenario, used for 
simulations with perched water conceptual model #2 (by-passing) for the lower-bound infiltration scenarios 
of the present-day, Monsoon and Glacial transition climates (Cont.) 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
NOTE: These data have been dveloped as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.006

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-10 March 2000 
Table II-7. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, mean infiltration scenario, used for simulations with 
perched water conceptual model #3 (non-perching) for the mean infiltration scenarios of the present-day, 
Monsoon and Glacial transition climates 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
tcw11 3.86E-15 4.00E-5 0.470 2.41E-12 3.15E-3 0.627 0.30 
tcw12 2.74E-19 1.81E-5 0.241 1.00E-10 2.13E-3 0.613 0.30 
tcw13 9.23E-17 3.44E-6 0.398 5.42E-12 1.26E-3 0.607 0.30 
ptn21 9.90E-13 1.01E-5 0.176 1.86E-12 1.68E-3 0.580 0.09 
ptn22 2.65E-12 1.60E-4 0.326 2.00E-11 7.68E-4 0.580 0.09 
ptn23 1.23E-13 5.58E-6 0.397 2.60E-13 9.23E-4 0.610 0.09 
ptn24 7.86E-14 1.53E-4 0.225 4.67E-13 3.37E-3 0.623 0.09 
ptn25 7.00E-14 5.27E-5 0.323 7.03E-13 6.33E-4 0.644 0.09 
ptn26 2.21E-13 2.49E-4 0.285 4.44E-13 2.79E-4 0.552 0.09 
tsw31 6.32E-17 3.61E-5 0.303 3.21E-11 2.49E-4 0.566 0.06 
tsw32 5.83E-16 3.61E-5 0.333 3.56E-11 1.27E-3 0.608 0.41 
tsw33 3.08E-17 2.13E-5 0.298 3.86E-11 1.46E-3 0.608 0.41 
tsw34 4.07E-18 3.86E-6 0.291 1.70E-11 5.16E-4 0.608 0.41 
tsw35 3.04E-17 6.44E-6 0.236 4.51E-11 7.39E-4 0.611 0.41 
tsw36 5.71E-18 3.55E-6 0.380 7.01E-11 7.84E-4 0.610 0.41 
tsw37 4.49E-18 5.33E-6 0.425 7.01E-11 7.84E-4 0.610 0.41 
tsw38 4.53E-18 6.94E-6 0.324 5.92E-13 4.87E-4 0.612 0.41 
tsw39 5.46E-17 2.29E-5 0.380 4.57E-13 9.63E-4 0.634 0.41 
ch1z 1.96E-19 2.68E-7 0.316 3.40E-13 1.43E-3 0.631 0.10 
ch1v 9.90E-13 1.43E-5 0.350 1.84E-12 1.09E-3 0.624 0.13 
ch2v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch3v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch4v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch5v 9.27E-14 5.13E-5 0.299 2.89E-13 5.18E-4 0.628 0.13 
ch2z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 3.12E-14 4.88E-4 0.598 0.10 
ch3z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 3.12E-14 4.88E-4 0.598 0.10 
ch4z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 3.12E-14 4.88E-4 0.598 0.10 
ch5z 6.07E-18 3.47E-6 0.244 3.12E-14 4.88E-4 0.598 0.10 
ch6 4.23E-19 3.38E-7 0.510 1.67E-14 7.49E-4 0.604 0.10 
pp4 4.28E-18 1.51E-7 0.676 3.84E-14 5.72E-4 0.627 0.10 
pp3 2.56E-14 2.60E-5 0.363 7.60E-12 8.73E-4 0.655 0.46 
pp2 1.57E-16 2.67E-6 0.369 1.38E-13 1.21E-3 0.606 0.46 
pp1 6.40E-17 1.14E-6 0.409 1.12E-13 5.33E-4 0.622 0.10 
bf3 2.34E-14 4.48E-6 0.481 4.08E-13 9.95E-4 0.624 0.46 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.007

Title: UZ Flow Models and Submodels U0050 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV00 Attachment II-11 March 2000 
bf2 2.51E-17 1.54E-7 0.569 1.30E-14 5.42E-4 0.608 0.10 
Table II-7. Calibrated parameters for the present-day, mean infiltration scenario, used for simulations with 
perched water conceptual model #3 (non-perching) for the mean infiltration scenarios of the present-day, 
Monsoon and Glacial transition climates (Cont.) 
Model 
Layer 
kM 
(m2) 
aM 
(1/Pa) 
mM 
(-) 
kF 
(m2) 
aF 
(1/Pa) 
mF 
(-) 
. 
(-) 
NOTE: These data have been developed as documented in this AMR and submitted under 
DTN: LB991121233129.007

ATTACHMENT III 
SOFTWARE ROUTINES