In Situ Field Testing of Processes REV 03, ICN 00
 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005

November 2004
 
1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this scientific analysis report is to update and document the data and subsequent 
analyses from ambient field-testing activities performed in underground drifts and surface-based 
boreholes through unsaturated zone (UZ) tuff rock units. In situ testing, monitoring, and 
associated laboratory studies are conducted to directly assess and evaluate the waste 
emplacement environment and the natural barriers to radionuclide transport at Yucca Mountain. 
This scientific analysis report supports and provides data to UZ flow and transport model reports, 
which in turn contribute to the Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) of Yucca 
Mountain, an important document for the license application (LA). The objectives of ambient 
field-testing activities are described in Section 1.1. 
This report is the third revision (REV 03), which supercedes REV 02. The scientific analysis of 
data for inputs to model calibration and validation as documented in REV 02 were developed in 
accordance with the Technical Work Plan (TWP) Technical Work Plan for: Performance 
Assessment Unsaturated Zone (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]). This revision was developed in 
accordance with the Technical Work Plan for: Unsaturated Zone Flow Analysis and Model 
Report Integration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 1.2.4) for better integrated, consistent, 
transparent, traceable, and more complete documentation in this scientific analysis report and 
associated UZ flow and transport model reports. No additional testing or analyses were 
performed as part of this revision. The list of relevant acceptance criteria is provided by 
Technical Work Plan for: Unsaturated Zone Flow Analysis and Model Report Integration 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654]), Table 3-1. Additional deviations from the TWP regarding the 
features, events, and processes (FEPs) list are discussed in Section 1.3. 
Documentation in this report includes descriptions of how, and under what conditions, the tests 
were conducted. The descriptions and analyses provide data useful for refining and confirming 
the understanding of flow, drift seepage, and transport processes in the UZ. The UZ testing 
activities included measurement of permeability distribution, quantification of the seepage of 
water into the drifts, evaluation of fracture-matrix interaction, study of flow along faults, testing 
of flow and transport between drifts, characterization of hydrologic heterogeneity along drifts, 
estimation of drying effects on the rock surrounding the drifts due to ventilation, monitoring of 
moisture conditions in open and sealed drifts, and determination of the degree of minimum 
construction water migration below drift. These field tests were conducted in two underground 
drifts at Yucca Mountain, the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) drift, and the cross-drift for 
Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB), as described in Section 1.2. 
Samples collected in boreholes and underground drifts have been used for additional 
hydrochemical and isotopic analyses for additional understanding of the UZ setting. The UZ 
transport tests conducted at the nearby Busted Butte site (see Figure 1-4) are also described in 
this scientific analysis report. 
In general, the results discussed in this report are from studies conducted using one or a 
combination of the following three testing approaches: (1) air-injection tests, (2) liquid-release 
tests, and (3) moisture monitoring. The air-injection tests quantify the spatial variability 
(heterogeneity) of permeability. The liquid-release tests provide an evaluation of in situ fracture 
flow and the competing processes of matrix imbibition. In addition to active testing, sensors in 
boreholes and along drifts are used to monitor the in situ and perturbed conditions, evaluating the 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-2 November 2004 
impact of excavation, ventilation, and construction-water usage on the surrounding rocks. The 
field studies are supplemented by laboratory testing. Table 1-1 summarizes common testing 
approaches used in different (main) testing activities. The testing activities are analyzed in 
Section 6. Table 1-1 provides cross-referencing for comparisons of the same types of data from 
various tests. 
Table 1-1. Approaches and Main Activities in In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
Testing Approaches Testing Activities 
Air injection tests along boreholes Air-permeability distributions and excavation-induced 
enhancements (Section 6.1) 
Cross-hole connectivity (Section 6.5) 
Systematic hydrologic characterization (Section 6.11) 
Liquid release tests from borehole intervals Seepage into drift (Section 6.2) 
Tracer-migration delineation (Section 6.3) 
Fracture-matrix interaction (Section 6.6) 
Fault and matrix flow (Section 6.7) 
Systematic hydrologic characterization (Section 6.11) 
Drift-to-drift flow and transport (Section 6.12) 
Busted Butte transport test (Section 6.13) 
Moisture monitoring (relative humidity, 
temperature) and evaporation measurements 
Seepage into drift (Section 6.2) 
Moisture monitoring and bulkhead study (Section 6.10) 
Systematic hydrologic characterization (Section 6.11) 
Wetting front monitoring and potential 
measurements 
Fracture-matrix interaction (Section 6.6) 
Fault and matrix flow (Section 6.7) 
Construction water migration (Section 6.9) 
Drift-to-drift flow and transport (Section 6.12) 
Laboratory hydrological measurements of rock 
and water samples 
Tracer penetration and water imbibition (Section 6.4) 
Systematic hydrologic characterization (Section 6.11) 
Busted Butte transport test (Section 6.13) 
Laboratory hydrochemical measurements of 
rock and water samples 
Tracer-migration delineation (Section 6.3) 
Tracer penetration and water imbibition (Section 6.4) 
Fracture-matrix interaction (Section 6.6) 
Construction water migration (Section 6.9) 
Moisture monitoring and bulkhead study (Section 6.10) 
Busted Butte transport test (Section 6.13) 
Geochemical and isotopic observations (Section 6.14) 
Laboratory isotopic measurements of rock and 
water samples 
Moisture monitoring and bulkhead study (Section 6.10) 
Geochemical and isotopic observations (Section 6.14) 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-3 November 2004 
This scientific analysis report focuses on the results of the tests. For information as documented 
in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]), the overall planning documents for field tests and data 
collection include the following field work packages (FWPs): 
 Moisture Studies in the ESF (YMP 2002 [DIRS 160262]), FWP-ESF-96-004 
 UZ Transport Test at Busted Butte (YMP 2001 [DIRS 171430]), FWP-ESF-97-002 
 Field Test Data Collection System (YMP 2000 [DIRS 161209]), FWP-ESF-96-001. 
The specific site investigation test plans (SITPs) include: 
 Moisture Monitoring in the ECRB Bulkhead Cross-Drift (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158187]), 
SITP-02-UZ-001 
 Niche 5 Seepage Testing (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200]), SITP-02-UZ-002 
 Alcove 8 Flow and Seepage Testing (BSC 2002 [DIRS 157606]), SITP-02-UZ-003 
 Systematic Hydrological Characterization (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158202]), 
SITP-02-UZ-004 
 36Cl Validation (USGS 2002 [DIRS 158196]), SITP-02-UZ-005 
 Busted Butte Transport Testing (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158459]), SITP-02-UZ-006, 
 UZ Hydrochemistry Investigations (USGS 2002 [DIRS 158194]), SITP-02-UZ-007 
 Moisture Monitoring Investigations and Alcove 7 Studies (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158189]), 
SITP-02-UZ-010. 
The tests are used to enhance understanding of UZ flow, seepage, and transport processes. The 
observations and measurements in underground drifts contribute to characterization of 
hydrologic and geochemical features. The support provided (by this report) to the discussion of 
features, events and processes (FEPs) is summarized in Section 1.3, and discussed in detail in 
Section 6. The data collected in UZ tests contribute to model verification and validation. 
The following reports provide indirect input to this report: 
 Yucca Mountain Site Description (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734]) 
 Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170029]). 
The following analysis and model reports use the data collected by ambient field-testing 
activities summarized in this report (either by direct citation or by use of an output DTN): 
 Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data 
 In-Drift Natural Convection and Condensation 
 Conceptual Model and Numerical Approaches for UZ Flow and Transport 
 Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM) 
 Analysis of Hydrogeologic Properties Data 
 Calibrated Properties Model 
 Abstraction of Drift Seepage 
 Radionuclide Transport Models under Ambient Conditions 
 Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and TH Seepage) Models 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-4 November 2004 
 Drift Scale THM Model 
 Features, Events, and Processes in UZ Flow and Transport. 
The interrelationships of this scientific analysis report with specific model reports beyond direct 
use of the data are discussed in Section 6 and summarized in Section 7. The output data from 
this scientific analysis report are also described in Section 7. 
1.1 OBJECTIVES AND PROCESSES ANALYZED BY THE AMBIENT FIELD 
TESTING ACTIVITIES 
The field-test findings and their implications for drift seepage, fracture flow, matrix imbibition, 
moisture evolution, and radionuclide transport can be used to address performance assessment 
(PA) uncertainties and repository design issues. The UZ site-scale models and the drift-scale 
models require field data for partitioning UZ flux into a fast fracture-flow component and a slow 
matrix-flow component. This partitioning is controlled by fracture-matrix interaction. The 
damping of infiltration pulses and diversion by the Paintbrush nonwelded tuff unit (PTn) above 
the Topopah Spring welded hydrogeologic unit (TSw) are potential mechanisms for infiltration 
and percolation flux redistribution. In the vicinity of the repository, perturbations by drift 
excavation, air ventilation, and water usage can change the hydrologic regime in the UZ. 
Retardation by sorption on the rock matrix and dispersion through fractures are processes 
affecting the migration of tracers and the dilution of radionuclides in the UZ below the drifts. 
Some of these processes and related uncertainties, issues, and concerns are addressed by the 
ambient testing program at underground test sites at Yucca Mountain, and are documented in 
Section 6. The data uncertainties are integral parts of overall uncertainties in the understanding 
of processes and in constraining model assessments. Variabilities and uncertainties in both field 
and laboratory data are presented for cases with sufficient data to be amenable for statistical 
analyses. 
1.2 LOCATIONS OF TEST SITES 
The repository will be located in the TSw upper lithophysal (Tptpul), the middle nonlithophysal 
(Tptpmn), the lower lithophysal (Tptpll), and the lower nonlithophysal (Tptpln) units 
(stratigraphic nomenclature from Proposed Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Macroscopic 
Identification of Lithostratigraphic Units of the Paintbrush Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada) (Buesch et al. 1996 [DIRS 100106], pp. 58, Table 2)). The test sites sample all of 
these hydrogeologic units. As shown in Figure 1-1, the ESF penetrates and provides access to 
Tptpul, Tptpmn, as well as other units that overlie the repository horizon. The ECRB provides 
accesses to all four hydrogeologic units to be encountered by the repository. Approximately 
80 percent of the repository would be constructed within the Tptpll zone (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168489], Appendix H for area fractions: Tptpul: 4.5 percent, Tptpmn: 12.4 percent, 
Tptpll: 80.5 percent, Tptpln: 2.6 percent). 
Below the TSw lies the Calico Hills tuff (CHn) unit, which is not accessible by either the ESF 
main drift or the ECRB cross-drift. The CHn unit is exposed at Busted Butte, 8 km southeast of 
the repository area. This Busted Butte outcrop is the site of the Unsaturated Zone Transport Test 
(UZTT), which is described in Section 6.13. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-5 November 2004 
Figure 1-2 illustrates the locations of four alcoves (Alcoves 1, 2, 3, and 4) along the north ramp, 
and three alcoves (Alcoves 5, 6, and 7) and four niches (Niches 3107, 3566, 3650, and 4788) 
along the main drift of the ESF. The numerical identification for each niche denotes the 
distance, in meters, from the North Portal. These niches are also referred to as Niches 1, 2, 3, 
and 4, in accordance to the time sequence of excavation (so that Niche 1 = Niche 3566, 
Niche 2 = Niche 3650, Niche 3 = Niche 3107, and Niche 4 = Niche 4788, along the ESF main 
drift). The ECRB cross-drift branches out from the ESF north ramp, crosses over the main drift 
near Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and reaches the western boundary of the repository block, as 
illustrated in Figure 1-3. 
Many emplacement drifts will be in the lower tuff units. The lower units Tptpll and Tptpln have 
hydrologic characteristics different from Tptpmn, with spatially variable lithophysal cavity and 
fracture densities affecting the amount of seepage and fracture-matrix flow partition. A 
systematic study with transient air injection and pulse liquid release along four boreholes drilled 
into the crown of the ECRB cross-drift has been conducted to evaluate spatial heterogeneity 
effects. One alcove (Alcove 8) in Tptpul and one niche (Niche CD 1620 or Niche 5, with CD 
denoting ECRB cross-drift) in Tptpll have been excavated in the ECRB cross-drift. Note that 
Alcove 8 in the ECRB cross-drift (illustrated in Figure 1-1) is located directly 
(approximately 20 m) above Niche 3 (Niche 3107) in the ESF main drift (illustrated in 
Figure 1-2). 
The ECRB cross-drift penetrates the Yucca Mountain block and crosses the Solitario Canyon 
fault. The ECRB cross-drift has four bulkheads, as illustrated in Figure 1-1, to hydrologically 
isolate particular sections of the cross-drift, such as the section that contains the fault. Figure 1-4 
provides a panoramic view of the Yucca Mountain ridge, with Solitario Canyon in the 
foreground and Busted Butte in the background to the southeast of the repository block. 
Table 1-2 summarizes the testing activities at different test sites with various measurements. The 
details of testing techniques are described in Section 6. Table 1-2 is for cross-referencing of 
similar testing approaches applied to different sites and different sections of this document. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-6 November 2004 
Table 1-2. Underground Tests at Different Locations 
Section(s) of this Report 
Niche Drift 
Alcove 3566 3650 3107 4788 CD 1620 ESF 
Testing 
Activity 
Described in 
Indicated 
Section(s) of 
this Report 1 4 6 7 8 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 
North 
Ramp 
Main 
Drift 
South 
Ramp ECRB 
Busted 
Butte 
Air 
Permeability 6.12.5 6.5.2 6.5.2 
6.6.1 6.1.2 6.1.2 6.1.2 6.1.2 6.1.2 
6.5.2 6.1.2    6.11.2 6.13.5 
Liquid 
Observation      6.2.1        6.10.2  
Dyed Flow 
Path      6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1      6.13.2 
Seepage 
Threshold 6.12.5      6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1    6.11.2  
Liquid Release 6.12.5 6.7.2 6.6.2  6.12.2  6.2.1 
6.3 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1    6.11.2 6.13.3 
Evaporation 
Measurement        6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1    6.11.2  
Wetting 
Front/Potential  6.7.2 6.6.2   6.8  6.12.2   6.10.1 6.9.2 6.10.1 6.9.2 
6.10.1  
Moisture 
Monitoring      6.10.1  6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.10.1 6.10.1 6.10.1 6.10.2  
Geophysical 
Tomography     6.12.3.   6.12.3       6.13.4 
Lab Hydrology   6.10.1 6.10.1  6.10.1 6.4 
6.10.1 6.4.1     6.10.1 
6.11.3 6.13 
Tracer 
Analysis       6.3 
6.4 6.12.2 6.4      6.13 
Geochemistry   6.14.2 6.14.2       6.14 6.10.1 
6.14 
6.10.1 
6.14 
6.10 
6.14  
Isotopic 
Analysis   6.14.2 6.14.2  6.14.2     6.14 6.14 6.14 6.10.3 
6.14  

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-7 November 2004 
NOTE: The vertical cross section in Panel b of Figure 1-1 is along the ECRB cross-drift in nominally the northeast to 
southwest direction. 
Figure 1-1. Schematic Illustration of Spatial Distribution of Hydrogeologic Units Intersected by the 
Repository Horizon (Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-8 November 2004 
Alluvium 
Tiva 
Canyon 
Tuff 
Yucca 
Mtn 
Tuff 
Topopah 
Spring 
Tuff 
10+00 
0+00 
30+00 
40+00 
78+77 
45+00 
Nevada Northing (m) 
Nevada Easting (m) 
171000 172000 173000 174000 
20+00 
Drill Hole Wash Fault 
Bow Ridge Fault 
235000 
234000 
233000 
232000 
231000 
230000 
Ghost Dance Fault 
50+00 
55+00 
60+00 
Thermal 
Testing 
Alcove 5 
(2827 m) 
Pah 
Canyon 
Tuff 
Alcove 4 
(1027.8 m) 
Alcoves 1&2 
(42.5, 168.2 m) 
Alcove 3 
(754 m) 
70+00 
Niche 3566 
(Niche 1) and 
Niche 3650 
(Niche 2) 
Alcove 6 
(3737 m) 
Alcove 7 
(5064 m) 
35+00 Sundance Fault 
Niches 3107 
(Niche 3) 
Niche 4788 
(Niche 4) 
Figure 1-2. Schematic Illustration of Alcove and Niche Locations in the Exploratory Studies Facility at 
Yucca Mountain 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-9 November 2004 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
	 ! 
 
"# 
$% 
 
!  
& 
 
 
	 ! 
 
'&& 
	 ! 

$& 
 
 

( 

) 

 
*+, 

$  & 
*" 
   - 
 
 
	 

 
 
 
	 

 
 	  

 	   
 
	  

 
	   
 
	  
NOTE: The ECRB cross-drift branches out from the north ramp of the ESF, crosses over the main drift, and 
accesses the western fault boundary of the repository block at Yucca Mountain. Alcoves and niches are 
illustrated in Figure 1-2 for the ESF and in Figure 1-1 for the ECRB cross-drift. 
Figure 1-3. Schematic Illustration of the ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-10 November 2004 
Figure 1-4. Photo of Yucca Mountain Ridge and Busted Butte, Taken from the Northwest across the 
Solitario Canyon Fault 
1.3 SUPPORT TO FEP ANALYSIS AND TECHNICAL ISSUE RESOLUTION 
This scientific analysis report provides summaries of data, part of which are used in modeling 
and abstraction reports (as listed in Section 7), and to support the FEPs analysis. Table 1-3 
contains a list of selected FEPs taken from the LA FEP List (DTN: MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 
[DIRS 170760]) that are associated with the subject matter of this report. This list deviates from 
the list in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Table 2.1.5-1) as follows: FEP 2.2.07.15.0B is 
an excluded FEP and thus is not discussed in Table 1-3; FEPs 1.2.02.02.0A, 2.2.08.01.0B, 
2.2.08.08.0B, 2.2.08.09.0B, 2.2.08.10.0B, and 2.2.09.01.0B are not discussed in Table 1-3 
because they do not directly impact the TSPA-LA treatment (i.e., they are included through other 
analysis or model reports). FEP 2.2.07.02.0A is included in Table 1-3 because the data presented 
in this analysis report impact the TSPA-LA treatment of this FEP. 
This analysis report provides part of the basis for the treatment of FEPs as discussed in the report 
Features, Events, and Processes in UZ Flow and Transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170012]). The 
UZ FEP report, together with other UZ model reports listed in Section 1, are downstream reports 
of this scientific analysis report. These downstream reports (rather than this report itself) provide 
direct inputs to address issues discussed in Total System Performance AssessmentLicense 
Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2002 [DIRS 160146], Section 3.2.2). The 
cross-reference for each FEP to the relevant sections of this report, is given in Table 1-3. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-11 November 2004 
Table 1-3. Features, Events, and Processes Addressed in this Scientific Analysis Report 
LA FEP Number FEP Name Relevant Section(s) of This Report 
1.2.02.01.0A Fractures Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, and 6.9 
2.2.01.01.0A Mechanical effects of 
excavation/construction in the near field Section 6.1 
2.2.07.02.0A Unsaturated groundwater flow in the 
geosphere Sections 6.1 and 6.2 
2.2.07.08.0A Fracture flow in the UZ Sections 6.2, 6.6, and 6.9 
2.2.07.09.0A Matrix imbibition in the UZ Sections 6.4 and 6.7 
2.2.07.18.0A Film flow into the repository Section 6.2 
2.2.07.20.0A Flow diversion around repository drifts Sections 6.2 and 6.11.3 
2.3.11.03.0A Infiltration and recharge Section 6.12 
NOTES: FEP = feature, event, and process; LA = license application; UZ = unsaturated zone. 
This scientific analysis report also supports the resolutions of Key Technical Issues, including: 
ECRB moisture monitoring (Section 6.10); Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) testing 
(Section 6.11); flow through the Calico Hills nonwelded vitric (Section 6.13); and analogue 
radionuclide data from test blocks at Busted Butte (Section 6.13). 
1.4 CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS 
The field-testing activities and the associated analyses are subject to the constraints and 
limitations of spatial locations and temporal durations for tests conducted in the underground 
drifts. One niche, Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), has been excavated in the Tptpll unit. Most of the 
other existing testing alcoves and niches in the ESF (shown in Figure 1-2) are located at or above 
the horizon of the Tptpmn unit. Test results and analyses from these sites provide data for the 
upper and middle tuff units. Some of the active flow tests were conducted within a few hours to 
a few days of each other because of limited accessibility to the test beds in the evenings and on 
weekends. Depending on system characteristics, the establishment of steady-state conditions can 
require longer tests. Some tests used automatic data acquisition systems for long-term 
monitoring and liquid releases, subject to power interruptions and equipment malfunctions. 
These constraints and limitations are addressed in the analyses of Section 6, if applicable. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-12 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 2-1 November 2004 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
Development of this scientific analysis report has been determined to be subject to the Yucca 
Mountain Project quality assurance (QA) program as indicated in the Technical Work Plan 
for: Unsaturated Zone Flow Analysis and Model Report Integration, (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169654], Section 8.1). Approved QA procedures identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169654], Section 4) have been used to conduct and document the activities described in 
this scientific analysis report. The governing procedure for the documentation of this report is 
AP-SIII.9Q, Analyses. The TWP also identifies the methods used to control the electronic 
management of data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 8.4) during the analysis and 
documentation activities. 
This scientific analysis report provides data for UZ flow, drift seepage, and UZ transport in 
natural barriers that are classified in the Q-list (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361]) as Safety Category 
because they are important to waste isolation, as defined in AP-2.22Q, Classification Analyses 
and Maintenance of the Q-List. The report contributes to the analyses and modeling data used to 
support PA. The conclusions of this scientific analysis report do not affect the repository design 
or engineered features important to safety, as defined in AP-2.22Q. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 2-2 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 3-1 November 2004 
3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
The software used in this study is listed in Table 3-1. The qualified software was obtained from 
Software Configuration Management (SCM), is appropriate for its intended use, and is used only 
within the range of validation. 
For data collection, only acquired software embedded as an integral part of the Measuring and 
Test Equipment (M&TE) was utilized. The M&TE software was controlled by AP-12.1Q, 
Control of Measuring and Test Equipment and Calibration Standards. Software developed or 
modified for data collection is discussed in the data document associated with each DTN and 
associated software management reports; the description and use of M&TE software is not 
within the scope of this scientific analysis report. 
Table 3-1. Software and Routines 
Software Name and 
Version 
Software Tracking 
Number (STN) 
DIRS Reference 
Number 
Platform and 
Operating System 
ECRB-XYZ V.03 30093-V.03 147402 PC, Windows 98 
The software program ECRB-XYZ V.03 (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 147402]) calculates the 
coordinates of a given ECRB station number; no other software or calculation method was 
considered because no software alternative is available for this project-specific task. No models 
were used for the analyses performed in this scientific analysis report. 
Microsoft Excel 97, Microsoft Excel Version 7, Microsoft Excel 2002, EARTHVISION V4.0, 
CorelDRAW v11.633, Adobe Illustrator 10.0.3, Igor Pr 4.08, Photoshop 7.0.1, MacGPS 
Pro 4.0.3, DataDesk 6.2, and NOeSYS 2.0 were used for visual display or graphic representation 
of data. Simple calculations (such as the evaluation of mean and standard deviations) are 
documented in Appendix I of this scientific analysis report. The graphic software is exempt 
from software qualification per LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 3-2 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-1 November 2004 
4. INPUTS 
Field data collected from underground drifts that characterize ambient and in situ field-testing 
conditions include the following: 
 Pneumatic pressure and air-permeability data (pre- and post-excavation) for ESF niches 
 Pneumatic pressure and air-permeability data from Alcove 4, Alcove 6, and Alcove 8 
 Seepage and liquid-release data 
 Laboratory dye measurements and sorptivity data 
 Water-potential data and electrical resistivity probe data from drift walls and boreholes 
 In-drift relative humidity and temperature data (under both ventilated and nonventilated 
conditions) 
 Chemical analysis data 
 Geologic mapping data 
 UZ transport testing data from Busted Butte 
 Geochemical data and isotope data from underground drifts and boreholes. 
The properties resulting from the analyses of the above field data include air-permeability 
distributions, fracture network connectivity, fracture flow-path distributions, seepage 
percentages, seepage thresholds, fracture characteristic curves, formation intake rates, 
wetting-front travel times, fracture porosities, fracture volumes, fracture flow fractions, tracer 
distributions, matrix imbibitions, retardation factors, fault and matrix flow rates, water-potential 
distributions, construction-water migration times, relative humidities, moisture conditions, and 
hydrochemical distributions. 
4.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT INPUTS 
The Q-status of all inputs and a description of the data are shown in the Technical Data 
Management System (TDMS). The direct inputs to the scientific analysis report were obtained 
from the TDMS. The input data used in this scientific analysis report are summarized in tables, 
which are organized to correspond to equivalent subsections in Section 6. 
Because one of the main objectives of this scientific analysis report is to document the data, both 
direct inputs and corroborating data are summarized together in this section, using separate tables 
to clearly distinguish different categories. Direct inputs are key data collected, interpreted, 
illustrated, or tabulated in this scientific analysis report. All other Data Tracking Numbers 
(DTNs) identified for corroborative data are tabulated in tables without the direct input 
designation. Where tables that are divided into Part a, Part b, and Part c, Part a is for direct input 
data, and Parts b and c contain corroborative data. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-2 November 2004 
With the focus of this scientific analysis on the ambient field-testing activities performed in 
underground drifts through UZ tuff rock units (Section 1), some data collected from monitoring 
activities, data from surface-based field activities, and data from laboratory testing activities are 
not included in the direct input tables. These data are potentially important for downstream 
users for different modeling purposes. The downstream users can make different category 
selections based on different criteria. If corroborative data are not presented immediately 
following the direct input data, they are less informative than presentation of the inputs in 
separated sections. 
The direct inputs are presented in the following sections and tables: 
 Section 4.1.1.1, Table 4-1a on Data Used to Illustrate Air-Permeability Distributions and 
Excavation-Induced Enhancements 
 Section 4.1.2.1, Table 4-2a on Data Used to Illustrate Niche Liquid-Release and 
Seepage-Test Results 
 Section 4.1.3, Table 4-3 on Data Used to Illustrate Tracer-Migration Delineation at 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 3650) 
 Section 4.1.4, Table 4-4 on Data Used to Illustrate Tracer Penetration and Water 
Imbibition into Welded Tuff Matrix 
 Section 4.1.5, Table 4-5 on Data Used to Illustrate Crosshole Analysis of Air-Injection 
Tests 
 Section 4.1.6, Table 4-6 on Data Used to Illustrate Fracture Flow in Fracture-Matrix 
Test Bed at Alcove 6 
 Section 4.1.7.1, Table 4-7a on Data Used to Illustrate Flow through the Fault and Matrix 
in the Test Bed at Alcove 4 
 Section 4.1.8, Table 4-8 on Data Used to Compile Water-Potential Measurements in 
Niches 
 Section 4.1.9, Table 4-9 on Data Used to Illustrate Observations of Construction-Water 
Migration 
 Section 4.1.10.1, Table 4-10a on Data Used to Illustrate Moisture Monitoring and Water 
Analysis in Underground Drifts 
 Section 4.1.11.1, Table 4-11a on Data Used to Illustrate Systematic Hydrological 
Characterization Results 
 Section 4.1.12.1, Table 4-12a on Data Used to Illustrate Flow and Transport Test Results 
at Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) 
 Section 4.1.13.1, Table 4-13a on Data Used to Illustrate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone 
Transport Test Results 
 Section 4.1.14.1, Table 4-14a on Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-3 November 2004 
Other associated data are summarized within additional tables of this report. 
The uncertainties related to input data and parameters are presented in Section 6 of this scientific 
analysis report. 
4.1.1 Data of Air-Permeability Distributions and Excavation-Induced Enhancements 
4.1.1.1 Data Used to Illustrate Air-Permeability Distributions and Excavation-Induced 
Enhancements (Direct Input) 
Table 4-1a. Data Used to Illustrate Air-Permeability Distributions and Excavation-Induced Enhancements 
(Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
LB0011AIRKTEST.001a 
[DIRS 153155] 
I3 6-8 
6-9 
6-10 
6-11 
6-2 
6-6 
I-1 
Air-permeability measurements in Niche 1 
(Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) of the 
ESF. 
LB980901233124.101 
[DIRS 136593] 
 6-12 
6-13 
6-14 
6-15 
6-2 
6-6 
Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data 
from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) in the ESF (pre-excavation). 
LB990601233124.001a 
[DIRS 105888] 
 6-12 
6-14 
6-2 
6-6 
Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data 
from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) in the ESF (post-excavation). 
LB980912332245.001 
[DIRS 110828] 
 6-6 Air-injection data from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) of 
the ESF (radial boreholes). 
LB0012AIRKTEST.001a 
[DIRS 154586] 
 6-16 6-3 
6-6 
Air-permeability testing in Niche 5 (Niche CD 
1620 upper boreholes, pre-excavation). 
LB0110AKN5POST.001a 
[DIRS 156904] 
 6-16 6-3 
6-6 
Air-permeability measurement in Niche 5 
(Niche CD 1620 upper boreholes, 
post-excavation). 
LB002181233124.001a 
[DIRS 146878] 
 6-17 6-4 
6-6 
Air-permeability and pneumatic-pressure data 
collected from Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620 side 
boreholes, pre-excavation). 
LB0110AK23POST.001a 
[DIRS 156905] 
 6-17 6-4 
6-6 
Air-permeability measurement in Niche 5 
(Niche CD 1620 side boreholes, 
post-excavation). 
LB980901233124.009 
[DIRS 105856] 
  6-6 Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data 
from Alcove 4 in the ESF. 
LB980901233124.004 
[DIRS 105855] 
  6-6 Pneumatic pressure and air-permeability data 
from Alcove 6 in the ESF. 
LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 
[DIRS 164748] 
 6-18 6-5 
6-6 
Air-permeability data from Alcove 8. 
a Input DTN used to generate Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. 
ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-4 November 2004 
4.1.1.2 Data Used to Corroborate Analysis of Air-Permeability Distributions and 
Excavation-Induced Enhancements (For Reference) 
Table 4-1b. Data Used to Corroborate Analysis of Air-Permeability Distributions and 
Excavation-Induced Enhancements (For Reference) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure Table Description 
MO0008GSC00269.000 
[DIRS 166198] 
6.1.1.2   As-built ECRB Alcove 8, construction observation 
alcove boreholes (#1 through 7). 
LB990901233124.004 a 
[DIRS 123273], Data 
Table S00017_002 
  6-6 Statistical analyses of air-permeability data from Niche 2 
(Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 
(Niche 4788), as well as Alcove 4 and Alcove 6. 
a Other data tables also used as input in Section 6.5 on crosshole connectivity as shown in Table 4-5. 
ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block. 
4.1.2 Data of Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage-Test Results 
4.1.2.1 Data Used to Illustrate Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage-Test Results 
(Direct Input) 
Table 4-2a. Data Used to Illustrate Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage-Test Results (Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
LB980001233124.004 a 
[DIRS 136583] 
6.2.1.1 
6.2.1.2, 
6.2.1.3.1 
6.2.2.1 
6.2.2.3 
6.2.2.4 
D2 
D3.2 
6-25 
6-48 
6-11 
B-1 
B-4 
D-1 
Liquid-release test data from Niche 1 
(Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) of 
the ESF. 
LB980901233124.003 a 
[DIRS 105592] 
6.2.1.1 
6.2.1.2 
D2 
D3.2 
6-25 
6-47 
6-48 
6-49 
6-50 
D-1 
6-8 
6-9 
6-10 
6-11 
B-1 
B-4 
B-5 
B-7 
B-8 
D-1 
Liquid-release and tracer tests in Niche 
36501 (Niche 3650), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 (Niche 
4788) in the ESF, as well as fracture flow 
and seepage testing in the ESF. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-5 November 2004 
Table 4-2a. Data Used to Illustrate Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage-Test Results (Direct Input) 
(Continued) 
Used in 
Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 
a b [DIRS 153145] 
6.2.1.3.3 6-28 
6-29 
6-48 
B-2 
B-3b 
B-8 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788) seepage tests 
measuring injected and captured water 
masses over time. Time spans include 
considerations for pumping time, wetting-front 
arrival time, and dripping duration. 
LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 
a [DIRS 155681] 
6.2.1.1 
6.2.1.2 
6-25 B-1 Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) seepage 
testspre-excavation. 
LB990601233124.001 
a [DIRS 105888] 
  6-9 
B-4 
Seepage data feed to UZ drift-scale flow 
model for TSPA-SR. 
LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 
[DIRS 160792] 
C4 
F1 
I6.1 
6-37 
6-38 
6-40 
6-41 
6-42 
6-43 
6-44 
6-45 
6-46 
C-1 
I-3 
Liquid-release and tracer tests in Niche 5 
(Niche CD 1620) in the ECRB. 
a Input DTN for Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. 
b Input DTN for Output DTN: LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. 
ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; 
SR = Site Recommendation; TSPA = Total System Performance Assessment; UZ = unsaturated zone. 
4.1.2.2 Data Used to Corroborate Analysis and Interpretation of Niche Liquid-Release 
and Seepage Tests (For Reference) 
Table 4-2b. Data Used to Corroborate Analysis and Interpretation of Niche Liquid-Release and 
Seepage Tests (For Reference) 
Used in Description 
Inputs Section Figure Table 
MO0107GSC01069.000 
[DIRS 156941]   B-2 ESF Niche 4 (Niche 4788) borehole as-built data. 
MO0107GSC01061.000 
[DIRS 155369] 
6.2.1.3.5.2 
C-1  As-built profile Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) bat-wing 
excavation. 
MO0312GSC03176.000 
[DIRS 169532] 6.2.1.3.5.2   ECRB Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) borehole as-built 
data. 
NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-6 November 2004 
4.1.3 Data Used to Illustrate Tracer-Migration Delineation at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
(Direct Input) 
Table 4-3. Data Used to Illustrate Tracer-Migration Delineation at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
(Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description 
LB990601233124.003 
[DIRS 106051] 
 6-52 
6-53 
6-54 
6-55 
6-56 
6-57 
6-58 
6-59 
6-12 Tracer detection data from core samples for 
tracers injected in Niche 2 (Niche 3650) in the 
ESF. 
NOTE: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 
4.1.4 Data Used to Illustrate Tracer Penetration and Water Imbibition into Welded Tuff 
Matrix (Direct Input) 
Table 4-4. Data Used to Illustrate Tracer Penetration and Water Imbibition into Welded Tuff Matrix 
(Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
LB980001233124.004 
[DIRS 136583] 
  6-13 
6-14 
Liquid-release tests in Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650). 
LB980901233124.003 
[DIRS 105592] 
  6-13 Liquid-release and tracer tests in Niche 1 
(Niche 3566), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 3 
(Niche 3107), and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) in the 
ESF. 
LB990901233124.003 
[DIRS 155690] 
6.4.1.4 6-61 
6-62 
6-63 
6-64 
E-1 
E-2 
6-14 
6-15 
Tracer lab analyses of dye penetration in Niche 
2 (Niche 3650) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) of the 
ESF. 
LB0110TUFTRACR.001 
[DIRS 156979] 
 6-65 
6-66 
 Spatial distribution of applied tracers and the 
distribution of intrinsic tuff elements profiled 
using LA-ICP-MS. 
NOTES: ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility; LA-ICP-MS=Laser Ablation Analyzed by Inductively Coupled 
Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-7 November 2004 
4.1.5 Data Used to Illustrate Crosshole Analysis of Air-Injection Tests (Direct Input) 
Table 4-5. Data Used to Illustrate Crosshole Analysis of Air-Injection Tests (Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description 
LB980901233124.004 
[DIRS 105855] 
 6-68  Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data 
from Alcove 6 in the ESF. 
LB980901233124.009 
[DIRS 105856] 
 6-71  Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data 
from Alcove 4 in the ESF. 
LB990901233124.004 
[DIRS 123273] 
 6-67 
6-69 
6-72 
6-73 
 Air-permeability crosshole connectivity in 
Alcove 6, Alcove 4, and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) of 
the ESF. 
NOTE: ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility. 
4.1.6 Data Used to Illustrate Fracture Flow in Fracture-Matrix Test Bed at Alcove 6 
(Direct Input) 
Table 4-6. Data Used to Illustrate Fracture Flow in Fracture-Matrix Test Bed at Alcove 6 (Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
LB990901233124.002 
[DIRS 146883] 
 6-75 
6-76 
6-77 
6-78 
6-79 
6-80 
6-81 
6-82 
6-16 
6-17 
Alcove 6 flow data, including electrical 
resistance, water injection, intake rate, and 
water-potential measurements. 
LB990901233124.001 
[DIRS 155694] 
 6-82  Alcove 6 tracer tests: the breakthrough of 
tracers, relating to the volume and the measured 
tracer concentration of the collected liquid at four 
collection trays in Alcove 6 experiments. 
4.1.7 Data of Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at Alcove 4 
4.1.7.1 Data Used to Illustrate Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at 
Alcove 4 (Direct Input) 
Table 4-7a. Data Used to Illustrate Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at Alcove 4 
(Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figures Table Description 
LB990901233124.005 
[DIRS 146884] 
 6-85 
6-86 
6-87 
6-88 
6-89 
6-90 
6-18 Alcove 4 flow data, including electrical resistance, 
water injection, and intake rate measurements. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-8 November 2004 
4.1.7.2 Data Used to Corroborate Analysis of Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the 
Test Bed at Alcove 4 (For Reference) 
Table 4-7b. Data Used to Corroborate Analysis of Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at 
Alcove 4 (For Reference) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure Table Description 
GS960908314224.020 
[DIRS 106059] 
6.7.1.1   Analysis report: geology of the north 
rampstations 4+00 to 28+00 data: detailed line 
survey and full-periphery geotechnical 
mapAlcoves 3 and 4, and comparative 
geological cross section-stations 0+60 to 28+00. 
4.1.8 Data Used to Compile Water-Potential Measurements in Niches (Direct Input) 
Table 4-8. Data Used to Compile Water-Potential Measurements in Niches (Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figures Tables Description 
LB0406ESFNH2OP.001 
[DIRS 171588] 
 6-94 
6-95 
G-1 
G-2 
6-19 
6-20 
6-21 
Water-potential measurements in Niche 1 
(Niche 3566), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), and Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) of the ESF. 
NOTE: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 
4.1.9 Data Used to Illustrate Observations of Construction-Water Migration 
(Direct Input) 
Table 4-9. Data Used to Illustrate Observations of Construction-Water Migration (Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figures Tables Description 
LB980901233124.014 
[DIRS 105858] 
 6-99 
6-100 
6-22 
6-23 
Borehole monitoring at the single borehole in the 
ECRB and ECRB crossover point in the ESF. 
NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-9 November 2004 
4.1.10 Data of Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis in Underground Drifts 
4.1.10.1 Data Used to Illustrate Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis in 
Underground Drifts (Direct Input) 
Table 4-10a. Data Used to Illustrate Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis in Underground Drifts 
(Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table Description 
LB990901233124.006 
[DIRS 135137] 
 6-103 
6-104 
6-24 Moisture data from the ECRB cross-drift; 
relative humidity data from various cross-drift 
stations. 
LAJF831222AQ98.007 
[DIRS 122730] 
 6-105  Chloride, bromide, and sulfate analysis of salts 
leached from ECRB-CWAT#1, #2, and #3 
drillcore. 
GS990908314224.010 
[DIRS 152631] 
 6-108  Comparative cross section along the ECRB 
cross-drift. 
GS990408314224.006 
[DIRS 108409] 
  6-25 Full periphery geological maps for Station 
20+00 to 26+81, ECRB cross-drift. 
LB0110ECRBH2OP.001 
[DIRS 156883] 
 6-109  Measurements of water potential at three 
locations between successive bulkhead doors 
in the ECRB. 
LB0307ECRBRHTB.001 
[DIRS 164843] 
6.10.2.3 6-110 
6-111 
6-112 
6-122 
6-123 
 Measurements of relative humidity, 
temperature, and barometric pressure at four 
locations between successive bulkhead doors 
in the ECRB. 
LB0301ECRBRHTB.001 
[DIRS 164605] 
6.10.2.2 
6.10.2.2.2 
6.10.2.2.3 
6-114 
6-115 
6-116 
6-117 
6-118 
6-119 
6-120 
6-121 
 Observations of entries made on 
June 23, 2001, and October 12, 2001. 
LB0110ECRBH2OA.001 
[DIRS 156886] 
 6-124 
6-125 
6-26 Anion-cation measurements for water samples 
from nonventilated sections of the ECRB. 
LB0110ECRBH2OI.001 
[DIRS 156887] 
 6-126 6-26 Deuterium and DEL O-18 measurements for 
water samples from nonventilated sections of 
the ECRB. 
NOTES: CWAT = Construction Water; ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-10 November 2004 
4.1.10.2 Data on Drift Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis (For Reference) 
Table 4-10b. Data on Drift Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis (For Reference) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure Table Description 
LB960800831224.001 
[DIRS 105793] 
6.10.1.2.1  6-24 Relative humidity, temperature, and pressure in 
ESF monitoring stations. 
LB970300831224.001 
[DIRS 105794] 
  6-24 Moisture data report from October 1996 to 
January 1997. 
LB970801233124.001 
[DIRS 105796] 
6.10.1.2.1  6-24 Moisture monitoring data collected at ESF 
sensor stations. 
LB970901233124.002 
[DIRS 105798] 
  6-24 Moisture monitoring data collected at stationary 
moisture stations. 
GS970208312242.001 
[DIRS 135119] 
  6-24 Moisture monitoring in the ESF, Oct. 1, 1996, to 
Jan. 31, 1997. 
GS970708312242.002 
[DIRS 135123] 
  6-24 Moisture monitoring in the ESF, Feb. 1, 1997, to 
July 31, 1997. 
GS980908312242.024 
[DIRS 135132] 
  6-24 Moisture monitoring in the ESF, August 1, 1997, 
to July 31, 1998. 
GS980908312242.035 
[DIRS 135133] 
  6-24 Moisture monitoring in the ECRB. 
GS021008312242.003 
[DIRS 162178] 
6.10.1.2.2   Temperature and water-potential data from 
Alcove 3 and Alcove 4. 
GS030608312231.002 
[DIRS 165547] 
6.10.2.2   Digital image data from the moisture monitoring 
tests in the ECRB bulkheaded cross-drift from 
January 22, 2001, to February 3, 2003. 
MO0006J13WTRCM.00 
0 [DIRS 151029] 
 6-125  J-13 well water composition. 
LB0108CO2DST05.001 
[DIRS 156888] 
 6-126  Concentration data for CO2 from gas samples 
collected from hydrology holes in drift-scale test. 
LB0011CO2DST08.001 
[DIRS 153460] 
 6-126  Contents of gas samples collected from the 
following drift-scale test holes: 57, 58, 59, 60, 
61, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 185; and the following 
control areas: Heater Drift #2 and AO drift air. 
NOTES: ECRB=Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-11 November 2004 
4.1.10.3 Data on Water Potential and Saturation Measurements (For Reference) 
Table 4-10c. Data on Water Potential and Saturation Measurements (For Reference) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure Table(s) Description 
LB0406ESFNH2OP.001a 
[DIRS 171588] 
  6-25 3 main boreholes, 5 lateral boreholes in Niche 1 
(Niche 3566) water potential. 
GS980908312242.022 
[DIRS 135157] 
  6-25 Heat-dissipation-probe drill holes water potential. 
GS980908312242.033 
[DIRS 107168] 
  6-25 
6-26 
1 core hole in Alcove 3 water potential and saturation. 
GS980908312242.032 
[DIRS 107177] 
  6-25 
6-26 
2 core holes in Alcove 4 water potential and 
saturation. 
GS980308312242.004 
[DIRS 107172] 
  6-25 18 north ramp boreholes, 3 Alcove 4 boreholes, and 
46 south ramp boreholes, HQ, 2 m length water 
potential. 
GS980308312242.002 
[DIRS 135163] 
  6-25 Heat-dissipation-probe drill holes water potential. 
LB980901233124.014 b 
[DIRS 105858] 
  6-25 
6-26 
43 psychrometers on ESF drift walls, 1 slant borehole 
below the invert, 43 TDR probes on ESF drift walls. 
GS980908312242.036 
[DIRS 119820] 
  6-25 6 heat-dissipation-probe drill holes water potential. 
GS970808312232.005 
[DIRS 105978] 
  6-25 USW NRG-7a, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, 
USW UZ-7a, and USW SD-12 water potential. 
GS971108312232.007 
[DIRS 105980] 
  6-25 USW NRG-7a, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, 
USW UZ-7a, and USW SD-12 water potential. 
GS980408312232.001 
[DIRS 105982] 
  6-25 USW NRG-7a, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, 
USW UZ-7a, and USW SD-12 water potential. 
GS031208312232.002 
[DIRS 171748] 
  6-25 USW NRG-7a, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, 
USW UZ-7a, and USW SD-12 water potential. 
GS980908312242.018 
[DIRS 135170] 
  6-26 3 main boreholes, 6 lateral boreholes in Niche 1 
(Niche 3566). 
GS980908312242.020 
[DIRS 135172] 
  6-26 7 main boreholes in Niche 2 (Niche 3650). 
GS980908312242.029 
[DIRS 135175] 
  6-26 3 boreholes in Alcove 6. 
GS980908312242.028 
[DIRS 135176] 
  6-26 1 borehole in Alcove 7 saturation. 
GS980308312242.005 
[DIRS 107165] 
  6-26 PTn Borehole core saturation. 
GS980308312242.003 
[DIRS 135180] 
  6-26 South ramp core saturation. 
GS980308312242.001 
[DIRS 135181] 
  6-26 TDR measurements of saturation. 
GS980908312242.030 
[DIRS 135224] 
  6-26 1 slant borehole core saturation. 
a Also used as input in Section 6.8 on niche water-potential measurement, as shown in Table 4-8. 
b Also used as input in Section 6.9 on construction-water migration, as shown in Table 4-9. 
ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; TDR = time domain reflectrometry. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-12 November 2004 
4.1.11 Data of Systematic Hydrological Characterization 
4.1.11.1 Data Used to Illustrate Systematic Hydrological Characterization Results 
(Direct Input) 
Table 4-11a. Data Used to Illustrate Systematic Hydrological Characterization Results (Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
LB00090012213U.001 a 
[DIRS 153141] 
6.11.2.1 6-130 
6-131 
6-29 Two sets of air-k (pneumatic conductivity) 
tests at 3 intervals in title borehole. Air-k 
derived from steady-state pressure response. 
LB00090012213U.002 a 
[DIRS 153154] 
 6-131 
6-132 
6-133 
6-134 
6-135 
6-148 
 Eleven sets of seepage tests. Liquid-release 
tests from Borehole SYBT-ECRB-LA#2 at CS 
17+26 in cross-drift. 
LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 a 
[DIRS 156877] 
 6-136 
6-137 
6-138 
6-148 
 Measurements of seepage from injection 
tests in boreholes located in the drift crown of 
the ECRB. 
LB0110ECRBLIQR.001a 
[DIRS 156878] 
 6-139 
6-148 
 Measurements of seepage from injection 
tests in boreholes located in the drift crown of 
the ECRB. 
LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 a 
[DIRS 156879] 
I6.2 6-140 
6-148 
I-4 Measurements of seepage from injection 
tests in boreholes located in the drift crown of 
the ECRB. 
LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 
[DIRS 158462] 
I6.3 
6-141 
6-142 
6-143 
6-148 
I-3 
I-6 
I-7 
Systematic testing in SYBT-ECRB- LA#3 
(MayJuly 2001). 
LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 
[DIRS 165227] 
I6.4 6-144 
6-145 
6-146 
6-148 
I-8 
I-9 
I-10 
Measurements of seepage from injection 
tests in boreholes located in the drift crown of 
the SYBT-ECRB-LA#4. 
a Input DTNs used to generate Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
CS = Construction Station (ESF main loop); ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = 
Exploratory Studies Facility. 
4.1.11.2 Data Used to Corroborate Analyses and Interpretations of Systematic 
Hydrological Characterization (For Reference) 
Table 4-11b. Data Used to Corroborate Analyses and Interpretations of Systematic Hydrological 
Characterization (For Reference) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure Table Description 
LB980912332245.002 
[DIRS 105593] 
6.11.3.1   Gas tracer data from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) of the 
ESF 
LB0110COREPROP.0 
01 [DIRS 157169] 
6.11.3.1   Data measured from cores drilled in the ECRB: 
porosity, saturation, bulk density, gravimetric water 
content, particle density 
NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-13 November 2004 
4.1.12 Data of Observations from the Test at Alcove 8/Niche 3107 
4.1.12.1 Data Used to Illustrate Flow and Transport Test Results at Alcove 8/Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) (Direct Input) 
Table 4-12a. Data Used to Illustrate Flow and Transport Test Results at Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) 
(Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
GS020508312242.001 
[DIRS 162129] 
6.12.2.1 6-152 
6-153 
 Trenched fault infiltration in Alcove 8, 
3/5/20016/1/2001. 
GS020908312242.002 
[DIRS 162141] 
6.12.2.1 6-152 
6-153 
 Trenched fault infiltration in Alcove 8, 
6/1/20013/26/2002. 
GS030208312242.003 
[DIRS 165544] 
6.12.2.1 6-152 
6-153 
 Trenched fault infiltration in Alcove 8, 
3/26/20028/20/2002. 
LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 
[DIRS 157001] 
I6.5 6-154 
6-155 
6-156 
6-158 
I-3 
I-11a 
I-11b 
I-12 
Preliminary observations from the fault test at 
Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107). 
LB0204NICH3TRC.001 
[DIRS 158478] 
 6-158 
6-159 
 Fault infiltration test tracer sampling 
April 2001-March 2002. 
LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 
[DIRS 165461] 
I6.5 6-155 
I-3 
I-11c 
I-12 
Resistance measurements from Borehole 10 in 
Niche 3107 (Niche 3, 5/23/20019/3/2002). 
LB0303A8N3LIQR.001 
[DIRS 162570] 
 6-155 
6-157 
6-159 
I-3 
 Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) seepage data 
compilation. 
LB0110A8N3GPRB.00 
1 [DIRS 156912] 
 6-160 
6-161 
 Pre-seepage test ground penetrating radar 
tomography in radial borehole arrays between 
Alcove 8 (ECRB) and Niche 3107 (Niche 3, 
ESF). 
GS031008312242.007 
[DIRS 166089] 
6.12.4 6-163 
6-164 
 Large plot infiltration in Alcove 8, 
8/20/200211/19/2002. 
GS030608312242.005 
[DIRS 166200] 
 6-163  Surface infiltration in a large plot in Alcove 8 
using permeameters from 11/19/2002 
03/24/2003. 
LB0306A8N3LIQR.001 
[DIRS 165405] 
 6-165 
6-166 
 Fault infiltration test from Alcove 8 to Niche 
3107 (Niche 3, 9/18/200210/16/2002). 
LB0308A8N3SEEP.001 
[DIRS 166090] 
 6-166  Measurements of seepage at Niche 3 (Niche 
3107) from injection tests in an infiltration plot 
located at Alcove 8 of the ECRB, 
10/16/20024/2/2003. 
NOTES: ECRB=Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-14 November 2004 
4.1.12.2 Data for Alcove 8 / Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Tests and Summary of the Alcove 1 
Tests (For Reference) 
Table 4-12b. Data for Alcove 8 / Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Tests and Summary of the Alcove 1 Tests 
(For Reference) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure Table Description 
GS030508312242.004 
[DIRS 165545] 
6.12.1.2   Photographs from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) of the 
Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) seepage 
experiment during construction showing 
construction water in Niche 3 (Niche 3107), 
3/6/2000 
MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
a [DIRS 103769] 
6.12.1.2   Geologic framework model, Version GFM 3.1 
GS010608312242.004 
[DIRS 165542] 
6.12.1.3.1   Crossover Alcove/Seepage into Niche 3 
(Niche 3107): small plot infiltration using a cylinder 
permeameter, 8/9/20008/21/2000 
GS010608312242.002 
[DIRS 165543] 
6.12.1.3.1   Crossover Alcove/Seepage into Niche 3 
(Niche 3107): small plot infiltration using a box 
permeameter, 8/28/200012/14/2000 
GS990108312242.006 
[DIRS 162979] 
  6-30 Pulse flow meter data for infiltration on surface, 
Phase I, May 9, 1998December 4, 1998 
GS000308312242.002 
[DIRS 156911] 
6.12.5.1  6-30 Seepage data for water collected in Alcove 1, 
Phase I, 5/5/19988/27/1998 
GS000808312242.006 
[DIRS 162980] 
  6-30 Pulse flow meter data for infiltration on surface, 
Phase II, 2/19/19996/20/2000 
GS000399991221.003 
[DIRS 147024] 
  6-30 Preliminary infiltration, seepage, tracer data, 
Phase II, 2/19/199912/15/1999 
GS001108312242.009 
[DIRS 165202] 
  6-30 Tracer data for water collected in Alcove 1, 
Phase II, 5/9/19997/5/2000 
a The Technical Data Management System shows DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769] to be 
superseded by DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]; however, the new DTN does not include the 
data used for development of this analysis. The comment section on the Technical Data Information Form for 
the more recent DTN also states: GFM2000 does not invalidate GFM3.1. This scientific analysis report 
maintains the use of the original DTN. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-15 November 2004 
4.1.13 Data of Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test 
4.1.13.1 Data Used to Illustrate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test Results 
(Direct Input) 
Table 4-13a. Data Used to Illustrate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test Results 
(Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description a 
LA0302WS831372.001 
[DIRS 162765] 
 6-172 
6-173 
 Fluorescein plumes observed in Phase 1a 
mineback. 
LA9909WS831372.001 
[DIRS 122739] 
6.13.2.2 6-175 
6-176 
6-177 
6-178 
6-179 
 Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase I 
collection pad extract concentrations. 
LA9909WS831372.002 
[DIRS 122741] 
6.13.2.2 6-175 
6-176 
6-177 
6-178 
6-179 
 Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase I 
collection pad tracer loading and tracer 
concentrations. 
LA0112WS831372.001 
[DIRS 157100] 
 6-182 
6-183 
6-184 
6-185 
6-186 
 Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase II 
collection pad tracer loading. 
LA0112WS831372.002 
[DIRS 157115] 
 6-182 
6-183 
6-184 
6-185 
6-186 
 Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase II 
collection pad tracer concentrations. 
LA0112WS831372.003 
[DIRS 157106] 
 6-182 
6-183 
6-184 
6-185 
6-186 
 Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase II 
normalized collection pad tracer 
concentrations. 
LB00032412213U.001 
[DIRS 149214] 
 6-187 
6-188 
6-189 
6-190 
 Busted Butte ground-penetrating-radar data 
collected June 1998 through February 2000 at 
the Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (UZTT): 
GPR velocity data. 
LB0110BSTBTGPR.001 
[DIRS 156913] 
 6-190  Time sequence ground-penetrating-radar 
tomography for the Busted Butte tracer 
imbibition test. 
LA0201WS831372.004 
[DIRS 165422] 
 6-191 
6-192 
 Calculated moisture content for the Busted 
Butte site Phase II collection boreholes. 
LA0008WS831372.001 
[DIRS 156582] 
 6-193 
6-194 
 Calculated daily injection rates for the Busted 
Butte UZTTs. 
a Roman or Arabic numerals are used interchangeably in the designation of test phases; they are consistent with 
their usage in the supporting DTN. 
GPR = Ground Penetrating Radar; UZ = unsaturated zone. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-16 November 2004 
4.1.13.2 Data Used to Corroborate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test 
(For Reference) 
Table 4-13b. Data Used to Corroborate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (For Reference) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
LA9909WS831372.016 
[DIRS 140093] 
6.13.1.11   Ion chromatography pore-water analysis for rock 
samples from Busted Butte (used in report as 
reference for pore-water composition). 
LA9909WS831372.017 
[DIRS 140097] 
6.13.1.11   pH pore water in rock samples from Busted Butte 
(used in report as reference for pore-water 
composition). 
LA9909WS831372.018 
[DIRS 140101] 
6.13.1.11   Gravimetric moisture content of rock samples 
from Busted Butte (used in report as reference for 
pore-water composition). 
LA9910WS831372.008 
[DIRS 147156] 
6.13.2.1  6-36 Busted Butte UZTT: gravimetric moisture content 
and bromide concentration in selected Phase 1A 
rock samples. 
MO0004GSC00167.000 
[DIRS 150300] 
6-187 
6-188 
 As-built coordinates of boreholes in the test 
alcove and running drift, Busted Butte test facility 
(BBTF). 
LL990612704244.098 
[DIRS 147168] 
6.13.4.2   ERT data for Busted Butte, electrical properties of 
the rock were measured during infiltration. 
LA0311SD831372.001 
[DIRS 166197] 
6.13.5.2   In situ air permeability measurements at Busted 
Butte. 
LA0108TV12213U.001 
[DIRS 161525] 
6.13.6   Static batch sorption coefficients and retardation 
coefficients. 
GS990708314224.007 
[DIRS 164604] 
H6   Detailed line survey data for Busted Butte access 
drift and Busted Butte cross-drift. 
LA0204SL831372.001 
[DIRS 164749] 
H7 H-2 H-1 Mineralogy of the Busted Butte Phase 2 test 
block. 
LA0207SL831372.001 
[DIRS 160824] 
  H-3 Lithostratigraphic classification of hydrologicproperty 
core-sampling depths, Busted Butte 
Phase 2 test block. 
GS990708312242.008 
[DIRS 109822] 
  H-3 
H-6 
Physical and hydraulic properties of core samples 
from Busted Butte boreholes. 
GS960808312231.004 
[DIRS 108985] 
  H-4 Physical properties, water content, and water 
potential for samples from lower depths in 
Boreholes USW SD-7 and USW SD-12. 
Submitted: 08/30/96. 
GS960808312231.005 
[DIRS 108995] 
  H-5 Saturated hydraulic conductivity of Busted Butte. 
GS951108312231.009 
[DIRS 108984] 
  H-5 Physical properties, water content, and water 
potential for Borehole USW SD-7. Submitted: 
09/26/95. 
GS990308312242.007 
[DIRS 107185] 
  H-6 Laboratory and centrifuge measurements of 
physical and hydraulic properties of core samples 
from Busted Butte boreholes. 
NOTES: ERT = Electrical Resistance Tomography; UZTT = Unsaturated Zone Transport Test. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-17 November 2004 
4.1.14 Data of Geochemical Interpretations 
4.1.14.1 Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations (Direct Input) 
Table 4-14a. Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations (Direct Input) 
Used in 
Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
GS020408312272.003 
[DIRS 160899] 
  6-37 Collection and analysis of pore-water samples 
for the period from April 2001 to February 2002. 
Water chemistry analyses for physical 
parameters; common anions and cations from 15 
ECRB-SYS-Series boreholes, USW SD-9 and 
USW NRG-7/7A. 
GS030408312272.002 
[DIRS 165226] 
  6-37 Analysis of water-quality samples for the period 
from July 2002 to November 2002. Water 
chemistry analyses for physical parameters; 
common anions and cations; and trace metals. 
GS000308313211.001 
[DIRS 162015] 
6.14.1.2 
I6.6 
 6-38 
6-39 
6-40 
Geochemistry of repository blockchemical 
composition of rock from ECRB cross-drift. 
LAJF831222AQ98.004 
[DIRS 107364] 
 6-195 6-41 Chloride, bromide, sulfate, and chlorine-36 
analyses of salts leached from ESF rock 
samples. 
LAJF831222AQ98.009 
[DIRS 145650] 
 6-195  Chlorine-36 analyses of salts leached from ESF 
Niche 1 (Niche 3566) drillcore. 
GS990183122410.001 
[DIRS 146125] 
  6-42 Tritium data from pore water from ESF borehole 
cores, 1997 analyses by USGS. Tritium 
abundance data from Boreholes ESFAL#
3-RBT#1, ESF-AL#3-RBT#4, 
ESF-AL#4-RBT#1, ESF-NAD-GTB#1A, 
ESF-NDR-MF#1, ESF-SAD-GTB#1, 
ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#1, ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
2 and ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#13, 
for the period 1/16/97 through 11/6/97. 
GS020408312272.002 
[DIRS 162342] 
  6-42 Tritium abundance data from pore water in core 
samples from Yucca Mountain ESF boreholes for 
the period of 4/30/19983/21/2001. 
GS021208312272.005 
[DIRS 162934] 
  6-42 Tritium abundance data from pore water in core 
samples from Yucca Mountain ESF ECRB. 
May 20, 2001 to July 23, 2002. 
GS030208312272.001 
[DIRS 162935] 
  6-42 Gas and water vapor chemistry data in Yucca 
Mountain ESF ECRB bulkheads. 
GS010808315215.003 
[DIRS 164844] 
 6-196 
6-199 
 Fluid inclusion homogenization temperatures 
from the ESF and ECRB, 12/99 to 4/01. 
GS020908315215.003 
[DIRS 164846] 
 6-196 
6-197 
6-198 
6-199 
 Fluid inclusion homogenization temperatures 
from ESF and ECRB calcite and fluorite 
samples, 10/01 to 5/02. 
NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; 
USGS = United States Geological Survey. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-18 November 2004 
Table 4-14a. Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations (Direct Input) (Continued) 
Used 
Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
GS970208315215.005 
[DIRS 107351] 
 6-197 
6-198 
6-199 
 Carbon and oxygen stable isotope Kiel analyses of 
calcite from the ESF and USW G-1, G-2 AND G-4, 
UE-25 A#1, USW NRG-6 and NRG-7/7A, and 
UE-25 UZ#16, April 1996January 1997. 
GS970808315215.010 
[DIRS 145920] 
 6-197 
6-198 
6-199 
 Carbon and oxygen stable isotope analyses of 
calcite from the ESF and USW G-1, G-2, AND 
G-3/GU-3, from 01/16/97 to 07/18/97. 
GS980908315213.002 
[DIRS 146088] 
 6-197 
6-198 
6-199 
 Carbon and oxygen stable isotopic compositions of 
ESF secondary calcite occurrences, 10/1/97 to 
8/15/98. 
GS990908315213.001 
[DIRS 153379] 
 6-197 
6-198 
6-199 
 Stable carbon and oxygen isotope macro- and 
micro-analysis of calcite from the ESF between 
2/96 and 5/99. 
GS020908315215.004 
[DIRS 164847] 
 6-199  Stable carbon and oxygen isotope analyses of 
ESF/ECRB calcite and USW SD-6 and USW 
WT-24 whole rock; 1/19996/2002. 
GS010808315215.004 
[DIRS 164850] 
 6-199  Uranium and lead concentrations, lead isotopic 
compositions, and U-Pb isotope ages for the ESF 
secondary minerals determined at the Royal 
Ontario Museum between April 20, 2000, and 
April 19, 2001. 
GS021008315215.005 
[DIRS 164848] 
 6-199  Uranium, thorium, and lead concentrations, lead 
isotopic compositions, U-Pb isotope ages and 
234U/238U and 230Th/238U activity ratios for the ESF 
and ECRB secondary calcite, opal, chalcedony and 
fluorite determined at the Royal Ontario Museum 
between 11/16/01 and 4/7/02. 
GS021208315215.009 
[DIRS 164750] 
I5 6-203 
I-2 
6-44 
I-2 
U abundances, 238U-234U-230Th-232Th activity ratios, 
and calculated 230Th/U ages, and initial 234U/238U 
activity ratios determined for sequential in situ 
microdigestions of opal hemispheres from the ESF 
by thermal ionization mass spectrometry. 
GS021208312272.008 
[DIRS 164609] 
6.14.3.2 6-204 
6-205 
6-206 
6-207 
6-208 
6-45 Uranium and thorium concentrations and 
234U-230Th-238U-232Th isotopic compositions from 
whole rock samples from the ECRB cross-drift and 
ESF collected between December 56, 2001, and 
analyzed between February and June 2002. 
GS020608315215.002 
[DIRS 162126] 
6.14.1.2 6-209 
6-216 
6-217 
 Carbon dioxide abundances, carbon dioxide 
concentrations, and normative calcite 
concentrations for cuttings from Boreholes USW 
SD-6, USW WT-24, and ECRB cross-drift 
boreholes, Area 25, Nevada Test Site, determined 
by carbon dioxide evolution between May 25, 2000, 
and September 8, 2000. 
NOTES: ECRB=Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-19 November 2004 
Table 4-14a. Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations (Direct Input) (Continued) 
Used in 
Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description 
GS021008315215.007 
[DIRS 162127] 
6.14.1.2 6-209 
6-216 
 Carbon dioxide abundance, carbon dioxide 
concentration, and normative calcite 
concentrations in 333 powdered cuttings samples 
from Borehole USW WT-24 determined by CO2 
evolution between July 1998 and August 1999. 
GS030808315215.001 
[DIRS 165426] 
 6-204 
6-210 
6-217 
6-218 
 Calcite and opal mineralization occurrences in 
lithophysal cavities, fractures, and breccia zones 
from the line survey in the east-west cross-drift. 
GS030908315215.002 
[DIRS 166097] 
 6-209 
6-216 
6-217 
 XRF fluorescence elemental compositions 
determined on cuttings from USW SD-6 and USW 
WT-24. 
NOTES: ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility; XRF=X-ray fluorescence. 
4.1.14.2 Data Used to Corroborate Geochemical Interpretations (For Reference) 
Table 4-14b. Data Used to Corroborate Geochemical Interpretations (For Reference) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description 
LA0002JF12213U.001 
[DIRS 154760] 
6.14.1.1   Chemistry data for pore water extracted from 
drillcore from surface-based Boreholes 
USW NRG-6, USW NRG-7A, USW UZ-7A, 
USW UZ-14, UE-25 UZ#16, USW UZ-N55, 
USW SD-6, USW SD-7, USW SD-9, USW SD- 
12, and USW WT-24. 
LA0002JF12213U.002 
[DIRS 156281] 
6.14.1.1   Chemistry data for pore water extracted from 
ESF, cross-drift, and Busted Butte drillcore. 
LAJF831222AQ98.011 
[DIRS 145402] 
6.14.1.1   Chloride, bromide, sulfate, and chlorine-36 
analyses of springs, groundwater, perched 
water, and surface runoff. 
LA9909JF831222.012 
[DIRS 122736] 
6.14.1.1   Chloride, bromide, and sulfate analyses of pore 
water extracted from ESF Niche 1 (Niche 3566) 
and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) drillcore. 
LL030408023121.027 
[DIRS 162949] 
  6-41 Cl concentrations and Cl ratios obtained from YM 
rock samples and analyzed by accelerator mass 
spectrometry and ion chromatography. 
LL031200223121.036 
[DIRS 168531] 
 6-195 6-41 Chlorine concentrations and chlorine ratios 
obtained from YM rock samples and analyzed by 
accelerator mass spectrometry. 
LA0305RR831222.001 
[DIRS 163422] 
  6-41 Chlorine-36 and Cl in salts leached from rock 
samples for the chloride-36 validation study. 
LA0307RR831222.001 
[DIRS 164091] 
  6-41 Chloride, bromide, sulfate, and chlorine-36 
analyses of salts leached from cross-drift 
samples in FY99 and FY00. 
NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-20 November 2004 
Table 4-14b. Data Used to Corroborate Geochemical Interpretations (For Reference) (Continued) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description 
LA0307RR831222.002 
[DIRS 164090] 
  6-41 Chloride, bromide, sulfate, and chlorine-36 
analyses of salts leached from ESF 36Cl validation 
drillcore samples in FY99. 
GS021208315215.008 
[DIRS 164851] 
 6-200 
6-201 
6-202 
6-43 238U-234U-230Th-232Th isotope ratios and calculated 
ages for opal hemispheres from sample hd2074 
(spc00506577) at Station 30+51 in the ESF 
determined using ion-probe mass spectrometry. 
GS951208312272.002 
[DIRS 151649] 
6.14.2.2   Tritium analyses of pore water from USW UZ-14, 
USW NRG-6, USW NRG-7A, and UE-25 UZ#16; 
and of perched water from USW SD-7, USW 
SD-9, USW UZ-14, and USW NRG-7A from 
12/09/92 to 5/15/95. 
GS990183122410.004 
[DIRS 146129] 
6.14.2.2   Tritium data from pore water from ESF borehole 
cores, 1998 analyses by University of Miami. 
Tritium abundance data from Boreholes 
ESF-NAD-GTB#1A, ESF-NDR-MF#1, 
ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#1, 
ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#2, ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
4, ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#5, 
ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#6, 
ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#7, 
ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#13 and 
ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#16, for the period 3/31/98 
through 8/20/98. 
GS990408314224.001 
[DIRS 108396] 
 6-204  ESF, ECRB cross-drift, detailed line survey data 
collected from stations 00+00.89 to 14+95.18. 
GS990408314224.002 
[DIRS 105625] 
 6-204  ESF, ECRB cross-drift, detailed line survey data 
collected from stations 15+00.85 to 26+63.85. 
GS971108314224.020 
[DIRS 105561] 
 6-204 
6-213 
6-214 
 Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 
0+60 to Station 4+00, north ramp starter tunnel, 
ESF. 
GS971108314224.021 
[DIRS 106007] 
 6-204 
6-213 
6-214 
 Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 
4+00 to Station 8+00, north ramp, ESF. 
GS950508314224.003 
[DIRS 107488] 
 6-207  Provisional results: geotechnical data - full 
periphery map data from north ramp of the ESF, 
Stations 0+60 to 4+00. 
GS980308315215.008 
[DIRS 107355] 
 6-210 
6-211 
6-212 
6-213 
6-215 
6-218 
 Line survey data from the ESF obtained to 
estimate secondary mineral abundance. 
GS960708314224.008 
[DIRS 105617] 
 6-214  Provisional results: geotechnical data for Station 
30+00 to Station 35+00, main drift of the ESF. 
Detailed line survey data. 
GS000608314224.004 
[DIRS 152573] 
 6-214  Provisional results: geotechnical data for Station 
35+00 to Station 40+00, main drift of the ESF. 
NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; FY = Fiscal 
Year; YM = Yucca Mountain. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-21 November 2004 
Table 4-14b. Data Used to Corroborate Geochemical Interpretations (For Reference) (Continued) 
Used in 
Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description 
GS960708314224.010 
[DIRS 106031] 
 6-214  Provisional results: geotechnical data for Station 
40+00 to Station 45+00, main drift of the ESF. 
Detailed line survey data. VA supporting data. 
GS960908314224.014 
[DIRS 106033] 
 6-213 
6-214 
 Provisional results - ESF main drift, Station 
50+00 to Station 55+00. Detailed line survey 
data. 
GS970208314224.003 
[DIRS 106048] 
 6-213 
6-214 
 Geotechnical data for Station 60+00 to Station 
65+00, south ramp of the ESF. Provisional 
results; detailed line survey data. 
GS971108314224.022 
[DIRS 106009] 
 6-213 
6-214 
 Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 
8+00 to Station 10+00, north ramp, ESF. 
GS971108314224.023 
[DIRS 106010] 
 6-213 
6-214 
 Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 
10+00 to Station 18+00, north ramp, ESF. 
GS971108314224.024 
[DIRS 106023] 
 6-213 
6-214 
 Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 
18+00 to Station 26+00, north ramp, ESF. 
GS971108314224.025 
[DIRS 106025] 
 6-213 
6-214 
 Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 
26+00 to Station 30+00, north ramp and main 
drift, ESF. 
GS971108314224.026 
[DIRS 106032] 
 6-213 
6-214 
 Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 
45+00 to Station 50+00, main drift, ESF. 
GS971108314224.028 
[DIRS 106047] 
 6-213 
6-214 
 Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 
55+00 to Station 60+00, main drift and south 
ramp, ESF. 
NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 
4.2 CRITERIA 
The general requirements to be satisfied by the TSPA-LA are stated in 10 CFR 63.114 
[DIRS 156605]. Technical requirements to be satisfied by the TSPA-LA are identified in the 
Yucca Mountain Project Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]). 
The acceptance criteria that will be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 
determine whether the technical requirements have been met are identified in the Yucca 
Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). The pertinent requirements 
and acceptance criteria for this scientific analysis report are summarized in Table 4-15. 
Appropriate criteria for this scientific analysis report are Criteria 2 and 3 from Section 2.2.1.3.3.3 
(Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting Engineered Barriers and Waste Forms), 
Section 2.2.1.3.6.3 (Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone), and Section 2.2.1.3.7.3 (Radionuclide 
Transport in the Unsaturated Zone) of the YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). These criteria 
are documented in Table 3-1 of the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], and are listed in 
Table 4-15. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-22 November 2004 
Table 4-15. Project Requirements and YMRP Acceptance Criteria Applicable to This Scientific Analysis 
Report 
Requirement 
Number a Requirement Title a 10 CFR 63 Link YMRP Acceptance Criteria 
PRD-002/T- 
015 
Requirements for 
Performance 
Assessment 
10 CFR 63.114(a-c) 
[DIRS 156605] 
Section 2.2.1.3.3.3, Criteria 2 and 3 for 
Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting 
Waste Packages and Waste Forms b 
Section 2.2.1.3.6.3, Criteria 2 and 3 for Flow 
Path in the UZ c 
Section 2.2.1.3.7.3, Criteria 2 and 3 for 
Radionuclide Transport in the UZ d 
a From Canori and Leitner (2003 [DIRS 166275]). 
b From NRC (2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.3.3). 
c From NRC (2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.6.3). 
d From NRC (2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.7.3). 
UZ = unsaturated zone; YMRP = Yucca Mountain Review Plan. 
The acceptance criteria identified in Sections 2.2.1.3.3.3, 2.2.1.3.6.3, and 2.2.1.3.7.3 of the 
YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) are included below. In cases where subsidiary criteria are 
listed in the YMRP for a given criterion, only the subsidiary criteria addressed by this scientific 
analysis are listed below. Where a subcriterion includes several components, only some of those 
components may be addressed. How these components are addressed is summarized in 
Section 7.15 of this report. 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.3.3, Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting 
Engineered Barriers and Waste Forms. 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data are Sufficient for Model Justification: 
(1) Geological, hydrological, and geochemical values used in the license 
application are adequately justified. Adequate description of how the data 
were used, interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the parameters is 
provided; 
Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model 
Abstraction: 
(2) Parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and bounding 
assumptions used in the total system performance assessment calculations of 
quantity and chemistry of water contacting engineered barriers and waste 
forms are technically defensible and reasonable, based on data from the 
Yucca Mountain region (e.g., results from large block and drift-scale heater 
and niche tests), and a combination of techniques that may include 
laboratory experiments, field measurements, natural analog research, and 
process-level modeling studies; 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-23 November 2004 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.6, Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification: 
(1) Hydrological and thermal-hydrological-mechanical-chemical values used in 
the license application are adequately justified. Adequate descriptions of 
how the data were used, interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the 
parameters are provided; 
(2) The data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the unsaturated 
zone are collected using acceptable techniques; 
(5) Sensitivity or uncertainty analyses are performed to assess data sufficiency, 
and verify the possible need for additional data; 
Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model 
Abstraction: 
(5) Coupled processes are adequately represented; 
(6) Uncertainties in the characteristics of the natural system and engineered 
materials are considered. 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.7, Radionuclide Transport in the Unsaturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification: 
(1) Geological, hydrological, and geochemical values, used in the license 
application, are adequately justified (e.g., flow-path length, sorption 
coefficients, retardation factors, colloid concentrations, etc.). Adequate 
descriptions of how the data were used, interpreted, and appropriately 
synthesized into the parameters are provided; 
(3) Data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the unsaturated zone, 
including the influence of structural features, fracture distributions, fracture 
properties, and stratigraphy, used in the total system performance assessment 
abstraction are based on appropriate techniques. These techniques may 
include laboratory experiments, site-specific field measurements, natural 
analog research, and process-level modeling studies. As appropriate, 
sensitivity or uncertainty analyses, used to support the U.S. Department of 
Energy total system performance assessment abstraction, are adequate to 
determine the possible need for additional data. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-24 November 2004 
Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model 
Abstraction: 
(2) For those radionuclides where the total system performance assessment 
abstraction indicates that transport in fractures and matrix in the unsaturated 
zone is important to waste isolation: (i) estimated flow and transport 
parameters are appropriate and valid, based on techniques that may include 
laboratory experiments, field measurements, natural analog research, and 
process-level modeling studies, conducted under conditions relevant to the 
unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain; and (ii) models are demonstrated to 
adequately reproduce field transport test results. For example, if a sorption 
coefficient approach is used, the assumptions implicit in that approach are 
verified; 
(4) Uncertainty is adequately represented in parameter development for 
conceptual models, process-level models, and alternative conceptual models, 
considered in developing the abstraction of radionuclide transport in the 
unsaturated zone. This may be done either through sensitivity analyses or 
use of conservative limits. 
The following additional criteria are identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], 
Section 3.4). The work documented in the scientific analysis report will be consistent with the 
activities performed as part of Technical Work Plan: Regulatory Integration Evaluation of 
Analysis and Model Reports Supporting the TSPA-LA (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169653]) and will 
fulfill a portion of the Phase 2 work identified in that plan. It will also satisfy the requirements 
of AP-16.1Q, Condition Reporting and Resolution to enable closure of condition reports (CRs) 
generated as a result of the Corrective Action Program. Other requirements related to boundary 
conditions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 3.5) do not apply to this scientific analysis report. 
4.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
No codes, standards, or regulations other than those identified in the Project Requirements 
Documents (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], Table 2-3) and determined to be 
applicable in Table 4-15, were used in this analysis report. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 5-1 November 2004 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
This scientific analysis report on ambient field-testing of processes presents data collected in 
underground drifts at Yucca Mountain and its vicinity. No assumptions of parameters were used 
to supplement the measured data. Discussions on issues related to analysis and measurement 
approximation are included in Section 6. Other than supportable approximations that were 
necessary in order to use various analytic formulas and established scientific methods, physical 
assumptions were unnecessary, because no predicted values or simulated results were presented. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 5-2 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-1 November 2004 
6. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS DISCUSSION 
This section describes the field-testing results pertaining to UZ processes in underground drifts at 
Yucca Mountain and its vicinity. The field activities range from decimeter-scale drift-seepage 
tests above niches, to meter-scale fracture-matrix-interaction tests above slots in alcoves, to 
decameter-scale flow and transport tests in test blocks or between drifts, to kilometer-scale 
moisture-monitoring studies along drifts. Niches are room-size excavations, slots are 
excavations below test beds in alcove walls, and alcoves are side drifts along the ESF Main Loop 
and ECRB cross-drift. 
Specifically, this section contains data and analysis pertaining to the following topics: 
 Section 6.1 and Section 6.5 present the test-site characteristics of niches and alcoves 
from pneumatic air-permeability test results (with Section 6.1 on permeability profiles 
and Section 6.5 on crosshole connections). 
 Section 6.2 shows that drift-seepage thresholds exist and that seepage-threshold data can 
be interpreted using the capillary barrier theory. It also presents liquid-flow-path data 
for niche sites. 
 Section 6.3 and Section 6.4 present laboratory-measurement results for tracer migration 
and matrix imbibition for welded tuff samples from the ESF (with Section 6.3 on tracer 
distribution in the field and Section 6.4 on tracer and fluid penetration into the rock 
matrix). 
 Section 6.6 presents the results of two series of fracture-matrix interaction tests to 
quantify the partitioning of flux into fast and slow components. 
 Section 6.7 presents the results for flow tests in the Paintbrush nonwelded tuff (PTn) test 
bed. 
 Section 6.8 summarizes data collected on ambient water-potential distribution in niches. 
 Section 6.9 summarizes observations on construction-water migration. 
 Section 6.10 presents data collected on moisture monitoring and water analyses in open 
drifts under the influence of ventilation and in closed drifts behind bulkheads, including 
the ECRB cross-drift and Alcove 7. 
 Section 6.11 presents the results from systematic hydrological characterization using 
slanted boreholes along the ECRB cross-drift. 
 Section 6.12 presents the results of drift-to-drift tests from liquid releases in Alcove 8 
and wetting-front and seepage detection at Niche 3 (Niche 3107). In addition, data from 
the surface-to-drift tests at Alcove 1 are presented. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-2 November 2004 
 Section 6.13 presents the results of different phases of transport tests at Busted Butte. 
 Section 6.14 summarizes geochemical and isotope data in pore water, rocks, and fracture 
in-fill minerals collected from test locations in different tuff units. 
The list of data supporting these analyses can be found in the tables labeled b and c of 
Section 4.1. 
The tests performed in niches and alcoves along the ESF are illustrated in Figure 6-1. Seepage 
into drifts at the repository level is related to water percolating down from the ground surface. 
Drift-seepage tests at niche sites quantify the seepage from liquid pulses released above the 
niches. Percolation flux has a fast fracture-flow component and a slow matrix-flow component. 
This partitioning of flow is evaluated at the fracture-matrix test bed in Alcove 6. The 
heterogeneous hydrogeologic setting (with alternating tuff layers) determines the percolation 
distribution throughout the UZ, with input from infiltration at the ground surface boundary. The 
mechanism of redistributing near-surface fracture flow by the porous PTn, especially the 
flow-damping process by the PTn unit, is studied in a test bed in Alcove 4. The PTn unit 
examined at Alcove 4 consists of layered, altered, and bedded tuffs transected by a fault. Wetter 
climate conditions increase the infiltration, as quantified in an artificial infiltration test in Alcove 
1 and in moisture monitoring at depth in Alcove 7. The seepage threshold data from niches and 
from systematic hydrological characterization are inputs to the model report Seepage Calibration 
Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). 
Figure 6-1 illustrates general issues (DOE 1998 [DIRS 100550], Section 3.1; Figure 3-1) 
pertaining to UZ flow processes of seepage, percolation, and infiltration. The tests illustrated in 
Figure 6-1 focus on different issues to quantify the functional relationships among these 
processes. Seepage is smaller than percolation flux because of capillarity-induced drift diversion 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764], Section 6), and percolation may be smaller than infiltration because 
of lateral diversion of percolating water along tuff interfaces to bounding faults. All tests use 
tracers to assist the characterization of plume migration. 
Figure 6-2 illustrates the ECRB cross-drift to ESF main drift seepage collection system to study 
the migration of water and tracer flow from one drift to another. The crossover point is located 
in the northern pabrt of the ESF, as illustrated in Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3. In 1998, the seepage 
monitoring system was used to monitor the migration of construction water from the ECRB 
cross-drift. Niche 3 (Niche 3107), originally excavated and used for the drift seepage study, is 
part of the drift-to-drift study as a seepage collection site. The existing horizontal boreholes at 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107) are used for wetting-front monitoring for liquid released from Alcove 8, 
excavated from the ECRB cross-drift and directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107). 
Because neither the ESF main drift nor the ECRB cross-drift reaches the Calico Hills 
hydrogeologic tuff unit (CHn) below the repository block, a dedicated drift complex was 
excavated at Busted Butte, 8 km southeast of Yucca Mountain, to evaluate flow and transport 
processes in vitric CHn. Early results were first reported in the report Unsaturated Zone and 
Saturated Zone Transport Properties (CRWMS M&O 2001 [DIRS 154024]). The different 
field-testing phases and recent updates are presented in Section 6.13. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-3 November 2004 
Geochemical and isotope data have been collected from laboratory analyses of samples from 
various experiments in different test locations. These data have been used to refine the 
conceptual understanding of the site and for inputs to process models. Results are discussed in 
the report Yucca Mountain Site Description (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734]). Section 6.14 presents 
geochemical and isotope data. 
Each testing activity has unique findings to contribute to the assessment of unsaturated flow and 
transport processes at Yucca Mountain. The progress and analyses of field-test results are 
presented in the following fourteen subsections for fourteen testing activities. Scientific 
notebooks (with relevant page numbers) used for recording the ESF Field Testing activities and 
analyses described in this scientific analysis report are listed in Table 6-1. 
Flow Testing 
& Monitoring 
Locations 
Ambient Testing in the ESF 
seepage = percolation = infiltration 
% of seepage 
% of fracture flow 
% of infiltration 
Alcove 6 Alcoves 1 & 7 
/ / 
before excavation 
after excavation 
Alcove 4 
Five 
Niches 
Alcove 1 
% of diversion 
TSPA Issues: 
percolation 
seepage 
fast flow 
diversion 
wet climate 
***** 
NOTE: The tests evaluate functional relationships between UZ processes to resolve TSPA issues. Different colors 
are used to schematically track the source of the water to its respective release point. 
Figure 6-1. Schematic Illustration of Flow Tests in the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-4 November 2004 
Wetting front sensors/ 
fluid collection tray 
Niche 3107 
Vertical seepage boreholes 
above Niche 3107 
Alcove 8 (angled, horizontal) 
ECRB Cross Drift
Main Drift 
CS 3062 
Invert-crown 
separation of 
elevation 17.5m 
Thermal 
Test Alcove 
Water 
release 
NOTE: Wetting-front sensors and fluid collection trays monitored the construction-water migration. Both the ECRB 
cross-drift and the main drift, together with Alcove 8 and Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and its boreholes, are 
horizontal in this illustration. Alcove 8 is directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107). 
Figure 6-2. Schematic Illustration of the Crossover Point of ECRB Cross-Drift with the Main Drift 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-5 November 2004 
Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa 
M&O Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Lab Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Cited Pages or Page 
Range(s) of Scientific 
Notebook 
Relevant Section(s) 
of This Report Citation 
SN-LBNL-SCI-065-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-6 1158 6.1 (air-K), 
6.2 (seepage) 
Wang 1997 
[DIRS 156530] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-066-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-6A 1159 6.1 (air-K), 
6.2 (seepage) 
Wang 1997 
[DIRS 156534] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-121-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-6B 1159 6.1 (air-K), 
6.2 (seepage) 
Wang 1999 
[DIRS 156538] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-122-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-6C 1159 6.1 (air-K), 
6.2 (seepage) 
Wang 1999 
[DIRS 153449] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-078-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWPJC-
6.2 
1110, 115125, 133 
135, 144146, 
149157 
6.1 (air-K), 
6.5 (cross-hole) 
Cook 2001 
[DIRS 156902] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-113-V1 YMP-LBNL-RCT-1 6273, 80157 6.2 (seepage) Trautz 1999 
[DIRS 156563] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-156-V1 YMP-LBNL-RCT-2 27160 6.2 (seepage) Trautz 2001 
[DIRS 156903] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-177-V1 YMP-LBNL-RCT-3 4-94 6.2 (seepage) Trautz 2001 
[DIRS 157022] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-177-V2 YMP-LBNL-RCT-4 8891, 116117, 120, 
130159, 190195, 
198221, 298299 
6.2-App. C4 
(seepage) 
Trautz 2001 
[DIRS 161208] 
SN-LBNL-SCI- 221-V1 YMP-LBNL-RCT-5 154-160, 162-234, 
239-301 
6.2-App. C4 
(seepage) 
Trautz 2003 
[DIRS 166248] 
SN-LBNL-SCI- 221-V2 YMP-LBNL-RCT-6 1467 6.2-App. C4 
(seepage) 
Wang 2003 
[DIRS 165376] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-089-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH-
1 
1153 6.3 (tracer migration), 
6.4 (imbibition) 
Hu 1999 
[DIRS 156539] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-090-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH-
1A 
2022, 3748, 54, 
6882, 8699, 
103126 
6.3 (tracer migration), 
6.4 (imbibition) 
Hu 1999 
[DIRS 156540] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-091-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH-
1B 
9, 27, 35, 40, 42, 
4873, 77, 8194, 
107110, 115, 
118119, 123142, 
149, 154155 
6.3 (tracer migration), 
6.4 (imbibition) 
Hu 1999 
[DIRS 156541] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-092-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH-
1C 
13, 1625, 3941, 51 
102, 105112, 116, 
128133, 139140, 
143145 
6.3 (tracer migration), 
6.4 (imbibition) 
Hu 1999 
[DIRS 156542] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-093-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH-
1D 
3153 6.3 (tracer migration), 
6.4 (imbibition) 
Hu 1999 
[DIRS 155691] 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-6 November 2004 
Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) 
M&O Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Lab Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Cited Pages or Page 
Range(s) of Scientific 
Notebook 
Relevant 
Section(s) of 
This Report Citation 
SN-LBNL-SCI-154-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1E 130-136, 145-146 6.3 (tracer 
migration), 
6.4 (imbibition) 
Hu 2000 
[DIRS 156473] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-102-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-1 1117 6.6 (fracturematrix 
interaction 
Alcove 6) 
Salve 1999 
[DIRS 155692] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-104-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-1A 139 6.6 (fracturematrix 
interaction 
Alcove 6) 
Salve 1999 
[DIRS 156547] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-105-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-2 17, 8-127 6.6 (fracturematrix 
interaction 
Alcove 6) 6.7 
(PTn Alcove 4) 
Salve 2000 
[DIRS 156548] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-042-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-CMO-1 115, 18, 22, 45-54 6.7 (PTn Alcove 
4) 
Oldenburg 2000 
[DIRS 156558] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-088-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-JJH-1 171 6.7 (PTn Alcove 
4) 
Hinds 2000 
[DIRS 156557] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-048-VI YMP-LBNL-JW-1.2 103152 6.8 (water 
potential) 
6.9 (construction 
water migration) 
Salve 1999 
[DIRS 156552] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-133-V1 YMP-LBNL-JW-1.2A 143 6.8 (water 
potential) 
6.9 (construction 
water migration) 
Salve 1999 
[DIRS 156555] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-116-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-4.3 124, 6167, 7481 6.10 (ESF 
moisture) 
Wang 2000 
[DIRS 156559] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-150-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-JS-1 18, 148 6.10 (ECRB 
moisture) 
Stepek 2000 
[DIRS 156561] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-182-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-4 1147 6.10.1 (ECRB 
moisture) 
Salve 2002 
[DIRS 165378] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-182-V2 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-6 159 6.10.1 (ECRB 
moisture) 
Wang 2003 
[DIRS 165376] 
SN-USGS-SCI-110-V1 N/A 199 6.10 (Niche 
Moisture) 
Guertal 2000 
[DIRS 165384] 
SN-USGS-SCI-128-V1 N/A 1301 6.10.1 (ECRB 
moisture) 
Hudson 2002 
[DIRS 165391] 
SN-USGS-SCI-128-V2 N/A 1297 6.10.1 (ECRB 
moisture) 
Hudson 2002 
[DIRS 165392] 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-7 November 2004 
Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) 
M&O Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Lab Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Cited Pages or Page 
Range(s) of Scientific 
Notebook 
Relevant 
Section(s) of 
This Report Citation 
SN-USGS-SCI-128-V3 N/A 1141 6.10.4 (Alcove 
7) 
Hudson 2003 
[DIRS 165273] 
SN-USGS-SCI-133-V1 N/A 1157 6.10.1 (ECRB 
moisture) 
Hudson 2002 
[DIRS 163398] 
SN-USGS-SCI-133-V2 N/A 1147 6.10.1 (ECRB 
moisture) 
Hudson 2003 
[DIRS 165393] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-179-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-YWT-1 144 6.11 (ECRB 
systematic) 
Tsang and Wang 
2000 [DIRS 165375] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-179-V2 YMP-LBNL-JSW-YWT-2 848, 7273, 9899, 
114129 
6.11 (ECRB 
systematic) 
Wang 2003 
[DIRS 165376] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-216-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-PJC-6.3 719, 2227, 46, 58 
60, 7076 
6.11 (ECRB 
systematic) 
Wang 2003 
[DIRS 165376] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-181-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-5 1156 6.12 (Alcove 8- 
Niche 3 [Niche 
3107]) 
Salve 2003 
[DIRS 165377] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-181-V2 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-5.1 124 6.12 (Alcove 8- 
Niche 3 [Niche 
3107]) 
Wang 2003 
[DIRS 165376] 
SN-USGS-SCI-120-V1 N/A 1172 6.12 (Alcove 8- 
Niche 3 [Niche 
3107]) 
Hudson 2002 
[DIRS 165385] 
SN-USGS-SCI-120-V2 N/A 1182 6.12 (Alcove 8- 
Niche 3 [Niche 
3107]) 
Hudson 2002 
[DIRS 165386] 
SN-USGS-SCI-120-V3 N/A 1179 6.12 (Alcove 8- 
Niche 3 [Niche 
3107]) 
Hudson 2002 
[DIRS 165387] 
SN-USGS-SCI-120-V4 N/A 1190 6.12 (Alcove 8- 
Niche 3 [Niche 
3107]) 
Hudson and Guertal 
2002 [DIRS 165388] 
SN-USGS-SCI-120-V5 N/A 1157 6.12 (Alcove 8- 
Niche 3 [Niche 
3107]) 
Hudson 2002 
[DIRS 166103] 
SN-USGS-SCI-120-V6 N/A 1147 6.12 (Alcove 8- 
Niche 3 [Niche 
3107]) 
Hudson 2002 
[DIRS 165389] 
SN-USGS-SCI-120-V7 N/A 1148 6.12 (Alcove 8- 
Niche 3 [Niche 
3107]) 
Hudson 2003 
[DIRS 165390] 
SN-USGS-SCI-108-V1 N/A 1-98 6.12.5 (Alcove 
1) 
Guertal 2001 
[DIRS 164070] 
SN-LANL-SCI-038-V1 LA-EES-1-NBK-99-005 1161 6.13 (sample 
analyses) 
Bussod 2001 
[DIRS 165281] 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-8 November 2004 
Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) 
M&O Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Lab Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Cited Pages or Page 
Range(s) of Scientific 
Notebook 
Relevant 
Section(s) of 
This Report Citation 
SN-LANL-SCI-039-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-020 1161 6.13 (UZTT) Bussod 1999 
[DIRS 146978] 
SN-LANL-SCI-040-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-010 1156 6.13 (UZTT) Bussod 1998 
[DIRS 149129] 
SN-LANL-SCI-041-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-011 1 38 6.13.2 (UZTT 
injection) 
Soll et al. 2001 
[DIRS 165296] 
SN-LANL-SCI-042-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-012 1130 6.13.3 (UZTT 
injection) 
Dunn 2001 
[DIRS 165297] 
SN-LANL-SCI-043-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-013 126 6.13.5 (UZTT 
air-K) 
Bussod and Stockton 
1999 [DIRS 165324] 
SN-LANL-SCI-044-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-014 111 6.13.5 (UZTT 
air-K) 
Wyckoff 1999 
[DIRS 165298] 
SN-LANL-SCI-046-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-016 144 6.13.5 (UZTT 
air-K) 
Lowry 2001 
[DIRS 164632] 
SN-LANL-SCI-106-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-99-003 1120 6.13 (UZTT) Soll and Bussod 2001 
[DIRS 165299] 
SN-LANL-SCI-127-V1 LA-CST-NBK-99-002 17 6.13.1 (tracers) Bussod and Turin 
2000 [DIRS 165300] 
SN-LANL-SCI-133-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-018 17 6.13.3 (tracer 
analyses) 
Bussod and 
Wolfsberg 2000 
[DIRS 165301] 
SN-LANL-SCI-136-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-017 17 6.13.3 (tracer 
analyses) 
Bussod and 
Wolfsberg 2000 
[DIRS 165303] 
SN-LANL-SCI-145-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-001 1159 6.13.1 (tracers) Bussod et al. 2000 
[DIRS 165305] 
SN-LANL-SCI-159-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-002 19 6.13.3 (tracer 
analyses) 
Bussod and 
Wolfsberg 2000 
[DIRS 165306] 
SN-LANL-SCI-160-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-012 17 6.13.3 (tracer 
analyses) 
Bussod and 
Wolfsberg 2000 
[DIRS 165308] 
SN-LANL-SCI-161-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-015 17 6.13.2, 6.13.3 
(tracer analyses) 
Bussod and 
Wolfsberg 2000 
[DIRS 165310] 
SN-LANL-SCI-163-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-016 110 6.13.2, 6.13.3 
(tracer analyses) 
Bussod and 
Wolfsberg 2000 
[DIRS 165311] 
SN-LANL-SCI-169-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-009 17 6.13.2, 6.13.3 
(tracer analyses) 
Bussod and 
Wolfsberg 2000 
[DIRS 165312] 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-9 November 2004 
Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) 
M&O Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Lab Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Cited Pages or Page 
Range(s) of Scientific 
Notebook 
Relevant 
Section(s) of 
This Report Citation 
SN-LANL-SCI-184-V1 N/A 16 6.13.2, 6.13.3 
(tracer analyses) 
Soll and Wolfsberg 
2000 [DIRS 165313] 
SN-LANL-SCI-188-V1 N/A 17 6.13.2, 6.13.3 
(tracer analyses) 
Soll and Wolfsberg 
2000 [DIRS 165316] 
SN-LANL-SCI-191-V1 LA-CST-NBK-99-004 110 6.13.2 (sorption) Bussod et al. 2000 
[DIRS 165317] 
SN-LANL-SCI-192-V1 LA-CST-NBK-99-003 18 6.13.2, 6.13.3 
(tracer analyses) 
Bussod and 
Wolfsberg 2000 
[DIRS 165319] 
SN-LANL-SCI-193-V1 N/A 18 6.13.3 (tracer 
analyses) 
Soll and Wolfsberg 
2000 [DIRS 165320] 
SN-LANL-SCI-199-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-004 1810 6.13 (pad 
collection) 
Bussod and Turin 
2001 [DIRS 165321] 
SN-LANL-SCI-205-V1 N/A 156, photos 131 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 1999 
[DIRS 166105] 
SN-LANL-SCI-206-V1 N/A 8632686406 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165323] 
SN-LANL-SCI-206-V2 N/A 9917699254 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165325] 
SN-LANL-SCI-206-V3 N/A 9932699405 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165326] 
SN-LANL-SCI-206-V4 N/A 9955199630 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165328] 
SN-LANL-SCI-206-V5 N/A 9970199779 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165330] 
SN-LANL-SCI-206-V6 N/A 9285192930 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165333] 
SN-LANL-SCI-206-V7 N/A 100226100303 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2003 
[DIRS 165335] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V1 N/A 8310183181 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165336] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V2 N/A 8332683406 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165348] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V3 N/A 8347683556 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165349] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V4 N/A 9797698055 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165350] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V5 N/A 9805198130 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165351] 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-10 November 2004 
Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) 
M&O Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Lab Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Cited Pages or Page 
Range(s) of Scientific 
Notebook 
Relevant 
Section(s) of 
This Report Citation 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V6 N/A 9812698205 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165352] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V7 N/A 9925199329 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165354] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V8 N/A 9940199480 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165356] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V9 N/A 9962699705 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165358] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V10 N/A 9977699854 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165338] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V11 N/A 9277692855 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165340] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V12 N/A 100151100229 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165344] 
SN-LANL-SCI-207-V13 N/A 100451100528 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2003 
[DIRS 165346] 
SN-LANL-SCI-208-V1 N/A 9127691356 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165360] 
SN-LANL-SCI-208-V2 N/A 8670186780 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2001 
[DIRS 165361] 
SN-LANL-SCI-208-V3 N/A 9947699542 6.13.6 (BBTF 
block) 
Drew 2002 
[DIRS 165362] 
SN-LANL-SCI-220-V1 LA-EES-1-NBK-94-002 1101 6.13.1, App. H 
(CHn 
mineralogy) 
Levy 2001 
[DIRS 165363] 
SN-LANL-SCI-228-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-019 14 6.13.2 (injection) Bussod and 
Wolfsberg 2000 
[DIRS 165364] 
SN-LANL-SCI-232-V1 N/A 19 6.13.3 (tracer 
analyses) 
Soll and Wolfsberg 
2000 [DIRS 165365] 
SN-LANL-SCI-239-V1 N/A 1103, 290291 6.13.3 (tracer 
analyses) 
Soll et al. 2002 
[DIRS 165366] 
SN-LANL-SCI-241-V1 N/A 190 6.13.3 (tracer 
analyses) 
Soll and Wolfsberg 
2002 [DIRS 165367] 
SN-LANL-SCI-252-V1 N/A 177 6.13.3 
(overcore) 
Turin 2001 
[DIRS 165368] 
SN-LANL-SCI-253-V1 N/A 1168 6.13.2, 6.13.3 
(tracer analyses) 
Haga 2001 
[DIRS 165369] 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-11 November 2004 
Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) 
M&O Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Lab Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Cited Pages or Page 
Range(s) of Scientific 
Notebook 
Relevant 
Section(s) of 
This Report Citation 
SN-LANL-SCI-256-V1 N/A 175 6.13.1, App. H 
(CHn 
mineralogy) 
Levy 2002 
[DIRS 165370] 
SN-LANL-SCI-257-V1 N/A 1 6.13.3 Soll 2001 
[DIRS 165371] 
SN-LANL-SCI-261-V1 N/A 153 6.13.1, App. H 
(CHn 
mineralogy) 
Soll and Aldrich 2002 
[DIRS 165372] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-119-V1 YMP-LBNL-ELM-KHW-1 148 6.13.4 (ground 
penetrating 
radar) 
Williams 2000 
[DIRS 165373] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-119-V2 YMP-LBNL-ELM-KHW-2 132 6.13.4 (ground 
penetrating 
radar) 
Williams 2002 
[DIRS 165374] 
SN-LBNL-SCI-193-V1 YMP-LBNL-ELM-JP-1 125 6.13.4 (ground 
penetrating 
radar) 
Peterson 2002 
[DIRS 165379] 
SN-LLNL-SCI-421-V1 N/A 1155 6.13.4 (electrical 
resistance 
tomography) 
Daily and Buettner 
2002 [DIRS 165380] 
SN-USGS-SCI-117-V1 N/A 175 6.13.1, App. H 
(hydrological 
properties) 
Flint 2001 
[DIRS 165381] 
SN-USGS-SCI-117-V2 N/A 198 6.13.1, App. H 
(hydrological 
properties) 
Flint 2001 
[DIRS 165382] 
SN-USGS-SCI-117-V3 N/A 173 6.13.1, App. H 
(hydrological 
properties) 
Flint et al. 2002 
[DIRS 165383] 
a The list of scientific notebooks is sorted first by different tests (represented by the subsection number to the second 
heading in the fourth column), and then by the scientific notebook IDs (listed in the first column). The listed scientific 
notebooks contain relevant and corroborating data for testing activities discussed in Section 6. Some scientific 
notebooks have test pages specified, others have the whole notebook ranges listed. In addition to data collection, 
the scientific notebooks in general contain entries pertaining to test configuration, test design, equipment set-up, 
sensor calibration, review records, and other test-related data. Data analyses are primarily developed from entries 
in the scientific notebooks; data interpretations are supplemented by open literature surveys and professional 
exchanges, with the results documented in publications and in the scientific analysis report. Section 6.14 
(geochemical and isotopic data collection) investigators use technical procedures instead of scientific notebooks in 
data collections. The technical procedures, together with other data such as test-site configurations and sensor 
accuracies, are in site-investigation test plans and fieldwork packages governing the testing activities, listed in 
Section 1 of this report, and in Section 1 and Table 2.4 of the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]). 
NOTES: 
BBTF = Busted Butte Test Facility; CHn = Calico Hills Non-welded Hydrogeologic Unit; ECRB = Enhanced 
Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; N/A not applicable; UZTT = Unsaturated 
Zone Transport Test. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-12 November 2004 
Standardized scientific analysis methods were used. Alternate scientific approaches and 
technical methods are evaluated in Section 6. For example, analytic solutions are used to 
analyze seepage data instead of numerical models (see Section 6.2); psychrometer data are 
compared with electrical resistivity probe data (see Section 6.9); and ion-microprobe results are 
compared with microdigestion results (see Section 6.14). Other alternate scientific approaches 
and/or technical methods were not used because the investigators are not familiar with them. 
Variability and uncertainty are also evaluated in Section 6. Variability and uncertainty are 
described in Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative Conceptual Models, Model 
Abstractions, and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System Performance Assessment for the 
License Application (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158794], Section 4.1), as follows: 
Variability, also referred to as aleatory uncertainty, arises due to natural 
randomness or heterogeneity. This first type of uncertainty cannot be reduced 
through further testing and data collection; it can only be better characterized. 
Thus, this first type of uncertainty is also referred to as irreducible uncertainty. It 
is typically accounted for using geostatistical approaches, e.g., using appropriate 
probability distribution functions. 
Uncertainty, also referred to as epistemic uncertainty, arises from lack of 
knowledge about a parameter because the data are limited or there are alternative 
interpretations of the available data. This second type of uncertainty can be 
reduced because the state of knowledge can be improved by further testing or data 
collection. Consequently, this second type of uncertainty is also referred to as 
reducible uncertainty. 
In this report, the term variability is used for aleatory uncertainty, and the term uncertainty is 
used for epistemic uncertainty. 
Uncertainty may have different sources depending on how the parameter in question is derived 
(e.g., whether derived from measurements, analyses, or models), as follows: 
 Measurement uncertainty refers to the exactness of the actual measurement method and 
related data processing. 
 Spatial variability uncertainty refers to the uncertainty in parameters describing the 
spatial variability of data, typically arising from the limited number of samples. 
 Conceptual model uncertainty arises when the appropriateness of a conceptual model 
developed for the physical system cannot be fully assessed. 
 Estimation uncertainty arises if the resulting parameter is estimated from a random 
process (e.g., from noisy data or from a Monte Carlo analysis), giving a range of 
possible results. 
This scientific analysis report focuses on spatial variability uncertainty of data collected from 
testing of processes. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-13 November 2004 
6.1 AIR-PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS AND EXCAVATION-INDUCED 
ENHANCEMENTS 
Pneumatic air-permeability tests were undertaken at various locations in the ESF to characterize 
the potential fluid flow paths in the rock. The repository host rock consists predominantly of 
unsaturated, fractured welded tuff. Airflow occurs mainly through the fractures. Therefore, 
air-permeability tests characterize the fracture network and may be utilized to study fracture 
heterogeneity. Because the fracture network is very permeable, the pressure field returns to 
ambient conditions quickly, generally within minutes, after air injection is stopped. As a result, 
many tests can be performed quickly, allowing measurements of fracture heterogeneity. 
The specific objectives for pneumatic testing include: 
 Profiling the air permeability of boreholes along their length 
 Investigating the effects of nearby excavation on the permeability of a rock mass 
 Enabling a site-to-site comparison of air-permeability statistics and related scale effects. 
In these tests, packer assemblies (see Appendix A) were inflated in clusters of boreholes drilled 
into the fractured rock, and air was injected into specific intervals at constant mass flux while 
pressure responses were monitored in other borehole intervals. 
Two basic types of data are readily available from pneumatic testing and are used to satisfy these 
testing objectives: 
(1) single-borehole air-permeability profiles, which are used for borehole-to-borehole and 
site-to-site comparisons, and 
(2) crosshole pressure-response data, which enable a determination of connectivity 
(through fracture networks) between locations at a given site. 
This section focuses on the permeability profiles for boreholes in niche and alcove sites. 
Permeability profiles before niche excavation are compared with profiles measured after niche 
and alcove excavation. Both pre- and post-excavation air-permeability tests were conducted 
before the seepage tests described in Section 6.2. The crosshole data analyses are presented in 
Section 6.5. Air-permeability data are used as the basis (1) for developing heterogeneous 
permeability fields for drift-scale models, and (2) for the distribution of permeabilities sampled 
during TSPA-LA calculations. 
6.1.1 Niche Test Site and Borehole Configuration 
Extensive air-permeability measurements have been made in borehole clusters at five niches and 
at three alcoves within the ESF tunnel, as part of a program to select locations for liquid-release 
tests. The air permeability along each borehole in a cluster serves as a guide to the selection of 
the liquid-release intervals. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-14 November 2004 
6.1.1.1 Site Selection 
Various niche and alcove sites were selected for study, based on fracture and hydrologic data 
collected in the ESF, as illustrated in Figure 6-3. Four niches were excavated along the main 
drift of the ESF and a fifth in the ECRB Cross-Drift. The first niche site is located at 
Construction Station (CS) 35+66 (hereafter referred to as Niche 1 (Niche 3566), located 3566 m 
from the ESF North Portal) in a brecciated zone between the Sundance fault and a cooling joint, 
where a preferential flow path is believed to be present [based on elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios 
described in Yucca Mountain Site Description (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 5.2)]. 
Niche 1 (Niche 3566) was sealed with a bulkhead to conduct long-term monitoring of in situ 
conditions. The second niche site is located at CS 36+50 [Niche 2 (Niche 3650)] in a competent 
rock mass with lower fracture density than Niche 1 (Niche 3566). The third niche is located at 
CS 31+07 [Niche 3 (Niche 3107)] in close proximity to the crossover point located at CS 30+62. 
A test alcove (Alcove 8) has been excavated from the ECRB Cross-Drift to a position 
immediately above Niche 3 (Niche 3107), so that a large-scale drift-to-drift test could be 
conducted at this location. The fourth niche site is located at CS 47+88 [Niche 4 (Niche 4788)] 
in a 950 m long exposure of the middle nonlithophysal zone, referred to by Buesch and Spengler 
(1998 [DIRS 101433], p. 19) as the intensely fractured zone. The fifth niche is located at ECRB 
Cross-Drift CS 16+20 [Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620)] near the center of the repository block. The 
first four niches described above were excavated on the west side of the ESF main drift within 
the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring welded tuff unit (TSw). The 
fifth niche in the ECRB Cross-Drift is excavated in the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the 
TSw, which is the tuff unit in which most of the repository emplacement drifts would be located. 
Alcove 8 is excavated in the upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul) of the ECRB Cross-Drift. (Air 
permeability tests in two other alcoves, Alcove 4 and Alcove 6, are described in Section 6.5; 
along a systematic hydrologic characterization borehole in Section 6.11.2.1; and along a 
borehole at Busted Butte in Section 6.13.5.2.) 
6.1.1.2 Borehole Configuration 
Prior to niche excavation, three boreholes were drilled at Niche 1 (Niche 3566), and seven 
boreholes per niche were drilled at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 
(Niche 4788). Boreholes were drilled before excavation into both the rock to be excavated and 
the surrounding rock to gain access to the testing and monitoring area. Figure 6-4 shows the 
schematics of borehole clusters tested at the first four niche sites. Both types of boreholes were 
tested before niche excavation, and the surrounding boreholes were retested after excavation, 
allowing a study of excavation effects on the permeability of the surrounding rock. All 
boreholes shown in Figure 6-4 are parallel to the niche axis, as illustrated in Figure 6-5. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-15 November 2004 
Figure 6-3. Location Map for Niche 3 (Niche 3107), Niche 1 (Niche 3566), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788), and Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-16 November 2004 
U
M
B 
Niche 3566 
3.25 m 
CL 
MR ML 
B1.5 
B2.5 
UL UM UR 
Niche 3107 
2.5 m 
0 m 0 m 
0 m 0 m 
Final ceiling elevation 
near mid point of niche Starting ceiling elevation 
near opening to niche 
3.25 m 
CL 
MR ML 
B1.5 
B2.5 
UL 
UM 
UR 
Niche 4788 
2.5 m 
Starting elevation of 
niche ceiling at opening 
Final elevation of 
niche ceiling at depth 
of 2.9 m and beyond 
3.25 m 
CL 
2.5 m 
4.0 m 
3.25 m 
2.5 m 
CL 
MR ML 
BR BL 
UL UM UR 
Niche 3650 
4.0 m 
4.0 m 4.0 m 
(a) (b) 
(c) (d) 
NOTES: All measurements are approximate and do not represent surveyed as-built conditions. The niche faces 
are on the west wall of the main drift of the Exploratory Studies Facility. See Figure 6-6 for borehole 
notations. CL denotes centerline. 
Figure 6-4. Schematic Illustration of the End View of Borehole Clusters at Niche Sites 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-17 November 2004 
CL 
N 
2 Meters 0 1 
U, M and B 
CL 
N 
UM 
UR 
UL 
ML, BL MR, BR 
CL 
N 
UM, B1.5 and B2.5 
UL 
UR 
ML 
MR 
CL 
N 
UM, B1.5 and B2.5 
UL 
UR 
ML 
MR 
Niche 3566 
(a) 
Niche 3650 
(b) 
Niche 3107 ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
ESF 
(c) 
Niche 4788 
(d) 
Niche Centerline 
Borehole Axis 
NOTES: All measurements are approximate and do not represent surveyed as-built conditions. The boreholes 
shown are oriented horizontally in the northwestern direction parallel to the niche axis. See Figure 6-6 for 
borehole notations. CL denotes centerline. 
Figure 6-5. Schematic Illustration of the Plan View of Borehole Clusters at Niche Sites 
Three boreholes were originally drilled at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) along the same vertical plane 
coincident with the center of the niche (Panel a of Figure 6-4 and Panel a of Figure 6-5).1 The 
three boreholes were assigned the designations U, M, and B, corresponding to the upper, middle, 
and bottom borehole, respectively. Borehole M and Borehole B were subsequently removed 
when the rock was mined out to create the niche; Borehole U is still intact. 
Panel b of Figure 6-4 and Panel b of Figure 6-5 show the location of the seven boreholes drilled 
at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). Three of the boreholes, designated UL, UM, and UR (upper left, upper 
middle, and upper right, respectively), were drilled approximately 1 m apart and 0.65 m above 
the crown of the niche in the same horizontal plane. The remaining boreholes, ML, MR, BL, and 
BR (middle left, middle right, bottom left, and bottom right, respectively), were drilled within 
1Figures 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 were generated using field measurements recorded in Scientific Notebooks (Wang 1997 
[DIRS 156530], Wang 1997 [DIRS 156534]), Wang 1999 [DIRS 156538], Wang 1999 [DIRS 153449], and Trautz 
1999 [DIRS 156563]) and/or using pre-built plans for niche excavation. Therefore, these figures show the idealized 
shape of the niches and approximate locations of the boreholes. Figure 6-7 was generated using the as-built data 
(DTN: MO0008GSC00269.000 [DIRS 166198]). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-18 November 2004 
the boundaries of the proposed niche and were subsequently mined out when the niche was 
excavated as planned. 
Panel c of Figure 6-4 and Panel c of Figure 6-5 show the final configuration of the seven 
boreholes drilled at Niche 3 (Niche 3107). The original intent was to drill the middle boreholes 
(Borehole ML and Borehole MR) beyond the limits of the proposed excavation to monitor the 
movement of moisture around the niche during subsequent testing. Unfortunately, the middle 
boreholes were not drilled at the correct elevation above Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and were partially 
mined away during excavation. The three upper boreholes (UL, UM, and UR) remained intact 
and were used in wetting front detection in the Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) tests, as described 
in Section 6.12.2.2. Boreholes at Alcove 8 (located directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107)) are 
described at the end of this section. 
The final configuration of the seven boreholes drilled at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) is illustrated in 
Panel d of Figure 6-4 and Panel d of Figure 6-5. A misinterpretation of a survey mark, along 
with bad ground conditions (i.e., falling rock or collapsing ground conditions) at Niche 4 (Niche 
4788), also resulted in the partial loss of Borehole ML at this site. The original plan was to drill 
the U and M series boreholes outside the excavation. 
After the excavation of Niche 1 (Niche 3566), a special set of horizontal boreholes was drilled 
from within the niche into the walls and end of the niche in a radial pattern. A similar scheme 
was used at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) after its excavation. These boreholes are not shown on the 
plan views. 
Air-permeability testing has been performed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). Special boreholes to 
discern the effects of excavation on permeability were drilled alongside the proposed excavation 
site, parallel to the planned location of the niche wall. These boreholes were designated AK 
because they were intended primarily for air permeability use. Figure 6-6a and Figure 6-6c show 
(in plan and cross-sectional view, respectively) these three boreholes designated AK1, AK2, and 
AK3, which were drilled 1 m apart in a horizontal plane, with the first borehole 1 m from the 
proposed niche wall and level with the elevation of the ECRB spring line. Before the inner 
excavation at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), seven additional boreholes were drilled as shown in 
Panel b of Figure 6-6, Panel d of Figure 6-6, and Panel e of Figure 6-6 in plan, elevation, and 
side view respectively, designated B1.75, ML, MM, MR, UL, UM, and UR. All of these 
boreholes, except Borehole B1.75, were drilled above the proposed inner-niche location. 
Subsequent excavation of the inner part of the niche mined out Borehole B1.75. These seven 
boreholes are also designated as Borehole 1 through Borehole 7 in Section 6.2.1.3.5.2. After 
pre- and post-excavation air permeability tests at Niche CD 1620 (Niche 5), two slots (also 
referred to as bat wings) were excavated into the sidewalls of the niche, as described in 
Section 6.2.1.3.5.2. 
Alcove 8 is located directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107). Air-permeability measurements were 
performed in the near-vertical boreholes drilled from the invert of Alcove 8, toward Niche 3 
(Niche 3107). These boreholes were drilled to surround the area designated for the pond 
experiment, as described in Section 6.12.4. These air-permeability tests were made to provide 
correlation with the ground penetrating radar imaging in the same boreholes (Section 6.12.3), as 
opposed to providing direct locations for borehole water releases (as with the other 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-19 November 2004 
air-permeability measurement intervals). They were also intended to allow retesting to observe 
changes in relative permeability caused by possible partial saturation as a result of the pond 
experiment. The alcove plan and face views are shown with approximate borehole locations, 
designated as #1 to #6, in Panel a of Figure 6-7 and Panel b of Figure 6-7, respectively. 
0 2 4 6 8 
Niche Centerline 
Borehole Axis 
Access Drift 
Stand Off 
AK3 20.0m 
AK2 21.5m 
AK1 23.0m 
(a) 
0 1 2 3 4 
UM, MM & B1.75 
Stand Off 
Access 
Drift 
UR & MR 
UL & ML 
20.0 m 
from end of 
Access Drift 
(beginning of 
niche opening) 
(b) 
Access Drift 
AK1 AK2 AK3 
Niche CD 1620 
(c) 
Access 
Drift 
Stand off 0.0 m 
2.5 m 
4.25 m 
4.75 m 
6.0 m 
3.0 m 
Borehole B1.75 
Borehole ML, MM & MR 
Borehole UL, UM & UR 
0.0 m 5.0 15.0 20.0
2.5 m 
1.75 m 
0.5 m 
2.5 m 
(e) 
Approximate Scale 
Approximate Scale 
CL
B1.75 
ML MM MR 
1.0 m 
Niche CD 1620 
Niche CD 1620 
Niche CD 1620 Niche CD 1620 
2.5 m 
0.75 m 
2.5 m 
0.0 m 
1.0 m 2.0 m 2.0 m 
1.0 m 1.0 m 4.25 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 
UM UR UL 
2.0 m 2.0 m 
(d) 
U=Upper, M=Middle, B=Bottom 
L =Left, R=Right 
1.75 = Depth in meters below 
 middle holes 
CL 
CL 
CL 
N 
N 
ECRB 
AK boreholes on the Side Liquid Release Boreholes In and Above the Niche 
AK boreholes on the Side Liquid Release Boreholes In and Above the Niche 
Liquid Release Boreholes In and Above the Niche 
3.5 m 
NOTES: All measurements are approximate and do not represent surveyed as-built conditions. The niche face is 
on the southeast wall of the ECRB Cross-Drift. CL denotes centerline. 
Figure 6-6. Schematic Illustration of the End and Plan Views of Borehole Clusters at Niche 5 
(Niche CD 1620) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-20 November 2004 
(a) 
CL 
CL 
CL N 
Access Drift 
Alcove 
#1 
#2 
#4 
#3 
#5 
#6 
EC 
RB 
CS 7+98 
1.7 m 
2.0 m 
6.4 m 
5.8 m 
#1 
#2 
#3,4 
#5 
#6 
CL 
12 
.5 m 
3.6 m 
3.3 m 
Drill Bay 
10.0 
m 
11.0 m 
(b) 
Alcove 8 
NOTES: All measurements are approximate. Borehole as-built data are in DTN: MO0008GSC00269.000 
[DIRS 166198]. The niche face is on the southeast wall of the ECRB Cross-Drift. CL denotes centerline. 
Figure 6-7. Schematic Illustration of the Plan and End Views of Borehole Clusters at Alcove 8 
6.1.2 Air-Permeability Testing, Spatial Distribution, and Statistical Analysis 
Approximately 3,500 separate air injections have been undertaken in the in situ studies 
underground at Yucca Mountain. Nearly one quarter-million pressure-response curves have 
been logged in the studies. The number of tests lends itself to visualization and statistical 
comparison of the flow connections and distributions of permeability in the rock mass. The 
specially designed equipment for pneumatic testing is described in Appendix A. With this 
equipment, it is feasible to conduct tests for site-to-site and borehole-to-borehole comparisons, 
both before and after excavation. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-21 November 2004 
6.1.2.1 Data Reduction and Air-Permeability Determination 
Data in the field were acquired in the form of voltage output from the various instruments and 
converted in real time or post-test time to physical units, using the calibration data of each 
instrument. At Niche 3 (Niche 3107), Niche 4 (Niche 4788), Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), and 
Alcove 8, data acquisition was fully automated, so that log entries for each individual injection 
test could be done by computer and correlation with the data files linked. Each of these tests was 
given three minutes to reach steady state. (An interval of three minutes was shown, by transient 
responses, to be sufficient time for the development of steady states.) To maximize the 
signal-to-noise ratio, the maximum flow rate obtainable with the system was chosen for the 
purpose of the permeability calculation, i.e., the rate was maximized but did not cause the 
interval pressure to exceed the pressure at which leakage around the packer might occur. 
Because each injection test was repeated to accommodate two different observation-packer 
configurations, two tests for each injection location from which to choose flow and pressure data 
for the single-borehole results were conducted. When graphed, the two are usually 
indistinguishable. Preference is given to the lower of the two if a difference can be discerned, 
because the higher value is likely caused by leaks in the packer sealing. 
Reported data consist of the acquisition filename, test location, time, date, channel or interval 
number, flow rate, ambient pressure, and steady-state injection pressure. The derived 
steady-state single-borehole permeability can be obtained using Equation (6-1). 
In air-permeability tests conducted to characterize the fracture heterogeneity of the test sites, 
permeability values were obtained from pressure changes and flow rates using the following 
modified Hvorslev's formula (LeCain 1995 [DIRS 101700], p. 10, Equation 15): 
( )sc 
f 
w 
sc sc 
T P P L 
T 
r
L Q P 
k 2 
1 
2 
2 
ln 
- 
. .. . 
. .. 
. 
= 
p 
 
(Eq. 6-1)2 
where: k = permeability, m2. 
Psc = standard pressure, Pa. 
Qsc = flow-rate at standard conditions, m3/s. 
 = dynamic viscosity of air, Pas. 
L = length of zone, m. 
rw 
= radius of bore, m. 
2
The solution is derived for a steady-state ellipsoidal flow field around a finite line source. If the length L in the 
natural logarithm term in Equation 6-1 is replaced by an external radius Re, this formula is identical to the cylindrical 
flow solution with an ambient constant pressure boundary at the external radius (Muskat 1982 [DIRS 134132], 
p. 734). This replacement is used in Section 6.2.2.1 to estimate permeability for post-excavation liquid flow paths 
from the borehole interval to the niche ceiling. Note that ln is the natural logarithm. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-22 November 2004 
Tf 
= temperature of formation, K. 
P2 
= injection zone pressure at steady-state, Pa. 
P1 
= ambient pressure, Pa. 
Tsc = standard temperature, K. 
In this calculation, standard pressure is 1.013  105 Pa (one atmosphere). The dynamic viscosity 
of air used is 1.78  10-5 Pas. Temperature contributions to Equation 6-1 are negligible, with Tf 
approximately equal to Tsc for ambient-temperature testing conditions. See Appendix Section I3 
for details pertaining to how this calculation was performed. 
Two approximations are used in calculating permeability using Equation 6-1. The Hvorslevs 
formula requires that air behave as an ideal gas. This requirement is approximately true at the 
ambient temperatures and pressures used in the air-permeability tests. In addition, a finite line 
source is used to represent a borehole injection interval. This representation is applied to the 
borehole injection interval, where all airflow is approximated to be in the radial direction (none 
in the axial direction). This is justified because in the air-permeability tests, the length of 
injection zone was 0.3048 m and the radius of the borehole was 0.0381 m. The injection zone is 
a long, thin cylinder. Flows along axial directions were blocked by packers, and occurrences of 
packer leaks were monitored by pressures in adjacent borehole intervals, as described in 
Appendix A. 
Although the fractured tuff of the niches is not a homogeneous or infinite medium, the Hvorslev 
equation provides a consistent method of calculating effective permeabilities on the scale of the 
injection interval, enabling comparison of the test results for various injection locations. 
Because the heterogeneity of the surrounding medium is not known a priori, the permeabilities 
calculated by analytic formula are estimates of effective values around the injection borehole 
intervals. The results of the air-permeability tests are used to characterize the heterogeneity of 
the medium of niche sites and test beds. Another requirement of this approach is that airflows 
are mainly through fractures and governed by Darcy's law. Darcy's law is used to relate flux to 
pressure gradients (Bear 1972 [DIRS 156269]). The justification for this is that: under the 
ambient unsaturated conditions in fractured tuff at Yucca Mountain, capillary forces confine the 
liquid mainly to the matrix. This leaves the fracture network, which is more permeable than the 
tuff matrix, available for gas flow. 
Deviations from Darcys law may result either from turbulent flow or from the gas slip-flow 
phenomenon (Klinkenberg 1942 [DIRS 106105]), but neither of these effects is considered 
significant. Slip flow is significant only in pores with dimensions similar to the mean free path 
of air molecules (Bear 1972 [DIRS 156269]). Apertures of the fractures in Yucca Mountain are 
much larger than the molecular mean free path. Pressure drop is proportional to flow rate in 
laminar flow, which is required for Darcy's law, but not in turbulent flow (Bear 1972 
[DIRS 156269]). These experiments were conducted at multiple flow rates to detect any 
evidence of deviation from Darcys law due to turbulence, and none was found. Finally, small 
effects potentially associated with movement of residual water within the fractures and the 
multirate approach to check packer leak-by and other nonlinear effects (e.g., turbulence) are 
discussed in Appendix A, Section A4. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-23 November 2004 
6.1.2.2 Permeability Profiles 
All boreholes at niches as illustrated in Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 are nominally 10 m long and 
0.0762 m in diameter. Those in Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 were nominally 15 m long and 
0.0762 m in diameter. The boreholes were dry-drilled with compressed air to remove drill 
cuttings. Both the packer length and the test interval length are 0.3 m in all cases. Additional 
details pertaining to equipment configuration and test execution are provided in Appendix A. 
Whereas most of the niches were excavated so as to preserve certain boreholes surrounding them 
(in order to remeasure the air permeability in these holes after excavation), Alcove 8 was 
constructed for other purposes and only later adapted for air-permeability testing; consequently, 
no pre-excavation air permeabilities are available. 
6.1.2.2.1 Pre- and Post-Excavation Permeability Profiles 
Permeability profiles along boreholes at the five niches show the permeability value from each 
test interval, plotted against the location of the middle of the test interval (also referred to as test 
zone). Figure 6-8 illustrates three Niche 1 (Niche 3566) permeability profiles along the upper, 
middle, and bottom boreholes, which are parallel to the niche axis. The air-permeability tests 
were conducted before niche excavation. Niche 1 (Niche 3566), the first niche excavated in the 
ESF, is located in the vicinity of the Sundance fault. All three boreholes penetrated brecciated 
zones in the last one-third of their lengths, with broken rock pieces preventing packer insertion 
beyond this depth. A wet feature within a brecciated zone was observed at the end of this niche, 
right after completion of dry excavation (Wang et al. 1999 [DIRS 106146], p. 331, Figure (4c)). 
The width of the wet feature is comparable to the borehole-interval length of 0.3 m, used in the 
air-permeability tests (this section) and liquid-release seepage tests (Section 6.2). 
After niche excavation, six additional horizontal boreholes were drilled from the inside of 
Niche 1 (Niche 3566), fanning out radially in different directions. Only two radial boreholes 
were tested and analyzed in Niche 1 (Niche 3566); this niche was sealed for moisture monitoring 
after testing the two radial boreholes, and additional air-permeability and seepage testing in this 
niche was deferred. The permeability profiles for two radial boreholes on the left side of the 
niche are illustrated in Figure 6-9. These boreholes also penetrated brecciated zones. The 
absence of data from the deeper portion of one of the boreholes in Figure 6-9 is related to the 
intrinsic difficulties of brecciated zone testing due to poor borehole conditions, which prevent the 
maintenance of a proper seal (see also Appendix Section A4 for a discussion of issues pertaining 
to packer leak-by in testing). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-24 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
upper a) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
middle b) 
Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. 
NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the 
borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the 
borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). 
Figure 6-8. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Axial Boreholes at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-25 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
bottom c) 
NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the 
borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the 
borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). 
Figure 6-8. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Axial Boreholes at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) 
(Continued) 
Figure 6-10 illustrates both the pre- and post-excavation permeability profiles along three upper 
boreholes at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). On all the plots with both pre- and post-excavation data, a 
line is drawn through the profiles to indicate the geometric average of each (see 
Appendix Section I1 for calculations). This mean includes only intervals that were tested in 
common both before and after excavation. 
The permeability increases could be interpreted as the opening of pre-existing fractures induced 
by stress releases associated with niche excavation (Wang and Elsworth 1999 [DIRS 104366], 
pp. 751 to 757). The niches were excavated using an Alpine Miner (a mechanical device with a 
rotary head), as opposed to drilling and blasting, to cut the rocks below the upper-level 
boreholes, to minimize potential effects on permeability from excavation-induced damages and 
fracturing. 
Intervals with high pre-excavation permeability recorded the smallest post-excavation 
permeability changes. In additional to mechanical effects, some of the permeability increases 
can be related to the intersection of previously dead-ended fractures with the excavated free 
surface. For borehole intervals, beyond the extent of the niche excavation, the permeability 
values are less altered. Figure 6-11 illustrates the pre-excavation permeability profiles of the 
other four boreholes. The middle- and bottom-level boreholes were available for air-injection 
testing only before niche excavation, because they were subsequently removed by excavation. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-26 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
R6 a) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
R1 b) 
Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. 
NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the 
borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the 
borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). 
Figure 6-9. Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Radial Boreholes at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-27 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
UM PRE 
UM PRE ga 
UM POST 
UM POST ga 
a) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
UL PRE 
UL PRE ga 
UL POST 
UL POST ga 
b) 
Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. 
NOTE: ga is the geometric average. In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than 
the actual position in the borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 
0.3 m further into the borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). 
NOTE: Tested borehole intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. 
Figure 6-10. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 2 
(Niche 3650) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-28 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
UR PRE 
UR PRE ga 
UR POST 
UR POST ga 
bc) 
Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. 
NOTES: ga is the geometric average. In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather 
than the actual position in the borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive 
zone is 0.3 m further into the borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). 
Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. 
Figure 6-10. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 2 
(Niche 3650) (Continued) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-29 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
ML a) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
MR b) 
Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. 
NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the 
borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the 
borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). 
Figure 6-11. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 2 
(Niche 3650) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-30 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
BL c) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
BR d) 
Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. 
NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the 
borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the 
borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). 
Figure 6-11. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 2 
(Niche 3650) (Continued) 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-32 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
UM PRE 
UM PRE ga 
UM POST 
UM POST ga 
b) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
UR PRE 
UR PRE ga 
UR POST 
UR POST ga 
c) 
Source: DTNs: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593] for pre-excavation data, LB990601233124.001 
[DIRS 105888] for post-excavation data. 
NOTE: Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. 
Figure 6-12. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) (Continued) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-33 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
ML a) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
MR b) 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593]. 
Figure 6-13. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-34 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
B1.5 c) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
B2.5 d) 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593]. 
Figure 6-13. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) (Continued) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-35 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
UL PRE 
UL PRE ga 
UL POST 
UL POST ga 
a) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
UM PRE 
UM PRE ga 
UM POST 
UM POST ga 
b) 
Source: DTNs: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593] for pre-excavation data, LB990601233124.001 
[DIRS 105888] for post-excavation data. 
NOTE: Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. 
Figure 6-14. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-36 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
UR PRE 
UR PRE ga 
UR POST 
UR POST ga 
c) 
Source: DTNs: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593] for pre-excavation data, LB990601233124.001 
[DIRS 105888] for post-excavation data. 
NOTE: Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. 
Figure 6-14. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) (Continued) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-37 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
ML a) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
B1.5 b) 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593]. 
NOTE: Two or more measurements were made at each position. The least value of calculated permeability is 
reported here as being the most likely to be unaffected by leak-by. 
Figure 6-15. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-38 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
B2.5 c) 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593]. 
NOTE: Two or more measurements were made at each position. The least value of calculated permeability is 
reported here as being the most likely to be unaffected by leak-by. 
Figure 6-15. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) (Continued) 
At Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), measurements taken before and after excavation at the inner niche 
area and alongside the outer niche area allowed comparison of excavation effects on 
permeability profiles for boreholes situated above the excavation versus those situated alongside 
the excavation. Profiles were taken of Borehole UL, Borehole UM, and Borehole ML over the 
inner niche area both before and after the inner niche excavation, as illustrated in Figure 6-16. 
(From all boreholes drilled above the niche, only Boreholes UL, UM, and ML were testable; all 
other boreholes were blocked by borehole debris.) Similarly, the AK borehole closest to the 
proposed niche wall became blocked close to the collar before any measurements could be taken. 
The other two, AK2 and AK3, were successfully profiled with air-k measurements at 0.3-m 
intervals. After excavation of the outer niche, the AK boreholes were again profiled. In 
Figure 6-17, comparison of the profiles of the two AK boreholes does not show as significant a 
change as the comparison of the profiles of the boreholes above the niche in Figure 6-16. For the 
overhead boreholes, certain borehole sections change permeability more than others do, whereas 
the change in the geometric average (subscript ga in figures in this report) for the AK 
boreholes alongside the excavation is smaller than it is for the overhead boreholes. Although the 
Borehole UL and the Borehole AK2 are roughly the same distance from their respective mined 
surfaces of the niche, they show a marked difference in the change of the geometric average of 
permeability. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-39 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2
UL PRE 
UL PRE ga 
UL POST 
UL POST ga 
a) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
UM PRE 
UM PRE ga 
UM POST 
UM POST ga 
b) 
Source: DTNs: LB0012AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 154586] for pre-excavation data; LB0110AKN5POST.001 
[DIRS 156904] for post-excavation data. 
Figure 6-16. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 5 
(Niche CD 1620) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-40 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
ML PRE 
ML PRE ga 
ML POST 
ML POST ga 
c) 
Source: DTNs: LB0012AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 154586] for pre-excavation data; LB0110AKN5POST.001 
[DIRS 156904] for post-excavation data. 
Figure 6-16. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 5 
(Niche CD 1620) (Continued) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-41 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
AK2 PRE 
AK2 PRE ga 
AK2 POST 
AK2 POST ga 
a) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
AK3 PRE 
AK3 PRE ga 
AK3 POST 
AK3 POST ga 
b) 
Source: DTNs: LB002181233124.001 [DIRS 146878]; LB0110AK23POST.001 [DIRS 156905]. 
NOTE: Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. 
Figure 6-17. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along AK Side Boreholes at Niche 5 
(Niche CD 1620) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-42 November 2004 
6.1.2.2.2 Vertical Permeability Profiles 
Near-vertical borehole air-permeability profile data were collected in Alcove 8. 
Figure 6-18 (Panels a to f) shows the permeability as a function of depth for each of the 
boreholes drilled from the invert of Alcove 8. All boreholes have local peaks and sections of 
relatively uniform permeabilities along their depths, and high permeabilities toward the bottom. 
Borehole 1, Borehole 3, and Borehole 4 exhibit relatively long sections of low permeability, 
followed by a 3 to 5 order-of-magnitude increase starting at approximately 6 m for Borehole 5, 
10 m for Borehole 3, and 8 m for Borehole 4. These permeability increases could be locally 
associated with the Tptpul-Tptpmn interface which is approximately midway between Alcove 8 
and Niche 107 (Niche 3), as discussed in Section 6.12.1.2 on the geometry and in Section 6.12.3 
on the results of geophysical imaging of the drift-to-drift test bed. 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
borehole 5 a) 
Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. 
Figure 6-18. Air-Permeability Profiles along Boreholes Drilled from in Alcove 8 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-43 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
borehole 4 b) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
borehole 2 c) 
Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. 
Figure 6-18. Air-Permeability Profiles along Boreholes Drilled from in Alcove 8 (Continued) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-44 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m 2 
borehole 3 d) 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
borehole 1 e) 
Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. 
Figure 6-18. Air-Permeability Profiles down Boreholes in Alcove 8 (Continued) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-45 November 2004 
1.E-15 
1.E-14 
1.E-13 
1.E-12 
1.E-11 
1.E-10 
1.E-09 
1.E-08 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 
position in borehole (meters) 
Permeability m2 
borehole 6 f) 
Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. 
Figure 6-18. Air-Permeability Profiles down Boreholes in Alcove 8 (Continued) 
6.1.2.3 Permeability Change as a Function of Initial Permeability 
The plots presented in this section highlight the difference in the character of borehole 
permeability changes (caused by nearby excavation). The post-excavation permeability for a 
particular interval in a borehole, divided by the pre-excavation permeability for the same interval 
in a borehole, is the interval change ratio caused by excavation. A plot of the logarithmic change 
ratio versus the logarithm of the pre-excavation permeability shows a dependence of the change 
on the initial value. Figure 6-19 and Figure 6-20 show the changes for three of the overhead 
boreholes and two of the side boreholes, respectively, that were tested at Niche 5 (Niche CD 
1620) (see Appendix Section I4 for details on ratio, trend, and slope calculations). The data for 
the overhead boreholes support the notion that the initially low permeability zones change the 
most. For the side boreholes (with borehole designation AK), however, the trend is weaker, and 
they can be divided into a small population of intervals with strong change dependency, and a 
larger population with no dependency. Initial permeabilities were evenly distributed in both 
populations. 
Change ratios for the pre- and post-excavation testing previously undertaken at Niche 2 
(Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) (all in overhead boreholes) are 
shown in Figure 6-21, Figure 6-22, and Figure 6-23, respectively. The change-ratio plots for 
these niches in the middle nonlithophysal zone of TSw show stronger correlation between initial 
permeability and the change ratio. Additionally, from the geometric averages in the profile plots, 
it can be seen that all these middle nonlithophysal niches show a larger average excavation effect 
than the boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in the lower lithophysal zone of the TSw. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-46 November 2004 
Niche CD 1620 Permeability Change 
R2 = 0.1109 
-3 
-2 
-1
0
1
2
3
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 
Log Initial Permeability (m2) 
Log Change Ratio 
ML UL UM 
Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. 
Figure 6-19. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Overhead Boreholes 
Niche CD 1620 AK Holes Permeability Change 
R2 = 0.1713 
-1
0
1
2
3
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 
Log Initial Permeability (m2) 
Log Change Ratio 
AK2 AK3 
Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. 
Figure 6-20. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) AK Boreholes 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-47 November 2004 
Niche 3650 Permeability Change 
R2 = 0.1244 
-1
0
1
2
3
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 
Log Initial Permeability (m2) 
Log Change Ratio 
UL UM UR 
Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. 
Figure 6-21. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
Niche 3107 Permeability Change 
R2 = 0.1597 
-1
0
1
2
3
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 
Log Initial Permeability (m2) 
Log Change Ratio 
UL UM UR 
Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. 
Figure 6-22. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 3 (Niche 3107) 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-48 November 2004 
Niche 4788 Permeability Change 
R2 = 0.1587 
-1
0
1
2
3
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 
Log Initial Permeability (m2) 
Log Change Ratio 
UL UM UR MR 
Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. 
Figure 6-23. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) 
6.1.2.4 Statistical Summary of Air-Permeability Distributions 
The air-permeability measurement is one of the most effective methods to quantify the natural 
variability of unsaturated fractured rocks (Cook 2000 [DIRS 165411]). Table 6-2 summarizes 
the average (arithmetic and geometric) values, standard deviations, and ranges of variations in 
pre- and post-excavation permeability of individual boreholes and of whole niche sites (see 
Appendix Section I1 for calculations). Also included are the averages, deviations, and ranges of 
interval change ratios for individual boreholes and whole niches. (The ratios are calculated from 
the pre- and post-excavation permeability values for each interval before the statistical analyses.) 
Table 6-3 shows similar data for the overhead boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). Table 6-4 
shows this data for the side holes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). For assessing the 
excavation-induced impacts, the analyses in Table 6-2, Table 6-3, and Table 6-4 incorporate 
retested boreholes only. Drift-scale variations along boreholes and between different boreholes 
within the same niche test site are larger than differences between different sites. Table 6-5 
shows the statistics from the single data set for Alcove 8. Variability among intervals within 
boreholes in this case straddles that for the whole site. In addition, Alcove 8 shows the largest 
range of values of any site yet tested. 
Table 6-6 summarizes the geometric means and standard deviations of all clusters of boreholes 
tested in the ESF as a function of site location and rock type. The permeability values from the 
excavated boreholes are included in these averaging results. Pre-excavation (log-geometric) 
means and standard deviations were derived from averaging permeability data from all available 
boreholes in each niche or alcove cluster. The middle- and lower-level boreholes supplement the 
upper boreholes to characterize the three-dimensional (3-D) space in the test beds, and locate 
flow paths during pre-excavation conditions. After excavation with only upper boreholes in a 
horizontal plane remaining, the air-permeability tests can characterize only the zones above the 
niche ceilings.) Because the pre-excavation holes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) are the same set 
as those for post-excavation testing, both types of tests are included for this case. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-49 November 2004 
Each borehole cluster has a distinct air-permeability character. The spatial variability in 
permeability is considerable at the borehole-interval scale of 0.3 m before averaging the data 
over the 10 m scale along the boreholes and the 100 m3 volume, i.e., obtaining averages for 
borehole clusters (3 to 7 boreholes). Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 1 (Niche 3566) each have 
a radial entry in the table, which indicates boreholes that are drilled from inside the niches 
after excavation. Permeability values from these Niche 3 (Niche 3107) boreholes (profiles not 
shown) vary little from those of the pre-excavation boreholes, indicative of the uniformity of the 
formation around Niche 3 (Niche 3107). In the case of Niche 1 (Niche 3566), however, the 
radial boreholes that were tested ran through the brecciated zone within the niche wall, and thus 
exhibited higher permeability than that of the pre-excavation boreholes. The results for the 
borehole cluster at Alcove 8 show the highest standard deviation, which may be a result of the 
traversal of the contact (by the boreholes). The entries in Table 6-6 for Alcove 4 and Alcove 6 
are included for completeness, and will be discussed in Section 6.5. 
Standard deviation from the statistical analysis is a measure of variability, also referred to as 
aleatory uncertainty, for natural randomness or heterogeneity [as discussed in Section 6 and in 
Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative Conceptual Models, Model 
Abstractions and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System Performance Assessment for the 
License Application (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158794])]. 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-50 November 2004 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
Table 6-2. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes above Niches 2, 3, and 4 
Borehole Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Niche 4 (Niche 4788) 
Pre- 
Excavation 
Post- 
Excavation 
Post/Pre 
Ratio a 
Pre- 
Excavation 
Post- 
Excavation 
Post/Pre 
Ratio a 
Pre- 
Excavation 
Post- 
Excavation 
Post/Pre 
Ratio a 
Geometric Mean 
UL 7.26E-14 2.09E-12 20.75 2.22E-14 4.55E-13 20.51 1.41E-13 1.07E-12 7.62 
UM 4.29E-14 1.64E-12 33.29 5.81E-14 4.82E-13 8.72 1.81E-13 2.56E-12 11.09 
UR 4.27E-14 1.01E-12 23.56 3.32E-14 2.64E-13 8.94 6.27E-14 6.27E-13 9.42 
All 3 5.07E-14 1.51E-12 25.38 3.50E-14 3.87E-13 11.69 1.05E-13 1.20E-12 9.42 
Arithmetic Mean 
UL 8.59E-12 2.98E-11 47.06 8.12E-14 1.46E-12 135.48 2.82E-13 2.07E-12 14.28 
UM 1.01E-12 7.78E-12 72.98 1.14E-13 1.55E-12 21.36 8.59E-13 6.19E-12 26.43 
UR 1.27E-13 4.59E-12 53.62 1.14E-13 1.04E-12 30.95 4.42E-13 3.79E-12 45.09 
All 3 3.24E-12 1.40E-11 57.89 1.03E-13 1.35E-12 62.60 5.05E-13 3.99E-12 28.55 
Minimum Value 
UL 1.86E-15 1.45E-14 0.67 1.44E-15 2.90E-15 1.06 9.16E-15 3.57E-14 0.67 
UM 5.40E-15 9.88E-14 1.19 4.10E-15 1.24E-14 0.43 8.99E-15 6.56E-14 1.64 
UR 1.53E-15 3.02E-15 1.01 1.43E-15 3.72E-15 0.63 8.01E-15 1.98E-14 0.24 
All 3 1.53E-15 3.02E-15 0.67 1.43E-15 2.90E-15 0.43 8.01E-15 1.98E-14 0.24 
Maximum Value 
UL 1.27E-10 7.15E-10 271.15 5.32E-13 7.99E-12 1229.23 1.15E-12 8.44E-12 51.54 
UM 2.28E-11 1.01E-10 427.91 5.15E-13 1.40E-11 153.02 3.56E-12 2.50E-11 110.52 
UR 8.07E-13 4.66E-11 310.67 8.06E-13 5.80E-12 184.13 3.83E-12 2.51E-11 386.90 
All 3 1.27E-10 7.15E-10 427.91 8.06E-13 1.40E-11 1229.23 3.83E-12 2.51E-11 386.90 
Range of Log 
UL 4.83 4.69 2.61 2.57 3.44 3.06 2.10 2.37 1.89 
UM 3.63 3.01 2.56 2.10 3.05 2.55 2.60 2.58 1.83 
UR 2.72 4.19 2.49 2.75 3.19 2.47 2.68 3.10 3.21 
All 3 4.92 5.38 2.80 2.75 3.68 3.45 2.68 3.10 3.21 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-51 November 2004 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
Table 6-2. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes above Niches 2, 3, and 4 (Continued) 
Borehole Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Niche 4 (Niche 4788) 
Pre- 
Excavation 
Post- 
Excavation 
Post/Pre 
Ratio a 
Pre- 
Excavation 
Post- 
Excavation 
Post/Pre 
Ratio a 
Pre- 
Excavation 
Post- 
Excavation 
Post/Pre 
Ratio a 
Std. Dev. of Log 
UL 1.18 0.84 0.69 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.57 0.54 
UM 0.80 0.70 0.62 0.57 0.71 0.61 0.95 0.70 0.58 
UR 0.73 1.05 0.66 0.79 0.90 0.74 0.85 0.94 0.84 
All 3 0.93 0.88 0.66 0.74 0.82 0.75 0.79 0.78 0.67 
Source(s): Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Pre- and Post-Excavation DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Pre-Excavation DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593], Post Excavation DTN: LB990601233124.001 
[DIRS 105888]. 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Pre-Excavation DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593], Post-Excavation DTN: LB990601233124.001 
[DIRS 105888]. 
Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001 [Summary]. 
a The post/pre ratio is the ratio of post-excavation to pre-excavation permeabilities. This ratio was calculated for each interval in each borehole. Values 
reported are the statistical measures (maximum, minimum, mean, etc.) of all post/pre ratios calculated for each borehole. 
Where more than one measurement of permeability was made at a position, the least value is used in averaging. 
UL = Upper Left; UM = Upper Middle; UR = Upper Right. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-52 November 2004 
Table 6-3. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes above Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Overhead 
Borehole Pre-Excavation Post-Excavation Post/Pre Ratio a 
Geometric Mean 
ML 1.23E-11 2.14E-11 1.75 
UL 5.54E-12 5.48E-11 9.89 
UM 2.40E-12 3.32E-12 1.38 
All 3 3.88E-12 9.19E-12 2.37 
Arithmetic Mean 
ML 7.88E-11 5.15E-11 2.93 
UL 1.75E-11 5.90E-10 22.75 
UM 7.58E-11 4.90E-10 17.84 
All 3 6.14E-11 4.44E-10 16.65 
Minimum 
ML 1.06E-12 3.30E-12 0.11 
UL 1.46E-13 1.19E-12 0.74 
UM 9.28E-15 4.82E-14 2.26E-03 
All 3 9.28E-15 4.82E-14 2.26E-03 
Maximum 
ML 2.86E-10 1.82E-10 7.33 
UL 4.53E-11 4.03E-09 115.10 
UM 1.19E-09 9.51E-09 354.12 
All 3 1.19E-09 9.51E-09 354.12 
Log of Range 
ML 2.43 1.74 1.82 
UL 2.49 3.53 2.19 
UM 5.11 5.30 5.19 
All 3 5.11 5.30 5.19 
Std. Dev of Log 
ML 1.03 0.63 0.57 
UL 0.87 1.22 0.63 
UM 1.25 1.25 1.19 
All 3 1.14 1.27 1.04 
Source: DTNs: LB0012AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 154586] for pre-excavation data; 
LB0110AKN5POST.001 [DIRS 156904] for post-excavation data. 
a The post/pre ratio is the ratio of post-excavation to pre-excavation permeabilities. This ratio was 
calculated for each interval in each borehole. Values reported are the statistical measures 
(maximum, minimum, mean, etc.) of all post/pre ratios calculated for each borehole. 
Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-53 November 2004 
Table 6-4. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes alongside Niche 5 
(Niche CD 1620) 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Side 
Borehole Pre-Excavation Post-Excavation Post/Pre Ratio 
Geometric Mean 
AK2 3.28E-12 5.41E-12 1.65 
AK3 3.98E-12 8.81E-12 2.22 
Both 3.61E-12 6.90E-12 1.91 
Arithmetic Mean 
AK2 1.09E-11 1.58E-11 5.79 
AK3 9.00E-12 1.50E-11 18.53 
Both 9.93E-12 1.54E-11 12.16 
Minimum 
AK2 4.01E-14 3.44E-14 0.86 
AK3 1.46E-13 1.19E-12 0.84 
Both 4.01E-14 3.44E-14 0.84 
Maximum 
AK2 5.14E-11 5.88E-11 95.51 
AK3 3.01E-11 3.40E-11 363.64 
Both 5.14E-11 5.88E-11 363.64 
Range of Log 
AK2 3.11 3.23 2.05 
AK3 2.51 2.45 2.64 
Both 3.11 3.23 2.64 
Std Dev of Log 
AK2 0.82 0.83 0.44 
AK3 0.72 0.61 0.61 
Both 0.77 0.73 0.53 
Source: DTNs: LB002181233124.001 [DIRS 146878] for pre-excavation data; 
LB0110AK23POST.001 [DIRS 156905] for post-excavation data. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-54 November 2004 
Table 6-5. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes under Alcove 8 
Alcove 8 
Borehole Geometric Mean Arithmetic Mean 
BH1 1.76E-13 1.71E-10 
BH2 6.41E-14 3.48E-13 
BH3 1.33E-14 3.55E-13 
BH4 6.29E-14 2.44E-10 
BH5 5.11E-14 4.93E-13 
BH6 1.11E-12 4.19E-11 
All 6 8.67E-14 7.52E-11 
Borehole Minimum Maximum 
BH1 4.72E-15 3.17E-09 
BH2 4.83E-15 5.46E-12 
BH3 3.61E-15 5.28E-12 
BH4 4.45E-15 6.25E-09 
BH5 3.60E-15 7.06E-12 
BH6 1.48E-14 1.13E-09 
All 6 3.60E-15 6.25E-09 
Borehole Range of log Std Dev of log 
BH1 5.83 1.51 
BH2 3.05 0.83 
BH3 3.17 0.89 
BH4 6.15 1.46 
BH5 3.29 0.98 
BH6 4.88 1.20 
All 6 6.24 1.29 
Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-55 November 2004 
Table 6-6. Comparison of Geometric Means and Standard Deviations of Niches and Alcoves in the 
Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain 
log(k) (m2) 
Borehole Cluster Comment/Type of Site Mean 
Standard 
Deviation 
Niche 1 (Niche 3566) Pre-Excavation Intersects brecciated zone -13.0 0.92 
Niche 1 (Niche 3566) Radial Predominantly within brecciated zone -11.8 0.66 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Pre-Excavation Moderately fractured welded tuff -13.4 0.81 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Post-Excavation Post-excavation welded tuff -11.8 0.88 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Pre-Excavation Moderately fractured welded tuff -13.4 0.70 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Post-Excavation Post-excavation welded tuff -12.4 0.82 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Radial Moderately fractured welded tuff -13.8 0.92 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Pre-Excavation Highly fractured welded tuff -13.0 0.85 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Post-Excavation Post-excavation welded tuff -11.9 0.78 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Pre-Excavation 
side Lithophysal cavities; holes on side of excavation -11.4 0.77 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Post-Excavation 
side Lithophysal cavities; holes on side of excavation -11.2 0.73 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Pre-Excavation 
overhead Lithophysal cavities; holes above excavation -11.4 1.14 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Post-Excavation 
overhead Lithophysal cavities; holes above excavation -11.0 1.27 
Alcove 4 Discrete faulted and fractured non-welded tuff -13.0 0.93 
Alcove 6 Highly fractured post-excavation welded tuff -11.9 0.67 
Alcove 8 Transition from upper lithophysal to welded 
fractured nonlithophysal in near-vertical boreholes -13.1 1.29 
Source: DTNs: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593], 
LB990601233124.001 [DIRS 105888], LB980901233124.004 [DIRS 105855], 
LB980901233124.009 [DIRS 105856], LB980912332245.001 [DIRS 110828], 
LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748], LB0012AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 154586], 
LB002181233124.001 [DIRS 146878], LB0110AK23POST.001 [DIRS 156905], 
LB0110AKN5POST.001 [DIRS 156904]. 
Summary: DTN: LB990901233124.004 [DIRS 123273] (enhanced with Niche CD 1620 [Niche 5] and Alcove 8 
results). 
CD = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block Cross-Drift. 
6.2 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE NICHE LIQUID-RELEASE AND 
SEEPAGE-TEST DATA 
The ESF Drift Seepage Test and Niche Moisture Study (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]) characterize 
the seepage process and further the understanding of how moisture could seep into drifts. 
Specific objectives of the study were: 
 To measure in situ hydrologic properties of the repository host rock for use in Seepage 
Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]) and Seepage 
Model for PA Including Drift Collapse (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167652]). 
 To provide a database of liquid-release and seepage data that could be used to validate 
models of seepage and other related UZ processes. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-56 November 2004 
 To evaluate drift-scale seepage processes to quantify the extent to which seepage is 
excluded from entering an underground cavity. 
 To determine the seepage threshold below which percolating water does not seep into a 
drift. 
The objectives of the study are realized through a combination of field experiments, including 
air-injection, liquid-release, and seepage tests. 
Analytic solutions are used in the data analyses presented in this section to estimate the seepage 
thresholds, capillary barrier strengths, water-potential values, and characteristic relationships 
along seepage flow paths. Local homogeneity is the main approximation in the analytic 
solutions used in estimating the air-permeability values and liquid seepage flow field. Numerical 
models have been formulated in the model report Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage 
Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]) to evaluate the effects of spatial heterogeneity on the 
effective seepage parameters, with the heterogeneity field based on the air-permeability 
distribution (described in Section 6.1). The seepage calibration model is the basis for other 
model reports in estimating the seepage fraction and distribution over the waste-emplacement 
drifts. The downstream model reports include Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167652]) and Abstraction of Drift Seepage (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169131]). 
Early results were based on short-duration releases of small amounts of water (on the order of 
one liter) above Niche 2 (Niche 3650), leading to limited coverage of the fracture network 
involved in flow diversion around the opening. Moreover, the seepage amount is likely affected 
by storage effects, which are insignificant for the prediction of long-term seepage behavior. 
These short-duration tests (originally designed to simulate the arrivals of episodic percolation 
events through fast flow paths into ventilated drifts), do not provide the data sets needed by the 
seepage calibration model and other PA models. In order to address this issue, later tests in 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107), Niche 4 (Niche 4788) and Niche 5 (Niche 1620) were redesigned as 
long-duration liquid-release test. 
6.2.1 Review of Data Obtained from Liquid-Release and Seepage Tests Conducted at 
Niches 
This section provides a general overview of the tests, including field activities performed before, 
during, and after the niches were excavated. 
6.2.1.1 Pre-Excavation Liquid-Release Test Data 
Before seepage tests in excavated niches were conducted, the niche test sites are characterized by 
air-permeability tests (Section 6.1) and by pre-excavation liquid-release tests discussed in this 
section. The pre-excavation liquid-release tests introduced a finite amount of dyed water to 
characterize the flow paths within the niche space. The main objective is to determine the 
relative strength between the gravity force that moves the liquid downward and the capillary 
forces that tend to spread the liquid laterally. The flow paths were subsequently characterized 
during niche excavation (Section 6.2.1.2). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-57 November 2004 
Hundreds of air-injection tests were conducted in the boreholes at niche sites before excavation. 
The test results were used to determine the distribution of single-borehole air permeabilities 
within the rock mass (see Section 6.1). These data were then used to select test intervals for 
subsequent liquid-release tests. Both high and low permeability intervals were selected for 
liquid-release tests. 
Liquid-release tests were conducted in the same boreholes as the air-injection tests by pumping 
water containing colored or fluorescent dyes at a constant rate into various 0.3-m-long test 
intervals (for a description of the testing equipment, see discussion of Figure 6-39 in 
Section 6.2.1.3.5.2). A finite amount of dye-spiked water, typically 1 L, was introduced into 
each test interval. The water was introduced slowly to minimize buildup of fluid pressure in the 
test interval. Various colored and fluorescent tracers were used during the study to document the 
flow paths traveled by the wetting front. For the remainder of this section, the term water will 
be used to describe the test fluid, which may or may not have contained a tracer. 
Pre-excavation liquid-release tests were performed during early June and early August 1997, in 
boreholes installed before the excavation of Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650), 
respectively. Pre-excavation liquid-release tests were performed at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788), starting in late April and late June 1998, respectively. Pre-excavation 
liquid-release tests were also performed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in the lower lithophysal 
zone in April 2000. The data from these pre-excavation tests, including the mass of water 
released, pumping rates and times, and liquid-release rates, were tabulated and entered into the 
TDMS, and assigned DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] for Niche 1 (Niche 3566) 
and Niche 2 (Niche 3650); DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] for Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788); and DTN: LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 155681] for 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). The tables include directly measured mass, pumping rates, return 
flow rates, and derived quantities of average liquid release rates from the differences of the 
measured rates. 
6.2.1.2 Niche Excavation Activities 
The niches were excavated with an Alpine Miner, a mechanical device, using minimal water in 
order to observe and photograph the distribution of fractures and dye within the welded tuff. As 
reported in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583], dye was observed along individual 
fractures as well as along intersecting fractures to depths within the range of 0 to 2.6 m below the 
liquid-release points at the Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) sites. Dye was 
observed at a maximum depth of approximately 1.2 m below the release point at Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) and approximately 1.8 m at Niche 4 (Niche 4788), as reported in 
DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. Dye was observed at a maximum depth of 
approximately 1.4 m below the release point at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), as reported in 
DTN: LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 155681]. (In this report, if a given DTN consists of 
multiple files, the DTN and data report table name are both identified.) Flow of water through a 
relatively undisturbed fracture-matrix system was documented in this manner. 
During the mining operation at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650), two types of 
flow paths were observed in the field, based on the observed pattern of dye: (1) flow through 
individual or small groups of high-angle fractures; and (2) flow through several interconnected 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-58 November 2004 
low- and high-angle fractures, creating a fracture network. Dye was observed along individual 
fractures and fracture networks to a maximum depth of 2.6 m below the release points in the 
middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the TSw. The vertically elongated dye pattern suggests 
that water is predominantly flowing downwards. In contrast, an approximately spherical dye 
pattern (centered at the release point) was observed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), located in the 
lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the TSw. Dye was observed in fractures and lithophysal 
cavities to a maximum depth of 1.4 m. In comparison to the experiments performed in the 
middle nonlithophysal unit, the dye patterns observed in Niche 5 were more symmetric, with the 
lateral edges of the wetted area lying approximately equal distance from the release point. 
Figure 6-24 compares examples of flow paths observed in the Tptpmn at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) 
with dye patterns observed in the Tptpll at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (See Section 6.1.2.2.1 for 
the observation of a damp feature included in the figure). The observed damp feature and the 
dye patterns suggest that flow through fractures in the Tptpmn is predominately gravity-driven. 
In contrast, the symmetry of the dye patterns observed in the Tptpll suggests that capillary forces 
may be more important in this zone. 
Dye was observed in numerous lithophysal cavities in the Tptpll. No direct field evidence exists 
showing that water accumulated and dripped into the cavities, even though the liquid-release 
fluxes applied during the test were 1,000 times greater than the natural flux, estimated at 
10 mm/year. No dye stains on the ceiling were observed to line up directly above stains on the 
floor of the cavities. An example of dye observed on the floor of a lithophysal cavity is 
illustrated in Panel (d) of Figure 6-24, suggesting capillary-induced upward fluid movement is a 
likely mechanism to introduce fluid into the cavity. 
Capillary forces appear to be stronger in the Tptpll despite the fact that the average air 
permeability of the Tptpll is greater than that of the Tptpmn. Typically, capillary forces are less 
important in higher-permeability media than in lower-permeability materials. This may indicate 
that the air-permeability measurements performed in the Tptpll are influenced by the lithophysal 
cavities, which may connect relatively large fractures with smaller fractures, effectively 
contributing to the relatively strong capillarity. 
Note that some of the lithophysal cavities had a thick layer of drill cuttings (i.e., dust) coating 
their surfaces. This layer of dust could influence the flow patterns (as represented by the dye 
stain) and depth of wetting-front migration observed in the Tptpll. This dust was introduced into 
the cavities intersecting the borings when the boreholes were air-cored. The dust could act as a 
highly transmissive surface zone (compared to the rock matrix) that could enhance the uniform 
spread of the wetting front. The dust could also impede the movement of water and dye through 
the fractures by imbibing and retaining the moisture close to the point of release. 
In general, the maximum distance that the wetting front traveled through the Tptpmn from the 
point of injection to the furthest point of observation increased with the mass of water injected. 
The data did not show that the type of flow (i.e., network or vertical fracture flow) had any 
significant influence on the maximum travel distance. Figure 6-25 shows that on average, results 
of tests conducted in the Tptpmn are far more gravity-dominated (i.e., had a higher aspect ratio) 
than results of tests performed in the Tptpll. Computation of the aspect ratio was performed in 
the Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-1. The average line for Tptpll in 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-59 November 2004 
Figure 6-25 is influenced by a single data point with a high aspect ratio [possibly associated with 
a fracture or fractures connected to the borehole (Trautz 2001 [DIRS 157022], p. 69). Without 
this data point, the average is much closer to 1 (i.e., the aspect ratio of a spherical pattern.) 
Sources: Wang et al. (1999 [DIRS 106146], Figures 4a, 4c); Trautz (2001 [DIRS 157022] pp. 79, 84). 
NOTES: (a) Naturally Occurring Wet Feature at Niche 1 (Niche 3566), (b) Blue-Dyed Flow Path at Niche 1 
(Niche 3566), (c) Pink-Dyed Flow Path at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), (d) Pink Stain on the Floor of a 
Lithophysal Cavity at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). 
Figure 6-24. Photographic Illustrations of Flow Paths Observed During Niche Excavations 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-60 November 2004 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 
Mass of Liquid Released (g) 
Aspect Ratio (m/m) 
Niche 3107 - Tptpmn 
Niche 3566 - Tptpmn 
Niche 3650 - Tptpmn 
Niche 4788 - Tptpmn 
Niche CD1620 - Tptpll 
Ave. Tptpmn 
Ave. Tptpll 
Source: DTNs: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]; LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]; 
LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 155681]. 
Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. 
Figure 6-25. Mass of Water Released versus Aspect Ratio 
6.2.1.3 Post-Excavation Seepage Tests 
A series of seepage tests was performed at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788). In general, the tests were used to quantify the amount of water seeping 
into the drift from a localized water source of known duration and intensity. The tests were also 
used to establish the niche seepage-threshold (Ko*), defined as the largest flux of water that can 
be introduced into the test borehole without resulting in seepage into the niche. The borehole 
flux values were derived from the pumping rate and the wetted area estimated for the borehole 
interval (i.e., a cylindrical, wetted area). This is different from the horizontal reference plane 
used in the definition of the percolation flux. Therefore, the resulting definition of niche seepage 
threshold is different from the definition used for performance assessment, where the seepage 
threshold is related to the steady-state background percolation flux averaged over an 
approximately 5-m long section of a waste emplacement drift. 
After post-excavation air-permeability tests (described in Section 6.1), seepage tests were 
conducted by pumping water into select test intervals in Borehole UL, Borehole UM, and 
Borehole UR located above each niche. The distance from the test intervals to the niche ceiling 
is within the range of 0.58 to 1.23 m for all the niche sites. (Computation of the distance is 
inserted in an Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-2.) The tests were performed 
by sealing a short interval of borehole using an inflatable packer system, similar to the system 
used in the air-injection tests described in Appendix A. Any water that migrated from the 
borehole to the niche ceiling and dripped into the opening was captured and weighed. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-61 November 2004 
For each packer interval, a liquid-return (overflow) line prevented buildup of excess pressure. If 
the liquid injection rate was higher than the release rate into the formation and return flow was 
observed, the liquid-release rate was determined by the difference between injection flow rate 
and return flow rate. The observation of return flows would indicate that the pumping rate 
exceeded the Ks of the fracture network around the borehole interval. (For tests with low liquid 
volume, and in cases of significant storage in the borehole interval, instances of no return flow 
did not imply that the pumping conditions represented unsaturated conditions.) 
While liquid-release tests in the open Niche 2 (Niche 3650) were conducted with 
semi-automated injection and manual seepage collection in an open niche, tests in Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were conducted in sealed niches and with evaporation 
controls, and tests in Niche 5 (Niche 1620) involved fully automated operation and control. 
Detailed descriptions of the lower lithophysal (Tptpll) Niche 5 tests are presented in 
Section 6.2.1.3.5.2. 
6.2.1.3.1 Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Seepage-Test Data 
Forty niche seepage tests were performed on 16 test intervals positioned above Niche 2 
(Niche 3650) beginning in late 1997 and ending in early 1998. Water migrated through the rock 
and seeped into the niche in 10 out of the 16 zones tested. The niche seepage threshold was 
determined for the 10 zones that seeped. Seepage and liquid-release data were tabulated and 
entered into the TDMS, where it was assigned DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]. 
The mass of water released to the formation was computed by mass balance. In turn, the 
liquid-release rate (Qs) for each test was computed by dividing the mass released by the 
respective duration of each test; thus, these values represent time-averaged rates. The rate at 
which water was released to the formation was in the range of 0.007 to 2.892 grams per second 
(g/s), and the total mass released was in the range of 274.5 to 5597.5 grams (g) per test, as 
summarized in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]. 
When water appeared at the niche ceiling during a test and dripped into the opening, it was 
collected in the capture system and weighed. Figure 6-26 shows the approximate location of the 
capture system and test intervals relative to the niche boundaries, and the sequence of dyes and 
number of tests performed on each test interval. The wetting front typically arrived at the niche 
ceiling directly below the test zone. Most of the water was typically captured in only one or two 
0.3-m-by-0.3-m cells located directly beneath the test interval. 
In the immediate vicinity of locations where the niche ceiling and the conducting fractures 
intersect, the relative humidity could be high from local evaporation. However, the localized 
humid conditions were not met everywhere within the niche and/or the ESF main drift. 
Maintenance of high relative humidity conditions was important for long-term seepage tests, 
because the evaporation effects could have a substantial impact on the analysis of the seepage 
data, with models setting postemplacement high-humidity conditions in the seepage threshold 
estimation. The potential impact of evaporation effects is discussed in Section 6.7 of Seepage 
Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-62 November 2004 
The mass of water captured was in the range of 0.0 to 568.6 g per test, as reported in 
DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]. The niche seepage percentage is defined as the 
mass of water that dripped into the capture system, divided by the mass of water released to the 
rock: 
)" ( " 
)" ( " 
100 
g Released Mass 
g Captured Mass 
Percentage Seepage Niche  = (Eq. 6-2) 
The niche seepage percentage varied from 0 percent for zones that did not seep, to 56.2 percent 
for a predominantly gravity-driven flow through a highly saturated fracture 
(DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]). 
The niche seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) were conducted with release of relatively small 
amounts of liquid over short durations. Multiple tests were conducted in multiple borehole 
intervals. To address the model needs of steady-state data in controlled relative humidity 
conditions, the later tests in Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were conducted in 
selected borehole intervals with larger amounts of liquid over longer durations, as described in 
the following two sections. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   	
 	
 	

	 
	   

 
 	 !
 
"

# 
 $%&	'
 
(
	
 
 &	
 $ 

 )"
 
"
 * + ,- 
. $ /#  
. $ .* + 
/  
0 
/
"& 

 
$
& 
 
1 2
	 "	
 

"
 
 	
 
	
  3#45  #45  6	
7 
$
& 
0	
8  9 
 
 9 :  9 
:  9 
0& 
&+ 6"   
 
+	
 
 	"& 

	# 

 
5 
### 
 	 
Figure 6-26. Schematic Illustration of Seepage Capture System and Test Intervals at Niche 2 
(Niche 3650) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-63 November 2004 
6.2.1.3.2 Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Seepage-Test Data 
Beginning in early 1999 and ending in late 1999, twelve niche seepage tests were performed on 
two test intervals positioned above Niche 3 (Niche 3107). Water migrated through the rock and 
seeped into the niche for one out of the two zones tested. The niche seepage threshold was 
determined for the zone that seeped. The seepage and liquid-release data were tabulated and 
entered into the TDMS, where it was assigned DTN: LB0010NICH3LIQ.001 [DIRS 153144]. 
The borehole flux values were derived from the pumping rate and the wetted area estimated for 
the borehole interval. 
As with Niche 2 (Niche 3650), the mass of water released to the formation was computed by a 
mass balance. The liquid release-rate (Qs) for each test was computed by dividing the mass 
released by the respective duration of each test; thus, these values represent time-averaged rates. 
The rate at which water was released to the formation was in the range of 0.014 to 0.102 g/s for 
all of the tests, and the mass released was in the range of 4229.5 to 23 831.4 g per test. The mass 
of seepage water captured in the niche was in the range of 0.0 to 15 715.1 g per test. The seepage 
percentage defined by Equation 6-2 varied from 0 percent (i.e., no seepage was observed), to 
70.1 percent. 
The niche seepage tests were conducted with the bulkhead doors at the entrance to the niche 
closed and sealed. In addition, the air space within the niche was artificially humidified to 
increase the relative humidity as high as practical to minimize the effects of evaporation resulting 
from ESF ventilation. One open-faced water bath was placed inside the niche to freely supply 
moisture to the niche space. The water loss volume resulting from evaporation was used to 
estimate the average evaporation rate over the niche space. The test conditions (e.g., high 
humidity and low evaporation rates) are representative of steady seepage into a drift that could 
potentially occur after the repository is closed, the heat load and temperature rise from the 
decaying waste have dissipated, and air in the sealed repository equilibrates with the surrounding 
rock and is at, or near, 100-percent relative humidity. The relative humidity and temperature 
within Niche 3 (Niche 3107) is shown in Figure 6-27. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-64 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB0010NICH3LIQ.001 [DIRS 153144]. 
Figure 6-27. Relative Humidity and Temperature Inside Niche 3 (Niche 3107) 
6.2.1.3.3 Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Seepage-Test Data 
Beginning in late 1999 and ending in mid-2000, 13 niche seepage tests were performed on three 
test intervals positioned above Niche 4 (Niche 4788). Water migrated through the rock and 
seeped into the niche from all zones tested. The niche seepage threshold was determined for two 
of the three zones that seeped. The seepage and liquid-release data were tabulated and entered 
into the TDMS, where it was assigned DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]. The 
borehole flux values for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were derived from the pumping rate and the 
wetted area estimated for the borehole interval. 
The long-duration data from Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were analyzed in Section 6.6 of the model 
report Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). The 
seepage calibration model analyzed the transient behavior, storage effects, and memory effects 
(which may occur in a series of tests) to determine the effective seepage parameters. The 
parameters were then used in the model report Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 167652]) to determine the seepage threshold flux relative to percolation flux. 
The final input to TSPA-LA is evaluated in Abstraction of Drift Seepage 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169131]). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-65 November 2004 
The rate at which water was released to the formation was in the range of 0.008 to 0.092 grams 
per second (g/s) for all of the tests, and the mass released was in the range of 1474.9 to 
39 514.6 g per test. The mass of seepage water captured in the niche was in the range of 0.0 to 
15 555.1 g per test. The niche seepage percentage defined by Equation 6-2 was within the range 
of 0 percent to 68.7 percent. 
Again, the seepage tests were conducted with the bulkhead doors at the entrance to the niche 
closed and sealed, and the air space within the niche artificially humidified to minimize 
evaporation. Figure 6-28 shows the relative humidity and temperature inside of Niche 4. 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
10/17/99 11/14/99 12/12/99 1/9/00 2/6/00 3/5/00 4/2/00 4/30/00 5/28/00 
Date 
Relative Humidity (%) 
0
5
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
Temperature (C) 
Relative Humidity (%) 
Temperature (C) 
Source: DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]: native data files Niche 4 h&T 3-10-00.csv, Niche 4 
RH&T 4-1-00.csv, and Niche 4788 R&T 6-8-00.csv; data report S00429_007. 
Figure 6-28. Relative Humidity and Temperature Inside Niche 4 (Niche 4788) 
Figure 6-29 illustrates the injection rate into a borehole interval, the return rate (a non-zero return 
rate is obtained if the injection rate exceeds the capacity of the fractured rock to take up the 
injected water), and the stabilization of niche seepage rate of water collected in the niche trays. 
If tests were not long enough before niche stabilization, the niche seepage ratio was not well 
defined. Various operating conditions and niche moisture conditions may contribute to the 
fluctuations observed in the early time data. The execution of long-duration tests to ensure 
quasi-steady conditions contributed to the robustness of seepage quantification at selected 
borehole intervals. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-66 November 2004 
-0.06 
-0.04 
-0.02
0 
0.02 
0.04 
0.06 
0.08 
0.1 
0.12
1/5/00 1/8/00 1/11/00 1/14/00 
Date/Time 
Flow Rate (g/s) 
Release Rate 
Return Rate 
Seepage Rate 
Steady Seepage 
Source: DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]: native data file Niche 4788 UR 5.18-5.48m 1-5-2000.csv, 
data report S00429_007. 
Figure 6-29. Stabilized Flow Rates Observed during Test #1 1-5-00 Conducted on Test Interval UR at 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788) 
6.2.1.3.4 Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Wetting-Area Data 
In this section, an example of niche wetting-area data from a seepage test run in Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) is discussed. The progression of the wetting fronts along the niche ceiling with 
time was recorded on videotape, and still images from the videos were captured and digitized. 
Wetting fronts were traced from these captured still images; they were later adjusted by reference 
to marked grid points and other features on the niche crown, and to sketches made during the 
tests, to correct for distortion caused by the oblique camera view of the niche crown. They were 
then superimposed over corresponding areas of a fracture map of the niche crown (Trautz 2001 
[DIRS 156903], pp. 5762). 
Figure 6-30 shows the wetting-front sequence for a seepage test begun June 26, 2000, with water 
released from the interval 7.627.93 m from the collar of Borehole UL. The release rate at the 
borehole interval was 0.02 g/s, and the seepage into the niche corresponded to 14 percent of the 
water released. 
Several observations can be made from Figure 6-30. The influence of fractures on the shape and 
orientation of the wet spot appears to be relatively minor in the June 26, 2000, test. The initial 
wetting fronts in these tests are displaced laterally from the vertical projections (the shortest 
paths) of the release intervals onto the crown, and the wetting fronts overall are not symmetrical 
about those projections. Note that the niche ceiling is uneven and slightly curved. A borehole 
partly cut by the niche crown may have affected the lateral spreading of the wetting front. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-67 November 2004 
Figure 6-31 shows the wetting-front growth with time for the seepage test. Each data point 
corresponds to one of the numbered contours in Figure 6-30. The x-axis refers to time elapsed 
since the first wet spot appeared on the crown, rather than from the first release of water. 
The plot in Figure 6-32 pertains to the shape progression of the wet spot. If the two-dimensional 
(2-D) shape of a front remained constant as it grew, with subsequent fronts expanding uniformly 
and maintaining shape similarity between them, the slope of its line in Figure 6-32 would be 
constant. This is nearly the case through the early part of the test, with somewhat greater 
irregularity seen after the eight or ninth front (or data point). The average value of the slope for 
this test is approximately 0.25, somewhat less than the 0.28 slope, which would apply for a 
circle; this reflects the slightly elongated wetting fronts observed for this test. 
The conclusions reached through this testing are: 
1. There is either no correlation or only a weak correlation between fracture 
characteristics and the shape, extent, and orientation of the wet area developing at a 
niche or drift ceiling, 
2. Drip locations are likely to be determined by the topography of the ceiling rather than 
fracture patterns, and 
3. The area available for evaporation of potential seepage water is significantly larger than 
the area of the fractures intersected by the drift. 
6.2.1.3.5 Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Slot and Seepage-Threshold Tests 
The specific test plan for this series of tests is Niche 5 Seepage Testing, SITP-02-UZ-002 
(BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200]). The objectives for the Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) seepage tests are 
the same as for the other niche seepage tests. Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) is in the lower 
lithophysal (Tptpll) unit; the first four niches are in the middle nonlithophysal (Tptpmn) unit. 
More automation was employed in the Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) tests than was employed in the 
testing at the other niches. 
6.2.1.3.5.1 Background Information 
The study site is located at cross-drift construction station (CD) 16+20 near the center of the 
ECRB and the repository block shown in Figure 6-3, and is known as Niche 5 or Niche 
CD 1620. The site was selected because it is located near the center of the repository block 
within the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring welded tuff (TSw). 
Approximately 80 percent of the repository would be constructed within the Tptpll zone, as 
described in Section 1.2. Thus, characterization of seepage into waste emplacement drifts 
constructed in this zone is important to the performance and design of natural and engineered 
barriers. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-68 November 2004 
1 2 
3 
4 
4 
6 
6 
8 
8 
10 
10 
12 
14 
14 
16 
16 
16 
18 
18 
18 
20 
20 
22 
22 
22 
22 
22 
10 
20 
10 
12 
2 
0.5 m 
10 cm 
rock bolt borehole partly 
cut by crown 
fractures breccia grid points at 
1-ft intervals hole 
Map symbols: 
2,10 0,10 
0,8 2,8 4,8 6,8 
0,12 2,12 
4,10 6,10 
4,12 6,12 
0,14 2,14 4,14 6,14 
Output DTN: LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. 
NOTES: Blue contours are outlines of wetting fronts. Numbers along wetting fronts correlate with the order of data 
points in Figure 6-31, and the time corresponding to each front can be determined from that figure. Pink 
bars indicate approximate positions of release intervals in boreholes above the niche, projected onto the 
crown. 
Figure 6-30. Wetting-Front Sequences Overlying Fracture Map of Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Ceiling from 
Seepage Test Begun June 26, 2000 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-69 November 2004 
0.0 
0.2 
0.4 
0.6 
0.8 
1.0 
1.2 
1.4 
1.6 
1.8 
2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 
time (s*106) 
wetted area (m2) 
UL 6/26/00: Area vs. Time 
Output DTN: LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. 
NOTE: Each plotted point represents data for one of the numbered curves shown in Figure 6-30. 
Figure 6-31. Wetting-Front Area (m2) versus Time (s) for the Seepage Test Shown in Figure 6-30 
0 
0.2 
0.4 
0.6 
0.8
1 
1.2 
1.4 
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
wetting perimeter (m) 
square root of wetted area (m) 
UL 6/26/00: Area1/2 vs. Perimeter 
Output DTN: LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. 
NOTE: Data points correspond to those in Figure 6-31. 
Figure 6-32. Square Root of Area (m) Plotted versus Perimeter (m) for Each of the Wetting Fronts in the 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Seepage Test 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-70 November 2004 
The Tptpll contains large naturally occurring cavities (referred to as lithophysal cavities or 
lithophysae) that are attributed to gas and vapor-phase constituents entrapped and redistributed 
during the initial deposition, compaction, and gas migration out of the TSw (Buesch and 
Spengle 1998 [DIRS 101433], p. 21). Lithophysal cavities are quite large at the site, with some 
in the range of 0.5 to 0.75 m in length and 0.2 to 0.3 m in height. Fractures are also present, but 
the majority of these appear to be cooling features associated with lithophysal cavities. These 
fractures primarily form halos or rinds around the cavities. Very few through-going fractures of 
significant length were mapped. However, given the high permeability of the rock observed at 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) and reported in Section 6.1.2.2.1, the fracture rinds and lithophysal 
cavities do not appear to be dead-end features. Rather, short fractures appear to link the cavities 
and rinds, giving the entire network a larger average permeability than was observed in the 
densely welded, middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the TSw, where fractures dominate and 
lithophysal cavities are sparse. 
As noted in Section 6.2.1.1, liquid-release tests were performed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in 
April 2000, before the construction of the access drift and niche in May 2000. Bulkhead doors 
were installed across the entrance to the excavation and sealed immediately upon construction to 
minimize evaporation and drying of the rock surrounding the drift. An initial post-excavation 
seepage test, performed in late February 2001, ended approximately 39 days later in April 2001. 
Water did not seep, nor did the wetting front appear at the niche ceiling during this test after 
releasing approximately 300 L of water. (Data are not provided for this test because, with the 
exception of observing that no seepage was observed after releasing a large volume of water, 
they are inconsequential.) This test showed that the Tptpll had a high storage capacity (because 
of the large lithophysal cavities) or was able to divert large quantities of water laterally around 
the drift through preferential flow paths not connected directly to the opening. 
The lack of seepage into the niche and the failure of the wetting front to appear at the niche 
ceiling during the initial test prompted significant changes to the objectives of the 
seepage-testing program planned for Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). Two slots were constructed in 
the sidewall of the original niche to accomplish the following objectives, supplementing those 
described in Section 6.2: 
 Demonstrate that the capillary barrier moves water laterally around the opening to the 
walls of the niche, where it would collect in the slot. 
 Provide a water mass balance. The mass balance was intended to show that the flow 
field had reached steady state by demonstrating that the amount of water released to the 
formation was balanced by the amount of water recovered as seepage from the niche 
ceiling and slot, plus the unrecovered amount of water lost to evaporation as the wetting 
front spread across the niche ceiling. 
The sections that follow describe the test configuration, operation, and equipment used to 
address these objectives and provide representative test results showing the type of data 
collected. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-71 November 2004 
6.2.1.3.5.2 Description of Post-Excavation Seepage Tests 
Test Configuration 
Seven 15- to 17-m-long boreholes were drilled in January 2000 at the Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
site (shown in Figures 6-33 through 6-35) before niche construction. (The same seven boreholes 
are also described in Section 6.1.1.2 with different borehole names, with the following 
corresponding borehole designations: Borehole 1 = Borehole B1.75; Borehole 2 = Borehole 
ML; Borehole 3 = Borehole NM; Borehole 4 = Borehole MR; Borehole 5 = Borehole UL; 
Borehole 6 = Borehole UM; and Borehole 7 = Borehole UR. Boreholes will be referred to 
hereafter by number only [e.g., Borehole 7] and not by their full designation 
[e.g., ECRB-Niche1620#7].) Each borehole is nominally 0.0762 m (3 inches) in diameter, with 
the exception of Borehole 7, which was mistakenly drilled to a nominal diameter of 0.1016 m 
(4 inches) using a larger-diameter core bit. Post-excavation seepage tests were not performed on 
Borehole 7, because the straddle packer system used to isolate the injection zone was not 
designed to fit the larger-diameter borehole. 
The first borehole (Borehole 1) was installed at the approximate position shown in Figure 6-33 
through Figure 6-35. Dye-spiked water was released into eight 0.3-m-long test intervals within 
this borehole before niche construction, as noted in Section 6.2.1.1. The position of the dye 
within the rock was then photographed and mapped during niche excavation, and Borehole 1 was 
intentionally removed during the mining process described in Section 6.2.1.2. A set of three 
boreholes (designated Borehole 2, Borehole 3, and Borehole 4) were drilled parallel to the axis 
of the niche in the same horizontal plane, located approximately 1.0 to 1.3 m above the opening 
of the niche. These boreholes are collectively referred to as the horizontal boreholes. The 
horizontal boreholes are spaced approximately 1 m apart. 
A second set of three boreholes (designated Borehole 5, Borehole 6, and Borehole 7) was drilled 
directly above the horizontal boreholes, at a 6 to 8 upward inclined angle (based on as-built 
data in MO0312GSC03176.000 [DIRS 169532], approximately 1 higher than the design angle 
in Figure 6-33). These boreholes are collectively referred to as the inclined boreholes. The 
collar of the inclined boreholes is located within 0.4 to 0.5 m of the horizontal boreholes. The 
upper boreholes are inclined so that the distance between the boreholes and the niche ceiling 
varies from approximately 1.4 m to 3.0 m. In combination with the horizontal boreholes, the 
scale of the post-excavation seepage tests can vary from 1.0 to 3.0 m, the latter measurement 
being slightly larger than the radius of the niche. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-72 November 2004 
Source: Test Plan for: Niche 5 Seepage Testing (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200], Figure 2). 
Figure 6-33. Side View of the Boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
Source: Test Plan for: Niche 5 Seepage Testing (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200], Figure 3). 
Figure 6-34. Plan View of the Boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
In May 2000, a mechanical excavator was used to mine out the rock to create Niche 5 
(Niche CD 1620). The niche is approximately 15.5 m long by 4 m wide by 3.3 m high 
(Figure 6-33 through Figure 6-35). Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) was constructed along the south 
side of the cross-drift (at the location shown in Figure 6-3) within the lower lithophysal zone of 
the TSw unit (Tptpll). Water was used during niche construction to suppress dust generated 
during mining activities. Split-set rock bolts were installed in the ceiling of the niche 
immediately following construction to provide ground support for the excavation. 
In May 2001, construction began on two slots located in the sidewalls of the niche as shown in 
Figure 6-35 (the slots are also referred to as bat wings). The original intent was to construct a 
6-m-longby1-m-highby1.5-m-deep slot in each wall of the niche to aid in the collection of 
water. The slot design was based on the premise that, because of the capillary barrier, water 
would move laterally around the opening, where it would collect at a low spot and drip into the 
slot (near Points A in Figure 6-35). The initial design was to slope the ceiling of the slot back 
toward the niche to produce a low point for water to collect and by creating a capillary barrier, to 
prevent water from flowing around the backside of the slot. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-73 November 2004 
3.4 
CL 
#3 
Niche CD 1620 
2.5 
0.0 m 
1.0 1.0 4.4 1.0 1.0 m 
#6 #7 #5 
2.0 m 2.0 m 
#4 #2 
#1 
4.8 
1.5 
20 5 
1.0 
A 
Slot Slot 
A 
3.4 
CL 
#3 
Niche CD 1620 
2.5 
0.0 m 
1.0 1.0 4.4 1.0 1.0 m 
#6 #7 #5 
2.0 m 2.0 m 
#4 #2 
#1 
4.8 
1.5 
20 5 
1.0 
A 
Slot Slot 
A 
Source: Test Plan for: Niche 5 Seepage Testing (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200], Figure 4). 
Figure 6-35. Schematic Illustration of Front View of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Facing South, Showing 
Location of Boreholes (#1#7) 
Additional ground support consisting of Williams rock bolts was installed in the ceiling of the 
niche before slot construction, to help stabilize the underground opening. These bolts 
supplemented the split-set rock bolts already in place, effectively doubling the number of bolts 
and decreasing the rock bolt spacing to approximately 0.5 m. Even with additional ground 
support, the unstable rock conditions at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) caused sections of the initial 
slot ceiling (Points A) to collapse during its construction, resulting in an excavation that did not 
meet the desired construction and testing specifications. Slot construction activities were halted 
after creating a 3.3-m-long irregular-shaped excavation in the left rib and a short (less than 1 m) 
excavation in the right rib of the niche. Improvements to the 3.3-m-long slot were made after 
construction by installing a wooden header and post system to support the brow of the slot 
excavation (i.e., near Point A on the left), keeping it from collapsing further (Figure 6-36 through 
Figure 6-38). The rock behind the header was then chipped away by hand to create the best 
sloping ceiling possible, given the circumstances. Additional ground support, consisting of 
metal house jacks, was provided farther back in the slot to provide more stability. 
Figure 6-36 shows the final size and shape of the slots. Note that there are five profiles 
(numbered 2 through 6) in Figure 6-36, showing the irregular shape of the longest slot. Profile 2 
and Profile 6 define the lateral ends of the slot. The remaining profiles (35) are located between 
the two lateral ends with a distance of approximately 0.5 to 1.3 m separating the profiles and 
numbered sequentially. For additional detail on the slot profiles, refer to the surveyor drawing 
(DTN: MO0107GSC01061.000 [DIRS 155369]) provided in Appendix Section C1. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-74 November 2004 
NOTE: Profile #2 is located closest to the niche entrance and # 6 is farthest away, based on 
DTN: MO0107GSC01061.000 [DIRS 155369]. 
Figure 6-36. Schematic Illustration of Front View of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Facing South Showing 
Profiles 16 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-75 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. 
Figure 6-37. Photograph of Left (East) Rib of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Facing the Opening of a 
3.3-m-Long Slot and Showing Ground Support 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-76 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. 
Figure 6-38. Photograph of Left (East) Rib of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Showing Ceiling of Slot and 
Ground Support 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-77 November 2004 
The pilot hole from one of the rock bolts struck two test boreholes, Boreholes 2 and 5. A rock 
bolt was subsequently installed in the pilot hole, blocking both test boreholes at a depth of 5.6 m 
from their collars, rendering the remaining 10 m of each borehole inaccessible. The rock bolts 
were subsequently removed by cutting through them laterally from within the test boreholes. 
This improved the depth available for testing from 5.6 to 7.9 m in Borehole 2 and from 5.6 to 
10 m in Borehole 5. A straddle-packer assembly also became stuck in Borehole 4 when 
air-injection tests were conducted on this borehole. Numerous attempts to recover the packer 
were unsuccessful. 
Unstable ground conditions, resulting in loose rock and debris sloughing off the walls of 
lithophysal cavities intersecting the boreholes, also contributed to several natural borehole 
blockages. The boreholes were vacuumed out to remove as much debris as possible before 
testing began. Borehole 3, Borehole 4, and Borehole 6 were blocked at approximately 12.0 m, 
9.0 m, and 10.5 m, respectively, by large rocks and debris that could not be extracted during the 
cleaning process. Table 6-7 summarizes the total depth and length of boreholes available for 
testing. 
Table 6-7. Borehole Depth Summary 
Borehole 
Designation 
Available for 
Testing (m) 
Total 
Depth (m) 
ECRB-Niche1620#1 N/A a 15.4 
ECRB-Niche1620#2 07.9 16.0 
ECRB-Niche1620#3 012.0 15.5 
ECRB-Niche1620#4 09.0 15.0 
ECRB-Niche1620#5 010.0 15.9 
ECRB-Niche1620#6 010.5 16.0 
ECRB-Niche1620#7 N/A b 14.8 
Source: BSC 2001 ([DIRS 158200] Table 1). 
N/A = Not available. 
a Borehole intentionally excavated during niche construction. 
b Borehole diameter is too large and inconsistent with 
dimensions of test equipment. 
Test Operation and Control Equipment 
Custom-designed and built test equipment described in this section was used to operate and 
control the tests. In general, a seepage test is performed by pumping water at a known rate from 
a release reservoir sitting on an electronic balance through the release line, release manifold, and 
downhole straddle packer to the release or test interval located in the borehole (Figure 6-39). 
The straddle packer consists of a series of rubber glands that the test operator inflates with 
compressed air (in the same manner as is done with a balloon) inside the borehole. When 
inflated with air, the packers create a 0.3-m-long test interval, isolated from up and downhole 
sections of the borehole, thus preventing water from migrating throughout the length of the 
borehole during the experiment. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-78 November 2004 
In the event that the pumping rate exceeds the infiltration capacity of the rock, water may begin 
to pond in the borehole and pressurize the test interval. An outlet (also called the return port) 
located in the test interval prevents this from occurring. Water may rise to the level of the return 
port where it will flow by gravity back through the return line, straddle packer, and return 
manifold, to the return reservoir, where it will accumulate and be weighed by the return balance. 
The overflow line limits the maximum ponding depth of water within the borehole to 
approximately 0.05 m, thus preventing overpressurization of the test zone by the pump. 
Water that enters the test interval percolates down through the rock, where it may eventually 
seep into the niche opening. A capture manifold referred to as seepage collection system is used 
to capture the water seeping into the niche and to route it to the capture reservoir, where it will 
accumulate and be weighed by the capture balance(s). 
Figure 6-39. General Process Diagram for Seepage Testing at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
Figure 6-39 provides a summary of the general processes that the test operator can change during 
a seepage test, including the release, return, and capture rates. The control variables are 
represented by ovals labeled in Figure 6-39. Control variables are affected by the process 
variables (e.g., pump speed, valve position) changed by the operator. Additional detail on the 
test operation and control equipment is provided in Appendix Section C2. 
A plastic tarp was hung from the outside of the aluminum frame (shown in Figure 6-40 
and Figure 6-41) to the wooden supports at the edge of the slot shown in Figure 6-36 through 
Figure 6-38 to collect water seeping into the slot. The outlet from the slot seepage collection 
system drained through a pinch valve (that could also be controlled by the operator) to the 
capture balance. 
Process Variables: 
- Pumping Rate (Mass) 
- Fluid Pressure 
Release 
Reservoir 
Balance 1 
Return 
Reservoir 
Balance 2 
Release Interval 
Water 
OUT 
Release 
Manifold 
Return 
Manifold 
Water 
IN 
Capture 
Reservoir(s) 
Balance 3 
and/or 4 
Capture 
Manifold Water 
OUT 
Release 
Rate 
Seepage 
Rate and 
Distribution 
Fractures 
Drift 
Borehole 
Packer 
Pressure
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-79 November 2004 
Field personnel were not allowed to enter the slot, or hang the tarp off the wooden and steel 
ground support system inside the slot, because of health and safety issues concerning rock 
instability. This restriction prevented the entire slot area (with corresponding depth C shown in 
Figure 6-36) from being covered by the slot seepage collection system. The water diverted by 
the niche and flowing into the slot was not measured. 
To meet, in part, the original objectives, a much smaller area (with corresponding depth A shown 
in Figure 6-36) was covered instead by the slot seepage collection system. The majority of the 
slot seepage collection system was not beneath the slot ceiling itself, but rather beneath the 
sharply curved section of the niche where the niche ceiling meets the wall. The flow along the 
wall and the portion of flow behind the wall in the proximity of the niche was captured in this 
remedial seepage collection configuration. 
Data Acquisition Equipment 
Calibrated instruments and data loggers were used to collect mass (g), temperature (C), 
humidity (percent), and pressure (pounds per square inch gauge, psig) data during the tests. 
Mettler Toledo model PG, PG-s, and SG series electronic balances were used to measure the 
mass that water was pumped into the test interval, that flowed back through the return line, and 
was captured as seepage. Initially, during the early stages of testing (May 3, 2002, through 
May 16, 2002), two Mettler Toledo balances were used to measure the seepage mass into the 
niche. Starting on May 16, 2002, only a single balance was used to measure these same data. 
Mettler Toledo balances were also set up inside and outside the niche to measure the rate of 
evaporation from an open pan of water sitting on the balance. The data acquisition control 
described in Appendix Section C3 was used to query the balance for the mass and to derive the 
mass rate on a user-defined time interval. 
A calibrated Campbell Scientific, Inc. model CR10x datalogger was used to measure and record 
the measurements made by 12 calibrated Vaisala model HMP45C temperature and humidity 
probes located inside and outside the niche. Eleven of the probes were installed at various 
distances from the bulkhead to measure the air humidity and temperature distribution inside the 
niche. The twelfth sensor was installed outside the bulkheaded area of the niche to measure the 
temperature and humidity of the air in the ECRB; see Trautz (2003 [DIRS 166248], p. 162) for a 
detailed description of the probe locations. 
The same calibrated Campbell datalogger was used to measure and record the measurements 
made by Setra model C204 pressure transducers (025 psig). The transducers were used to 
measure liquid pressures (air or water) inside the release and return lines leading to the test 
interval during the tests. These data were collected primarily for the purpose of monitoring and 
controlling the test equipment. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-80 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. 
Figure 6-40. Capture System Installation Showing Plastic Capture Trays and Tarp in Slot 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-81 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. 
Figure 6-41. Capture System Showing Tarp Installed Next to Slot 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-82 November 2004 
Time-lapse video recordings of the niche ceiling and bottom of the capture trays were made 
during the tests to record the spread of the wetting front across the ceiling and dripping into the 
capture system. Sony model DCR-TRV900 video camcorders (mini-DV format) were used for 
this purpose. 
Test Operating Conditions 
A seepage test was typically conducted by pumping water at a constant rate through an injection 
line into a 0.3-m-long isolated test interval, located in one of the boreholes described in 
Table 6-7. Electronic balances were used to monitor the cumulative mass at which water was 
pumped into the borehole, as well as return flow (if any occurred). Return flow occurred when 
the pumping rate exceeds the infiltration capacity of the rock. 
Water migrating from the release point through the rock to the niche ceiling might drip into the 
niche, where it was collected in a capture system consisting of plastic trays and a tarp in the slot. 
Water drained by gravity through a network of tubes into a closed container, resting on an 
electronic balance. The balance was used to measure the cumulative mass of water that seeps 
into the niche and the seepage rate was determined by dividing the amounts accumulated by the 
time they took to collect. One or more containers and balances might be employed for collecting 
seepage water. 
Evaporation of water from the containers, the capture system, and the wetted area of the niche 
ceiling during seepage tests can influence the outcome of the seepage experiments. The effects 
of evaporation on the test results were minimized by employing the following techniques: 
1. The bulkhead door at the entrance to the niche was closed and sealed during the 
seepage tests. This helped limit the exchange of dry air in the ECRB (typically less 
than 40 percent relative humidity) with moist air found within the niche (typically 
greater than 85 percent relative humidity). 
2. Access to the interior of the niche during testing was limited to authorized field-test 
personnel. Remote monitoring of the niche ceiling, and the capture trays, using digital 
video and remote monitoring of test equipment, minimized the number of trips inside 
the niche, thus limiting the exchange of air. 
3. Fluid containers and transmission lines were closed systems, minimizing the effect of 
evaporation. 
4. The potential existed for water to evaporate from the niche ceiling and diffuse into the 
air within the niche. Seepage water may have potentially evaporated from the capture 
trays before the water had time to accumulate and drain into the tubing connecting the 
trays to the closed container on the seepage balance(s). Therefore, the relative 
humidity of the air inside the niche was artificially elevated to minimize evaporation, 
using a centrifugal-type humidifier capable of producing water vapor at a rate of 
approximately 1 kg per hour. Humidification occurred 24 hours per day, 7 days a 
week, under the condition that electrical power was available to operate the 
humidifier. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-83 November 2004 
5. Electrical lighting within the niche was minimized to limit sources of heat that 
enhance evaporation. Sufficient lighting was provided, however, for video imaging of 
the wetted area spreading across the niche ceiling. 
6. A small pan, resting on an electronic balance, was set inside the drift to directly 
measure the mass evaporative flux. 
6.2.1.3.5.3 Test Summary 
This section provides an overview of the seepage tests performed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
and summarizes the type of data collected by evaluating and interpreting data for 
Test #2 9-17-02 conducted from September 17, 2002, through October 28, 2002. The analysis of 
the Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) seepage test data (together with analyses of other niche seepage 
data) for model calibration can be found in the model report, Seepage Calibration Model and 
Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). 
Appendix Section C4 summarizes general test information, including borehole number, depth of 
the test interval measured in meters from the datum near the borehole collar, test name, and test 
start and end dates. Seepage tests, initiated at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in early May 2002, ran 
through late May 2002, when the instruments and sensors were removed for routine calibration. 
Testing resumed in mid-July 2002, upon reinstalling the calibrated instruments, and continued 
through late October 2002 with seven tests performed over this period. 
Evaporation Pan Data 
Evaporation pan data were measured using a single balance loaded with a container filled with 
water. Figure 6-42 shows the evaporation flux inside and outside the niche during 
Test #2 9-17-02. The plot indicates that the average evaporation flux outside of the niche is 
approximately a factor of 20 greater than the average evaporation flux inside the niche. (Note 
that the evaporation data collected during the study and found in the original data files are the 
evaporation rates [g/s]. These were converted to evaporation fluxes [g/s-m2] shown in 
Figure 6-42 by dividing the evaporation rate by the surface area of the evaporation pan [i.e., pr2, 
where r is the radius of the pan].) The radius of the evaporation pan inside the niche was 
0.075 m (0.15-m diameter reported by Trautz (2003 [DIRS 166248], p. 187) divided by 2) and 
the pan outside the niche was 0.122 m (9 5/8 in. diameter reported by Trautz 
(2003 [DIRS 166248], p. 187), converted as follows to radius r in meters (9 5/8 in.  2.54 cm/in. 
 1/100 m/cm) divided by 2). Details of this calculation may be found in Appendix Section I6.1. 
The peak evaporation rates associated with the saw-tooth pattern, observed in the evaporation 
pan data collected outside the niche, correspond to refilling the evaporation container with fresh 
warm water from the water supply of the mine. Warm water evaporates faster until it cools 
down. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-84 November 2004 
-0.2 
-0.15 
-0.1 
-0.05
0 
9/16/2002 9/21/2002 9/26/2002 10/1/2002 10/6/2002 10/11/2002 10/16/2002 10/21/2002 10/26/2002 10/31/2002 
Date 
Evaporation Mass Flux (g/s-m2) 
EvapIn 
EvapOut 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792] Test #2 9-17-02: native data files 
Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv and Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv. 
Figure 6-42. Evaporation Rate Inside and Outside Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) During Test #2 9-17-02 
Relative Humidity and Temperature 
The data files that contain relative humidity and temperature data from measurements taken 
inside and outside the niche, and the liquid pressure data measured in the release and return lines 
during the test, are identified in Appendix Section C4. (The pressure in the release and return 
lines were relatively constant during a given test and, therefore, no further discussion of these 
results is included in this report.) These data were collected using the sensors and Campbell 
Scientific, Inc., dataloggers described in Appendix Section C3. 
Figure 6-43 shows the relative humidity and temperature of the air inside and outside the niche 
during Test #2 9-17-02 (September 17, 2002, to October 28, 2002). The relative humidity and 
temperature inside the niche were very stable, within the range of approximately 90 to 94 percent 
and 24C to 25C, respectively. The sudden drop in relative humidity observed in mid- and 
late-September was caused by the exchange of cool moist air inside the drift with dry warm air 
outside the niche when field personnel opened the bulkhead and entered the niche. A slight rise 
in inside air temperature is noted over the measurement period. This is probably caused by the 
cooler inside temperatures slowly equilibrating with the warming temperature outside the niche. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-85 November 2004 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 
90 
100 
9/16/02 9/21/02 9/26/02 10/1/02 10/6/02 10/11/02 10/16/02 10/21/02 10/26/02 10/31/02 
Date 
Relative Humidity (%) 
0
5
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
Temperature (C) 
Out - RH 
In - RH 
Out - Temp 
In - Temp 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792] Test #2 9-17-02: native data files N5_RH-T-p_9-18-02.csv, 
N5_RH-T-p_10-18-02.csv, and N5_RH-T-p_10-29-02.csv. 
Figure 6-43. Relative Humidity and Temperature of Air Inside and Outside Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
During Test #2 9-17-02 
The air temperature outside the niche in the ECRB is also quite stable (33C to 34C), but the 
relative humidity fluctuates between 8 and 21 percent. The fluctuation in relative humidity can 
be attributed to the tunnel ventilation system that draws moisture into the ECRB from outside the 
ESF. Relative humidity conditions in this case are influenced by outside weather conditions. 
Test DataLiquid Release and Seepage Rates 
Figure 6-44 shows a plot of the liquid-release mass flow rate into the formation from the 
borehole and the total seepage mass flow rate entering the niche during Test #2 9-17-02. A 
peristaltic pump was used to pump water into the borehole, creating small surges in the rate that 
give the appearance that the release rate varies with time (i.e., the somewhat parallel release-rate 
lines in Figure 6-44). The average release rate (approximately 0.023 g/s) was fairly constant 
from September 17, 2002, to October 19, 2002, after which time it steadily declined between 
October 20, 2002, and October 28, 2002, to a rate of 0.019 g/s. 
Seepage into the niche began on October 1, 2002, based on a definitive increase in mass 
observed on the capture balance. The seepage rate continued to increase through 
October 20, 2002, when it suddenly started to decline and stopped seeping on October 23, 2002. 
This corresponds within a day to the decline in the liquid release rate noted in the previous 
paragraph. The sudden halt in seepage caused by a 10- to 20-percent reduction in the release rate 
suggests that a seepage threshold exists in the Tptpll that is very sensitive to the release mass 
flow rate. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-86 November 2004 
0 
0.005 
0.01 
0.015 
0.02 
0.025 
0.03 
0.035 
0.04 
0.045 
0.05 
9/16/02 9/21/02 9/26/02 10/1/02 10/6/02 10/11/02 10/16/02 10/21/02 10/26/02 10/31/02 
Date 
Seepage Mass Flow Rate (g/s) 
0
0.05 
0.1 
0.15 
0.2 
0.25 
0.3 
0.35 
0.4 
Release Mass Flow Rate (g/s) 
Seepage 
Release 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792] Test #2 9-17-02: native data files Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9- 
17-02_#1a (srate).csv and Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 (srate).csv. 
Figure 6-44. Liquid-Release Rate into Borehole 5 and Seepage of Water into the Capture System of 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) during Test #2 9-17-02 
Figure 6-45 shows a plot of the total seepage rate into the niche (triangles) and the seepage rate 
captured by the tarp (diamonds) installed at the entrance to the slot (Area A, Figure 6-36). 
Seepage captured by the tarp follows the same pattern over time as the total seepage, the latter of 
which represents water collected from all the capture compartments. Seepage captured by the 
tarp is a large component of the total seepage into the drift, approaching 80 to 90 percent of the 
total during specific periods of time. Both seepage and the seepage captured by the tarp declined 
and dropped off to zero as the release rate declined after October 20, 2002. 
6.2.1.3.5.4 SummaryNiche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
Tests performed during the study (including the example experiment, Test #2 9-17-02) indicate 
that a measurable seepage threshold exists for the Tptplla stated objective of the niche study. 
Unfortunately, because of the constraints associated with installation of the slot collection system 
described in Section 6.2.1.3.5.2, investigators were unable to determine whether the water 
seeping onto the tarp during Test #2 9-17-02 and Test #1 7-15-02 (the only two tests in which 
seepage onto the tarp occurred) originated from the slot or from the niche ceiling next to the slot. 
Several attempts to observe seepage were made, but the seepage rates were so slow that visual 
evidence of seepage from the slot was not obtained. With the approximation that all of the 
seepage was derived from the slot, the results of Test #2 9-17-02 demonstrate that the slot did not 
effectively capture lateral movement of water around the niche, because seepage into the slot 
ceased when the seepage threshold was reached. The lack of seepage into the slot implies that 
the revised objectives of the test stated in Section 6.2.1.3.5.1 were not met in this study. 
Specifically, a water mass balance was not achieved because the laterally diverted seepage water 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-87 November 2004 
was not collected in the slot. Photographic evidence has been collected in Niche 5 (Niche CD 
1620), showing the wetted area spreading down the sidewall during the test (Figure 6-46), 
providing qualitative evidence that flow was diverted around the niche. Trautz and Wang 
(2002 [DIRS 160335]) showed (using photographic evidence) that the wetted area spreads across 
the ceiling and down the terminal face and sidewall of Niche 4 (Niche 4788) in Tptpmn. 
-0.01
0 
0.01 
0.02 
0.03 
0.04 
0.05 
9/16/02 9/21/02 9/26/02 10/1/02 10/6/02 10/11/02 10/16/02 10/21/02 10/26/02 10/31/02 
Date 
Seepage Mass Flow Rate (g/s) 
Total 
Tarp 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792] Test #2 9-17-02: native data files Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9- 
17-02_#1.csv, Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1a (srate).csv, and Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 
(srate).csv. 
Figure 6-45. Total Seepage and Seepage into the Tarp Area at the Entrance to the Slot 
6.2.2 Niche Seepage Threshold and Fracture Characteristic Curves 
This section is presented to document an alternate analysis of seepage data based on analytic 
solutions developed for capillary barriers. The analysis is different from the PA methodology 
presented in Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]), 
which is based on a numerical model with a heterogeneous fracture continuum representation 
and inverse modeling of primarily steady-state seepage data. The parameters determined by 
numerical calibration are related to the conceptual and numerical model used during calibration 
(i.e., the estimated value for the capillary-strength parameter depends, for example, on the 
numerical discretization used (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764], Section 6.3.3.3)). The dependence of 
the estimated values on the model structure is acceptable and even desired as long as the 
structure of the model used for seepage predictions is consistent with that used for calibration 
(see the discussion in Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764], Section 8.1)). Therefore, the analysis results (specifically, the 
derived capillary-strength parameter and seepage-threshold value) presented in this section are 
not comparable with the PA results. This constraint applies to both the seepage threshold 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-88 November 2004 
analyses and fracture characteristic curves (derived from transient seepage data) described in this 
section. However, they are valid within the context of the analysis presented in this section, and 
they corroborate the presence of a capillary barrier and a seepage threshold. 
The niche seepage data collected from short-duration tests in ten intervals at Niche 2 
(Niche 3650), long-term tests in one interval at Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and long-term tests in 
three intervals at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) are analyzed in this section. As stated in 
Section 6.2.1.3.1, Section 6.2.1.3.2, and Section 6.2.1.3.3, the niche seepage threshold is defined 
in terms of the pumping rate and the wetted area estimated for the borehole interval. This 
definition of the niche seepage threshold is different from the definition used by PA, which 
relates the seepage threshold to the steady-state background percolation flux averaged over 
drift-scale and site-scale areas. 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. 
Figure 6-46. Wetted Area Spreading Down the Sidewall in Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-89 November 2004 
6.2.2.1 Post-Excavation Liquid-Release and Niche Seepage Threshold 
For a given test interval, seepage tests were initially conducted at high liquid-release rates 
(injection rates into borehole interval without excessive pressure buildup). Subsequent tests 
were performed at lower liquid-release rates to determine whether a threshold could be estimated 
below which seepage into the niche would no longer occur. 
Figure 6-47 shows a plot of the seepage percentages observed during four tests conducted at 
different release flux (qs) in Borehole UM at the same interval, located 5.49 to 5.79 m from the 
borehole collar at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). A linear regression was performed on the four data 
points to compute the equation for the trendline and the R-squared values (R2) reported in 
Figure 6-47 and tabulated in Table 6-8. This exercise was repeated for the tested intervals at all 
the niches, to produce the regression data reported in Table 6-8 for all the zones that seeped. The 
R-squared values are computed separately for each interval and are listed for those intervals 
where three or more data points are available. (The linear regression was performed in an Excel 
spreadsheet documented in Appendix Tables B-3a through B-4e.) For the purposes of this 
analysis, qs is approximately equal to the net downward flux (Ko). This approximation is a 
conservative estimate of Ko (Trautz and Wang 2002 [DIRS 160335]). 
Table 6-8 also summarizes the niche seepage threshold (Ko*), defined as the liquid-release flux 
below which water will not seep into the drift (i.e., see Ko* defined in Figure 6-47). The Ko* 
values were determined using the regression equations provided in Table 6-8 by setting the 
seepage percentage, y, equal to 0, and then solving for Ko = Ko* [Ko* = Ko(y = 0)]. Details on 
this analysis and calculation procedures are in Appendices B and I. Here, the symbol Ko is used 
to denote the liquid-release flux used in the regression model to distinguish it from the 
liquid-release flux computed using the field data (qs). In terms of Ko and Ko
*, the niche seepage 
threshold is defined as follows: 
 If the liquid-release flux exceeds the seepage threshold flux (Ko greater than Ko*) for the 
given interval, then water will seep into the drift. 
 If the liquid-release flux is less than the seepage threshold flux (Ko less than Ko*), then 
water will not enter the cavity. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-90 November 2004 
Linear Regression 
y = 5.89Ln(Ko) + 87.5 
R2 = 0.96 
0
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 
Liquid-Release Flux, qs (m/s) 
Seepage Percentage, y (%) 
Data Linear regression 
Seepage Threshold Flux, K o* 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
NOTES: Seepage tests were conducted for the interval 5.49 to 5.79 m from the collar of Borehole UM at Niche 2 
(Niche 3650). 
The parameter a-1 is also referred as the capillary strength. 
Figure 6-47. Liquid-Release Flux versus Seepage Percentage 
Table 6-8. Seepage Threshold Fluxes (Ko
*). 
Niche 
Borehole 
Name and 
Depth Interval 
(m) Linear Regression Equation 
Data 
Points 
Correlation 
Coefficient 
(R2) 
Niche 
Seepage 
Threshold 
Ko
* (m/s) 
Saturated 
Hydraulic 
Conductivity 
Kl (m/s) 
3107 UM 4.88-5.18 y = 30.440ln(Ko) + 456.085 8 0.820 3.11E-07 N/A 
UL 7.01-7.32 y = 0.6833ln(Ko) + 8.5742 2 N/R 3.55E-06 8.98E-05 
UL 7.62-7.92 y = 5.7394ln(Ko) + 92.627 3 0.979 9.80E-08 1.51E-04 
UM 4.27-4.57 y = 5.2757ln(Ko) + 79.443 4 0.921 2.89E-07 2.62E-05 
UM 4.88-5.18 y = 2.304ln(Ko) + 31.767 3 0.975 1.03E-06 2.52E-03 
UM 5.49-5.79 y = 5.8876ln(Ko) + 87.528 4 0.963 3.50E-07 2.16E-05 
3650 
UR 4.27-4.57 y = 0.314ln(Ko) + 4.3283 2 N/R 1.03E-06 4.08E-05 
Seepage threshold flux, K0* 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-91 November 2004 
Table 6-8. Seepage Threshold Fluxes (Ko
*) (Continued) 
Niche 
Borehole 
Name and 
Depth Interval 
(m) Linear Regression Equation 
Data 
Points 
Correlation 
Coefficient 
(R2) 
Niche 
Seepage 
Threshold 
Ko
* (m/s) 
Saturated 
Hydraulic 
Conductivity 
Kl (m/s) 
UR 4.88-5.18 y = 0.3165ln(Ko) + 4.3751 2 N/R 9.92E-07 9.87E-05 
UR 5.49-5.79 y = 28.419ln(Ko) + 351.09 2 N/R 4.31E-06 1.71E-05 
UR 6.10-6.40 y = 4.2169ln(Ko) + 79.596 2 N/R 6.35E-09 3.01E-05 
3650 
UR 6.71-7.01 y = 10.574ln(Ko) + 165.28 3 0.974 1.63E-07 2.28E-04 
UL 7.62-7.93 y = 9.273ln(Ko) + 148.119 4 0.929 1.16E-07 2.46E-05 
UM 6.10-6.40 y = 15.697ln(Ko) + 243.611 4 0.980 1.82E-07 2.45E-04 
4788 
UR 5.18-5.48 y = 25.415ln(Ko) + 410.285 3 0.970 9.75E-08 3.92E-06 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. 
NOTES: Various data sets were used to generate Table 6-8. Refer to Appendix Tables B-3 and B-4, and 
Appendix Section I5 for details. The saturated conductivity in the last column was calculated from the 
fracture permeability for the zone measured in the air-injection tests (Appendix Section D2). 
N/A = Not applicable. The test could not be completed as planned because of rock properties outside the 
measurable range of the equipment. 
N/R = Not reported, because two data points result in perfect correlation (R2 =1.0), therefore, correlation 
coefficient is meaningless. 
y = Predicted seepage percentage. 
Ko = Net downward liquid-release flux from regression model (m/s). 
ln = Natural logarithm. 
In the capillary barrier conceptual model, the flow can be easily diverted if the liquid 
permeability is large (see Section 6.2.2.2). To illustrate and evaluate this concept, the air 
permeabilities obtained from the post-excavation air-injection tests were converted into 
equivalent saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kl) for liquid flow (DTN: LB980001233124.004 
[DIRS 136583]) as shown by Wang (1999 [DIRS 153449], pp. 3438) for Niche 2 (Niche 3650), 
to produce the values recorded in Table 6-8 and plotted in Figure 6-48. Figure 6-48 shows a 
log-log plot of Ko
* versus K for 10 test intervals at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) and three test intervals 
at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) where seepage occurred. For each test interval, multiple tests with 
different release rates were conducted to estimate the niche seepage threshold. (Computation of 
Ko
* and Kl was performed in an Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-4. Kl could 
not be calculated for Niche 3 [Niche 3107] because the air-permeability test could not be 
completed as planned: the rock properties were outside the measurable range of the equipment.) 
The straight line in Figure 6-48 is derived from an analytic solution described in Section 6.2.2.2. 
The estimation of Kl using air-permeability test data is evaluated in Appendix Section D2. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-92 November 2004 
1.E-06 
1.E-05 
1.E-04 
1.E-03 
1.E-02 
1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 
Seepage Threshold Flux, K0* (m/s) 
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, K 
l 
l (m/s) 
Niche 3650 
Niche 4788 
a-1 = 0.0019 m 
Decreasing a-1 
(gravity 
dominates) 
Increasing a-1 
(capillarity dominates) 
Source: DTNs: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]; LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]; 
LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. 
NOTES: Various data sets were used to generate this figure. See Appendix Tables B-4 and B-6 for details. 1/ a is 
referred to as the capillary-strength parameter. 
Figure 6-48. Seepage Threshold Flux 
6.2.2.2 Capillary Strength ( a -1) of Fractures 
Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743]) recognized that buried cylindrical cavities are obstacles to 
flow, preventing water from entering the cavity. The following theoretical relation between Ko
* 
and Kl was provided by Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], p. 19, Section 3.4): 
( ) [ ] 1 
max 
* - = s K K l o . (Eq. 6-3) 
where s is the value of the dimensionless cavity length and . max is the maximum value of the 
dimensionless potential . at the boundary of the cavity. Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], 
p. 20, Equation 56) show that . max occurs at the apex or crown of a cylindrical cavity. The 
dimensionless cavity length, s, is a measure of the relative importance of gravity and capillarity 
in determining flow. As s approaches zero, capillarity dominates, whereas gravity dominates as 
s tends toward infinity 
An exponential functional relation between unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K( .), and water 
potential, ., is used (Philip et al. 1989 [DIRS 105743], Equation 12, p. 18): 
( ) ( ) e e K K l 
. . a . - = (Eq. 6-4) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-93 November 2004 
Kl is the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Pullan 1990 [DIRS 106141], p. 1221), .e 
is the 
air-entry potential, Kl is the conductivity at . = .e 
, and a-1 is the capillary-strength parameter. 
For fractures, the air-entry potential is small and negligible. 
This Gardner exponential functional relation is used by Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], p. 18, 
Equation 12) and by Braester (1973 [DIRS 106088], p. 688, Equation 5)] to transform and 
linearize the unsaturated governing equations. Equation 6-4 is also used in Section 6.2.2.4 to 
estimate water potential. 
Another model for unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and water potential is the van Genuchten 
model with its own capillary-strength parameter and pore-size distribution parameter (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171764], Section 6.3.2.3). The distinction between model-dependent capillary-strength 
parameters should be noted when comparing results from the analysis presented in this section 
and the results from the seepage calibration model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]) and the seepage 
model for PA (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167652]). 
Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], p. 18, Equation 14) note that the dimensionless cavity length s 
in Equation 6-3 is related to the capillary strength parameter a-1 (Equation 6-4) and a 
characteristic length of the cavity l by the following expression: 
l a 5 . 0 = s (Eq. 6-5) 
When s is large, Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], Section 6, pp. 2325) demonstrate that a 
boundary layer adjoining the ceiling of the cavity surface will develop. This allows the steady 
flow equation to be replaced by a boundary-layer equation that is readily solved. The asymptotic 
expansion of .max for large values of s yields (Philip et al. 1989 [DIRS 105743], p. 23, 
Equation 84): 
K - + - + = 2 max 
2 1 2 2 
s s 
s . (Eq. 6-6) 
Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], Table 1) note that when s is greater than or equal to 1, the 
first three terms on the right side of Equation 6-6 produce an adequate estimate that is within 
12 percent (or less) of the exact value of . max. Therefore, using appropriate values for Ko
*, l, 
and Kl, the capillary strength ( a-1) for the porous medium from Equation 6-3, Equation 6-5, and 
the first three terms in Equation 6-6, can be estimated. This technique was utilized to compute 
the a-1 values reported in Table 6-9, using the values for Ko
* derived in Section 6.2.2.1. The Kl 
values were derived from post-excavation air-injection tests summarized in Table 6-8, and a 
value of two was used for l, which is approximately equal to the radius of the curvature of the 
niche ceiling. By taking the reciprocal of the a-1 reported in Table 6-9, which in this case also 
equals s, all the s-values (with the exception of Niche 3 [Niche 3107] Borehole UM, 
Interval 4.885.18 m) are greater than one, justifying the use of Equation 6-6. The s-value for 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Borehole UM, Interval 4.885.18 m is slightly less than one (i.e., 0.43), 
implying that the use of Equation 6-6 will result in a larger error in a-1 for this test. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-94 November 2004 
Table 6-9. Alpha (a) Values Estimated for the Fractures 
Niche 
Borehole and 
Interval (m) 
Output Capillary 
Strength a-1 (m) 
UL 7.01-7.32 0.0855 
UL 7.62-7.92 0.0013 
UM 4.27-4.57 0.0225 
UM 4.88-5.18 0.0008 
UM 5.49-5.79 0.0334 
UR 4.27-4.57 0.0532 
UR 4.88-5.18 0.0205 
UR 5.49-5.79 0.71 
UR 6.10-6.40 0.0004 
3650 
UR 6.71-7.01 0.0014 
UL 7.62-7.93 0.0095 
UM 6.10-6.40 0.0015 
4788 
UR 5.18-5.48 0.0523 
Theoretical limit 0.0019 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]; 
LB990601233124.001 [DIRS 105888]. 
NOTE: Various data sets were used to derive a-1. 
Refer to Appendix Table B-5 for details. 
An early analysis based on visual inspection and straight-line fitting of Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
short-duration test data in Figure 6-48 is documented by Trautz and Wang 
(2001 [DIRS 165419]). In this section of this scientific analysis report, the Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
data analyses are compared with the results of long-duration tests at Niche 4 (Niche 4788). 
Philip, in The Scattering Analog for Infiltration in Porous Media (1989 [DIRS 156974]) 
reports that a-1 varies from 0.05 m or less (for coarse-grained soils) to 5 m or more (for 
fine-textured soils). In comparison, the values reported in Table 6-9 range from 0.001 to 0.71 m 
for the fractures tested, with the lower bound below that normally reported in the literature for 
soils. Philip (1989 [DIRS 156974]) and White and Sully (1987 [DIRS 106152], p. 1514) 
recognized that a-1 is a permeability-weighted mean soil-water potential directly related to the 
macroscopic capillary length, or pore radius, r, of the medium, as follows: 
( ) 
r g 
cos 2 2 1 
. 
. . 
= a- (Eq. 6-7) 
where ., ., and . are the surface tension, density, and contact angle of the fluid, respectively, and 
g is gravitational acceleration. The surface tension . is the surface energy per unit area, or 
equivalent, surface force per unit length. The right-side of Equation 6-7 is known as Laplaces 
capillary formula, which is equal to the height |h| of fluid rise in a small diameter cylindrical 
tube. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-95 November 2004 
For a pair of parallel plates with width L much greater than the aperture b, the upward force 
component along two liquid-air-solid interfaces with contact angle . is .cos(.)  (2L), and the 
downward weight of the liquid rise is .g  (Lb|h|). From force balance, the capillary equation 
relating the capillary rise |h| with fracture aperture b is obtained. Therefore, Equation 6-7 can 
also be used to estimate the height of fluid rise between two smooth parallel plates (analogous to 
a fracture) by substituting the aperture b, or separation distance between plates for r in 
Equation 6-7. 
Bouwer (1966 [DIRS 155682], p. 733) and Raats and Gardner (1971 [DIRS 155683], p. 922) 
described the macroscopic capillary length, and hence 2a-1, as a mean height of capillary rise 
above a water table, or the mean air-entry head. In this case, the significance of 2a-1 is that it 
represents the mean height that water can be retained in the fractures above the drift (without 
seeping) because of the capillary barrier. 
Note that the capillary mechanism has a limited range of validity. If the fracture aperture or 
capillary radius is large, the radius of curvature of the meniscus will be infinite and the capillary 
effect will be negligible. For a wetting fluid with contact angle . = 0, the hemispherical surface 
at top of the rise can no longer be defined when b or r is greater than the height |h|. Therefore the 
maximum capillary size (with b = |h| or r = |h| in Equation 6-7) is (Wang and Narasimhan 
(1993 [DIRS 106793], p. 329)): 
2 / 1 
max g 
2 b . .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
.
. 
= (Eq. 6-8) 
For . = 0.072 kg/s2, . = 998 kg/m3, and g = 9.8 m/s2 the nominal aperture size is 3.84 mm, 
which, using Equation 6-7, corresponds to a limiting value for a-1 equal to 0.0019 m. 
Figure 6-48 was generated by plotting the Ko
* values derived in Section 6.2.2.1 along with their 
corresponding Kl values reported in Table 6-8. The line in Figure 6-48 represents the practical 
limit of Equation 6-3 calculated using the limiting value of a-1 derived from Equation 6-7 and 
Equation 6-8. Therefore, values of a-1 less than 0.0019 m correspond to nominal apertures that 
are greater than 3.84 mm, the point at which capillary forces vanish and gravity forces dominate 
flow. Several data points are slightly above the line in Figure 6-48. This implies that gravity 
forces dominate fluid flow through these features. 
6.2.2.3 Estimated Volumetric Water Content ( . ) of Fractures 
The niche seepage data can also be used to obtain estimates of the change in volumetric water 
content ., where . is equal to (volume of water in fractures)/(bulk volume of fractured tuff) of 
the fractures. Direct measurement of fracture . in the field is difficult at best using conventional 
hydrologic techniques (e.g., using neutron moisture logs). Therefore, an alternate method of 
measuring average volumetric water contents indirectly, using wetting-front arrival times 
observed at the niche ceiling during the seepage tests, is described in the remainder of this 
subsection. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-96 November 2004 
Based on mass conservation along the vertical flow path, the depth of the wetting front below the 
water source is: 
( ) n ave 
s 
p 
t q z 
. . - 
= (Eq. 6-9) 
where zp is the depth from the water-supply surface to the leading edge of the wetting front, qs is 
the constant flux of water supplied at the source, t is the arrival time of the front at depth zp, .ave 
is the average water content, and .n 
is the initial or antecedent (or residual) water content. 
Using the arrival time for the wetting front observed at the niche ceiling 
(DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]) and the qs data (DTN: LB980001233124.004 
[DIRS 136583]), it is possible to estimate the change in volumetric water content change 
.. = .ave - .n 
for each seepage test by applying Equation 6-9. (Computation of .. was 
performed in an Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-8 for Niche 4788 
[Niche 4]. The .. was not computed for Niche 3 [Niche 3107]; see Section 6.2.2.4.) Table 6-10 
provides a summary of the estimated .. values for zones where three or more seepage tests were 
conducted. With the approximation that the initial, antecedent, or residual moisture content .n 
is 
negligible compared to .ave, then .. becomes a measure of the average volumetric water content. 
The water-content values, shown in Table 6-10, are within the range of 0.09 percent to 
5.0 percent. Surprisingly, this indicates that the saturated water contents or porosities of the 
fractures could be as high as 5 percent, which is greater than expected. In turn, these values 
could influence travel-time calculations computed for the UZ, because water transport time is 
proportional to water content. Using larger water content for the fractures would result in longer 
transport times. 
The approach used to estimate water contents for the fractures are evaluated in Appendix 
Section D1 and Appendix Section D3. 
Table 6-10. Estimated Changes in Volumetric Water Content (. .) 
Niche 
Borehole 
Name and 
Interval (m) Test Name 
Liquid Release 
Flux 
qs, (m/s) 
Average Water Content 
Change 
. . = .ave- .n (m3/m3) 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #2 1-6-98 9.49E-06 0.0101 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 2-12-98 1.89E-06 0.0017 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 3-4-98 2.33E-07 0.0009 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test 5 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.78E-05 0.0242 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 12-3-97 9.42E-06 0.0146 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 12-3-97 9.47E-06 0.0075 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 1-7-98 8.82E-07 0.0120 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 2-10-98 3.09E-07 0.0063 
3650 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test 1 Niche 3650 (11-12-97) 5.41E-05 0.0150 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-97 November 2004 
Table 6-10. Estimated Changes in Volumetric Water Content (. .) (Continued) 
Niche 
Borehole 
Name and 
Interval (m) Test Name 
Liquid Release 
Flux 
qs, (m/s) 
Average Water Content 
Change 
. . = .ave- .n (m3/m3) 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 12-4-97 9.49E-06 0.0043 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #2 12-5-97 2.70E-06 0.0040 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 1-8-98 8.75E-07 0.0082 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 3-6-98 2.48E-07 0.0083 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test 4 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.87E-05 0.0124 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #2 12-4-97 9.43E-06 0.0061 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 1-9-98 1.08E-06 0.0046 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 2-11-98 2.55E-07 0.0040 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 1-13-98 3.68E-06 0.0024 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 2-3-98 1.91E-06 0.0018 
3650 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 3-5-98 2.48E-07 0.0017 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-3-99 1.65E-06 0.0200 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 9.22E-07 0.0057 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 3.59E-07 0.0101 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 01-24-00 1.46E-07 0.0115 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 11-16-99 1.72E-06 0.0489 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 7.33E-07 0.0503 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 3.83E-07 0.0331 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 3-14-2000 1.66E-07 0.0355 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-7-99 1.69E-06 0.0092 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 1-5-2000 7.11E-07 0.0055 
4788 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 1.65E-07 0.0055 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. 
6.2.2.4 Estimated Water Potentials ( .) of Fractures 
The direct measurement of water potentials is difficult to make in unsaturated fractures because 
hydrologic instruments are not readily adaptable to measuring such small features. Therefore, an 
indirect measure of the water potential ( .) was formulated using the a values computed in 
Section 6.2.2.2. Dividing both sides of Equation 6-4 by Kl (saturated hydraulic conductivity), 
setting the liquid injection rate as the unsaturated conductivity (i.e., ) ( . K qs = ), and taking the 
natural logarithm of both sides of the equation, produces the following solution: 
( ) 
a 
. l s K q / ln = (Eq. 6-10) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-98 November 2004 
(The air-entry potential .e 
is set to zero in the solution.) Using the values for qs and Kl reported 
in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] and the a-values from Table 6-9, . was 
computed for several Niche 2 (Niche 3650) tests by employing Equation 6-10. (Computation of 
. was performed in an Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-7 for Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) ( . was not computed for Niche 3 [Niche 3107] because a value for Kl could not be 
computed: the corresponding air permeability value was not measurable with the equipment that 
was used.) A summary of the resulting . values is provided in Table 6-11. 
Table 6-11. Estimated Water Potential (.) for the Fractures 
Niche Borehole and Interval (m) Test Name 
Absolute Value of the Water 
Potential 
. (m) 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #2 1-6-98 3.59E-03 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 2-12-98 5.68E-03 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 3-4-98 8.39E-03 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test 5 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 8.26E-03 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 12-3-97 2.30E-02 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 12-3-97 2.29E-02 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 1-7-98 7.64E-02 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 2-10-98 1.00E-01 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test 1 Niche 3650 (11-12-97) 3.13E-03 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 12-4-97 4.56E-03 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #2 12-5-97 5.58E-03 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 1-8-98 6.50E-03 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 3-6-98 7.53E-03 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test 4Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 1.95E-02 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #2 12-4-97 2.77E-02 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 1-9-98 1.00E-01 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 2-11-98 1.48E-01 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 1-13-98 5.90E-03 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 2-3-98 6.84E-03 
3650 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 3-5-98 9.76E-03 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-3-99 2.56E-02 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 3.12E-02 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 4.01E-02 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 01-24-00 4.86E-02 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 11-16-99 7.38E-03 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 8.65E-03 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 9.61E-03 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 3-14-2000 1.09E-02 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-7-99 4.41E-02 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 1-5-2000 8.93E-02 
4788 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 1.66E-01 
Source: DTNs: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]; LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
NOTE: Various data sets were used to generate this table. See Appendix Table B-7 for details. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-99 November 2004 
6.2.2.5 Fracture-Water Characteristic Curves 
The volumetric water-content values from Section 6.2.2.3 and the water-potential values derived 
in Section 6.2.2.4 are plotted in Figure 6-49 to create a water-characteristic curve for the 
fractures. Only those test intervals where three or more tests were conducted are included in the 
figure. (Inclusion of zones that have only two data points, joined by a straight line, contributes 
little to an understanding of the functional relation between . and ..) 
Note that the data fall into two groups, exhibiting similar water-retention characteristics. The 
first group (designated in Figure 6-49 as N3650 UL 7.62-7.92 m, N3650 UR 6.71-7.01 m, and 
N3650 4.88-5.18 m) consists of high-permeability fractures that drain over a narrow range of 
water potentials. The second group (N3650 UM 4.27-4.57 m, N3650 UM 5.49-5.79 m, 
N4788 UM 6.10-6.40 m, N4788 UL 7.62-7.93 m, and N4788 UR 5.18-5.48 m) consists of 
lower-permeability fractures that drain over a relatively larger range of water potentials. 
Residual water remaining in the fracture after the initial test can cause subsequent test data 
(collected during a test performed at a similar rate) to shift to the left, parallel to the x-axis, as 
shown in Figure 6-50 for test interval N3650 UM 4.27-4.57 m. The second and third tests from 
this interval were conducted at nearly identical fluxes (9.42  10-6 versus 9.47  10-6 m/s) 
separated in time by less than two hours. The wetting front arrived at the niche ceiling during 
the second test in approximately half the time required for the first test, resulting in a . . value 
that is half that for the second test compared to the first. The fourth and fifth tests in the 
sequence were performed approximately one and two months later, respectively. Evidence of 
the effects of wetting history is not readily apparent for these tests, which were conducted at 
lower fluxes (corresponding to lower water contents), indicating that the fractures drained or 
dried out prior to retesting. 
6.3 ANALYSES OF TRACER-MIGRATION DELINEATION AT NICHE 2 
(NICHE 3650) 
Upon completion of the series of seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) described in 
Section 6.2.1.3.1, an episodic tracer migration test was conducted to elucidate the flow paths 
above the niche ceiling. The distribution of tracers from both the final tracer migration test and 
previous liquid-release and seepage-threshold tests are presented in this section. Tracer-stained 
rock samples were analyzed in the laboratory for the determination of tracer distributions. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-100 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. 
NOTES: Various data sets were used to generate this figure. See Appendix Tables B-7 and B-8 for details. 
s = Saturated conditions. 
h = Data point influenced by wetting history. 
Figure 6-49. Water Retention Curves for Fractures 
1.E-03 
1.E-02 
1.E-01 
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 
Absolute Value of Water Potential (m 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
Numbers indicate testing sequence 
Arrow indicates effect of 
wetting history on water 
content. Test 2 and 3 
conducted at nearly the 
same flow rate separated 
in time by < 2 hours. 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
NOTE: Various data sets were used to generate this figure. Refer to Appendix Tables B-7 and B-8 for details. 
Figure 6-50. Effect of Wetting History on Water Retention Curves for Test Interval N3650 
UM 4.27-4.57 m 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-101 November 2004 
6.3.1 Tracer Distribution from the Tracer-Migration Test 
6.3.1.1 Field Studies at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
As described in Section 6.1, seven 0.0762-m-diameter boreholes were drilled at Niche 2 
(Niche 3650). Three of these boreholes, designated UL, UM, and UR, were drilled 
approximately 1 m apart and 0.65 m above the niche ceiling in the same horizontal plane as 
shown in Panel (b) of Figure 6-4. An array of twelve sampling boreholes was drilled to collect 
core samples for tracer analyses, as shown in Figure 6-51. The core analyses delineated the 
extent of tracer migration from the final episodic liquid-release event as well as for all previous 
tracer and liquid-release tests. 
There were three sets of liquid injection tests conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) in the following 
order: 
1. Before the Niche excavation, liquid release tests with dye-spiked water were 
conducted in early August 1997, as described in Section 6.2.1.1. Flow paths were 
observed during niche excavation as described in Section 6.2.1.2. 
2. Seepage tests were performed with water on borehole test intervals along Borehole 
UL, Borehole UM, and Borehole UR positioned above the niche from late 1997 to 
early 1998, as described in Section 6.2.1.3.1. 
3. The episodic tracer migration test was conducted in September 1998, as described in 
Section 6.3.1.2. 
Liquid-release tests were conducted before the niche excavation to evaluate how far a finite pulse 
of liquid would travel through unsaturated fractured rock (Section 6.2.1). Water containing 
colored dyes was used to mark the wetted area and flow paths resulting from each test. The 
niche was then dry-excavated (using an Alpine Miner) to observe and photograph the 
distribution of fractures and dye within the welded tuff (see Section 6.2.1 of this report, and 
Wang et al. 1999 [DIRS 106146], pp. 329332). 
Along the three upper boreholes (Borehole UL, Borehole UM, Borehole UR), two Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) dyes were released before niche excavation: FD&C Blue 
No. 1 and FD&C Red No. 40. Blue and red bars in Panel (a) of Figure 6-51 on the upper-left 
side of test-interval locations represent the pre-excavation liquid-release tests. 
After niche excavation, a series of short-duration seepage tests was performed to determine the 
amount of liquid that would seep into the mined opening (Section 6.2.1.3.1). Post-excavation 
liquid-injection tests were conducted both with and without tracers. Post-excavation tracers 
included FD&C Blue No. 1, Sulpho Rhodamine B, Pyranine, FD&C Yellow No. 6, Acid 
Yellow 7, and Amino G Acid. The post-excavation seepage test sequences are summarized 
schematically on the lower right side of test-interval locations in Panel (a) of Figure 6-51. 
6.3.1.2 Tracer Migration Test 
The tracer migration test was conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) six months after the seepage 
tests. From September 16, 1998, to September 18, 1998, water containing seven tracers 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-102 November 2004 
(4.60 g/L NaI, 4.60 g/L CaI2, 4.60 g/L CaBr2, 1.56 g/L FD&C Blue No. 1, 1.76 g/L FD&C 
Yellow No. 5, 0.019 g/L 2,3-difluorobenzoic acid, and 0.018 g/L pentafluorobenzoic acid) was 
released into a highly permeable zone located in Borehole UM, 4.885.18 m from the borehole 
collar. Iodide, bromide, and fluorinated benzoic acids were used as nonreactive tracers; the 
others were applied as sorbing tracers. The release rate was 0.013 g/s, with a total released 
volume of approximately 1.52 L. The wetting front was observed to reach the niche ceiling in a 
large fracture/breakout, but water did not drip into the niche. 
Niche 3650 
UL 
UM 
UR 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
(b) 
(a) 
Niche 3650 
NOTES: The red-colored cylinder denotes the release interval of the tracer migration test. 
(a) = Plan view with liquid-release/dye application history. 
(b) = 3-D view from inside the niche. 
Figure 6-51. Schematic of Sampling Borehole Array 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-103 November 2004 
From September 23 to October 1, 1998, twelve sampling boreholes, nominally 1.5 m long, were 
drilled into the niche ceiling around the liquid-release interval to determine the extent of the 
tracer migration. Rock-core samples were collected during the drilling process for subsequent 
laboratory chemical analyses. (Refer to Wang 1999 [DIRS 153449], pp. 99107, 123, and 124 
for a detailed description of this tracer migration test.) 
Panel (b) of Figure 6-51 shows a 3-D perspective view of the sampling borehole array. The 
cores from the boreholes were 4.47 cm in diameter and were divided into sections during coring, 
with each section separately wrapped in Saran Wrap. Each wrapped sample was placed inside 
a Lexan liner (with tape wrapping sealing both ends of the liners) and sealed in a Protecore 
packet. The interval for each section was noted on the packet, which was assigned a unique 
numeric identifier. 
The tracer chemical information is shown by Hu (1999 [DIRS 156541], pp. 154155), and 
Hu (1999 [DIRS 155691], p. 151). Tracer analysis results and discussions are presented as 
concentration ratios (independent of chemical purity). Appendix E, Sections E2 and E3 describe 
core sample processing and aqueous tracer measurement for the analyses of tracer distribution. 
Iodide and FD&C Yellow No. 5 concentrations were not detected above background levels in the 
samples collected from the twelve boreholes drilled around the release interval. Iodide and 
FD&C Yellow No. 5 were applied only during the tracer migration test and were not used in 
earlier seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). These results indicate that the sampling borehole 
array did not capture the tracer plume of the tracer migration test. Liquid migration was most 
likely localized and very possibly confined within the 1.0-m-by-1.6-m area directly below the 
liquid-release interval. 
Several rock-chip samples were collected from the ceiling of Niche 2 (Niche 3650) in 
March 2001. These samples were obtained directly under the release interval of the tracer 
migration test (within a radius of approximately 20 cm), and within the twelve sampling 
boreholes. Six samples have been processed for chemical concentration measurements as 
documented by Hu (1999 [DIRS 155691], pp. 143144), and Hu (2000 [DIRS 156473]). Iodide 
was detected in all six of the analyzed samples, confirming the arrival of iodide from the wetting 
front observed at the niche ceiling during the tracer migration test. FD&C Yellow No. 5 was not 
found among the samples, possibly because of its higher sorption compared to iodide. 
6.3.2 Delineation of Tracer Distributions from Previous Liquid-Release Tests 
Tests before the tracer migration test were conducted at different borehole intervals at various 
flow rates to determine the seepage thresholds for each interval. A total of 40 liquid-release tests 
over 16 borehole intervals were conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), using both water with and 
without dye tracers as shown in Panel (a) of Figure 6-51. The distributions of these tracers were 
evaluated through the analyses of cores from the twelve sampling boreholes drilled into the flow 
domains. Examples of measured dye concentration versus borehole interval are shown in 
Figure 6-52 and Figure 6-53. The distribution of the tracers above the niche is used to assess the 
extent of tracer spreading and to provide data for the evaluation of seepage processes. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-104 November 2004 
Tracer data are presented as dimensionless ratios of the detected tracer level to the background 
level. A higher ratio indicates the stronger presence of the tracer in the particular interval of a 
borehole. These detection ratios provide sufficient information about the spatial distributions of 
tracers, reconcile the difference in measurement techniques (i.e., ultraviolet/visible and 
fluorescence spectrophotometers), and eliminate the need to use and verify chemical purity 
information provided by the manufacturers. In Section 6.3.2.2, the measured dye distributions 
are illustrated in three dimensions, based on as-built borehole survey coordinates using 
EARTHVISION V4.0 software (LBNL 1998 [DIRS 152835]). 
6.3.2.1 Detection of Tracers 
Several dyes from previous applications of seepage tests (discussed in Section 6.2.1.3.1) were 
detected within the borehole samples, as summarized in Table 6-12. FD&C Blue No. 1 was 
present in seven out of 12 boreholes, with some of the boreholes containing relatively high 
concentrations of the tracer. Sulpho Rhodamine B was detected within four borehole samples. 
Overall, the dye distribution pattern was relatively spotty, reflecting the complex interplay of 
preferential flow paths and liquid application history. All of the previous liquid-release and 
seepage tests were conducted at least six months before the tracer migration test (see 
Section 6.3.1). 
Table 6-12. Compilation of Tracer Detection versus Borehole Location 
Borehole 
ID 
FD&C Blue 
No. 1 
Sulpho 
Rhodamine B 
FD&C Yellow 
No. 6 Pyranine Acid Yellow 7 
Amino G 
Acid 
1 - +++ - - - - 
2 +++ - - - +++++ + 
3 +++ - - - - - 
4 - - - - - - 
5 - - - - - - 
6 - - - - - - 
7 +++++ +++++ +++ - - - 
8 +++ - - - - - 
9 + - - - - - 
10 +++ +++++ - + - - 
11 +++++ + - +++ - - 
12 - - - - - - 
Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. 
NOTES: - = Detection ratio is less than 3 (treated as absent) within this particular borehole. 
+ = The highest detection ratio is between 3 and 100 within this particular borehole. 
+++ = The highest detection ratio is between 100 and 1,000 within this particular borehole. 
+++++ = The highest detection ratio is greater than 1,000 within this particular borehole. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-105 November 2004 
0 
500 
1000 
1500 
2000 
2500 
3000 
0-8 
8-20 
20-30 
30-40 
40-50 
50-61 
61-73 
73-79 
79-85 
88-98 
98-110 
110-122 
122-137 
137-152 
152-168 Depth Interval from Borehole Collar (cm) 
Detection Ratio 
FD&C Blue No. 1 
Borehole 7 
(a) 
0 
200 
400 
600 
800 
1000 
1200 
0-8 
8-20 
20-30 
30-40 
40-50 
50-61 
61-73 
73-79 
79-85 
88-98 
98-110 
110-122 
122-137 
137-152 
152-168 
Depth Interval from Borehole Collar (cm) 
Detection Ratio 
Sulpho Rhodamine B 
Borehole 7 
(b) 
Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. 
NOTES: Duplicate measurements were taken at each specific interval. 
(a) = FD&C Blue No. 1. 
(b) = Sulpho Rhodamine B. 
Figure 6-52. Dye Detection along Borehole 7 of Niche 3650 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-106 November 2004 
0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
0-6 
6-16 
16-33 
33-45 
45-57 
57-67 
67-76 
76-85 
85-93 
93-101 
101-113 
113-125 
125-137 
137-152 Depth Interval from Borehole Collar (cm) 
Detection Ratio 
(a) 
Pyranine 
Borehole 11 
0 
200 
400 
600 
800 
1000 
1200 
0-6 
6-19 
19-33 
33-44 
44-56 
56-67 
67-77 
77-88 
88-98 
98-107 
107-120 
120-134 
134-143 
143-152 
Depth Interval from Borehole Collar (cm) 
Detection Ratio 
Acid Yellow 7 
Borehole 2 
(b) 
Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. 
Figure 6-53. Dye Detection of (a) Pyranine along Borehole 11 and (b) Acid Yellow 7 along Borehole 2 of 
Niche 3650 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-107 November 2004 
6.3.2.2 Distribution of Dyes 
FD&C Blue No. 1 was released in six intervals during pre-excavation liquid-release tests and in 
four intervals during post-excavation seepage tests (including one with a mixture of blue and 
yellow dyes). The blue dye distributions, together with release-interval locations, are illustrated 
in Figure 6-54. Boreholes where the tracer was not detected are represented by narrow lines. 
The multiple releases and dilutions introduced a complex application history. Overall results 
suggested that most regions containing blue dye were associated with tracer tests from nearby 
release intervals. 
Sulpho Rhodamine B was used in eight seepage tests along seven borehole intervals. 
Figure 6-55 illustrates the results for Sulpho Rhodamine B. Near Borehole 7, Sulpho 
Rhodamine B was released once (in the interval UM 4.88-5.18 m), followed by three releases of 
water without dyes, and once with a mixture of FD&C Blue No. 1 and FD&C Yellow No. 6. 
The Sulpho Rhodamine B in Borehole 7, and near the niche ceiling in Borehole 8, most likely 
originated from this release episode. There was no Sulpho Rhodamine B detected in Borehole 3, 
Borehole 9, and Borehole 12. This suggested that the Sulpho Rhodamine B was likely migrating 
downward, rather than spreading laterally. 
In Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Pyranine, Acid Yellow 7, and Amino G Acid were used only once. 
Pyranine, Acid Yellow 7, and Amino G Acid are fluorescent dyes, and the low detection limits 
achievable with the fluorescence spectrophotometer provide confidence for the delineation of 
dye-stained flow paths within the sampling borehole array. Additionally, FD&C Yellow No. 6 
was used once at Borehole UM, Interval 4.88-5.18 m within the sampling borehole array, and 
another time at Borehole UL, Interval 7.62-7.92 m outside the borehole array (Panel (a) of 
Figure 6-51). The observations from these tracer distributions also showed localized 
distributions of tracers, confirming downward migration (not the lateral spreading that was 
observed in the earlier tests). 
Pyranine, for example, was detected at neighboring Boreholes 10 and 11; its presence was much 
stronger at Borehole 10 than at Borehole 11 (Table 6-12 and Figure 6-56). Borehole 11 is 
located almost exactly below the interval of UM 4.27-4.57 m where Pyranine was released. 
Four episodes of water-only seepage tests were conducted following this Pyranine application. 
These liquid releases did not seem to enhance extensive lateral spreading. Overall, the lateral 
spreading of Pyranine was observed to be approximately 0.75 m to the left (i.e., at Borehole 10), 
resulting from these five release tests. However, its presence at Borehole 10 was only slightly 
above the background level. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-108 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. 
NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinders 
denote intervals of early-release events. The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection 
ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless 
detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. 
Figure 6-54. Three-Dimensional View of FD&C Blue No. 1 Detection Related to the Release Interval 
above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-109 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. 
NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinders 
denote intervals of early-release events. The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection 
ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless 
detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. 
Figure 6-55. Three-Dimensional View of Sulpho Rhodamine B Detection Related to the Release Interval 
above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-110 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. 
NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinderdenotes 
an interval of an early-release event. The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection ratios 
(dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless 
detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. 
Figure 6-56. Three-Dimensional View of Pyranine Detection Related to the Release Interval above 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
Acid Yellow 7 was detected only at Borehole 2, approximately 0.3 m from Interval 
UM 6.10-6.40 m where it was released (see Figure 6-57). Amino G Acid was also detected near 
the detection limit at Borehole 2, approximately 0.3 m from Interval UM 5.49-5.79 m where it 
was released (see Figure 6-58). Note that although the Interval UM 5.49-5.79 m was 
encompassed within the sampling borehole array, Amino G Acid was not detected in any other 
borehole. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-111 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. 
NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer-release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinder 
denotes an interval of an earlier release event. The sampling boreholes are individually identified. 
Detection ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in 
dimensionless detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. 
Figure 6-57. Three-Dimensional View of Acid Yellow 7 Detection Related to the Release Interval above 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-112 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. 
NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinder 
denotes an interval of an early-release event. The sampling boreholes are individually 
identified. Detection ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are 
presented in dimensionless detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. 
Figure 6-58. Three-Dimensional View of Amino G Acid Detection Related to the Release Interval above 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
The last dye distribution shown pertains to FD&C Yellow No. 6 (Figure 6-59). The dye was 
present at Borehole 7. Borehole 7 was approximately 0.5 m from Interval UM 4.88-5.18 m 
where both FD&C Yellow No. 6 and FD&C Blue No. 1 were simultaneously released. This 
release episode had one of the lowest release rates (0.013 g/s), and one of the largest release 
volumes (5597 g) of all liquid-release tests conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) (see Section 6.2). 
Borehole 7 is located in the middle of the sampling borehole array. The observation that FD&C 
Yellow No. 6 was only present in Borehole 7 further demonstrated the localized characteristics 
of liquid flow with limited lateral spreading, even in this case with comparatively large release 
volume. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-113 November 2004 
Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. 
NOTE: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinder denotes 
an interval of an early-release event. (One of the two release intervals is the same as the last release event, 
represented by the red cylinder.) The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection ratios 
(dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless 
detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. 
Figure 6-59. Three-Dimensional View of FD&C Yellow No. 6 Detection Related to the Release Intervals 
above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-114 November 2004 
The dye distribution plots also indicate that some dyes migrated above the injection intervals, as 
illustrated in Figure 6-54 for FD&C Blue No. 1, in Figure 6-56 for Pyranine; and to a lesser 
degree in Figure 6-55 for Sulpho Rhodamine B, in Figure 6-57 for Acid Yellow 7, and in 
Figure 6-58 for Amino G Acid. This is an interesting observation, indicating that fairly strong 
capillary forces may induce upward movements against gravity. Similar behavior was also 
observed in the Busted Butte test, as described in Section 6.13.3.1.1. 
6.4 ANALYSES OF TRACER PENETRATION AND WATER IMBIBITION INTO 
WELDED TUFF MATRIX 
The objectives of this study are to investigate water flow and tracer transport, focusing on the 
relative extents of fracture flow and fracture-matrix interaction in the unsaturated, fractured tuff 
through a combination of field and laboratory experiments. Fieldwork was conducted in the ESF 
niches with liquid containing tracers released at specified borehole intervals. Tracer-stained rock 
samples were collected during niche excavation for subsequent laboratory analyses. Clean rock 
samples, collected from the same stratigraphic unit, were machined into cylinders for laboratory 
studies of tracer penetration into the rock matrix under different initial water-saturation levels. 
The use of laser-ablation inductively coupled-plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) to investigate 
chemical transport and sorption in unsaturated tuff is also presented. 
6.4.1 Penetration of Dyes into Rocks from the Niches 
Samples for laboratory analyses were collected from Niche 2 (Niche 3650) and Niche 4 
(Niche 4788). The niche test sites, borehole configurations, liquid-release tests, and tracers used 
in the field are described in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3. Laboratory tests under controlled 
conditions were conducted to compare the travel front behavior of moisture, nonreactive 
bromide, and sorbing dye tracers (FD&C Blue No. 1 and Sulpho Rhodamine B). Sample drilling 
and tracer profiling techniques were developed. The descriptions and evaluations of laboratory 
analyses are presented in Appendix E. 
6.4.1.1 Field Observations 
During the niche excavation, as described in Section 6.2.1.2, dye was observed along individual 
fractures and intersecting fractures to a maximum depth of 2.6 m below the liquid-release points 
at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), and to a maximum depth of approximately 1.8 m at Niche 4 
(Niche 4788). In general, the dye remained relatively close to the release interval and did not 
spread laterally more than 0.5 m. Figure 6-60 is a photograph taken during the excavation of 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788), showing the wall face with the fracture network stained by FD&C Blue 
No. 1. Results of post-excavation liquid-seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) also indicate fast 
fracture flow with limited lateral spreading, because seepage water was captured in trays that are 
either directly below the test interval or next to them. 










































































































In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-221 November 2004 
6.11 ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS OF SYSTEMATIC HYDROLOGIC 
CHARACTERIZATION 
A systematic approach (testing at regular intervals regardless of specific features arising from 
spatial heterogeneity) was chosen for performing hydrologic characterization along the ECRB 
Cross-Drift (Cook et al. 2003 [DIRS 165424]). These tests took place in boreholes drilled at 
regular intervals along the ECRB Cross-Drift within the lower lithophysal zone of the TSw. The 
lower lithophysal welded tuff unit is intersected by many small fractures (less than 1 m long) and 
interspersed with many lithophysal cavities (ranging in size from 15 to 100 cm). The size and 
spacing of both the fractures and lithophysal cavities vary appreciably along the drift walls (the 
drift is 5 m in diameter) over an 800-m stretch. This indicates that hydrologic characteristics at 
one particular location may not be representative of the entire unit. Therefore, a systematic 
approach of testing at regular intervals was adopted to acquire knowledge of the heterogeneous 
hydrologic characteristics of this unit, in which more than 80 percent of the repository will 
reside. The specific test plan for this series of tests is Systematic Hydrological Characterization, 
SITP-02-UZ-004 (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158202]). 
The data from the systematic hydrologic characterization in the ECRB Cross-Drift (i.e., 
air-permeability data and the data from liquid-release tests, including injection rates, seepage 
rates, relative humidity, and evaporation rate) were used as part of the model development, 
calibration, and validation of the seepage calibration model (BSC 2004 [171764]). 
The systematic approach was to complement other hydrologic testing in the ambient testing 
program, in which test locations were selected either by avoiding or focusing on specific features 
(such as large fractures or an abundance of fractures or cavities). Systematic hydrologic 
characterization investigated the hydrologic properties that are important to repository 
performance. Field measurements included: 
 Air-injection tests that give a measure of fracture permeability 
 Liquid-release tests that determine the ability of the open drift to act as a capillary 
barrier (diverting water around itself) as well as the potential for water seeping into the 
drift 
 Crosshole gas-tracer tests to measure the effective porosity of the rock mass. 
6.11.1 Systematic Borehole Testing Setup 
6.11.1.1 Systematic Borehole Configuration 
Figure 6-127 shows a schematic of the arrays of boreholes (all 20 m in length) drilled at regular 
intervals along the ECRB Cross-Drift. The borehole arrays are divided into three groups. 
Group I consists of low-angled boreholes drilled from the crown of the 5-m-diameter ECRB 
Cross-Drift, inclined at 15 degrees from the drift axis. These boreholes were intended for both 
air-injection and liquid-release tests, with the spacing of adjacent boreholes from collar to collar 
at 30 m. Group II consists of near-vertical boreholes drilled from the crown of the drift. 
Group III consists of pairs of parallel horizontal boreholes, spaced 3 m apart and drilled from the 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-222 November 2004 
side of the drift. The former (Group II) were intended for air-injection tests to determine the 
effect of drift excavation on fracture properties, and the latter (Group III) were for gas-tracer 
tests to determine the effective porosity. Group II and III boreholes are in groups of three, 
spaced 90 m apart, as shown in Figure 6-127. 
The Group I boreholes are the primary ones used for study in this investigation. Four boreholes 
were tested. Their collars are located at CD 17+49, CD 17+26, CD 16+95, and CD 16+65, 
respectively, from the ECRB portal. Because of the location of a bulkhead at CD 17+63, drilling 
operations in the ECRB-Cross-Drift are precluded beyond CD 17+63; as a result, the first two 
boreholes are separated by only 23 m. All of the boreholes are inclined up toward the portal end 
of the ECRB Cross-Drift. 
I 
II 
III
TT2K002 
TT2K001 
II Air Permeability 
(Effect of excavation) 
III Gas Tracer 
(Porosity) 
I Air Permeability 
Liquid Injection 
NOTE: The drift portal is to the left of the schematic. 
Figure 6-127. Schematic of Borehole Configuration in the ECRB Cross-Drift for Systematic 
Characterization of the Lower Lithophysal Unit 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-223 November 2004 
6.11.1.2 Equipment 
The equipment system was custom-designed for the systematic characterization study, based on 
two criteria: automation and mobility. Field-scale measurements involving liquid flow in 
unsaturated rock require continuous testing, lasting for weeks to months, whereas the ECRB 
Cross-Drift was open only for eight hours, four days every week. Therefore, the control of test 
equipment was fully automated, allowing remote manipulation via computer network when there 
is no human presence at the field site. The second criterion, mobility, was achieved by designing 
all equipment needed for the systematic characterization as units to fit on flatbed rail cars. This 
enabled investigators to efficiently transport equipment from one test station to another along the 
ECRB Cross-Drift. 
A schematic of the testing equipment for air injection and liquid release is shown in 
Figure 6-128. The main function of the equipment was to distribute water at a specified rate 
along a specified length of borehole and to capture and quantify any water that makes its way 
from the borehole through the rock formation as seepage into the drift. The key components of 
the system are the packer assembly, water supply hardware, and seepage capture system. 
6.11.1.2.1 Packer Assembly 
The packer assembly used inflatable-rubber-packer units to seal off sections of the borehole (so 
that released water cannot reach these sections) and separated each borehole into three nonsealed 
1.83-m-long water-release sections. The three sealing sections of the packer assembly use 
3-m-long, soft inflatable rubber tubing (0.64-cm-thick wall) supported by and clamped at each 
end onto a 5-cm stainless-steel core, for an overall diameter of 6.3 cm. The relatively long (3 m) 
packers were intended to provide effective sealing in a lithophysal unit, where cavities can be as 
deep as 1 m. The cores of these rubberized sections contain internal tubing to inflate the rubber 
up to the size of the borehole diameter (7.6 cm), by means of compressed air. 
Of the three water-delivery sections, also made of 5-cm-diameter stainless tubing, two lie 
between the three rubberized sections in the borehole, and the third lies beyond the farthest 
rubber section into the borehole. Because of the small-angle incline of the borehole, the vertical 
distance from the nearest section to the drift crown is approximately 1 m, whereas the vertical 
distance between the second and the farthest (that is, farthest into the borehole) sections and the 
crown are approximately 2.5 m and 4 m, respectively. (Note that if used for air-injection tests, 
Zone 3 is longer than the other zones (which are 1.83 m long), because the last zone begins at the 
end of the third packer and extends to the end of the 20-m-long borehole.) Water was released 
into these unsealed sections or zones by one of two means. One method used a single release 
point close to the rubber sealing section at the upper end of the unsealed zone. The other method 
used multiple orifices along an unsealed section to enable water to be released at six evenly 
spaced locations along the entire unsealed section. Tubing resides inside each of the delivery 
sections for single-point injection, for multipoint injection at six evenly spaced locations, and for 
drainage of overflow, should the delivery rate prove to be too high for all the water to completely 
enter the formation. One additional tube from each delivery section connected it to a pressure 
transducer located outside the hole, to measure air pressure in each zone. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-224 November 2004 
Figure 6-128. A Schematic of the Equipment System: Packer Assembly, Water Supply and 
Air-Injection Component, Seepage Collection Component, and Data Acquisition and 
Control 
In keeping with the design requirements of the testing site, the sections of packer assembly were 
shipped as separate parts and assembled at the site. O-rings at the connections between sections 
ensured that the annuli left in the vicinity of the water-delivery sections were sealed from 
atmospheric conditions inside the hollow, open-packer core. The packer inflation, water supply, 
and water drain tubing from all sections extended through the core of the packer assembly to the 
outside of the borehole, where it was connected to the water supply system. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-225 November 2004 
6.11.1.2.2 Water Supply System 
Each delivery section in the borehole had its own water supply system. The triplicate design 
allowed testing in all three zones of the same borehole simultaneously. The water supply 
hardware controlled the amount of water delivered to a section and measured the total quantity of 
water supplied to that section over time. In addition, the supply hardware also measured, over 
time, the quantity of any return flow through the drain port from the delivery section. Each 
supply system made use of twin vertical, cylindrical bottles to supply and measure the water that 
was delivered. The bottles were 1.5 m tall and 20 cm in diameter, a size that enabled mobility of 
the units between test locations without sacrificing volume resolution or supply volume. One 
bottle could fill from the tunnel water supply, while the other was pumped, so that the supply and 
measurement system could run without interruption. Located at the base of each bottle, 
differential-pressure transducers (which cancel atmospheric changes) measured the head of water 
in each bottle. These transducers, when multiplied by the known area of a bottle, yield the water 
quantity residing in the bottle. One of two sizes of electronically controlled gear pumps pushed 
water from the bottom of the active supply bottle up to the packer assembly for water delivery. 
The two different-sized pumps were used to provide a supply-rate range of 10 mL/min to 
2000 mL/min. The crossover from the small pump to the large pump was at approximately 
300 mL/min. Valves enabled either bottle to supply either pump with the single-point delivery 
tube or the multipoint delivery tube. Another valve attached to each bottle directed any return 
flow to run back into the inactive bottle, so that this flow could be measured. One more valve at 
each bottle supplied each with refill water from the tunnel supply when needed. All the valves 
were pneumatically actuated via airlines controlled by solenoids. Electronic relays under 
computer control operated the solenoids. Voltage signals delivered by digital-to-analog 
converters under computer control governed the pumps, and an analog-to-digital converter with 
multiplexor converted the current-loop output of the transducers to digital format, which was 
recorded by the same computer used for valve and pump control. 
6.11.1.2.3 Seepage-Capture System 
Hardware for seepage capture at each zone consisted of a horizontally mounted U-shaped 
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) curtain, which captured seepage from the rock under the release zone 
and funneled it into twin collection bottles designed similarly to the supply bottles. A valve at 
the bottom of each bottle allows drainage into a continuous drain, while another valve at the top 
of each determines whether collected water can enter. This configuration allowed drainage of 
one bottle without interruption of seepage collection and measurement in the other. The 
collection system also utilized differential-pressure transducers to obtain the head of water (and, 
therefore, the quantity of water) in the bottles. The 20-cm diameter of the collection system 
implies that a volume of 0.03 L of seepage water needs to be accumulated for every millimeter 
rise of water level. As with the supply system, the collection system is serviced by computer 
recording and control system. Figure 6-128 shows the arrangement of the capture curtains 
relative to the packer system. The capture curtain is 4 m long (more than double the 1.83-m 
length of the release zone). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-226 November 2004 
6.11.1.2.4 Air-Injection System 
The packer system also included an air-injection system for determining the air permeability of 
each delivery zone. The single-point delivery tubes included valves that allowed water to drain 
and air to be introduced into each zone. Mass-flow controllers deliver air at constant-mass flux 
through the single-point injection line. Dedicated absolute-pressure transducers for each zone 
enabled air-pressure measurements during air injection and thus allow calculation of air 
permeability. The mass-flow controllers were computer-controlled, and airflow rates were 
recorded by the data acquisition system. Measurements of air-permeability in other test beds in 
the underground drifts were presented in Section 6.1 and Section 6.5. 
6.11.1.2.5 Control and Recording System 
In addition to continuous recording of all transducer outputs, the computer interface for the 
supply and collection systems enabled the processes to be controlled manually or automatically. 
The computer incorporated remote-control capability, so that the systems could be started and 
controlled through computer networks. 
Figure 6-129 shows the front panel from the user interface on the computer control. Depicted 
are the supply bottles at the top and the collection bottles at the bottom. Three completely 
independent systems are used, one for each zone. The Zone 1 system is shown operating on 
automatic control, using the low flow pump at 50-percent flow capacity from Bottle A. Return 
flow is being collected in supply Bottle B. Seepage is being collected in Bottle B while Bottle A 
is draining. Operational water paths are highlighted with thicker lines. The toggle switch on the 
Zone 1 control panel (z1 auto) is on to enable automatic operation. When this switch is enabled, 
manual operation of the valve and pump controls is disabled, and they merely function as 
indicators from which to monitor the automatic operation. The controls are then operated 
automatically. Other zones are not operating. 
6.11.1.2.6 Automation Program 
The operator specifies pump rate and selects the water-delivery zone. All other aspects of 
control are performed automatically. Pumping starts in Bottle A, while Bottle B collects return 
water, until the water content read by the Bottle A transducer indicates that this bottle is nearly 
empty. At this point, Bottle B is filled to a preset limit (as monitored by the pressure transducer) 
if it is not at this limit already. When Bottle B is filled, pumping is switched from Bottle A to 
Bottle B. Bottle A is then able to collect any return flow. While filling from the main water 
supply, bottles are unable to collect return flow. Because filling is a rapid event, this pause in 
recording does not affect data collection. If filling does not occur rapidly enough to prepare the 
second bottle before the first one runs dry, the pump is switched to the second bottle even before 
it is completely full when a lower limit is passed (as read by the transducer of the first bottle). 
To obtain a continuous record of all the water delivered to a zone, the total volume of water from 
the bottle being emptied is subtracted from the water content at the start of the emptying of that 
bottle. This net refill value is then added to the previous total. A similar arrangement works for 
the return-water record. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-227 November 2004 
Figure 6-129. Schematic Illustration of Front Panel for Control Interface on Computer 
6.11.1.2.7 System Fail-Safes 
To avoid overfilling of the bottles or the pumps running dry in the event of a failure in the 
automatic control system, or inadvertent use of the controls on manual setting, the system 
employs float switches at the top and bottom of the bottles as a backup to the automation. The 
bottom float switches when triggered (depicted in light gray in Figure 6-129 for the Zone 2 and 
Zone 3 systems), forcing the associated pumps to stay off even if requested by a user or 
automation system to operate. The top float switches interrupt the electrical current to the fill 
valves when triggered. In the event of a computer shutdown such as during a power failure, all 
the relays and pump controls are turned off, causing the system to default to a stand-by mode. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-228 November 2004 
6.11.2 Systematic Testing Results and Observations 
Sets of completed tests in four low-angle boreholes (belonging to Group I as noted in 
Figure 6-127), Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1, Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2, 
Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3, and Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#4, will be described in 
Sections 6.11.2.1 through 6.11.2.12 in the order in which tests were performed. 
6.11.2.1 Air-Injection Tests and Liquid-Release Tests in LA#2, Initiated on May 11, 2000 
Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 (also referred to as LA#2) is collared at ECRB Cross-Drift Station 
CD 17+26. Three packers isolated the borehole into three zones. The vertical distance from the 
middle of the 1.83-m-long liquid-release interval of Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 to the drift 
crown is 1.58 m, 2.84 m, and 4.10 m, respectively. 
Air-permeability estimates for the three zones are calculated from the steady-state pressure 
response induced by constant-flow-rate air injection; the estimates are summarized in Table 6-29 
(DTN: LB00090012213U.001 [DIRS 153141]). 
Table 6-29. Air-Permeability Values for the Three Zones in Borehole LA#2 
Zone ID 
Zone Length 
(m) 
Air Permeability k (m 2), 
for Packer Inflation at 
27.5 PSI 
Air Permeability k (m 2), 
for Packer Inflation at 
32.5 PSI 
LA#2 Zone 1 1.83 2.5  10-11 2.3  10-11 
LA#2 Zone 2 1.83 2.7  10-11 2.5  10-11 
LA#2 Zone 3 5.18 1.1  10-11 0.95  10-11 
Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.001 [DIRS 153141]. 
PSI = pounds per square inch. 
Pressure response and injection flow rates are shown in Figure 6-130. The fast rise and decay of 
the pressure in response to initiation and termination of air injection indicate very little storage 
effect. The air-permeability measurements were repeated for a lower and higher packer inflation 
pressure. The repeatability of the two measurements for different packer inflation pressure 
indicates that there was minimal between-zone leakage from improper sealing of the packers. 
Following the air-injection tests in all three zones, a liquid-release test was conducted in Zone 1 
only. A large liquid release rate of approximately 450 mL/min was initiated in Zone 1 through 
one single release point in the 1.83-m-long injection zone. No return flow was detected; this 
indicated that all released water was able to enter the rock formation through the injection 
section. Figure 6-131 gives the cumulative volume of water supplied to Zone 1 (left axis) and 
the cumulative volume of water collected in the seepage-collection system (right axis) as a 
function of time. Figure 6-131 indicates that the initiation of water release was at 9:31 am and 
the start of seepage collection was at 12:00 (although a wet spot first appeared at the drift ceiling 
at 11:10, and water began to seep shortly after). Understandably, a time lag existed between the 
first wetting of the drift ceiling and the time when enough water had collected in the 
seepage-collection cylinder to cause a measurable change in the water level (nominally, a 3-mm 
change in water level for every 100 mL of water). The wetting of the drift ceiling expanded with 
time, and by 15:15, the wetted area was approximately 0.8 m2. The following morning 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-229 November 2004 
(May 12, 2000), it was noted that in addition to the seepage from the wetted drift ceiling directly 
below the injection zone, water was also seeping through a rock bolt borehole beyond the edge 
of the capture curtain. The capture curtain was 4 m in length and was approximately centered 
below the 1.83-m liquid injection zone. Seeped water from the rock bolt borehole was missed by 
the seepage collection data acquisition and may be related to the recorded decrease in seepage 
rate after approximately 20:00 on May 11 (as shown in Figure 6-131). The water release into 
Zone 1 was terminated at 8:36 on May 12, 2000. 
Pressure Response to Air Injection 
0 
200 
400 
600 
800 
1000 
1200 
5/10/00 
11:30 
5/10/00 
11:45 
5/10/00 
12:00 
5/10/00 
12:15 
5/10/00 
12:30 
5/10/00 
12:45 
5/10/00 
13:00 
5/10/00 
13:15 
5/10/00 
13:30 
Date/Time 
Differential Pressure (Pa) 
0
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
Air Mass Flow Rate (Standard Liters Per Minute) 
delta P zone 1 Pa 
delta P zone 2 Pa 
delta P zone 3 Pa 
500 MFC (SLPM) 
Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.001 [DIRS 153141]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
NOTE: MFC = mass flow controller; Pa = Pascals; SLPM = Standard liters per minute. 
Figure 6-130. Pressure Responses (Pink, Orange, and Green) to Constant Mass Flow of Air-Injection 
(Blue) for Estimation of Fracture Permeability in Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-230 November 2004 
Zone 1 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
600 
700 
800 
5/11/00 04:48 5/11/00 09:36 5/11/00 14:24 5/11/00 19:12 5/12/00 00:00 5/12/00 04:48 5/12/00 09:36 5/12/00 14:24 5/12/00 19:12 
Injection (Liters) 
0
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection 
seepage 
Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
Figure 6-131. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 1 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative 
Seepage into the ECRB Cross-Drift for a Test Performed between May 11 and 
May 12, 2000 
6.11.2.2 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 in Borehole LA#2, Initiated 
on May 17, 2000 
Between 11:45 am and 11:49 am on May 17, 2000, liquid release into Zones 1, 2, and 3 was 
initiated (Figure 6-132). The multipoint mode of injection was used so that water was evenly 
spread along each 1.83-m-long zone. A liquid-release rate of 30 mL/min was intended for each 
zone. However, for the same specified water-release pump rate, the actual release rate to each 
zone would differ because of the difference in zone elevation. Figure 6-132 shows the 
cumulative volume of water supplied to Zones 1, 2, and 3 (left axis) and the cumulative volume 
of seepage (right axis). Note that seepage from Zone 1 was recorded beginning on May 18, 2000 
(3:11), but seepage from Zone 2 and Zone 3 was never above the noise level of the data. In the 
morning of May 18, 2000, it was found that the software controlling the filling of supply Bottle 
B was not functioning properly. Delivery of water to all three zones was therefore terminated 
May 18, 2000 (9:08). Figure 6-132 shows that the cumulative volume of water supplied to 
Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 ceases to increase after May 17, 2000 (21:23), May 18, 2000 (0:39), 
and May 18, 2000 (7:13), respectively. These were the times at which Bottle A was empty and 
the water supply was switched to Bottle B. However, onsite inspection revealed that refill of 
Bottle B was being mechanically controlled by the float switches. Consequently, water was 
continually being released from Bottle B, presumably at the prevailing pumping rate prior to the 
fill problem. Therefore, although Figure 6-132 gives the false impression of no cumulative 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-231 November 2004 
increase in supply water, in fact water was being supplied to the rock formation from Bottle B, 
possibly at the prevailing rate (as supplied by Bottle A), until May 18, 2000 (9:08). 
The noise in the cumulative seepage data in Figure 6-132 (and in subsequent figures showing 
seepage rate data) can be attributed to the slow response time of the differential-pressure 
transducers to atmospheric pressure fluctuations. Although the water level in the 
seepage-collection cylinders responded instantaneously to the atmospheric fluctuations, filters 
placed in the differential-pressure-transducer ports caused a delayed response. The filters were 
originally put in place to keep the ports clean; they were removed in late May 2001. As a result 
of this and other random errors and fluctuations, cumulative seepage rates presented in the 
figures below may occasionally show a decline. Such temporal declines in cumulative volumes 
associated with small seepage rates are not physical. 
Zone 1,2 and 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
5/17/2000 09:36 5/17/2000 14:24 5/17/2000 19:12 5/18/2000 00:00 5/18/2000 04:48 5/18/2000 09:36 5/18/2000 14:24 
Injection (Liters) 
0.00 
0.20 
0.40 
0.60 
0.80 
1.00 
1.20 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection zone 1 
injection zone 2 
injection zone 3 
seepage zone 1 
seepage zone 2 
seepage zone 3 
Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
NOTE: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes associated with small seepage rates are not physical; they are a 
result of slow response times of the differential-pressure transducers and other random fluctuations. 
Figure 6-132. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zones 1, 2, and Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 
and Cumulative Seepage into the ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between 
May 17 and May 18, 2000 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-232 November 2004 
6.11.2.3 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 in Borehole LA#2, Initiated 
on May 23, 2000 
The faulty software control of the filling function in the May 17, 2000, tests was resolved. 
Liquid-release tests from multiple points in Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 were resumed at 14:25 
on May 23, 2000, at the intended rate of 30 mL/min. Data for the three zones will be discussed 
separately. 
6.11.2.3.1 Zone 1 
Figure 6-133 shows cumulative supply (left axis) and cumulative seepage volume (right axis) as 
a function of time from May 23, 2000, to June 1, 2000, 11:14, when water release was 
terminated. Data show that seepage collection initiated on May 24, 2000, 13:19, although a 
wetted spot approximately 0.5 m in diameter was observed as early as 8:40. The rate of supply 
water was approximately 28 mL/min, and the rate of seepage stabilized to approximately 
4 to 5 mL/min within a week. 
Zone 1 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
5/23/00 5/24/00 5/25/00 5/26/00 5/27/00 5/28/00 5/29/00 5/30/00 5/31/00 6/1/00 6/2/00 
Injection (Liters) 
0
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection 
seepage 
Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
Figure 6-133. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 1 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative 
Seepage into the ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between May 23 and June 1, 
2000 
6.11.2.3.2 Zone 2 
Water release continued from May 23, 2000, through June 8, 2000. Multiweek liquid-release 
tests were stopped and restarted periodically to keep data files at a manageable size. Every time 
the software control routine was restarted, new data files with date/time stamp were generated, 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-233 November 2004 
and cumulative supply and seepage reference was restarted at zero. Figure 6-134 shows 
cumulative supply (left axis) and cumulative seepage volume (right axis) in two graphs: 
Panel a  (representing the period from May 23 to June 1) and 
Panel b  (representing the period from June 1 to June 8) 
because the test was stopped on June 1, 2000, 11:14 and restarted at June 1, 11:23. Panel a of 
Figure 6-134 shows that seepage from Zone 2 initiates on May 29, 2000, at 20:26. Step-like 
structures are very prominent in the cumulative volume of seepage water data in Panel b of 
Figure 6-134, indicating two different slopes and therefore different rates of seepage. The 
periods of larger slope (higher seepage rate of approximately 2-3 mL/min) in Panel b of 
Figure 6-134 can be correlated to evenings and weekends when the underground tunnels were 
closed for access and the ventilation system was not in operation. Data in Figure 6-133 for 
Zone 1 also give different slopes for seepage-water volume versus time, depending on whether 
ventilation is on or off. The step-like signature in Figure 6-133 is subtler than that in Panel b of 
Figure 6-134 because of the higher seepage rate in Zone 1. That water seeping into the drift has 
partly evaporated places uncertainty on the seepage data, because even when the ventilation is 
not in operation in the evenings and on weekends, the relative humidity in the underground 
tunnels is still far below 100 percent. As a result, although data in Figure 6-133 and 
Figure 6-134 give a measure of the amount of water lost to evaporation promoted by active 
ventilation, they do not provide data on the amount of water lost to evaporation in the absence of 
active ventilation. In response to these initial results, subsequent tests the systematic measuring 
system was modified for subsequent tests to incorporate measurements of relative humidity and 
evaporation rate (from an open pan) in the tunnel space between the drift crown and the 
seepage-collection PVC curtain enclosure. No direct measurement system exists to ascertain the 
evaporation rate from within the fracture system. 
6.11.2.3.3 Zone 3 
Cumulative supply and cumulative seepage data for Zone 3 between May 23, 2000, and 
June 27, 2000, are presented in Panels a through d of Figure 6-135. Because of unanticipated 
experimental problems concerning the interface between the software control and the valves 
controlling the water supply system for this zone, the release of water was interrupted for two 
periods during 34 days of testing. The periods where no water was supplied were: 
(1) two days (between May 30 and June 1), and 
(2) 11 days (between June 3 and June 14). 
The problem was fully corrected from June 14 onwards, and the first indication of seepage water 
being collected in the seepage bottles for Zone 3 was recorded by the data acquisition system on 
June 26, 2000, at noon. Other testing activities in the underground tunnel necessitated the 
termination of water release in Zone 3 (as well as monitoring of data), only approximately eight 
hours after the first onset of seepage. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-234 November 2004 
(a) 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
5/23/00 5/24/00 5/25/00 5/26/00 5/27/00 5/28/00 5/29/00 5/30/00 5/31/00 6/1/00 6/2/00 
Injection (Liters) 
0.00 
0.10 
0.20 
0.30 
0.40 
0.50 
0.60 
0.70 
0.80 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection 
seepage 
(b) 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400
6/1/00 6/2/00 6/3/00 6/4/00 6/5/00 6/6/00 6/7/00 6/8/00 6/9/00 
Injection (Liters) 
0
2
4
6
8
10 
12 
14 
16 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection 
seepage 
Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes associated with small seepage rates shown in Panel a of 
Figure 6-134 are not physical; they are a result of slow response times of the differential-pressure 
transducers and other random fluctuations. 
Panel a = May 23June 1, 2000; Panel b = June 1June 8, 2000 
Figure 6-134. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative 
Seepage into ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between May 23 and June 8, 2000 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-235 November 2004 
(a) 
Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
5/23/00 5/24/00 5/25/00 5/26/00 5/27/00 5/28/00 5/29/00 5/30/00 5/31/00 6/1/00 6/2/00 
Injection (Liters) 
0.00 
0.10 
0.20 
0.30 
0.40 
0.50 
0.60 
0.70 
0.80 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection 
seepage 
(b) 
Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 
90 
100 
6/1/00 00:00 6/1/00 12:00 6/2/00 00:00 6/2/00 12:00 6/3/00 00:00 6/3/00 12:00 6/4/00 00:00 6/4/00 12:00 
Injection (Liters) 
0.00 
0.10 
0.20 
0.30 
0.40 
0.50 
0.60 
0.70 
0.80 
0.90 
1.00 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection 
seepage 
Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes associated with small seepage rates are not physical; they are a 
result of slow response times of the differential-pressure transducers and other random fluctuations. 
Panel a = May 23June 1; Panel b = June 1June 4; Panel c = June 14June 18; and 
Panel d = June 18June 27. 
Figure 6-135. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative 
Seepage into ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between May 23 and June 27, 2000 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-236 November 2004 
(c) 
Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
6/14/00 
00:00 
6/14/00 
12:00 
6/15/00 
00:00 
6/15/00 
12:00 
6/16/00 
00:00 
6/16/00 
12:00 
6/17/00 
00:00 
6/17/00 
12:00 
6/18/00 
00:00 
6/18/00 
12:00 
6/19/00 
00:00 
Injection (Liters) 
0.00 
0.05 
0.10 
0.15 
0.20 
0.25 
0.30 
0.35 
0.40 
0.45 
0.50 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection 
seepage 
(d) 
Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
450 
500 
6/18/00 6/19/00 6/20/00 6/21/00 6/22/00 6/23/00 6/24/00 6/25/00 6/26/00 6/27/00 6/28/00 
Injection (Liters) 
0.00 
0.20 
0.40 
0.60 
0.80 
1.00 
1.20 
1.40 
1.60 
1.80 
2.00 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection 
seepage 
Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes associated with small seepage rates are not physical; they are 
a result of slow response times of the differential-pressure transducers and other random fluctuations. 
Panel a = May 23June 1; Panel b = June 1June 4; Panel c = June 14June 18; and 
Panel d = June 18June 27. 
Figure 6-135. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative 
Seepage into ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between May 23 and June 27, 2000 
(Continued) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-237 November 2004 
6.11.2.4 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2 and Zone 3 in Borehole LA#2: October 23 to 
December 1, 2000 
Other activities in the ECRB Cross-Drift prevented the redeployment of systematic testing 
equipment for four months after the tests described in Section 6.11.2.3. In this later set of 
testing, liquid-release tests were repeated in Zone 2 and Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2, specifically 
to evaluate the impact of evaporation from active ventilation and less-than-100-percent relative 
humidity on seepage data. The following modifications to the test design and measuring system 
were made after completion of the previous test in June 2000: 
 Additional curtains were installed on the two ends of the V-shaped seepage-capture PVC 
curtains shown in Figure 6-128, to mitigate drying of the wetted drift crown from 
ventilation. 
 Humidity and temperature sensors were placed within the curtain enclosures of Zone 2 
and Zone 3 to investigate the correlation of humidity conditions to seepage data. 
 A camera was installed to observe the drift ceiling below the injection section of Zone 2 
to monitor the evolution of wetting. 
Cumulative water supply and cumulative seepage data for Zones 2 and 3 are shown in 
Figure 6-136. Data show that the first recorded seepage (as indicated by a rise in water level in 
the seepage collection cylinder) occurred on October 31 at approximately 20:00, for both Zone 2 
and Zone 3. Observations taken periodically of the drift ceiling below Zone 2 indicate that a 
wetted area first appeared on October 27 around 8:00 and expanded with time. The wetted area 
on the drift ceiling could be estimated by counting the number of ground-support wire-mesh 
grids it covered. Observations indicate that by November 7, 2000, the wetted area stopped 
expanding and stabilized at approximately 6.8 m2. 
Derivatives of the cumulative supply and cumulative seepage from Figure 6-136 give the rates of 
supply and seepage. Supply rate, seepage rate, and relative humidity and temperature within the 
capture curtain enclosure for Zone 2 and Zone 3 are shown in Figure 6-137 and Figure 6-138, 
respectively. Note that the relative humidity was approximately 35 percent prior to initiation of 
seepage on October 31, 2000. Coincidentally, the vent line in the ECRB Cross-Drift collapsed 
on October 31, 2000, cutting off the ventilation. Note that the humidity within the capture 
curtain enclosures of Zone 2 and Zone 3 rose to almost 90 percent by November 7, 2000. 
Following the collapse of the vent line, ventilation was only partially restored (that is, power was 
on at times and off at times) in the ECRB Cross-Drift throughout the then-current set of tests, 
and the humidity reading varied with time between the pre-seepage value of 35 percent and the 
high of 90 percent. 
Figure 6-137 and Figure 6-138 show that the seepage rates in Zones 2 and 3 track the relative 
humidity (that is, seepage rates increase and decrease with the rise and fall of relative humidity 
values). The seepage rate in Zone 3 is higher than that in Zone 2, reaching a high of 
approximately 6 mL/min. This may result from the higher water-release rate in Zone 3 
(approximately 38 mL/min, as compared to approximately 34 mL/min in Zone 2). Possibly, the 
smaller size of the wetted area on the drift ceiling in Zone 3 (compared to that in Zone 2) led to 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-238 November 2004 
less evaporation and thus higher seepage in Zone 3. Note that the measuring system had only 
one camera positioned to monitor Zone 2, and the vent-line collapse and subsequent delay in 
repair prevented access to the Borehole LA#2 test site for direct observation of the drift ceiling. 
Note also that there were several brief periods of interruption of liquid release on November 26, 
29, and 30 2000 (these show up as abrupt changes in Figure 6-136) as a result of 
network-connection power outages and problems with the equipment-computer interface. These 
control-program shutdowns required a few restarts of liquid injection. Liquid release to Zone 2 
and Zone 3 was terminated on December 1, 2001. 
Zone 2 and Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
500 
1000 
1500 
2000 
2500 
10/23/00 10/28/00 11/2/00 11/7/00 11/12/00 11/17/00 11/22/00 11/27/00 12/2/00 12/7/00 
Injection (Liters) 
0
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection zone 2 
injection zone 3 
seepage zone 2 
seepage zone 3 
Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 [DIRS 156877]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
NOTE: Temporal declines in cumulative injection and seepage volumes shown in Panel a of Figure 6-140 are a 
result of resetting the water level in the supply and seepage bottles. 
Figure 6-136. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 2 and Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and 
Cumulative Seepage into ECRB Cross-Drift for Test Performed between 
October 23, 2000, and December 1, 2000 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-239 November 2004 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#2 Rates, Relative Humidity and Temperature 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 
90 
100 
10/23/00 10/28/00 11/2/00 11/7/00 11/12/00 11/17/00 11/22/00 11/27/00 12/2/00 12/7/00 
Rate (mL/min), RH (%) 
24 
24.5 
25 
25.5 
26 
26.5 
27 
27.5 
28 
28.5 
29 
T (C) 
injection rate 
seep rate 
inside RH 
inside T 
Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 [DIRS 156877]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
Figure 6-137. Supply Rate, Seepage Rate and Relative Humidity and Temperature for Liquid-Release 
Test Performed in Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 between October 23, 2000, 
and December 1, 2000 
Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Rates, Relative Humidity and Temperature 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 
90 
100 
10/23/00 10/28/00 11/2/00 11/7/00 11/12/00 11/17/00 11/22/00 11/27/00 12/2/00 12/7/00 
Rate (mL/min) and RH (%) 
24 
24.5 
25 
25.5 
26 
26.5 
27 
27.5 
28 
28.5 
29 
T (C) 
injection rate 
seep rate 
inside RH 
inside T 
Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 [DIRS 156877]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
Figure 6-138. Supply Rate, Seepage Rate, and Relative Humidity and Temperature for Liquid-Release 
Test Performed in Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 between October 23, 2000, 
and December 1, 2000 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-240 November 2004 
6.11.2.5 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1: December 20, 2000, to 
January 2, 2001 
Similar to Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2, Borehole LA#1 is a low-angle near-horizontal 
borehole (inclination of 15 degrees from the ECRB Cross-Drift axis), drilled from the ECRB 
Cross-Drift crown. It is collared at ECRB Cross-Drift Station CD 17+49, immediately outside of 
the first bulkhead. Rock fragments that fell into the borehole (postdrilling) caused the borehole 
to be totally obstructed from the point 8.2 m from the collar to the end of the 20-m-long hole. 
Therefore, only one zone instead of the intended three (as in Borehole LA#2) was accessible for 
fluid testing. 
Zone 2 was isolated by two inflated packers and nominally at 3.04.9 m from the collar. 
Therefore, height of mid-zone from drift crown was 1.03 m. Liquid release carried out in this 
zone took place through the six equally spaced outlet nozzles. To better evaluate the impact of 
evaporation on the seepage data, an evaporation pan within the space enclosed by the seepage 
capture and end curtains was installed. A differential-pressure transducer monitored the drop in 
water level from evaporation. Liquid release into Zone 2 started on December 20, 2000, 14:56, 
with a water-release rate of 15 mL/min. The ECRB Cross-Drift was closed and not ventilated 
during the experimental period, so the test was run and monitored remotely. A power outage 
occurred shortly after 12:00 a.m. December 25 terminated the liquid injection and data 
acquisition at 0:22, December 26, 2000. Power was restored on December 28, 2000, and the 
data acquisition system was restarted remotely. Unfortunately, the pumps that deliver water 
could not be restarted properly. Also, observations taken periodically of the drift ceiling show 
the beginning of a wet spot the morning of December 25 prior to the power outage, indicating the 
first arrival of water to the drift ceiling. Panel a of Figure 6-139 shows that approximately 103 L 
of water had been released into Zone 2 at the time of this first arrival of water at the drift ceiling. 
Because the water release stopped approximately 15 hours later and could not be resumed, the 
test did not run long enough to generate seepage. Panels a and b of Figure 6-139 also show that 
the relative humidity within the curtain enclosure remained between approximately 12 and 
14 percent, and temperature between approximately 26C and 26.3C throughout the data 
acquisition period. Panel b of Figure 6-139 shows that the data from the evaporation pan 
indicate the evaporation rate was approximately 3 mm/day. 
The ECRB Cross-Drift was reopened January 2, 2001, but other field activities (such as opening 
of the bulkhead) required the removal of systematic test equipment from the ECRB Cross-Drift 
and prevented resumption of the liquid release test in Borehole LA#1. Data acquisition in 
Borehole LA#1 was terminated on January 2, 2001. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-241 November 2004 
(a) 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Cumulative Volume and Relative Humidity 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
12/20/00 12/21/00 12/22/00 12/23/00 12/24/00 12/25/00 12/26/00 12/27/00 
Injection (Liters) 
10 
12 
14 
16 
18 
20 
22 
24 
26 
28 
RH (%) 
injection 
RH 
(b) 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Evaporation and Temperature 
25 
25.2 
25.4 
25.6 
25.8 
26 
26.2 
26.4 
26.6 
26.8 
27 
12/20/00 12/21/00 12/22/00 12/23/00 12/24/00 12/25/00 12/26/00 12/27/00 
Temperature (C) 
158 
160 
162 
164 
166 
168 
170 
172 
174 
176 
178 
Evaporation (mm) 
temperature 
evaporation pan height 
Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 156878]. 
Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. 
NOTES: Panel a = Relative humidity and cumulative water supplied to Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1. 
Panel b = Temperature and water level in the evaporation pan for liquid-release test performed between 
December 20, 2000, and December 26, 2000. 
Figure 6-139. Cumulative Supply Volume, Relative Humidity, Evaporation, and Temperature 
Measurements for Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-242 November 2004 
6.11.2.6 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1: February 28 to April 30, 2001 
This test, initiated on February 28, 2001, was a resumption of the test conducted in 
December 2000. Line release of water over a 1.83-m-long zone was initially set at the same rate 
as that of the December tests (approximately 15 mL/min). Observations show that the first 
appearance of a wet spot (water arriving at the drift ceiling) was on March 3, 2001, 16:23; that is, 
approximately 75 hours after initiation of water release. Panel a of Figure 6-140, which shows 
the cumulative supply and seepage of water, indicates that approximately 60 L of water had been 
introduced into the formation at this time. The seepage collection system (rise in water level in 
the seepage collection cylinder) registered the initiation of seepage at approximately 22:00 on 
March 15, 12 days after the observation of the first wetting on the drift ceiling. During this 
period, the actual water-release rate had increased from 14 mL/min to more than 20 mL/min. 
Following March 15 was a three-day weekend when ventilation was turned off, during which 
time the average injection remained at approximately 20 mL/min, and average seepage was 
approximately 1 mL/min. Panel b of Figure 6-140 shows that on Monday, March 19, when 
ventilation resumed, the seepage rate decreased dramatically (almost to zero). This was true 
even during the next three-day weekend (March 23 to March 25). Recorded seepage continued 
to be approximately zero through the following week. Observations also show that the wetted 
area on the drift ceiling had shrunk. A study of the plotted data (Panel b of Figure 6-140) 
indicates that the average release rate during this period had fallen to around 18 mL/min. Data 
therefore indicate that, in general, the actual water-release rate needed to be above a threshold of 
20 mL/min for recorded seepage. 
An unplanned interruption of water release occurred on March 29, 2001, 4:43, because of an 
air-compressor problem. Water release was resumed on April 3, 2001, 9:50, at 42 mL/min, and 
seepage-collection data acquisition began to record non-zero seepage at approximately 20 hours 
after resumption of water release. 
A planned power outage caused another interruption of water release between April 5, 2001, 
17:48, and April 9, 2001, 12:08. Water-release to Borehole LA#1 resumed on April 9, 2001, 
12:08, at a rate of approximately 42 mL/min. Data indicate the onset of seepage at 
approximately 20 hours after resumption of water release. The seepage rate increases from 
approximately 7 mL/min to approximately 10 mL/min on April 16, 2001. Water release was 
intentionally interrupted twice, each pause lasting for less than a day. The first pause of water 
release occurred on April 16, 2001, 15:22. After a pause of 18 hours and 20 minutes, water 
release was resumed, and seepage was observed approximately 16 hours later. On April 24, 
2001, 16:54, water release was again interrupted, and restarted on April 25, 2001, 11:39. 
Seepage began approximately 16 hours after restart. Following both of these planned 
water-release pauses, the water-release rate was approximately 42 mL/min, and seepage was 
approximately 10 mL/min. 
The declining water level in the evaporation pan (Panel c of Figure 6-140) indicated that the 
evaporation rate is approximately 3 mm/day. Coupling this data with the largest, relatively 
stable, wetted area estimated from observations of the drift ceiling (approximately 4.5 m2) would 
give an upper bound of the evaporation from the wetted drift surface a rate of 9.5 mL/min. 
Testing in Borehole LA#1 was concluded on April 30, 2001. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-243 November 2004 
(a) 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Cumulative Volumes 
0 
200 
400 
600 
800 
1000 
1200 
2/28/01 3/10/01 3/20/01 3/30/01 4/9/01 4/19/01 4/29/01 
Injection (Liters) 
0
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
Seepage (Liters) 
injection 
seepage 
(b) 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Rates 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
2/28/01 3/10/01 3/20/01 3/30/01 4/9/01 4/19/01 4/29/01 
Injection Rate (mL/min) 
0
5
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
Seepage Rate (mL/min) 
injection rate 
seepage rate 
Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879]. 
NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes shown in Panel a of Figure 6-140 are a result of resetting the 
water level in the supply and seepage bottles. 
Panel a = Cumulative water supplied to Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 and related seepage for 
test performed between February 28 and April 30, 2001. 
Panel b = Water supply rate and seepage rate. 
Panel c = Relative humidity, temperature, and the water level in the evaporation pan. 
Figure 6-140. Measurements for Borehole Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-244 November 2004 
(c) 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Evaporation, Relative Humidity and Temperature 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180 
200 
2/28/01 3/10/01 3/20/01 3/30/01 4/9/01 4/19/01 4/29/01 
Evaporation (mm) and RH (%) 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
Temperature (C) 
evaporation pan height 
RH 
temperature 
Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879]. 
NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes shown in Panel a of Figure 6-140 are a result of resetting the 
water level in the supply and seepage bottles. 
Panel a = Cumulative water supplied to Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 and related seepage for 
test performed between February 28 and April 30, 2001. 
Panel b = Water supply rate and seepage rate. 
Panel c = Relative humidity, temperature, and the water level in the evaporation pan. 
Figure 6-140. Measurements for Borehole Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 (Continued) 
6.11.2.7 Borehole LA#3 and Liquid-Release Test in Zone 1, Borehole LA#3: May 
10 to June 18, 2001 
Tests in Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3 (also known as Borehole LA#3) began on May 10, 2001. 
This 15-degree low-angle hole was collared at ECRB Station CD 16+95 in the drift crown. The 
borehole was divided into three sections for water release using the systematic hydrologic packer 
system. The three sections for water release spanned 5.5 m to 7.3 m, 10.4 m to 12.2 m, and 
15.2 m to 17.1 m, respectively, from the collar. The midpoints of each of the zones were 
therefore 1.7 m, 2.9 m, and 4.2 m, respectively, above the crown of the drift. The rubber on the 
first two packer sealing sections could not maintain inflation due to piercing of the rubber, and 
therefore could not seal the first two zones of the borehole. With Zone 1 lower in elevation than 
Zone 2 and Zone 3, the test of water release into Zone 1 proceeded, with no release into Zone 2 
during most of Zone 1 test period (see Section 6.11.2.8 for tests in Zone 2 of Borehole LA#3). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-245 November 2004 
Plots of Zone 1 injection and seepage from May 17, 2001, to May 23, 2001, (Figure 6-141) show 
no seepage with a constant liquid injection rate of approximately 36 mL/min; however, some 
seepage water missed the collection system. When test was resumed on May 23, 2001, the 
injection rate was maintained at approximately 24 mL/min, and the tarp for Zone 1 was 
repositioned (closer to the collar) to capture all seepage water. 
Zone 1 of Borehole LA#3 
-2.78 
0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
600 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
5/15/01 5/20/01 5/25/01 5/30/01 6/4/01 6/9/01 6/14/01 6/19/01 
Volume (Liters) 
0
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 
90 
100 
Rate (mL/min), Evaporation (mm) 
injection volume 
seepage volume 
injection rate 
seepage rate 
evaporation pan height (mm) 
Linear (evaporation pan height (mm)) 
Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. 
NOTE: Linear curve fit for evaporation uses Excel trendline option for putting a curve fit onto an existing plot. Slope 
is from the equation generated by Excel for the fit. See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. The 
slope for the fitted evaporation drop is 2.78 millimeters per day. Temporal declines in cumulative volumes 
are a result of resetting the water level in the supply and seepage bottles. 
Figure 6-141. Cumulative Water Volume and Rate Supplied to Zone 1 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3, 
Related Seepage Rate, and Evaporation with Linear Fit and Slope (mm drop per day) for 
the Test Performed between May 17 and June 19, 2001 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-246 November 2004 
Figure 6-141 shows that the seepage rate reached steady state by May 31, 2001, at approximately 
8 mL/min. A wet spot on the ceiling was noted as early as May 24, 2001, near the edge of the 
tarp closest to the borehole collar. Another wetted area developed toward the opposite end of the 
tarp and started seeping by May 29, 2001. This second spot was 1.2 m in diameter, and on 
May 31, 2001, it increased to 1.37 m in diameter, extending from approximately 3.66 m from the 
collar to approximately 5.03 m from the collar. The estimated rate lost to evaporation from the 
1.37-m-diameter wet spot was determined as follows: 
1. The area of the wet spot is 3.1416  ((1001.37)/2)2 = 14 741 cm2 
(Appendix Section I6). 
2. Data on drop of water level in the evaporation pan shows an average rate of 
2.78 mm/day (1.93  10-4 cm/min) from the slope of the evaporation line in 
Figure 6-141, so that the evaporation rate from the wetted area is 
1.93  10-4  14 741 = 2.85 mL/min. 
3. With an injection rate of 25 mL/min, a recorded seepage of approximately 8 mL/min, 
and an evaporation rate of approximately 2.85 mL/min, the rate of water being diverted 
around the drift is approximately 14 mL/min (assuming steady-state conditions). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-247 November 2004 
The decline in seepage rate starting on June 7, 2001, may in part be attributed to increased 
evaporation caused by a larger wetted area observed on the drift ceiling. The increasing size of 
the wetted area may itself be regarded as a form of surface water flow that suppresses the 
formation of seeps by both growing in size (and thus accommodating more water) and by 
increasing the evaporation area. On June 6, 2001, this wetted spot was observed to be 1.83 m in 
length (along the drift axis) and 2.44 m in width. On June 13, 2001, 11:25, the wetted spot that 
had first appeared on May 24, 2001, closer to the collar edge of the tarp, that had not seeped, had 
expanded to approximately 0.91 m in diameter and had started to drip. By June 13, 2001, 15:45, 
the two wetted spots had merged and formed one spot approximately 3.05 m in length. 
When comparing the wetted area (on June 13, 2001) consisting of one ellipse (with principal 
axes of 1.83 m and 2.44 m) and a circle of 0.91 m in diameter to that of one circle of diameter 
1.37 m (the previous wet spot from May 31, 2001), a ratio of [(2.44/2  1.83/2) + 
(0.91/2)2]/(1.37/2)2 = 2.82 is obtained (Appendix Section I6). If the evaporation rate from the 
wetted area on May 31, 2001, was 2.85 mL/min, then the evaporation rate from the wetted area 
on June 13, 2001, could have been as high as 2.82  2.85 = 8.04 mL/min, or 5.2 mL/min higher 
than that on May 31, 2001 (assuming that the pan evaporation rate was the same). This is the 
same order of magnitude as the observed seepage rate decline from approximately 8 mL/min in 
the beginning of June to approximately 3.0 mL/min by mid-June. On June 17, 2001, injection to 
Zone 1 was stopped. Seepage stopped within 40 minutes of turning off the injection. On 
June 19, 2001, all work was stopped, including seepage collection, so that the equipment could 
be temporarily moved to allow other tunnel activities to take place. The results from Zone 1, 
Borehole LA#3, highlighted some of the complexity of flow paths occurring during the course of 
systematic testing. They showed that subtle changes occur in the geometry and number of the 
wetted areas, even at steady water-release rates. 
6.11.2.8 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2, Borehole LA#3: May 10 to July 23, 2001 
Liquid release in Zone 2 was also initiated on May 17, 2001, but seepage missed the collection 
tarps immediately below Zone 2. Moreover, it is possible that some test interference occurred 
between release at Zone 1 and release at Zone 2. Consequently, testing at Zone 2 was terminated 
on May 21, 2001, and resumed on June 20, 2001, following the conclusion of a liquid release test 
in Zone 1. Seepage from water released in Zone 2 was then expected to fall on collection tarp 1, 
which had been moved 2.7 m closer to the collar of Borehole LA#3 on May 23, 2001. 
Collection tarp 2 was moved back on June 19, 2001, to directly under injection Zone 2. (It had 
previously been repositioned directly under Zone 1 to take the place of the Zone 1 tarp when it 
was placed near the collar.) Liquid injection in Zone 2 started on June 20, 2001. There was a 
power outage on July 1, 2001, and testing was resumed on July 5, 2001. 
For the test on May 17, 2001, only release data exists (seepage missed the collection tarps). For 
the tests on June 20, 2001, and July 5, 2001, when water was injected into Zone 2, seepage was 
collected from the Zone 1 tarp. The fact that seepage in the Zone 1 collection tarp contained 
water released in Zone 2 with no other seepage location evident indicates that the packer system 
may indeed have failed, so that water ran along the borehole to Zone 1. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-248 November 2004 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#3 
-3.26 
0 
200 
400 
600 
800 
1000 
1200 
1400 
1600 
6/21/01 6/26/01 7/1/01 7/6/01 7/11/01 7/16/01 7/21/01 7/26/01 
Volume (Liters) 
0
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
Rate (mL/min), Evaporation (mm) 
zone 2 injection volume 
seepage volume 
zone 2 injection rate 
seepage rate 
fit to evaporation pan height (mm) 
Linear (fit to evaporation pan height (mm)) 
Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. 
NOTE: Linear curve fit for evaporation uses Microsoft Excel trendline option for putting a curve fit onto an existing 
plot. The slope of 3.26 mm/day is from the equation generated by Microsoft Excel for the fit. See 
Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. Temporal declines in cumulative volumes are a result of 
resetting the water level in the supply bottle. 
Figure 6-142. Cumulative Water Volume and Rate Supplied to and Seeped from Zone 2 of Borehole 
ECRB-SYBT-LA#3 and Evaporation with Linear Fit and Slope (millimeter drop per day) 
for Test Performed from June 20 to July 24, 2001 
Figure 6-142 shows that the injection rate in Zone 2 was changed in discrete steps. It started 
from the low of approximately 11 mL/min at the initiation of test on June 20, 2001, to 
approximately 25 mL/min between June 22, 2001, and June 27, 2001, to approximately 
30 mL/min until June 28, 2001, at 11:00, at which time the rate was increased to approximately 
49 mL/min. On June 29, 2001, at 10:30, the rate was increased to 63 mL/min. Seepage 
collection initiated on June 29, 2001, at 16:11 and the rate was approximately 1015 mL/min just 
before an unplanned power outage on July 1, 2001, at 3:16. When the work was restarted on 
July 5, 2001, testing continued at the higher rate of injection, approximately 65 mL/min, as 
before the power outage. The seepage resumed almost immediately, confirming that the fast 
paths (connected paths for liquid flow comprised mostly of fractures) between release point and 
drift ceiling had been established. The seepage rate had increased to the prepower-outage level 
within approximately five hours of resumption of water release. The drop of seepage to zero on 
July 6, 2001, turned out to be from a leak in the tubing of a collection bottle. The leak was 
repaired on July 10, 2001, at 14:31, accompanied by a quick response of the seepage rate, which 
increased to approximately 16 mL/min. In an attempt to estimate the seepage threshold, the 
liquid release was reduced stepwise. On July 13, 2001, at 17:04, the release rate was reduced 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-249 November 2004 
from approximately 71 mL/min to approximately 48 mL/min. The seepage rate decreased from 
the average of approximately 16 mL/min to approximately 3 mL/min. Assuming that the loss 
due to evaporation had not changed (the slope of the evaporation drop is similar before 
July 13, 2001, and after July 13, 2001), the data may indicate that the difference in diversion of 
release water around the drift opening caused by varying inflow rates is approximately 
(71-16)-(48-3) = 10 mL/min (Appendix Section I6). The water release rate was further 
decreased on July 16, 2001, at 11:53, from 48 mL/min, to 33 mL/min and the recorded seepage 
almost disappeared. However, field observations in the morning of July 16 also indicated the 
presence of a small seep between the tarps of Zone 1 and Zone 2. That small seep was missed by 
the data collection system. Field observations indicated that that missed seepage rate could still 
be approximately 2 mL/min. That is, the prevailing release rate of 33 mL/min was still above the 
seepage threshold. Because the field schedule for testing in the ECRB Cross-Drift, there was no 
opportunity for additional investigation of the seepage threshold, and water release was 
terminated on July 20, 2001. 
6.11.2.9 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 3, Borehole LA#3: May 10 to July 23, 2001 
Testing in Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3 took place from May 10 to July 23, 2001, 
concurrently with the testing at other zones in the same borehole. However, the net inflow into 
Zone 3 was very small, with most of the introduced water returning from the release zone as a 
result of low formation permeability. Therefore, no test interference with the other zones from 
Zone 3 was expected. Plots of injection, return, and net inflow rates are shown in Figure 6-143. 
Liquid-release tests in the periods May 17 to 22, May 23 to June 18, June 21 to July 1, and July 5 
to July 20 indicate that (except for brief periods on May 17 and May 23), the formation 
essentially could not take in any significant amount of water, regardless of the rate of injection. 
The average rate of water intake was approximately 0.5 mL/min when the injection rate was set 
quite high. At lower injection rates, the net inflow was close to zero after steady state conditions 
had been reached. This seems to indicate that Zone 3 was possibly lined with cavities that 
initially filled up, but whose bottoms are sealed so that little water can leave the cavities. In 
other words, the cavity population around injection Zone 3 is so large and the fracture population 
so small that very little introduced water can access the connected fractures that form the fast 
paths that lead to the crown. The fast paths are those that allow intake of water at tens and 
even hundreds of mL/min in all the liquid release tests until this one. 
Seepage was seen only from Zone 1, the zone closest to the previous borehole, which had 
multiple fast path characteristics. This seepage came from both Zone 1 and Zone 2 injections, 
indicating that the borehole may have participated in movement of water from the Zone 2 release 
line to the seep seen at Zone 1. Various patterns and rates of seepage were apparent on the 
Zone 1 crown. In addition, there was almost 100-percent water return from Zone 3 testing, but 
zero return from Zone 1 and Zone 2 testing. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-250 November 2004 
Zone 3 of Borehole LA#3 
0 
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120
5/9/01 5/19/01 5/29/01 6/8/01 6/18/01 6/28/01 7/8/01 7/18/01 7/28/01 
Injection & Return Rate 
(mL/min) 
0
2
4
6
8
10 
12 
Rate (ml/min) 
Inlfow Rate (mL/min) 
zone 3 injection rate 
zone 3 return rate 
net inflow 
Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. 
NOTE: See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. 
Figure 6-143. Rate Supplied to, Returned from, and Rate of Net Inflow from Zone 3 of Borehole 
ECRB-SYBT-LA#3 for Test Performed from May 17, 2001, to July 24, 2001 
6.11.2.10 Borehole LA#4 and Liquid-Release Test in Zone 1 of Borehole LA#4: 
February 5 to March 11, 2002 
Tests in Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#4 (also referred to as Borehole LA#4) began on 
February 5, 2002, and ended in November 2002. This fourth 15-degree low-angle hole was 
collared at ECRB CS 16+65 in the drift crown. The borehole was again divided into three 
sections for water release using the systematic hydrologic packer system. The three sections for 
water release spanned 3.9 m to 5.7 m, 8.8 m to 10.6 m, and 13.6 m to 15.5 m, respectively, from 
the collar. The midpoints of each of the zones were therefore 1.2 m, 2.5 m, and 3.8 m, 
respectively, above the crown of the drift. At Borehole LA#4, a modification to the packer 
system whereby the durability of the rubber sections was enhanced, ensured that a proper seal 
formed between the rock and the inflated sealing sections in the borehole. Water-leak problems 
at the sealing sections were therefore not an issue at Borehole LA#4, as they may have been at 
Borehole LA#3. 
Testing at Zone 1, Borehole LA#4 started on February 5, 2002, and proceeded through 
March 11, 2002. Plots for injection and water return volumes and rates into Zone 1 at Borehole 
LA#4 (see Figure 6-144) show a behavior similar to that in Zone 3 of Borehole LA#3 (i.e., a 
relatively high percentage of return flow occurred). An initial high rate of inflow into the 
formation occurred upon initiation of water release, after which the net inflow becomes quite 
small. As in Zone 3, Borehole LA#3, the net inflow increased slightly when the absolute 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-251 November 2004 
injection rate was increased most likely because of the slight rate dependency of the 
water-delivery-system geometry in that the water is more evenly distributed at higher rates and 
thus is more likely to enter the formation. The combination of results from Zone 3, Borehole 
LA#3, and Zone 1, Borehole LA#4, indicate that the tight formation properties seen in both 
possibly continue through both zones over a distance of slightly less than 18 m. No seepage was 
captured from the testing at Zone 1, Borehole LA#4. Unlike Zone 3, Borehole LA#3, however, 
some wetting occurred at the crown. During the course of testing, the evaporation averaged 
approximately 2.8 mm per day (the closest estimate for that time of yearsee Figure 6-142), 
which, combined with a maximum observed wetted area of 12 000 cm2, gives 2.3 mL/min of 
evaporation from the crown. The maximum infiltration rate of approximately 30 mL/min was 
obtained at the maximum injection rate of 120 mL/min, so that the diversion around the crown 
measured 27.7 mL/min or 92 percent of inflow. 
Zone 1 of Borehole LA#4 
0 
200 
400 
600 
800 
1000 
1200 
1400 
1600 
1800
2/3/02 2/8/02 2/13/02 2/18/02 2/23/02 2/28/02 3/5/02 3/10/02 3/15/02 
Volume (Liters) 
0
20 
40 
60 
80 
100 
120 
140 
160 
180
Rate (mL/min) 
zone 1 injection volume 
zone 1 return volume 
injection rate 
return rate 
net release rate 
Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. 
NOTE: See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. Temporal declines in cumulative volumes are a result of 
resetting the water levels in the supply and return bottles. 
Figure 6-144. Volume and Rate of Water Supplied to, Returned from, and Rate of Net Inflow from 
Zone 1 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#4 for Test Conducted from February 6 to 
March 9, 2002 
6.11.2.11 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2, Borehole LA#4: October 8 to November 18, 2002 
Testing at Zone 2 of Borehole LA#4 ran from October 8, 2002, to November 18, 2002. Owing 
to scheduling complexities, testing was performed some time after the other tests at 
Borehole LA#4 but with no noticeable effects on the systematic type of testing. Figure 6-145 
shows plots of volumes injected and captured with rates and evaporation drop during testing at 
Zone 2, Borehole LA#4. The difference between the injection rate and the seepage rate (net loss 
rate) indicates the rate of water diverted around the drift or lost due to evaporation. No return 
flow at this location occurred regardless of the injection rate. The average evaporation rate was 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-252 November 2004 
measured at approximately 5.73 mm/day over the course of testing at Zone 2. Observations 
indicated that on October 23, 2002, the wet patch on the crown had an area of approximately 
8 m2. Evaporation from the crown surface is therefore estimated to be approximately 
32 mL/min. Given a net loss rate of 40 mL/min., the diversion rate is approximately 8 mL/min. 
(i.e., approximately 18 percent of the injection rate of 44 mL/min). 
From the plots, the loss rate (water diverted or evaporated) appears to be slightly higher (as a 
fraction of injection rate) at lower injection rates. This phenomenon suggests that at very high 
injection rates in Zone 2, a higher percentage of introduced water would have seeped into the 
drift. 
Zone 2 of Borehole LA#4 
-5.73 
0 
500 
1000 
1500 
2000 
2500 
3000 
10/6/02 10/11/02 10/16/02 10/21/02 10/26/02 10/31/02 11/5/02 11/10/02 11/15/02 11/20/02 11/25/02 
Volume (Liters) 
0
25 
50 
75 
100 
125 
150
Rate (mL/min), Evaporation (mm) 
z2 injection volume 
z2 seepage volume 
injection rate 
seepage rate 
net loss rate 
evaporation pan height (mm) 
Linear (evaporation pan height (mm)) 
Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. 
NOTE: Linear curve fit for evaporation uses Microsoft Excel trendline option for putting a curve fit onto an existing 
plot. Slope is from the equation generated by Microsoft Excel for the fit. See Appendix Section I6.3 for 
calculation details. 
Figure 6-145. Injection and Seepage Volumes; Injection, Seepage, and Net Rates; and Evaporation 
Drop for Liquid-Release Test Conducted in Zone 2 of ECRB-SYBT-LA#4 2 between 
October 8 and November 18, 2002 
6.11.2.12 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 3, Borehole LA#4: February 5 to February 28, 2002 
During the Zone 1 testing at Borehole LA#4, Zone 3 at Borehole LA#4 underwent testing from 
February 5, 2002, to February 28, 2002. The two zones were sufficiently far apart along the drift 
(approximately 10 m) to ensure that no test interference was likely. In contrast to the flow 
characteristics observed at Borehole LA#4 Zone 2, Zone 3 provided an example of another 
as-yet-unseen flow characteristic. Again, like Zone 2, no return flow occurred, regardless of 
injection rate. However, all flow into the zone was accepted, and no seepage or wetted areas 
were observed. Even at inflow rates in excess of 200 mL/min., no water flowed into the drift. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-253 November 2004 
Figure 6-146 shows plots of the injected volume and corresponding injection and inflow rates 
into Zone 3. 
Zone 3 of Borehole LA#4 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300
2/3/02 2/8/02 2/13/02 2/18/02 2/23/02 2/28/02 3/5/02 
Volume (Liters) 
0
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
Rate (mL/min) 
zone 3 injection 
zone 3 injection rate 
net inflow 
Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. 
NOTE: See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. 
Figure 6-146. Volume and Rate of Water Supplied to, Returned from, and Rate of Net Inflow from 
Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#4 for Test Conducted from February 6 to 
February 28, 2002 
6.11.3 Systematic Testing Discussion and Interpretation 
Several important results become apparent when examining the data presented in Section 6.11.2. 
One result is the insight into the role of fractures, matrix, and lithophysal cavities in liquid flow 
through the partially saturated lower lithophysal unit. Another is the assessment of the 
nonintersecting flow (a combination of diversion by capillary barrier and of alternate flow paths) 
around the drift excavation. A third important result is the estimation of a threshold flux at the 
water-release borehole, below which seepage into the drift does not occur. The first few 
locations that were tested allowed for significant progress in understanding these hydrologic 
characteristics of the lower lithophysal unit. Direct comparisons of the same type of data from 
location to location provide knowledge applicable to a portion of the ECRB Cross-Drift. 
6.11.3.1 Participation of Lithophysal Cavities in Storage and Flow Paths 
Lithophysal cavities, fractures, and matrix contribute to the overall porosity of the lower 
lithophysal rock. Drift-wall mapping along the ECRB Cross-Drift indicates a mean lithophysal 
cavity porosity of 0.125 in the lower lithophysal unit (Mongano et al. 1999 [DIRS 149850]). 
Gas-tracer measurements of the effective porosity in the middle nonlithophysal unit indicate that 
fracture porosity is approximately 0.01 (DTN: LB980912332245.002 [DIRS 105593]). Both 
cavities and fractures are expected to be essentially dry at ambient conditions. Laboratory 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-254 November 2004 
measurements from 453 samples from surface-based boreholes give the mean matrix porosity of 
0.13 and a mean saturation of 0.78 for the lower lithophysal unit (Flint 1998 [DIRS 100033]). 
Fourteen measurements on cores from boreholes drilled for systematic testing at the ECRB 
Cross-Drift Station CD 17+49 (DTN: LB0110COREPROP.001 [DIRS 157169]) give results 
similar to those reported by Flint (1998 [DIRS 100033]): mean values of 0.12 for matrix porosity 
and 0.72 for liquid saturation. Because of the high ambient liquid saturation, the matrix 
contributes only approximately 0.03 in porosity that is available for liquid storage from 
systematic testing. 
In liquid-release tests (such as those conducted for the systematic testing), fractures and possibly 
large cavities determine the steady-state flow behavior of the fractures-matrix-lithophysal-cavity 
system; slow-draining cavities and the matrix contribute to the initial storage. Of the initial test 
storage features, slow-draining cavities and the matrix contribute to one-time storage; only 
fractures and open cavities contribute to subsequent steady-state storage. Thus, in a flow test 
at a new borehole where no water has yet been introduced, all the storage components should be 
in full effect. The water released into the formation will partition into storage and steady flow 
paths. If the fast paths themselves have a significant storage component, this should lengthen the 
first arrival time for water (from the delivery point in the borehole to the exit point in the drift) 
and increase the amount of water needed to do so. 
Data from pre-excavation liquid-release tests (Section 6.2) and the dye observations during 
excavation of Niche 5 (Niche 1620) suggest that the shape of the flow plume in close vicinity to 
the release point is roughly circular. During a liquid-release test, as soon as water is observed at 
the crown of the drift, the maximum distance of any flow can be interpreted to have reached 
(along fast paths) the surface of a cylinder, the diameter of which is the distance between the 
middle of the release zone and the crown, as illustrated in Panel a of Figure 6-147. The cylinder 
length would be roughly that of the release zone. This cylindrical volume concept is applied 
during the first-time test period when the connected paths are being developed, as a bounding 
envelope that contains the fast, connected paths. At later times in the test, during the steady-state 
phase, water may have moved well beyond the bounds of this cylinder. The volume of water 
injected up to the point of first wetting at the drift ceiling, divided by the volume of this cylinder, 
gives the effective porosity for establishing fast paths. Note that the effective porosity measured 
this way is very much injection-ratedependent, because the degree to which different 
components of actual porosity participate in the flow path varies according to their time of 
exposure to the flow (in this case, the time of exposure to the flow is the time needed for water to 
reach the edge of the cylinder). 
For the test in Borehole LA#2 Zone 1 (see Section 6.11.2.1), Figure 6-131 shows that 46 L 
(0.046 m3) of water had been introduced at the first wetting of the drift crown. The volume of 
the cylindrical plume (diameter 1.58 m and length 1.83 m) is estimated to be 3.6 m3. Hence, the 
estimated effective porosity used to establish fast paths is 0.046 m3/3.6 m3 = 0.013. Water was 
released into Borehole LA#2 Zone 1 at a relatively high rate of 450 mL/min. 
For the test in Borehole LA#1 (see Section 6.11.2.5), the diameter of the cylinder is 1.03 m, and 
the length is 1.83 m, for a volume of 1.53 m3. Flow volume for the initial wetting of 
Borehole LA#1 was 103 L (0.103 m3), which gives an effective porosity of 0.067. In this case, 
the water was released at a much slower rate of 15 mL/min. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-255 November 2004 
The two estimated values of 0.013 and 0.067 representing the effective porosity prior to the 
establishment of fast paths lead to the following interpretation: 
In the case of Borehole LA#2 Zone 1, when the release rate was as high as 450 mL/min., 
the fracture porosity was accessed with little imbibition into the matrix at the time of 
intersection with the drift. In addition, for the lithophysal cavities that act as a capillary 
barrier with the very high release rate, little water would be expected to seep into these 
cavities. For Borehole LA#1, when the release rate was approximately 30 times slower at 
15 mL/min., the flowing water would have time to access the matrix porosity, and less 
would be diverted around the lithophysal cavities. The difference in effective-porosity 
results from these two tests could thus be a measure of the component of storage due to 
matrix and slow-filling cavities. Because cavities are the primary contributor to actual 
porosity in the system, even a little participation in the flow path would raise the effective 
porosity. In the case of Borehole LA#1, cavities seem to contribute up to a maximum of 
approximately 0.057 (effective porosity minus fracture porosity, not accounting for 
matrix participation) and a minimum of 0.027 (if all available matrix porosity 
participates). These values indicate that only one quarter to one half of the lithophysal 
cavity volume (porosity of 0.125) participates in the liquid storage. 
One refinement in the evaluation of effective porosity was to study the process of restarting a 
water-release test after some pauses in activity. For Borehole LA#1, after slightly more than two 
months, a new test was performed (Section 6.11.2.6). The first arrival was observed after only 
60 L, giving a new effective porosity of 0.039. Therefore, evidence suggests the liquid storage 
from the matrix and cavities filled in the initial test (Section 6.11.2.5) did not drain completely 
during this two-month lapse. The difference between the new value and that of 0.067 from the 
previous test in the same location is 0.028 and could be a measure of the capacity of the matrix 
and the slow-draining lithophysal cavities. Lastly, the difference between the storage measured 
from the already wet slow test (storage from fast-draining cavities and fractures) and the initially 
dry high-rate tests (storage by fractures only) gives the drainable cavity porosity of 
0.039-0.013 = 0.026, or slightly less than one quarter of the estimated porosity representing 
slow-draining lithophysal cavities and the matrix. 
6.11.3.2 Estimation of the Steady-State Diversion Flow around the Drift 
At steady state, the saturation of fractures, cavities, and matrix is not changing. All the water 
that is injected (a known rate) can be partitioned into water collected as seepage (measured), 
water lost to evaporation, and water that does not seep into the drift because it bypasses the drift 
or is diverted on account of the capillary barrier. The rate of water loss to evaporation can be 
quantified from pan measurements and the size of the wetted area; the rate of diverted flow can 
be derived from a water balance. 
One of the key outcomes of seepage testing is to estimate the fraction of introduced water that is 
diverted around the opening during steady-state flow, i.e., after the establishment of connected 
paths between the borehole and drift ceiling. A fraction of the water will bypass the drift 
opening because of nonuniform flow introduced by discrete features and heterogeneity. At the 
drift crown, additional flow will be diverted around the drift, because the drift acts as a capillary 
barrier. The total component of diverted water (from flow channeling and capillary effects) can, 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-256 November 2004 
as a rough approximation, be thought of as the difference between the rate of injection and the 
rate of seepage into the drift when the test has reached steady-state conditions, provided that 
there are no other losses. However, the systematic data (Section 6.11.2.3, Section 6.11.2.4, and 
Section 6.11.2.6) show clearly that evaporation contributes to the difference in the recorded 
injected and seeped volume of water. Evaporation is essential and thus must be taken into 
account. 
The evaporation contribution to the wetted-drift ceiling can be estimated by multiplying the flux 
from an evaporation pan mounted just below the seep by the wetted area associated with the 
seep. All monitoring data for the water-level drop in the evaporation pan show that the 
evaporation flux is approximately 3 mm/day for the wide range (15 to 90 percent) of relative 
humidity encountered. An upper bound of evaporation rate from systematic testing may be 
obtained by multiplying the evaporation flux of 3 mm/day by the largest wetted area recorded (in 
the form of photographs) during bi-hourly (every half hour) observations at Borehole LA#2, 
6.8 m2 (Section 6.11.2.4). The resultant evaporation rate is approximately 14.4 mL/min. Note 
that the potential for injected water to leave the test system from barometric pumping and from 
vapor transport in a drying front behind the drift wall has not been included; the estimate is thus 
uncertain. 
During the period from February 28, 2001, to April 30, 2001 (see Section 6.11.2.6), injection 
proceeded at an approximate rate of 17.5 mL/min. at Borehole LA#1. Observational evidence 
showed that the crown underneath the injected zone was wet, but no seepage was collected 
during this period. The exception was for the period from the afternoon of March 15, 2001, to 
the morning of March 19, 2001, corresponding to a weekend shutdown of the ventilation, during 
which seepage occurred at a rate of 0.6 mL/min. The next weekend shutdown did not cause any 
seepage. Given that slight variations in ventilation conditions determined whether seepage 
occurred at a very low rate or not at all, indicates that the system was near the seepage threshold. 
The evaporation rate from the largest wetted area at Borehole LA#1 (4.6 m2) of 9.5 mL/min. left 
8 mL/min. of flow from the injection unaccounted for; this can be interpreted to be the diverted 
flow. 
Section 6.11.2.6 (Panel b of Figure 6-140) also shows that a seepage collection rate of 
8.5 mL/min. was obtained at Borehole LA#1 for a higher injection rate of approximately 
40 mL/min. during the period from April 10, 2001, to April 16, 2001. The diverted flow (i.e., the 
injection rate minus seepage and evaporation) is 22.0 mL/min., or approximately 55 percent of 
the injection rate. 
An estimate of the diverted component can also be obtained from the seepage volume drained 
after long-term injection has been stopped. This volume can be compared to the volume required 
to initiate seepage after water release has been restarted. Water will drain out of the system and 
be collected as seepage for some time after injection is terminated. In all systematic tests for 
which data is provided in this report, the drainage period lasted less than 24 hours. This is the 
fraction of the storage volume between the release zone and the drift that overcomes the seepage 
threshold. Upon resumption of water release, the volume required to initiate seeping into the 
drift, the refill volume, is that which has to supply both the flow path for seepage the diversion 
paths. The difference between the drainage seep volume and the refill volume suggests the 
volume of the diversion paths. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-257 November 2004 
Several pause studies were performed at Borehole LA#1 to obtain this volume of diversion 
pathways. Correction for effects of rock-surface evaporation to both the drainage value and the 
volume to reinitiate seep is incorporated into this estimate. Evaporation decreases the measured 
drainage volume, and increases the required refill volume. During one test pause in 
Borehole LA#1, on April 16, 2001, the seep drainage was 1.1 L, but an additional 10.3 L can be 
attributed to evaporation for the whole period that the injection is turned off. Evaporation is 
interpreted to be at its maximum of 9.5 mL/min. for the duration of 18 hours. This interpretation 
is conservative, because observations of the drift ceiling indicate that size reduction of the wetted 
surface commences with the termination of water release, and evaporation would decrease and 
cease within this period. Consequently, longer duration pauses would cause approximately the 
same amount of surface evaporation. When injection is restarted on April 17, 2001, at the same 
rate as on April 10, 2001, it took 16 hours to refill (releasing 40 L) before seepage resumed. This 
volume is partly evaporated at a rate of 9.5 mL/min, so that the real refill volume is 34 L. Some 
of volume contributing to drainage collection can be associated with the water hanging from the 
ceiling, i.e., water that is contained in the wet spot. If the component exists, it should be fairly 
well cancelled out by a converse contribution to the wet spot during refill. Even when 
accounting for strong evaporation, the refill volume is approximately twice the drainage volume, 
meaning that more than half the flow is nonintersecting. This number agrees favorably with the 
rate method of obtaining nonintersection steady-state flow for the period of injection just before 
the April 16, 2001, pause and also for the earlier lower-rate test. Note that this method of 
calculating the nonintersecting component of flow, even though transient, will nevertheless be 
independent of injection rate because the time-dependent features (slow-filling cavities and the 
matrix) no longer participate in a refill test. 
6.11.3.3 Minimum Injection Rate Needed to Induce Seepage 
At the scale of the drift, flow is more likely to occur in concentrated regions than as a uniform 
front; a line release from a borehole occurs locally over the projected area of the borehole zone. 
This area emulates one of these concentrated regions at a given distance above the drift. During 
the testing at Borehole LA#1 (Section 6.11.2.5) for the period from December 20, 2001, to 
December 26, 2001, observations (in the form of photographs) every half-hour confirmed that at 
the flow rate of 15 mL/min., with no ventilation, seepage on the ceiling was just observable as a 
tiny spot on the morning of December 25, 2001. Little evaporation was expected to occur from 
the surface because the spot had no significant area. The spot stayed small for the remainder of 
the test, indicating that the system as a whole was approaching steady state. The 15 mL/min. of 
injected flow in this case appears to barely reach the crown. Thus, the threshold below which 
seepage into the drift does not occur is 15 mL/min. for this location. 
6.11.3.4 Estimation of Evaporation from within the Fracture System 
Along Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 in Zone 2, the test sequence with water release at the relatively 
high rate of 42 mL/min. (Panel b of Figure 6-40) leads to the interpretation illustrated in 
Figure 6-147. Seepage was observed within a day of water-injection resumption on 
April 3, 2001; and April 9, 2001 (after pauses of 4 and 5 days); and on April 17, 2001, after a 
pause of 18 hours. These observations indicated that fast paths, connected paths comprised of 
flowing higher-permeability features, had been established as depicted in Panel a of 
Figure 6-147. This delay in the onset of seepage after a pause-induced drainage (depicted in 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-258 November 2004 
Panel b of Figure 6-147) enabled the measurement of the capacity of water needed to refill the 
transient storage (that is, the storage volume needed before seepage occurs, depicted in yellow in 
Panel c Figure 6-147) of these fast paths upon resumption of water release. 
Tunnel wall 
Ventilation 
tube 
Utilities 
Collection 
bottle 
Cavity Fracture 
Borehole 
Tunnel wall 
Ventilation 
tube 
Utilities 
Collection 
bottle 
Cavity Fracture 
Borehole 
Tunnel wall 
Ventilation 
tube 
Utilities 
Collection 
bottle 
Cavity Fracture 
Borehole 
(a) (b) (c) 
NOTES: Panel a = Depiction of fast paths and storage areas for flowing seepage. 
Panel b = Pause in flow and subsequent drainage. 
Panel c = Refill of fast paths. 
Figure 6-147. Borehole Flow and Path Details 
This volume exists because flow through fractures takes a finite amount of time to travel and 
needs to refill its paths before seepage again takes place. This volume is the same as that of the 
water lost from all the paths during the pauses. After the 5-day pause, refill took 20 hours at a 
rate of 42 mL/min. The refill volume in this case was approximately 50 L. For a pause of 
18 hours, the refill volume was approximately 40 L. The refill volume is thus seen as not very 
sensitive to the pause time. Drainage during each pause was the same and was complete long 
before the end of each of these pauses. Any additional loss was a result of longer-lasting 
processes, such as drainage of the residual water (i.e., water between the injection point and the 
niche that flows at rates below the seepage threshold, evaporation within the fracture system, or 
matrix imbibition). The small difference in refill volumes provides a measure of the rate of 
water moving out of the flow path by evaporation (or any other process) after drainage. An 
estimate of this rate can be generated by dividing the difference in refill volumes by the 
difference in pause length. The result for this rate is 2.0 mL/min. If the surface area of the 
hanging water is not greatly different from that of the moving water, then this number also gives 
an indication of the rate of maximum evaporation from the fracture system at other times during 
the testing phase. No other quantifiable factors are included in the evaporation estimation. 
6.11.3.5 Characteristics and Scale of Flow Heterogeneity along the Drift 
As the systematic hydrologic testing progressed toward the ECRB portal, a catalogue of flow 
characteristics for a growing length of drift was developed. Not only can the various flow 
characteristics themselves be logged, but the distances for which they persist along the drift can 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-259 November 2004 
also be measured (for a summary, see Figure 6-148). The larger rock volume tested with the 
systematic approach revealed flow characteristics (such as 100-percent return flow and 
100-percent flow diversion) that were not observed in the niche studies. The results indicate the 
level and the physical dimensions of the heterogeneity at the drift scale. This flow heterogeneity 
and its scales are not immediately apparent by simple visual observation and feature mapping of 
the surface of the drift, and were only discernable with a systematic approach to hydrologic 
testing. 
6.11.3.6 Summary of Systematic Hydrologic Testing 
The following provides a summary of the work performed for the Systematic Hydrologic Testing 
activities in the ECRB: 
A graphical summary of the results for nonintersecting (diverted) flow at steady state is 
provided in Figure 6-148. Ten tests have been performed in arrays of 20-m-long 
boreholes, with collar-to-collar nominal spacing of 30 m. Additional curtains were 
installed on the two ends of the V-shaped seepage-capture PVC curtains, and a camera 
was installed to take observations of the drift ceiling below the injection section. After 
completion of testing in Zone 1 of Borehole LA#2, two evaporation pans were installed 
within the space enclosed by the seepage capture and end curtains; i.e., ventilation effects 
were reduced and evaporation rates were measured for all remaining tests, starting with 
liquid release into Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Zone 2, and ending with the test in Zone 3 
of Borehole LA#4 Zone 3). As a result of the Borehole LA#2 and Borehole LA#1 tests, 
effective porosity for one-time fill cavities was 0.028, for drainable cavities 0.027, and 
for fractures 0.013. Effective porosity is defined here as total volume water necessary to 
initiate seepage, divided by the potential volume of participating formation; thus, it is rate 
dependent. The threshold flux determined from testing in Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 was 
found to be 15 mL/min. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-260 November 2004 
0 
10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 
90 
100 
LA1 
z2 
Location 
(spacing between bar clusters is roughly proportional to spacing between zones) 
Rate at Steady State (mL/min) 
Injection Return Evaporation Seepage Diversion % Diversion 
% Diversion 
Source: DTNs: LB0110ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 156878]; LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 [DIRS 156877]; 
LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879]; LB00090012213U.001 [DIRS 153141]; 
LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]; LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462] 
LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. 
NOTES: Injection, return, evaporation, and seepage are all either from the text in Section 6.11 of this report, or are 
estimates based on figures in this report that have the relevant data. Diversion is injection minus return, 
evaporation, and seepage. Percent diverted is diversion divided by the difference between injection and 
return. 
No evaporation data are available for testing in Zone 1 of Borehole LA#2 (because no ventilation control 
curtains were in use at the time) and, therefore, no diversion or percent diverted was calculated. 
Percent diverted for Borehole LA#3 Zone 3 is not quantifiable because there was 100-percent return flow. 
Some of the evaporation rates are estimates from tests run under similar conditions. 
Figure 6-148. Summary Plot Showing Injection, Return Flow, Evaporation, and Diversion in All 
Systematic Hydrologic Tests 
































































































































In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-1 November 2004 
7. CONCLUSIONS 
Since the inception of the ambient field testing program in 1995 (during the excavation of the 
ESF), progress has been made on: 
 drift seepage studies in niches and the ECRB Cross-Drift, 
 air-permeability testing, 
 fracture/fault flow tests in alcoves, 
 wetting-front and moisture monitoring along ESF drifts, 
 drift-scale infiltration and tracer testing, 
 tracer transport testing at Busted Butte, and 
 geochemical evaluations. 
This report focuses on in situ field-testing of processes. The technical summary and conclusions 
for analyses in Section 6.1 through Section 6.14 are provided in Section 7.1 through 
Section 7.14, respectively. In brief, the key findings for each technical area include: 
Seepage Studies 
Key findings from Section 6.2 (on seepage tests in niches): 
 The presence of a seepage threshold was well established by seepage tests in three 
niches along the ESF main drift in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) (Table 6-8, Section 6.2.2.1). Long-term seepage tests 
behind sealed bulkheads at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) confirmed the seepage results of early 
short-term transient tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). 
 ECRB Cross-Drift Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), located in the lower lithophysal zone 
(Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), has large permeability and strong capillarity, 
as indicated by air-permeability tests and flow-path patterns observed during niche 
excavation (Table 6-6, Figure 6-24, Section 6.2.1.2). 
 The presence of a seepage threshold was confirmed in the lower lithophysal niche 
testing, with seepage reduced to zero as the liquid release rate decreased (Figure 6-44, 
Section 6.2.1.3.5.3). 
 Water flowing along niche sidewalls was observed in Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
(Figure 6-46, Section 6.2.1.3.5.4), and in Niche 4 (Niche 4788). 
Key findings from field observations and test results from Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620): 
 The borehole conditions in the lower lithophysal tuff (Tptpll) are, in general, much 
worse than the borehole conditions in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn), with 
loose rock blocking several boreholes. This is also true of slots constructed in the 
Tptpll (Table 6-7, Figure 6-36, Section 6.2.1.3.5.2). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-2 November 2004 
 The mass balance tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) did not achieve the objective of 
determining the amount of water diverted by the drift. Safety concerns prevented proper 
installation of the water collection system within the slot space (Section 6.2.1.3.5.4). 
Key findings from additional seepage tests in Section 6.11 (on systematic hydrologic 
characterization): 
 Liquid release tests have been conducted in intervals along four slanted boreholes, 
covering a drift segment more than 100 m long, along the lower lithophysal zone 
(Tptpll). In some tests, seepage diversion (of injected water around the drift) was nearly 
100-percent effective; in other tests it was less than 10-percent effective (Figure 6-148, 
Section 6.11.3.6). 
 Systematic hydrologic characterization along the ECRB Cross-Drift through the lower 
lithophysal (Tptpll) zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) quantified the ventilation 
effects on measured seepage in this heterogeneous unit (examples found in Figure 6-141, 
Section 6.11.2.7, Figure 6.142, Section 6.11.2.8; summary provided in Figure 6-148, 
Section 6.11.3.6). 
Key findings from Section 6.3 (on tracer migration evaluation after niche seepage tests): 
 Dyes and nonreactive tracers were confined locally (within a 1.0-m-by-1.6-m area for 
the last test in Niche 2 (Niche 3650)), near the liquid-release points above the niche 
ceiling (Section 6.3.1.2), as were tracers released from multiple sequences of short-term 
seepage tests (Section 6.3.2.2). 
Air-Permeability Testing 
Key findings from Section 6.1 (on air-permeability characterization of heterogeneous fracture 
networks), and from Section 6.5 (on pneumatic flow path connections): 
 Heterogeneity was systematically evaluated with air-injection tests. The variations in 
borehole-scale and drift-scale permeability values, and the variations in permeability 
enhancements induced by excavation effects, are orders of magnitude larger than the 
site-to-site variations of average values along the ESF main drift (Section 6.1.2.4). In 
addition to mechanical effects due to excavation, some of the increase in permeability is 
probably caused by the creation of new connections (of previously dead-ended fractures) 
to the open drift boundary. 
 Pneumatic flow paths through fractures were spatially heterogeneous and discrete in the 
Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) (Figure 6-67, Figure 6-69, Section 6.5.1). 
 Fault zone flow paths and nonwelded tuff layers contributed to the complexity of 
pneumatic responses in the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) zone, with an argillic layer 
effectively dampening the pneumatic responses (Figure 6-73, Section 6.5.2). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-3 November 2004 
Fracture/Fault Flow Tests in Alcoves 
Key findings from Section 6.6 (on welded tuff fracture-matrix interaction tests), and from 
Section 6.7 (on nonwelded tuff fault and matrix tests): 
 Liquid flow paths through fractures were spatially heterogeneous and discrete in the 
Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) (Figure 6-80, Section 6.6.2.3). 
 Flow in fractures in the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) was intermittent in nature, even 
when the flow boundary conditions were stable (Panel b of Figure 6-79, Section 6.6.2.3). 
 The Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) zone (both fault and matrix) has a large capacity to 
dampen infiltration pulses. During releases in boreholes above the slot, no seepage 
water was detected in the slot (see Section 6.7.1.2 on slot observation, Section 6.7.2.1.2 
on water transport times in fault, and Section 6.7.2.2.2 on water transport times in the 
matrix). 
Wetting-Front and Moisture Monitoring 
Key findings from Section 6.8 (on water-potential measurements), from Section 6.9 (on 
construction water migration), and from Section 6.10 (on moisture monitoring and water analysis 
in underground drifts): 
 Rock dryout zones were shown to extend approximately 3 m into the wall of a ventilated 
drift section (Figure 6-95, Section 6.8.2.3, Panel c of Figure 6-109, Section 6.10.2.1.1). 
 In actively ventilated sections, large changes in relative humidity conditions could be 
related to moisture removal by ventilation (Section 6.10.1.2.1). 
 The last one-third of the ECRB Cross-Drift was sealed intermittently for days to months 
over a total period of several years. Nevertheless, based on water-potential 
measurements in the boreholes (Figure 6-109, Section 6.10.2.1.1), rocks that had 
partially dried out as a result of ventilation were not completely rewetted. 
 The occurrence of temperature and relative humidity differences necessary for 
condensation and moisture redistribution were established by variations in the in-drift 
moisture sensors (Section 6.10.2.1). 
 Wet areas and droplets were observed, and liquid samples of condensate were collected, 
during entries into sealed sections of the ECRB Cross-Drift (Section 10.2.2). Based on 
limited chemical analyses of the relatively clean water collected, the presence of water 
was attributed to condensation (Section 6.10.3.1). 
 Construction water was detected more than 10 m below the invert at the starter tunnel of 
the ECRB Cross-Drift (Section 6.9.2.1), and more than 30 m below the invert at a 
location in the highly fractured zone (Figure 6-105, Section 6.10.1.3). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-4 November 2004 
Drift-Scale Infiltration and Tracer Testing 
Key findings from Section 6.12 (on drift-to-drift infiltration and seepage tests), and from 
Section 6.1 (on air-permeability measurements): 
 Infiltration, wetting-front detection, and seepage collection data for faults were collected 
at the drift-to-drift test site, located between Alcove 8 in the ECRB Cross-Drift and 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107) in the ESF main drift (Section 6.12.2). The location of the 
Tptpul-Tptpmn interface between two tuff units that comprise the test site has been 
confirmed by baseline geophysical tomographies (Section 6.12.3). 
 The air-permeability data measured in the slanted boreholes below Alcove 8 had large 
variability associated with the transition from the upper lithophysal zone to the middle 
nonlithophysal zone across the Tptpul-Tptpmn tuff interface (Section 6.1.2.2.2). 
 Breakthrough curves of two tracers in the fault test clearly indicated that the molecular 
size of tracers had a considerable effect on transport: the larger tracer had a faster 
transport, and the smaller tracer was delayed by effective matrix diffusion into tuff 
blocks next to the fractures (Figure 6-159, Section 6.12.2.4). 
Tracer Transport Testing at Busted Butte 
Key findings from Section 6.13 (on Busted Butte transport tests): 
 The Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (UZTT) at Busted Butte provided field-scale data 
on transport properties of the vitric Calico Hills hydrogeological unit and the basal 
vitrophyre at the tuff interface between Topopah Spring and Calico Hills units 
(Section 6.13.1.2). 
 Capillarity was shown to be strong in the vitric Calico Hills (Figure 6-173, 
Section 6.13.2.1). 
 Spatial heterogeneity was shown to affect transport through the vitrophyre 
(Section 6.13.2.2). 
 It was shown that sorbing tracers did not move significantly (Section 6.13.3). The 
plume migration was evaluated by mine-back sample analyses (Section 6.13.3.4), and by 
periodic ground penetrating radar (GPR) tomography (Section 6.13.4). 
 Neutron moisture data and laboratory radionuclide transport data corroborated the 
findings that were based on tracer pad analyses and mine-out images from the UZTT 
(Section 6.13.5). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-5 November 2004 
Geochemical Evaluations 
Key findings from Section 6.14 (on geochemical and isotopic measurements): 
 Along the ECRB Cross-Drift, pore-water chemistry exhibits greater variability than the 
heterogeneity in rock mineral distribution (Section 6.14.1). 
 The bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl signals in fault/feature locations might exist along the ESF 
north ramp and ESF main drift (Figure 6-195, Section 6.14.2.1.1). Samples with high 
tritium-activity levels (indicating young water) were found at multiple locations, 
especially along the south ramp of the ESF and in sections of the ECRB Cross-Drift 
(Section 6.14.2.2). 
 Uranium isotope data illustrate the sensitivity of redistribution and transport to 
percolation flux magnitude (Section 6.14.3). 
 Fracture calcite/opal data support the understanding that only a small percentage of 
fracture surfaces are coated primarily on the footwalls, that lithophysal cavities have 
secondary precipitates only at the bottom, that growth rates are low, and that the inferred 
percolation and seepage rates are small (Section 6.14.4). 
The following UZ model reports contain information on the status of field testing and monitoring 
activities at different sites in the ESF (information and findings relevant to modeling are also 
listed): 
 Extensive pneumatic air-permeability tests were conducted in borehole clusters before 
and after niche excavation, and in alcove test beds before liquid releases (Section 6.1). 
The test results are inputs to Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]; Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 167652]; and Abstraction of Drift Seepage (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169131]). 
 Immediately after excavation of Niche 1 (Niche 3566), which is located in the vicinity of 
the Sundance fault, an elongated, damp feature was visible at the back wall of the niche 
(Section 6.1.2.2.1, Figure 6-24 in Section 6.2.1.2). The feature disappeared most likely 
due to evaporation. The niche was then sealed and kept closed for more than two years 
in order to reduce evaporation effects. However, the damp feature did not reappear. 
 Niche 2 (Niche 3650), located in a fractured setting away from faults, was the site of 40 
liquid-release tests that were conducted to quantify seepage thresholds 
(Section 6.2.l.3.1). The core samples from the last of these tests were analyzed for tracer 
distribution (Section 6.3, Section 6.4). 
 Niche 3 (Niche 3107), located in a relatively uniform rock mass below the crossover 
point between the ESF main drift and the ECRB Cross-Drift, was the site of the drift-todrift 
fault tests and the large plot tests for matrix diffusion and active fracture model 
calibration and validation (Section 6.3.1.3.2, Section 6.12). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-6 November 2004 
 Niche 4 (Niche 4788), located in a highly fractured zone, was the site of pre- and 
post-excavation characterization, and several long-term seepage testing sequences 
(Section 6.2.1.3.3). 
 Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), located near the center of the repository in the lower 
lithophysal zone, was the site of a series of consecutive seepage tests. The data from 
these tests were used as inputs to the report Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage 
Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). Evaporation losses were quantified and used 
to improve the seepage calibration model (Section 6.2.1.3.5). 
 Systematic hydrologic characterization along the ECRB Cross-Drift (Section 6.11): 
1. Provided data from the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring 
Tuff (TSw) used as part of the calibration and validation of the seepage 
calibration model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]), 
2. Provided observations on the heterogeneity of fractures and lithophysal cavities, 
and 
3. Quantified ventilation effects along the open drift. 
 Alcove 1, located 30 m below the ground surface near the ESF North Portal in the Tiva 
Canyon welded tuff (TCw) unit, was the site of a large-scale infiltration study. The test 
results from two series of flow and tracer tests were analyzed in Liu et al. (2003 
[DIRS 162470]). Matrix diffusion was shown to be important in the dilution of the 
tracer concentration, and in the reduction of the tracer breakthrough at the Alcove 1 test 
site (Section 6.12.5). 
 Alcove 4, located in a layered zone with a fault bounded by the porous Paintbrush 
nonwelded tuff (PTn) unit, was the site of a series of tests that were undertaken to 
evaluate the migration of injected water (Section 6.7). The effectiveness of dampening 
liquid pulses was found to be consistent with the relatively uniform and steady flow 
distribution in the Paintbrush nonwelded tuff (PTn) unit described in UZ Flow Models 
and Submodels (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861]). 
 Alcove 6, located in a fractured zone that included relatively competent matrix blocks, 
was the site of a series of tests, in which water dripping into a slot below the test bed 
was collected and measured (Section 6.6). The large fracture flow (outflow into the slot 
below the test bed) percentage was consistent with the percentage predicted by UZ Flow 
Models and Submodels (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861]). 
 The Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) data (liquid release rate, seepage rate, tracer 
breakthroughs in Section 6.12) as part of the validation of the UZ flow model (BSC 
2004 [DIRS 169861]) and the UZ radionuclide transport model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 164500]). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-7 November 2004 
 Water potentials have been measured with heat dissipation probes, psychrometers, and 
tensiometers in ESF boreholes at alcoves, at niches, and along the ECRB Cross-Drift 
(Section 6.6, Section 6.7, Section 6.8, Section 6.9, Section 6.10, and Section 6.12). The 
results of water-potential data from the ECRB were used as part of the validation of the 
UZ flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861]). The dryout-zone data were also considered 
in the design of the repository and of ground-support systems, and were used to quantify 
vapor flux into the drift for evaluation of in-drift conditions. 
 Construction-water migration was monitored at the starter tunnel of the ECRB 
Cross-Drift, and below the crossover point (Section 6.9). Data on the distributions of 
lithium-bromide tracers from boreholes drilled into the drift floor (invert) 
(Section 6.10.1.3) were inputs to the Yucca Mountain site description document. 
 Moisture monitoring stations continued to collect data to evaluate the impact of tunnel 
ventilation on moisture removal (Section 6.10.1.2). 
 Condensation observed in the sealed sections of the ECRB Cross-Drift provided 
additional insights regarding in-drift redistribution of moisture under thermal and 
relative humidity variations (Section 6.10.2). 
 Busted Butte transport test data (plume configuration, tracer distributions, and 
breakthrough, in Section 6.13) from Phase 1A, Phase 1B, and Phase 2 were used as part 
of the validation of the UZ radionuclide transport model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164500]). 
 The chloride data and data pertaining to several geochemistry and transport properties 
(Section 6.14) were used as part of the validation of the UZ flow model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169861]) and the UZ radionuclide transport model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164500]). 
The ambient testing program has evolved from its initial focus on the middle nonlithophysal 
zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), to a focus on the lower lithophysal unit 
(Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), to a focus on both the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) 
above the repository horizon and the Calico Hills nonwelded (CHn) below the repository 
horizon. The tests were used as direct input for the calibration of UZ process models, as indirect 
input for their validation, and as corroborative evidence to support or refute existing and 
alternate conceptual models for seepage into drifts, fracture flow, fracture-matrix interaction, and 
drainage and migration below the repository. 
Because most of the repository horizon is in the lower lithophysal unit (Tptpll) of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff (TSw), it is important to characterize this unit, to determine whether the presence of 
lithophysal cavities and friable tuff media has significant effects on the seepage distributions and 
percolation characteristics. The seepage-threshold quantification was confirmed with long-term 
tests. The long-term tests also addressed the concerns regarding the capillary barrier concept 
under steady-state conditions, the effects of evaporation, and the effects of moisture storage and 
flow-diversion capacities. Quantification of spatial distribution of fast flow paths, and 
assessment of temporal variations of episodic percolation events, have been advanced by testing 
and monitoring refinements for in situ conditions. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-8 November 2004 
The emphasis of this report is on active-flow testing in niches and alcoves. These activities, 
together with many other laboratory and field activities analyzed in other analysis and model 
reports, provide data for inputs to other model reports for process evaluation, calibration, and 
validation. Sections 7.1 to 7.14 present summaries of data analyses found in Sections 6.1 to 
6.14, respectively. Credible interpretations can be achieved with close interactions between 
testing and modeling, as documented in the model reports and scientific analysis reports cited, 
and on an activity-by-activity basis. 
This report may be affected by technical product input that requires confirmation. The status of 
the technical product input data quality can be confirmed by review of the DIRS database. 
Technical product outputs have been generated to document and summarize the results from 
analyses of some sets of DTNs. In some cases, the technical product outputs are directly used by 
downstream models. In other cases, the technical product output has been generated with 
suggestions for potential uses. For cases in which technical product output DTNs were issued, 
the use of each technical product output is summarized, and discussions of associated 
uncertainties and limitations of data are included. The DTNs generated as product output from 
this report are summarized in Table 7-1 (see also discussions in Sections 7.1, 7.2.1, and 7.11). 
Two Yucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP) acceptance criteria for this report are listed in 
Section 4.2: 
1. data sufficiency for model justification, and 
2. data uncertainty characterization for propagation through models. 
These criteria are addressed in this report by: 
 reporting the statistics of parameter distributions (for cases of field measurements and 
laboratory experiments with sufficient data), 
 by describing the challenges and chronologies of data collection issues during the test 
and measurement periods, and 
 by comparing different techniques, where available, for quantification of similar 
parameters for the same unsaturated processes, over different scales. 
The measured results are analyzed and reported in this report for use as inputs to other UZ and 
coupled-process models. The process models form the basis for additional abstractions, through 
use of the ranges of measured parameters and other sources of information. Summaries of 
various activities (for data sufficiency and uncertainty evaluations) are presented in Sections 7.1 
through 7.14. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-9 November 2004 
Table 7-1. Output DTNs from This Report 
Data Tracking Number Title 
LB0110LIQR0015.001 Developed Data for Liquid Release/Seepage Tests and Systematic Testing 
LB0110NICH4LIQ.001 Niche 4788 Ceiling  Wetting Front Data 
LB0110SYST0015.001 Developed Data for Systematic Testing 
LB0310AIRK0015.001 Developed Data for Air-K Tests 
7.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF AIR-PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTION 
AND EXCAVATION-INDUCED ENHANCEMENT IN NICHES 
The pneumatic packer system (that included automated controls and automated data acquisition) 
was used to conduct systematic and extensive air-permeability tests in borehole clusters at five 
niches and other test beds. Single-hole permeability data were used to detect changes in 
permeability (and boundary conditions) as a result of nearby excavation, and to characterize 
sites. Pre- and post-excavation permeability profiles (with a 0.3-m spatial resolution) for 
boreholes used for drift-seepage and liquid-release tests are presented in this report. 
Air-permeability distributions were used as inputs to the report Seepage Calibration Model and 
Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]), to assess the capillary-barrier and 
seepage-threshold mechanisms. (Fractures immediately above the niches are important to the 
evaluation of seepage into drifts.) 
The approach summarized in Cook (2000 [DIRS 165411]), and in Wang and Ellsworth (1999 
[DIRS 104366]), is used to collect the air-permeability distribution data described in Section 6.1. 
The main results from air-permeability profile and distribution analyses are: 
 The excavation-induced permeability enhancements in borehole intervals are large, with 
an average borehole enhancement of one to two orders of magnitude. 
 Borehole-scale and drift-scale distributions, and excavation-induced enhancements of 
permeability variations, are orders of magnitude larger than the site-to-site variations of 
average values along the ESF main drift (Section 6.1.2.4). 
Because spatial variability at the drift scale controls local flow path and seepage, it is important 
to characterize the permeability distribution in fractured tuff. The relatively small difference in 
mean permeability values for different niches reduced uncertainties associated with site-scale 
spatial heterogeneity. The liquid-seepage tests in locally distinct niches resulted in 
seepage-threshold values within a relatively narrow range. The uncertainties for seepage into 
drifts were well established for the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring 
Tuff (TSw), where four existing niches were located. The seepage evaluation with nearly 
continuous releases was carried out for the lower lithophysal tuff unit (Tptpll) of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff (TSw), to acquire the necessary data for the majority of the repository horizon. 
Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001 (for computed ratios of post-excavation air-permeability 
data over pre-excavation air-permeability data) is the technical product output from the analysis 
presented in Section 6.1 of this report. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-10 November 2004 
The permeability ratios in this DTN are presented in Section 6.1.2.3. As shown in Figures 6-19 
through Figure 6-23, the correlation coefficient R2 of the ratio as a function of initial 
permeability has low values (from approximately 0.11 to approximately 0.17), representing a 
poor fit. These results, together with permeability profiles in Section 6.1.1 and statistical 
analyses summarized in Tables 6-2 through 6-6, provide the basis for understanding the 
permeability-stress coupling, and the measure of natural variability of the fractures of the tuff 
units. Heterogeneity quantification is important for other hydrologic processes. Downstream 
users of the air-permeability data must recognize the natural variability and spatial heterogeneity, 
and must quantify the hydrologic effects in a manner that is consistent with the air-permeability 
measures. 
7.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF LIQUID-RELEASE AND SEEPAGE TESTS 
IN NICHES 
Liquid releases and seepage tests (Trautz and Wang 2002 [DIRS 160335]; 2001 [DIRS 165419]; 
and Wang et al. 1999 [DIRS 106146]) were used to collect seepage data, as described in 
Section 6.2 and summarized in Sections 7.2.1 through 7.2.3. 
7.2.1 Pre-Excavation Liquid-Release Testing and Niche Excavation Activities 
Numerous liquid-release tests were conducted prior to the excavation of each niche, to evaluate 
how far a finite pulse of water would be transported through relatively undisturbed fractures 
located in the middle nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). Similar tests were 
conducted in the lower lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), to identify the main 
difference (in effective capillary strengths) between these two major repository host rocks. 
The maximum depth of the wetting front increased as the mass of injected fluid increased. 
Based on the results, it appears that maximum-depth data cannot discriminate the type of flow 
(i.e., high-angle fracture flow versus network flow) observed during the test. Lateral spreading 
and the aspect ratio (i.e., ratio of depth to lateral spreading) may be stronger measures of the type 
of flow that predominates. Increased lateral spreading of the wetting front is related to 
well-connected fracture networks that contain both high- and low-angle fractures; large aspect 
ratios are related to flow in individual vertical fractures. Some additional details are as follows: 
 Flow in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) is dominated by gravity, with large 
aspect ratios observed in most flow paths. 
 The lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) has some flow paths with symmetric patterns, 
indicating relatively strong capillarity capable of spreading the plumes. 
DTN LB0110LIQR0015.001 (for liquid-release test analyses and computed seepage rates) and 
DTN LB0110NICH4LIQ.001 (for wetting front characterization in the ceiling of Niche 4 
[Niche 4788]) are technical product outputs from the analyses presented in Section 6.2.1 of this 
report. 
DTN LB0110LIQR0015.001 was used in the development of the water retention curves for 
fractures (illustrated in Figure 6-49 and summarized in Table 6-10 and Table 6-11). Various data 
sets were used to generate the water retention curves; seepage threshold fluxes were determined 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-11 November 2004 
through use of the test data that had relatively high correlation coefficients in Table 6-8. 
Although the data for the seepage thresholds have high certainty, the analyses that used analytic 
solutions had uncertainties associated with the approximations of medium uniformity. 
Downstream models, such as the seepage calibration model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]), 
recognized this limitation, and formulated the heterogeneous numerical models, and took into 
consideration air-permeability distributions. 
DTN LB0110NICH4LIQ.001 was used in the analyses of wetting-front movements observed on 
a niche ceiling, as illustrated in Figure 6-30. The relatively uniform patterns at early times, and 
the interferences by fractures at later times, are presented to facilitate a better understanding of 
the seepage and diversion mechanisms. The DTN was generated for use by models with 
fractures explicitly taken into account. To use such an approach, additional data (of fracture 
characteristics for each discrete fracture) is needed. 
7.2.2 Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 4 (Niche 4788), and 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
The focus of the seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) was to investigate the amount of water 
that would drip into a mined opening from transient liquid-release events of short duration. The 
tests can be summarized as follows: 
 Forty post-excavation liquid-release tests were conducted on 16 different test intervals 
located above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) within the middle nonlithophysal zone of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff unit. 
 Of the 16 zones tested, water seeped into the capture system from 10 zones; water 
appeared at the niche ceiling, but did not drip, in three zones; and, in three zones, no 
water appeared. 
 The seepage percentage (defined as the amount of water captured in the niche, divided 
by the amount of water released into the rock) values ranged from 0 to 56.2. 
During the early stages of testing, the memory effect, or wetting history, was determined to have 
a profound impact on seepage. If the liquid-release tests were performed too close together in 
time, it was found (as expected) that the seepage percentage increased dramatically. This is 
because the fractures contained residual moisture, and their unsaturated conductivity was higher 
during subsequent tests. The test with a 56.2-percent seepage result (the third test in a series of 
four tests in the same interval) was conducted within 2 hours of the second test, which had 
23.2 percent seepage. By comparison, the first test, which was conducted 20 days before the 
second test, had a fairly consistent result of 22.6 percent seepage. Some additional details are as 
follows: 
 The seepage-threshold flux (defined as the flux of water that, when introduced into the 
injection borehole, results in zero seepage) was evaluated for the 10 zones that seeped 
that are noted in Section 6.2.2.1 (Table 6-8 lists the 10 tests in Niche 2 (Niche 3650), 
and includes seepage threshold determinations). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-12 November 2004 
 The seepage-threshold fluxes measured at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) varied from 6.35  10-9 
to 4.31  10-6 m/s (equivalent to 200 to 136 000 mm/year). 
 Analytical techniques specific to a homogenous, unsaturated porous medium, derived by 
Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743]), were used to evaluate and interpret the 
seepage-threshold data. 
Two types of flow paths were observed in the field during the mining operation, as described in 
Section 6.2.1.2. Estimates of the volumetric water content were produced in Section 6.2.2.3, 
using wetting-front arrival times recorded during the seepage tests. The a-values resulting from 
the analyses performed in Section 6.2.2.2 were used to estimate the water potentials of the 
fractures reported in Section 6.2.2.4. Water-potential estimates and the corresponding 
volumetric water contents were used to construct the fracture-water retention curves presented in 
Section 6.2.2.5. Examination of these plots indicates that: 
 Fractures appear to drain very quickly (Figure 6-49). 
 Saturated water content may be as high as 5 percent (Table 6-10). 
The approach of using short-term tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) in ventilated conditions was 
replaced by long-term tests at both Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) under 
controlled high-humidity conditions. The series of Niche 4 (Niche 4788) tests was more 
complete (see Table 6-8 on seepage threshold analyses, with three test intervals in Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) versus one test interval in Niche 3 (Niche 3107)) and was used in the seepage 
calibration model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]) to calibrate and validate the model. The analytic 
solution approach presented in this report indicated that: 
 The seepage thresholds determined by the long-term tests are comparable to the seepage 
thresholds determined by short-term tests (Table 6-8, Section 6.2.2.1 on comparison; 
Section 6.2.1.3 on test durations). 
For Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in the lower lithophysal tuff, Test #2 demonstrated that: 
 Seepage thresholds exist even with the series of tests conducted consecutively, with 
essentially no waiting periods between tests at different rates (see example in 
Figure 6-44, Section 6.2.1.3.5.3). 
 The slot did not effectively capture lateral movement of water around the niche 
(Section 6.2.1.3.5.2). 
The lack of evidence that seepage occurred into the slot implies that the supplemental objectives 
of the test, stated in Section 6.2.1.3.5.1, were not met in this study. However, both at Niche 4 
(Niche 4788) and Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), photographic evidence showed that when water was 
introduced into boreholes above the niche: 
 A wetted area spread across the ceiling and down the terminal face and sidewall of 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788) in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) (Trautz and Wang 
2002 [DIRS 160335]). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-13 November 2004 
 A wetted area spread down the sidewall of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in the lower 
lithophysal tuff Tptpll (Figure 6-46). 
7.2.3 Constraints and Limitations of the Niche Seepage Test Results 
The seepage test results at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), including the determinations of the seepage 
thresholds, were based on multiple liquid-release tests of short duration and with small amounts 
of water released (on the order of one liter). Injection rates in some of the test were high enough 
to induce seepage. The relative humidity in the open niche was affected by the ventilation in the 
ESF main drift and was thus low, leading to evaporation and water removal from the rock 
through the vapor phase. These evaporation effects may have reduced the liquid seepage flux 
used to determine the seepage threshold. An additional source of uncertainty is the unknown 
storage capacity of the formation between the injection point and the niche ceiling. These 
uncertainties were addressed by: 
1. Controlling and/or monitoring evaporation conditions in the niches, 
2. Performing long-term liquid-release tests to reduce storage effects, and/or 
3. Analyzing the seepage-rate data through use of a numerical model that accounts for 
evaporation and storage effects. 
The liquid-release tests at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were conducted 
over periods significantly longer than the tests conducted in Niche 2 (Niche 3650), with some at 
lower release rates and under better control of ventilation and humidity effects. 
Within a finite testing period, long-duration water releases may not have been followed by 
sufficiently long recovery periods before the next test, with a different rate, was initiated. The 
same long-duration approaches have been used in tests at the lower lithophysal unit (Tptpll) at 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), where some tests were conducted with essentially no recovery periods 
between tests with different rates. 
The constraints and limitations of the seepage test results in the middle nonlithophysal zone 
(Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) with recovery periods, and in the lower lithophysal 
zone (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) with minimal recovery periods, should be 
carefully evaluated to assess their applicability. The intended use of niche test data is for 
seepage process evaluation. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-14 November 2004 
7.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF TRACER-MIGRATION DELINEATION 
AT NICHE 2 (NICHE 3650) 
Tracer distribution in cores after a liquid-release event at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) is analyzed in 
Section 6.3. Niche 2 (Niche 3650) was the first of three niches (Niche 2 [Niche 3650], Niche 3 
[Niche 3107], and Niche 4 [Niche 4788]) in which a series of seepage tests was conducted in the 
middle nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). The results of multiple 
sequences of short-term seepage tests showed that: 
 Spatial distributions of tracers that resulted from early liquid-release tests conducted in 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650) consistently pointed to localized flow with limited lateral 
spreading. 
 Tracer migration from the last short-term test was localized and possibly confined within 
the 1.0-m-by-1.6-m area directly below the liquid-release interval, with a vertical scale 
of approximately 0.7 m. This conclusion was based mainly on analyses of iodine as a 
conservative tracer. 
Liquid-release tests reported in Section 6.2 indicated that post-excavation seepage water was 
captured, in most cases, directly beneath the test zone or in capture cells adjoining the interval. 
Flow-path observations during niche excavations generally showed that the dyes did not spread 
laterally to great extents (also see preliminary results of Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 
(Niche 3650) reported in Wang et al. (1999 [DIRS 106146], pp. 329332)). Gravity-driven flow 
was the primary flow mechanism in fracture systems, either through individual fractures and/or 
through the fracture network connected to the release intervals. In Section 6.4 of this report, 
results of additional laboratory tests of tracer sorption and fracture-matrix interactions are 
presented. 
The absence of nonreactive tracers, especially iodine (introduced only at the last pulse release), 
together with the localized spatial distributions of dyes long after the liquid releases, suggests 
that the gravity-driven component is strong. Capillary imbibition and capillary barrier effects 
could promote lateral spreading. Note that dye is sorbing (i.e., the observed dye pattern 
represents the minimum extent of water migration), which makes the related interpretation 
uncertain. 
The results provide a data set for flow path distribution from multiple liquid releases that use 
different tracers. The data set can be used to quantify natural variability and uncertainties of 
flow and transport on the scale of a few meters. Because the tracer distributions are based on 
cores recovered from a cluster of boreholes, uncertainties exist that are associated with flow and 
transport out the domain between the boreholes. Ventilation drying may also contribute to the 
uncertainties in the test interpretation. These considerations should be taken into account in 
using the data set for detailed calculations of the flow and transport processes in this spatial scale 
of a few meters. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-15 November 2004 
7.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ON TRACER PENETRATION AND WATER 
IMBIBITION INTO WELDED TUFF MATRIX 
Field and laboratory tracer experiments have been conducted to investigate the flow partitioning 
between fracture flow and matrix imbibition under unsaturated conditions. During niche 
excavation, dye-stained rock samples were collected for laboratory analyses. Additional tuff 
samples collected from the repository horizon were machined as rock cores for laboratory studies 
of tracer penetration into the rock matrix, with two different initial water saturations. In the drift 
seepage tests that used dye tracers, seepage-water samples were collected. A rock-drilling and 
sampling technique was developed to profile the tracer concentration in the rock matrix, as 
discussed in Section 6.4 and in Hu et al. (2002 [DIRS 165412]). The samples were collected in 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650). The laboratory evaluation complements the evaluation documented in 
Section 6.3 for the site in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff 
(TSw). Some additional details are as follows: 
 For rock samples, the sorbing dye-tracer penetration depths were on the order of several 
millimeters from the fractures that permitted flow. 
 In well-controlled laboratory tracer-imbibition tests under both high and low initial 
water saturations, the concentration profiles of sorbing dyes lag behind the nonreactive 
bromide front, with the dye transport distance of a few millimeters over the contact time 
(approximately 18 hours). 
 If the initial water saturation is relatively high (75.8 percent), the bromide front lags 
significantly behind the moisture front. However, if the initial water saturation is 
relatively low (12.5 percent), the bromide front is comparable to the moisture front. 
 Retardation of sorbing tracers increased with a decrease in saturation, as measured in the 
dry core and in the wet core. This verified the functional relationship between 
retardation and water content. 
 Core measurements can be used to measure retardation factors in in situ conditions, to 
check the results of batch experiments that used crushed tuff in saturated conditions. 
Data presented in Section 6.4 revealed subtle processes (especially at the interface boundary 
region between the core bottom and the water reservoir) that simulated the contact of 
flow-permitting fractures with the adjoining tuff matrix. Data of flow partitioning, front 
separation, and tracer retardation can be used for validation of fracture-matrix interaction and 
fracture flow models. 
The uncertainties of the laboratory measurements are associated with the spatial resolution 
limitations of drilling and sampling techniques (see Figure 6-62, Section 6.4.1.4) and analytic 
accuracy (see Appendix E for additional evaluations). Compared to field-testing conditions, 
these measurement uncertainties are small. The laboratory measurements provided improved 
process understanding and alternate approaches for block rock characterization, complementing 
the measurements from crushed rock samples. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-16 November 2004 
7.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF SINGLE-HOLE PERMEABILITY 
DISTRIBUTIONS AND CROSSHOLE CONNECTIVITY ANALYSES 
Crosshole analyses of pneumatic air-permeability test data are presented for Niche 4 
(Niche 4788), Alcove 6, and Alcove 4 in Section 6.5. Crosshole connectivity analyses for 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788) are used in the seepage tests in this highly fractured zone. The pneumatic 
air-permeability test results were used for interval selection and test interpretation in the series of 
tests conducted for fracture flows and fracture-matrix interactions in the Topopah Spring Tuff 
(TSw) at Alcove 6, and for fault and matrix flows in Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) in Alcove 4. 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788) and Alcove 6 are in the fractured middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of 
the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). Alcove 4 is in porous Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) tuff. 
The main results from permeability distribution and crosshole analyses are: 
 Welded-tuff test sites had distinct flow paths that were clearly identified by crosshole 
analyses from isolated injection intervals to observation intervals (Section 6.5.1). 
 The fracture flow connections were predominately unidirectional (an injection interval 
induced a response in an observation interval, but the interval did not necessarily detect 
injection into the original observation interval) (Section 6.5.1). 
 The Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) test bed in Alcove 4 had many more pneumatic flow 
connections than the corresponding Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) sites in niches and in 
Alcove 6. Weaker connections were trimmed out to reveal the stronger connections 
(Figure 6-72, Figure 6-73). 
 Using crosshole analyses, the argillic layer in the test bed was shown to be a nearly 
impermeable barrier (Figure 6-73, Section 6.5.2). 
 Stronger flow connections were associated with a fault in the test bed at Alcove 4. A 
high-permeability zone near the end of the test block was identified by the 
air-permeability results and crosshole analyses (Figure 6-73, Section 6.5.2). 
The crosshole air-injection tests presented visually (see Section 6.5) primarily support the 
selection of liquid injection intervals. The uncertainty in measured air-injection rates and 
induced pressure buildup are expected to be small compared to the variability in formation 
properties and the conceptual model uncertainties. The uncertainties associated with 
permeability testing (Section 6.1.2.4) also apply to the evaluation of the crosshole responses. 
The crosshole analysis results can be used for heterogeneous model evaluation over the spatial 
domain covered by the borehole clusters. Discrete fracture network models can use the 
crosshole analysis for inputs for the heterogeneity field. 
7.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF FRACTURE FLOW IN THE 
FRACTURE-MATRIX TEST BED AT ALCOVE 6 
Fracture flow data were collected in a slotted test bed located at Alcove 6 of the ESF within the 
Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). The existence of a slot below the injection zones made it possible 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-17 November 2004 
to quantify both the inflow into the system, and the outflow at the lower boundary, and to better 
evaluate the flow field in underground test conditions, as described in Section 6.6, and in Salve 
et al. (2002 [DIRS 161318]), and in Hu et al. (2001 [DIRS 165413]). 
In this field study, techniques developed to investigate flow in fractured welded tuffs were 
evaluated. Results from field tests suggest that certain fundamental flow parameters (such as 
transport times, percolation, and seepage rates) can be characterized in situ. Alcove 6 is in the 
middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), with a well-defined 
fracture network through competent welded tuff rock. 
The test results revealed aspects of flow in unsaturated, fractured systems, and provided insight 
into the conceptualization of flow through unsaturated and fractured rock formations. The 
Alcove 6 test was the first test (on unsaturated fractured tuff conducted in the ESF) that 
attempted to take water mass conservation explicitly into account. In field tests, controlling the 
boundaries is frequently difficult, and liquid can flow to unknown domains. Transient data 
collected at Alcove 6 also contribute to the evaluation of unsaturated flow in fractured tuffs. 
Several sets of liquid-release tests were conducted through use of localized injections of liquid 
into a low-permeability zone (LPZ) and into a high-permeability zone (HPZ) along a borehole. 
The major test results were: 
 For all injections into both LPZ and HPZ, changes in electrical resistance and 
psychrometer readings were detected in two monitoring boreholes approximately 0.6 m 
below the point of injection. 
 For the LPZ tests, water did not seep into the slot located 1.65 m below the point of 
injection. 
 The liquid-release rate into the LPZ was observed to steadily decrease by two orders of 
magnitude (from greater than 30 mL/minute to less than 0.1 mL/minute) over a 24-hour 
period. 
 In the HPZ, liquid-release rates under constant-head conditions were significantly higher 
(approximately 100 mL/minute), with intermittent changes observed in the intake rate. 
 For injection tests in the HPZ, water was observed to drip into the slot in 3 to 7 minutes 
at high injection rates (rates of approximately 28 to approximately 100 mL/min.); in 
1 hour at the low injection rate of 14 mL/min.; and in 5 hours at the lowest rate of 
5 mL/min. 
 During the course of each test, seepage rates measured in the slot showed intermittent 
responses despite constant-head or constant-rate conditions imposed at the input 
boundary (Panel b of Figure 6-79, Section 6.6.2.3). 
 The percentage of the cumulative volume of water that was recovered in the slot was 
observed to increase with time in most tests, and approached steady-state values after 
approximately 10 L of water had been injected (Section 6.6.2.1). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-18 November 2004 
 The highest injected-water recovery rate for high-rate injection tests was 80 percent 
(Figure 6-79, Section 6.6.2.3). 
 The minimum volumes of fracture flow paths were estimated, for each test, from 
measurements of fluid volume before wetting front arrivals, and from measurements of 
drainage volume into the slot after termination of injection. The cumulative flow path 
volumes were found to vary from approximately 0.5 L to approximately 1.3 L after 
termination of liquid injection (Figure 6-81, Section 6.6.2.3). 
 Plug-flow processes were observed with tracer analyses. New water replaced old 
water from the previous test, with some backdiffusion effects occurring, as indicated by 
rebounding (Figure 6-82, Section 6.6.2.4). 
The stepped and intermittent changes could be associated with heterogeneous distribution of 
storage volumes in the connected fracture flow paths, in the dead-end fractures, and in the rock 
matrix blocks. The test results from Alcove 6 could be used to evaluate fracture flows and 
fracture-matrix interactions. 
Significant uncertainties were associated with a series of tests that were conducted that used 
relatively short durations in comparison with the duration of seepage tests in niches. 
Nevertheless, the qualitative understanding gained from Alcove 6 testing could be used for the 
design of other tests, such as the Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) tests described in Section 6.12. 
7.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF FLOW THROUGH THE FAULT AND 
MATRIX IN THE TEST BED AT ALCOVE 4 
Fault and matrix flow data were collected in a test bed located in the Paintbrush nonwelded 
(PTn) unit at Alcove 4 in the ESF. Using a series of horizontal boreholes, the intake rates and 
plume transport times in various locations within the test bed were determined, as described in 
Section 6.7, and in Salve et al. (2003 [DIRS 164470]), and in Salve and Oldenburg (2001 
[DIRS 157316]). 
These test results revealed aspects of flow in a fault located within the nonwelded tuffs, and 
provided insights into the flow properties of the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) tuff. With the 
exception of a well-defined fault trace, no visible fracture traces were evident in the bulk of the 
Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) tuff test bed. A series of localized liquid-release tests helped 
determine that: 
 Intake rates within a fault located in the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) decreased as more 
water was introduced into the release zone (i.e., from an initial value of approximately 
200 mL/min. to approximately 50 mL/min. after 193 L of water entered the injection 
zone). 
 The transport time of the wetting front that resulted from water released in the fault 
decreased when the fault was wet (i.e., in closely timed tests, the plume was transported 
more quickly in subsequent releases). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-19 November 2004 
 Over time, the hydrologic properties of the fault appeared to change (water was 
transported along the fault at significantly slower rates). 
 The matrix adjoining the fault imbibed water that was introduced into the fault. Changes 
in saturation were seen at distances greater than 1.0 m from the point of release. 
 The intake rates and wetting-front transport times in the matrix were significantly slower 
than they were in the fault. Water released into the matrix was observed to be 
transported 0.45 m in 14 days. 
Significant uncertainties were associated with a series of tests that were conducted that used 
relatively short durations in comparison with the duration of seepage tests in niches. 
Furthermore, the volume of water that was injected (to induce seepage and water collection in 
the slot below) was insufficient. Nevertheless, the tests provided a qualitative understanding of 
the flow through the nonwelded tuff unit, and showed that the unit had large dampening 
capacities for modulating infiltrating pulses. 
7.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF WATER-POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS 
CONDUCTED IN THREE NICHES WITHIN THE ESF MAIN DRIFT 
Psychrometer measurements in the ESF suggested significant variability in water potentials 
between and within Niche 1 (Niche 3566), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), and Niche 3 (Niche 3107). All 
three niches were in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff 
(TSw). The main observations were: 
 The effects of ventilation might have penetrated the rock to depths in excess of 3 m. 
 Two possible zones were observed to have significantly higher water potentials in 
Niche 1 (Niche 3566). The first was observed at the end of the middle borehole. The 
second was detected 6.25 m into Borehole A in Niche 1 (Niche 3566). Borehole A was 
drilled from the niche, toward the Sundance fault. 
 Large variability in water potential (-15 and -84 m) existed in the short 0.9-m distance 
between two boreholes at Niche 3 (Niche 3107). 
 At 10-m depths (i.e. in the zone unaffected by drift ventilation), Niche 1 (Niche 3566, 
with potential 0.4 to -13 m) appeared to be wetter than Niche 2 (Niche 3650, with 
potential -1 to -39 m). 
These potential measurements were taken before the bulkhead closed in Niche 1 (Niche 3566), 
and before seepage measurements in Niche 2 (Niche 3650) and in Niche 3 (Niche 3107) were 
taken. The data are presented in this report for future comparisons with potential measurements 
elsewhere in the ESF, including the ECRB Cross-Drift. 
Psychrometer measurements are sensitive to testing conditions, as discussed in Appendix G. The 
measurement uncertainties associated with water potential in the field are relatively large (see 
Appendix G) in comparison with other hydrologic measurements, such as saturation from core 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-20 November 2004 
measurements. The data from measurements taken before bulkhead closure were also greatly 
influenced by ventilation drying. The results indicate that wet conditions existed in the vicinity 
of the Sundance fault. The absolute magnitude of the water potential should only be used when 
the measurement uncertainties and test site ventilating conditions are taken into account. 
7.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF MONITORING CONSTRUCTION-WATER 
MIGRATION 
The sensors in a borehole below the starter tunnel of the ECRB Cross-Drift detected conditions 
associated with wetting-front migration. Yet no seepage was observed at the crossover point 
along the ESF main drift below the ECRB Cross-Drift. 
The ECRB Cross-Drift starter tunnel is located in the upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul) of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). The crossover point in the ESF main drift is located in the middle 
nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). 
The specific observations were: 
 A ponding event that occurred on March 8, 1998, increased water-potential values up to 
a depth of 8.65 m (17.3 m along the borehole). 
 Along the borehole, the impact of changes in water-potential values occurred at different 
locations, and at different times, during the monitoring period. Early in March 1998, the 
large impact was restricted to close to the borehole collar. By early April 1998, this 
impact was more pronounced at a depth of between 4.7 and 5.7 m (between 9.4 and 
11.4 m along the borehole). 
 One concern related to the use of a slanting borehole to measure wetting-front migration 
is the possibility of the bore cavity short-circuiting flow paths. Such a short-circuiting 
does not appear to have happened, as indicated by the analysis of recovery responses 
observed at the depth of 5.2 m. At that depth, the response to a wetting event was 
negligible when compared with other psychrometers close to (above and below) this 
location, suggesting that this zone was well-isolated (hydraulically) from the adjacent 
zones, and the wetting front did not reach it. 
 The performance of the ERPs, when compared with the performance of psychrometers, 
suggests that the probes (without any change to their design) could be effectively used as 
a qualitative tool to detect the arrival (or departure) of wetting fronts. Unlike 
psychrometers, the probes were relatively inexpensive, easy to maintain, and had a low 
failure rate. Such advantages made them particularly useful for extensive downhole 
monitoring applications in fractured-rock environments, such as found at Yucca 
Mountain. 
 At the crossover point, no seepage was observed, nor were wetting-front signals detected 
at the crossover point when the ECRB Cross-Drift tunnel boring machine (TBM) passed 
above the ESF main drift. The TBM apparently did not use enough water to induce 
dripping into the ESF main drift, located 17.5 m below it. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-21 November 2004 
In the repository at Yucca Mountain, performance-confirmation drifts are to be located above (or 
below) the waste emplacement drifts, to monitor the waste-induced impacts. It is therefore 
important to evaluate drift-to-drift migration and drift seepage, and to detect wetting fronts. The 
experience gained in the integrated monitoring station at the crossover point (with seepage 
collection trays, water-potential and wetting-front sensors, and thermal/visual imaging devices) 
can be applied to future testing and monitoring tasks. 
These observations of wetting front migrations associated with construction water usage are of a 
qualitative nature because of limited sensor sensitivities, and uncertainties in the total amount 
and rates of water used for the excavation. Nevertheless, the findings provided order-ofmagnitude 
estimates on the migration below drifts. 
7.10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF ANALYSES OF CONSTRUCTION 
EFFECTS 
Some observations of ESF moisture conditions are presented in Sections 6.10.1. The ESF main 
drift is in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). Sections 
of the ECRB Cross-Drift were sealed off by bulkheads; such sections are in the lower lithophysal 
(Tptpll) and lower nonlithophysal (Tptpln) zones of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), and the 
Solitario Canyon fault. 
The observations can be summarized as follows: 
 Shortly after drift excavation, high humidity conditions were detected near the TBM. 
 In the month after the excavation, the relative humidity gradient near the end of the ESF 
tunnel was greater than the gradient close to the entrance. 
 Construction water migration results are presented in Section 6.10.1.3 and in 
Finsterle et al. (2002 [DIRS 165415]). 
 The construction water reached a minimum depth of 30 m at a borehole outside 
Alcove 7 (Figure 6-105). 
In the ongoing moisture study of bulkheaded sections in the ECRB Cross-Drift, observations 
were as follows: 
 Water-potential measurements in boreholes suggest that the tuff matrix is still relatively 
dry to a depth of 0.5 to 1.0 m. 
 Moisture conditions (relative humidity and temperature) respond (relatively) quickly to 
bulkhead entries and TBM power fluctuations. 
 Wet spots were observed and liquid water was collected in sections and, based on 
chemical analyses of the clean water collected, the presence of water can likely be 
attributed to condensation. Isotopic signatures indicated that the collected water 
underwent an evaporation shift. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-22 November 2004 
Qualitative observations, moisture evolution data, drying profiles into the rocks, and chemical 
analyses of collected water were used to address questions regarding the origin of water (i.e., 
whether it resulted from seepage or condensation). Limitations and uncertainties in the 
supporting information prevent a conclusive determination of the origin of the observed water. 
Nevertheless, there are strong indications that the water resulted from condensation processes. 
7.11 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF SYSTEMATIC HYDROLOGIC 
CHARACTERIZATION ALONG THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT 
Hydrologic characterization of the lower lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring welded tuff 
zone (Tptpll) was initiated in the ECRB Cross-Drift, using the systematic approach of testing at 
regular intervals as described in Section 6.11 and in Cook et al. (2003 [DIRS 165424]). 
Analyses of data from several sets of tests were performed in 10 zones, using four low-angle 
boreholes. The results indicated that: 
 Small fractures (less than 1 m in length) were well connected, giving rise to 
air-permeability values on the order of 10-11 m2. The connected fractures probably 
constituted the main contribution to fast paths for liquid flow. 
 In the transient process of establishing the fast paths between the water release (at a 
vertical distance of between 1 and 5 m above the drift) and the drift ceiling, some water 
imbibed into the rock matrix, and some water seeped into the lithophysal cavities. Out 
of the available storage porosity of 0.125 of the lithophysal cavities, approximately 20 to 
50 percent participated in taking in water introduced when the rate of injection was tens 
of milliliters per minute. When the water-release rate was an order of magnitude higher, 
water flow primarily occured in the fractures, with little participation from the matrix or 
lithophysal cavities during the time required to intersect the drift. 
 Under steady-state conditions, water introduced from one to several meters above the 
drift flowed down toward the drift in preferential paths, not in a plume. A fraction of the 
water missed the drift because of nonuniform flow from fracture heterogeneity, and a 
fraction of the water was diverted around the drift because of capillary effects. The 
former component of nonintersecting flow was controlled by geometry, and was likely 
independent of the water-release rate. 
 An injection-rate estimate was made (from a borehole of a given area at a given distance 
above the drift), below which there was no seepage into the drift. Based on the 
information discussed in Section 6.11.3.3 (for Borehole LA#1), a value of 15 mL/min 
was obtained, for a projected borehole area of 0.13 m2, at an average height of 1.3 m 
above the drift. 
 Because of the low humidity inside the ECRB Cross-Drift, and because of the drift 
ventilation system, effects of evaporation must be considered when interpreting seepage 
data from systematic testing. After the completion of the first set of tests (when the 
significance of evaporation was first noted), relative humidity measurements and 
open-pan evaporation measurements were incorporated into the systematic-testing 
equipment system. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-23 November 2004 
 Systematic testing in Boreholes LA#2 and LA#1 revealed an effective porosity of 0.028 
for one-time fill cavities, 0.027 for drainable cavities, and 0.013 for fractures. 
 Systematic testing in Boreholes LA#3 and LA#4 revealed very heterogeneous responses, 
ranging from tight zones with low capacities to take up water injected into the borehole 
intervals, to a high-permeability zone in which nearly 100 percent of all injected water 
was diverted around the drift. 
DTN LB0110SYST0015.001 (computed comparisons from systematic testing) is technical 
product output from the analysis presented in Section 6.11 of this report. 
DTN LB0110SYST0015.001 was generated in 2001 for systematic testing results from raw data 
for the first two slanted boreholes drilled into the crown of the ECRB Cross-Drift, as illustrated 
in Figures 6-130 through 6-139. Later data sets include data processing, and eliminate the need 
to generate this type of technical product output. 
From the perspective of the objectives of this report, the strength of systematic testing was its 
potential to provide insight regarding how spatial heterogeneity impacts seepage, flow, and 
transport processes. Uncertainties associated with ventilation effects were a significant 
component of the testing conditions in the periodically ventilated ECRB Cross-Drift (and can be 
accounted for using pan-evaporation data). 
The systematic-testing data set was the first set available in 2001 for seepage evaluation in the 
lower lithophysal zone, and the data set was used in a later revision of the seepage calibration 
model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). 
7.12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF DRIFT-TO-DRIFT TESTS BETWEEN 
ALCOVE 8 AND NICHE 3 (NICHE 3107) 
Alcove 8 is located in the upper lithophysal tuff (Tptpul) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), 
approximately 20 m directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107) in the middle nonlithophysal zone 
(Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). Data obtained during Alcove-8/Niche-3 
(Niche 3107) testing characterizes the response of the system to releases of water under 
constant-head conditions. Specifically: 
 Infiltration rates along the fault reached quasisteady-state conditions approximately 
45 days after water was introduced to the infiltration zones, and the infiltration rates 
varied at different locations along the fault. 
 Observations of saturation changes within the fault indicated the velocity of the wetting 
front (vertically along the fault) was approximately 0.65 m/s. 
 Seepage observations indicated that quasisteady-state conditions may have been 
reached two months after the initial releases into the fault. 
 Radar data collected in support of the Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) infiltration 
experiment suggested that this method was appropriate for investigating subsurface 
anomalies that may have been related to moisture migration. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-24 November 2004 
 Experimental results indicated that matrix diffusion had an important effect on solute 
transport. 
 An observed low seepage recovery rate from the fault implied good communication 
between the fault and the surrounding fracture networks. 
 Similar tracer arrival times (corresponding to the peak concentration values) for most 
flow paths suggests that macrodispersion may not be important for solute transport in 
unsaturated fractured rock. 
 The observation of the first seepage spot in Niche 3 (Niche 3107), 21 days after water 
was introduced along the nonfaulted section of Alcove 8, suggests that wetting-front 
velocity was approximately 1.0 m/day below the large plot test bed. 
The relatively long flow distance of approximately 20 m between the injection plot in Alcove 8 
and the ceiling of Niche 3107 (Niche 3) provides possibilities for water to be diverted through 
discrete geological features (such as fractures or the contact between the upper lithophysal and 
middle nonlithophysal zones), thus bypassing the collection system in the niche. The fact that 
only a portion of the released water can be accounted for leads to confidence that the physical 
processes that were expected to impact seepage are indeed effective. However, uncertainties 
arise in the detailed interpretations, because of the lack of mass balance. 
7.13 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BUSTED BUTTE UNSATURATED 
ZONE TRANSPORT TEST 
The UZTT at Busted Butte was designed to address uncertainties associated with flow and 
transport in the UZ, particularly in the Calico Hills unit. The UZTT was comprised of three 
tightly integrated efforts: the field test, a parallel laboratory program, and assessment and 
validation of computational models. Section 6.13 and Appendix H present the results of the field 
test and associated laboratory analyses. The model assessment and validation are reported in 
Radionuclide Transport Models Under Ambient Conditions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164500]). The 
tracer sorption to vitric tuffs of Busted Butte is also described in Turin et al. 2002 
[DIRS 164633]. 
The design of the UZTT began in 1997. Injection of tracers for Phase 1 began in April 1998, and 
Phase 2 injection was completed in October 2000. The mineback excavation of Phase 2 
continued in 2001. The results provide important information regarding the UZ transport 
performance of the Calico Hills hydrologic units, and include the following main conclusions: 
 Flow and transport in the Calico Hills hydrologic units (Tac and Tptpv1) were strongly 
capillary dominated, as observed from fluorescein distributions in the Phase 1A test. 
 Fractures in the Tptpv1 and Tac zones at Busted Butte did not act as fast flow paths, as 
observed in Phase 1A; they appeared to play a role as a barrier or permeability contrast 
boundary. 
 Heterogeneity appears to have had a significant effect on flow, as observed in Phase 1A 
for layer contacts and in Phase 2 for faults. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-25 November 2004 
 Breakthrough times of nonreactive bromide were approximately linear with transport 
distance. 
 Sorption can delay chemical transport, as shown from the breakthrough curves of 
lithium. 
 Neutron moisture data corroborate plume and breakthrough data pertaining to moisture 
changes associated with injections into the test block. 
 Laboratory measurements with radionuclides were taken, to complement measurements 
taken during field tracer testing; technetium (as the pertechneate anion) moved slightly 
faster than tritiated water in a small 1-ft3 block, and at approximately the same velocity 
in a 1-m3 block (both blocks were from the Busted Butte site). 
Uncertainties exist in the degree of sorption. Note that the delay of chemical transport across the 
complex interface between the injection point in the vitrophyre and the detection point in the 
Calico Hills nonwelded (CHn) can potentially be attributed to sorption. The interface may 
introduce flow and transport processes that divert water and tracer in an unpredictable fashion. 
Some interference of grout residue in the formation may also contribute to uncertainty in the 
interpretation of fluid movement. 
7.14 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FOR GEOCHEMICAL AND ISOTOPIC 
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE UNSATURATED ZONE 
Section 6.14 and references therein describe the geochemical and isotopic observations and 
analyses of samples collected primarily along the underground drifts in the UZ of the ESF. The 
summaries are presented in the following sections: 
 Section 7.14.1 (for Section 6.14.1) addresses pore water and rock geochemistry. 
 Section 7.14.2 (for Section 6.14.2) addresses isotopic examination of 36Cl and tritium for 
potential fast flow signals, and fluid-inclusion temperature signals for thermal history, at 
Yucca Mountain. 
 Section 7.14.3 (for Section 6.14.3) addresses uranium isotopic studies of past climate 
records, and delineation of UZ flow zones. 
 Section 7.14.4 (for Section 6.14.4) addresses fracture mineral distributions and 
implications. Some model interpretations and detailed analyses are documented in cited 
references. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-26 November 2004 
7.14.1 Pore Water and Bulk Repository Rock Unit Geochemistry 
An analysis and an interpretation of pore-water data are found in Section 6.14.1.1. Rock 
chemistry in the ECRB Cross-Drift is compiled in Section 6.14.1.2. In the Topopah Spring Tuff 
(TSw), the results indicate: 
 The dissolved ion composition of pore water shows considerable stratigraphic and lateral 
variability (Table 6-37, Section 6.14.1.1). 
 The variability in major and trace elements, and in mineral contents of the rocks, is 
exceedingly small (Table 6-38, Table 6-39, Table 6-40, Section 6.14.1.2). 
The existence of pore-water variability in the repository deep underground testifies to the 
inefficiency of advective or diffusional mixing in the downward percolation of pore water. 
The rock samples from the ECRB Cross-Drift represent both lithophysal and nonlithophysal 
zones. The analyses indicate the chemical homogeneity of the phenocryst-poor rhyolite unit 
(Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw)), excluding localized deposits of vapor-phase minerals and 
low-temperature calcite and opal in fractures, cavities, and faults (Peterman and Cloke 2002 
[DIRS 162576]). 
7.14.2 Isotope Geochemical Studies 
Fast-flow paths and the thermal history at Yucca Mountain have been evaluated in 
Section 6.14.2. 
7.14.2.1 Isotope Geochemical Studies of 36Cl/Cl Signatures 
The 36Cl validation study results are briefly presented in Section 6.14.2. 
7.14.2.2 Tritium in Pore Water 
The analyses of tritium in pore water from several locations within the ESF main drift and ECRB 
Cross-Drift indicate that substantial amounts of young pore water exist: 
 In the Bow Ridge fault above the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) unit. 
 In the south ramp of the ESF, where the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) unit is faulted and 
offset. 
 In the ECRB (from 750 to 950 m along the ECRB Cross-Drift), in the upper lithophysal 
zone of the Topopah Spring welded tuff (Tptpul). 
The occurrences of young pore water in the Bow Ridge fault and in the south ramp of the ESF 
are clearly linked to the absence of the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) subunits or the inability of 
such subunits to impede downward percolation of young water at those locations. In the ECRB 
Cross-Drift, what features may provide the pathways for the percolation of young water is 
unclear. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-27 November 2004 
The distribution of young percolation water in the ESF main drift and ECRB Cross-Drift does 
not generally agree with that determined from chlorine isotopes (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1998 
[DIRS 162737]): 
 Analyses of chlorine-36 indicate significant percolation of young water at the Drill Hole 
Wash fault and Sundance fault. Only a fraction of 52 samples contained tritium-activity 
levels in excess of the 1-TU threshold that indicates the presence of young water 
(Section 6.14.2.2.2). 
 Analyses of chlorine-36 in the ESF south ramp did not identify the presence of young 
water. The majority of 23 samples contained tritium-activity levels in excess of the 
1-TU threshold (Section 6.14.2.2.2). 
It is possible that, in the Drill Hole Wash fault and Sundance fault, the pore water 
near the fractures that provided the fast pathways evaporated, due to the barometric pumping of 
relatively dry air. If this did occur, the evaporated water could leave behind chloride salts 
containing postweapons-testing isotope ratios, although the tritium evidence would evaporate 
with the water. In the ESF south ramp, where numerous samples contained post-weapons-testing 
levels of tritium, it is possible that large amounts of old chloride were dissolved during 
percolation of the young water, such that any postweapons-testing chlorine-36 ratios would be 
unrecognizable. Measurement uncertainties are discussed in Section 6.14. 
7.14.2.3 Thermal Regime 
 The sequence of thermal history at Yucca Mountain was reconstructed from depositional 
temperatures inferred from fluid inclusions, oxygen isotope evaluations, and 
uranium-thorium geochronologic studies. 
 Depositional temperatures of secondary mineral deposits in the UZ at Yucca Mountain, 
estimated from the fluid-inclusion Th, and calculated from calcite d18O values, range 
from present-day ambient to as high as 93C. 
 Coupled with depositional ages interpolated or extrapolated from uranium-lead 
geochronologic studies of associated chalcedony or opal, these temperature estimates 
demonstrate a thermal history that is generally consistent with regional heating from the 
deep magmatic sources responsible for the silicic volcanism 15 to 11 million years ago. 
 Maximum temperatures in the UZ occurred more than 10 million years ago, followed by 
slow cooling to near-modern ambient temperatures between 2 and 4 millions years ago. 
 The UZ appears to have been at or near present-day ambient temperatures for the past 
2 to 4 million years. 
 Several deposits in the ESF north ramp, however, appear to have formed at temperatures 
too high to reflect conductive heating from a magmatic heat source. These deposits are 
associated with fractures present since early cooling of the Tiva Canyon Tuff, and may 
record fumarolic activity during posteruptive cooling of the tuffs 12.7 million years ago. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-28 November 2004 
The implications are as follows: 
 None of the thermal data requires, or is consistent with, deposition from upwelling 
hydrothermal fluids. 
 The sparse and scattered distribution of the secondary mineral deposits, and their 
restriction to fracture footwalls and cavity floors, is incompatible with deposition from 
upwelling of hydrothermal fluids. Upwelling would cause local flooding of the open 
spaces, and result in a pervasive deposition of secondary minerals that is not observed. 
 The distribution and morphology, as well as the geochemical characteristics of the 
deposits, are fully consistent with deposition from meteoric waters infiltrating at the 
surface and percolating through the UZ, but at temperatures greater than modern 
ambient temperatures in the period before 4 to 2 million years ago. 
7.14.3 Uranium Studies 
Uranium isotope ratios are used to indicate past climate conditions and flow paths in the UZ in 
Section 6.14.3. 
7.14.3.1 Uranium-Series Dating 
Two methods of uranium-series dating were applied to finely laminated opal hemispheres 
formed within unsaturated felsic tuffs at Yucca Mountain: 
1. An ion microprobe was used to determine isotope compositions of 45-m-diameter 
spots on transects across two millimeter-sized opal hemispheres. 
2. In situ microdigestions were used to sequentially remove 2- to 5-m-thick layers of 
surface material. 
Both methods substantially improved spatial resolution of the analyses relative to the 
millimeter-scale subsamples analyzed previously by standard total-digestion techniques. As a 
result, the opal growth histories can be reconstructed in more detail. 
Ion-microprobe 230Th/U and model 234U/238U dates from traverses across two opal hemispheres 
indicate that: 
 Age increases progressively with microstratigraphic depth. Spots near the base of the 
hemispheres have ages of more than one million years. 
 The age-depth relations define average opal growth rates of 0.56 and 0.683 mm/Ma for 
two separate hemispheres. In situ microdigestions resulted in even finer spatial 
resolution (2 to 5 m per analysis), and the youngest dates. 
 Reliable 230Th/U dates for the outermost layers of several hemispheres range from 
6.34  0.12 to 11.6  1.4 ka. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-29 November 2004 
Sequential microdigestions from the outer 22 m of one hemisphere yielded: 
 Dates of approximately 37.1  1.6 ka, resulting in an average growth rate of 
0.68 mm/Ma. 
 Opal growth rates that appear to have been faster between approximately 25 and 40 ka 
(1.16 mm/Ma), and slower between approximately 5 and 25 ka (0.35 mm/Ma). 
 A lack of outermost opal dates younger than approximately 6 ka, and age-depth 
intercepts of 3 to 10 ka, both of which imply that opal was not deposited in the last 
several-thousand years. 
Although dates determined by these two methods do not represent the highest levels of precision, 
they are considered reliable because of the overall consistency of both ages and initial 234U/238U 
ratios in both data sets, and because of the identical average growth rates calculated for the two 
different scales of sample resolution. Collectively, these data: 
 Confirm the previously hypothesized conceptual model of continuous deposition for 
Yucca Mountain UZ secondary minerals (Neymark and Paces 2000 [DIRS 127012]; 
Neymark et al. 2000 [DIRS 162710]; and Paces et al. 2001 [DIRS 156507]). 
 Demonstrate that material is added at very slow rates from solutions seeping into 
air-filled cavities, and that these rates are likely correlated with climate-controlled 
percolation flux. 
 Imply (based on the absence of mineral growth over the last several-thousand years) that 
seepage may cease completely during the most arid parts of Pleistocene climate cycles. 
The data do not provide conclusive evidence that the growth patterns observed in opal 
hemispheres (taken from sample HD2074) are correlated with other UZ mineral deposits, and do 
not provide conclusive evidence regarding whether these patterns can be correlated more reliably 
with other climate signals. 
7.14.3.2 Uranium-series Flow Paths in the UZ 
TIMS analyses of 234U-238U-230Th-232Th in whole-rock samples confirmed earlier indications of 
234U-230Th-238U disequilibria in the Yucca Mountain UZ tuffs: 
 Results indicated that radioactive disequilibria were present as a result of both matrix 
and fracture flow, and that the degree of disequilibrium between these two environments 
is similar. 
 Results also showed systematic differences in 234U/238U and 230Th/238U ratios that are 
consistent with sample location within the UZ, and with hydrologic concepts of higher 
percolation fluxes in the shallow Bow Ridge fault zone (20 to 30 m depth) and lower 
fluxes at the repository horizon (220 to 300 m depth). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-30 November 2004 
Data from most samples of welded tuff at the repository horizon experienced lesser rates of 238U 
removal and greater loss of 234U relative to 238U. In contrast, samples from the shallow Bow 
Ridge fault zone show a higher degree of 238U loss and smaller preferential 234U loss, indicating 
isotopic evolution in an environment with greater amounts of water/rock interaction. Samples in 
the footwall block of the Bow Ridge fault zone show some evidence for uranium-gain that may 
be coupled to water/rock interactions within the fault zone. 
The amount of water/rock interaction estimated from these uranium-series data may be lower for 
rocks in the repository horizon at Yucca Mountain than they appear to be in other crystalline 
rock environments. 
Results from these samples suggest that uranium-series data may provide a tool for identifying 
zones of lesser and greater percolation flux within the Yucca Mountain UZ. These types of data 
may therefore offer a means of independently testing numerical models of flow and transport. 
7.14.4 Fracture Mineralogy 
Low-temperature deposits of calcite and opal are present in open cavities and fractures within the 
volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain. The abundances of these minerals have been estimated in 
Section 6.14.4 by surveying underground tunnels and by direct measurement of carbonate in 
borehole cuttings. Some additional details are as follows: 
 The abundances are log-normally distributed about a mean value of 0.03 percent of the 
rock volume, based on ESF line survey data. 
 The abundance of calcite and opal is generally not correlated with faults, fracture 
density, or topography, although one line survey with a large abundance is located 
beneath Drill Hole Wash, and is possibly associated with a nearby fault. 
 Both line survey data collected in the ECRB Cross-Drift, and estimates of calcite 
abundance from the nearby Borehole USW SD-6, show a decrease in calcite with 
stratigraphic depth. This is interpreted as indicating a decrease in seepage with depth 
(Marshall et al. 2003 [DIRS 162891]). 
Although little uncertainty is associated with the statistical information on mineral abundances 
and analytical techniques (see Section 6.14), correlating these abundances with percolation or 
seepage flux requires the use of additional data and supporting assumptions (see Marshall et al. 
2003 [DIRS 162891]); the resulting interpretations are thus uncertain and remain qualitative. 
7.15 HOW THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ARE ADDRESSED 
The following information describes how this report addresses the acceptance criteria in the 
Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Sections 2.2.1.3.3.3, 
2.2.1.3.6.3, and 2.2.1.3.7.3): 
 Only those acceptance criteria that are applicable to this report (see Section 4.2) are 
discussed. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-31 November 2004 
 In most cases, the applicable acceptance criteria are not addressed solely by this report; 
rather, the acceptance criteria are fully addressed when this report is considered in 
conjunction with other analysis and model reports that describe flow and transport in the 
UZ. 
 Where a subcriterion includes several components, only the applicable components are 
addressed. 
How these components are addressed is summarized in the remainder of this section. 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.3, Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting 
Engineered Barriers and Waste Forms. 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
Subcriterion (1): Data used in defining the waste emplacement environment were collected, 
described, interpreted, and synthesized as described in Sections 4, 6, and 7. Hydrologic and 
geological data contained in this report are adequately described and justified herein and in 
conjunction with the data source, in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and through 
interpretation of the conclusions based on the data analysis. Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 
describe the sources of the data. Detailed information in Sections 6.1 through 6.14 adequately 
describes the analysis and interpretation of these data. Sections 7.1 through 7.14 describe, in 
detail, the results and conclusions derived from the testing and data analysis. 
Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model 
Abstraction. 
Subcriterion (2): The parameter values and distributions are developed based on Yucca 
Mountain data from field measurements and laboratory experiments. As discussed in detail in 
Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 and Sections 6.1 through 6.14, the data are derived from direct 
studies of geological units of concern to Yucca Mountain, are developed and documented using 
appropriate scientific techniques, and are compiled by application of QA (quality assurance) 
methodologies. These data are, therefore, reasonable and technically defensible. 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.6, Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
Subcriterion (1): Sections 6.1 through 6.14 and the summaries in Sections 7.1 through 7.14 
present the hydrologic information gathered to describe the ambient flow of water in the drift 
vicinity. These sections adequately justify the choice and use of the data, and provide fully 
adequate, detailed descriptions of how the data were or can be used, interpreted and synthesized 
into parameters relating to ambient drift flow and seepage. 
Subcriterion (2): As discussed in detail in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 and Sections 6.1 
through 6.14, the data were developed using acceptable scientific techniques, and were compiled 
utilizing QA methodology. The QA program (Section 2) ensures the quality of the data used in 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-32 November 2004 
this report. Approved QA procedures identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], 
Section 4) have been used to conduct and document the activities described in this report. 
Subcriterion (5): The analyses described in Sections 6.1 through 6.14 were performed to assess 
data sufficiency and the possible need for additional data. This is exemplified in the use of the 
understanding gained from relatively short-duration Alcove 6 testing to design other tests, such 
as the Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) tests described in Section 6.12. The later tests have much 
longer durations over larger scales. 
Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model 
Abstraction: 
(Note that this report does not discuss conceptual models, process models, or abstraction models. 
The criteria discussed below thus address only a small aspect of the related issues. See relevant 
model reports for a more detailed discussion of how data uncertainty is propagated through 
model abstraction.) 
Subcriterion (5): This report documents the data and subsequent analyses from ambient 
field-testing activities performed in underground drifts through UZ tuff rock units. Coupled 
processes (such as pore-water chemical changes and fracture flow-diffusion interactions) are 
incorporated into the data through the experimental results. 
Subcriterion (6): Uncertainties in the characteristics of the natural system are considered in the 
detailed evaluations included in this report. The summaries of measurement results and 
uncertainties are discussed in Sections 6.1 through 6.14. The results of this report (summarized 
in Sections 7.1 through 7.14) provide data for, and analyze uncertainties that could propagate 
through, UZ process and abstraction models (see Section 7 for a listing of model reports and 
abstractions that use this data). 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.7, Radionuclide Transport in the Unsaturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification: 
Subcriterion (1): Data used in defining the waste emplacement environment are collected, 
described, interpreted, and synthesized as described in Sections 4, 6, and 7. Hydrologic and 
geological data described in this report are adequately described and justified in defining the data 
source, in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and through interpretation of the 
conclusions based on the data analysis. Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 describe the sources of the 
data. Detailed information in Sections 6.1 through 6.14 adequately describes the analysis and 
interpretation of these data. Sections 7.1 through 7.14 describe, in detail, the results and 
conclusions derived from the testing and data analysis. 
Subcriterion (3): The parameter values and distributions are developed based on Yucca 
Mountain data from field measurements, laboratory experiments, and natural analogue research 
(Sections 6.1 through 6.14). As discussed in detail in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 and 
Sections 6.1 through 6.14, the data reflect the characteristics of Yucca Mountain structural 
features, fracture distributions, fracture properties, and stratigraphy; are developed using 
appropriate scientific techniques; and are compiled utilizing QA methodology. Summaries are 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-33 November 2004 
presented in Sections 7.1 through 7.14 for various activities for data sufficiency, and are carried 
out as discussed in Sections 6.1 through 6.14. 
Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model 
Abstraction: 
(Note that this report does not discuss conceptual models, process models, or abstraction models. 
The criteria discussed below thus address only a small aspect of the related issues. See relevant 
model reports for a more detailed discussion of how data uncertainty is propagated through 
model abstraction.) 
Subcriterion (2): Estimated flow and transport parameter values and distributions are developed 
based on Yucca Mountain data from field measurements (including air-injection tests, moisture 
monitoring, and liquid-release tests (Sections 6.1 through 6.13)), laboratory experiments 
(experiments on core borings and laboratory radionuclide transport data), and test data at 
analogue sites (data from the test block at Busted Butte (Section 6.13.6) and isotopic 
observations and analysis (Section 6.14)). As discussed in detail in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 
and Sections 6.1 through 6.14, the data reflect the characteristics of Yucca Mountain UZ 
structural features, fracture distributions, fracture properties, and stratigraphy; are developed 
using appropriate scientific techniques; and are compiled utilizing QA methodology. The 
parameters developed in this report are, therefore, appropriate and valid for the UZ at Yucca 
Mountain. 
Subcriterion (4): Parameters developed in this report have been adequately analyzed for 
uncertainties pertaining to sampling or measurement errors, analytical uncertainties, scaling 
uncertainties, and uncertainties in laboratory measurements. These analyses are noted in the 
detailed discussions in Sections 6.1 through 6.14, and in the summaries presented in Sections 7.1 
through 7.14. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-34 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-1 November 2004 
8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
The following is a list of the references cited in this document. Column 2 represents the unique 
six-digit numerical identifier (the Document Input Reference System [DIRS] number), which is 
placed in the text following the reference callout (e.g., BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]). The purpose 
of these numbers is to assist the reader in locating a specific reference. Within the reference list, 
multiple sources by the same author (e.g., BSC 2004) are sorted alphabetically by title. 
8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
Andreini, M.S. and Steenhuis, T.S. 1990. Preferential Paths of Flow Under 
Conventional and Conservation Tillage. Geoderma, 46, 85-102. Amsterdam, 
The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 245381. 
106071 
Axelrod, D.I. 1979. Age and Origin of Sonoran Desert Vegetation. Occasional 
Papers of the California Academy of Sciences. Number 132. San Francisco, 
California: California Academy of Sciences. TIC: 218991. 
161531 
Barr, D.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Singleton, W.L.; Albin, A.L.; Lung, R.C.; Lee, A.C.; Beason, 
S.C.; and Eatman, G.L.W. 1996. Geology of the North Ramp  Stations 4+00 to 
28+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0496. 
100029 
Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Environmental Science Series. 
Biswas, A.K., ed. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 217356. 
156269 
Beason, S.C.; Turlington, G.A.; Lung, R.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; Ryter, D.; and Barr, D.L. 
1996. Geology of the North Ramp - Station 0+60 to 4+00, Exploratory Studies 
Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0449. 
101191 
Benson, L. and Klieforth, H. 1989. Stable Isotopes in Precipitation and Ground 
Water in the Yucca Mountain Region, Southern Nevada: Paleoclimatic Implications. 
Aspects of Climate Variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas. Peterson, 
D.H., ed.. Geophysical Monograph 55. Pages 41-59. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 224413. 
104370 
Bish, D.L. and Vaniman, D.T. 1985. Mineralogic Summary of Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. LA-10543-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19950412.0041. 
101196 
Bodvarsson, G.S. and Bandurraga, T.M., eds. 1996. Development and Calibration of 
the Three-Dimensional Site-Scale Unsaturated Zone Model of Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. LBNL-39315. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970701.0692. 
100102
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-2 November 2004 
Bouwer, H. 1966. Rapid Field Measurement of Air Entry Value and Hydraulic 
Conductivity of Soil as Significant Parameters in Flow System Analysis. Water 
Resources Research, 2, (4), 729-738. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 225260. 
155682 
Braester, C. 1973. Moisture Variation at the Soil Surface and the Advance of the 
Wetting Front During Infiltration at Constant Flux. Water Resources Research, 9, (3), 
687-694. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 242383. 
106088 
Broxton, D.E.; Chipera, S.J.; Byers, F.M., Jr.; and Rautman, C.A. 1993. Geologic 
Evaluation of Six Nonwelded Tuff Sites in the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain, Nevada for a 
Surface-Based Test Facility for the Yucca Mountain Project. LA-12542-MS. 
Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: 
NNA.19940224.0128. 
107386 
Broxton, D.E.; Warren, R.G.; Byers, F.M.; and Scott, R.B. 1989. Chemical and 
Mineralogic Trends Within the Timber MountainOasis Valley Caldera Complex, 
Nevada: Evidence for Multiple Cycles of Chemical Evolution in a Long-Lived Silicic 
Magma System. Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, (B5), 5961-5985. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 225928. 
100024 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Test Plan for: Moisture Monitoring in the 
ECRB Bulkheaded Cross Drift. SITP-02-UZ-001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20011018.0011. 
158187 
BSC 2001. Test Plan for: Niche 5 Seepage Testing. SITP-02-UZ-002 REV 00. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020117.0200. 
158200 
BSC 2001. Test Plan for: Systematic Hydrological Testing in the ECRB Cross Drift. 
SITP-02-UZ-004 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020128.0432. 
158202 
BSC 2002. Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative Conceptual 
Models, Model Abstractions, and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System 
Performance Assessment for the License Application. TDR-WIS-PA-000008 REV 00 
ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020904.0002. 
158794 
BSC 2002. Test Plan for the Unsaturated Zone Transport Test at Busted Butte, 
Nevada. SITP-02-UZ-006 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020509.0352. 
158459 
BSC 2002. Test Plan for: Alcove 8 Flow & Seepage Testing. SITP-02-UZ-003 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020204.0144. 
157606 
BSC 2002. Test Plan for: Moisture Monitoring Investigations and Alcove 7 Studies. 
SITP-02-UZ-010 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020117.0199. 
158189
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-3 November 2004 
BSC 2002. Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20020923.0175. 
160146 
BSC 2004. Abstraction of Drift Seepage. MDL-NBS-HS-000019 REV 01. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20041103.0003. 
169131 
BSC 2004. Analysis of Hydrologic Properties Data. ANL-NBS-HS-000042 REV 00. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20041005.0004. 
170038 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Emplacement Drift Configuration and Environment. 
800-IED-MGR0-00201-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040326.0001. 
168489 
BSC 2004. Features, Events, and Processes in UZ Flow and Transport. 
ANL-NBS-MD-000001, Rev. 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
170012 
BSC 2004. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 
02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040827.0008. 
170029 
BSC 2004. Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report. MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040908.0006. 
170031 
BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 
168361 
BSC 2004. Radionuclide Transport Models Under Ambient Conditions. MDL-NBSHS-
000008 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
DOC.20041101.0002. 
164500 
BSC 2004. Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data. 
MDL-NBS-HS-000004 REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040922.0003. 
171764 
BSC 2004. Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse. MDL-NBS-HS-000002 
REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040922.0008. 
167652 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Performance Assessment Unsaturated Zone. 
TWP-NBS-HS-000003 REV 02 Errata 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20030102.0108; DOC.20040121.0001. 
167969 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Evaluation of Analysis 
and Model Reports Supporting the TSPA-LA. TWP-MGR-PA-000014 REV 00 ICN 
01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040603.0001. 
169653

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-5 November 2004 
Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-98-015, Busted Butte Pad 
Processing Notebook # 1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-161-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20001219.0002. 
165310 
Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-98-016, Busted Butte Project 
Sample Tracking Forms. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-163-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20000926.0192. 
165311 
Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-98-017, Busted Butte Project 
IC/ICPAES Notebook. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-136-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20001023.0241. 
165303 
Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-98-018, Busted Butte Project 
Microscopy Notebook. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-133-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20000926.0199. 
165301 
Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-99-003, Busted Butte ICPMS. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-192-V1. ACC: MOL.20000926.0201. 
165319 
Bussod, G.; Turin, H.J.; and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. Busted Butte Tracer Preparation 
Notebook #1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-145-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20000710.0325; MOL.19991109.0060. 
165305 
Bussod, G.; Turin, H.J.; and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-99-004; YMP 
Busted Butte Sorption. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-191-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20001219.0012. 
165317 
Bussod, G.Y. 1998. Busted Butte On-Site Logbook #1, UZ Transport Field Test 
(LA-EES-5-NBK-98-010). Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-040-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20000321.0288. 
149129 
Bussod, G.Y. and Stockton, J. 1999. J. Stockton SEA-YMP Notebook #1. Scientific 
Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-043-V1. ACC: MOL.19990719.0103; 
MOL.19991109.0114. 
165324 
Bussod, G.Y. and Turin, H.J. 2001. LA-CST-NBK-98-004, Busted Butte Collection 
Pad Notebook. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-199-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20010718.0258. 
165321 
Bussod, G.Y. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-EES-5-NBK-98-019, UZTT Cylinder 
Volume Notebook - Phase 1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-228-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20000926.0182; MOL.20001219.0023. 
165364 
Bussod, G.Y.; Coen, K.; and Eckhardt, R.C. 1998. LA Testing Status Report: Busted 
Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test FY 98. SPU85M4. Los Alamos, New Mexico: 
Los Alamos National Laboratory. TIC: 246363. 
131513
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-6 November 2004 
Bussod, G.Y.; Turin, H.J.; and Lowry, W.E. 1999. Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone 
Transport Test: Fiscal Year 1998 Status Report. LA-13670-SR. Los Alamos, 
New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. TIC: 250657. 
155695 
Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. 
TER-MGR-MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 
166275 
Carlos, B.A.; Chipera, S.J.; Bish, D.L.; and Craven, S.J. 1993. Fracture-Lining 
Manganese Oxide Minerals in Silicic Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, U.S.A. 
Chemical Geology, 107, 47-69. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. 
TIC: 208629. 
105210 
Cheng, H.; Edwards, R.L.; Hoff, J.; Gallup, C.D.; Richards, D.A.; and Asmerom, Y. 
2000. The Half-Lives of Uranium-234 and Thorium-230. Chemical Geology, 169, 
17-33. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 249205. 
153475 
Chipera, S.J.; Vaniman, D.T.; and Bish, D.L. 1996. Zeolite Abundances and the 
Vitric-to-Zeolitic Transition in Drill Holes USW SD-7, 9, and 12, Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. LA-EES-1-TIP-96-005. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970407.0339. 
101331 
Clark, I.D. and Fritz, P. 1997. Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology. Boca Raton, 
Florida: Lewis Publishers. TIC: 233503. 
105738 
Cook, P. 2000. In Situ Pneumatic Testing at Yucca Mountain. International 
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37, (1-2), 357-367. New York, 
New York: Pergamon. TIC: 254967. 
165411 
Cook, P. 2001. Drift Scale Seepage Test. Scientific Notebook 
YMP-LBNL-JSW-PJC-6.2. ACC: MOL.20011105.0080. 
156902 
Cook, P.J.; Salve, R.; Freifeld, B.M.; and Tsang, Y.T. 2003. Measurement System 
for Systematic Hydrological Characterization of Unsaturated Fractured Welded Tuff in 
a Mined Underground Tunnel. Ground Water, 41, (4), 449-457. Westerville, Ohio: 
National Ground Water Association. TIC: 211670. 
165424 
Coplen, T.B.; Hopple, J.A.; Bhlke, J.K.; Peiser, H.S.; Rieder, S.E.; Krouse, H.R.; 
Rosman, K.J.R.; Ding, T.; Vocke, R.D., Jr.; Rvsz, K.M.; Lamberty, A.; Taylor, P.; 
and De Bivre, P. 2003. Compilation of Minimum and Maximum Isotope Ratios of 
Selected Elements in Naturally Occurring Terrestrial Materials and Reagents. 
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4222. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological 
Survey. TIC: 255203. 
165235
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-7 November 2004 
CRWMS (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System) M&O (Management and 
Operating Contractor) 1999. Exploratory Studies Facility, Cross Drift Alcove #8 Plan 
and Sections. BABEAF000-01717-2100-40312 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990608.0041. 
156876 
CRWMS M&O 2001. Unsaturated Zone and Saturated Zone Transport Properties 
(U0100). ANL-NBS-HS-000019 REV 00 ICN 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS 
M&O. ACC: MOL.20010201.0026. 
154024 
Daily, B. and Buettner, M. 2002. Electrical Resistance Tomography at the 
Unsaturated Zone Transport Test at Busted Butte. Scientific Notebook 
SN-LLNL-SCI-421-V1. ACC: MOL.20010522.0183; MOL.20020418.0126. 
165380 
Descour, J.M.; Hanna, K.; Conover, D.; and Hoekstra, B. 2001. Seismic Tomography 
Technology for the Water Infiltration Experiment. TDR-EBS-MD-000017 REV 00. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20010508.0194. 
156869 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Total System Performance Assessment. 
Volume 3 of Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE/RW-0508. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: MOL.19981007.0030. 
100550 
Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Experiment General Laboratory Notebook - 3. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-208-V3. ACC: MOL.20021023.0183. 
165362 
Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 6. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V6. ACC: MOL.20021104.0186. 
165333 
Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook-5. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V5. ACC: MOL.20020827.0022. 
165330 
Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
10. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V10. ACC: MOL.20020827.0025. 
165338 
Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
11. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V11. ACC: MOL.20021023.0178. 
165340 
Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
12. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V12. ACC: MOL.20030313.0074. 
165344 
Drew, D. 2003. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 7. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V7. ACC: MOL.20030717.0441. 
165335 
Drew, D. 2003. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory 
Notebook - 13. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V13. 
ACC: MOL.20030904.0343. 
165346
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-8 November 2004 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Experiment General Notebook - 1. Scientific 
Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-208-V1. ACC: MOL.20010830.0390. 
165360 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Experiment General Notebook - 2. Scientific 
Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-208-V2. ACC: MOL.20011219.0336. 
165361 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Field Notebook - 1. Scientific Notebook 
SN-LANL-SCI-205-V1. ACC: MOL.20010716.0243. 
166105 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 1. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V1. ACC: MOL.20010830.0375. 
165323 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook -2. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V2. ACC: MOL.20011219.0343. 
165325 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory 
Notebook - 1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20010830.0387. 
165336 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
2. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V2. ACC: MOL.20010830.0378. 
165348 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
3. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V3. ACC: MOL.20010830.0380. 
165349 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
4. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V4. ACC: MOL.20010910.0212. 
165350 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
5. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V5. ACC: MOL.20010910.0214. 
165351 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
6. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V6. ACC: MOL.20011219.0346. 
165352 
Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
7. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V7. ACC: MOL.20020417.0399. 
165354 
Drew, D.J. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 4. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V4. ACC: MOL.20020628.0360. 
165328 
Drew, D.J. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook -3. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V3. ACC: MOL.20020625.0175. 
165326 
Drew, D.J. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
8. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V8. ACC: MOL.20020625.0181. 
165356 
Drew, D.J. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 
9. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V9. ACC: MOL.20020625.0178. 
165358
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-9 November 2004 
Dublyansky, Y.; Ford, D.; and Reutski, V. 2001. Traces of Epigenetic Hydrothermal 
Activity at Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Preliminary Data on the Fluid Inclusion and 
Stable Isotope Evidence. Chemical Geology, 173, (1-3), 125-149. New York, 
New York: Elsevier. TIC: 253849. 
161543 
Dublyansky, Y.; Reutsky, V.; and Shugurova, N. 1996. Fluid Inclusions in Calcite 
from the Yucca Mountain Exploratory Tunnel. Sixth Biennial Pan American 
Conference on Research in Fluid Inclusions, May 30 - June 1, 1996. Brown, P.E. and 
Hagemann, S.G., eds. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Geology, University of 
Wisconsin. TIC: 237704. 
109204 
Dunn, S. 2001. LA-EES-5-NBK-98-012: SEA: S. Salvit-Dunn, 03/23/98, SEA-YMP 
Lab Notebook #1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-042-V1. 
ACC: MOL.19991109.0078; MOL.20011119.0378; MOL.20011119.0379; 
MOL.20011119.0380. 
165297 
Fabryka-Martin, J.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Dixon, P.R.; Levy, S.; Musgrave, J.; and Turin, 
H.J. 1996. Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies: Sampling, Analysis and 
Simulation of Chlorine-36 in the Exploratory Studies Facility. Milestone 3783M. 
Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.19970103.0047. 
144839 
Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; Turin, H.J.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Brenner, D.L.; Dixon, P.R.; and 
Musgrave, J.A. 1998. Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies as of August 1996. 
LA-13458-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.20031119.0395. 
162737 
Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Dixon, P.R.; Levy, S.S.; Musgrave, J.A.; and 
Turin, H.J. 1997. Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies: Sampling, Analysis, and 
Simulation of Chlorine-36 in the Exploratory Studies Facility. LA-13352-MS. 
Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.19980812.0254. 
100145 
Farnham, I.M.; Meigs, L.C.; Dominguez, M.E.; Lindley, K.; Daniels, J.M.; and 
Stetzenbach, K.J. 2000. Evaluation of Tracers Used for the WIPP Tracer Tests. 
Appendix H of Interpretations of Tracer Tests Performed in the Culebra Dolomite at 
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site. Meigs, L.C.; Beauheim, R.L.; and Jones, T.L., 
eds. SAND97-3109. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. 
TIC: 255153. 
165254 
Faure, G. 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology. 2nd Edition. New York, New York: 
John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 237212. 
105559 
Finsterle, S.; Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; and Wang, J.S.Y. 2002. Migration of a Water 
Pulse Through Fractured Porous Media. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 54, 
(1-2), 37-57. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254968. 
165415
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-10 November 2004 
Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; Kwicklis, E.M.; and Fabryka-Martin, J. 
2001. Evolution of the Conceptual Model of Unsaturated Zone Hydrology at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. Journal of Hydrology, 247, (1-2), 1-30. New York, New York: 
Elsevier. TIC: 250932. 
156351 
Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E.; Kwicklis, E.M.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; and Fabryka-Martin, J.M. 
2001. Hydrology of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Reviews of Geophysics, 39, (4), 
447-470. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 254964. 
164506 
Flint, A.L.; Hevesi, J.A.; and Flint, L.E. 1996. Conceptual and Numerical Model of 
Infiltration for the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada. Milestone 3GUI623M. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970409.0087. 
100147 
Flint, L. 2001. Busted Butte Hydrologic Properties. Scientific Notebook 
SN-USGS-SCI-117-V1. ACC: MOL.20020214.0398. 
165381 
Flint, L. 2001. Busted Butte Hydrologic Properties. Scientific Notebook 
SN-USGS-SCI-117-V2. ACC: MOL.20020214.0399. 
165382 
Flint, L.; Hudson, D.; and Kostalek, T. 2002. Busted Butte Hydrologic Properties. 
Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-117-V3. ACC: MOL.20020926.0130. 
165383 
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. 
100033 
Flood, T.P.; Vogel, T.A.; and Schuraytz, B.C. 1989. Chemical Evolution of a 
Magmatic System: The Paintbrush Tuff, Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field. Journal 
of Geophysical Research, 94, (B5), 5943-5960. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 235505. 
164636 
Forester, R.M.; Bradbury, J.P.; Carter, C.; Elvidge-Tuma, A.B.; Hemphill, M.L.; 
Lundstrom, S.C.; Mahan, S.A.; Marshall, B.D.; Neymark, L.A.; Paces, J.B.; Sharpe, 
S.E.; Whelan, J.F.; and Wigand, P.E. 1999. The Climatic and Hydrologic History of 
Southern Nevada During the Late Quaternary. Open-File Report 98-635. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 245717. 
109425 
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 
Prentice-Hall. TIC: 217571. 
101173 
Gascoyne, M. 2003. Soluble Salts in the Yucca Mountain Tuff and their 
Significance. Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste 
Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. 
Pages 340-347. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254202. 
162716
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-11 November 2004 
Gascoyne, M. and Schwarcz, H.P. 1986. Radionuclide Migration over Recent 
Geologic Time in a Granitic Pluton. Chemical Geology, 59, 75-85. New York, New 
York: Elsevier. TIC: 254779. 
164720 
Gascoyne, M.; Miller, N.H.; and Neymark, L.A. 2002. Uranium-Series 
Disequilibrium in Tuffs from Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as Evidence of Pore-Fluid 
Flow Over the Last Million Years. Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 781-792. 
New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 251901. 
154800 
Geldon, A.L.; Umari, A.M.A.; Fahy, M.F.; Earle, J.D.; Gemmell, J.M.; and Darnell, J. 
1997. Results of Hydraulic and Conservative Tracer Tests in Miocene Tuffaceous 
Rocks at the C-Hole Complex, 1995 to 1997, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. 
Milestone SP23PM3. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19980122.0412. 
100397 
Ghuman, B.S. and Prihar, S.S. 1980. Chloride Displacement by Water in 
Homogeneous Columns of Three Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44, 
(1), 17-21. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America. TIC: 246698. 
106099 
Grim, R.E. 1968. Clay-Water System. Clay Mineralogy. 2nd Edition. Pages 
234-277. New York, New York: McGraw Hill. TIC: 247447. 
164642 
GSA (Geological Society of America) 1995. Rock Color Chart with Genuine 
Munsell Color Chips. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 242285. 
105787 
Guertal, W. 2001. Seepage into Alcove 1. Scientific Notebook 
SN-USGS-SCI-108-V1. ACC: MOL.20011219.0325. 
164070 
Guertal, W. and Flint, A. 2000. ESF Niche Studies. Scientific Notebook 
SN-USGS-SCI-110-V1. ACC: MOL.20000512.0035. 
165384 
Haga, M. 2001. Marc Haga Busted Butte Personal Laboratory Notebook. Scientific 
Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-253-V1. ACC: MOL.20020128.0171. 
165369 
Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. San Diego, California: Academic Press. 
TIC: 254422. 
165404 
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. New York, New York: Academic 
Press. TIC: 215655. 
101134 
Hinds, J. 2000. Percolation and Seepage. Scientific Notebook 
YMP-LBNL-JSW-JJH-1. ACC: MOL.20000307.0066; MOL.20000419.0645. 
156557 
Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1. 
ACC: MOL.19991013.0463. 
156539
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-12 November 2004 
Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1A. 
ACC: MOL.20000107.0345. 
156540 
Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1B. 
ACC: MOL.20000107.0346. 
156541 
Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1C. 
ACC: MOL.19991210.0212. 
156542 
Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1D. 
ACC: MOL.19991013.0467. 
155691 
Hu, M.Q. 2000. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1E. 
ACC: MOL.19991013.0468; MOL.20010201.0419. 
156473 
Hu, Q.; Kneafsey, T.J.; Trautz, R.C.; and Wang, J.S.Y. 2002. Tracer Penetration into 
Welded Tuff Matrix from Flowing Fractures. Vadose Zone Journal, 1, (1), 102-112. 
Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America. TIC: 254966. 
165412 
Hu, Q.; Salve, S.; Stringfellow, W.T.; and Wang, J.S.Y. 2001. Field 
Tracer-Transport Tests in Unsaturated Fractured Tuff. Journal of Contaminant 
Hydrology, 51, (1-2), 1-12. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254969. 
165413 
Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. 
Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V1. ACC: MOL.20020513.0380. 
165385 
Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. 
Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V2. ACC: MOL.20020513.0381. 
165386 
Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. 
Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V3. ACC: MOL.20020513.0382. 
165387 
Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. 
Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V5. ACC: MOL.20020920.0307. 
166103 
Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. 
Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V6. ACC: MOL.20030106.0357. 
165389 
Hudson, D. 2003. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. 
Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V7. ACC: MOL.20030402.0103. 
165390
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-13 November 2004 
Hudson, D. and Guertal, W. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and 
Tracer Testing. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V4. 
ACC: MOL.20020513.0383. 
165388 
Hudson, D.B. 2002. Bulkhead Moisture Monitoring in the Cross Drift. Scientific 
Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-133-V1. ACC: MOL.20021125.0122. 
163398 
Hudson, D.B. 2002. Moisture Monitoring in the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) 
and Cross Drift. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-128-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20020520.0349. 
165391 
Hudson, D.B. 2002. Moisture Monitoring in the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) 
and Cross Drift. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-128-V2. 
ACC: MOL.20021125.0124. 
165392 
Hudson, D.B. 2003. Bulkhead Moisture Monitoring in the Cross Drift. Scientific 
Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-133-V2. ACC: MOL.20030711.0158. 
165393 
Hudson, D.B. 2003. Moisture Monitoring in the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) 
and Cross Drift. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-128-V3. 
ACC: MOL.20030821.0214. 
165273 
Jaffey, A.H.; Flynn, K.F.; Glendenin, L.E.; Bentley, W.C.; and Essling, A.M. 1971. 
Precision Measurement of Half-Lives and Specific Activities of 235U and 238U. 
Physical Review C, 4, (5), 1889-1906. Ridge, New York: American Institute of 
Physics. TIC: 254712. 
164637 
Kasnavia, T.; Vu, D.; and Sabatini, D.A. 1999. Fluorescent Dye and Media 
Properties Affecting Sorption and Tracer Selection. Ground Water, 37, (3), 376-381. 
Westerville, Ohio: Association of Ground Water Scientists & Engineers. 
TIC: 254708. 
164629 
Kaufman, A. 1969. The Th232 Concentration of Surface Ocean Water. Geochimica 
et Cosmochimica Acta, 33, (6), 717-724. New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 254837. 
164722 
Kearney, M.L.; Wolfsberg, L.E.; Groffman, A.R.; Jones, C.L.; and Turin, H.J. 2000. 
Solubility of Rare Earth Elements and Transition Metals as a Function of Increasing 
pH During Unsaturated-Zone Transport Tests at Busted Butte, Nevada. Abstracts 
with Programs - Geological Society of America, 32, (7), A-209. Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of America. TIC: 249113. 
165255 
Klinkenberg, L.J. 1942. The Permeability of Porous Media to Liquids and Gases. 
Drilling and Production Practice 1941. New York, New York: American Petroleum 
Institute. TIC: 217454. 
106105
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-14 November 2004 
Kurzmack, M.; LeCain, G.D.; and Hudson, D. 2002. Relative Humidity, Pressure, 
and Temperature Values from the Ghost Dance Fault Alcove 7, Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 34, (6), 59. 
Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 254868. 
162333 
LeCain, G.D. 1995. Pneumatic Testing in 45-Degree-Inclined Boreholes in Ash-Flow 
Tuff Near Superior, Arizona. Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4073. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19960715.0083. 
101700 
LeCain, G.D. 1998. Results from Air-Injection and Tracer Testing in the Upper Tiva 
Canyon, Bow Ridge Fault, and Upper Paintbrush Contact Alcoves of the Exploratory 
Studies Facility, August 1994 through July 1996, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4058. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: MOL.19980625.0344. 
100052 
LeCain, G.D.; Lu, N.; and Kurzmack, M. 2002. Use of Temperature, Pressure, and 
Water Potential Data to Estimate Infiltration and Monitor Percolation in Pagany Wash 
Associated with the Winter of 199798 El Nio Precipitation, Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4035. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. TIC: 252641. 
158511 
Levy, S.; Chipera, S.; WoldeGabriel, G.; Fabryka-Martin, J.; Roach, J.; and Sweetkind, 
D. 1999. Flow-Path Textures and Mineralogy in Tuffs of the Unsaturated Zone. 
Faults and Subsurface Fluid Flow in the Shallow Crust. Geophysical Monograph 113. 
159-183. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 254128. 
162740 
Levy, S.S. 2001. LA-EES-1-NBK-94-002, Mineralogic/Petrologic/Structural Studies 
in Support of Unsaturated Zone Flow and Transport Test. Scientific Notebook 
SN-LANL-SCI-220-V1. ACC: MOL.20010705.0124. 
165363 
Levy, S.S. 2002. Busted Butte Applicability Studies. Scientific Notebook 
SN-LANL-SCI-256-V1. ACC: MOL.20021104.0185. 
165370 
Lipman, P.W. and McKay, E.J. 1965. Geologic Map of the Topopah Spring SW 
Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-439. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 212352. 
104158 
Lipman, P.W.; Christiansen, R.L.; and OConnor, J.T. 1966. A Compositionally 
Zoned Ash-Flow Sheet in Southern Nevada. Professional Paper 524-F. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 219972. 
100773 
Liu, H-H.; Haukwa, C.B.; Ahlers, C.F.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; Flint, A.L.; and Guertal, 
W.B. 2003. Modeling Flow and Transport in Unsaturated Fractured Rock: An 
Evaluation of the Continuum Approach. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 
173-188. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254205. 
162470
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-15 November 2004 
Lowry, W. 2001. LA-EES-5-NBK-98-016; SEA: W.Lowry, 03/23/98, SEA-YMP, 
Lab Notebook #1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-046-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20011212.0024. 
164632 
Lundstrom, S.C.; Paces, J.B.; and Mahan, S.M. 1996. Late Quaternary History of 
Fortymile Wash, Southern Nevada: A Record of Geomorphic Response to Climate 
Change in the Yucca Mountain Region. Abstracts with Programs - Geological 
Society of America, 28, (7), A-552. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of 
America. TIC: 247474. 
136523 
Marshall, B.D. and Futa, K. 2003. Strontium in Pore Water from the Topopah Spring 
Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level 
Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, 
Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 373-376. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear 
Society. TIC: 254204. 
162717 
Marshall, B.D. and Whelan, J.F. 2000. Isotope Geochemistry of Calcite Coatings and 
the Thermal History of the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Abstracts 
with Programs - Geological Society of America, 32, (7), A-259. Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of America. TIC: 249113. 
154415 
Marshall, B.D. and Whelan, J.F. 2001. Simulating the Thermal History of the 
Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Abstracts with Programs - Geological 
Society of America, 33, (6), A-375. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of 
America. TIC: 252701. 
163591 
Marshall, B.D.; Neymark, L.A.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2003. Estimation of Past 
Seepage Volumes from Calcite Distribution in the Topopah Spring Tuff, Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 237-247. New York, 
New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254210. 
162891 
Marshall, B.D.; Neymark, L.A.; Paces, J.B.; Peterman, Z.E.; and Whelan, J.F. 2000. 
Seepage Flux Conceptualized from Secondary Calcite in Lithophysal Cavities in the 
Topopah Spring Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SME Annual Meeting, February 28- 
March 1, 2000, Salt Lake City, Utah. Preprint 00-12. Littleton, Colorado: Society for 
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. TIC: 248608. 
151018 
Marshall, B.D.; Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Whelan, J.F.; and Peterman, Z.E. 1998. 
Secondary Minerals Record Past Percolation Flux at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Eighth International 
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. Pages 127-129. La Grange Park, 
Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 237082. 
107415 
Mongano, G.S.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Beason, S.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; Albin, 
A.L.; and Lung, R.C. 1999. Geology of the ECRB Cross Drift - Exploratory Studies 
Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Deliverable SPG42GM3. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20000324.0614. 
149850
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-16 November 2004 
Moyer, T.C. and Geslin, J.K. 1995. Lithostratigraphy of the Calico Hills Formation 
and Prow Pass Tuff (Crater Flat Group) at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File 
Report 94-460. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19941208.0003. 
101269 
Moyer, T.C.; Geslin, J.K.; and Flint, L.E. 1996. Stratigraphic Relations and 
Hydrologic Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Nonwelded (PTn) Hydrologic Unit, 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File Report 95-397. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970204.0216. 
100162 
Muskat, M. 1982. The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids through Porous Media. Boston, 
Massachusetts: International Human Resources Development Corporation. 
TIC: 208295. 
134132 
Neymark, L.A. and Amelin, Y. 2002. Extreme U-Th-Pb Fractionation Among 
Hydrogenic Fracture-Coating Minerals in Felsic Tuffs at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 
USA: Implications for Geochronology. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 66, 
(15A), Page A552. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 254805. 
164725 
Neymark, L.A. and Paces, J.B. 2000. Consequences of Slow Growth for 230Th/U 
Dating of Quaternary Opals, Yucca Mountain, NV, USA. Chemical Geology, 164, 
(1-2), 143-160. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 246316. 
127012 
Neymark, L.A.; Amelin, Y.; Paces, J.B.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2002. U-Pb Ages of 
Secondary Silica at Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Implications for the Paleohydrology of 
the Unsaturated Zone. Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 709-734. New York, 
New York: Elsevier. TIC: 252598. 
158673 
Neymark, L.A.; Amelin, Y.V.; and Paces, J.B. 2000. 206Pb230Th234U238U and 
207Pb235U Geochronology of Quaternary Opal, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 64, (17), 2913-2928. New York, New York: 
Pergamon. TIC: 253360. 
162710 
Neymark, L.A.; Amelin, Y.V.; Paces, J.B.; and Peterman, Z.E. 1998. U-Pb Age 
Evidence for Long-Term Stability of the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain. 
High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Eighth International 
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. Pages 85-87. La Grange Park, 
Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 237082. 
109140 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 
Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
163274 
Oldenburg, C. 2000. Percolation and Seepage. Scientific Notebook 
YMP-LBNL-JSW-CMO-1. ACC: MOL.20000922.0075. 
156558
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-17 November 2004 
Ostlund, H.G. 1987. Tritium. Volume 7 of GEOSECS Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian 
Ocean Expeditions. Shorebased Data and Graphics. Pages 7-10. Washington, D.C.: 
National Science Foundation. TIC: 254317. 
163335 
Paces, J.B. and Neymark, L.A. 2003. U-Series Disequilibrium as a Test for 
Unsaturated-Zone Hydrologic Models at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Proceedings of 
the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference 
(IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 27-38. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254201. 
162900 
Paces, J.B. and Whelan, J.F. 2001. Water-Table Fluctuations in the Amargosa 
Desert, Nye County, Nevada. Back to the Future - Managing the Back End of the 
Nuclear Fuel Cycle to Create a More Secure Energy Future, Proceedings of the 9th 
International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), 
Las Vegas, Nevada, April 29-May 3, 2001. La Grange Park, Illinois: American 
Nuclear Society. TIC: 247873. 
154724 
Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Marshall, B.D.; Whelan, J.F.; and Peterman, Z.E. 1998. 
Inferences for Yucca Mountain Unsaturated-Zone Hydrology from Secondary 
Minerals. High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Eighth 
International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. Pages 36-39. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 237082. 
107408 
Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Marshall, B.D.; Whelan, J.F.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2001. 
Ages and Origins of Calcite and Opal in the Exploratory Studies Facility Tunnel, 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4049. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 251284. 
156507 
Paces, J.B.; Peterman, Z.E.; Neymark, L.A.; Nimz, G.J.; Gascoyne, M.; and Marshall, 
B.D. 2003. Summary of Chlorine-36 Validation Studies at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste 
Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. 
Pages 348-356. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254253. 
162738 
Paces, J.B.; Taylor, E.M.; and Bush, C. 1993. Late Quaternary History and Uranium 
Isotopic Compositions of Ground Water Discharge Deposits, Crater Flat, Nevada. 
High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual 
International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 26-30, 1993. 2, 1573-1580. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 208542. 
106474 
Peterman, Z.E. and Cloke, P.L. 2001. Geochemical Homogeneity of Tuffs at the 
Potential Repository Level, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Back to the Future - 
Managing the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to Create a More Secure Energy 
Future, Proceedings of the 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste 
Management Conference (IHLRWM), Las Vegas, Nevada, April 29-May 3, 2001. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 247873. 
155696
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-18 November 2004 
Peterman, Z.E. and Cloke, P.L. 2002. Geochemistry of Rock Units at the Potential 
Repository Level, Yucca Mountain, Nevada (includes Erratum). Applied 
Geochemistry, 17, (6, 7), 683-698, 955-958. New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 252516; 252517. 
162576 
Peterman, Z.E. and Futa, K. 1996. Geochemistry of Core Samples of the Tiva Canyon 
Tuff from Drill Hole UE-25 NRG#3, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File Report 
95-325. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19961118.0132. 
106494 
Peterman, Z.E. and Marshall, B.D. 2002. Geochemistry of Pore Water from Densely 
Welded Topopah Spring Tuff at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. GSA Abstracts with 
Programs, 34, (6), 308. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 254868. 
162992 
Peterman, Z.E.; Spengler, R.W.; Singer, F.R.; and Dickerson, R.P. 1993. Isotopic 
and Trace Element Variability in Altered and Unaltered Tuffs at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Fourth 
Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 26-30, 1993. 2, 
1940-1947. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 208542. 
106498 
Peterson, J. 2002. Busted Butte (YMP-LBNL-ELM-JP-1). Scientific Notebook 
SN-LBNL-SCI-193-V1. ACC: MOL.20030115.0004. 
165379 
Philip, J.R. 1986. Linearized Unsteady Multidimensional Infiltration. Water 
Resources Research, 22, (12), 1717-1727. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 239826. 
106133 
Philip, J.R. 1989. The Scattering Analog for Infiltration in Porous Media. Reviews 
of Geophysics, 27, (4), 431-448. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 251332. 
156974 
Philip, J.R.; Knight, J.H.; and Waechter, R.T. 1989. Unsaturated Seepage and 
Subterranean Holes: Conspectus, and Exclusion Problem for Circular Cylindrical 
Cavities. Water Resources Research, 25, (1), 16-28. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 239117. 
105743 
Porro, I. and Wierenga, P.J. 1993. Transient and Steady-State Transport through a 
Large Unsaturated Soil Column. Ground Water, 31, (2), 193-200. Dublin, Ohio: 
National Ground Water Association. TIC: 246899. 
134083 
Pruess, K. 1999. A Mechanistic Model for Water Seepage Through Thick 
Unsaturated Zones in Fractured Rocks of Low Matrix Permeability. Water Resources 
Research, 35, (4), 1039-1051. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 244913. 
104250
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-19 November 2004 
Pullan, A.J. 1990. The Quasilinear Approximation for Unsaturated Porous Media 
Flow. Water Resources Resources, 26, (6), 1219-1234. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 239824. 
106141 
Raats, P.A.C. and Gardner, W.R. 1971. Comparison of Empirical Relationships 
Between Pressure Head and Hydraulic Conductivity and Some Observations on 
Radially Symmetric Flow. Water Resources Research, 7, (4), 921-928. Washington, 
D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 239815. 
155683 
Rautman, C.A. and Engstrom, D.A. 1996. Geology of the USW SD-12 Drill Hole 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND96-1368. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia 
National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19970613.0101. 
100642 
Rautman, C.A. and Engstrom, D.A. 1996. Geology of the USW SD-7 Drill Hole Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. SAND96-1474. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19971218.0442. 
101008 
Reimus, P.W.; Adams, A.; Haga, M.J.; Humphrey, A.; Callahan, T.; Anghel, I.; and 
Counce, D. 1999. Results and Interpretation of Hydraulic and Tracer Testing in the 
Prow Pass Tuff at the C-Holes. Milestone SP32E7M4. Los Alamos, New Mexico: 
Los Alamos National Laboratory. TIC: 246377. 
126243 
Rosholt, J.N. 1983. Isotopic Composition of Uranium and Thorium in Crystalline 
Rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research, 88, (B9), 7315-7330. Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical Union. TIC: 254838. 
164723 
Russo, R.E.; Mao, X.; Borisov, O.V.; and Liu, H. 2000. Laser Ablation in Atomic 
Spectroscopy. Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry. Meyers, R.A., ed. Pages 
9485-9506. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 250479. 
155697 
Sabatini, D.A. and Austin, T.A. 1991. Characteristics of Rhodamine WT and 
Fluorescein as Adsorbing Ground-Water Tracers. Ground Water, 29, (3), 341-349. 
Westerville, Ohio: Association of Ground Water Scientists & Engineers. 
TIC: 254709. 
164630 
Salve, R. 1999. Fracture Flow, Fracture-Matrix Interaction. Scientific Notebook 
YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-1. ACC: MOL.19991013.0470. 
155692 
Salve, R. 1999. Fracture Flow, Fracture-Matrix Interaction. Scientific Notebook 
YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-1A. ACC: MOL.19991013.0471. 
156547 
Salve, R. 1999. Measurements of Moisture Potential in P Tunnel Calico Hills using 
Tensiometers and Psychrometers. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JW-1.2A. 
ACC: MOL.19991013.0473. 
156555
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-20 November 2004 
Salve, R. 1999. Measurements of Moisture Potential in P Tunnel/Calico Hills using 
Tensiometers and Psychrometers. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JW-1.2. 
ACC: MOL.20000215.0229. 
156552 
Salve, R. 2000. Percolation and Seepage. Scientific Notebook 
YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-2. ACC: MOL.20000908.0236. 
156548 
Salve, R. 2002. YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-4 UZ Investigations-ESF/Drift-FY00. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-182-V1. ACC: MOL.20020708.0384. 
165378 
Salve, R. 2003. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF, YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-5-UZ 
Investigations-ESF/XDrift. Scientific Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-181-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20030430.0281. 
165377 
Salve, R. and Oldenburg, C.M. 2001. Water Flow Within a Fault in Altered 
Nonwelded Tuff. Water Resources Research, 37, (12), 3043-3056. Washington, 
D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 251485. 
157316 
Salve, R.; Oldenburg, C.M.; and Wang, J.S.Y. 2003. Fault-Matrix Interactions in 
Nonwelded Tuff of the Paintbrush Group at Yucca Mountain. Journal of 
Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 269-286. New York, New York: Elsevier. 
TIC: 254205. 
164470 
Salve, R.; Wang, J.S.Y.; and Doughty, C. 2002. Liquid-Release Tests in Unsaturated 
Fractured Welded Tuffs: I. Field Investigations. Journal of Hydrology, 256, (1-2), 
60-79. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 253774. 
161318 
Sass, J.H.; Dudley, W.W., Jr.; and Lachenbruch, A.H. 1995. Regional Thermal 
Setting. Chapter 8 of Major Results of Geophysical Investigations at Yucca Mountain 
and Vicinity, Southern Nevada. Oliver, H.W.; Ponce, D.A.; and Hunter, W.C., eds. 
Open-File Report 95-74. Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19980305.0122. 
101288 
Sass, J.H.; Lachenbruch, A.H.; Dudley, 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 Report 87-649. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203195. 
100644 
Sawyer, D.A.; Fleck, R.J.; Lanphere, M.A.; Warren, R.G.; Broxton, D.E.; and Hudson, 
M.R. 1994. Episodic Caldera Volcanism in the Miocene Southwestern Nevada 
Volcanic Field: Revised Stratigraphic Framework, 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology, and 
Implications for Magmatism and Extension. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 
106, (10), 1304-1318. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 222523. 
100075
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-21 November 2004 
Scanlon, B.R. 2000. Uncertainties in Estimating Water Fluxes and Residence Times 
Using Environmental Tracers in an Arid Unsaturated Zone. Water Resources 
Research, 36, (2), 395-409. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 256442. 
171740 
Schuraytz, B.C.; Vogel, T.A.; and Younker, L.W. 1989. Evidence for Dynamic 
Withdrawal from a Layered Magma Body: The Topopah Spring Tuff, Southwestern 
Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, (B5), 5925-5942. Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical Union. TIC: 225936. 
107248 
Scott, R.B. and Bonk, J. 1984. Preliminary Geologic Map of Yucca Mountain, Nye 
County, Nevada, with Geologic Sections. Open-File Report 84-494. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: HQS.19880517.1443. 
104181 
Scott, R.B. and Castellanos, M. 1984. Stratigraphic and Structural Relations of 
Volcanic Rocks in Drill Holes USW GU-3 and USW G-3, Yucca Mountain, Nye 
County, Nevada. Open-File Report 84-491. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: NNA.19870519.0095. 
101291 
Selby, S.M., ed. 1975. CRC Standard Mathematical Tables. 23rd Edition. Cleveland, 
Ohio: CRC Press. TIC: 247118. 
106143 
Soll, W. 2001. Busted Butte UZTT Phase 2A Tracer Level Records. Scientific 
Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-257-V1. ACC: MOL.20010605.0371. 
165371 
Soll, W. and Aldrich, M.J. 2002. Mineralogic/Petrologic/Structural Studies in Support 
of Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Flow and Transport Test. Scientific Notebook 
SN-LANL-SCI-261-V1. ACC: MOL.20020517.0132. 
165372 
Soll, W. and Bussod, G.Y. 2001. LA-EES-5-NBK-99-003 Busted Butte On-Site 
Logbook #3, UZ Transport Field Test. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-106-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20010531.0104. 
165299 
Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. Busted Butte Project IC/ICP-AES Notebook #2. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-188-V1. ACC: MOL.20001023.0243. 
165316 
Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. Busted Butte Project Tracking Forms # 3. Scientific 
Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-232-V1. ACC: MOL.20001219.0006. 
165365 
Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. Pad Concentration and Loading Calculations. 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-193-V1. ACC: MOL.20000926.0190. 
165320 
Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. The Busted Butte Project Sample Tracking Forms # 
2. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-184-V1. ACC: MOL.20000926.0188. 
165313
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-22 November 2004 
Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2002. Busted Butte Research and Development Notebook 
for Chemical Analyses. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-241-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20021104.0176. 
165367 
Soll, W.; Bussod, G.; and Mason, N.G. 2001. LA-EES-5-NBK-98-011, Sensor Design 
/ N. Mason SEA-YMP Notebook #1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-041-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20011212.0020. 
165296 
Soll, W.; Turin, H.J.; and Wolfsberg, L. 2002. Busted Butte Master Notebook for 
Chemical Analyses. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-239-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20030121.0082. 
165366 
Spaulding, W.G. 1985. Vegetation and Climates of the Last 45,000 Years in the 
Vicinity of the Nevada Test Site, South-Central Nevada. Professional Paper 1329. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203210. 
106883 
Steiger, R.H. and Jager, E. 1977. Subcommission on Geochronology: Convention on 
the Use of Decay Constants in Geo- and Cosmochronology. Earth and Planetary 
Science Letters, 36, 359-362. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 236817. 
133377 
Stepek, J. 2000. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-JS-1. 
ACC: MOL.19991013.0476; MOL.20010724.0086. 
156561 
SubTerra. 1998. Final Report, TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc., Busted Butte 
Test Facility. Project: 97-35. Kirkland, Washington: SubTerra. TIC: 247628. 
147703 
Szabo, B.J. and Kyser, T.K. 1990. Ages and Stable-Isotope Compositions of 
Secondary Calcite and Opal in Drill Cores from Tertiary Volcanic Rocks of the Yucca 
Mountain Area, Nevada. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 102, 1714-1719. 
Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 221927. 
109172 
Thompson, R.S. 1991. Pliocene Environments and Climates in the Western United 
States. Quaternary Science Reviews, 10, 115-132. Oxford, United Kingdom: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 234260. 
109175 
Thorstenson, D.C.; Weeks, E.P.; Haas, H.; Busenberg, E.; Plummer, L.N.; and Peters, 
C.A. 1998. Chemistry of Unsaturated Zone Gases Sampled in Open Boreholes at the 
Crest of Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Data and Basic Concepts of Chemical and Physical 
Processes in the Mountain. Water Resources Research, 34, (6), 1507-1529. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 246315. 
126827 
Tokunaga, T.K. and Wan, J. 1997. Water Film Flow Along Fracture Surfaces of 
Porous Rock. Water Resources Research, 33, (6), 1287-1295. Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical Union. TIC: 242739. 
139195
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-23 November 2004 
Trautz, R. 2003. YMP-LBNL-RCT-5 Moisture Monitoring in the ESF (Phase 2)/Drift 
Seepage Test. SN-LBNL-SCI-221-V1. ACC: MOL.20011029.0234; 
MOL.20020923.0235; MOL.20030929.0011. 
166248 
Trautz, R.C. 1999. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF (Phase 2)/Drift Seepage Test. 
Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-RCT-1. ACC: MOL.20000306.0470; 
MOL.20001121.0084. 
156563 
Trautz, R.C. 2001. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF (Phase 2)/Drift Seepage Test. 
Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-RCT-2. ACC: MOL.20011030.0706. 
156903 
Trautz, R.C. 2001. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF (Phase 2)/Drift Seepage Test. 
Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-RCT-4. ACC: MOL.20020508.0272. 
161208 
Trautz, R.C. 2001. Niche Excavation; Liquid Flow Testing; Borehole Drilling and 
Pneumatic Testing; Drift Seepage Testing. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-RCT-3. 
ACC: MOL.20011116.0083. 
157022 
Trautz, R.C. and Wang, J.S.Y. 2001. Evaluation of Seepage into an Underground 
Opening Using Small-Scale Field Experiments, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Mining 
Engineering, 53, (12), 41-44. Littleton, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and 
Exploration. TIC: 253862. 
165419 
Trautz, R.C. and Wang, J.S.Y. 2002. Seepage into an Underground Opening 
Constructed in Unsaturated Fractured Rock Under Evaporative Conditions. Water 
Resources Research, 38, (10), 6-1 through 6-14. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 253348. 
160335 
Tsang, Y. and Wang, J. 2000. ECRB Systematic Hydrological Testing. Scientific 
Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-179-V1. ACC: MOL.20001016.0017. 
165375 
Tseng, P-H. and Bussod, G.Y. 2001. Evaluation of the Filter Paper Technique for In 
Situ Sampling of Solute Transport in Unsaturated Soils and Tuffs. Water Resources 
Research, 37, (7), 1913-1928. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 255448. 
166793 
Turin, H.J. 2001. Busted Butte Phase II Overcore and Mineback Activities. Scientific 
Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-252-V1. ACC: MOL.20020204.0180. 
165368 
Turin, H.J.; Groffman, A.R.; Wolfsberg, L.E.; Roach, J.L.; and Strietelmeier, B.A. 
2002. Tracer and Radionuclide Sorption to Vitric Tuffs of Busted Butte, Nevada. 
Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 825-836. New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 254046. 
164633 
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2001. Simulation of Net Infiltration for Modern and 
Potential Future Climates. ANL-NBS-HS-000032 REV 00 ICN 02. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20011119.0334. 
160355
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-24 November 2004 
USGS 2002. Test Plan for: Chlorine-36 Validation. SITP-02-UZ-005 REV 00. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020213.0179. 
158196 
USGS 2002. Test Plan for: UZ Hydrochemistry Investigations. SITP-02-UZ-007 
REV 00. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020204.0146. 
158194 
Vandergraaf, T.T.; Drew, D.J.; and Ticknor, K.V. 2002. Busted Butte Report on 
Laboratory Radionuclide Migration Experiments in Non-Welded Tuff Under 
Unsaturated Conditions. AECL-12170. Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy 
of Canada Limited. ACC: MOL.20030919.0118. 
165099 
Vandergraaf, T.T.; Drew, D.J.; Ticknor, K.V.; and Seddon, W.A. 2002. Radionuclide 
Migration Experiments at a Scale of up to 1 Metre in Tuff Blocks Under Unsaturated 
Conditions. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 34, (6), 237. 
Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 254868. 
165133 
Vaniman, D.T.; Chipera, S.J.; Bish, D.L.; Carey, J.W.; and Levy, S.S. 2001. 
Quantification of Unsaturated-Zone Alteration and Cation Exchange in Zeolitized 
Tuffs at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 65, 
(20), 3409-3433. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 251574. 
157427 
Vigier, N.; Bourdon, B.; Turner, S.; and Allgre, C.J. 2001. Erosion Timescales 
Derived from U-Decay Series Measurements in Rivers. Earth and Planetary Science 
Letters, 193, (3-4), 549-563. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254755. 
164719 
Wang, J. 1997. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6. 
ACC: MOL.19991013.0459. 
156530 
Wang, J. 1997. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6A. 
ACC: MOL.19991013.0460. 
156534 
Wang, J. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6B. 
ACC: MOL.19991013.0461. 
156538 
Wang, J. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6C. 
ACC: MOL.19991013.0462. 
153449 
Wang, J. 2000. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated 
Zone - Exploratory Shaft Facility Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-4.3. 
ACC: MOL.19991018.0187; MOL.20000808.0010. 
156559
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-25 November 2004 
Wang, J.S. 2003. Scientific Notebooks Referenced in Scientific Analysis Report 
U0015, In-Situ Field Testing Processes, ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 02. 
Memorandum from J.S. Wang (BSC) to File, December 2, 2003, with attachments. 
ACC: MOL.20031202.0097. 
165376 
Wang, J.S.Y. and Elsworth, D. 1999. Permeability Changes Induced by Excavation 
in Fractured Tuff. Rock Mechanics for Industry, Proceedings of the 37th U.S. Rock 
Mechanics Symposium, Vail, Colorado, USA, 6-9 June 1999. Amadei, B.; Kranz, R.L.; 
Scott, G.A.; and Smeallie, P.H., eds. 2, 751-757. Brookfield, Vermont: A.A. 
Balkema. TIC: 245246. 
104366 
Wang, J.S.Y. and Narasimhan, T.N. 1993. Unsaturated Flow in Fractured Porous 
Media. Chapter 7 of Flow and Contaminant Transport in Fractured Rock. Bear, J.; 
Tsang, C-F.; and de Marsily, G., eds. San Diego, California: Academic Press. 
TIC: 235461. 
106793 
Wang, J.S.Y.; Flint, A.L.; Nitao, J.J.; Chesnut, D.A.; Cook, P.; Cook, N.G.W.; 
Birkholzer, J.; Freifeld, B.; Flint, L.E.; Ellet, K.; Mitchell, A.J.; Homuth, E.F.; Griego, 
G.J.; Cerny, J.A.; and Johnson, C.L. 1996. Evaluation of Moisture Evolution in the 
Exploratory Studies Facility. Milestone TR31K6M. Berkeley, California: Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19961231.0089. 
101309 
Wang, J.S.Y.; Trautz, R.C.; Cook, P.J.; Finsterle, S.; James, A.L.; and Birkholzer, J. 
1999. Field Tests and Model Analyses of Seepage into Drift. Journal of 
Contaminant Hydrology, 38, (1-3), 323-347. New York, New York: Elsevier. 
TIC: 244160. 
106146 
Warrick, A.W.; Biggar, J.W.; and Nielsen, D.R. 1971. Simultaneous Solute and 
Water Transfer for an Unsaturated Soil. Water Resources Research, 7, (5), 
1216-1225. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 245674. 
106150 
Whelan, J.F. and Moscati, R.J. 1998. 9 M.Y. Record of Southern Nevada Climate 
from Yucca Mountain Secondary Minerals. High-Level Radioactive Waste 
Management, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 
May 11-14, 1998. Pages 12-15. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. 
TIC: 237082. 
109179 
Whelan, J.F.; Moscati, R.J.; Allerton, S.B.M.; and Marshall, B.D. 1998. Applications 
of Isotope Geochemistry to the Reconstruction of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 
PaleohydrologyStatus of Investigations: June 1996. Open-File Report 98-83. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19981012.0740. 
137305 
Whelan, J.F.; Neymark, L.A.; Roedder, E.; and Moscati, R.J. 2003. 
Thermochronology of Secondary Minerals from the Yucca Mountain Unsaturated 
Zone. Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste 
Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. 
Pages 357-366. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254368. 
163590
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-26 November 2004 
Whelan, J.F.; Paces, J.B.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2002. Physical and Stable-Isotope 
Evidence for Formation of Secondary Calcite and Silica in the Unsaturated Zone, 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 735-750. New York, 
New York: Elsevier. TIC: 253462. 
160442 
Whelan, J.F.; Roedder, E.; and Paces, J.B. 2001. Evidence for an Unsaturated-Zone 
Origin of Secondary Minerals in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Back to the Future - 
Managing the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to Create a More Secure Energy 
Future, Proceedings of the 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste 
Management Conference (IHLRWM), Las Vegas, Nevada, April 29-May 3, 2001. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 247873. 
154773 
Whelan, J.F.; Vaniman, D.T.; Stuckless, J.S.; and Moscati, R.J. 1994. Paleoclimatic 
and Paleohydrologic Records from Secondary Calcite: Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual 
International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 22-26, 1994. 4, 2738-2745. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 210984. 
100091 
White, A.F.; Bullen, T.D.; Vivit, D.V.; Schulz, M.S.; and Clow, D.W. 1999. The 
Role of Disseminated Calcite in the Chemical Weathering of Granitoid Rocks. 
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 63, (13/14), 1939-1953. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 248634. 
151450 
White, I. and Sully, M.J. 1987. Macroscopic and Microscopic Capillary Length and 
Time Scales from Field Infiltration. Water Resources Research, 23, (8), 1514-1522. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 239821. 
106152 
Williams, K. 2000. Busted Butte. Scientific Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-119-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20001011.0059. 
165373 
Williams, K. 2002. YMP-LBNL-ELM-KHW-2 UZ Busted Butte. Scientific 
Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-119-V2. ACC: MOL.20021126.0232. 
165374 
Wilson, N.S.F.; Cline, J.S.; and Lundberg, S.A.W. 2000. Paragenesis and Chemical 
Composition of Secondary Mineralization at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Abstracts 
with Programs - Geological Society of America, 32, (7), A-260. Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of America. TIC: 249113. 
154279 
Wilson, N.S.F.; Cline, J.S.; Rotert, J.; and Amelin, Y.V. 2000. Timing and 
Temperature of Fluid Movement at Yucca Mountain, NV: Fluid Inclusion Analyses 
and U-Pb and U-Series Dating. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of 
America, 32, (7), A-260. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 249113. 
154280
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-27 November 2004 
Wilson, S.F. and Cline, J.S. 2001. Paragenesis, Temperature and Timing of 
Secondary Minerals at Yucca Mountain. Back to the Future - Managing the Back 
End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to Create a More Secure Energy Future, Proceedings 
of the 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference 
(IHLRWM), Las Vegas, Nevada, April 29-May 3, 2001. La Grange Park, Illinois: 
American Nuclear Society. TIC: 247873. 
155426 
Winograd, I.J.; Szabo, B.J.; Coplen, T.B.; Riggs, A.C.; and Kolesar, P.T. 1985. Two- 
Million-Year Record of Deuterium Depletion in Great Basin Ground Waters. Science, 
227, 519-522. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of 
Science. TIC: 216799. 
109187 
Wu, Y.S.; Liu, H.H.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; and Zellmer, K.E. 2001. A Triple-Continuum 
Approach for Modeling Flow and Transport Processes in Fractured Rock. 
LBNL-48875. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 
TIC: 251297. 
156399 
Wyckoff, D. 1999. Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (LA-EES-5-NBK-98-014). 
Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-044-V1. ACC: MOL.20001023.0116. 
165298 
Yang, I.C. 2002. Percolation Flux and Transport Velocity in the Unsaturated Zone, 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 807-817. New York, 
New York: Elsevier. TIC: 253605. 
160839 
Yang, I.C.; Peterman, Z.E.; and Scofield, K.M. 2003. Chemical Analyses of Pore 
Water from Boreholes USW SD-6 and USW WT-24, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 361-380. New York, New York: Elsevier. 
TIC: 254205. 
164631 
Yang, I.C.; Rattray, G.W.; and Yu, P. 1996. Interpretation of Chemical and Isotopic 
Data from Boreholes in the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4058. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: MOL.19980528.0216. 
100194 
Yang, I.C.; Yu, P.; Rattray, G.W.; Ferarese, J.S.; and Ryan, J.N. 1998. Hydrochemical 
Investigations in Characterizing the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4132. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: MOL.19981012.0790. 
101441 
YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 2000. Field Test Data 
Collection Systems. Field Work Package FWP-ESF-96-001, Rev. 3. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.20001228.0231. 
161209 
YMP 2001. UZ Transport Test at Busted Butte. Field Work Package 
FWP-ESF-97-002, Rev. 7. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization 
Office. ACC: MOL.20010122.0092. 
171430
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-28 November 2004 
YMP 2002. Moisture Studies in the ESF. FWP-ESF-96-004, Rev. 8. Washington, 
D.C.: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.20020209.0120. 
160262 
Youden, W.J. 1951. Statistical Methods for Chemists. New York, New York: John 
Wiley & Sons. TIC: 248814. 
153339 
8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
156605 
AP-2.22Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20040714.0002. 
AP-16.1Q, Rev. 8, ICN 2. Condition Reporting and Resolution. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040812.0002. 
AP-12.1Q, Rev. 0, ICN 2. Control of Measuring and Test Equipment and Calibration 
Standards. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040429.0006. 
AP-SIII.9Q, Rev. 1, ICN 7. Scientific Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040920.0001 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20041005.0008. 
YMP-LBNL-TIP/GP 5.0, Rev. 0 Mod. 0. Ground Penetrating Radar Data 
Acquisition. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.19990205.0129. 
8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
GS000308312242.002. Phase 1 of Water Collection in Alcove 1 from 05/05/98 to 
08/27/98. Submittal date: 03/01/2000. 
156911 
GS000308313211.001. Geochemistry of Repository Block. 
Submittal date: 03/27/2000. 
162015 
GS000399991221.003. Preliminary Alcove 1 Infiltration Experiment Data. Submittal 
date: 03/10/2000. 
147024
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-29 November 2004 
GS000608314224.004. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 35+00 to 
Station 40+00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 06/20/2000. 
152573 
GS000808312242.006. Pulse Flow Meter Data for the Alcove 1 Infiltration 
Experiment from 02/19/99 to 06/20/00. Submittal date: 09/07/2000. 
162980 
GS001108312242.009. Tracker Data for the Alcove 1 Infiltration Experiment, Phase II 
05/09/99 to 07/05/00. Submittal date: 11/07/2000. 
165202 
GS010608312242.002. Small Plot Infiltration in Alcove 8 Using a Box Permeameter 
from August 28, 2000 to December 14, 2000. Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 
165543 
GS010608312242.004. Crossover Alcove/Seepage into Niche 3; Small Plot Infiltration 
Using a Cylinder Permeameter from August 9, 2000 to August 21, 2000. Submittal 
date: 06/28/2001. 
165542 
GS010808315215.003. Fluid Inclusion Homogenization Temperatures from the ESF, 
ECRB, and EWCD, 12/99 to 4/01. Submittal date: 09/04/2001. 
164844 
GS010808315215.004. Uranium and Lead Concentrations, Lead Isotopic 
Compositions, and U-Pb Isotope Ages for the ESF Secondary Minerals Determined at 
the Royal Ontario Museum between April 20, 2000 and April 19, 2001. Submittal 
date: 08/29/2001. 
164850 
GS020408312272.002. Tritium Abundance Data from Pore-Water in Core Samples 
from Yucca Mountain ESF Boreholes for the Period of April 30, 1998 through March 
21, 2001. Submittal date: 05/08/2002. 
162342 
GS020408312272.003. Collection and Analysis of Pore Water Samples for the Period 
from April 2001 to February 2002. Submittal date: 04/24/2002. 
160899 
GS020508312242.001. Trench Fault Infiltration in Alcove 8 Using Permeameters from 
March 5, 2001 to June 1, 2001. Submittal date: 05/22/2002. 
162129 
GS020608315215.002. Carbon Dioxide Abundances, Carbon Dioxide Concentrations, 
and Normative Calcite Concentrations for Cuttings from Borehole USW SD-6, USW 
WT-24, and ECRB Cross Drift Boreholes, Determined by Carbon Dioxide Evolution, 
May 25, 2000 and September 8, 2000. Submittal date: 06/26/2002. 
162126 
GS020908312242.002. Trenched Fault Infiltration in Alcove 8 Using Permeameters 
from June 1, 2001 to March 26, 2002. Submittal date: 09/17/2002. 
162141 
GS020908315215.003. Fluid Inclusion Homogenization Temperatures from the ESF 
and ECRB, 10/01 to 5/02. Submittal date: 09/26/2001. 
164846
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-30 November 2004 
GS020908315215.004. Stable Carbon and Oxygen Isotope Analyses of ESF/ECRB 
Calcite and USW SD-6 and USW WT-24 Whole Rock; 1/1999-6/2002. 
Submittal date: 10/16/2002. 
164847 
GS021008312242.003. Moisture Monitoring in ESF, Alcoves 3 and 4, from April 1, 
2000 through March 31, 2002. Submittal date: 01/15/2003. 
162178 
GS021008315215.005. Uranium, Thorium, and Lead Concentrations, Lead Isotopic 
Compositions, U-Pb Isotope Ages and 234U/238U and 230TH/238U Activity Ratios 
for the ESF and ECRB Secondary Minerals Determined at the Royal Ontario Museum 
between 11/16/01 and 4/7/02. Submittal date: 10/21/2002. 
164848 
GS021008315215.007. Carbon Dioxide and Normative Calcite Concentrations in 
Powdered Cuttings from Borehole USW WT-24 Determined by CO2 Evolution 
between July 1998 and August 1999. Submittal date: 11/07/2002. 
162127 
GS021208312272.005. Tritium Abundance Data from Pore-Water in Core Samples 
from Yucca Mountain ESF ECRB. Submittal date: 12/19/2002. 
162934 
GS021208312272.008. Uranium and Thorium Concentrations and 234U-230TH- 
238U-232TH Isotopic Compositions from Whole Rock Samples from the ECRB 
Cross-Drift and ESF Analyzed between February and June, 2002. Submittal date: 
01/28/2003. 
164609 
GS021208315215.008. 238U-234U-230TH-232TH Isotope Ratios and Calculated 
Ages for Opal Hemispheres from Sample HD2074 (SPC00506577) at Station 30+51 in 
the Exploratory Studies Facility Determined Using Ion-Probe Mass Spectrometry. 
Submittal date: 12/19/2002. 
164851 
GS021208315215.009. U Abundances, 238U-234U-230TH-232TH Activity Ratios, 
and Calculated 230TH/U Ages, and Initial 234U/238U Activity Ratios Determined for 
Sequential In-Situ Microdigestions of Opal Hemispheres from the ESF by Thermal 
Ionization Mass Spectrometry. Submittal date: 12/19/2002. 
164750 
GS030208312242.003. Trenched Fault Infiltration in Alcove 8 Using Permeameters 
from March 26, 2002 to August 20, 2002. Submittal date: 03/10/2003. 
165544 
GS030208312272.001. Gas and Water Vapor Chemistry Data in Yucca Mountain ESF 
ECRB Bulkheads. Submittal date: 03/11/2003. 
162935 
GS030408312272.002. Analysis of Water-Quality Samples for the Period from July 
2002 to November 2002. Submittal date: 05/07/2003. 
165226 
GS030508312242.004. Photographs from Niche 3 of the Alcove 8/Niche 3 Seepage 
Experiment During Construction Showing Construction Water in Niche 3, March 6, 
2000. Submittal date: 06/03/2003. 
165545
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-31 November 2004 
GS030608312231.002. Digital Image Data from the Moisture Monitoring Tests in the 
ECRB Bulkheaded Cross Drift from January 22, 2001 to February 3, 2003. 
Submittal date: 07/09/2003. 
165547 
GS030608312242.005. Surface Infiltration in a Large Plot in Alcove 8 Using 
Permeameters from November 19, 2002 to March 24, 2003. 
Submittal date: 06/24/2003. 
166200 
GS030808315215.001. Line Survey Information from the East-West Cross-Drift 
Obtained to Estimate Secondary Mineral Abundance. Submittal date: 09/23/2003. 
165426 
GS030908315215.002. X-Ray Fluorescence Elemental Compositions Determined on 
Cuttings from USW SD-6 and USW WT-24 Analyzed from May 20, 1998 to March 13, 
2001. Submittal date: 10/20/2003. 
166097 
GS031008312242.007. Surface Infiltration in a Large Plot in Alcove 8 Using 
Permeameters from August 20, 2002 to November 19, 2002. 
Submittal date: 10/31/2003. 
166089 
GS031208312232.002. Deep UZ Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation Program 
Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-25 UZ#4, USW NRG-6, UE-25 UZ#5, USW 
UZ-7A and USW SD-12 for the Time Period 4/1/98 through 9/30/98. Submittal date: 
07/15/2004. 
171748 
GS950508314224.003. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data - Full Periphery Map 
Data from North Ramp of the Exploratory Studies Facility, Stations 0+60 to 4+00. 
Submittal date: 05/24/1995. 
107488 
GS951108312231.009. Physical Properties, Water Content, and Water Potential for 
Borehole USW SD-7. Submittal date: 09/26/1995. 
108984 
GS951208312272.002. Tritium Analyses of Porewater from USW UZ-14, USW 
NRG-6, USW NRG-7A and UE-25 UZ#16 and of Perched Water from USW SD-7, 
USW SD-9, USW UZ-14 and USW NRG-7A from 12/09/92 to 5/15/95. 
Submittal date: 12/15/1995. 
151649 
GS960708314224.008. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 30 + 00 to 
Station 35 + 00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/05/1996. 
105617 
GS960708314224.010. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 40+00 to 
Station 45+00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/05/1996. 
106031 
GS960808312231.004. Physical Properties, Water Content and Water Potential for 
Samples from Lower Depths in Boreholes USW SD- 7 and USW SD-12. Submittal 
date: 08/30/1996. 
108985
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-32 November 2004 
GS960808312231.005. Water Permeability and Relative Humidity Calculated Porosity 
for Samples from Boreholes USW SD-7, USW SD-9, USW SD-12 and USW UZ-14. 
Submittal date: 08/30/1996. 
108995 
GS960908314224.014. Provisional Results - ESF Main Drift, Station 50+00 to Station 
55+00. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 
106033 
GS960908314224.020. Analysis Report: Geology of the North Ramp - Stations 4+00 
to 28+00 and Data: Detailed Line Survey and Full-Periphery Geotechnical Map - 
Alcoves 3 (UPCA) and 4 (LPCA), and Comparative Geologic Cross Section - Stations 
0+60 to 28+00. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 
106059 
GS970208312242.001. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF, Oct. 1, 1996 through Jan. 31, 
1997. Submittal date: 02/19/1997. 
135119 
GS970208314224.003. Geotechnical Data for Station 60+00 to Station 65+00, South 
Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 02/12/1997. 
106048 
GS970208315215.005. Carbon and Oxygen Stable Isotope Kiel Analyses of Calcite 
from the ESF and USW G-1, G-2 and G-4, UE-25 A#1, USW NRG-6 and NRG-7/7A, 
and UE-25 UZ#16, April 1996  January 1997. Submittal date: 02/27/1997. 
107351 
GS970708312242.002. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF, Feb. 1, 1997 through July 31, 
1997. Submittal date: 07/18/1997. 
135123 
GS970808312232.005. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole 
Instrumentation Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-25 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. 
105978 
GS970808315215.010. Carbon and Oxygen Stable Isotope Analyses of Calcite from 
the ESF and USW G-1, G-2, and G-3/GU-3, from 01/16/97 to 07/18/97. Submittal 
date: 08/18/1997. 
145920 
GS971108312232.007. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole 
Instrumentation Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-25 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. 
105980 
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. 
105561 
GS971108314224.021. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 4+00 to 
Station 8+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
106007
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-33 November 2004 
GS971108314224.022. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 8+00 to 
Station 10+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
106009 
GS971108314224.023. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 10 + 00 to 
Station 18 + 00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. 
Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
106010 
GS971108314224.024. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 18+00 to 
Station 26+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
106023 
GS971108314224.025. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 26+00 to 
Station 30+00, North Ramp and Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal 
date: 12/03/1997. 
106025 
GS971108314224.026. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 45+00 to 
Station 50+00, Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 
106032 
GS971108314224.028. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 55+00 to 
Station 60+00, Main Drift and South Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal 
date: 12/03/1997. 
106047 
GS980308312242.001. Time Domain Reflectometry Measurements in the South Ramp 
of the ESF, August 1, 1997 to January 4, 1998. Submittal date: 03/04/1998. 
135181 
GS980308312242.002. Heat Dissipation Probe Measurements in the South Ramp of 
the ESF, August 1, 1997 to January 31, 1998. Submittal date: 03/09/1998. 
135163 
GS980308312242.003. Physical Properties of Borehole Samples from the ESF South 
Ramp (ESF Station 59+65M to ESF Station 76+33M). Submittal date: 03/16/1998. 
135180 
GS980308312242.004. Water Potential Measurements Using the Filter Paper 
Technique for Borehole Samples from the ESF North Ramp (ESF Station 7+27 M to 
ESF Station 10+70 M) and the ESF South Ramp (ESF Station 59+65 M to 76+33 M). 
Submittal date: 03/19/1998. 
107172 
GS980308312242.005. Physical Properties of Lexan-Sealed Borehole Samples from 
the PIN Exposure in the ESF North Ramp (ESF Station 7+27 M to ESF Station 10+70 
M). Submittal date: 03/11/1998. 
107165 
GS980308315215.008. Line Survey Information from the Exploratory Studies Facility 
Obtained to Estimate Secondary Mineral Abundance. Submittal date: 03/24/1998. 
107355 
GS980408312232.001. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole 
Instrumentation Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-25 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. 
105982
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-34 November 2004 
GS980908312242.018. Physical Properties of Borehole Core Samples from 
ESF-MD-NICHE3566#1, ESF-MD-NICHE3566#2, ESF-MD-NICHE3566#3A, 
ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#1, ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#2, ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#3, 
ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#4, ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#5, and 
ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#6. Submittal date: 09/03/1998. 
135170 
GS980908312242.020. Physical Properties of Borehole Core Samples from 
ESF-MD-NICHE3650#1, ESF-MD-NICHE3650#2, ESF-MD-NICHE3650#3, 
ESF-MD-NICHE3650#4, ESF-MD-NICHE3650#5, ESF-MD-NICHE3650#6, and 
ESF-MD-NICHE3650#7. Submittal date: 09/05/1998. 
135172 
GS980908312242.022. Water Potentials Measured with Heat Dissipation Probes in 
Twenty-One Drill Holes in Niche 1 (ESF-NICHE3566) from 11/04/97 to 07/31/98. 
Submittal date: 09/11/1998. 
135157 
GS980908312242.024. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF, August 1, 1997 to July 31, 
1998. Submittal date: 09/15/1998. 
135132 
GS980908312242.028. Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Borehole Core Samples 
from ESF-SAD-GTB#1. Submittal date: 09/16/1998. 
135176 
GS980908312242.029. Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Borehole Core Samples 
from ESF-NDR-MF#1, ESF-NDR-MF#2, and ESF-NDR-MF#4 in Alcove 6 of the 
ESF. Submittal date: 09/17/1998. 
135175 
GS980908312242.030. Physical Properties of Borehole Core Samples from 
ESF-ECRB-SLANT#2. Submittal date: 09/17/1998. 
135224 
GS980908312242.032. Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Borehole Core Samples 
and Water Potential Measurements Using the Filter Paper Technique for Borehole 
Samples from ESF-LPCA-PTN#1 and ESF-LPCA-PTN#2 in Alcove 4. Submittal date: 
09/17/1998. 
107177 
GS980908312242.033. Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Borehole Core Samples 
and Water Potential Measurements Using the Filter Paper Technique for Borehole 
Samples from ESF-UPCA-PTN#1 in Alcove 3 of the ESF. Submittal date: 09/17/1998. 
107168 
GS980908312242.035. Moisture Monitoring in the ECRB, 04/08/98 to 07/31/98. 
Submittal date: 09/24/1998. 
135133 
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. 
119820 
GS980908315213.002. Carbon and Oxygen Stable Isotopic Compositions of 
Exploratory Studies Facility Secondary Calcite Occurrences, 10/01/97 to 08/15/98. 
Submittal date: 09/16/1998. 
146088
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-35 November 2004 
GS990108312242.005. Temperature, Relative Humidity and Barometric Pressure Data 
for Alcove 7 of the ESF from 12/08/97 to 12/12/98. Submittal date: 01/28/1999. 
166000 
GS990108312242.006. Pulse Flow Meter Data for the Alcove 1 Infiltration 
Experiment from 03/08/98 to 12/04/98. Submittal date: 01/29/1999. 
162979 
GS990183122410.001. Tritium Data from Pore Water from ESF Borehole Cores, 1997 
Analyses by USES. Submittal date: 01/06/1999. 
146125 
GS990183122410.004. Tritium Data from Pore Water from ESF Borehole Cores, 1998 
Analyses by University of Miami. Submittal date: 10/14/1999. 
146129 
GS990308312242.007. Laboratory and Centrifuge Measurements of Physical and 
Hydraulic Properties of Core Samples from Busted Butte Boreholes UZTT-BB-INJ-1, 
UZTT-BB-INJ-3, UZTT-BB-INJ-4, UZTT-BB-INJ-6, UZTT-BB-COL-5 and 
UZTT-BB-COL-8. Submittal date: 03/22/1999. 
107185 
GS990408314224.001. Detailed Line Survey Data for Stations 00+00.89 to 14+95.18, 
ECRB Cross-Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 
108396 
GS990408314224.002. Detailed Line Survey Data for Stations 15+00.85 to 26+63.85, 
ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 
105625 
GS990408314224.006. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station 20+00 to 26+81, 
ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 
108409 
GS990708312242.008. Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Core Samples from 
Busted Butte Boreholes. Submittal date: 07/01/1999. 
109822 
GS990708314224.007. Detailed Line Survey Data for Busted Butte Access Drift and 
Busted Butte Cross Drift. Submittal date: 11/02/1999. 
164604 
GS990908314224.010. Geology of the ECRB Cross Drift: Graphical Data. Submittal 
date: 09/14/1999. 
152631 
GS990908315213.001. Stable Carbon and Oxygen Isotope Data for Calcite from the 
ESF and Analyzed 2/96 - 5/99. Submittal date: 10/28/1999. 
153379 
LA0002JF12213U.001. Chemistry Data for Porewater Extracted from Drillcore from 
Surface-Based Boreholes USW NRG-6, USW NRG-7A, USW UZ-7A, USW UZ-14, 
UE-25 UZ#16, USW UZ-N55, USW SD-6, USW SD-7, USW SD-9, USW SD-12, and 
USW WT-24. Submittal date: 02/15/2000. 
154760 
LA0002JF12213U.002. Chemistry Data for Porewater Extracted from ESF, Cross 
Drift and Busted Butte Drill Core. Submittal date: 02/15/2000. 
156281
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-36 November 2004 
LA0008WS831372.001. Calculated Daily Injection Rates for the Busted Butte 
Unsaturated Zone Transport Tests. Submittal date: 08/23/2000. 
156582 
LA0108TV12213U.001. Static Batch Sorption Coefficients and Retardation 
Coefficients. Submittal date: 08/14/2001. 
161525 
LA0112WS831372.001. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Phase II Collection Pad 
Tracer Loading. Submittal date: 12/06/2001. 
157100 
LA0112WS831372.002. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Phase II Collection Pad 
Tracer Concentrations. Submittal date: 12/06/2001. 
157115 
LA0112WS831372.003. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Phase II Normalized 
Collection Pad Tracer Concentrations. Submittal date: 12/06/2001. 
157106 
LA0201WS831372.004. Calculated Moisture Content for the Busted Butte Site Phase 
II Collection Boreholes. Submittal date: 01/03/2002. 
165422 
LA0204SL831372.001. Mineralogy of the Busted Butte Phase 2 Test Block. 
Submittal date: 04/17/2002. 
164749 
LA0207SL831372.001. Lithostratigraphic Classification of Hydrologic-Property 
Core-Sampling Depths, Busted Butte Phase 2 Test Block. Submittal date: 07/16/2002. 
160824 
LA0302WS831372.001. Fluorescein Plume Images from the Phase 1A Mineback at 
Busted Butte. Submittal date: 02/26/2003. 
162765 
LA0305RR831222.001. Chlorine-36 and Cl in Salts Leached from Rock Samples for 
the Chlorine-36 Validation Study. Submittal date: 05/22/2003. 
163422 
LA0307RR831222.001. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts 
Leached from Cross Drift Rock Samples in FY99 and FY00. Submittal date: 
07/09/2003. 
164091 
LA0307RR831222.002. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts 
Leached from ESF 36Cl Validation Drillcore Samples in FY99. 
Submittal date: 07/09/2003. 
164090 
LA0311SD831372.001. In-Situ Air Permeability Measurements at Busted Butte. 
Submittal date: 11/19/2003. 
166197 
LA9909JF831222.012. Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Analyses of Porewater 
Extracted from ESF Niche 3566 (Niche #1) and ESF 3650 (Niche #2) Drillcore. 
Submittal date: 09/29/1999. 
122736 
LA9909WS831372.001. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Faze I Collection Pad 
Extract Concentrations. Submittal date: 09/29/1999. 
122739
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-37 November 2004 
LA9909WS831372.002. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Phase I Collection Pad 
Tracer Loading and Tracer Concentrations. Submittal date: 09/30/1999. 
122741 
LA9909WS831372.015. ICPAES Porewater Analysis for Rock Samples from Busted 
Butte, NV. Submittal date: 10/01/1999. 
140089 
LA9909WS831372.016. ION Chromatography Porewater Analysis for Rock Samples 
from Busted Butte, NV. Submittal date: 09/30/1999. 
140093 
LA9909WS831372.017. pH of Porewater of Rock Samples from Busted Butte, NV. 
Submittal date: 09/30/1999. 
140097 
LA9909WS831372.018. Gravimetric Moisture Content of Rock Samples from Busted 
Butte, NV. Submittal date: 09/30/1999. 
140101 
LA9910WS831372.008. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Gravimetric Moisture 
Content and Bromide Concentration in Selected Phase 1A Rock Samples. Submittal 
date: 11/03/1999. 
147156 
LAJF831222AQ98.004. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of 
Salts Leached from ESF Rock Samples. Submittal date: 09/10/1998. 
107364 
LAJF831222AQ98.007. Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Analyses of Salts Leached 
from ECRB-CWAT#1, #2, and #3 Drill Core. Submittal date: 09/09/1998. 
122730 
LAJF831222AQ98.009. Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached from ESF Niche 3566 
(Niche #1) Drillcore. Submittal date: 09/09/1998. 
145650 
LAJF831222AQ98.011. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate and Chlorine-36 Analyses of 
Springs, Groundwater, Porewater, Perched Water and Surface Runoff. 
Submittal date: 09/10/1998. 
145402 
Langmuir, D. and Herman, J.S. 1980. The Mobility of Thorium in Natural Waters at 
Low Temperatures. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 44, 1753-1766. New York, 
New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 237029. 
147527 
LB00032412213U.001. Busted Butte Ground Penetrating Radar Data Collected June 
1998 through February 2000 at the Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (UZTT): GPR 
Velocity Data. Submittal date: 03/24/2000. 
149214 
LB00090012213U.001. Air K Testing in Borehole SYBT-ERCB-LA#2 at CS 17+26 in 
Cross Drift. Submittal date: 11/03/2000. 
153141 
LB00090012213U.002. Liquid Release Tests from Borehole SYBT-ECRB-LA#2 at 
CS 17+26 in Cross Drift. Submittal date: 11/09/2000. 
153154 
LB0010NICH3LIQ.001. Niche 3107 Seepage Test. Submittal date: 11/02/2000. 153144
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-38 November 2004 
LB0010NICH4LIQ.001. Niche 4788 Seepage Test. Submittal date: 11/02/2000. 153145 
LB0011AIRKTEST.001. Air Permeability Testing in Niches 3566 and 3650. 
Submittal date: 11/08/2000. 
153155 
LB0011CO2DST08.001. Isotope Data for CO2 from Gas Samples Collected from 
Hydrology Holes in Drift-Scale Test. Submittal date: 12/09/2000. 
153460 
LB0012AIRKTEST.001. Niche 5 Air K Testing 3/23/00-4/3/00. 
Submittal date: 12/21/2000. 
154586 
LB002181233124.001. Air Permeability and Pneumatic Pressure Data Collected 
Between October 27, 1999 through November 7, 1999 from Niche 5 (ECRB Niche 
1620) of the ESF. Submittal date: 02/18/2000. 
146878 
LB0102NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests - Pre Excavation. 
Submittal date: 02/28/2001. 
155681 
LB0108CO2DST05.001. Concentration and Isotope Data for CO2 and H2O from Gas 
Samples Collected from Hydrology Holes in Drift-Scale Test - May and August 1999, 
April 2000, January and April 2001. Submittal date: 08/27/2001. 
156888 
LB0110A8N3GPRB.001. Alcove 8/Niche 3 GPR Baseline Data. Submittal date: 
11/12/2001. 
156912 
LB0110A8N3LIQR.001. Preliminary Observations from the Fault Test at 
Alcove8/Niche3. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 
157001 
LB0110AK23POST.001. AK2 and AK3 Post-Excavation Air-K. Submittal date: 
11/12/2001. 
156905 
LB0110AKN5POST.001. Niche 5 (1620 in ECRB) Post-Excavation Air-K. Submittal 
date: 11/12/2001. 
156904 
LB0110BSTBTGPR.001. Busted Butte GPR Data. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156913 
LB0110COREPROP.001. Lab Measurements of 14 Matrix Cores. 
Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 
157169 
LB0110ECRBH2OA.001. ECRB Water Analyses. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156886 
LB0110ECRBH2OI.001. Isotope Data for Water Samples Collected from the ECRB. 
Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 
156887 
LB0110ECRBH2OP.001. Water Potential Data from Three Locations in the ECRB. 
Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 
156883
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-39 November 2004 
LB0110ECRBLIQR.001. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#1, 12/20/2000. 
Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 
156878 
LB0110ECRBLIQR.002. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#1, 2/28/2001. 
Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 
156879 
LB0110ECRBLIQR.003. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#2, 10/23/2000. 
Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 
156877 
LB0110TUFTRACR.001. Using Laser Ablation to Study Tracer Movement in Tuff. 
Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 
156979 
LB0203ECRBLIQR.001. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#3(May-July 2001). 
Submittal date: 03/20/2002. 
158462 
LB0204NICH3TRC.001. Fault Infiltration Test Tracer Sampling Apr 2001-Mar 2002. 
Submittal date: 04/30/2002. 
158478 
LB0207NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620). Submittal date: 
07/09/2002. 
160408 
LB0208NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620), July-August 2002. 
Submittal date: 08/22/2002. 
161210 
LB0209A8N3LIQR.001. Resistance Measurements from Borehole 10 in Niche3 
(5/23/2001 - 9/3/2002). Submittal date: 09/11/2002. 
165461 
LB0209NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620), June-August 2002. 
Submittal date: 09/11/2002. 
160796 
LB0210NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620), August-October 2002. 
Submittal date: 10/25/2002. 
161211 
LB0211NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620), August-October 2002. 
Submittal date: 11/14/2002. 
160792 
LB0301ECRBRHTB.001. Moisture Monitoring at Four Locations in the ECRB. 
Submittal date: 01/31/2003. 
164605 
LB0301SYTSTLA4.001. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#4. Submittal date: 
01/31/2003. 
165227 
LB0302ALC8AIRK.001. Alcove 8 Air Permeability Testing. Submittal date: 
02/28/2003. 
164748 
LB0303A8N3LIQR.001. Alcove 8 - Niche 3 Seepage Data Compilation. Submittal 
date: 03/19/2003. 
162570
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-40 November 2004 
LB0306A8N3LIQR.001. Fault Infiltration Test from Alcoves to Niche3 
(9/18/2002 - 10/16/2002). Submittal date: 06/19/2003. 
165405 
LB0307ECRBRHTB.001. Moisture Monitoring at Four Locations in the ECRB. 
Submittal date: 07/30/2003. 
164843 
LB0308A8N3SEEP.001. Niche 3 Seepage (10/16/2002-04/02/2003). Submittal date: 
08/29/2003. 
166090 
LB0406ESFNH2OP.001. Water Potential Measurements in Niches 3566, 3650, and 
3107 of the ESF. Submittal date: 06/21/2004. 
171588 
LB960800831224.001. Relative Humidity, Temperature, and Pressure in ESF 
Monitoring Stations. Submittal date: 08/23/1996. 
105793 
LB970300831224.001. Moisture Data Report from October 1996 to January, 1997. 
Submittal date: 03/13/1997. 
105794 
LB970801233124.001. Moisture Monitoring Data Collected at ESF Sensor Stations. 
Submittal date: 08/27/1997. 
105796 
LB970901233124.002. Moisture Monitoring Data Collected at Stationary Moisture 
Stations. Submittal date: 09/30/1997. 
105798 
LB980001233124.004. Liquid Release Test Data from Niche 3566 and Niche 3650 of 
the ESF in Milestone Report, Drift Seepage Test and Niche Moisture Study: Phase 1 
Report on Flux Threshold Determination, Air Permeability Distribution, and Water 
Potential Measurement. Submittal date: 11/23/1999. 
136583 
LB980901233124.003. Liquid Release and Tracer Tests in Niches 3566, 3650, 3107, 
and 4788 in the ESF. Submittal date: 09/14/1998. 
105592 
LB980901233124.004. Pneumatic Pressure and Air Permeability Data from Alcove 6 
in the ESF. Submittal date: 09/14/1998. 
105855 
LB980901233124.009. Pneumatic Pressure and Air Permeability Data from Alcove 4 
in the ESF. Submittal date: 09/14/1998. 
105856 
LB980901233124.014. Borehole Monitoring at the Single Borehole in the ECRB and 
ECRB Crossover Point in the ESF. Submittal date: 09/14/1998. 
105858 
LB980901233124.101. Pneumatic Pressure and Air Permeability Data from Niche 
3107 and Niche 4788 in the ESF from Chapter 2 of Report SP33PBM4: Fracture Flow 
and Seepage Testing in the ESF, FY98. Submittal date: 11/23/1999. 
136593 
LB980912332245.001. Air Injection Data from Niche 3107 of the ESF. Submittal 
date: 09/30/1998. 
110828
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-41 November 2004 
LB980912332245.002. Gas Tracer Data from Niche 3107 of the ESF. Submittal date: 
09/30/1998. 
105593 
LB990601233124.001. Seepage Data Feed to UZ Drift-Scale Flow Model for 
TSPA-SR. Submittal date: 06/18/1999. 
105888 
LB990601233124.003. Seepage Data Feed to UZ Drift-Scale Flow Model for 
TSPA-SR. Submittal date: 06/18/1999. 
106051 
LB990901233124.001. Alcove 6 Tracer Tests for AMR U0015, In Situ Field Testing 
of Processes. Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 
155694 
LB990901233124.002. Alcove 6 Flow Data for AMR U0015, In Situ Field Testing of 
Processes. Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 
146883 
LB990901233124.003. Tracer Lab Analyses of Dye Penetration in Niches 3650 and 
4788 of the ESF for AMR U0015, In Situ Field Testing of Processes. Submittal date: 
11/01/1999. 
155690 
LB990901233124.004. Air Permeability Cross-Hole Connectivity in Alcove 6, Alcove 
4, and Niche 4 of the ESF for AMR U0015, In Situ Testing of Field Processes. 
Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 
123273 
LB990901233124.005. Alcove 4 Flow Data for AMR U0015, In Situ Field Testing of 
Processes. Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 
146884 
LB990901233124.006. Moisture Data from the ECRB Cross Drift for AMR U0015, 
In Situ Testing of Field Processes. Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 
135137 
LL030408023121.027. Cl Abundance and Cl Ratios of Leachates from ESF Core 
Samples. Submittal date: 04/17/2003. 
162949 
LL031200223121.036. Cl Abundance and Cl Ratio of Leachates from ESF Core 
Samples. Submittal date: 12/03/2003. 
168531 
LL990612704244.098. ERT Data for Busted Butte. Submittal date: 06/21/1999. 147168 
MO0004GSC00167.000. As-Built Coordinate of Boreholes in the Test Alcove and 
Running Drift, Busted Butte Test Facility (BBTF). Submittal date: 04/20/2000. 
150300 
MO0006J13WTRCM.000. Recommended Mean Values of Major Constituents in J-13 
Well Water. Submittal date: 06/07/2000. 
151029 
MO0008GSC00269.000. As-Built ECRB Alcove 8, Construction Observation Alcove 
(COA) - Boreholes (#1 through 7). Submittal date: 08/01/2000. 
166198 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). Submittal date: 
12/18/2000. 
153777
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-42 November 2004 
MO0107GSC01061.000. As-Built Profile of Bat-Wing Excavation, Niche #5 ECRB. 
Submittal date: 07/03/2001. 
155369 
MO0107GSC01069.000. ESF Niche #4 (Niche 4788) Borehole As-Built Information. 
Submittal date: 07/19/2001. 
156941 
MO0312GSC03176.000. ECRB - Niche #5 (Niche 1620) Borehole As-Built 
Information. Submittal date: 12/01/2003. 
169532 
MO0407SEPFEPLA.000. LA FOP List. Submittal date: 07/20/2004. 170760 
MO9901MWDGFM31.000. Geologic Framework Model. Submittal date: 
01/06/1999. 
103769 
8.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
LB0110LIQR0015.001. Developed Data for Liquid Release/Seepage Tests and 
Systematic Testing. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 
LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. Niche 4788 Ceiling - Wetting Front Data. Submittal date: 
11/12/2001. 
LB0110SYST0015.001. Developed Data for Systematic Testing. Submittal date: 
12/06/2001. 
LB0310AIRK0015.001. Developed Data for Air-K Tests. Submittal date: 
10/07/2003. 
8.5 SOFTWARE CODES 
CRWMS M&O 1999. Software Routine: ECRB-XYZ. V.03. PC. 30093-V.03. 147402 
LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) 1998. Software Code: 
EARTHVISION. V4.0. SGI, IRIX 6.4. 30035-2 V4.0. 
152835 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
APPENDIX A 
AUTOMATED AIR-INJECTION SYSTEM 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 A-1 November 2004 
A1. AUTOMATIC PNEUMATIC INJECTION PACKERS 
The pneumatic-testing equipment is a specially designed packer system fabricated to consider 
specific testing needs. For site-to-site and borehole-to-borehole comparisons to be meaningful, it 
must be possible for many boreholes, at numerous sites, to be tested in a controlled manner. For 
determination of connectivity between boreholes, all permutations of injection and response 
zones at a site must be examined, so the boreholes must be instrumented for simultaneous 
measurements. In heterogeneous rock, such as that at the ESF, compensating for variations in 
results caused by different test configurations (such as test interval length or test scale) is 
difficult. Therefore, only one parameter (in this case, the location of the test zone) is varied at a 
time, to keep the testing as consistent as possible. To ensure that the air permeability of 
unaltered rock would be measured, boreholes were drilled dry and at low speed, a process that 
minimizes damage to the formation and thereby allows the packer systems to be placed along the 
entire length of each borehole. 
In light of the need for consistency, the same packer design is used for injection and observation. 
This approach is amenable to the automation and remote control necessary for establishing 
consistent testing regimens, and accommodating the large number of tests. Inflatable rubber 
sealing bladders on a packer string can be manipulated independently, and divide a borehole into 
14 different zones over the length of the string. Zone resolution is 0.3 m, and the bladders cover 
the entire length of the string. This configuration allows 4.8 m of borehole to be covered by one 
string. One 3.2-mm-diameter port (for pressure measurement) and one 6.4-mm-diameter port 
(for air-injection service) is assigned to each zone. Up to seven boreholes can be instrumented at 
one time (for a discussion of borehole limitations, see Section 6.2). All packer inflation and 
air-injection lines can be controlled automatically. A modular design allows partial dismantling 
of the packer strings in the field, for repair or work in tight quarters. Figure A-1 shows a 
diagram of a portion of a packer assembly. 
injection lines 
pressure sensing lines 
0.3 m 0.3 m 
inflated rubber 
bladder 
Tubes service either of 
two zones depending on 
inflation. interval 
deflated rubber bladder rock 
packer body 
Figure A-1. Schematic of Automatic Packer Design 
If all bladders are inflated at the same time, the packer string seals the entire section of borehole 
that is occupied by the string. However, by inflating only every other bladder (and leaving the 
remaining bladders deflated), an alternating sequence of open and closed (sealed) intervals is 
produced. Depending on the setting of the injection control valves, an open interval becomes 
either an observation zone used to monitor pressure, or an injection zone where air is introduced 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 A-2 November 2004 
(under pressure) during a test. Once tests have been performed in these open zones, the inflated 
bladders are deflated and the deflated bladders are inflated (causing those zones that were once 
closed to become open and those that were originally open to become closed). In this manner, 
almost the entire length of the packer string is usable for testing every 0.3 m, and does not 
require the string to be moved. By changing the zones on the injection packer independently 
from those on the observation packers, four possible zone configurations are available during a 
given packer installation. All permutations of these injection and observation positions are used 
to ensure that all positions within each observation borehole are allowed a chance to respond to a 
given injection zone. Figure A-2 shows schematically how this process is implemented. The 
observation packer zones are usually changed in unison because the amount of perturbation 
caused (to the flow field) by the observation-zone locations is considered insignificant. 
Permutations between them would cause only second-order effects in the response system. 
 
	
 

	 
	
 
  
	 	 
	 	 
  
  
  
Figure A-2. Schematic of the Permutation Scheme for Automatic Packers 
A2. AIR-INJECTION FLOW INSTRUMENTATION 
Pressure monitoring for each zone was accomplished using pressure transducers that were 
accurate to a resolution of 0.3 kilopascals (kPa). Mass flow controllers (MFCs) with voltage 
control and output were used to inject a constant mass-flow rate of air during each permeability 
test. The MFCs measure and control gas flow rates within a maximum error of 10 percent of full 
scale; four sizes of MFCs, ranging from 1 to 500 standard liters per minute (SLPM) full scale, 
were used, to span the anticipated flow-rate ranges. The pressure transducer and MFC outputs 
were continually monitored and digitally recorded throughout testing, using a 27-bit voltmeter 
and an computer. Time resolution for the data from all sources was set nominally at five 
seconds. 
A3. INITIAL SETUP IN TESTING REGIMEN 
Initially, by performing some manually operated tests for a given site, the operator determined 
under what conditions steady state was reached, and at what injection pressure packer leak-by 
could occur. (Leak-by is the condition of injected air forcing its way past the packer and 
breaking the packer-rock seal.) When leak-by occurs, a distinct and sudden pressure response 
occurs in the guard zone, as the packer seal with the borehole is broken. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 A-3 November 2004 
The information from these initial tests was used to plan the design of the automatic controls. 
The operator determined packer leak-by pressure by observing the pressure response in the 
observation zones axially adjacent to the injection zone. The packer inflation pressure was set at 
roughly 240 kPa above the ambient pressure, to ensure adequate contact with the borehole 
without risk of damage to the rubber bladders. At this inflation, and depending on rock 
conditions, the leak-by pressure was usually approximately 138 kPa above the ambient pressure, 
and the limit for any injection pressure was typically set to 80 kPa above the ambient pressure. 
A4. AUTOMATION AND MULTI-RATE APPROACH 
Utilization of the automatic controls ensured that the tests would reach steady state, and be 
completed in minimal time. In addition, automation enabled testing to be continuous (24 hours 
per day). The automation scheme allotted a minimum time to every injection test. The allotted 
time was adequate to collect a sufficient number of data points to determine the slope of the 
injection pressure response. Steady state was defined in the automation routine as the condition 
that exists when the slope of pressure-change over time is less than a certain set point. If, after 
the minimum time, the criterion of steady state had not been met, the test was allowed to 
continue until it had been met. Pauses between tests provided time to monitor recovery pressure. 
Any excess pressure was bled off from all intervals for sufficient time, so that the residual 
pressure in the formation can reach ambient conditions before further testing is initiated. 
The automation routine allowed multiple flow rates at each test interval, and also ensured that 
injection pressure did not exceed the packer leak-by pressure. The test would be shut off if the 
injection pressure came within approximately 60 percent of the packer leak-by pressure, and the 
data would automatically be annotated (to chronicle that steady state had not been attained). To 
save time, injections at higher rates were not attempted in a zone that was under this condition. 
Conversely, if pressure in an injection zone did not rise above a certain threshold value after a 
short time, testing at that particular flow rate was stopped, and a higher-flow-rate test was 
attempted. The multirate strategy ensured that, by using higher flow rates, highly permeable 
injection intervals would more be more likely to have sufficient pressure to generate a 
measurable response in the observation intervals. It also ensured that, by using low flow rates, 
the very tight intervals could be measured without the possible interference of packer leak-by. 
Theoretically, for a given interval location, the same permeability value should result, regardless 
of the flow rate that is used. However, small differences in permeability might occur at different 
flow rates and between repeat tests, possibly as a result of movement of residual water within the 
fractures. In the case of water redistribution, as testing progresses, permeability will increase 
slightly for higher rates, as injection pressures overcome the capillary forces that hold the water 
in the formation. As the flow rate increases, a small decrease in apparent permeability can be 
observed in drier areas, because of turbulence at higher air injection rates. 
Any large discrepancy between permeabilities at different flow rates, and any large discrepancy 
between repeat tests for a given zone, can be attributed to compromised packer sealing. 
The maximum flow rate that did not cause the zone pressure to exceed the packer leak-by 
pressure during a test was chosen for single-hole permeability calculations, and was also used to 
detect crosshole responses. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 A-4 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
APPENDIX B 
COMPUTATION TABLES FOR NICHE STUDIES 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-1 November 2004 
Table B-1 presents aspect ratios on flow paths observed during niche excavation (which is 
referred to in Section 6.2.1.2). Table B-2 presents borehole-to-niche-ceiling distances for 
seepage tests (referred to in Section 6.2.1.3). Table B-3a through Table B-4e present 
liquid-release fluxes on seepage threshold determinations (referred to in Section 6.2.2.1). 
Table B-5 (on alpha values) is the computation summarized in Table 6-9. Table B-4 and 
Table B-6 are referred to in Figure 6-48 (on seepage threshold). Table B-7 and Table B-8 are 
referred to in Figure 6-49 and Figure 6-50 (on water retention curves). 
Table B-1. Computation of Aspect Ratio (Depth to Lateral Distance) 
A B C D E F G 
Observed Dye 
Observed 
Injection 
Borehole 
Name 
Injection 
Interval 
(m) 
Mass 
Injected 
(g) 
(Input) 
Maximum 
Lateral 
Distance 
(m) 
(Input) 
Maximum 
Penetration 
Depth 
(m) 
(Output) 
Ratio of 
Depth to 
Lateral 
Distance 
Niche 1 (Niche 3566 in Tptpmn) 
FD&C Red No. 40 M 2.13 - 2.44 941.7 0.73 1.52 2.08 
Acid Yellow 7 M 2.77 - 3.05 120.3 0.16 0.30 1.90 
FD&C Blue No. 1 M 4.57 - 4.88 474.0 0.30 1.30 4.33 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650 in Tptpmn) 
FD&C Red No. 40 UL 7.01 - 7.31 694.5 0.99 1.42 1.43 
FD&C Blue No. 1 UM 4.27 - 4.57 675.8 0.58 1.68 2.90 
FD&C Red No. 40 UM 4.88 - 5.18 937.4 0.28 0.86 3.07 
FD&C Blue No. 1 UM 6.70 - 7.01 438.7 1.05 1.82 1.74 
FD&C Red No. 40 UR 1.52 - 1.82 369.9 0.76 1.41 1.86 
FD&C Blue No. 1 UR 2.13 - 2.43 999.8 0.32 2.57 8.03 
Sulpho Rhodamine B ML 4.88 - 5.18 151.6 0.08 0.02 0.25 
Sulpho Rhodamine B ML 6.70 - 7.01 170.9 0.25 1.02 4.06 
Niche 3 (Niche 3107 in Tptpmn) 
Green B1.5 3.35 - 3.66 391.3 0.54 0.87 1.61 
FD&C Blue No. 1 UM 4.88 - 5.18 111.7 0.27 1.19 4.41 
Niche 4 (Niche 4788 in Tptpmn) 
FD&C Red No. 40 UM 4.27 - 4.57 151.1 0.31 0.96 3.08 
Green UM 4.88 - 5.18 401.8 0.51 1.79 3.50 
FD&C Blue No. 1 UM 6.40 - 6.70 1019.7 0.78 1.25 1.61 
Avg. Tptpmn = 2.87 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-2 November 2004 
Table B-1. Computation of Aspect Ratio (Depth to Lateral Distance) (Continued) 
A B C D E F G 
Observed Dye 
Observed 
Injection 
Borehole 
Name 
Injection 
Interval 
(m) 
Mass 
Injected 
(g) 
(Input) 
Maximum 
Lateral 
Distance 
(m) 
(Input) 
Maximum 
Penetration 
Depth 
(m) 
(Output) 
Ratio of 
Depth to 
Lateral 
Distance 
Niche 5 (Niche 1620 in Tptpll) 
Green #1 1.48 - 1.78 1184.7 0.76 1.25 1.64 
Rhodamine #1 2.54 - 2.84 1342.8 0.22 1.37 6.23 
Green #1 3.31 - 3.61 804.7 0.21 0.28 1.33 
Rhodamine #1 4.54 - 4.84 826.9 0.15 0.19 1.27 
FD&C Blue No. 1 #1 5.44 - 5.74 1001.8 0.33 0.18 0.55 
Rhodamine #1 6.54 - 6.84 1041.3 0.16 0.07 0.44 
FD&C Blue No. 1 #1 7.58 - 7.88 1555.9 0.17 0.18 1.06 
Rhodamine #1 8.54 - 8.84 1142.2 0.26 0.15 0.58 
Avg. Tptpll = 1.64 
Source: Columns A through E from DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] for Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650). A through E from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] for Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788). A through E from DTN: LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 155681] 
for Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788). 
NOTES: D for Niche 5 (Niche 1620) are reported in kg and converted to g in table by multiplying by 1000 g/kg. 
G = F/E. 
Avg. Tptpmn and Avg. Tptpll computed using Microsoft Excel 2000 arithmetic average (AVERAGE) 
function. 
FD&C = Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; M = middle; ML = middle left; UL = upper left; 
UM = upper middle; UR = upper right. 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-3 November 2004 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
Table B-2. Computation of Distance from Borehole to Niche Ceiling at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Based on Niche-Study Data 
A B C D E F G H I J K L M 
Niche 
Borehole 
Name and 
Depth 
(m) 
(Input) 
Vertical 
Distance 
From 
Horizontal 
Scanline To 
Borehole UM 
Collar 
(m) 
(Input) 
Elevation 
of 
Borehole 
UM at 
Collar 
(m) 
(Input) 
Elevation 
of 
Borehole 
Collar 
(m) 
(Output) 
Difference 
in 
Elevation 
between 
Columns D 
and E 
(m) 
(Output) 
Elevation of 
Borehole 
Collar above 
Horizontal 
Scanline 
(m) 
(Input) 
Borehole 
Inclination 
(minutes 
component) 
(Input) 
Borehole 
Inclination 
(seconds 
component) 
(Output) 
Borehole 
Inclination 
(radians) 
(Output) 
Sine of 
Borehole 
Inclination 
(Output) 
Cosine of 
Borehole 
Inclination 
(Input) 
Local 
Horizontal 
Coordinate 
for Borehole 
Collar 
(m) 
UL 7.62  
7.93 1.505 1096.57 1096.58 0.01 1.515 -41 -13 -0.0120 -0.0120 0.9999 4.17 
UM 6.10  
6.40 1.505 1096.57 1096.57 0.00 1.505 -41 -23 -0.0120 -0.0120 0.9999 4.87 
4 
UR 5.18  
5.48 1.505 1096.57 1096.57 0.00 1.505 -10 -26 -0.0030 -0.0030 1.0000 5.82 
Source: Columns D and E from survey data DTN: MO0107GSC01069.000 [DIRS 156941]. 
Columns H and I from survey data DTN: MO0107GSC01069.000 [DIRS 156941]. 
Column M from survey data DTN: MO0107GSC01069.000 [DIRS 156941], local coordinate system see note for T and U. 
NOTES: Column C is a horizontal scanline or datum measured along the centerline of the niche was used to relate known survey stations to the boreholes and a 
local coordinate system setup inside the niche. Nodes on a regular 0.6  0.6 m grid were marked on the niche ceiling using the frame holding the seepage 
capture trays as the basis for the grid (see Trautz (2001 [DIRS 156903], p. 36) for details). 
F = E - D. 
G = C + F. 
K = sin(J). 
L = cos(J). 
J = (I/360 + H/60)  p/360. 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-4 November 2004 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
Table B-2. Computation of Distance from Borehole to Niche Ceiling at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Based on Niche-Study Data (Continued) 
N O P Q R S T U V W X Y 
Niche 
(Input) 
Distance 
along 
Inclined 
Borehole 
from Collar 
to Start of 
Test Interval 
(m) 
(Input) 
Distance 
along 
Inclined 
Borehole 
from Collar 
to End of 
Test Interval 
(m) 
(Output) 
Distance 
along 
Inclined 
Borehole 
from 
Collar to 
Center of 
Test 
Interval 
(m) 
(Output) 
Vertical 
Distance 
from 
Borehole 
Collar to 
Center of 
Test 
Interval 
(m) 
(Output) 
Vertical 
Distance 
from 
Horizontal 
Scanline to 
Center of 
Test 
Interval 
(m) 
(Output) 
Local 
Horizontal 
Coordinate 
for Center of 
Test Interval 
(m) 
(Input) 
Local 
Horizontal 
Coordinate 
for Start of 
Capture 
Node 
(m) 
(Input) 
Local 
Horizontal 
Coordinate 
for End of 
Capture 
Node 
(m) 
(Input) 
Vertical 
Distance 
from 
Horizontal 
Scanline 
to Ceiling 
above 
Start Node 
(m) 
(Input) 
Vertical 
Distance 
from 
Horizontal 
Scanline 
to Ceiling 
above 
End Node 
(m) 
(Output) 
Interpolated 
Vertical 
Distance from 
Horizontal 
Scanline to 
the Ceiling 
below the 
Center of the 
Test Interval 
(m) 
(Output) 
Distance 
from 
Borehole 
Bottom to 
Ceiling 
(m) 
7.62 7.93 7.775 -0.09 1.42 11.944 11.905 11.905 0.81 0.84 0.820 0.60 
6.10 6.40 6.25 -0.08 1.43 11.12 10.955 11.26 0.84 0.855 0.848 0.58 
4 5.18 5.48 5.33 -0.02 1.49 11.15 10.615 11.905 0.76 0.73 0.748 0.74 
Source: Columns N and O from DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]. 
NOTES: P = N + (O - N)/2. 
Q = K  P. 
R = G + Q. 
S = M + (P  L). 
Columns T and U represent local coordinates. They are horizontal distances from the ESF centerline taken parallel to the niche axis to the starting node 
and ending node of the capture system, respectively, that bracket the center of the overlying test interval, S. Note that the center of the interval lies 
between two nodes at the same horizontal coordinate, 11.905 m, for UL 7.62 to 7.93. Values from Scientific Notebook by Trautz (2001 [DIRS 156903], 
p. 36). 
Columns V and W are the vertical distances from the horizontal scanline plane to the ceiling of the niche at the start and end node at the horizontal 
coordinate T and U, respectively. Values from Scientific Notebook by Trautz (2001 [DIRS 156903], pp. 36, 38, 40, 41). 
Column X is the interpolated distance to ceiling determined using V and W. X = V + (W - V)  (S - T)/(U - T) except for UL 7.62 to 7.93 where 
X = V + (W-V)  (0.3-0.2)/0.3 and 0.3 is the distance between nodes (2,12) and (3,12). 
Y = R - X. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-5 November 2004 
Table B-3a. Computation of Liquid Release Flux for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 3 
(Niche 3107) Based on Niche-Study Data 
A B C D E F G H 
Borehole 
Name 
Depth 
(m) Test Name 
(Input) 
Liquid- 
Release 
Rate Qs 
(kg/s) 
Seepage 
Percentage 
(y') (%) 
Computed 
Cross- 
Sectional Area 
A 
(m2) 
(Output) 
Liquid- 
Release Flux 
(qs) 
(m/s) 
(Output) 
Liquid- 
Release 
Flux (qs) 
(mm/yr) 
Test #1 3/4/99 1.4266E-05 0 0.053 2.67E-07 8420 
Test #1 4/7/99 9.7304E-05 N/A 0.053 1.82E-06 57430 
Test #1 4-27-99 3.9897E-05 5.465 0.053 7.47E-07 23548 
Test #1 4-30-99 1.4113E-05 0 0.053 2.64E-07 8330 
Test #1 5/6/99 9.0739E-05 47.271 0.053 1.70E-06 53555 
Test #1 9-21-99 8.39647E-05 42.975 0.053 1.57E-06 49557 
Test #1 9-23-99 8.7576E-05 46.08 0.053 1.64E-06 51689 
Test #1 9-27-99 9.0044E-05 59.5915 0.053 1.69E-06 53145 
UM 4.88  
5.18 
Test #1 10-11-99 9.03981E-05 70.0857 0.053 1.69E-06 53354 
Source: Columns A through E from DTN: LB0010NICH3LIQ.001 [DIRS 153144]. 
NOTES: Columns F through H computed in Microsoft Excel 2000 spreadsheet using formulae below: 
F = wetted area of borehole up to return port of packers = [2p - (2Arccosine (d/r))] hr, 
where 
d = nominal vertical distance from center of borehole to return port on packer system = 2.54 cm. 
r = nominal radius of borehole = 3.81 cm = 0.0381 m. 
h = nominal test interval length = 1 foot = 0.3048 m. 
G = D  (1000 g/kg)/(1000000 g/m3  F) = D/(1000  F), 
where 
density of water is assumed to be equal to 1000000 g/m3. 
H = G  (1000 mm/m)  (86400 s/day)  (365 days/year). 
UM = upper middle. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-6 November 2004 
Table B-3b. Computation of Liquid Release Flux for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Based on Niche-Study Data 
A B C D E F G H 
Borehole 
Name 
Depth 
(m) Test Name 
(Input) 
Liquid-release 
Rate 
(Qs) 
(kg/s) 
Seepage 
Percentage 
(y') 
(%) 
Computed 
Cross-sectional 
Area A 
(m2) 
(Output) 
Liquid-release 
Flux 
(qs) 
(m/s) 
(Output) 
Liquid-release 
Flux 
(qs) 
(mm/yr) 
Test #1 11/3/99 8.8095E-05 24.159 0.053 1.65E-06 51995 
Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 4.9246E-05 17.964 0.053 9.22E-07 29066 
Test #1 01-24-00 7.81146E-06 0.0 0.053 1.46E-07 4610 
UL 7.62 - 7.93 
Test #1 6-26-2000 1.91662E-05 14.4488 0.053 3.59E-07 11312 
Test #1 Niche 4788 11/16/99 9.16384E-05 35.383 0.053 1.72E-06 54086 
Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 3.91451E-05 23.405 0.053 7.33E-07 23104 
Test #1 02-09-2000 8.819E-06 0.0 0.053 1.65E-07 5205 
Test #1 3-10-2000 9.681E-06 0.0 0.053 1.81E-07 5714 
Test #1 3-14-2000 8.8479E-06 0.0 0.053 1.66E-07 5222 
UM 6.10 - 6.40 
Test #1 06-08-2000 2.0489E-05 8.5381 0.053 3.83E-07 12093 
Test #1 Niche 4788 12/7/99 9.00855E-05 68.6623 0.053 1.69E-06 53170 
Test #1 1/5/2000 3.79689E-05 56.4895 0.053 7.11E-07 22410 
UR 5.18 - 5.48 
Test #1 02-14-2000 8.80016E-06 11.092 0.053 1.65E-07 5194 
Source: A through E from DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]. 
NOTES: F through H computed in Excel 2000 spreadsheet using formulae below: 
F = wetted area of borehole up to return port of packers = [2p - (2Arccosine (d/r))] hr where: 
d = nominal vertical distance from center of borehole to return port on packer system = 2.54 cm. 
r = nominal radius of borehole = 3.81 cm = 0.0381 m. 
h = nominal test interval length = 1 foot = 0.3048 m. 
G = D  (1000 g/kg)/(1000000 g/m3  F) = D/(1000  F), where density of water is assumed = 1000000 g/m3. 
H = G  (1000 mm/m)  (86400 s/day)  (365 days/year). 
UL = upper left; UM = upper middle; UR = upper right. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-8 November 2004 
Table B-4a. Data Used in Linear Regression Analysis (y' vs. ln qs) 
A B C D E F G 
Niche 
Borehole 
Name 
Depth 
(m) Test Name 
(Input) 
Seepage 
Percentages 
(y') 
(%) 
(Input) 
Liquid-Release 
Flux 
(qs) 
(m/s) 
(Output) 
Natural Log of 
Liquid-Release 
Flux 
(ln(qs)) 
Test #1 3/4/99 0.0 2.67E-07 -15.136 
Test #1 4-27-99 5.5 7.47E-07 -14.108 
Test #1 4-30-99 0.0 2.64E-07 -15.147 
Test #1 5/6/99 47.3 1.70E-06 -13.286 
Test #1 9-21-99 43.0 1.57E-06 -13.364 
Test #1 9-23-99 46.1 1.64E-06 -13.321 
Test #1 9-27-99 59.6 1.69E-06 -13.294 
3 UM 4.88-5.18 
Test #1 10-11-99 70.1 1.69E-06 -13.290 
Test #1 11/3/99 24.2 1.65E-06 -13.315 
Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 18.0 9.22E-07 -13.897 
Test #1 01-24-00 0.0 1.46E-07 -15.738 
UL 7.62-7.93 
Test #1 6-26-2000 14.4 3.59E-07 -14.841 
Test #1 Niche 4788 11/16/99 35.4 1.72E-06 -13.276 
Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 23.4 7.33E-07 -14.127 
Test #1 3-14-2000 0.0 1.66E-07 -15.614 
UM 6.10-6.40 
Test #1 06-08-2000 8.5 3.83E-07 -14.774 
Test #1 Niche 4788 12/7/99 68.7 1.69E-06 -13.293 
Test #1 1/5/2000 56.5 7.11E-07 -14.157 
4 
UR 5.18-5.48 
Test #1 02-14-2000 11.1 1.65E-07 -15.619 
Source: Columns A through F from Table B-3a and Table B-3b. 
NOTE: G = ln(F). 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-9 November 2004 
Table B-4b. Linear Regression Summary (Output) for Niche 3 (Niche 3107) UM 4.88-5.18 
ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F 
Regression 1 4500.737 4500.737 27.411 0.002 
Residual 6 985.173 164.195 
Total 7 5485.910 
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% 
y-intercept of linear 
regression equation 
456.085 80.759 5.647 0.001 258.474 653.695 258.474 653.695 
slope of linear regression 
equation 
30.440 5.814 5.236 0.002 16.214 44.667 16.214 44.667 
NOTES: All output shown in this table was obtained using Microsoft Excel 2000 built-in Tools/Data analysis/Regression package. 
Data used in regression analysis are from Table B-4a, where the y data are the input seepage percentiles, and the x data are the ln(qs). 
Regression Statistics: R Square = 0.820; Number of Observations = 8. 
Table B-4c. Linear Regression Summary (Output) for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) UL 7.62-7.93 
ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F 
Regression 1 292.815 292.815 26.353 0.036 
Residual 2 22.223 11.111 
Total 3 315.038 
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% 
y-intercept of linear 
regression equation 
148.119 26.152 5.664 0.030 35.597 260.640 35.597 260.640 
Slope of linear 
regression equation 
9.273 1.806 5.133 0.036 1.501 17.045 1.501 17.045 
NOTES: All output shown in this table was obtained using Microsoft Excel 2000 built-in Tools/Data analysis/Regression package. 
Data used in regression analysis are from Table B-4a, where the y data are the input seepage percentiles, and the x are the ln(qs). 
Regression Statistics: R Square = 0.929; Number of Observations = 4. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-10 November 2004 
Table B-4d. Linear Regression Summary (Output) for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) UM 6.10-6.40 
ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F 
Regression 1 724.849 724.849 99.295 0.010 
Residual 2 14.600 7.300 
Total 3 739.449 
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% 
y-intercept of linear 
regression equation 
243.611 22.798 10.685 0.009 145.517 341.704 145.517 341.704 
Slope of linear 
regression equation 
15.697 1.575 9.965 0.010 8.919 22.474 8.919 22.474 
NOTES: All output shown in this table was obtained using Microsoft Excel 2000 built-in Tools/Data analysis/Regression package. 
Data used in regression analysis are from Table B-4a, where the y data are the input seepage percentiles, and the x data are the ln(qs). 
Regression Statistics: R Square = 0.980; Number of Observations = 4. 
Table B-4e. Linear Regression Summary (Output) for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) UR 5.18-5.48 
ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F 
Regression 1 1785.798 1785.798 32.263 0.111 
Residual 1 55.352 55.352 
Total 2 1841.150 
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% 
y-intercept of linear 
regression equation 
410.285 64.381 6.373 0.099 -407.747 1228.317 -407.747 1228.317 
Slope of linear 
regression equation 
25.415 4.474 5.680 0.111 -31.438 82.268 -31.438 82.268 
NOTES: All output shown in this table was obtained using Microsoft Excel 2000 built-in Tools/Data analysis/Regression package. 
Data used in regression analysis are from Table B-4a, where the y data are the input seepage percentiles, and the x data are the ln(qs). 
Regression Statistics: R Square = 0.970; Number of Observations = 3. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-11 November 2004 
Table B-5. Computation of a-Values Based on Niche-Study Data 
A B C D E F G H I 
Niche 
Borehole 
Name and 
Depth 
(m) 
(Input) 
Seepage 
Threshold 
Flux 
(Ko
*) 
(m/s) 
(Input) 
Saturated 
Hydraulic 
conductivity 
(Kl) 
(m/s) 
(Intermediate 
Output) 
(Ko
* / Kl) 
(dimensionless) 
(Intermediate 
Output) 
Inverse of 
Dimensionless 
Potentials 
([.max (s)] 1) 
(Output) 
Sorptive 
Number 
(a) 
(m-1) 
(Output) 
Capillary 
Strength 
(a-1) 
(m) 
(Output) 
Error 
(%) 
UL 7.01-7.32 3.55E-06 8.98E-05 NC NC 11.7 0.0855 NC 
UL 7.62-7.92 9.80E-08 1.51E-04 NC NC 771.9 0.0013 NC 
UM 4.27-4.57 2.89E-07 2.62E-05 NC NC 44.4 0.0225 NC 
UM 4.88-5.18 1.03E-06 2.52E-03 NC NC 1225.5 0.0008 NC 
UM 5.49-5.79 3.50E-07 2.16E-05 NC NC 29.9 0.0334 NC 
UR 4.27-4.57 1.03E-06 4.08E-05 NC NC 18.8 0.0532 NC 
UR 4.88-5.18 9.92E-07 9.87E-05 NC NC 48.8 0.0205 NC 
UR 5.49-5.79 4.31E-06 1.71E-05 NC NC 1.4 0.71 NC 
UR 6.10-6.40 6.35E-09 3.01E-05 NC NC 2373.7 0.0004 NC 
2 
UR 6.71-7.01 1.63E-07 2.28E-04 NC NC 699.2 0.0014 NC 
UL 7.62-7.93 1.16E-07 2.46E-05 4.70E-03 4.70E-03 105.4 0.0095 -3.66E-04 
UM 6.10-6.40 1.82E-07 2.45E-04 7.43E-04 7.43E-04 672.3 0.0015 -1.80E-04 
4 
UR 5.18-5.48 9.75E-08 3.92E-06 2.49E-02 2.49E-02 19.1 0.0523 -9.41E-05 
Theoretical limit 521.7 0.0019 NA 
Source: G for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
NOTE(S): Intermediate computations not performed for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) because they were performed in other 
technical products using the same formulae shown below. Output shown in table for Niche 2 
(Niche 3650) was obtained directly from TDMS except where noted. 
Source of Column C values: Column H of Table B-4. 
Source of Column D values: Column K of Table B-4. 
E = C/D. 
F = 1/(2  G + 2 - (1/G)) = [ .max (s)] -1, 
where .max and s are defined by Equations (84) and (14) in Philip et al. 1989 [DIRS 105743]. 
In this case, s = 0.5  a  r = 0.5  a  2 = a, since the nominal radius of the niche (r) is 
approximately 2 m. 
G = a, sorptive number, 
where a is selected such that absolute value of Error (i.e., column I) is < 1E-03%. 
(Theoretical limit) = a = maximum sorptive number = (2*.  g/.)1/2, 
where . = density of water assumed equal to 1000 kg/m3, 
g = acceleration of gravity 9.8 m/s2, and 
. = surface tension of water assumed equal to 0.072 kg/s2. 
Equation G (theoretical limit) can be derived by substituting the maximum aperture (max) that can 
sustain a fluid meniscus because of capillary forces (max = (2./.g)1/2) into the capillary height of 
rise equation 2a-1 = 2./(.gmax). 
Expression for max from Wang and Narasimhan 1993 [DIRS 106793]. Expression for capillary 
height of rise equation from Philip 1989 [DIRS 156974]. 
H = 1/G = a-1, capillary strength of the porous medium computed for all niches. 
I = 100  (E-F)/E. Note that Ko
* / Kl = [.max (s)] -1 as noted in Section 3.4 of Philip et al. 1989 
[DIRS 105743]. 
NA = Not applicable 
NC = Intermediate computations not performed for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) because they were performed 
in earlier technical products using the same formulae and methods. Output shown in Table for 
Niche 2 (Niche 3650) was obtained directly from TDMS except where noted. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-12 November 2004 
Table B-6. Computed Values of Seepage Threshold Values 
A B C D E F G H 
(Output) 
Kl 
(mm/yr) 
(Input) 
Kl 
(m/s) 
(Input) 
s 
(dimensionless) 
(Input) 
2s 
(dimensionless) 
(Intermediate 
Output) 
.max 
(dimensionless) 
(Output) 
[.max] 1 
(dimensionless) 
(Interme 
-diate 
Output) 
Ko
* 
(m/s) 
(Output) 
Ko
* 
(mm/yr) 
3.154E+01 1.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-13 3.02E-02 
4.730E+01 1.500E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-12 4.52E-02 
6.307E+01 2.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-12 6.03E-02 
9.461E+01 3.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-12 9.05E-02 
1.261E+02 4.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-12 1.21E-01 
1.577E+02 5.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-12 1.51E-01 
1.892E+02 6.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-12 1.81E-01 
2.208E+02 7.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-12 2.11E-01 
2.523E+02 8.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-12 2.41E-01 
2.838E+02 9.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-12 2.71E-01 
3.154E+02 1.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-12 3.02E-01 
4.730E+02 1.500E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-11 4.52E-01 
6.307E+02 2.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-11 6.03E-01 
9.461E+02 3.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-11 9.05E-01 
1.261E+03 4.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-11 1.21E+00 
1.577E+03 5.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-11 1.51E+00 
1.892E+03 6.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-11 1.81E+00 
2.208E+03 7.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-11 2.11E+00 
2.523E+03 8.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-11 2.41E+00 
2.838E+03 9.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-11 2.71E+00 
3.154E+03 1.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-11 3.02E+00 
4.730E+03 1.500E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-10 4.52E+00 
6.307E+03 2.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-10 6.03E+00 
9.461E+03 3.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-10 9.05E+00 
1.261E+04 4.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-10 1.21E+01 
1.577E+04 5.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-10 1.51E+01 
1.892E+04 6.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-10 1.81E+01 
2.208E+04 7.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-10 2.11E+01 
2.523E+04 8.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-10 2.41E+01 
2.838E+04 9.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-10 2.71E+01 
3.154E+04 1.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-10 3.02E+01 
4.730E+04 1.500E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-09 4.52E+01 
6.307E+04 2.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-09 6.03E+01 
9.461E+04 3.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-09 9.05E+01 
1.261E+05 4.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-09 1.21E+02 
1.577E+05 5.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-09 1.51E+02 
1.892E+05 6.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-09 1.81E+02 
2.208E+05 7.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-09 2.11E+02 
2.523E+05 8.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-09 2.41E+02 
2.838E+05 9.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-09 2.71E+02
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-13 November 2004 
Table B-6. Computed Values of Seepage Threshold Values (Continued) 
(Output) 
Kl 
(mm/yr) 
(Input) 
Kl 
(m/s) 
(Input) 
s 
(dimensionless) 
(Input) 
2s 
(dimensionless) 
(Intermediate 
Output) 
.max 
(dimensionless) 
(Output) 
[.max] 1 
(dimensionless) 
(Interme 
-diate 
Output) 
Ko
* 
(m/s) 
(Output) 
Ko
* 
(mm/yr) 
3.154E+05 1.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-09 3.02E+02 
4.730E+05 1.500E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-08 4.52E+02 
6.307E+05 2.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-08 6.03E+02 
9.461E+05 3.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-08 9.05E+02 
1.261E+06 4.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-08 1.21E+03 
1.577E+06 5.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-08 1.51E+03 
1.892E+06 6.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-08 1.81E+03 
2.208E+06 7.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-08 2.11E+03 
2.523E+06 8.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-08 2.41E+03 
2.838E+06 9.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-08 2.71E+03 
3.154E+06 1.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-08 3.02E+03 
4.730E+06 1.500E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-07 4.52E+03 
6.307E+06 2.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-07 6.03E+03 
9.461E+06 3.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-07 9.05E+03 
1.261E+07 4.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-07 1.21E+04 
1.577E+07 5.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-07 1.51E+04 
1.892E+07 6.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-07 1.81E+04 
2.208E+07 7.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-07 2.11E+04 
2.523E+07 8.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-07 2.41E+04 
2.838E+07 9.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-07 2.71E+04 
3.154E+07 1.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-07 3.02E+04 
4.730E+07 1.500E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-06 4.52E+04 
6.307E+07 2.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-06 6.03E+04 
9.461E+07 3.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-06 9.05E+04 
1.261E+08 4.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-06 1.21E+05 
1.577E+08 5.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-06 1.51E+05 
1.892E+08 6.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-06 1.81E+05 
2.208E+08 7.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-06 2.11E+05 
2.523E+08 8.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-06 2.41E+05 
2.838E+08 9.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-06 2.71E+05 
3.154E+08 1.000E-02 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-06 3.02E+05 
NOTE(S): Refer to Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743]) for an explanation of nomenclature. 
A = B  1000 mm/m  86400 s/day  365 days/year. 
B = saturated hydraulic conductivity whose values are arbitrarily set in this column to span the range of 
values measured during air k tests performed at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788). 
C = (Theoretical limit) from bottom of Table B-5, column G. 
D = 2  C. 
E = 2s + 2 -1/s. 
F = 1/E. 
G = B  F. 
H = G  1000 mm/m  86400 s/day  365 days/year. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-14 November 2004 
Table B-7. Computation of Estimated Water Potentials Based on Niche-Study Data 
A B C D E F G 
Niche 
Borehole 
Name and 
Depth 
(m) Test Name 
(Input) 
Liquid- 
Release 
Flux 
(qs) 
(m/s) 
(Input) 
Saturated 
Hydraulic 
Conductivity 
(Kl) 
(m/s) 
(Input) 
Alpha 
Value 
(a) 
(m-1) 
(Output) 
Absolute 
Value of 
the Water 
Potential 
(.) 
(m) 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #2 1-6-98 9.49E-06 1.51E-04 771.9 3.59E-03 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 2-12-98 1.89E-06 1.51E-04 771.9 5.68E-03 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 3-4-98 2.33E-07 1.51E-04 771.9 8.39E-03 
UM 4.27-4.57 
Test 5 Niche 3650 
(11-13-97) 3.78E-05 2.62E-05 44.4 8.26E-03 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 12-3-97 9.42E-06 2.62E-05 44.4 2.30E-02 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 12-3-97 9.47E-06 2.62E-05 44.4 2.29E-02 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 1-7-98 8.82E-07 2.62E-05 44.4 7.64E-02 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 2-10-98 3.09E-07 2.62E-05 44.4 1.00E-01 
UM 4.88-5.18 
Test 1 Niche 3650 
(11-12-97) 5.41E-05 2.52E-03 1225.5 3.13E-03 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 12-4-97 9.49E-06 2.52E-03 1225.5 4.56E-03 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #2 12-5-97 2.70E-06 2.52E-03 1225.5 5.58E-03 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 1-8-98 8.75E-07 2.52E-03 1225.5 6.50E-03 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 3-6-98 2.48E-07 2.52E-03 1225.5 7.53E-03 
UM 5.49-5.79 
Test 4 Niche 3650 
(11-13-97) 3.87E-05 2.16E-05 29.9 1.95E-02 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #2 12-4-97 9.43E-06 2.16E-05 29.9 2.77E-02 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 1-9-98 1.08E-06 2.16E-05 29.9 1.00E-01 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 2-11-98 2.55E-07 2.16E-05 29.9 1.48E-01 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 1-13-98 3.68E-06 2.28E-04 699.2 5.90E-03 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 2-3-98 1.91E-06 2.28E-04 699.2 6.84E-03 
2 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 3-5-98 2.48E-07 2.28E-04 699.2 9.76E-03 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11/3/99 1.65E-06 2.46E-05 105.4 2.56E-02 
UL 7.62-7.93 
Test #1 11-30-99 
Niche 4788 9.22E-07 2.46E-05 105.4 3.12E-02 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 3.59E-07 2.46E-05 105.4 4.01E-02 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 01-24-00 1.46E-07 2.46E-05 105.4 4.86E-02 
UM 6.10-6.40 
Test #1 Niche 4788 
11/16/99 1.72E-06 2.45E-04 672.3 7.38E-03 
UM 6.10-6.40 
Test #1 Niche 4788 
12-10-99 7.33E-07 2.45E-04 672.3 8.65E-03 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 3.83E-07 2.45E-04 672.3 9.61E-03 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 3-14-2000 1.66E-07 2.45E-04 672.3 1.09E-02 
UR 5.18-5.48 
Test #1 Niche 4788 
12/7/99 1.69E-06 3.92E-06 19.1 4.41E-02 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 1/5/2000 7.11E-07 3.92E-06 19.1 8.93E-02 
4 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 1.65E-07 3.92E-06 19.1 1.66E-01 
NOTES: D for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]; D for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) 
computed in Table B-3b (G), respectively. 
E from Table B-4 (K). 
F from Table B-5 (G). 
G = ln(D/E)/F; G for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] using same 
formula. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-15 November 2004 
Table B-8. Computation of Estimated Water Content Change Based on Niche-Study Data 
A B C D E F G 
Niche 
Borehole 
Name and 
Depth 
(m) Test Name 
(Input) 
Liquid-Release 
Flux 
(qs) 
(m/s) 
(Input) 
Arrival Time 
of Wetting 
Front at 
Ceiling 
(t) 
(s) 
(Input) 
Distance 
to Ceiling 
(zp) 
(m) 
(Output) 
Average Water 
Content 
Change 
(.ave - .n) 
(m3/m3) 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #2 1-6-98 9.49E-06 690 0.65 0.0101 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 2-12-98 1.89E-06 570 0.65 0.0017 
UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 3-4-98 2.33E-07 2610 0.65 0.0009 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test 5 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.78E-05 416 0.65 0.0242 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 12-3-97 9.42E-06 1008 0.65 0.0146 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 12-3-97 9.47E-06 514 0.65 0.0075 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 1-7-98 8.82E-07 8811 0.65 0.0120 
UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 2-10-98 3.09E-07 13375 0.65 0.0063 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test 1 Niche 3650 (11-12-97) 5.41E-05 180 0.65 0.0150 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 12-4-97 9.49E-06 298 0.65 0.0043 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #2 12-5-97 2.70E-06 952 0.65 0.0040 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 1-8-98 8.75E-07 6060 0.65 0.0082 
UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 3-6-98 2.48E-07 21690 0.65 0.0083 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test 4 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.87E-05 208 0.65 0.0124 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #2 12-4-97 9.43E-06 420 0.65 0.0061 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 1-9-98 1.08E-06 2750 0.65 0.0046 
UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 2-11-98 2.55E-07 10130 0.65 0.0040 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 1-13-98 3.68E-06 416 0.65 0.0024 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 2-3-98 1.91E-06 626 0.65 0.0018 
2 
UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 3-5-98 2.48E-07 4457 0.65 0.0017 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11/3/99 1.65E-06 7057 0.60 0.0193 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 9.22E-07 3602 0.60 0.0055 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 3.59E-07 16445 0.60 0.0098 
UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 01-24-00 1.46E-07 45697 0.60 0.0111 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 11/16/99 1.72E-06 16572 0.58 0.0489 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 7.33E-07 39938 0.58 0.0503 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 3.83E-07 50190 0.58 0.0331 
UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 3-14-2000 1.66E-07 124800 0.58 0.0355 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 Niche 4788 12/7/99 1.69E-06 4034 0.74 0.0092 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 1/5/2000 7.11E-07 5707 0.74 0.0055 
4 
UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 1.65E-07 24900 0.74 0.0055 
Source: D for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
NOTES: D for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) computed in Table B-3b (G). 
E in hour:minute:second format for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) from DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 
[DIRS 153145]. 
E conversion from hour:minute:second format to seconds = (hours  3600) + (minutes  60) + (seconds in 
table). 
E in seconds for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] using same 
conversion. 
F for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from Wang (1999 [DIRS 153449], p. 84). 
F for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) from Table B-2. 
G = D  E/F for Niche 4 (Niche 4788). 
G for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] using same formula. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-16 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
APPENDIX C 
SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCE OF DATA ON SEEPAGE TESTS 
AT NICHE 5 (NICHE 1620) 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-1 November 2004 
C1. SURVEY DATA 
Figure C-1 contains as-built slot profiles to supplement Figure 6-36. 
Source: DTN: MO0107GSC01061.000 [DIRS 155369]. 
Figure C-1. As-Built Profile Niche #5 Bat-Wing Excavation (Looking in from ECRB) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-2 November 2004 
C2. TEST OPERATION AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT 
Appendix Section C2 contains details of test operation on control equipment. The test operation 
and control equipment can be categorized into three general functional groups, as follows: 
1. Valves and pumps that allow the user to control the direction, speed, and duration of 
fluid (air and water) movement through the manifolds, transmission lines, and straddle 
packers. Two pumps were used to control the release rate into the test interval, and 
valves were used to fill the release reservoir with more water once it was depleted. 
High-capacity pumps were periodically used to empty the capture reservoirs and return 
reservoirs, where seepage and return waters, respectively, accumulated during an 
experiment. 
2. Instruments and sensors (including electronic balances, pressure transducers, and 
water-level sensors) provide system feedback. The operator used feedback from these 
sensors to manipulate control variables by manually or programmatically changing 
corresponding process variables. Automated equipment-control software (described in 
Appendix Section C3) was also used to continually poll these sensors and 
automatically change process variables (e.g., to start and stop a pump) to effect a 
change to a corresponding control variable (e.g., the release rate). Once a test was 
started, it could run for long periods of time without an operator, through use of the 
automated control routines. 
3. The FieldPoint (FP) modular distributed input/output system by National Instruments 
was used to monitor and control process variables. Several FP modules were used as 
controllers; such modules allowed the user to open and close valves, start and stop 
pumps, etc., by means of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) front panel controls of 
the software described in Appendix Section C3. 
Detailed process control diagrams associated with the test equipment are provided in Figure C-2 
(for the injection and return manifolds) and in Figure C-3 (for the capture manifold). 
The primary components of the test operation and control equipment are Aro solenoid valves, 
Nupro pneumatic valves, Richway air pinch valves, straddle packers, pumps, Kavlico pressure 
transducers, Gems water level sensors, and Mettler Toledo balances. 
Solenoid valves are used to control the flow of compressed air to the pneumatic and pinch 
valves, and the straddle packers (see Figure C-2 and Figure C-3). An FP control module is used 
to send a voltage signal to the input terminal of a solenoid valve, which causes the pneumatic or 
pinch valve to open, and allows compressed air to pass through the pneumatic or pinch valve 
body. If the solenoid valve is opened while connected to a pneumatic or pinch valve, the air 
pressure will open or close these valves, depending upon their initial state (i.e., normally open or 
normally closed). Solenoid valves are also used to directly control the air pressure needed to 
inflate the rubber glands of the straddle packer (see Figure C-2). 
Pneumatic and pinch valves are used to control the movement of water through the injection 
manifold. Water is pumped from the release reservoir (that rests on a Model SG 16001 Mettler 
Toledo balance (capacity 16.1 kg)), through the release manifold and straddle packers (via 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-3 November 2004 
tubing), to the test interval. A change in the pump speed results in a change in the rate at which 
water is released into the test zone. Two pumps having different pumping speeds (high and low) 
are used for this purpose: a MASTERFLEX L/S variable-speed digital peristaltic pump 
(0.1 to 340 g/min), and a Scilog piston pump (0.02 to 11 g/min). An FP control module is used to 
send a 3.5 to 20 mAmp electrical signal to one of the pumps. Depending upon the amperage, the 
pump speed changes (from 0 percent) to up to 100 percent of the pumps full-scale output. The 
balance is used to monitor the rate at which water is pumped into the borehole. When, based on 
its mass, the release reservoir has been depleted a pneumatic valve is opened on the water supply 
line to replenish the release reservoir. The release reservoir can be replenished manually, or 
automatically using equipment-control software. A Gems float switch is used (as a 
high-water-level indicator in the release reservoir) to close the water supply valve, and to turn off 
the release pumps (in the event the release reservoir accidentally overfills). 
The return port and return line connect the test interval, through the straddle packer, to the return 
manifold and the return reservoir that rests upon another balance (Figure C-2 and Figure C-3). If 
the pumping rate exceeds the infiltration capacity of the rock, then water will pond in the 
borehole, and will eventually flow out, through the return line, to the return reservoir that rests 
upon a second Model SG16001 Mettler Toledo balance. Pneumatic and pinch valves are used to 
control the movement of liquid through the return manifold and transmission lines. The balance 
is used to monitor the rate at which water returns, by gravity, to the return reservoir. Once the 
return reservoir is full (as determined by its mass), a high capacity (0.1217.0 kg/min.) 
MASTERFLEX I/P variable speed peristaltic pump is used to remove the water from the 
return reservoir. An FP control module is used to actuate the pump, either manually or 
automatically (through use of the software listed in Appendix Section C3). 
Water introduced into the test interval is expected to move from the borehole, through the rock, 
to the niche ceiling, where it drips into the niche (Figure C-2 and Figure C-3). A capture system 
(consisting of 0.30-m-wide, 1.20-m-long trays constructed of transparent Lexan plastic hung 
from an aluminum frame) was used to collect the water that dripped from the niche ceiling 
(Figure 6-40). Each plastic tray was approximately 0.2 m deep, and had four separate 
0.30-m-by-0.30-m compartments. Each compartment drained (from the bottom, through a pinch 
valve and associated tubing) to a capture reservoir that rested upon a Model SG16001 Mettler 
Toledo balance (a third balance, not one of the aforementioned ones). 
The pinch valve could be opened or closed by closing or opening, respectively, its corresponding 
solenoid valve. The spatial distribution of seepage was determined by sequentially opening and 
closing the various pinch valves, and using the capture balance to measure the cumulative water 
mass collected in a given compartment. Once the capture reservoir was full (as determined by its 
mass), a second MASTERFLEX I/P variable speed peristaltic pump was used to remove the 
water from the capture reservoir. An FP control module was then used to actuate the pump, 
either manually, or automatically (through use of the software described in 
Appendix Section C3). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-4 November 2004 
Figure C-2. Process Diagram for the Release and Return Manifolds Used to Control Water Flow to and 
from the Test Interval 
Solenoid Valve 
Pinch Valve 
Fluid flow (solid) 
Sensor Feedback (dot) 
Control (dash) 
Legend 
OFF 
Straddle 
Packer 
Injection 
Pumps 
Return 
Reservoir 
Balance 2 
Return 
Pump 
Injection 
Interval 
Air or 
Water 
Drain 
Compressed 
Air 
NI Fieldpoint 
Equipment Control 
OFF 
Release 
Reservoir 
Balance 1 
Sensor Feedback 
- Mass 
- Water 
Level 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-5 November 2004 
Figure C-3. Process Diagram for the Capture Manifold Used to Measure and Control Seepage 
Collected inside the Niche 
OFF 
Capture 
Reservoir 
Balance 
Capture 
Pump 
Drain 
Compressed Air 
Solenoid Valve 
Pinch Valve 
Fluid flow (solid) 
Sensor Feedback (dot) 
Control (dash) 
Legend NI Fieldpoint 
Equipment Control 
Seepage into capture trays 
Sensor Feedback 
- Mass 
- Water 
Level
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-6 November 2004 
C3. EQUIPMENT CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION 
Appendix Section C3 describes software of measuring and testing equipment. The 
custom-designed test operation was developed for PCs through use of the National Instruments 
LabVIEW graphical development environment (to control the seepage test equipment), which 
permitted both manual and automated manipulation (and control) of the test equipment and 
parameters described in Section C2. LabVIEW V.6 provided a useful equipment and sensor 
interface. The control (e.g., valve icon of GUI) and indicator (e.g., graph) functions provided in 
LabVIEW V.6 permitted the user to build custom virtual instruments that could be viewed and 
operated from a PC. The operator interfaces with the equipment either by clicking on GUI icons 
(that represent the valves, buttons, knobs, etc., that control processes) to generate pop-up 
windows containing relevant information, or by viewing GUI indicators that display data 
(through use of such devices as graphs, gauges, and tanks) on the PC. Figure C-4 shows a 
portion of the front-panel display for Combined system box.vi, a virtual instrument used to 
control valves and monitor test equipment. 
Figure C-4. Front Panel Display for LabVIEW V.6 Virtual Instrument Showing Example of Equipment 
Control Parameters 
Unattended operation and remote access to the automated equipment (both possible because of 
software functionality) were critical to the success of the seepage tests, because the long duration 
of the experiments, and the limited access to the equipment during routine (e.g., weekend and 
holidays) and unexpected (e.g., power failures) closures of the ESF made less-automated 
methods unfeasible. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-7 November 2004 
C4. NICHE 5 (NICHE CD 1620) DATA FILES AND SCIENTIFIC NOTEBOOKS 
Appendix Section C4 describes the test sequence and provides a list of scientific notebooks. Five 
sets of data were submitted to the Technical Database Management System (TDMS). Three of 
the data sets (DTNs: LB0207NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160408], LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 
[DIRS 160796], and LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]) contain data files (in 
comma-delimited ASCII format) and are summarized in Table C-1. The remaining data sets, 
DTN: LB0208NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 161210] and DTN: LB0210NICH5LIQ.001 
[DIRS 161211]), contained preliminary data, and were subsequently superseded by 
LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160796] and LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792], 
respectively. Table C-1 also identifies the scientific notebook pages pertinent to each test; the 
pages provide test-specific details (including the serial number and location of instruments and 
sensors used during the experiment, test operating conditions, etc.). 
The names of the electronic files that contain the test data (that were generated through use of the 
data acquisition equipment and software) are listed in Table C-1. Test data files consist of four 
types. 
The three data-file types that include (seep), (smass), or (srate) in their filename contain 
the seepage-percentage, seep-mass, or seepage-rate data, respectively, from individual capture 
compartments that fed seepage water to the capture balance(s) during the test (Figure C-2 and 
Figure C-3). All other test files contain the cumulative mass and rate of water released 
(Balance 1) and returned (Balance 2), and the total seepage captured (Balance 3 and/or 
Balance 4), as these were measured by the Mettler Toledo balances that were used during the 
experiments. 
As noted in Appendix Section C3, after July 15, 2002, only one balance was used to measure 
seepage into the niche (i.e., Balance 3), and Balance 4 was used to measure evaporation. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-8 November 2004 
Table C-1. Source of Data for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
Source of Data Borehole or Data 
Description Depth (m) Test Name Start Date End Date Scientific Notebook Filename 
#2 6.40 - 6.70 Test #1 5-6-02 5/6/2002 5/10/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#2_21-22_ft_5-6-02.csv 
pp. 154-160, 162-167, 169-171,178-190, 
193-196, 199, 201-202, 220, 226-229, and 
233) 
#2 6.10 - 6.40 Test #2 5-17-02 5/17/2002 5/17/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02.csv 
pp. 154-160, 162-167, 169-171, Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (seep)_#1.csv 
178-190, 201-203, 205-208, 220 Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (smass)_#1.csv 
226-229, and 233) Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (srate)_#1.csv 
#5 8.53 - 8.83 Test #1 5-3-02 5/3/2002 5/14/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_#1.csv 
pp. 154-160, 162-166, 168-178, Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_#2.csv 
184-192, 195-202, 220, and 229-233) Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_#3.csv 
Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_#4.csv 
Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_(seep).csv 
Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_(smass).csv 
Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_(srate).csv 
#5 8.53 - 8.83 Test #2 5-16-02 5/16/2000 5/31/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02.csv 
pp. 154-160, 162-166, 168-178, Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(seep)_#1.csv 
184-190, 201-222, and 226-234) Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(seep)_#2.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(seep)_#3.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(seep)_#4.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(smass)_#1.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(smass)_#2.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(smass)_#3.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(smass)_#4.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(srate)_#1.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(srate)_#2.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(srate)_#3.csv 
Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(srate)_#4.csv 
Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02.csv 
Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (seep)_#1.csv 
Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (seep)_#2.csv 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-9 November 2004 
Table C-1. Source of Data for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (Continued) 
Source of Data Borehole or 
Data Description Depth (m) Test Name Start Date End Date Scientific Notebook Filename 
#5 8.53 - 8.83 Test #2 5-16-02 5/16/2000 5/31/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (seep)_#3.csv 
pp. 154-160, 162-166, 168-178, Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (smass)_#1.csv 
184-190, 201-222, and 226-234) Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (smass)_#2.csv 
Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (smass)_#3.csv 
Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (srate)_#1.csv 
Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (srate)_#2.csv 
Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (srate)_#3.csv 
Evaporation pan data (Pre-tests.) 12/7/2000 12/12/2000 Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], Evap Niche CD1620 12-7-00.csv 
2/7/2001 2/8/2001 pp. 90-91, 116-117, 120, 130-131, Evap Niche CD1620 start2-07-01.csv 
2/21/2001 4/2/2001 156-157, 195, and 298-299) Evap Niche CD1620 start 2-21-01.csv 
4/2/2001 4/3/2001 Evap Niche CD1620 start 4-02-01.csv 
7/12/2001 8/25/2001 Evap Niche CD1620 start 7-12-01.csv 
Evaporation pan data (All tests.) 5/2/2002 5/3/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], N5 Evap inside start 5-2-02.csv 
5/6/2002 5/10/2002 pp. 187, 192, 193, 198, 199, 203, N5 Evap inside start 5-6-02.csv 
5/10/2002 6/13/2002 220, 223, 226-230, and 233) N5_Evap_inside_start_5-10-02.csv 
5/2/2002 5/3/2002 N5 Evap out start 5-2-02.csv 
5/6/2002 6/13/2002 N5_Evap_out_start 5-6-02.csv 
Relative humidity and (Pre-tests.) 12/7/2000 12/21/2000 Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 156903], N51-23.csv 
temperature inside niche 1/23/2001 2/26/2001 p. 47.) N52-26.csv 
2/26/2001 3/21/2001 and N53-21.csv 
3/21/2001 3/22/2001 Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], N54-3-01.csv 
3/22/2001 4/3/2001 pp. 90-91, 116, 134-135, 143, 158, N54-3.csv 
7/12/2001 7/24/2001 190-195, 219-221, and 298-299) N57-24.csv 
7/24/2001 8/25/2001 N58-25.csv 
8/25/2001 9/12/2001 N59-12.csv 
Relative humidity and (All tests.) 5/2/2002 5/6/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], N5_RH-T-P_5-6-02.csv 
temperature inside and outside 5/2/2002 5/9/2002 pp. 162-164, 170-171, 186, 188-190, N5_RH-T-p_5-9-02.csv 
niche, and liquid 5/2/2002 5/22/2002 192, 197, 210, 220-222, 226-230, N5_RH-T-p_5-22-02.csv 
pressure in release lines 5/2/2002 6/3/2002 and 233) N5_RH-T-p_6-3-02.csv 
#3 6.40-6.70 Test#1 7-16-02 7/16/2002 8/14/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1.csv 
pp. 154-159, 162-164, 170-183, 201, Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1 (seep).csv 
239-258, 262-273, and 297-301) Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1 (smass).csv 
Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1 (srate).csv 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-10 November 2004 
Table C-1. Source of Data for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (Continued) 
Source of Data Borehole or 
Data Description Depth (m) Test Name Start Date End Date Scientific Notebook Filename 
#3 6.40-6.70 Test #1 8-14-02 8/14/2002 8/26/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1.csv 
pp. 154-159, 162-164, 170-183, 201, Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1 (seep).csv 
239-258, 273-285, and 297-301) Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1 (smass).csv 
Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1 (srate).csv 
Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2.csv 
Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2 (seep).csv 
Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2 (smass).csv 
Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2 (srate).csv 
#5 8.53-8.83 Test #1 7-15-02 7/15/2002 8/26/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1.csv 
pp.154-159, 162-164, 170-183, 201, Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1_(seep).csv 
239-262, 267-273, 275-285. Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1_(smass).csv 
and 297-301) Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1_(srate).csv 
Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2.csv 
Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2 (seep).csv 
Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2 (smass).csv 
Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2 (srate).csv 
(Pre-tests.) 7/2/2002 7/3/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], N5_Evap_inside_start_7-2-02.csv 
7/3/2002 7/15/2002 pp. 242, 244-246, 260, 263, N5_Evap_inside_start_7-3-02.csv 
6/27/2002 7/3/2002 and 272-273) N5_Evap_out_start 6-27-02.csv 
Evaporation pan 
data inside and outside 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
7/3/2002 7/16/2002 N5_Evap_out_start_7-3-02.csv 
Evaporation pan (During tests.) 7/15/2002 7/15/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1.csv 
data inside and outside 7/15/2002 8/26/2002 pp. 240-241, 247-250, 258, 260, 263, Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2.csv 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 7/16/2002 8/12/2002 265, 272-274, 281-282, and 283-285) Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1.csv 
8/13/2002 8/14/2002 Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-13-02_#1.csv 
8/14/2002 8/22/2002 Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1.csv 
8/23/2002 8/26/2002 Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2.csv 
Relative humidity and (All tests.) 7/3/2002 8/19/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], N5_RH-T-p_8-19-02.csv 
temperature inside and pp. 162-164, 170-171, 186, 188-190, 
outside niche, and liquid 220-222, 224-226, 239-243, 245, 
pressure in release lines 278, 280-281, and 297-299) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-11 November 2004 
Table C-1. Source of Data for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (Continued) 
Source of Data Borehole or Data 
Description Depth (m) Test Name Start Date End Date Scientific Notebook Filename 
#4 6.40-6.70 Test#1 9-17-02 9/17/2002 10/1/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv 
pp.154-159, 162-163, 165, 170-183, Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1a_(seep).csv 
243-245, 284, and 287) Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1a_(smass).csv 
and Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1a_(srate).csv 
Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#2_(seep).csv 
pp. 14-15, 18-41, 54-56, 61-62, and 65) Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#2_(smass).csv 
Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#2_(srate).csv 
#4 6.40-6.70 Test #1 10-1-02 10/1/2002 10/28/2002 Trautz 2003 [DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv 
pp.154-159, 162-163, 165, 170-183, 
243-245, 284, and 287. 
Trautz 2001 [DIRS 161208], 
pp. 14-15, 18-40, 42-60, 63-66. 
#5 8.53-8.83 Test #2 9-17-02 9/17/2002 10/28/2002 Trautz 2003 [DIRS 166248], Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 (seep).csv 
pp.154-159, 162-163, 165, 170-183, Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 (smass).csv 
243-245, 284, 286-287. Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 (srate).csv 
and Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv 
Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1a (seep).csv 
pp. 14-17, 20-41, 43-47, 49-53, 55-62, Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1a (smass).csv 
65, and 67) Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1a (srate).csv 
Evaporation pan (All tests.) 9/17/2002 10/28/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv 
data inside and outside pp. 240-241, 247-250, 260, 263, 265, Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv 
272-274, 281-282, and 283-285) 
Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], 
Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 
pp. 14-19, 28, 41-42, 45-46, 55-56, and 59) 
Relative humidity and (All tests.) 8/20/2002 9/18/2002 Trautz 2003 [DIRS 166248], N5_RH-T-p_9-18-02.csv 
temperature inside and 9/18/2002 10/18/2002 pp. 162-164, 170-171, 186, 188-190, 221- N5_RH-T-p_10-18-02.csv 
outside niche, and liquid 10/18/2002 10/29/2002 222, 224-225, 239-243, 245, 280-281. N5_RH-T-p_10-29-02.csv 
pressure in release lines Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], 
pp. 16, 18,20, 52, and 54-56) 
Source: DTN: LB0207NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160408], native data file Niche CD1620 data sources: rev 8-9-02.xls. 
DTN: LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160796], native data file Niche CD1620 data sources: rev 9-13-02 #2.xls. 
DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792], native data file Niche CD1620 data sources: rev 11-15-02.xls. 
NOTE: csv file extension = comma delimited ASCII formatted file. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-12 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
APPENDIX D 
SEEPAGE PARAMETER EVALUATION 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-1 November 2004 
D1. APPROACH TO EVALUATION SEEPAGE PARAMETERS 
Appendix Section D1 describes the approach used to determine seepage parameters. In 
liquid-release tests for seepage quantification, the saturated conductivities are estimated from air 
permeability values, the fracture capillarities are estimated from the seepage threshold fluxes, 
and the water potentials are estimated for the flow paths from the liquid-release interval to the 
niche ceiling. The following paragraphs discuss the approach used to derive the seepage 
parameters. 
Permeability is an intrinsic parameter that characterizes the resistance (to flow) of the rock 
medium. Where laboratory test conditions include a well-defined unidirectional flow path 
through a core specimen, the permeability value is independent of the liquid used in the 
measurement. In the field conditions associated with localized injections, the flow path followed 
by the air is different from the flow path followed by the liquid. The following approximations, 
together with the detailed evaluation in Appendix Section D2, describe the relationship between 
air permeability and liquid permeability in the niche seepage tests: For locally saturated 
conditions (such as those found in the immediate vicinity of a liquid-filled borehole interval), the 
saturated permeability to liquid flow is approximately equal to the permeability measured in 
air-injection tests; the saturated liquid flux is estimated from the measured air-permeability value 
and the wetted area of the borehole, as described in Appendix Section D2. 
The estimations of saturated liquid permeability are evaluated in Appendix Section D2 through 
use of available data collected in the niche studies. The evaluation compares the estimated flux 
values with measured flux values from cases that included evidence that the tested borehole 
intervals were saturated (as determined by return flow during injection). Where liquid flow 
occurs primarily through fractures below the borehole interval (as a result of 
pressure-gradient-driven gravity drainage and air flow into fractures around the borehole 
interval), the liquid permeability and air permeability represent the effective values of different 
fracture flow paths. The evaluation of the difference between liquid permeability and air 
permeability is documented in Appendix Section D2, where it is shown that the saturated liquid 
permeability is within one order of magnitude of the air permeability. 
Gravity-driven flow is considered the primary flow mechanism in fractures with weak 
capillarity, and liquid fracture flow is described by Darcy's law. Under unsaturated conditions, 
capillary forces and gravity are the driving mechanisms for flow. Because fracture apertures are 
much larger than tuff matrix pores, capillarity has much less of an effect on liquid fracture flow 
than does the effect of gravity. This difference in effects justifies the neglect of fracture 
capillarity, and the use of gravity gradient, to estimate flux. The small fracture capillarity is 
evaluated in Section 6.2.2.2. 
Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743]) developed an analytical solution that describes the conditions 
under which water flows from an unsaturated porous medium into a buried cylindrical cavity. 
The solution is used in Section 6.2.2.2 to compute the sorptive number, a, a hydraulic parameter 
that is related to the strength of the capillary forces exerted by the porous medium. In the 
approach taken by Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], pp. 1618), the approximation of steady 
downward flow of water through a homogeneous, isotropic, unsaturated porous medium is used. 
Far from the cavity, the flow velocity is spatially uniform. The flow region is considered infinite 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-2 November 2004 
in extent. These conditions underlie the derivation of Philip's capillary barrier solution. 
Furthermore, Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], Section 1.5, p. 17) note that the requirement for 
homogeneity is relatively weak. Analytic solutions are generally derived, in most cases, with 
simplified descriptions and approximations regarding the flow domain in the surrounding 
medium. Results derived from an analytic solution represent effective values. The description, 
evaluation, and justification of Philip's capillary barrier solution are presented in Section 6.2.2.2. 
Braester (1973 [DIRS 106088]) derived a time-dependent solution for the average 
volumetric-water-content distribution in a porous medium, where water is released from a 
surface source of constant flux. This solution is described, and used to estimate the volumetric 
water content of the fractures, in Section 6.2.2.3. The following simplifications were used by 
Braester (1973 [DIRS 106088]) to derive the solution; a one-dimensional (1-D) formulation of 
Richards equation, which includes both gravity- and capillary-driven components of flow, is 
used to describe flow through an unsaturated porous medium: 
The 1-D flow approximation can be evaluated and justified by: 
1. the weak fracture capillarity values described in Section 6.2.2.2, 
2. the roughly 1-D flow paths observed during niche excavation described in 
Section 6.2.1.2, and 
3. the limited spatial spread of seepage fluxes observed during post-excavation seepage 
tests described in Section 6.2.1.3.1. 
The downward translation of a wetted profile is at constant velocity. The average value of the 
water content at the infiltrating surface over time is considered by Braester (1973 
[DIRS 106088], p. 688) to be equal to the average value of water content over the wetted depth. 
This approximation becomes valid if the solution of water content takes the form of a downward 
translation of the entire wetted profile at constant velocity. In general, this would occur after the 
capillary forces near the source have diminished, and the volumetric water content at the soil 
surface reaches its steady-state limit, with the gravity gradient driving the liquid flux. The times 
required to reach steady state, and the evaluations of this requirement( of downward translation 
of wetted profiles at constant velocity), are also discussed in Appendix Section D3. 
D2. COMPARISON OF LIQUID AND AIR-DERIVED SATURATED 
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES 
Appendix Section D2 discusses estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity using 
air-permeability (referred to in Section 6.2.2.1, in discussion of seepage thresholds). The 
liquid-release rate, Qs [kg/s] measured during each test (Section 6.2.1.3.1) was converted to a 
liquid-release flux, qs [m/s], using the following equation: 
w 
s 
s A
Q q 
. 
= (Eq. D-1) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-3 November 2004 
where A [m2] is the cross-sectional area of flow, and .w [kg/m3] is the density of water (set at 
1000 kg/m3). The qs data are tabulated in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] for the 
seepage tests conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). 
The cross-sectional area was derived from the water level that could rise to a maximum elevation 
of 0.0635 m in the borehole (an elevation equivalent to the maximum ponding depth within the 
borehole). The ponding depth is controlled by the elevation of the liquid-return line, which 
prevents the buildup of excess pressure in the test interval by allowing water to flow from the 
test interval to the surface. If water rises to the level of the return line, then wetted area A is less 
than the surface area of the entire test interval, and equal to that portion of the curved surface 
area of a right circular cylinder lying below the water line as follows (Selby 1975 
[DIRS 106143], pp. 12, 16): 
( ) ( ) [ ] r h r d A / Arccosine 2 2 - = p (Eq. D-2) 
where 
d = the vertical distance from the center of the cylinder to the water line (0.0254 m). 
r = the radius of the borehole (0.0381 m). 
h = the test interval length (0.3048 m). 
With these parameters, the cross-sectional area of flow A is equal to 5.343  10-2 m2. 
With the approach described in Appendix Section D1, estimates of the saturated hydraulic 
conductivity for liquid flow through the fractured porous medium were obtained by equating the 
air permeability (k) (derived from the air-injection tests) with the water permeability (kl) of the 
porous medium. In turn, kl is related to the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kl) of a porous 
medium through the functional relation defined by Darcys law (Freeze and Cherry 1979 
[DIRS 101173], p. 27, Equation (2.28)): 

. g k 
K w l 
l = (Eq. D-3) 
where g [m/s2] is the acceleration of gravity and  [Pas] is the viscosity of water. 
Air-permeability values reported in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] were 
converted to the equivalent saturated hydraulic conductivity values (Kl  Kair-sat) reported in 
DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] as shown in the Scientific Notebook by Wang 
(1999 [DIRS 153449], p. 38). This conversion permitted a comparison of the Kair-sat values to 
the qs values, which are also summarized in DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. The 
qs values were computed using Equation D-1 and: 
1. the liquid-release rates (Qs) from the pre-excavation tests performed at Niche 1 
(Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) (DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]), 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-4 November 2004 
2. the pre-excavation tests performed at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) 
(DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]), and 
3. the post-excavation seepage tests from Niche 2 (Niche 3650) 
(DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]).1 
Under slightly ponded conditions in the borehole (i.e., saturated conditions), qs may initially 
exceed the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the test interval during the early stages of the test. 
During the later stages of the test, gravity-driven flow will dominate, a unit hydraulic gradient 
will be established near the borehole wall in the porous material, and qs will approach Kl for the 
interval. Based on the approach described in Appendix Section D1, gravity-driven flow is 
considered the primary flow mechanism in the fracture systems tested at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). 
Therefore, it is expected that capillary effects are short-lived and, for all practical purposes, the 
qs for a given interval can be considered equal to Kl. Theoretically, qs can exceed Kl if water 
ponds to a significant depth or is injected under high pressure, creating a steep hydraulic gradient 
within the porous material near the borehole wall. However, the packer system used in the 
seepage tests was designed so that water could not pond more than 0.0635 m, to prevent return 
flow to the surface from occurring. 
Return flow provided direct evidence that the liquid pumping rate exceeded the infiltration 
capacity of the test interval, implying that qs = Kl, which in turn should equal Kair-sat (using the 
approximation that Kair-sat is a reasonable estimate of Kl). The Kair-sat and qs values (from 
DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]) of those tests that exhibited return flow are 
plotted in Figure C-1, which also includes a solid line that represents the relation Kair-sat = Kl = qs. 
A data point located above the solid line indicates that Kair-sat can have a value that is greater than 
Kl, and a data point below the solid line indicates that Kair-sat can have a value that is less than Kl. 
The data values are expected to fall on the Kair-sat = qs line if air-permeability and liquid-release 
tests are directly correlated. 
Figure D-1 indicates that the data points are equally distributed above and below the Kair sat = qs 
line, and that the majority of points fall within a factor of 10 of Kair-sat = qs. Therefore, the 
equivalent saturated hydraulic conductivity derived from the air-injection tests appears to 
approximately characterize the saturated hydraulic conductivity represented by qs. The 
scattering of the individual data points around the line is a measure of estimations, 
approximations, and experimental uncertainties that have been simplified during the process of 
relating airflow processes to liquid-flow processes. 
1 
The entire cross-sectional area of the borehole was used to compute the air-permeability values reported in 
DTN: LB980001233124.002 [DIRS 136583] because gravitational effects on air are negligible and, thus, the entire 
cross-sectional area of the borehole is typically available for airflow. A smaller wetted area, as calculated by 
Equation D-2, was used to compute the liquid-release flux values. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-5 November 2004 
1.E-08 
1.E-07 
1.E-06 
1.E-05 
1.E-04 
1.E-03 
1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 
Liquid Release Flux, qs (m/s) 
Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity, Kair-sat (m/s) 
Pre Niche 3566 Test 
Pre Niche 3650 Test 
Post Niche 3650 Tes 
Pre Niche 3107 Test 
Pre Niche 3650 Test 
Pre Niche 4788 Test 
1:1 Liq. K = Air K 
Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
NOTE: The thin lines indicate one order of magnitude above and below the line indicating equivalence between 
liquid and air conductivity. 
Figure D-1. Comparison of Liquid and Air-Derived Saturated Hydraulic Conductivities 
D3. WATER-CONTENT PROFILE EVALUATION 
D3.1 EVALUATION OF APPROXIMATION OF ONE-DIMENSIONAL (1-D) FLOW 
Appendix Section D3 describes water-content-profile evaluation (referred to in Section 6.2.2.3, 
in discussion on use of water-content information to estimate water-retention curves in 
fractures). Large a-values calculated in Section 6.2.2.2 indicate that gravity-driven flow 
predominates in the fractures tested at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). Although the large a-values alone 
do not collectively imply that flow is strictly 1-D, they do imply limited lateral spreading of the 
wetting front in the fractures, because capillary forces will probably be negligible during the 
early stages of liquid release. Once the wetting front arrives at the niche ceiling, however, 
capillary forces become very important as water saturations begin to increase because of the 
capillary barrier, resulting in water being diverted laterally around the cavity. Therefore, flow 
will change from 1-D to 2-D or 3-D once the wetting front arrives at the ceiling. This implies 
that the .ave values calculated using Braesters model are no longer valid after the wetting front 
arrives at the niche ceiling. 
Field observations made during the pre-excavation liquid release and post-excavation seepage 
tests provide evidence that flow is roughly 1-D. Figure 6-25 shows that the average aspect ratio 
(i.e., the ratio of depth to lateral distance traveled by the wetting front) is slightly less than 2 for 
the tests that represent fracture networks, and approximately 4.5 for the high-angle fracture data. 
This implies that, for a 0.65-m travel distance, lateral spreading is expected to be, on average, 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-6 November 2004 
within 0.32 m of the borehole in the fractured network case, and within 0.15 m in the 
near-vertical fracture case. An average angle of wetting-front migration from the vertical can be 
defined as Arctan(0.32/0.65)=26. This analysis is further supported by two field observations 
made during the post-excavation seepage tests as described in Section 6.2.1.3.1: 
1. the majority of water was typically captured in only one or two 0.305-m-by-0.305-m cells 
located directly beneath the test interval, and 
2. the wetting front typically arrived at the niche ceiling directly below the test zone. 
D3.2 EVALUATION OF APPROXIMATION OF DOWNWARD TRANSLATION OF 
THE WETTED PROFILE AT CONSTANT VELOCITY 
During infiltration tests, the liquid-release rate approaches an asymptotic value equal to the 
hydraulic conductivity as time progresses. Moreover, steady moisture conditions are established 
rather rapidly in the vicinity of the source, typically with a geometric mean of 1.7 hours when 
water is introduced at a water potential equal to or greater than zero (White and Sully 1987 
[DIRS 106152], pp. 1514, 1521). In the liquid-release tests considered here, water was often 
introduced at a flux that was much lower than the saturated hydraulic conductivity, which led to 
conditions that were significantly different from those underlying the previous conclusion. 
Consequently, the solution for unsteady multidimensional infiltration developed by Philip (1986 
[DIRS 106133], p. 1725) and summarized by White and Sully (1987 [DIRS 106152], p. 1521) is 
used to determine the time to steady moisture conditions (which checks the validity of the 
approach presented in Appendix Section D1, on downward translation of a wetting profile at 
constant velocity, and determines whether the volumetric water contents presented in 
Section 6.2.2.3 were derived through use of an appropriate model). 
Philip (1986 [DIRS 106133]) developed an analytical solution for unsteady 2-D unsaturated flow 
from a buried horizontal cylinder into an infinitely porous medium of uniform initial water 
content .n 
. This solution is also assumed to be valid for flow through unsaturated, fractured 
media. Richards equation was linearized through the introduction of a diffusivity constant, D 
(Philip 1986 [DIRS 106133], Equation (1)), and an exponential relation between hydraulic 
conductivity and water potential (see Equation 6-4 in Section 6.2.2.2). Philip (1986 
[DIRS 106133], p. 1719) found that, regardless of the cavity shape and dimensionality of the 
flow field, the solution for dimensionless potential ( . ) is approximately reducible to the product 
of the steady solution ( .8) and G (the degree of approach to the steady moisture condition, .8). 
Initially, G is zero everywhere (Philip 1986 [DIRS 106133], Figure 1); it approaches a value of 1 
rapidly near the source, and slowly far from the source and at very large dimensionless times. 
The unsteady solution approaches the steady solution as G approaches a value of 1 everywhere. 
Using the same approach that Philip used for a spherical source (Philip 1986 [DIRS 106133], 
Section 8, p. 1725), the time required (tD 95%) to obtain 95 percent of the steady-state moisture 
conditions (that is, G = 0.95) for flow from a buried horizontal cylinder was computed. This 
time was calculated for a point slightly outside the borehole (rD = 1.1), and for a point on the 
niche ceiling (rD = 17.1 = 0.65 m / 0.0381 m). The details of the analysis can be found in 
Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6c (Wang 1999 [DIRS 153449], pp. 8591) and the tD 95% 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-7 November 2004 
values are tabulated in DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] for each group of tests 
where seepage was observed. 
The dimensional time (t95%) at which the moisture profile reaches 95 percent of its steady value 
can be calculated using tD 95% (Philip 1986 [DIRS 106133], p. 1718, Equation (15)). The details 
of the analysis can be found in the Scientific Notebook by Wang (1999 [DIRS 153449], 
pp. 91-92) and the t95% values are tabulated in Table D-1 and DTN: LB980901233124.003 
[DIRS 105592], along with the arrival time of the wetting front at the niche ceiling. 
Examination of the t95% values in Table D-1 indicates that, for all the tests, near-steady-state 
moisture conditions (i.e., constant .) are reached near the borehole wall within 6 minutes (344 s) 
of the start of the test, and before pumping ceased (pumping times are tabulated in 
DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]). In addition, for all tests of individual fractures or 
small groups of vertical fractures, the observed time to the arrival of the wetting front was 
similar to the calculated t95% for rD = 17.1; and, for all tests (except Test #2 in borehole UR), the 
observed time to the arrival of the wetting front was between 59 percent and 71 percent of the 
calculated t95% for rD = 17.1. 
This similarity between the observed and estimated wetting-front travel times supports the 
approximation (used in Section 6.2.2.3) that downward translation of the wetting profile is at 
constant velocity. That is, qs approached the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the fractured 
media, which resulted in the downward migration of the wetted profile at a constant velocity 
within the time limit of each test. In addition, in all cases, steady-state moisture conditions are 
obtained near the borehole prior to the arrival of the wetting front. After the wetting front has 
arrived at the ceiling, the moisture conditions again begin to change near the release borehole, as 
the water saturation increases because of the capillary barrier. 
Based on this analysis, the use of Equation 6-9 in Section 6.2.2.3 (to estimate the change of 
volumetric water contents) appears to be reasonable. 
Table D-1. Time to Steady-State Moisture Conditions 
Time to Steady State1 
Borehole Test Name Test Date 
Test Interval 
(m) 
rD = 1.1 
(hr) 
rD = 17.1 
(hr) 
Wetting Front2 
Arrival Time 
(hr) 
Fracture Networks 
Test #1 1-15-98 1/15/98 4.88 - 5.18 0.0129 0.691 0.497 UR 
Test #1 2-6-98 2/6/98 4.88 - 5.18 0.0317 1.696 1.221 
Test #1 12-10-97 12/10/97 7.01 - 7.32 0.0012 0.127 0.067 UL 
Test #1 1-6-98 1/6/98 7.01 - 7.32 0.0160 1.740 0.914 
Test #1 1-14-98 1/14/98 4.27 - 4.57 0.0200 1.580 0.936 UR 
Test #1 2-5-98 2/5/98 4.27 - 4.57 0.0590 4.650 2.753 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-8 November 2004 
Table D-1. Time to Steady-State Moisture Conditions (Continued) 
Time to Steady State1 
Borehole Test Name Test Date 
Test Interval 
(m) 
rD = 1.1 
(hr) 
rD = 17.1 
(hr) 
Wetting Front2 
Arrival Time 
(hr) 
Fracture Networks (Continued) 
Test 5 Niche 3650 11/13/97 4.27 - 4.57 0.0030 0.163 0.116 
Test 5 Niche 3650 12/3/97 4.27 - 4.57 0.0072 0.396 0.280 
Test #2 12-3-97 12/3/97 4.27 - 4.57 0.0037 0.202 0.143 
Test #1 1-7-98 1/7/98 4.27 - 4.57 0.0630 3.458 2.448 
UM 
Test #2 2-10-98 2/10/98 4.27 - 4.57 0.0957 5.249 3.700 
Test 4 Niche 3650 11/13/97 5.49 - 5.79 0.0014 0.088 0.058 
Test #2 12-4-97 12/4/97 5.49 - 5.79 0.0028 0.178 0.117 
Test #1 1-9-98 1/9/98 5.49 - 5.79 0.0186 1.164 0.764 
UM 
Test #1 2-11-98 2/11/98 5.49 - 5.79 0.0684 4.289 2.800 
Test #2 1-13-98 1/13/98 5.49 - 5.79 0.0005 0.527 0.150 UR 
Test #2 2-10-98 2/10/98 5.49 - 5.79 0.0002 0.224 0.064 
Individual or Small Groups of Vertical Fractures 
Test 1 Niche 3650 11/12/97 4.88 - 5.18 0.0007 0.051 0.050 
Test #1 12-4-97 12/4/97 4.88 - 5.18 0.0011 0.085 0.083 
Test #2 12-5-97 12/5/97 4.88 - 5.18 0.0035 0.272 0.264 
Test #1 1-8-98 1/8/98 4.88 - 5.18 0.0225 1.729 1.683 
UM 
Test #1 3-6-98 3/6/98 4.88 - 5.18 0.0807 6.189 6.025 
Test #1 1-13-98 1/13/98 6.71 - 7.01 0.0018 0.122 0.116 
Test #1 2-3-98 2/3/98 6.71 - 7.01 0.0027 0.184 0.174 
UR 
Test #1 3-5-98 3/5/98 6.71 - 7.01 0.0195 1.307 1.238 
Test #2 1-6-98 1/6/98 7.62 - 7.92 0.0029 0.201 0.192 
Test #1 2-12-98 2/12/98 7.62 - 7.92 0.0024 0.166 0.158 
UL 
Test #1 3-4-98 3/4/98 7.62 - 7.92 0.0111 0.761 0.725 
Test #2 1-14-98 1/14/98 6.10 - 6.40 0.0030 0.267 0.267 UR 
Test #1 2-4-98 2/4/98 6.10 - 6.40 0.0116 1.046 1.043 
NOTES: 1 Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 
2 Source: DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
APPENDIX E 
LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF RETARDATION AND FRONT SEPARATION 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-1 November 2004 
E1. WATER IMBIBITION LABORATORY TESTS 
Laboratory analyses described in this appendix pertain to dyed samples collected from the 
niches, and core samples for tracer retardation and front separation measurements. Rock cores 
5.08 cm in diameter and 2.0 cm in length were used for the imbibition experiments, to examine 
tracer penetration into the unsaturated rock matrix. Cores were cut and machined from a clean 
sample block that was taken from the same stratigraphic unit as the niche locations in which 
tracer release tests were conducted. Porosity, bulk-density, and particle-density measurements 
were based on the core dry weight (dried at 60C). 
Partial saturation of cores was achieved by equilibrating cores within relative humidity chambers 
controlled by various saturated brines and/or water, until they reached constant weights. Cores 
with two different levels of initial water saturation (Sw) (approximately 15 percent and 
80 percent) were used to investigate and compare tracer penetration behavior with respect to 
saturation levels. 
The core was hung inside a humidity-controlled chamber, with the core bottom submerged (to a 
depth of approximately 1 mm) in a water reservoir containing tracers. The core weight gain was 
continuously recorded by a data acquisition system. The water contained approximately 
10 g/L LiBr, 1 g/L FD&C Blue No. 1, and 1 g/L Sulpho Rhodamine B. These tracers were 
selected to compare the behavior of nonreactive bromide to the behavior of the dyes used in the 
field tracer work. The study was designed to simulate the imbibition and penetration of tracers 
into the matrix from a continuously flowing fracture. After a predetermined period of time 
(approximately 16 to 20 hours), the core was lifted out of the reservoir, and the moisture front 
was examined. Rock sampling was immediately conducted as described In Section E2. 
E2. ROCK SAMPLING AND TRACER EXTRACTION 
The cuttings obtained by drilling into tracer-stained rock samples to a specified depth were 
collected and eluted, and the supernatant was analyzed to profile tracer location and 
concentration. A mill (Bridgeport Series II) (Hu 1999 [DIRS 156540], pp. 3738) was used for 
drilling. The rock sample was immobilized on the working platform, and, except for the area to 
be drilled, the rock surface was covered with tape. A series of drill bits of different sizes (with 
flat-bottom, carbide-end mill cutters) were used to sample different depths of the same area of 
the sample. The largest drill bit was used for the rock-surface drilling, and the bit size gradually 
decreased with increased drilling depth, to minimize carry-over powder contamination from 
previous depths. A tube was placed around the carbide-end mill cutter to reduce powder loss and 
to maximize sample recovery. The drilling was carried out slowly and steadily, in 1-mm 
increments; a Mitutoyo digital caliper (precision 0.01 mm) was used to measure the increments. 
A stainless steel needle (attached to a stainless steel filter holder, connected to a vacuum source) 
was used to collect drill cuttings at each 1-mm increment. The vacuum intensity was tested and 
adjusted before samples were collected. Two pieces of cellulose nitrate membrane (with a 
membrane pore size of 0.45 m) were used inside the filter holder, to trap the sample powder. 
(The powder was suctioned and trapped into the collection device by pointing the needle at the 
drilled hole, and applying the vacuum.) Collected cuttings were transferred to an amber-glass 
vial before tracer extraction occurred. Before drilling the next interval, the drilled hole was 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-2 November 2004 
cleaned using an air stream just strong enough to remove any powder that might be left from the 
collection, and the cutter was cleaned with premoistened wipes and dried with a gentle air 
stream. 
Laboratory samples, and three dye-stained field-sample rocks that had a flat face, were selected 
for rock drilling (the flat surfaces with dye stains were approximated to be fracture surfaces of 
active flow paths induced by dye-water releases). No visible fracture coatings were observed on 
the three field samples. 
For the laboratory studies, samples of cylinder-shaped machined cores were taken from both the 
top and bottom of the core. Samples were taken first from the top, which was the cleaner side 
(i.e., it was the core side that was not in physical contact with liquid), to 16 mm. Samples were 
then taken from the bottom, to 10 mm. This sampling scheme allowed a comparison and 
evaluation of powder contamination of the drilling method. Drilling from the two sides was 
conducted so that the drill holes did not intersect each other. 
Dye tracers were extracted from the drill cuttings into the aqueous phase by mixing (nominally 
for 15 seconds) 5 mL Nanopure water with 0.1 g of powder sample, at the speed of 1,400 rpm. 
The mixture was then filtered, and the concentration of the tracer in the clear aqueous phase was 
measured. Either a Gelman Supor hydrophilic polyethersulfone membrane filter or a Whatman 
cellulose nitrate membrane was used for the filtration. Testing showed negligible mass loss to 
both membranes for FD&C Blue No. 1 and Sulpho Rhodamine B. 
Extraction efficiency was evaluated by spiking a known amount of tracers into the rock powder 
(less than 104 m fraction) for one day. The results showed an extraction efficiency of: 
 98.0  4.6 percent (average plus and minus standard deviation, 5 replicates) for bromide. 
 94.1  3.8 percent for FD&C Blue No. 1 (6 replicates). 
 55.2  0.7 percent for Sulpho Rhodamine B (7 replicates). 
The extraction procedure was not designed to be exhaustive for the maximum mass extraction. 
Relative comparisons with identical procedures were used in this study. 
E3. MEASUREMENT OF AQUEOUS TRACER CONCENTRATION 
The aqueous concentration of FD&C Blue No. 1 dye was measured using a UV/vis 
Spectrophotometer (Hitachi, Model U-2001) at the characteristic wavelength of 630 nm. Sulpho 
Rhodamine B concentration was measured using a Spectrofluorophotometer (Shimadzu, 
Model RF-1501) at the excitation wavelength of 565 nm and emission wavelength of 590 nm. 
Depending upon the tracer concentration present in the samples, samples were diluted 
appropriately until the final solution measurement fell into the linear range of the calibration 
curve. 
Bromide concentration was measured by Ion Specific Electrode (Orion, Ionplus design) with the 
addition of an ion strength adjuster that had a volume ratio of 50:1. Background levels for all 
tracers were measured through use of powder from clean tuff samples. The clean powder was 
obtained from a clean rock sample that was crushed for size reduction to pass through a 104 m 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-3 November 2004 
opening sieve, similar to the powder size of the drill cuttings. Refer to the associated scientific 
notebook pages (Hu 1999 ([DIRS 156540], pp. 2022, 3748, 54, 6882, 8699, and 103126); 
Hu 1999 ([DIRS 156541], pp. 9, 27, 42, 77, 118, 123140, and 149); and Hu 1999 
([DIRS 156542], pp. 13, 1725, 3941, 51102, and 105112)) for detailed entries about 
instrument calibration and tracer measurements. 
E4. EVALUATION OF DRILLING TECHNIQUE 
Tracer cross-contamination during drilling was evaluated by drilling for machined cores from 
both the top and bottom of the selected rock samples. For both drilling directions, measured 
tracer concentrations were compared over distance, as noted in Figure E-1 (for Core D with 
lower initial water saturation Sw) and Figure E-2 (for Core H with high initial Sw). Note that the 
core bottom was the core side in physical contact with the tracer solution. For the lower Sw case, 
the tracer concentration was comparable for both drilling directions, and showed no significant 
powder carryover (Panels a and b of Figure E-1). A slight difference at the 4-to-5-mm interval is 
observed in Panel b of Figure E-1 for Sulpho Rhodamine B. This difference could be real, 
because the fluorometer that was used for measurement had a low detection limit of 
approximately 0.021 mg/kg. Overall, the drilling technique yielded reliable concentration profile 
results. 
For the case with the higher initial Sw, the difference in concentration between the two drilling 
directions is measurable (Panel a of Figure E-2). After the tracer-rock contact and experiments 
were completed, the drilling was conducted from the core top (cleaner side) first, and was then 
conducted from the bottom after the core was inverted. Drilling and sample collection for 
10 depth intervals was completed in approximately one hour. The difference in concentrations 
shown in Panel a of Figure E-2 for the two drilling directions may have resulted from any one or 
a combination of: 
 Gravitational flow during the second drilling phase, 
 Heterogeneity, 
 Flow resulting from exposure to the atmosphere, 
 Evaporation loss resulting from heating caused by drilling. 
The spreading of the tracer front at the high initial Sw made the flow redistribution effects more 
pronounced than was the case with the sharp tracer front at the low initial Sw. For Sulpho 
Rhodamine B, the difference was less evident (Panel b of Figure E-2). In the data evaluation, 
results from the core top were used if the necessary data were available. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-4 November 2004 
0
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
40 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 
Depth from the Core Bottom (mm) 
Detection Ratio 
Drilling (top) 
Drilling (bottom) 
Background 
(a) 
Core-D (12.5%) 
Bromide 
0 
500 
1000 
1500 
2000 
2500 
3000 
3500 
4000 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 
Depth from the Core Bottom (mm) 
Detection Ratio 
Drilling (top, 5-20 mm) 
Drilling (bottom, 0-10 mm) 
Background 
(b) 
Core-D (12.5%) 
Sulpho Rhodamine B 
Source: DTN: LB990901233124.003 [DIRS 155690]. 
NOTES: The core ID and the initial core saturation (in parentheses) are presented in the panels of the figure. 
Panel a = Bromide. 
Panel b = Sulpho Rhodamine B. 
Figure E-1. Comparison of Measured Detection Ratio from the Opposite Drilling Directions for Core D 
with Lower Initial Sw 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-5 November 2004 
0
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
35 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 
Depth from the Core Bottom (mm) 
Detection Ratio 
Drilling (top) 
Drilling (bottom) 
Background 
(a) 
Core-H (75.8%) 
Bromide 
0 
500 
1000 
1500 
2000 
2500 
3000 
3500 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 
Depth from the Core Bottom (mm) 
Detection Ratio 
Data (top, 4-20 mm) 
Data (bottom, 0-10 mm) 
Background 
(b) 
Core-H (75.8%) 
Sulpho Rhodamine B 
Source: DTN: LB990901233124.003 [DIRS 155690]. 
NOTES: The core ID and the initial core saturation (in parentheses) are presented in the panels of the figure. 
Panel a = Bromide. 
Panel b = Sulpho Rhodamine B. 
Figure E-2. Comparison of Measured Detection Ratio from the Opposite Drilling Directions for Core H 
with Higher Initial Sw 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-6 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
APPENDIX F 
FIELD EQUIPMENT FOR CONTROLLED WATER RELEASE, WETTING-FRONT 
DETECTION, AND SEEPAGE COLLECTION 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-1 November 2004 
F1. FLUID INJECTION 
Appendix F1 describes equipment for controlled release of water into isolated zones. 
Five sets of data were submitted to the Technical Database Management System (TDMS). Three 
of the data sets (DTNs: LB0207NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160408], LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 
[DIRS 160796], and LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]) contained data files (in 
comma-delimited ASCII format). The remaining data sets (DTNs: LB0208NICH5LIQ.001 
[DIRS 161210] and LB0210NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 161211]) contained preliminary data and 
were subsequently superseded by LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160796] and 
LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792], respectively. 
Test data files consist of four types. Three of these types include the (seep), (smass), and 
(srate) in their filename. These files contain the seepage percentage, seep mass, and seepage 
rate data, respectively, from individual capture compartments that drain seepage water to the 
capture balance(s). The fourth type of test data file does not have such suffixes in their filename 
(e.g., Test#1_BH#2_21-22_ft_5-6-02.csv); these files contain data on the cumulative mass and 
rate of water released (Balance 1), water returned (Balance 2), and the total seepage captured 
(Balance 3 and/or 4), as measured by the Mettler Toledo balances used during the experiments. 
As noted in Section 6.2.1.3.5.3, after July 15, 2002, only one balance was used to measure 
seepage into the niche (i.e., Balance 3), and Balance 4 was used to measure evaporation. 
The liquid-release experiments required water to be injected into the formation over a 0.3-m 
zone in the borehole, under constant-head or constant-rate conditions. The constant-head tests 
were conducted first to determine the maximum rates at which the zone could take in water. The 
subsequent set of tests required that water be released to the formation at predetermined rates 
that ranged from approximately 5 mL/min to approximately 100 mL/min. The fluid-release 
apparatus was capable of delivering either the constant-head method of injection or the 
constant-rate method of injection. The main components of the fluid-release apparatus included 
an inflatable packer system for isolating the injection zone, a pump for delivering water, and a 
reservoir for providing a continuous supply of water (Panel a of Figure F-1). 
The inflation packer system consisted of two rubber packers, each 0.60 m long, connected to an 
inflation line (Panel b of Figure F-1). Two stainless tubes (inside diameter: 0.95 cm and 
0.31 cm) passed through one of the packers to provide fluid (air and water) access into the 
injection zone. The 0.95-cm tube was used to deliver fluid into the injection zone; the 0.31-cm 
tube was used, as a siphon, to remove excess water from the injection zone. Before liquid was 
released into the formation, the packer system was located to straddle the zone of interest 
(determined based on air-permeability measurements), and was then inflated to a pressure of 
approximately 200 kPa. The 0.95-cm-inside-diameter stainless steel tube was then connected to 
a water supply line from a constant-head or a constant-rate system. Pressure in the inflation 
packers was continuously monitored during the entire period of injection, to ensure that the 
injection zone remained isolated from adjacent zones of the borehole. 
To capture the temporal variability in vertical flux of water from the injection zone, an 
automated liquid-release system was developed. This system allowed for continuous 
measurement of local liquid-release rates. The unit included of a storage tank (approximately 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-2 November 2004 
4.5 L) for water supply to a clear-acrylic, constant-head chamber. The chamber, which had a 
0.15-m inside-diameter and was 0.30 m tall, served to maintain a constant head of water above 
the liquid-release surface within the injection zone (Panel c of Figure F-1). Constant head was 
maintained by a level switch that activated the pump when the water level dropped below the 
control level. The control level was nominally set at or slightly above the elevation of the 
horizontal injection borehole. Two pressure transducers continuously recorded the height of 
water in each tank. A pulse damper was installed between the pump and tank, to reduce any 
pump-generated pulsating effects (which could migrate to the storage tank and influence the 
pressure readings). 
The constant-rate injection system included all the components used in the constant-head system 
except the constant-head chamber. To allow for easy regulation of flow rates in the field, the 
pump was calibrated before field deployment to relate flow rates with displayed numbers on a 
10-turn speed control. In the field, the speed control was set at the desired flow rate before the 
pump was activated. The actual flow rate was determined from the change in pressure measured 
by transducers located at the bottom of the water reservoir. A data acquisition system was used 
to record changes in head of water (water level) in the reservoir. 
Water 
reservoir
Pump 
Constant head 
chamber 
Components of the fluid injection system 
Borehole 
Injection zone at constant head 
Borehole wall 
Fluid injection 
line 
Return flow 
line 
Packer stainless steel body 
Packer inflation 
rubber 
Inflation 
line
Injection zone 
(0.3 m) 
Injection Borehole collar 
Details of injection packer system 
Inflation 
packers 
0.1 m 
Pressure 
transducer 
Pressure 
transducer 
PVC Pipe 
(Sch. 40) 
0.15 m 
~ 0.3 m 
Level 
switch 
Inflow 
from tank 
Wiring to 
activate pump 
Details of constant head system 
Flow to 
injection zone 
Pressure 
transducer 
(b) 
(c) (a) 
NOTE: Figure is not to scale. 
Figure F-1. Schematic Illustration of Liquid Release System for Constant-Head and Constant-Rate 
Injections 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-3 November 2004 
F2. BOREHOLE MONITORING 
Appendix F2 describes borehole monitoring performed to detect changes in saturation and water 
potential. 
In three monitoring boreholes (Boreholes B, C, and D in Figure 6-74), changes in saturation and 
water potential were measured continuously during the entire field investigation. Changes in 
saturation were measured with electrical resistivity probes (ERPs) located at 0.15-m intervals 
along the 6.0-m length of each borehole. These ERPs consisted of two electrical leads 
sandwiched between pieces of filter paper. Water-potential measurements were made with 
psychrometers. With the multiplexing capabilities of the data logger (model CR7, Campbell 
Scientific Inc.), hourly measurements of up to 80 psychrometers (model PST-55, Wescor Inc.) 
were automated. The chromel-constantan junction in the psychrometer was cooled with an 
electric current to a temperature below dew point to first induce condensation, followed by 
evaporation without electric current. Temperature depression resulting from evaporation was 
recorded and used to determine water potentials in the vicinity of the psychrometers. 
The psychrometers and ERP were housed in borehole sensor trays (BSTs), installed along the 
length of each monitoring borehole (Panel a of Figure F-2). The BSTs were fabricated from 
0.10-m outside diameter (OD) PVC pipes; each section was 3.0 m long. Each pipe section was 
cut lengthwise to produce a 0.075-m-wide curved tray (Panel b of Figure F-2). On each tray, 
psychrometers were installed at 0.5-m intervals along the borehole, and ERPs were located at 
0.25-m intervals (Panels b and c of Figure F-2). BST housing permitted immediate contact 
between ERPs and the borehole wall. The psychrometers were installed inside small cavities 
(0.005 m in diameter) perforated through the BST wall to measure water potentials of the rock. 
A 3.0-m-long steel spoon, with the same layout as the trays, was used to guide each BST to the 
assigned location along the borehole. Two BSTs were located along each section of borehole, 
one in contact with the top of the borehole and the other in contact with the bottom of the 
borehole. Each pair of BSTs was separated by a wedge that tightly pressed the BSTs against the 
borehole wall. The double BST configuration improved the contacts between ERPs and the 
borehole wall, and allowed two sensors (one on the upper BST and one on the lower BST) to 
detect wetting-front advances at each location along the borehole. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-4 November 2004 
PVC tray 
Monitoring borehole cavity 
Spacers for trays 
ERP 
Psychrometers 
Borehole 
wall 
View of single BST with psychrometer and 
ERP located inside borehole 
ERP
PVC 
Tray 
Psychrometer 
6.0 m 
Two layered monitoring in Boreholes C and D 
BST #1 BST #4 
BST #3 BST #2 
3.0 m 
Single BST with sensors 
0.25 m 
Legend 
(c) 
(b) 
(a) 
Figure F-2. Schematic Illustration of Borehole Monitoring System 
F3. SEEPAGE COLLECTION 
Appendix F3 describes the collection of seepage in an excavated slot. To measure water seeping 
into the slot after liquid release into the injection borehole, a water collection system was 
designed to capture seepage from the slot ceiling (Figure F-3). Design of this system was 
dictated by the slot geometry and the locations of I beam supports. A row of stainless steel 
trays was fabricated for each of the four accessible compartments between the I-beams. Each 
tray consisted of a funnel-shaped water collector 0.46 m long and 0.40 m wide, tapered to a 
single point 0.20 m from the top. For each compartment, seven trays were assembled along a 
single steel frame, which facilitated installation inside the slot. Water captured in the stainless 
steel trays was transferred into clear PVC collection bottles (0.076-m inside diameter, 0.45 m 
tall). Water falling into the trays was drained to the collection bottles through Teflon tubes 
(0.635-cm OD). An intermittent vacuum was applied to the collection bottles such that water 
stored on the trays or in Teflon tubes could be sucked into the collection bottles. The amounts of 
seepage water in the collection bottles were recorded at a frequency that was determined in the 
field, and which was based upon observed accumulation rates. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-5 November 2004 
Test bed face 
Collection bottle 
Vacuum pump 
Slot 
Side view of tray array in single compartment 
Stainless steel trays installed in slot 
Figure F-3. Schematic Illustration of Water Collection System Installed in Slot 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-6 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
APPENDIX G 
MEASUREMENT OF WATER POTENTIAL USING PSYCHROMETERS 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 G-1 November 2004 
Prior to field use, all psychrometers were calibrated in the laboratory, using potassium chloride 
solutions (0.11.0 molal or mole of solute per 1000 grams of solvent). If feasible and practical, a 
second calibration was done in the laboratory, after psychrometers had been used for field 
measurements. 
During the calibration procedure, psychrometers were isolated in an insulated box, to minimize 
temperature fluctuations. Automated measurements were then made using the multiplexing 
capabilities of the Campbell CR7 data logger. When the psychrometers were observed to have 
reached equilibrium, they were removed from the calibration solution, washed in distilled water, 
air-dried, and immersed in the next solution. After calibrations were completed, all 
psychrometers were washed and air-dried before installation in the field. 
During laboratory calibrations and preliminary field measurements, the shape of the 
psychrometer output curve was significantly influenced by the cooling voltage and cooling 
duration for a given water potential (Figure G-1). The shape of the output curve also changed 
dramatically when the psychrometers became contaminated with dust particles (Figure G-2). 
Given the high rate of failure of psychrometers in the field, optimizing both the cooling voltage 
and duration for a given water potential was important to help identify psychrometers that were 
contaminated or otherwise malfunctioning. Optimization was accomplished by increasing the 
cooling voltage and/or increasing the time over which the cooling voltage was applied until a 
well-defined plateau resulted for the psychrometer output. Data from contaminated or 
malfunctioning psychrometers were not suitable for interpretation use, and were labeled 
accordingly (Salve 1999 [DIRS 156552], pp. 103152). 
 

 

 
 
         
 
  

  
 

 

 

 
Source: DTN: LB90406ESFNH2OP.001 [DIRS 171588]. 
Figure G-1. Effect of Cooling Current on Psychrometer Output Curve (PSY-732) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 G-2 November 2004 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
  

  
 

 

 
Source: DTN: LB90406ESFNH2OP.001 [DIRS 171588]. 
Figure G-2. Effect of Dust Coating on Psychrometer Output Curve (PSY-731) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
APPENDIX H 
GEOLOGY, MINERALOGY, AND HYDROLOGYBUSTED BUTTE 
APPLICABILITY 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-1 November 2004 
H1. GEOLOGY OF THE BUSTED BUTTE TEST FACILITY 
The selection of southeastern Busted Butte, 8 km southeast of the repository area at Yucca 
Mountain, as a field test facility was based on a presumption that the test results could be 
appropriately used in numerical studies of flow and transport in the Calico Hills Formation at 
Yucca Mountain (Bussod et al. 1999 [DIRS 155695], p. 2). The presumption of applicability 
relies upon the hydrologic similarity of stratigraphic units at Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain. 
The Calico Hills section of southeastern Busted Butte, a thin distal residue of deposits, cannot 
completely represent the variability of the Calico Hills formation below the nuclear waste 
repository. Because the Busted Butte section is so thin, it was important to more precisely 
determine which portion of the Calico Hills section occurs at the Busted Butte test facility. Data 
are examined to document the extent of lithostratigraphic correspondence between the Busted 
Butte and Yucca Mountain sections; the examination focuses on the portion of the Busted Butte 
section in which tracer tests were conducted. 
Busted Butte is a small (2.5 km by 1 km) north-trending mountain block primarily made up of 
thick, ignimbrite deposits of the Paintbrush Group. This fault-block uplift is bound by 
northeast--and north-trending normal faults, and it is split by a north-trending down-to-the-west 
normal fault that gives Busted Butte its distinctive appearance. The test facility is located within 
a small (300 to 350 m wide) horst on the southeast side of Busted Butte. Geological units 
exposed in the vicinity of the test facility include, in ascending stratigraphic order: the 
Wahmonie Formation, the Calico Hills Formation, and the Topopah Spring Tuff (Figure H-1). 
The test facility is constructed in the Topopah Spring Tuff and the Calico Hills Formation. The 
Wahmonie Formation, which is not present below the repository, is also absent from the UZTT 
test block itself. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-2 November 2004 
Source: CRWMS M&O 2001 [DIRS 154024], Figure 44. 
NOTES: No DTN is provided for this figure because it is not applicable; this figure is provided for illustration 
purposes only. 
The plot is a geologic map of the area around the underground test facility in the southeastern part of 
Busted Butte. 
The contour interval is 10 ft. 
The tunnel entrance is at the southern end of the facility. 
Figure H-1. Busted Butte Geologic Map 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-3 November 2004 
H2. STRATIGRAPHIC SETTING OF BUSTED BUTTE 
The stratigraphic succession at Busted Butte was originally mapped in Lipman and McKay 
(1965 [DIRS 104158]), which recognized the widespread principal units of the Paintbrush Group 
and small local exposures of underlying nonwelded tuffs not attributed to specific formations 
(undivided tuffs (Tt) according to their nomenclature). Broxton et al. (1993 [DIRS 107386], 
pp. 6, 9) assigned the nonwelded tuffs to the Calico Hills Formation, the Wahmonie Formation, 
and the Prow Pass Tuff in order of increasing age and depth. This report follows the 
stratigraphic assignments of Broxton et al. (1993 [DIRS 107386]), but all of the stratigraphic 
nomenclature has been updated from the original sources to reflect the usage in Sawyer et al. 
(1994 [DIRS 100075], Table 1)]. 
The Calico Hills, Wahmonie, and Prow Pass tuffs were derived from different volcanic centers 
(Sawyer et al. 1994 [DIRS 100075], Table 1). The pattern of decreasing unit thickness from 
north to south along Yucca Mountain (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], Figure 3) is 
consistent with derivation of the Calico Hills pyroclastic material from an eruptive center north 
of the mountain (Sawyer et al. 1994 [DIRS 100075], p. 1307). Thickness of the Calico Hills tuff 
decreases over a distance of approximately 13 km, from more than 289 m at the northern end of 
Yucca Mountain (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], Figure 3) to approximately 6.4 m at 
the southeastern Busted Butte outcrop near the flow-and-transport test facility (Broxton et al. 
1993 [DIRS 107386], p. 9). At Raven Canyon, approximately 15 km southwest of Busted Butte, 
the Calico Hills Formation is absent and the Paintbrush Tuff rests on the Wahmonie Formation 
(Peterman et al. 1993 [DIRS 106498], Figure 2). 
H3. LITHOLOGY OF THE CALICO HILLS FORMATION 
The predominant rock types of the Calico Hills Formation in the Yucca Mountain area are an 
upper section of ash-flow and air-fall tuffs and a lower section of bedded tuffs and sandstones 
(Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 5). All of these rocks originally consisted 
predominantly of glassy pyroclasts (volcanic ash, shards, and pumice clasts that formed as the 
lava was erupted and fragmented). The rocks also contained smaller amounts of phenocrysts 
(crystals from the lava) and lithic inclusions (crystalline or glassy rock fragments). 
In the northeastern portion of the Yucca Mountain region, the glassy constituents of the Calico 
Hills tuffs have been altered to a mixture of zeolites (mostly clinoptilolite), smectite clay, and 
secondary silica. The Calico Hills Formation in the southeastern and southwestern Yucca 
Mountain region (including Busted Butte) remains mostly glassy, although some intervals 
contain appreciable amounts of smectite, clinoptilolite, and other secondary minerals. The areal 
distribution of zeolitic Calico Hills tuff is depicted in Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report (2004 
[DIRS 170031], Figures 6-12 to 6-16). Areas of low zeolite content in the cited figures generally 
show where the tuff is vitric. 
H4. CRITERIA OF UNIT IDENTIFICATION 
Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], Figure 2) divides the Calico Hills formation (from 
bottom to top) into the basal sandstone unit, the bedded tuff unit, and five pyroclastic units, of 
which Unit 1 is the deepest. Positive recognition of the units depends heavily upon observing 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-4 November 2004 
the entire stratigraphic sequence in drill core or outcrop, and identifying the distinctive contacts 
(boundaries) between adjacent units (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 5051). 
Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 58) also defines typical values for color and for 
phenocryst content, lithic grains, and pumice clasts associated with each unit; and summaries of 
chemical and mineralogic/petrographic data show that the data for some of these parameters, 
taken alone, are sufficient only to distinguish the upper ash-flow/air-fall tuff section from the 
lower bedded tuff and sandstone. Within the ash-flow/air-fall section, however, the phenocryst 
data do not reliably make distinctions between units 3, 4, and 5 because of the large overlaps in 
parameter-value populations (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], Figures 4 and 5). 
Drill hole USW GU-3 is the fully cored hole closest to Busted Butte. It is also the source of the 
only drill core studied by Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269]) that showed that the Calico 
Hills section is vitric, like the section at Busted Butte. Unit identification in this hole was 
considered very ambiguous by Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 89), due to poor 
core recovery of the vitric Calico Hills interval. The main problem with making unit 
identifications in the Calico Hills section of drill core USW GU-3 is that contacts are missing 
because of incomplete core recovery. Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 89) 
tentatively recognizes Unit 3 and underlying bedded tuffs in this core, but does not rule out the 
presence of additional units. The absence of well-supported unit correlations in USW GU-3, 
along with a paucity of data from other drill sites in which the Calico Hills Formation is vitric, 
increases the difficulty of comparison between Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain based solely 
on existing data. 
The identification of lithostratigraphic units at southeastern Busted Butte is based on a 
combination of characteristics common to other locations in which the units are exposed. Moyer 
and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 8, 10) notes lithologic similarities between the Calico Hills 
section exposed at Busted Butte and the USW GU-3 section, especially the presence of black, 
perlitic-glass lithic clasts (glass chunks with distinctive rounded surfaces) described in Moyer 
and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8) as black obsidian or obsidian lithic clasts. The 
restricted occurrence of these clasts was considered a basis for identification and intersite 
correlation of Unit 3 in Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8), which did not have much 
data to support this interpretation because such data could only come from locations in which the 
perlite clasts escaped zeolitic alteration. At the time the report (Moyer and Geslin 1995 
[DIRS 101269]) was produced, the USW GU-3 and USW UZ-14 cores were the only sources of 
data for the vitric or partly vitric Calico Hills Formation. 
As a follow-up to the observations and interpretations of Moyer and Geslin 
(1995 [DIRS 101269]), new petrographic data on rock color, lithic-clast content, and black 
perlitic-clast content were collected for a vertical suite of samples from the Busted Butte test 
facility. Comparable data were collected for drill-hole samples from USW GU-3, USW H-5, and 
USW SD-12 (all holes with predominantly vitric Calico Hills sections). These data are used to 
document the comparison of Calico Hills sections between Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain. 
H5. EVALUATION OF PETROGRAPHIC PARAMETERS 
Because Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 8, 10) suggests that the Busted Butte 
section represents Unit 3, efforts reported in this appendix concentrate on collection and 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-5 November 2004 
evaluation of data that are most useful to distinguishing Unit 3 from other units of the Calico 
Hills Formation, particularly the adjacent Units 2 and 4. Given that the Busted Butte section 
appears to contain only one pyroclastic-flow unit, the identification of that unit must be based on 
observable petrographic parameters without recourse to examination of the contacts of a 
multi-unit sequence. The parameters deemed to have the most characteristic values for Unit 3 
are: 
 total lithic-clast content, and 
 presence of black perlitic lithic clasts. 
Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 6 to 7) found that the lithic-clast content of Unit 3 
is in the range of 5 to 10 percent (excluding localized zones of higher concentration), which is 
higher than the ranges of 1 to 5 percent in Units 2 and 4. Data on lithic-clast content in vitric 
Calico Hills tuff is presented in Table H-2. In keeping with the presumed usage of Moyer and 
Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8), the lithic-clast abundances determined for this study include 
both crystalline and vitric lithic clasts. Such usage differs from some published data (Broxton 
et al. 1993 [DIRS 107386], p. 43) that include only crystalline clasts in the lithic-abundance 
determination. 
Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8) believed that the black perlitic lithic clasts might 
be unique to Unit 3, but had few data to support that assumption. For this assumption to be used 
with confidence at Busted Butte, it must be supported by data from additional sites. Table H-2 
summarizes new observations of black perlitic clast distribution in vitric Calico Hills tuff, taken 
from available samples. The table also contains matrix-color data (applicable to vitric samples 
only). Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 5, 6, 8, 51) considers color to be a useful 
characteristic for distinguishing units; most color observations included therein pertain to 
zeolitized tuffs that may differ in color from unaltered tuffs of equivalent stratigraphic position. 
The following criteria are used to identify Unit 3 within a vertical sequence of samples: 
 Lithic clast content: Lithic-clast content is perhaps the most consistently useful 
discriminant for the identification of Unit 3 within a vertical sequence of samples in 
which more than one unit is present. The data suite for USW SD-12 defines an interval 
in the middle of the Calico Hills Formation that has a lithic-clast content of 5 to 
10 percent. 
 Black, perlitic clast content: The distribution of black perlitic clasts in USW SD-12 is 
reasonably, but not perfectly, congruent with the interval containing 5 to 10 percent total 
lithic clasts. Data for the smaller sample suites from drill holes USW GU-3 and USW 
H-5 also suggest a correspondence between black perlite occurrences and the total 
lithic-clast content that is characteristic of Unit 3. The existence of samples without 
black perlite clasts (bedded tuff below the perlite interval in USW GU-3 and USW 
SD-12, and the tuff section above the perlite interval in USW SD-12) confirms that black 
perlite content can be used to discriminate between units. 
 Color: The color data for predominantly vitric Calico Hills samples show some 
similarities to the colors of zeolitic tuff in Unit 3, although the zeolitic tuff is more likely 
to have yellow or orange tints (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 51). The data 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-6 November 2004 
also indicate that color alone is not a useful interunit discriminant in every case. For 
example, the data for USW SD-12 show little difference between the Unit 3 samples and 
samples inferred to be from overlying Unit 4. In contrast, the USW GU-3 suite shows a 
reliable color difference between the orange pink of Unit 3 and the yellowish brown of 
the underlying bedded tuff. 
The 2-m section of uppermost Calico Hills tuff located in the Busted Butte test facility shares the 
two most characteristic lithologic attributes of Unit 3: lithic-clast content in the 5 to 10 percent 
range and the presence of black perlitic clasts. Note that the observations for drill-hole samples, 
intended to confirm the applicability of the Moyer and Geslin unit-discrimination criteria to 
vitric tuff (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269]), were derived from small suites of discrete 
samples. To achieve greater certainty of unit identification, a direct examination of the entire 
vitric Calico Hills section (complete with contacts) in drill core USW SD-12 should be made. 
H6. STRATIGRAPHY AND MINERALOGY OF THE 
BUSTED BUTTE TEST FACILITY 
Busted Butte is a small (2.5 km by 1 km) mountain block primarily made up of ignimbrite 
deposits of the Paintbrush Group. This fault-block uplift is bounded by northeast- and 
north-trending normal faults, and it is split by a north-trending down-to-the-west normal fault 
that gives Busted Butte its distinctive appearance. Tuff units generally have dips of less than 
10 degrees, except where affected by drag near large faults. Small exposures of older volcanic 
units, including the Calico Hills Formation, Wahmonie Formation, and Prow Pass Tuff, occur 
near the base of the butte on the north and southeast sides (Broxton et al. 1993 [DIRS 107386], 
pp. 510). 
The test facility is located within a small horst on the southeast side of Busted Butte. The horst 
is 300 to 350 m wide and is bounded by a down-to-the-west Paintbrush Canyon fault on the west 
and by a down-to-the-east splay of the Busted Butte fault on the east (Scott and Bonk 1984 
[DIRS 104181]). Geologic units exposed in the vicinity of the test facility include, in order of 
ascending position and decreasing age, the Wahmonie Formation, the Calico Hills Formation, 
and the Topopah Spring Tuff. The test facility is constructed in the Topopah Spring Tuff and the 
Calico Hills Formation. 
Brief descriptions of the formal and informal lithologic units in the underground test facility, 
with emphasis on the Phase 2 test block, are provided in this appendix. A representative 
stratigraphic and lithologic section is shown in Figure H-2. Characterization of the lithologic 
units was accomplished by examining and sampling the walls of the test block, by examination 
of drill core collected before and during the test, and by studying and sampling the mineback 
faces excavated into the test block after completion of the test. All color descriptions are based 
on the Munsell system, Rock Color Chart with Genuine Munsell Color Chips (Geological 
Society of America 1995 [DIRS 105787]). 
The descriptions and nomenclature of subunits within the Calico Hills Formation that are found 
in this appendix are informal and can only be used as indirect input. 
This appendix follows the criteria of Buesch et al. (1996 [DIRS 100106]) for definition and 
recognition of lithologic zones within the Topopah Spring Tuff. Because lithologic zones were 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-7 November 2004 
used to define numerical model units, replacement of the gradational transitions between the 
zones with no-thickness boundaries was necessary. The rationale and consequences of this 
substitution are discussed in this appendix. 
Source: DTN: LA0204SL831372.001 [DIRS 164749]. 
Figure H-2. Stratigraphy and Clay Content of the Phase 2 Test Block 
Calico Hills Formation 
A little more than 2 m of Calico Hills Formation (Tac) is exposed in the test area of the facility in 
the lower walls of both the main adit and the test alcove. The exposed unit consists 
predominantly of light brown (5YR 6/4), nonwelded vitric tuffs. Fine ash (particles less than one 
millimeter in diameter) is the principal constituent of the tuffs. Other constituents include 
varicolored crystalline lithic grains and glass chunks (5 to 25 percent by volume), feldspar, 
quartz, biotite phenocrysts (5 to 10 percent), and pumice lapilli of centimeter size or less (less 
than or equal to 5 percent). The tuff is uncemented, but variable cohesion is provided by the clay 
alteration described in this appendix. 
Interspersed with the light brown tuffs are two Beds of pumice-lapilli tuff, each approximately 
20 cm thick. The upper layer is known informally as Ash Bed 1, Ash Layer 1, or Ash 1, 
and the lower layer is known as Ash Bed 2, Ash Layer 2, or Ash 2. Neither bed is 
composed principally of ash, but the names have gained sufficient currency within the field-test 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-8 November 2004 
project that they are retained and used in this appendix. Ash Bed 1 is pinkish gray (5YR 8/1), 
nonwelded, and vitric. Amorphous opal cement comprises approximately 5 percent of the tuff, 
and contributes to its resistant, cohesive character. 
Topopah Spring Tuff 
Buesch et al. (1996 [DIRS 100106], pp. 4344) defined the crystal-poor vitric zone (Tptpv) in 
the lowermost Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt), and subdivided it into three subzones distinguished by 
a progressively decreasing degree of welding (compaction through viscous flow of the glassy 
components as the tuff cooled). The two lower subzones are present in the Phase 2 test block. 
The moderately welded subzone (Tptpv2), as described by Buesch et al. (1996 [DIRS 100106], 
p. 44), has moderately to strongly deformed pumice clasts in a moderately welded matrix. 
Near-vertical fractures are present. The nonwelded subzone below (Tptpv1) is characterized by 
partially deformed to nondeformed pumice clasts in a partially welded to nonwelded matrix. 
At Busted Butte, no bedded tuff between the base of the Topopah Spring Tuff and the underlying 
Calico Hills Formation compares to the 2-m-thick unit observed in drill core by Scott and 
Castellanos (1984 [DIRS 101291], p. 101). The lowermost part of the Topopah Spring Tuff, 
included within Tptpv1, is a base surge deposit that is, at its maximum, approximately seven 
centimeters thick, and rests directly on the Tac. The base surge is finely laminated on a 
millimeter scale, and contains well-aligned pumice lapilli (less than or equal to 2 cm across, 
elongations less than or equal to 4:1) and black glass chunks in a matrix of vitric ash. 
The Tptpv1 contains many texturally distinctive layers, although none is so well defined as the 
beds in the underlying Tac. Layers may be defined by concentrations or sizes of pumice lapilli, 
by the presence of abundant vitric shards, or similar characteristics. A mixed pumice population, 
indicated by variations in color, size, flattening, and alteration, is present in the upper portion of 
the Tptpv1 and in the Tptpv2. Heterogeneity of layering is absent from the Tptpv2 in the test 
block. 
Defining the Tptpv1/Tptpv2 Boundary 
The boundary between the two subzones can be gradational across a 0.5-m-to-2-m-thick vertical 
interval (Buesch et al. 1996 [DIRS 100106], p. 44). Note that subzones are defined on the basis 
of a syngenetic property (the degree of welding) rather than on depositional criteria. Within the 
context of the Busted Butte flow and transport test, the Tptpv1/Tptpv2 boundary is important to 
distinguish between the lithologic subzones, as they serve as a marker separating two 
hydrogeologic units used in modeling. The boundary must therefore be defined as a discrete 
surface suitable for numerical modeling, rather than as a gradational transition. The challenge is 
to determine whether consistent and significant hydrogeologic differences exist between the two 
subzones, and to then correlate the location of the hydrogeologic change with well-defined, 
mappable lithologic changes. This iterative process was satisfactorily accomplished for test 
purposes, but it did not resolve the geological uncertainties. 
Lithologic criteria for distinguishing Tptpv2 and Tptpv1 subzones could not be applied 
uniformly throughout the test block. For example, one criterion was the presence of vertical 
cooling joints in the Tptpv2 that terminated at the boundary with Tptpv1. This was a useful 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-9 November 2004 
criterion for mapping the boundary within the Phase 2 test alcove, but the first mineback faces 
were devoid of similar fractures in what was otherwise recognizable as Tptpv2. In the last 
two-mineback faces, joints were present, but the joint terminations had been extended downward 
due to tectonic modification. 
The chief recognition criterion for the Tptpv1/Tptpv2 boundary in the Phase 2 mineback was the 
uppermost occurrence of undeformed, subequant, vitric pumice lapilli up to approximately 10 cm 
across. For the first seven-mineback faces, the boundary defined on this basis was at essentially 
the same elevation as the boundary mapped on the test alcove injection face. Between Face 7 
and Face 8, the boundary rises approximately 0.6 m in a westerly direction, whereas the 
boundary mapped on the injection face remains level. No attempt has been made to investigate 
the differences, and both sets of data have been accepted for modeling purposes. 
The ambiguities described in this appendix have led to minor inconsistencies in boundary 
definition for modeling purposes, and in sample selection for properties characterization. The 
modeled boundary surface is slightly more irregular because of the inconsistencies. Three 
samples designated as Tptpv1/Tptpv2 in Table H-1 span an approximately 40-cm vertical range 
of identified boundary locations, based on the various criteria for defining the boundary. This 
range may be taken as an estimate of the uncertainty in boundary location due to differing 
criteria at any particular location within the Phase 2 block. 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-10 November 2004 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
Table H-1. Mineralogy of the Busted Butte Phase 2 Test Block (weight percent) 
LANL 
Number 
SPC 
Number 
Vertical 
Position 
Relative to 
Tpt/Tac 
Contact (m) 
Stratigraphic/ 
Lithologic 
Designation Smectite Kaolinite Quartz Cristobalite Feldspar Hematite Amorphous Mica Cryptomelane Total 
3692,p1 575100 +3.86 Tptpv2 n.d. 1(1) n.d. n.d. 2(1) n.d. 97(1) n.d. n.d. 100(1) 
3693,p1 575101 +3.64 Tptpv2 trace 1(1) 1(1) n.d. 1(1) n.d. 97(2) n.d. n.d. 100(2) 
3693,p2 575101 +3.44 Tptpv2 trace 2(1) trace n.d. 2(1) n.d. 96(1) n.d. n.d. 100(1) 
3594,p1 525159 +3.40 Tptpv2 3(1) 1(1) trace n.d. 1(1) n.d. 95(2) trace n.d. 100(2) 
3695,p1 575103 +3.15 Tptpv1/Tptpv2 n.d. 1(1) n.d. trace? 1(1) n.d. 98(1) n.d. n.d. 100(1) 
3593,p2 525158 +3.00 Tptpv1/Tptpv2 trace 2(1) trace n.d. 2(1) trace 96(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 
3593,p1 525158 +2.80 Tptpv1/Tptpv2 trace 1(1) n.d. n.d. 2(1) n.d. 97(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 
3698,p1 575106 +2.65 Tptpv1 11(3) 13(3) 1(1) n.d. 5(1) trace 70(4) n.d. n.d. 100(4) 
3699,p1 575107 +2.44 Tptpv1 13(4) 8(2) trace n.d. 4(1) trace 75(5) n.d. n.d. 100(5) 
3699,p2 575107 +2.36 Tptpv1 n.d. 1(1) n.d. n.d. 3(1) trace 96(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 
3702,p1 575110 +1.92 Tptpv1 n.d. n.d. trace trace 1(1) trace 99(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 
3591,p1 525156 +1.65 Tptpv1 2(1) 1(1) trace n.d. 2(1) trace 95(2) trace n.d. 100(2) 
3589,p1 525154 +1.55 Tptpv1 3(1) 1(1) trace n.d. 2(1) n.d. 94(2) trace n.d. 100(2) 
3707,p1 575115 +1.00 Tptpv1 trace n.d. trace trace 2(1) trace 98(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 
3582,p1 525147 +0.45 Tptpv1 1(1) n.d. trace n.d. 1(1) trace 98(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 
3583,p1 525148 +0.25 Tptpv1 trace n.d. trace trace 2(1) trace 98(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 
3583,p2 525148 +0.10 Tptpv1 12(4) n.d. trace trace 3(1) trace 85(4) trace n.d. 100(4) 
3583,p3 525148 +0.01 Tpt, base 
surge 
16(5) n.d. 3(1) 1(1) 6(1) trace 74(5) trace n.d. 100(5) 
3584,p1 525149 -0.01 Tac 7(2) n.d. 3(1) 1(1) 9(1) trace 80(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 
3584,p2 525149 -0.15 Tac 11(3) n.d. 3(1) 1(1) 8(1) 1(1) 76(4) trace n.d. 100(4) 
3587,p1 525152 -0.25 Tac 11(3) n.d. 4(1) 1(1) 8(1) trace 76(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 
3585,p1 525150 -0.57 Tac, ash bed 1 1(1) n.d. 6(1) trace 11(2) trace 82(2) trace n.d. 100(2) 
3585,p2 525150 -0.65 Tac, ash bed 1 1(1) n.d. 4(1) 1(1) 13(2) trace 81(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 
3585,p3 525150 -0.72 Tac 7(2) n.d. 4(1) 1(1) 11(2) trace 77(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 
3586,p1 525151 -0.83 Tac 7(2) n.d. 5(1) 1(1) 11(2) trace 76(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 
3598,p1 527826 -1.20 Tac 5(2) n.d. 4(1) 1(1) 10(1) trace 80(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 

ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-11 November 2004 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
Table H-1. Mineralogy of the Busted Butte Phase 2 Test Block (weight percent) (Continued) 
LANL 
Number 
SPC 
Number 
Vertical 
Position 
Relative to 
Tpt/Tac 
Contact (m) 
Stratigraphic/ 
Lithologic 
Designation Smectite Kaolinite Quartz Cristobalite Feldspar Hematite Amorphous Mica Cryptomelane Total 
3598,p2 527826 -1.45 Tac 12(4) n.d. 5(1) 1(1) 11(2) trace 71(5) trace n.d. 100(5) 
3596,p1 527827 -1.87 Tac, ash bed 2 1(1) n.d. 5(1) 1(1) 9(1) n.d. 84(2) trace 5 a 100(2) 
3596,p2 527827 -2.07 Tac, ash bed 2 7(2) n.d. 6(1) 1(1) 10(1) n.d. 76(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 
Source: DTN: LA0204SL831372.001 [DIRS 164749]. 
NOTE(S): Estimated 2-sigma errors are in parentheses. 
Los Alamos National Laboratory number is an internal tracking number assigned to mineralogy-petrology samples. 
SPC number is the number used by the Sample Management Facility to identify and track samples. 
Tptpv1 = Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor vitric zone, nonwelded subzone. 
Tptpv2 = Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor vitric zone, moderately welded subzone. 
Tpt = Topopah Spring Tuff. 
Tac = Calico Hills Formation. Ash beds 1 and 2, also known as ash layers 1 and 2, are informally designated layers of pumice-lapilli tuff. 
Cristobalite diffraction peaks, where detected, are broad, indicating the presence of poorly crystalline cristobalite or opal-C. 
Amorphous principally denotes volcanic glass, but small amounts of opal-A also may be present. Opal-A is most abundant in Tac ash beds 1 and 2, 
where it is estimated to comprise a few weight percent. 
trace = less than 0.5 weight percent, queried (?) where presence of phase is uncertain. 
n.d. = not detected. 
a This sample also contains a possible trace amount of lithiophorite. No error is given for the cryptomelane abundance because no standard reference 
intensity was used, and the value is an estimate. Because the value is an estimate, it is not included in the total. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-12 November 2004 
Faults 
Test objectives included investigating the influence of faults on fluid movement. However, the 
distribution of faults within the Phase 2 test block was largely unknown at the time the test 
facility was constructed. The location and orientation of the test block were driven by the need 
to penetrate as much of the Calico Hills Formation as possible; locating the test block to optimize 
fault-transport studies was a lower priority. The test block, as sited, contained two faults that 
were exposed on the collection face in the main adit. The injection face in the test alcove 
included no identifiable faults (DTN: GS990708314224.007 [DIRS 164604]). At the beginning 
of the test, nothing more was known about the presence of faults within the test block. 
The two unnamed normal faults exposed in the collection face are both near-vertical and dip 
away from each other, defining a narrow horst block oriented diagonally across the rectangular 
test block. One of the faults was projected to extend slightly into the rock volumes below the 
upper and lower injection arrays within the boundaries of the test block. The other fault was 
located a least several meters laterally beyond either injection array and was, therefore, less 
likely to encounter fluid injected during the test. 
The mineback through the Phase 2 test block revealed that the fault below the injection arrays 
extends approximately 6 m into the block, as far back as the fifth mineback face. The fault 
includes at least two branches, and the amount of offset decreases inward from the collection 
face. It does not intersect any of the injection boreholes. A fault (or faults) of similar orientation 
and sense of offset was (were) observed on mineback faces 2, 3, and 4, and intersect(s) 
injection holes UZTT-BB-INJ-9 (Borehole 26) and -10 (Borehole 27). 
Directly visible effects of faults on tracer movement are minor. No concentrations of fluorescent 
tracer were observed along fault traces exposed in the mineback, except within clay-rich pumice 
lapilli cut by the fault. The same effect was observed in lapilli away from the fault. The other 
fault effect was observed in damp zones above and below ash bed 1. The damp zones, visible in 
newly completed mineback faces, are parallel to bedding and have fairly uniform and flat upper 
and lower margins. Where the damp zones are crossed by faults, the upper margins of the zones 
extend upward along the fault trace or have a mounded appearance centered on the fault trace. 
This is particularly noticeable in the damp zone above ash bed 1. 
Mineralogic Variability of the Phase 2 Test Block 
Mineralogic data were collected to help verify stratigraphic-unit assignments and to identify 
potential effects of mineralogy on the flow-and-transport test results. The mineralogy of a 
composite vertical section through the southwestern portion of the test block is presented in 
Table H-1, with all abundances in weight percent. The analyzed aliquots were taken from block 
samples of intact rock, rather than from drill core, to provide better representation and vertical 
coverage of the lithologic subunits present in the test block. The use of block samples also 
avoided potential problems with disturbed core. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-13 November 2004 
Primary-Phase Mineralogic Variation 
Volcanic glass (shards, ash, and pumice clasts), plus quartz and feldspar in phenocrysts and 
xenoliths, are the primary pyroclastic constituents of the 
 Tptpv1 (crystal-poor vitric nonwelded subzone of the Topopah Spring Tuff), 
 Tptpv2 (crystal-poor vitric moderately welded subzone of the Topopah Spring Tuff), and 
 Tac (Calico Hills Formation). 
All Tpt subzones contain 1 percent (or less) quartz and 2 percent (or less) feldspar, with the 
exception of two intervals that have higher abundances of crystalline pyroclasts. The pumice 
swarm is characterized by feldspar contents of 4 to 5 percent, although it contains no more quartz 
than the bulk of the Tptpv1 and Tptpv2. The base surge directly above the Tac contains 
3 percent quartz and 6 percent feldspar. 
The Tac contains more crystalline pyroclasts than the overlying Tpt subzones, with 3 to 6 percent 
quartz and 8 to 13 percent feldspar. From ash layer 1 downward, the crystalline pyroclast 
content is slightly higher (13 to 19 percent quartz + feldspar) than it is in the uppermost Tac 
above ash layer 1 (1113 percent). 
Secondary Alteration 
As noted in this appendix, volcanic glass is the most abundant constituent of the partially welded 
to nonwelded tuffs located in the Busted Butte test facility. Glass is relatively susceptible to 
alteration by groundwater and is rarely preserved wherever the tuffs have been below the water 
table. The glassy rocks of Busted Butte are mostly unaltered, typical of nonwelded tuffs in the 
unsaturated zone of the Yucca Mountain region. Smectite and kaolinite clays are the principal 
alteration products of volcanic glass in the test facility. Figure H-2 highlights the vertical 
variability of clay content, and associations of clay content with specific stratigraphic/lithologic 
features. 
Clay content of the Topopah Spring Tuff in the test block is 4 percent or less, except in two 
layers within the Tptpv1. One of the two layers is a primary depositional feature informally 
called the pumice swarm, pumice layer, or pumice zone. The pumice layer contains 30 to 
50 percent (Levy 2001 [DIRS 165363], p. 31) large (approximately 10 cm long; Bussod 1999 
[DIRS 146978], p. 85), elongate pumice clasts aligned with the flow fabric of the ash flow. This 
layer is present throughout the Busted Butte test facility, but the layer thickness and the 
abundance of pumice clasts within the layer are variable. Alteration of the pumice clasts (and 
perhaps the matrix, as well) has produced bulk smectite + kaolinite contents as high as 
24 percent. 
A smectite clay content of 12 to 16 percent was documented within and just above the base surge 
deposit of the Topopah Spring Tuff. This is a higher-clay content than is present in either the 
overlying Tptpv1 tuff or the immediately underlying Calico Hills tuff. The localization of 
stronger alteration above the contact may have resulted from perching of downward-percolating 
water due to a permeability contrast at the contact. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-14 November 2004 
Clay content is generally higher in the Tac than in the overlying Tpt subzones. Smectite is the 
only clay mineral present. Except in the ash layers, the total smectite content of Tac samples is 
between 5 and 12 percent. Smectite content of the ash layers is between 1 and 7 percent. The 
lower clay content of the ash layers (actually pumice-lapilli tuffs) may be a consequence of early 
opal-A (amorphous silica) deposition that filled pores and cemented the pumice clasts. The 
cementation restricted fluid access to the volcanic glass of which the pumice clasts are 
composed, and protected it from the alteration that affected adjacent uncemented tuff. 
Effects of Mineralogy on Test Results 
The influence of clay content on the movement of introduced moisture is expected to be the 
predominant observable mineralogic effect on test performance. All of the tuff in the test block 
contains at least some smectite clay, a mineral with a strong affinity for water that is held in a 
partially ordered condition between the clay tetrahedral lattice layers. The ambient water content 
of the tuff probably is less than the capacity of the smectite to hold water. Smectite-rich 
stratigraphic layers that are close to an injection array, such as the pumice swarm in the upper 
Tptpv1, may capture and concentrate the tracer fluid. Kaolinite is less effective than smectite in 
attracting water (Grim 1968 [DIRS 164642], pp. 251254, 264266)], but it also contributes to 
the overall effect in the pumice swarm in which it is abundant. The combined smectite+kaolinite 
content of the bulk rock within the pumice swarm is 21 to 24 percent, and the pumice swarm is 
within approximately 1 m below the Phase 2 upper injection array. This fluid-imbibition effect 
may be detectable in neutron logs of collection boreholes that traverse the pumice swarm, and in 
auger samples collected during the mineback. 
A thinner, relatively smectite-rich interval in and above the Tpt base surge may behave like the 
pumice swarm with respect to tracer fluid. This interval is approximately 0.1 m thick, and 
contains 12 to 16 percent smectite. The base surge is located approximately 70 cm above the 
Phase 2 lower injection array. In this position, a thin smectitic interval may have less of an effect 
on moisture retention than the pumice swarm does. Data from the collection borehole designated 
Borehole UZTT-BB-COL-2, centered on the base surge, may document any moisture effects of 
the clay-rich rock. 
H7. APPLICABILITY OF BUSTED BUTTE HYDROLOGIC DATA TO 
YUCCA MOUNTAIN 
The Busted Butte UZTT included both field tests of aqueous tracer transport and laboratory 
measurements of hydrologic, tracer-sorption, and matrix-diffusion properties of rock samples 
from the field-test facility (Bussod et al. 1999 DIRS 155695]). The selection of southeastern 
Busted Butte, 8 km southeast of the repository area at Yucca Mountain, to site a field test facility 
was based on a presumption that the test results could be appropriately used in numerical studies 
of flow and transport in the Calico Hills Formation (Tac) at Yucca Mountain (Bussod et al., 1999 
[DIRS 155695], p. 2). Equivalence of stratigraphic units at Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain is 
the fundamental criterion for a presumption of applicability. Moreover, criteria for applicability 
are similarities of lithology and mineralogy, particularly mineralogic changes due to alteration. 
Additional criteria are similarities of measured hydrologic properties between the Calico Hills 
Formation at Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain Calico Hills sections of corresponding 
stratigraphy, lithology, and mineralogy. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-15 November 2004 
The Calico Hills section at southeastern Busted Butte, a thin distal residue of deposits with an 
aggregate thickness of one hundred to several hundred feet at Yucca Mountain, cannot 
completely represent the variability of the Calico Hills Formation below the nuclear waste 
repository. Because the Busted Butte section is so thin, it is important to more precisely 
determine which portion of the Calico Hills section occurs at the Busted Butte test facility. 
Lithostratigraphic Correspondence 
An informal internal lithostratigraphy of the Calico Hills Formation devised by Moyer and 
Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 59) provides a useful basis for comparing the Busted Butte 
and Yucca Mountain rock sections. The Calico Hills Formation is divided into five 
ash-flow/air-fall tuff units, plus a bedded tuff and volcaniclastic sandstone at the base of the 
formation. The majority of units (other than bedded tuff/sandstones) are laterally discontinuous, 
but pyroclastic Unit 3 is present in most, and perhaps all, of the drill cores examined in Moyer 
and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 6, 89). Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 8, 
10) notes lithologic similarities between the Calico Hills section exposed at Busted Butte and the 
USW GU-3 drill core section, especially the presence of black, perlitic-glass lithic clasts (glass 
chunks with distinctive rounded surfaces, described in Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], 
p. 8) as black obsidian or obsidian lithic clasts). The restricted occurrence of these clasts, in 
addition to a lithic-inclusion content of five to ten volume percent (Moyer and Geslin 1995 
[DIRS 101269], Table 3; also reproduced here as Table H-2), was considered a basis for 
identification and intersite correlation of Unit 3 by Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], 
p. 8). 
The nominally 2-m-thick section of uppermost Calico Hills Formation in the Busted Butte 
Phase 2 test block shares the two most characteristic lithologic attributes of Unit 3: lithic-clast 
content in the 5 to 10 percent range, and the presence of black perlitic clasts (Table H2). 
Hydrologic-properties samples were collected from this section. Data from Yucca Mountain 
vitric Tac sections from Boreholes USW SD-7 and SD-12, used for comparison with the Busted 
Butte Tac data, have been identified as parts of Unit 3 (Rautman and Engstrom 1996 
[DIRS 101008]; Rautman and Engstrom 1996 [DIRS 100642]). 
Table H-2. Calico Hills Formation Lithostratigraphy 
Unit 5  Non- to partially welded, pumiceous pyroclastic-flow deposit 
Slightly elongated pumice clasts; bimodal distribution of pumice clast sizes; 20 to 30 percent pumice. 
Light-colored pumice clasts; moderate reddish-orange to grayish-pink matrix. Base marked by thinly 
bedded fall deposits. 
Unit 4  Nonwelded, pumiceous pyroclastic-flow deposit 
Volcanic lithic clasts are large (20 to 70 mm), isolated or in swarms; prominent clasts of moderate 
reddish-orange tuff. Light-colored pumice clasts; very pale orange to grayish orange-pink matrix. 
Lithic-poor sections appear similar to Unit 2. Base marked by a heterolithologic sequence of fall deposits. 
Unit 3  Nonwelded, lithic-rich pyroclastic flow deposit 
Lithic clasts comprise 5 to 10 percent, locally 10 to 30 percent (near the base and in several intervals 
within the unit); predominantly devitrified volcanic rocks with local obsidian. Grayish-orange to 
grayish-yellow or pinkish-gray matrix. The basal lithic-rich fallout is an excellent stratigraphic marker. 
Unit 2  Nonwelded, pumiceous pyroclastic-flow deposit 
20 to 40 percent light-colored pumice clasts; moderate pink or moderate orange-pink matrix. The fall 
deposit at the base of the unit contains porcelaneous ash layers. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-16 November 2004 
Table H-2. Calico Hills Formation Lithostratigraphy (Continued) 
Unit 1  Nonwelded, lithic-rich pyroclastic-flow deposit 
15 to 20 percent devitrified volcanic lithic clasts near the base; lithic clasts decrease upward to 3 to 
7 percent. Light-colored pumice clasts; grayish orange-pink to light greenish-gray matrix; 7 to 12 percent 
phenocrysts. 
Bedded tuff unit 
Interbedded coarse-grained fallout deposits, pyroclastic-flow deposits (many reworked or with paleosols), 
and thinly bedded porcelaneous ash-fall deposits. Pyroclastic-flow deposits have 13 to 25 percent 
phenocrysts. 
Basal sandstone unit 
Massive to laminated, immature volcaniclastic sandstone; very pale orange to moderate red; medium to 
coarse grained; accumulations of argillic pumice clasts and rare sedimentary structures including load 
casts, pinch-and-swell structures, and flame structures. Locally interbedded with reworked 
pyroclastic-flow deposits. 
Mineralogic Correspondence 
For hydrologic purposes, the Calico Hills Formation at Yucca Mountain is categorized as either 
vitric or zeolitic (containing clinoptilolite). The downward change from vitric to zeolitic Tac is 
defined (based on hydrologic criteria) as a five-percent reduction in the porosity (Flint 1998 
[DIRS 100033], p. 29). Zeolitization reduces the saturated hydraulic conductivity by several 
orders of magnitude relative to the conductivity of less-altered vitric tuff (Flint 1998 
[DIRS 100033], p. 35). The Busted Butte section of the Tac is predominantly vitric, and its 
hydrologic properties should therefore most resemble those of vitric Tac in the southern and 
western parts of Yucca Mountain. 
In Tac sections at Yucca Mountain that are mostly vitric, exemplified by the section in drill hole 
USW SD-12 (Chipera et al. 1996 [DIRS 101331], Table 3), smectite clay comprises as much as 
two-weight percent in tuffs that contain 1 to 10 percent clinoptilolite. The vitric Tac section in 
the Busted Butte test facility contains two lithologic varieties, both of which are 
nonwelded: pyroclastic-flow tuff and pumice-lapilli (air-fall) tuff. Neither lithology is zeolitic, 
but the pyroclastic-flow tuff contains 7 to 12 percent smectite clay and the pumice air-fall tuff 
contains 1 to 7 percent smectite (DTN: LA0204SL831372.001 [DIRS 164749]). Thus, the 
ranges of secondary hydrous-mineral contents in the predominantly vitric Tac of Busted Butte 
and USW SD-12 are very similar. It has not been investigated whether it is significant that the 
Busted Butte secondary mineralogy is smectite, whereas the Yucca Mountain secondary 
mineralogy is dominated by zeolite. 
Borehole USW SD-7 is the only other source of qualified vitric Tac core. Four samples (from 
the uppermost vitric portion of the Tac section of this core) each contain a maximum of 
one percent of smectite and a maximum of one percent of zeolite (Chipera et al. 1996 
[DIRS 101331], Table 1). In this respect, they differ from the more-altered Busted Butte and 
USW SD-12 vitric Tac. 
Within-Site Variability of Hydrologic Properties 
Within the nominal 2-m thickness of the Tac in the Phase 2 test block, pyroclastic-flow tuff 
comprises approximately 80 percent of the section and pumice air-fall tuff accounts for 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-17 November 2004 
approximately 20 percent in two beds. The data set of 37 Tac hydrologic-properties samples 
contained 16 samples of pyroclastic-flow tuff and 21 samples from a single bed of pumice 
air-fall tuff. The subset of samples for which saturated hydraulic conductivity has been 
measured includes five pyroclastic-flow tuff samples and 19 pumice air-fall samples. This 
means that the permeability data set is heavily skewed toward a less common lithology, with 
approximately 80 percent of the measurements representing approximately 20 percent of the Tac 
section in the test block. 
The potential effect of this uneven sample coverage may be assessed from the data in Table H-3. 
The mean porosities and standard deviations of the two lithologies are the same. Geometric 
mean saturated hydraulic conductivity of the pumice air-fall is a factor of two higher than the 
comparable value for the pyroclastic-flow tuff. 
This finding raises questions about whether this difference reflects consistent and characteristic 
attributes of the two lithologies at Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain, and whether a difference 
of this magnitude is meaningful for modeling purposes. If the representation error is a problem, 
this under-representation is even more strongly pronounced. 
Table H-3. Hydrologic Properties of Calico Hills Formation, Busted Butte 
Borehole 
(UZTT-BB-) 
Sampling 
Depth 
(ft) Stratigraphic Category 
RH Oven Porosity 
(cm3/cm3) 
Saturated Hydraulic 
Conductivity 
(m/s) 
COL-1 10.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 N/A 
COL-1 16.8 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.33 N/A 
COL-2 6.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 7.2E-05 
COL-2 7.6 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 4.6E-05 
COL-10 6.7 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.31 N/A 
COL-10 10.6 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 N/A 
COL-10 21.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.49 N/A 
COL-10 25.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 N/A 
COL-11 20.9 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 N/A 
COL-11 30.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.36 N/A 
COL-12 7.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 1.9E-05 
COL-12 9.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 3.7E-05 
COL-12 11.0 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.31 N/A 
COL-12 22.2 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 N/A 
COL-12 23.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.33 N/A 
COL-12 25.8 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 1.5E-05 
Arithmetic mean Tac pyroclastic flow porosity 0.34 
Standard deviation Tac pyroclastic flow porosity 0.04 
Geometric mean Tac pyroclastic flow saturated hydraulic conductivity 3.2E-05 
INJ-7 11.9 Tac pumice air-fall 0.37 4.3E-05 
INJ-7 14.7 Tac pumice 0.34 2.1E-05 
INJ-7 18.7 Tac pumice 0.31 4.5E-05 
INJ-7 20.3 Tac pumice 0.32 1.1E-05 
INJ-8 8.6 Tac pumice 0.33 1.0E-05 
INJ-8 11.6 Tac pumice 0.32 3.1E-05 
INJ-8 14.1 Tac pumice 0.32 8.4E-06 
INJ-8 19.4 Tac pumice 0.33 8.3E-06 
INJ-8 25.0 Tac pumice 0.46 5.1E-07 
INJ-9 6.0 Tac pumice 0.31 N/A 
INJ-9 10.5 Tac pumice 0.35 5.5E-05 
INJ-9 12.3 Tac pumice 0.34 2.4E-05 
INJ-9 18.6 Tac pumice 0.31 3.1E-06 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-18 November 2004 
Table H-3. Hydrologic Properties of Calico Hills Formation, Busted Butte (Continued) 
Borehole 
(UZTT-BB-) 
Sampling 
Depth 
(ft) Stratigraphic Category 
RH Oven Porosity 
(cm3/cm3) 
Saturated Hydraulic 
Conductivity 
(m/s) 
INJ-9 19.7 Tac pumice 0.27 2.0E-06 
INJ-9 21.5 Tac pumice 0.35 8.8E-06 
INJ-10 8.7 Tac pumice 0.36 8.8E-06 
INJ-10 11.8 Tac pumice 0.33 N/A 
INJ-10 15.7 Tac pumice 0.31 4.2E-05 
INJ-10 17.4 Tac pumice 0.36 4.2E-05 
INJ-10 20.6 Tac pumice 0.33 4.2E-05 
INJ-10 22.8 Tac pumice 0.33 4.3E-05 
Arithmetic mean Tac pumice flow porosity 0.34 
Standard deviation Tac pumice flow porosity 0.04 
Geometric mean Tac pumice flow saturated hydraulic conductivity 1.4E-05 
Source: DTNs: GS990708312242.008 [DIRS 109822] (hydrologic properties), LA0207SL831372.001 
[DIRS 160824] (stratigraphic category). 
Comparison of Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain Hydrologic Properties 
Table H-4 contains porosity data for a portion of the Tac section in Borehole USW SD-12 at 
Yucca Mountain. This portion shares petrologic characteristics used to identify the Busted Butte 
Tac section as Unit 3 in the Moyer and Geslin classification (1995 [DIRS 101269]). The depth 
interval identified here as Unit 3 in USW SD-12 differs from the interval designated as Unit 3 in 
Rautman and Engstrom (1996 [DIRS 100642], p. 51), but the difference is not considered 
important for the purpose of this analysis. 
The comparison of hydrologic properties is limited to porosity data, because saturated hydraulic 
conductivity data are not available for the USW SD-12 Tac section. The mean porosity of the 
USW SD-12 section is slightly lower than that of the Busted Butte section, including both 
pyroclastic-flow and pumice air-fall lithologies. The standard deviations are the same for USW 
SD-12 and for both Busted Butte lithologies. This is an indication that the very restricted 
provenance of the Busted Butte samples may not have seriously biased the variability of that data 
set. 
Table H-4. Porosity Data for the Calico Hills Formation in USW SD-12 
Borehole 
Sample Depth 
(ft) Stratigraphic Category 
RH Oven Porosity 
(cm3/cm3) 
USW SD-12 1500.6 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.295 
USW SD-12 1504.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.361 
USW SD-12 1507.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.336 
USW SD-12 1509.8 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.333 
USW SD-12 1513.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.335 
USW SD-12 1515.7 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.324 
USW SD-12 1519.1 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.304 
USW SD-12 1522.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.308 
USW SD-12 1524.5 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.260 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-19 November 2004 
Table H-4. Porosity Data for the Calico Hills Formation in USW SD-12 (Continued) 
Borehole 
Sample Depth 
(ft) Stratigraphic Category 
RH Oven Porosity 
(cm3/cm3) 
USW SD-12 1528.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.308 
USW SD-12 1531.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.340 
USW SD-12 1534.4 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.309 
USW SD-12 1537.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.333 
USW SD-12 1539.8 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.318 
USW SD-12 1542.5 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.312 
USW SD-12 1546.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.327 
USW SD-12 1549.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.280 
USW SD-12 1557.1 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.321 
USW SD-12 1558.1 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.304 
USW SD-12 1560.4 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.310 
USW SD-12 1563.5 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.272 
USW SD-12 1567.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.257 
USW SD-12 1570.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.260 
USW SD-12 1573.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.313 
USW SD-12 1575.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.307 
USW SD-12 1578.8 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.330 
USW SD-12 1581.6 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.318 
Arithmetic mean Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.31 
Standard deviation Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.04 
Source: DTN: GS960808312231.004 [DIRS 108985]. 
The mineralogic differences between the relatively unaltered upper Tac section in USW SD-7 
and the somewhat more altered Busted Butte and USW SD-12 vitric Tac sections have been 
noted elsewhere in this appendix. Hydrologic-properties data for four samples in Table H5 also 
are distinctive. All porosity values are below the mean porosity values for Busted Butte and 
USW SD-12. Similarly, the saturated hydraulic conductivity values are all below the mean value 
of 1.7  10-5 for all Busted Butte test facility Tac. The combination of lower porosity and 
hydraulic conductivity in a minimally altered tuff may reflect an increased degree of compaction 
relative to the two other sites. Alternatively, the differences may be a function of what is 
recoverable in the coring (a known problem). An additional potential difference might result if 
the Tac is non-uniform and has different transverse and longitudinal properties. The reported 
difference might then partially result from measurement of properties from vertically extracted 
core versus horizontally extracted core. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-20 November 2004 
Table H-5. Porosity and Permeability Data for the Calico Hills Formation in USW SD-7 
Borehole 
Sample Depth, 
(ft) a Stratigraphic Category b 
RH Oven Porosity 
(cm3/cm3) 
Saturated Hydraulic 
Conductivity 
(m/s) 
USW SD-7 1396.4/1396.0 Tac Unit 3 0.298 1.60E-05 
USW SD-7 1410.3/1410.7 Tac Unit 3 0.272 3.30E-06 
USW SD-7 1422.0/1422.2 Tac Unit 3 0.308 7.10E-06 
USW SD-7 1428.0/1428.0 Tac Unit 3 0.221 2.80E-09 
Source: DTNs: GS951108312231.009 [DIRS 108984] (porosity), GS960808312231.005 [DIRS 108995] 
(saturated hydraulic conductivity). 
a The first depth is the porosity sample; the second depth is the saturated hydraulic conductivity sample. 
b Based on Rautman and Engstrom (1996 [DIRS 101008], p. 12). The 1,396-ft samples are above the Tac, 
according to this reference. 
Samples of the Calico Hills Formation and Topopah Spring Tuff exposed in Busted Butte 
outcrops were used to determine the hydrologic properties of the formations in the test block. 
Table H-6 presents the mean and standard deviation for porosity, saturated conductivity, and van 
Genuchten parameters for samples taken from the three units at Busted Butte. 
Table H-6. Hydrogeologic Properties of Busted Butte Units 
Unit 
Number of 
Samples 
Porosity 
Mean 
Porosity 
Std. Dev. 
Ksat [m/s] 
Arith. Mean 
Ksat [m/s] 
Std. Dev. 
Ksat [m/s] 
Geom. Mean 
Tac 35 0.354 0.042 2.363E-05 1.720E-05 1.523E-05 
Tptpv1 25 0.420 0.040 1.073E-05 1.853E-05 3.372E-06 
Tptpv2 19 0.387 0.032 4.397E-06 4.387E-06 2.651E-06 
Unit 
Number of 
Samples 
van Genuchten 
alpha [1/m] 
Mean 
van Genuchten 
alpha [1/m] 
Std. Dev. 
van Genuchten n 
Mean 
van Genuchten n 
Std. Dev. 
Tac 35 3.014 2.632 1.279 0.205 
Tptpv1 25 0.685 0.365 1.385 0.278 
Tptpv2 19 0.633 0.015 1.309 0.109 
Source: Mean and standard deviation of values calculated from the following DTNs: GS990308312242.007 
[DIRS 107185]; GS990708312242.008 [DIRS 109822]. 
Conclusions 
The amount of existing hydrologic-properties data for the vitric Tac at Yucca Mountain is 
insufficient to make a quantitative assessment of vitric Tac data from Busted Butte relative to 
Yucca Mountain data. The use of Busted Butte vitric Tac hydrologic properties to model 
hydrologic processes at Yucca Mountain is based on an assumption that no additional data from 
Yucca Mountain proper will be available. An examination of existing data suggests that 
property values at Busted Butte probably lie within the range of Yucca Mountain values, but the 
variation of Yucca Mountain values is almost certainly greater than that of Busted Butte, because 
the scale of the Busted Butte site is considerably smaller than that of the corresponding 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-21 November 2004 
hydrogeologic units at Yucca Mountain. Values of Busted Butte hydrologic properties (such as 
porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity) may be near the high end of the range for these 
property values at Yucca Mountain. If this is correct, one possible explanation may be that the 
Tac tends to be slightly more compacted at Yucca Mountain than at Busted Butte, because it has 
a thinner overburden. Another possible explanation is that recovery in the Yucca Mountain 
cores was limited to rock that was more intact and thus had smaller values of hydrologic 
properties. The smectitic alteration at Busted Butte differs from zeolitic alteration at Yucca 
Mountain, but the data are insufficient to test for a relationship between alteration mineralogy 
and variations in hydrologic properties. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-22 November 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
APPENDIX I 
CALCULATIONS PERFORMED USING EXCEL SPREADSHEETS AND FUNCTIONS 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-1 November 2004 
I1. MEAN: GEOMETRIC AND ARITHMETIC 
The difference between arithmetic and geometric means is in the underlying statistical 
distribution used in mean calculation. The arithmetic mean gives equal weight to all data and 
uses the normal (bell-shaped) distribution. Unless specifically called out in the text (as in 
Section 6.1.2) the average or mean values presented in this report are calculated using the 
arithmetic mean. In all cases, the DTN listed in the text of the section (or included as a note to a 
table or figure) contains the input values, and the output values are produced using the following 
functions: 
If the following function is typed into Excel: 
=AVERAGE(A1: A34) (Eq. I-1) 
then the arithmetic mean, or average value, of the data in cells A1 through A34 will be returned. 
If the following function is typed into Excel: 
=GEOMEAN(A1: A34) (Eq. I-2) 
then the geometric mean value of the data in cells A1 through A34 will be returned. 
The term log mean (as used in Section 6.14.4) is the same as the geometric mean. 
I2. MEDIAN, MODE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION 
Data in some of the sections (e.g., Section 6.1 and Section 6.14) have been used to calculate 
median, mode, and standard deviation summary statistics. The median is the middle point of the 
probability distribution, where 50 percent of the observations lie on one side of the median, and 
50 percent lie on the other side of the median. The mode is the portion of the distribution with 
the greatest frequency of occurrence. In a normal distribution, the mean, median, and mode 
should be equivalent. The standard deviation (s), also referred to as error and variability in this 
report, is a measure of the spread of the probability distribution around the arithmetic mean. In 
Excel, these values were calculated for this report using the following functions: 
=MEDIAN(A1: A34), (Eq. I-3) 
which returns the median value for the data in cells A1 through A34, 
=MODE(A1: A34), (Eq. I-4) 
which returns the mode for the data in cells A1 through A34, 
=STDEV(A1: A34), (Eq. I-5) 
which returns the standard deviation of the data in cells A1 through A34, and 
=VAR(A1: A34), (Eq. I-6) 
which returns the variance of the data in cells A1 through A34. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-2 November 2004 
I3. SPREADSHEET CALCULATIONS 
Using the preset functions in Excel, equations may be entered and calculated. Section 6.1 (which 
contains Equation 6-1), Section 6.2 (which contains Equation 6-3 to Equation 6-10), Section 6.4 
(which contains Equation 6-11), and Section 6.10 (which contains Equations 6-12 and 6-13) 
contain equations that were calculated using data for analyses in the respective sections. For 
example, Equation I-7 (see also Equation 6-1) was used to calculate air-permeability from 
pressure differences during steady-state air injection using the following modified Hvorslev's 
formula (LeCain 1995 [DIRS 101700], p. 10, Equation 15): 
( )sc 
f 
w 
sc sc 
T P P L 
T 
r
L Q P 
k 2 
1 
2 
2 
ln 
- 
. .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
= 
p 
 
(Eq. I-7) 
where 
k = permeability, m2 
Psc = standard pressure, Pa 
Qsc = flow-rate at standard conditions, m3/s 
 = dynamic viscosity of air, Pas 
L = length of zone, m 
rw = radius of bore, m 
Tf = temperature of formation, K 
P2 = injection zone pressure at steady-state, Pa 
P1 = ambient pressure, Pa 
Tsc = standard temperature, K 
ln = natural log 
In Excel, the input data used in the calculations for this example (DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 
[DIRS 153155]) (the first 9 entries shown) would appear as seen in Table I-1. 
The input DTN in this case contains P2 injection zone pressure at steady state, (in Pa), P1 
ambient pressure (in Pa), and Qsc flow-rate at standard conditions (in m3/s). The remaining 
values in the calculations are standard constants obtained from reference books or site-specific 
values (e.g., borehole radius and length), all of which have been documented in the scientific 
notebooks referenced for the section. The output for this equation is the permeability values (k) 
in column J. 
Other calculations have been performed in a similar manner using equations presented in 
Section 6.1, Section 6.2, and Section 6.4. Details on the calculations in Section 6.2 are listed as 
notes to the tables in Appendix B. (See Appendix B for details: only the general practices related 
to calculations in Excel are discussed here.) 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-3 November 2004 
Table I-1. Calculation Spreadsheet for Permeability (Output) from Input in DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 
A B C D E F G H I J 
1 P1 P2 L Qsc u rw Tf Tsc Psc k -permeability 
2 89515.40 215482.27 0.3048 8.30E-04 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 8.46E-14 
3 92174.57 146320.52 0.3048 1.69E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 5.12E-15 
4 89023.91 124321.86 0.3048 1.69E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 8.78E-15 
5 90593.25 129981.18 0.3048 1.69E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 7.61E-15 
6 88695.51 165094.52 0.3048 8.37E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 1.69E-14 
7 89190.80 118626.97 0.3048 1.69E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 1.08E-14 
8 89843.76 107377.01 0.3048 8.36E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 9.47E-14 
9 89755.15 115576.75 0.3048 8.29E-04 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 6.12E-13 
Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155] 
In cell: Equation for permeability (Equation 6-1): 
J2 (I2*D2*E2*LN(C2/F2)*G2)/(3.14*C2*((B2^2)-(A2^2))*H2) 
J3 (I3*D3*E3*LN(C3/F3)*G3)/(3.14*C3*((B3^2)-(A3^2))*H3) 
J4 (I4*D4*E4*LN(C4/F4)*G4)/(3.14*C4*((B4^2)-(A4^2))*H4) 
J5 (I5*D5*E5*LN(C5/F5)*G5)/(3.14*C5*((B5^2)-(A5^2))*H5) 
J6 (I6*D6*E6*LN(C6/F6)*G6)/(3.14*C6*((B6^2)-(A6^2))*H6) 
J7 (I7*D7*E7*LN(C7/F7)*G7)/(3.14*C7*((B7^2)-(A7^2))*H7) 
J8 (I8*D8*E8*LN(C8/F8)*G8)/(3.14*C8*((B8^2)-(A8^2))*H8) 
J9 (I9*D9*E9*LN(C9/F9)*G9)/(3.14*C9*((B9^2)-(A9^2))*H9) 
Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. 
I4. PLOTTING AND TREND-LINES 
Microsoft Excel can also be used to plot data organized into columns and rows. This is 
performed by highlighting the data columns to be plotted (e.g., sample date column and seepage 
volume column) and then going to the INSERT pull-down menu and selecting the CHART 
option. The Excel Chart Wizard will then appear on screen and guide the user through the 
options to format the plot as desired. The following is provided as an example, with data from 
Section 6.10.2, and using input corroborating data from Fundamentals of Soil Physics (Hillel 
1980 [DIRS 101134], p. 39). 
Once a chart exists and is selected (activated), a CHART file appears as a pull-down menu and 
can be used to adjust chart format. From the CHART pull-down menu, ADD TRENDLINE may 
be selected to have Excel add a line to the data, based upon a least-squares best-fit technique. 
This means that a line is added that minimizes the sum of the squared differences between the 
line and the actual data. This feature of Excel has been used in this report in Figures 6-19 
through Figure 6-23, Figure 6-122, Figure 6-141, Figure 6-142, and Figure 6-145. It is a 
calculation (based upon data) similar to the others performed in Excel. Excel was also used to 
display box plots of data (Figure 6-217 and Figure 6-218), which are boxes on a graph with a 
line through the mean value and the upper and lower boundaries of the box at 2 times the 
standard deviation level. The outer lines (known as whiskers) of the box plot indicate the total 
range of data values, and individual points indicate outlier data. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-4 November 2004 
Figure I-1. Example of Plotting and Trendline Addition in Excel Based on Figure 6-122 
I4.1 EXCEL SMOOTHING FUNCTION 
Some of the plotted data figures displayed in this report are presented using smoothed lines to 
connect data points (see Figures 6-76, 6-79, 6-80, 6-191, 6-192, 6-193, and 6-194 for examples). 
Display of data in this manner may be appropriate for various reasons, including that the 
continuity of the processes under observation is better characterized. The following discussion 
summarizes the smoothing function calculation in Excel. 
In Excel, plots of data may be smoothed, which means that the lines between data points are 
made nonlinear to round the edges of sharp peaks in the data. The data itself remains unchanged, 
but the lines between the data are calculated using an exponential smoothing formula included in 
the Excel program as part of the Analysis ToolPak. This formula is designed to predict a value 
based on the forecast for the prior period (data point). The tool uses the smoothing constant a, 
the magnitude of which determines how strongly forecasts respond to errors in the prior forecast. 
The function estimates the plotted result F, from each time step Ft, for the following time step 
Ft+1. The function is: 
Ft+1 = Ft + a*(At - Ft) = Ft + (1 - dampFact)*(At - Ft) (Eq. I-8) 
where At are the actual data points used to constrain the function. The damping factor 
(dampFact) is a corrective factor that minimizes the instability of data collected across a 
population. Larger constants yield a faster response, but can produce erratic projections. 
Smaller constants can result in long lags for forecast values. The default damping factor is 0.3. 
I4.2 CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED 234U/238U AGES 
The following calculation is performed in an Excel spreadsheet as described elsewhere in this 
appendix, and is used in Section 6.14.3 to estimate the ages of opal mineral deposits from 
uranium isotope ratios. This ratiometric calculation is a standard approach in geochemical 
analyses. The activity of 234U at any time in a closed mineral system consists of the 234U activity 
Temperature 
(C) 
Vapor Density 
(kg/m3) 
0 0.00485 
5 0.0068 
10 0.0094 
15 0.01285 
20 0.0173 
25 0.02305 
30 0.03038 
35 0.03963 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-5 November 2004 
generated in place by decay of 238U in the sample, and the amount of excess 234U activity 
remaining from the 234U incorporated into the mineral at the time of formation. The 
mathematical expression for this relation is given by Faure (1986 [DIRS 105559], p. 369, 
Equation 21.22). Rearranging to solve for the age of the system, t: 
234 
238 
234 
238 
234 
1
1 
ln 
. - 
. . . . . 
.
. 
. . . . . 
.
. 
- . .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
- . .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
= initial 
measured 
U
U 
U
U 
t (Eq. I-9) 
where .234 is the radioactive decay constant for 234U of 2.8262  10-6 /year (Cheng et al. 2000 
[DIRS 153475]). Therefore, estimated 234U/238U ages are calculated from measured 234U/238U 
ratios, and an assumed initial 234U/238U, estimated, in the present case, using the average of initial 
234U/238U activity ratios calculated using 238U-234U-230Th data for SHRIMP (the ion microprobe 
technique) spots younger than 200 ka. The resulting estimated 234U/238U ages are presented in 
Table 6-43 and Figures 6-206, 6-207, and 6-208. 
I5. OTHER STATISTICS 
Statistical analyses can be performed using functions in Microsoft Excel. These include Student 
t-tests, normality tests, correlations tests, coefficient of variation calculations, F-tests, and linear 
regression. These statistical functions can be calculated for arrays of data (in rows and columns) 
using the INSERT pull-down menu and FUNCTION command. 
In Section 6.14.1.2, a Fisher (F) test is performed to examine intersample variability. The 
analysis was performed as described by Youden, (1951 [DIRS 153339]) and Peterman and Cloke 
(2002 [DIRS 162576] p. 692): 
F = [S (xm-)2/(nm-1)]/[S (xa-xb)2/n] (Eq. I-10) 
where 
xm = means of duplicate analyses 
 = overall mean of the analyses 
nm = number of samples (20) 
xa and xb are the duplicate analyses 
nm = number of duplicate analyses 
n = total number of analyses 
A critical F-value is defined by Youden (1951 [DIRS 153339]) for a given level of probability 
(in this case, 95 percent). In Section 6.14.3, a discussion on the slopes of a regression line is 
provided for input DTN: GS021208315215.009 [DIRS 164750]. In this regression, the isotope 
ratios for data 230Th/U are analyzed in a linear regression, using Excel. This is done by plotting 
the data (in this case, 230Th/U ratio (column F)) as a function of the distance from the surface of 
the sample. By then adding a TRENDLINE as discussed in Section I4, the slope of the 
regression may be obtained from the equation as displayed in Figure I-1. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-6 November 2004 
Table I-2. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Table 6-44 and Figure 6-209 
A B C D E F G H I 
Row 
Sample 
Designation 
Elapsed 
Time 
(min.) 
Uranium 
Abundance 
(ng) 
230Thorium/ 
232Thorium 
Radioactivity 
Ratio 
230Thorium/ 
238Uranium 
Isotopic Ratio 
234Uranium/ 
238Uranium 
Radioactivity 
Ratio 
Mineral Age 
(ka) 
Initial 
234Uranium/ 
238Uranium 
Radioactivity 
Ratio 
1 HD2074-T1a 12 12.6 1,250 400 0.3436 0.0045 6.043 0.082 6.34 0.12 6.134 0.082 
2 HD2074-T1b 3 0.744 134 32 0.901 0.069 6.421 0.058 16.2 1.3 6.674 0.061 
3 HD2074-T1c 12 1.64 720 220 1.490 0.056 6.089 0.054 29.5 1.3 6.531 0.058 
4 HD2074-T1d 12 1.22 1,400 4,200 2.393 0.076 5.213 0.049 61.4 2.5 6.011 0.059 
5 HD2074-g2-L1 2 2.21 550 340 0.430 0.038 6.574 0.089 7.3 0.7 6.691 0.090 
6 HD2074-g2-L2 2 3.13 580 180 0.671 0.074 6.561 0.058 11.6 1.3 6.747 0.062 
7 HD2074-g2-L3 3 4.81 940 220 0.932 0.064 6.649 0.084 16.1 1.2 6.913 0.086 
8 HD2074-g2-L4 3 4.5 3,300 1,900 1.350 0.077 6.435 0.041 24.9 1.6 6.831 0.048 
9 HD2074-g2-L5 4 5.1 5,700 4,700 1.427 0.034 6.492 0.042 26.2 0.7 6.914 0.044 
10 HD2074-g2-L6 5 6.89 2,770 720 1.620 0.023 6.375 0.036 30.7 0.5 6.862 0.037 
Source: DTN: GS021208315215.009 [DIRS 164750]. 
NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. 
Source: DTN: GS021208315215.009 [DIRS 164750]. 
NOTE: The results are discussed in section 6.14.3 and are related to Table 6-44 and Figure 6-209. 
Figure I-2. Example of Linear Regression in Excel with the y = mx Equation, Where m is the 
Regression-Slope 
The resulting slope (0.30) in Figure I-2 is not the same as the 0.35 slope reported in 
Section 6.14.3, because only rows 5 through 10 were used for demonstration purposes in this 
appendix. In this appendix, the distance is indicated by the last digit in the sample designation. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-7 November 2004 
I6. CALCULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC FIGURES 
The following subsections document specific calculations used to create figures that require 
more detail than provided in Appendix Section I4. 
I6.1 DESCRIPTORS FOR EVAPORATION-PAN DATA IN FIGURE 6-42 
(DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001) 
Evaporation-pan data were measured using a single balance loaded with a container filled with 
water. A Mettler Single Scale 8-31-01.vi V2.0 referred to as Balance 4, was used to record the 
evaporation rate after 7-15-02. Figure 6-42 shows the evaporation rate inside and outside the 
niche during Test #2 9-17-02. The plot indicates that the average evaporation flux outside of the 
niche is approximately a factor of 20 greater than the average evaporation flux inside the niche. 
The input evaporation data (DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]) collected during the 
study, and contained in the original data files, give the evaporation rates (g/s). These data rates 
were converted to output evaporation fluxes (g/s-m2) shown in Column I of Table I-3. These 
outputs were obtained by dividing the evaporation rate (measured water-mass loss over time, in 
Column G) by the surface area of the evaporation pan (i.e., pr2, where r is the radius of the pan, 
in Column H). The radius of the evaporation pan inside the niche was 0.075 m (Trautz 2003 
[DIRS 166248], p. 187). 
Table I-3. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-42 
A B C D E F G H I 
Date and 
Date Time 
Elapsed 
Time 
(s) Weight Units Status 
Mass Rate 
(g/s) 
Area, pr2 
(m2) 
Evaporation 
(g/s-m2) 
9/17/2002 2:01:01 PM 0 2163.3 g S D 0 0.01767146 0 
9/17/2002 2:01:04 PM 3.695 2163.5 g S D 0.054127 0.01767146 3.062961637 
9/17/2002 2:01:21 PM 20.029 2162.2 g S D -0.079589 0.01767146 -4.503816094 
9/17/2002 2:01:37 PM 36.362 2163.3 g S D 0.067348 0.01767146 3.811117194 
9/17/2002 2:01:54 PM 52.746 2162.9 g S D -0.024414 0.01767146 -1.381549789 
9/17/2002 2:02:10 PM 69.079 2163.3 g S D 0.02449 0.01767146 1.385850509 
9/17/2002 2:02:27 PM 86.134 2163.2 g S D -0.005863 0.01767146 -0.331777931 
9/17/2002 2:02:43 PM 102.467 2163.5 g S D 0.018368 0.01767146 1.039416176 
9/17/2002 2:03:00 PM 118.791 2163.4 g S D -0.006126 0.01767146 -0.346660687 
9/17/2002 2:03:16 PM 135.124 2162.9 g S D -0.030613 0.01767146 -1.73234143 
9/17/2002 2:03:32 PM 151.457 2163.5 g S D 0.036735 0.01767146 2.078775763 
Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. 
NOTE: Data are from Balance 4; they have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation 
only. 
I6.2 DESCRIPTOR FOR DATA IN FIGURE 6-131(B) (DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.002) 
In Table I-4 the rate data for plotting is computed as follows: cumulative volume from 
columns B and D, which are taken from LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879], and have 
already been divided by 1,000 (to convert milligrams to liters), and written to Columns C and E, 
respectively, of the plotting worksheet. Injection rate data are written to Column F in this 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-8 November 2004 
worksheet by taking the difference of sequential-row data in Column C and dividing this 
difference by sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), and then multiplying by 
appropriate conversion factors. 
Similarly, seepage rate data are written to Column H by taking the difference of sequential-row 
data in Column E, and dividing this difference by sequential-row data from Column A (time 
stamp data), and then multiplying by appropriate conversion factors. The rate data are smoothed 
for plotting by taking a 20-point moving average (using the Excel AVERAGE function, see 
Equation I-1), and writing the result to the row corresponding to the time stamp of the first data 
point of the 20-point averaging series. The averaging results are performed in this fashion on the 
rate data from Columns F and H, and written to Output Columns G and I for plotting against 
Column A. 
Table I-4. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-131(b) 
A B C D E F G H I 
Date and Time 
Injection 
(g) 
Injection 
(L) 
Seepage 
(g) 
Seepage 
(L) 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
20-point 
Movingaverage 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Seepage 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
20-point 
Movingaverage 
Seepage 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
2/28/2001 13:59 376.4733 0.376473 8.269747 0.00827 9.50 9.54 0.00 -0.07 
2/28/2001 14:19 566.9406 0.566941 8.269747 0.00827 12.83 9.64 0.00 -0.07 
2/28/2001 14:39 823.9857 0.823986 8.269747 0.00827 11.57 9.57 -0.07 -0.07 
2/28/2001 14:59 1055.978 1.055978 6.891456 0.006891 10.13 9.42 -0.07 -0.06 
2/28/2001 15:19 1259.144 1.259144 5.513165 0.005513 10.31 9.51 0.00 -0.06 
2/28/2001 15:39 1465.741 1.465741 5.513165 0.005513 9.94 9.55 -0.03 -0.06 
2/28/2001 15:59 1665.131 1.665131 4.824019 0.004824 8.04 9.64 -0.10 -0.06 
2/28/2001 16:19 1826.771 1.826771 2.756582 0.002757 1.52 9.86 -0.31 -0.05 
2/28/2001 16:39 1857.314 1.857314 -3.44573 -0.00345 -4.18 10.45 -0.45 -0.03 
2/28/2001 16:59 1773.577 1.773577 -12.4046 -0.0124 3.73 11.28 0.00 -0.01 
2/28/2001 17:20 1848.391 1.848391 -12.4046 -0.0124 14.22 11.72 0.00 -0.01 
2/28/2001 17:40 2133.234 2.133234 -12.4046 -0.0124 14.05 11.60 0.00 -0.01 
2/28/2001 18:00 2414.989 2.414989 -12.4046 -0.0124 14.25 11.38 -0.03 -0.01 
Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879]. 
NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. 
I6.3 DESCRIPTOR FOR DATA IN FIGURES 6-141 THROUGH 6-143 
(DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001) 
Columns B, C, and D of Table I-5 contain the injection, return, and seepage volume data, 
respectively, from LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462] for LA#3 Zone 1, and have already 
been divided by 1000 g/L to convert grams to liters. Rates in Columns E and G were calculated 
through use of Columns B and D, respectively, in combination with time data from Column A. 
Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, and dividing 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-9 November 2004 
this difference by sequential-row data from column A (time stamp data), and multiplying this by 
conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. 
Columns F and H have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in 
Columns E and G, respectively. The output is written to the row corresponding to the first row 
of the series for each average. Return data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that 
there was no return). 
Table I-5. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-141 
A B C D E F G H 
Date and Time 
Injection 
Volume 
(L) 
Return 
Volume 
(L) 
Seepage 
Volume 
(L) 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
17-point 
Moving-average 
Injection Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Seepage 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
17-point 
Moving-average 
Seepage Rate 
(mL/min.) 
5/17/2001 15:33 0.42967 -0.00892 -0.00276 34.5923 36.25259193 -0.06874 0.040454465 
5/17/2001 15:53 1.12324 -0.0151 -0.00413 32.5041 36.41670827 -0.05156 0.040454465 
5/17/2001 16:13 1.77495 -0.01922 -0.00517 35.13798 36.65835198 -0.05143 0.041465388 
5/17/2001 16:33 2.48122 -0.02196 -0.0062 39.05319 36.76620501 -0.0342 0.040446921 
5/17/2001 16:54 3.26815 -0.02951 -0.00689 35.45289 36.63771063 0.034343 0.040436887 
5/17/2001 17:14 3.97957 -0.03775 -0.0062 36.69389 36.77217985 0.1376 0.036393193 
5/17/2001 17:34 4.71467 -0.03432 -0.00345 36.56069 36.73816646 0.618684 0.02829909 
5/17/2001 17:54 5.44771 -0.01853 0.00896 37.87866 36.84489242 0.274971 -0.008094107 
5/17/2001 18:14 6.20718 -0.01441 0.01447 34.57519 36.79052259 -0.03437 -0.024268861 
5/17/2001 18:34 6.90041 -0.01441 0.01378 33.18211 36.9455773 -0.0344 -0.022247016 
5/17/2001 18:54 7.56516 -0.01682 0.01309 26.39353 37.19951427 0.017186 -0.020223488 
Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. 
NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. 
Columns J, K, and L of Table I-6 contain the injection, return and seepage volume data, 
respectively, from LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462] for LA#3 Zone 2, and have already 
been divided by 1000 g/L to convert from grams to liters. Rates in Columns M and O were 
calculated through use of Columns J and L, respectively, in combination with time data from 
Column I. Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, 
and dividing this difference by sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), and 
multiplying this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. 
Columns N and P have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in 
Columns M and O, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row 
corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Return data are not plotted (the 
measured values indicate that there was no return). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-10 November 2004 
Table I-6. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-142 
I J K L M N O P 
Date and Time 
Injection 
Volume 
(L) 
Return 
Volume 
(L) 
Seepage 
Volume 
(L) 
Injection Rate 
(mL/min.) 
17-point 
Movingaverage 
Injection Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Seepage 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
17-point 
Movingaverage 
Seepage Rate 
(mL/min.) 
5/17/2001 15:33 0.26597 -0.00069 -0.00069 73.03580223 70.10880015 -0.03437 0.034428271 
5/17/2001 15:53 1.73034 -0.01167 -0.00138 66.30904562 70.10880014 -0.03437 0.032406423 
5/17/2001 16:13 3.05983 -0.01922 -0.00207 69.11494788 70.49140268 -0.06857 0.028362738 
5/17/2001 16:33 4.44904 -0.02471 -0.00345 57.02140797 70.69082885 -0.1368 0.030374522 
5/17/2001 16:54 5.59802 -0.035 -0.0062 58.62638488 71.58049591 -0.06869 0.036399916 
5/17/2001 17:14 6.77446 -0.03844 -0.00758 67.83744879 72.36819868 0.1032 0.040440248 
5/17/2001 17:34 8.13347 -0.03569 -0.00551 70.02331071 72.60853901 0.171857 0.036391514 
5/17/2001 17:54 9.53744 -0.03226 -0.00207 68.51706506 72.7384225 0.206228 0.026282293 
5/17/2001 18:14 10.9112 -0.035 0.00207 72.45384363 72.9861073 0.481199 0.014151227 
5/17/2001 18:34 12.3639 -0.03741 0.01172 73.88457489 73.51470289 0.0688 -0.014154591 
Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. 
NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. 
The linear curve fit for evaporation uses the Excel trendline (see Section I4) option for fitting a 
curve to an existing plot. The slope is from the equation generated by Excel for the fit. 
Columns R, S, and T of Table I-7 contain the injection, return and seepage volume data, 
respectively, from DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462] for LA#3 Zone 3, and have 
already been divided by 1000 g/L, to convert grams to liters. The rates in Columns U and W 
were calculated through use of Columns R and S (not T), respectively, in combination with time 
data from Column Q. Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in 
a column, and dividing this difference by sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), 
and multiplying this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. 
Columns V and X have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in 
Columns U and W, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row 
corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Rows in column Y equal V 
minus X. Seepage data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there was no seepage). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-11 November 2004 
Table I-7. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-143 
Q R S T U V W X Y 
Date and Time 
Injection 
Volume 
(L) 
Return 
Volume 
(L) 
Seepage 
Volume 
(L) 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
17-point 
Movingaverage 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Return 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
17-point 
Movingaverage 
Return Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Net Inflow 
(mL/min.) 
5/17/2001 15:33 0.12492 -0.00275 1.40724 96.84475 102.1661207 7.223133 75.80776078 26.35835987 
5/17/2001 15:53 2.06666 0.14208 1.42446 97.08438 102.7208943 28.03671 80.82287446 21.89801987 
5/17/2001 16:13 4.0132 0.70421 1.43618 97.91853 103.0088531 33.77208 86.27193995 16.73691311 
5/17/2001 16:34 5.98136 1.38303 1.44962 98.90518 103.342388 41.31827 90.16232341 13.18006459 
5/17/2001 16:54 7.97595 2.21628 1.43825 99.00142 103.6813166 39.71012 93.70043656 9.980880038 
5/17/2001 17:14 9.96093 3.01247 1.40103 98.75831 104.0469133 35.87162 97.41368893 6.633224337 
5/17/2001 17:34 11.9394 3.7311 1.40276 93.72956 104.3823991 135.0315 101.2510492 3.131349904 
5/17/2001 17:54 13.8187 6.43848 1.4224 103.6229 105.0438988 98.0429 99.35414615 5.689752607 
5/17/2001 18:14 15.8963 8.40424 1.42929 104.2733 105.0831659 97.37536 99.56860494 5.514560925 
5/17/2001 18:34 17.987 10.3566 1.42171 105.011 105.0539672 94.11589 99.85555683 5.198410416 
Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. 
NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. 
I6.4 DESCRIPTOR FOR DATA IN FIGURES 6-144 THROUGH 6-146 
(DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001) 
Columns B, C, and D of Table I-8 contain the injection, return, and seepage (seepage is for 
Zone 2 as per the TDMS notes) volume data, respectively, from Zone 1 of Borehole LA#4, and 
have already been divided by 1000 g/L to convert grams to liters. The rates in Columns E and G 
were calculated through use of Columns B and C, respectively, in combination with time data 
from Column A. Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a 
column, and dividing this difference by the difference in sequential-row data from Column A 
(time stamp data), and multiplying this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to 
get mL/min. 
Columns F and H have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in 
Columns E and G, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row 
corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Column I equals Column F 
minus Column H. Seepage data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there was no 
seepage for Zone 1). 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-12 November 2004 
Table I-8. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-144 
A B C D E F G H I 
Date and Time 
Zone 1 
Injection 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 1 
Return 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 2 
Seepage 
Volume 
(L) 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
20-point 
Movingaverage 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Return 
Rate 
(mL/min. 
20-point 
Movingaverage 
Return Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Net Inflow 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
2/6/2002 14:26 0.82193 0.01785 0.0062 35.12291 6.149953688 0.171164 1.539103191 4.610850497 
2/6/2002 14:46 1.52614 0.02128 0.0062 35.99585 4.057721964 3.252121 1.527021005 2.530700959 
2/6/2002 15:06 2.24786 0.08648 0.00551 30.71529 1.918149921 9.353345 1.329673623 0.588476297 
2/6/2002 15:26 2.86319 0.27386 0.00345 19.78659 0.0267929 9.379803 0.77343575 -0.74664285 
2/6/2002 15:46 3.25991 0.46193 0.00276 -0.822272 -1.0827092 4.316929 0.228736438 -1.311445637 
2/6/2002 16:06 3.24344 0.54841 0.00207 -2.516115 -1.00713272 0.71889 -0.025200537 -0.981932188 
2/6/2002 16:26 3.19299 0.56282 0.00276 -2.398294 -0.84100268 0.034261 -0.068495033 -0.772507647 
2/6/2002 16:46 3.14494 0.56351 0.00276 -4.039477 -0.69488815 0 -0.070510406 -0.624377742 
2/6/2002 17:06 3.06395 0.56351 0.00345 -0.907925 -0.48143621 -0.13705 -0.074537802 -0.406898408 
2/6/2002 17:26 3.04576 0.56076 0.00345 -0.633308 -0.55902806 -0.13693 -0.078568549 -0.480459515 
Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. 
NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. 
Columns B, C, and M of Table I-9 contain the injection, return, and seepage volume data, 
respectively, from DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227] for LA#4 Zone 2, and have 
already been divided by 1000 g/L to convert grams to liters. Note that Column A has the 
traditional time stamp corresponding to Zone 2 injection and return (B, C), but that Column I has 
times corresponding to seepage data in Column M. This is because the injection and seepage 
data come from different files, with slightly different time stamps, as per the notes from the 
TDMS. The rates in Columns E and P were calculated through use of Columns B and M, 
respectively, in combination with time data from Columns A and I, respectively. Rate data are 
calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, and dividing this 
difference by the difference in sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), or 
Column I in the case of seepage data in Column M, and multiplying this by conversion factors 
[1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. 
Columns F and Q have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in 
Columns E and P, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row 
corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Column J equals F minus Q. 
Return data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there was no return). Zone 1 data 
(in columns D, K, J, N, O) are not plotted in this figure. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-13 November 2004 
Table I-9. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-145 
A B C D E F I 
Date and Time 
Zone 2 
Injection 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 2 
Return 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 1 
Seepage 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 2 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Zone 2 
17-point Moving- 
Average 
Injection Rate 
(mL/min.) Date and Time 
10/20/2002 09:02 435.465 -2.18094 -0.00138 46.2318 43.26999709 10/20/2002 09:04 
10/20/2002 09:23 436.395 -2.18403 -0.00138 45.82622 43.09739301 10/20/2002 09:24 
10/20/2002 09:43 437.316 -2.18403 -0.00207 45.87355 42.96269607 10/20/2002 09:45 
10/20/2002 10:03 438.239 -2.18265 -0.00138 45.78825 42.84528516 10/20/2002 10:05 
10/20/2002 10:23 439.16 -2.17236 -0.00138 45.97591 42.66257286 10/20/2002 10:25 
10/20/2002 10:43 440.085 -2.15829 -0.00138 45.70295 42.48394771 10/20/2002 10:45 
10/20/2002 11:03 441.004 -2.1449 -0.00138 46.56039 42.33743495 10/20/2002 11:05 
10/20/2002 11:23 441.94 -2.13049 -0.00069 46.55594 42.16545265 
10/20/2002 11:43 442.877 -2.12534 -0.00069 30.01583 41.98482048 
J K L M N O P Q 
Net Loss Rate 
(mL/min) 
Zone 1 
Injection 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 1 
Return 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 2 
Seepage 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 1 
Injection 
Rate 
(L) 
Zone 1 
17-point 
Moving-average 
Injection Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Zone 2 
Seepage 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
17-point 
Moving-average 
Zone 2 
Seepage Rate 
(mL/min.) 
40.79148803 -0.0048 0.00137 0.04893 -0.170597 -0.24282589 2.500793 2.478509058 
40.62380401 -0.00824 0.00275 0.09924 -0.170597 -0.24082552 2.517922 2.473588999 
40.49829032 -0.01167 0.00343 0.14989 -0.068239 -0.24081722 2.466536 2.464405749 
40.38893998 -0.01304 0.00412 0.19951 -0.204886 -0.24683829 2.605725 2.456345175 
40.22762295 -0.01716 0.0048 0.25188 -0.204716 -0.24080225 2.483665 2.434949909 
40.06008109 -0.02128 0.00618 0.30185 -0.170597 -0.24080225 2.483665 2.423866617 
39.91457591 -0.02471 0.00755 0.35181 -0.204716 -0.24080225 2.500793 2.422859045 
Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. 
NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. 
The linear curve fit for evaporation (Figure 6-145) uses the Excel trendline option for putting a 
curve fit onto an existing plot. Slope is from the equation generated by Excel for the fit. 
For example, rate calculations for Figure 6-146 are as follows: Columns S, T, and U of 
Table I-10 contain the injection, return, and seepage volume data, respectively, from 
DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227] for LA4 Zone 3, and have already been divided 
by 1,000 to convert milliliters to liters. The rates in Columns V and X were calculated through 
use of Columns S and T (not U), respectively, in combination with time data from Column R. 
Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, and dividing 
this by the difference of sequential-row data from Column R (time stamp data), and multiplying 
this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-14 November 2004 
Columns W and Y have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in 
Columns U and W, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row 
corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Data in Column Z are the 
difference between the average injection rate and the average return rate (that is, Zn = Wn  Yn), 
where n is the row number. Seepage data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there 
was no seepage). 
Table I-10. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-146 
R S T U V W X Y Z 
Date and Time 
Zone 3 
Injection 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 3 
Return 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 3 
Seepage 
Volume 
(L) 
Zone 3 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Zone 3 
20-point 
Movingaverage 
Injection 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Zone 3 
Return 
Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Zone 3 
20-point 
Movingaverage 
Return Rate 
(mL/min.) 
Zone 3 
Net Inflow 
(mL/min.) 
2/6/2002 14:27 0.32671 0.00549 -0.00034 3.237696 0.522815012 -0.29122 -0.128931088 0.6517461 
2/6/2002 14:48 0.39157 -0.00034 -0.00207 2.276485 0.337400713 -0.59907 -0.112808103 0.450208816 
2/6/2002 15:08 0.43722 -0.01235 -0.00551 0.788011 0.211551322 0.034261 -0.080591458 0.29214278 
2/6/2002 15:28 0.453 -0.01167 -0.01447 0.222514 0.17123884 0 -0.084620527 0.255859367 
2/6/2002 15:48 0.45746 -0.01167 -0.01792 0.25696 0.152103686 -0.17131 -0.076559036 0.228662722 
2/6/2002 16:08 0.46261 -0.0151 -0.01999 0.205397 0.141015786 -0.13693 -0.06849587 0.209511657 
2/6/2002 16:28 0.46673 -0.01785 -0.02067 0.017131 0.132964347 0.068523 -0.062456454 0.195420802 
2/6/2002 16:48 0.46707 -0.01647 -0.02067 0.119815 0.131956662 0.034233 -0.066487201 0.198443863 
Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. 
NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. 
I6.5 WETTING-FRONT VELOCITY CALCULATION IN FIGURE 6-155 
OBSERVED IN BOREHOLES 1, 9, AND 10 IN NICHE 3 (NICHE 3107) 
The data used for this calculation are from DTNs: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001] and 
LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165461]. Each of these files includes the resistance 
measurements taken in the boreholes after the application of water along the fault. The 
decreasing resistance measured by ERPs located along the wall of each of these boreholes 
indicates increased wetting of the borehole walls. 
The arrival time of the wetting front was determined to be the time when the resistance in a 
sensor first began to decrease after the application of water in the fault in early March 2001. For 
each of the boreholes, the date of the first observed decrease in resistance is noted for each of the 
measurement locations in Boreholes 1, 9, and 10 in Niche 3 (Niche 3107) (Table I-11a to 
Table I-11c). The time to first response is calculated by subtracting the date 03/06/2001 from the 
date of first response, and formatting the result as a number. The values in Table I-11 are used 
as input. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-15 November 2004 
Table I-11a. Date of First Response in Borehole 1 
Borehole First Response 
Time (days) to 
First Response 
(from 03/06/01) 
BH#1-0.40 8/6/01 153 
BH#1-0.65 2/17/01 N/A a 
BH#1-0.90 6/9/01 95 
BH#1-1.15 7/8/01 124 
BH#1-1.40 6/22/01 108 
BH#1-1.65 5/25/01 80 
BH#1-1.90 7/19/01 135 
BH#1-2.15 7/8/01 124 
BH#1-2.40 7/9/01 125 
BH#1-2.65 9/25/01 203 
BH#1-2.90 7/4/01 120 
BH#1-3.15 7/6/01 122 
BH#1-3.40 5/23/01 78 
BH#1-3.65 8/11/01 158 
BH#1-3.90 7/26/01 142 
BH#1-4.15 4/10/01 35 
BH#1-4.40 9/23/01 201 
BH#1-4.65 7/18/01 134 
BH#1-4.90 6/9/01 95 
BH#1-5.15 8/22/01 169 
BH#1-5.40 5/7/01 62 
BH#1-5.65 3/23/01 17 
BH#1-5.90 8/23/01 170 
Source: DTN: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001]. 
a The decrease in electrical resistance observed at a 
date prior to liquid release is obviously not related to 
the wetting front arrival. 

In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-16 November 2004 
Table I-11b. Date of First Response in Borehole 9 
Borehole First Response 
Time (days) to 
First Response 
(from 03/06/01) 
BH#9-0.15 5/30/01 85 
BH#9-0.40 5/18/01 73 
BH#9-0.65 5/18/01 73 
BH#9-0.90 4/19/01 44 
BH#9-1.15 4/13/01 38 
BH#9-1.40 4/6/01 31 
BH#9-1.65 4/6/01 31 
BH#9-1.90 4/6/01 31 
BH#9-2.15 4/9/01 34 
BH#9-2.40 4/9/01 34 
BH#9-2.65 4/12/01 37 
BH#9-2.90 4/21/01 46 
BH#9-3.15 4/22/01 47 
BH#9-3.40 5/2/01 57 
BH#9-3.65 4/22/01 47 
BH#9-3.90 5/13/01 68 
BH#9-4.15 6/15/01 101 
BH#9-4.40 6/19/01 105 
BH#9-4.65 5/23/01 78 
BH#9-4.90 6/26/01 112 
BH#9-5.15 6/23/01 109 
BH#9-5.40 5/13/01 68 
BH#9-5.65 5/30/01 85 
BH#9-5.90 6/24/01 110 
BH#9-6.15 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-6.40 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-6.65 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-6.90 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-7.15 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-7.40 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-7.65 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-7.90 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-8.15 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-8.40 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-8.65 Not Known N/A 
BH#9-8.90 Not Known N/A 
Source: DTN: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001].
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-17 November 2004 
Table I-11c. Date of First Response in Borehole 10 
Borehole First Response 
Time (days) to 
First Response 
(from 03/06/01) 
BH#10-0.15 7/3/01 119 
BH#10-0.40 7/8/01 124 
BH#10-0.65 5/25/01 80 
BH#10-0.90 5/24/01 79 
BH#10-1.15 5/7/01 62 
BH#10-1.40 4/21/01 46 
BH#10-1.65 4/9/01 34 
BH#10-1.90 4/9/01 34 
BH#10-2.15 4/9/01 34 
BH#10-2.40 4/9/01 34 
BH#10-2.65 4/10/01 35 
BH#10-2.90 4/18/01 43 
BH#10-3.15 4/19/01 44 
BH#10-3.40 4/18/01 43 
BH#10-3.65 5/1/01 56 
BH#10-3.90 5/2/01 57 
BH#10-4.15 6/7/01 93 
BH#10-4.40 5/13/01 68 
BH#10-4.65 5/2/01 57 
BH#10-4.90 6/23/01 109 
BH#10-5.15 7/2/01 118 
BH#10-5.40 6/23/01 109 
BH#10-5.65 5/29/01 84 
BH#10-5.90 6/30/01 116 
BH#10-6.15 5/29/01 84 
BH#10-6.40 6/25/01 111 
BH#10-6.65 7/6/01 122 
BH#10-6.90 6/22/01 108 
BH#10-7.15 8/12/01 159 
BH#10-7.40 No wetting N/A 
BH#10-7.65 No wetting N/A 
BH#10-7.90 No wetting N/A 
BH#10-8.15 No wetting N/A 
BH#10-8.40 No wetting N/A 
BH#10-8.65 No wetting N/A 
BH#10-8.90 No wetting N/A 
Source: DTN: LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165461]. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-18 November 2004 
The horizontal plane along which Borehole 1 lies is approximately 21 m below the water release 
zone in Alcove 8, and the horizontal plane along which Boreholes 9 and 10 lie is approximately 
19 m below the injection zone in Alcove 8. The wetting-front velocities (m/day) in Table I-12 
are calculated by dividing these travel distances by the transport times (days) for the wetting 
front to reach the sensor location along the borehole. 
Using Table I-12, Figure I-3 is a plot of the velocity data determined from Boreholes 1, 9 and 10 
(Figure I-3). This is similar to Figure 6-155, presented in Section 6.12. 
Table I-12. Wetting-Front Velocity Calculated for Locations along Boreholes 1, 9, and 10 
Travel time in days since start of liquid 
release on 03/06/01 Velocity of Wetting Front (meters/day) 
Distance from collar Borehole 1 Borehole 9 Borehole 10 Distance from collar Borehole 1 Borehole 9 Borehole 10 
0.15 85 119 0.15 0.2 0.2 
0.40 153 73 124 0.40 0.1 0.3 0.2 
0.65 -17 73 80 0.65 0.3 0.2 
0.90 95 44 79 0.90 0.2 0.4 0.2 
1.15 124 38 62 1.15 0.2 0.5 0.3 
1.40 108 31 46 1.40 0.2 0.6 0.4 
1.65 80 31 34 1.65 0.3 0.6 0.6 
1.90 135 31 34 1.90 0.2 0.6 0.6 
2.15 124 34 34 2.15 0.2 0.6 0.6 
2.40 125 34 34 2.40 0.2 0.6 0.6 
2.65 203 37 35 2.65 0.1 0.5 0.5 
2.90 120 46 43 2.90 0.2 0.4 0.4 
3.15 122 47 44 3.15 0.2 0.4 0.4 
3.40 78 57 43 3.40 0.3 0.3 0.4 
3.65 158 47 56 3.65 0.1 0.4 0.3 
3.90 142 68 57 3.90 0.1 0.3 0.3 
4.15 35 101 93 4.15 0.6 0.2 0.2 
4.40 201 105 68 4.40 0.1 0.2 0.3 
4.65 134 78 57 4.65 0.2 0.2 0.3 
4.90 95 112 109 4.90 0.2 0.2 0.2 
5.15 169 109 118 5.15 0.1 0.2 0.2 
5.40 62 68 109 5.40 0.3 0.3 0.2 
5.65 17 85 84 5.65 1.2 0.2 0.2 
5.90 170 110 116 5.90 0.1 0.2 0.2 
6.15 84 6.15 0.2 
6.40 111 6.40 0.2 
6.65 122 6.65 0.2 
6.90 108 6.90 0.2 
7.15 159 7.15 0.1 
7.40 7.40 
7.65 7.65 
7.90 7.90 
8.15 8.15 
8.40 8.40 
8.65 8.65 
8.90 8.90 
Source: DTNs: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001], LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165461]. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-19 November 2004 
0.0 
0.1 
0.2 
0.3 
0.4 
0.5 
0.6 
0.7
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 
Distance from borehole collar (m) 
Wetting front velocity (m/day) 
Borehole 1 
Borehole 9 
Borehole 10 
Source: DTNs: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001], LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165461], 
LB0303A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 162570]. 
Figure I-3. Wetting-Front Velocities for Boreholes 1, 9, and 10 as Presented in Figure 6-155 
I6.6 ROCK COMPOSITION CALCULATION IN TABLE 6-38 OF TOPOPAH 
SPRING TUFF IN THE CROSS DRIFT 
Duplicate rock samples were collected along the ECRB Cross Drift at 20 locations, from 
Station 10+00 to Station 25+00. The measured rock compositions of all 40 samples are 
documented in DTN: GS000308313211.001 [DIRS 162015]. The mean values and standard 
deviation (s) were calculated by treating all 40 samples in the same manner. In the analyses 
presented in Table 6-38, the mean of each pair was calculated before statistical calculations of s 
and the standard deviation of the mean (SDOM). SDOM was calculated by dividing s by v20. 
Then the ranges were represented by calculating the mean value plus or minus 2 times SDOM. 
Table I-13 compares the s calculated by these two different analyses from the same data set. 
The data of the most abundant oxide, SiO2, are shown, as an example, in the first two data 
columns. 
A second example in the table pertains to converting trace element measurements expressed in 
ppm to weight percent of the oxide form (Zirconium Zr to ZrO2, with molecular weights 91.2 and 
123.2, respectively, and a ratio equal to 123.2/91.2, which is equal to 1.351). 
The third example pertains to the treatment of the carbonate group, with low measured values 
that were sometimes below the detection limit. 
These three examples cover the range of analyses needed to present the results in Table 6-38. 
In Situ Field Testing of Processes 
ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-20 November 2004 
Table I-13. Rock Composition Analyses of Duplicated Measurements and Trace Element Conversion 
Sample Unit 
SiO2 
Measured 
Weight 
(%) 
SiO2 Means 
of 
Duplicates 
Zr 
Trace 
Element 
(ppm) 
ZrO2 
Calculated 
Weight 
(%) 
CO2 
Measured 
Weight 
(%) 
CO2 Means 
of 
Duplicates 
Sample 
Number 
CS1000a Tptpul 76.2 113 0.015 0.01 1 
CS1000b Tptpul 76.5 76.35 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 2 
CS1050a Tptpmn 76.5 111 0.015 0.01 3 
CS1050b Tptpmn 76.2 76.35 N/A N/A <0.01 0.01 4 
CS1150a Tptpmn 76.5 116 0.016 <0.01 5 
CS1150b Tptpmn 76.6 76.55 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 6 
CS1200a Tptpmn 76.7 113 0.015 <0.01 7 
CS1200b Tptpmn 76.7 76.70 N/A N/A <0.01 N/A 8 
CS1300a Tptpmn 76.3 119 0.016 0.01 9 
CS1300b Tptpmn 76.4 76.35 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 10 
CS1350a Tptpmn 76.2 112 0.015 0.02 11 
CS1350b Tptpmn 76.1 76.15 N/A N/A <0.01 0.02 12 
CS1400a Tptpmn 76.0 117 0.016 0.01 13 
CS1400b Tptpmn 76.5 76.25 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 14 
CS1450a Tptpll 76.3 120 0.016 0.01 15 
CS1450b Tptpll 75.9 76.10 N/A N/A <0.01 0.01 16 
CS1500a Tptpll 76.5 110 0.015 0.01 17 
CS1500b Tptpll 76.6 76.55 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 18 
CS1750a Tptpll 76.4 116 0.016 0.01 19 
CS1750b Tptpll 76.7 76.55 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 20 
CS1800a Tptpll 75.8 120 0.016 0.01 21 
CS1800b Tptpll 75.8 75.80 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 22 
CS1950a Tptpll 76.3 115 0.016 <0.01 23 
CS1950b Tptpll 76.5 76.40 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 24 
CS2000a Tptpll 76.4 119 0.016 0.02 25 
CS2000b Tptpll 77.1 
76.75 N/A N/A 0.02 0.02 26 
CS2100a Tptpll 75.4 116 0.016 <0.01 27 
CS2100b Tptpll 75.5 
75.45 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 28 
CS2150a Tptpll 76.1 116 0.016 0.01 29 
CS2150b Tptpll 76.4 76.25 N/A N/A <0.01 0.01 30 
CS2250a Tptpll 75.7 118 0.016 <0.01 31 
CS2250b Tptpll 76.3 76.00 N/A N/A <0.01 N/A 32 
CS2350a Tptpln 75.9 118 0.016 <0.01 33 
CS2350b Tptpln 76.6 76.25 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 34 
CS2400a Tptpln 76.5 121 0.016 <0.01 35 
CS2400b Tptpln 76.0 76.25 N/A N/A <0.01 N/A 36 
CS2450a Tptpln 75.8 126 0.017 <0.01 37 
CS2450b Tptpln 76.3 76.05 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 38 
CS2500a Tptpln 76.6 114 0.015 <0.01 39 
CS2500b Tptpln 76.8 76.70 N/A N/A <0.01 N/A 40 
Mean 76.29 76.29 116 0.016 0.01 0.011 
Sigma 0.37 0.32 3.8 0.001 0.003 0.003 
SDOM 0.07 0.000 0.001 
Min 76.15 0.015 0.010 
Max 76.43 0.016 0.013 
NOTE(S): SiO2 means were calculated by averaging of two samples (a and b) from the same location. 
ZrO2 values were calculated by the Zr trace element values in ppm to weight% by multiplying the ppm 
data by 1.351/10,000, where the molecular weight ratio = 132.2/91.2 = 1.351. 
CO2 mean values were calculated by averaging or by setting to the measured value if the duplicate value 
is below the detection limit.