Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES 

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT 

Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure 

System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Author: R. Chris Camp house 6/( C~ L 

Print 

Author: Dwayne C. Kicker 

Print 

Author: Thomas B. Kirchner 

Print 

Author: Jennifer J. Lon 

Print 

Author: Bwal a Malama 

Print 

Author: Todd R. Zeitler 

Print 

Signature 

(PfI"fksignature 

Date 

'0/>'/2011- , I 

Date 

t 41'3//.2d~ 

Date 

1~1~;1)1~ I J 

Date 

iC/)I!J~ , Date 

I(} /JI/;2.-4I?. 

Date 

~~ / 

Review: ___ ---"K=r-'"'is=to~p~h"""er'_"L"'_'.___'K'_"u_""h'_'_"l~m""an'_'__ _ __f--__f_V_-'L..I,.C:: _______ i_()~?_I_I_2<J_< '_'_2..-_ 

Print Date 

i:view _____ S=h=e=ll~N=ie=ls=e=n--~~~~~~~~~~--~--~(~U--~S~[_~~t~~. Print ~ig ature Date 

Management ' 

Review: ___ --"'S=ea=n'-"D~u=n=al:>'ga""'n~--_A~~_I/iJ+__< ~~_~~-__ -~t()~(-=s:.J./-I-/..!.../.YJ...~- Print tq(gifa;ure Date 

WIPP: 1.4.1.2:PAQA-L:557393 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 2 of 84 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 7 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 8 

2 Run-of-Mine Panel Closure System ..................................................................................................... 9 

2.1 ROMPCS Modeling and Parameterization ................................................................................. 10 

2.2 FEPs Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 18 

3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 18 

4 Run Control ......................................................................................................................................... 19 

5 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 20 

5.1 Salado Flow Results .................................................................................................................... 20 

5.1.1 Results for an Undisturbed Repository (Scenario S1-BF) .................................................. 25 

5.1.2 Results for an E1 Intrusion at 350 Years (Scenario S2-BF) ............................................... 31 

5.1.3 Results for an E2 Intrusion at 350 Years (Scenario S4-BF) ............................................... 35 

5.1.4 Results for an E2 Intrusion at 1000 Years Followed by a E1 Intrusion at 2000 Years 

(Scenario S6-BF) ................................................................................................................................ 42 

5.2 Spallings ...................................................................................................................................... 43 

5.3 Direct Brine Releases .................................................................................................................. 46 

5.4 Total Normalized Releases ......................................................................................................... 52 

6 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 56 

7 References ........................................................................................................................................... 58 

APPENDIX A PCS-2012 PA Code Execution ........................................................................................... 61 

A.1 WIPP PA Codes ............................................................................................................................... 61 

A.1.1 Deviation ................................................................................................................................... 61 

A.2 Calculation Flow .............................................................................................................................. 62 

A.2.1 Sampling of Uncertain Parameters (LHS) ................................................................................ 62 

A.2.2 Salado Flow Calculations (BRAGFLO) ................................................................................... 63

A.2.2.1 Salado Flow Step 1............................................................................................................. 64 

A.2.2.2 Salado Flow Step 2............................................................................................................. 65 

A.2.2.3 Salado Flow Step 3............................................................................................................. 66 

A.2.2.4 Salado Flow Step 4............................................................................................................. 66 

A.2.2.5 Salado Flow Step 5............................................................................................................. 67 

A.2.3 Single-Intrusion Solids Volume Calculations (CUTTINGS_S) ............................................... 70 

A.2.3.1 Solids Volume Step 1 ......................................................................................................... 71 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 3 of 84 

A.2.3.2 Solids Volume Step 2 ......................................................................................................... 72 

A.2.3.3 Solids Volume Step 3 ......................................................................................................... 72 

A.2.4 Single-Intrusion Direct Brine Release Calculations (BRAGFLO_DBR) ................................. 73 

A.2.4.1 Direct Brine Release Step 1 ............................................................................................... 74 

A.2.4.2 Direct Brine Release Step 2 ............................................................................................... 74 

A.2.4.3 Direct Brine Release Step 3 ............................................................................................... 76 

A.2.5 CCDF Input Tabulation (SUMMARIZE) ................................................................................. 77 

A.2.5.1 CCDF Input Tabulation for Direct Brine Release .............................................................. 77 

A.2.6 CCDF Construction (PRECCDFGF, CCDFGF) ....................................................................... 78 

A.2.6.1 CCDF Construction Step 1 ................................................................................................. 79 

A.2.6.2 CCDF Construction Step 2 ................................................................................................. 79 

A.2.6.3 CCDF Construction Step 3 ................................................................................................. 80 

A.2.7 Sensitivity Analysis (STEPWISE) ............................................................................................ 82 

APPENDIX B Addendum .......................................................................................................................... 83 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 4 of 84 

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1: A Schematic of the “Option D” Panel Closure .......................................................................... 9 

Figure 2-2: Schematic of the ROMPCS ...................................................................................................... 10 

Figure 5-1: PABC-2009 BRAGFLO Grid and Material Map for an E1 Intrusion (Δx, Δy, and Δz 

dimensions in meters). ................................................................................................................................ 23 

Figure 5-2: PCS-2012 BRAGFLO Grid and Material Map for an E1 Intrusion (Δx, Δy, and Δz dimensions 

in meters). ................................................................................................................................................... 24 

Figure 5-3: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenario S1-BF................... 27 

Figure 5-4: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenario S1-BF and Years 0 

to 1,000. ...................................................................................................................................................... 27 

Figure 5-5: Overall Means of Waste Panel Brine Saturation, Scenario S1-BF. ......................................... 28 

Figure 5-6: Overall Means of Waste Panel Gas Generation (in moles), Scenario S1-BF. ......................... 28 

Figure 5-7: Overall Means of Waste Panel Pressure, Scenario S1-BF. ...................................................... 29 

Figure 5-8: Overall Means of Pressure in the Operations Region, Scenario S1-BF. .................................. 29 

Figure 5-9: Overall Means of Brine Flow up the Shaft, Scenario S1-BF. .................................................. 30 

Figure 5-10: Overall Means of Waste Panel Pressure, Scenario S2-BF. .................................................... 33 

Figure 5-11: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenario S2-BF. ................ 33 

Figure 5-12: Overall Means of Waste Panel Brine Saturation, Scenario S2-BF. ....................................... 34 

Figure 5-13: Overall Means of Waste Panel Gas Generation (in moles), Scenario S2-BF. ....................... 34 

Figure 5-14: Overall Means of Brine Flow up the Borehole, Scenario S2-BF. .......................................... 35 

Figure 5-15: Overall Means of Waste Panel Pressure, Scenarios S1-BF and S4-BF for Years 0 to 1,000. 38 

Figure 5-16: Overall Means of Waste Panel Pressure, Scenario S4-BF. .................................................... 38 

Figure 5-17: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenarios S1-BF and S4-BF 

for Years 0 to 1,000. ................................................................................................................................... 39 

Figure 5-18: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenario S4-BF. ................ 39 

Figure 5-19: Overall Means of Waste Panel Brine Saturation, Scenarios S1-BF and S4-BF for Years 0 to 

1,000. .......................................................................................................................................................... 40 

Figure 5-20: Overall Means of Waste Panel Brine Saturation, Scenario S4-BF. ....................................... 40 

Figure 5-21: Overall Means of Waste Panel Gas Generation (in moles), Scenario S4-BF. ....................... 41 

Figure 5-22: Overall Means of Brine Flow up the Borehole, Scenario S4-BF. .......................................... 41 

Figure 5-23: Overall Means of Brine Flow up the Borehole, Scenario S6-BF. .......................................... 43 

Figure 5-24: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Overall Mean CCDFs for Normalized Spallings Releases . 46 

Figure 5-25: PCS-2012 PA DBR Computational Grid and Material Map (logical grid). ......................... 47 

Figure 5-26: PABC-2009 DBR Computational Grid and Material Map (logical grid). ............................. 48 

Figure 5-27: DBR Volume vs. Pressure, Scenario S2-DBR, Replicate 1, Lower Intrusion, PCS-2012 PA

 .................................................................................................................................................................... 51 

Figure 5-28: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Overall Mean CCDFs for Normalized Direct Brine Releases

 .................................................................................................................................................................... 51 

Figure 5-29: PCS-2012 PA Replicate 1 Total Normalized Releases .......................................................... 53 

Figure 5-30: PCS-2012 PA Replicate 2 Total Normalized Releases .......................................................... 53 

Figure 5-31: PCS-2012 PA Replicate 3 Total Normalized Releases .......................................................... 54 

Figure 5-32: PCS-2012 PA Mean and Quantile CCDFs for Total Normalized Releases, Replicates 1-3 .. 54 

Figure 5-33: PCS-2012 PA Confidence Limits on Overall Mean for Total Normalized Releases ............. 55 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 5 of 84 

Figure 5-34: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Overall Mean CCDFs for Total Normalized Releases ........ 55 

Figure 5-35: PCS-2012 PA Primary Components Contributing to Total Releases .................................... 56 

Figure B-1: Comparison of PCS-2012 PA Mean and Quantile CCDFs for Total Normalized Releases, 

Replicate 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 84 

List of Tables 

Table 2-1: Option D Panel Closure Parameters Used in the PABC-2009 .................................................. 11 

Table 2-2: Sampled Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PA ........................................................ 14 

Table 2-3: Constant Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PA ........................................................ 16 

Table 5-1: BRAGFLO Modeling Scenarios ............................................................................................... 21 

Table 5-2: Summary Statistics for Scenario S1-BF .................................................................................... 26 

Table 5-3: Summary Statistics for Scenario S2-BF .................................................................................... 32 

Table 5-4: Summary Statistics for Scenario S4-BF .................................................................................... 37 

Table 5-5: Summary Statistics for Scenario S6-BF .................................................................................... 42 

Table 5-6: PA Intrusion Scenarios Used in Calculating Direct Solids Releases ........................................ 44 

Table 5-7: Summary of Spallings Releases by Scenario ............................................................................ 45 

Table 5-8: DBR Summary Statistics for the PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 DBR Calculations ............. 49 

Table 5-9: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Statistics on the Overall Mean for Total Normalized Releases 

in EPA Units at Probabilities of 0.1 and 0.001 ........................................................................................... 52 

Table A-1: WIPP PA Alpha Cluster Nodes Used in PCS-2012 ................................................................ 61 

Table A-2: WIPP PA VMS Software Used for the AP161 Panel Closure PA ........................................... 62 

Table A-3: VMS Utility Codes Used in the PCS-2012............................................................................... 62 

Table A-4: Parameter Sampling Run Control Script .................................................................................. 63 

Table A-5: Parameter Sampling Input and Output Files ............................................................................. 63 

Table A-6: BRAGFLO Scenarios ............................................................................................................... 64 

Table A-7: Salado Flow Run Control Scripts ............................................................................................ 64 

Table A-8: Salado Flow Step 1 Input and Output Files .............................................................................. 65 

Table A-9: Salado Flow Step 2 Input and Output Files .............................................................................. 65 

Table A-10: Salado Flow Step 3 Input and Output Files ............................................................................ 66 

Table A-11: Salado Flow Step 4 Input and Output Files ............................................................................ 67 

Table A-12: Salado Flow Step 5 Input and Output Files (Generic Case) ................................................... 68 

Table A-13: Salado Flow Step 5 Modified Input Runs ............................................................................... 69 

Table A-14: Salado Flow Step 5 Modified Input Runs File Names ........................................................... 69 

Table A-15: Solids Volume (CUTTINGS_S) Run Control Scripts ............................................................ 70 

Table A-16: Solids Volume Step 1 Input and Output Files ........................................................................ 71 

Table A-17: Solids Volume Step 2 Input and Output Files ........................................................................ 72 

Table A-18: Solids Volume Step 3 Input and Output Files ........................................................................ 73 

Table A-19: Direct Brine Release Run Control Scripts .............................................................................. 74 

Table A-20: Direct Brine Release Step 1 Input and Output Files ............................................................... 74 

Table A-21: Direct Brine Release Step 2 Input and Output Files ............................................................... 75 

Table A-22: Direct Brine Release Step 3 Input and Output Files ............................................................... 76 

Table A-23: CCDF Input Tabulation Run Control Scripts ......................................................................... 77 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 6 of 84 

Table A-24: CCDF Input Tabulation Input and Output Files (Direct Brine Release) ................................ 78 

Table A-25: CCDF Construction Run Control Scripts ............................................................................... 78 

Table A-26: CCDF Construction Step 1 Input and Output Files ................................................................ 79

Table A-27: CCDF Construction Step 2 Input and Output Files ................................................................ 80

Table A-28: CCDF Construction Step 3 Input and Output Files ................................................................ 81

Table A-29: Sensitivity Analysis Run Control Scripts ............................................................................... 82 

Table A-30: Sensitivity Analysis Input and Output Files ........................................................................... 82 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 7 of 84 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Waste panel closures comprise a repository feature that has been represented in WIPP PA since 

the original Compliance Certification Application of 1996. The 1998 rulemaking that certified 

WIPP to receive transuranic waste placed conditions on the panel closure design to be 

implemented in the repository. The mandated “Option D” design consists of a concrete block 

wall, an open drift section, and a concrete monolith. The engineering of the panel closure has 

been re-assessed, and a revised design is proposed that is simpler, cheaper, and easier to 

construct. The revised panel closure design, termed the Run-of-Mine Panel Closure System 

(ROMPCS), is comprised of 100 feet of run-of-mine (ROM) salt with barriers at each end. The 

PCS-2012 PA quantifies WIPP repository performance impacts associated with the replacement 

of the currently approved Option D panel closure design with the ROMPCS. Impacts are 

assessed via a direct comparison of results obtained in the 2009 Performance Assessment 

Baseline Calculation (PABC-2009) to those calculated in the PCS-2012 PA with the ROMPCS. 

Total normalized releases calculated in the PCS-2012 PA are greater than those found in the 

PABC-2009, but continue to remain below their regulatory limits. As a result, replacement of 

the Option D panel closure with the ROMPCS design would not result in WIPP non-compliance 

with the containment requirements of 40 CFR Part 191. Cuttings and cavings releases and direct 

brine releases (DBRs) were the two primary release components contributing to total releases in 

the PABC-2009, and continue to be so in the PCS-2012 PA. Cuttings and cavings releases are 

not impacted by the change in panel closure design, and so remain unchanged from those 

calculated in the PABC-2009. 

For both undisturbed and intruded repository conditions, implementation of the ROMPCS yields 

higher long-term waste panel pressure (on average) than was seen in the PABC-2009. Pressure 

increases translate to increases in spallings volumes and their frequency. As a result, increased 

spallings releases are seen in the PCS-2012 PA results when compared to the PABC-2009. 

These increases do not have a significant impact on total normalized releases found in the PCS2012 PA. 

Increased direct brine releases are also seen in the PCS-2012 PA results. DBRs depend on waste 

panel pressure and brine saturation at the time of intrusion. In addition to increases in waste 

panel pressure, implementation of the ROMPCS design results in increased mean waste panel 

brine saturation for undisturbed conditions as well as intrusion scenarios that do not intersect a 

Castile brine pocket. For intrusion scenarios that intersect a region of pressurized Castile brine, 

increases in pressure are accompanied by only slight reductions in the mean waste panel brine 

saturation in the PCS-2012 PA as compared to PABC-2009 results. The combined effect of 

these impacts is an increase to normalized direct brine releases in the PCS-2012 PA. The 

increase in total normalized releases seen in the PCS-2012 PA as compared to the PABC-2009 is 

primarily due to the increase in DBRs calculated in the PCS-2012 PA. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 8 of 84 

1 INTRODUCTION 

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), located in southeastern New Mexico, has been 

developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the geologic (deep underground) 

disposal of transuranic (TRU) waste. Containment of TRU waste at the WIPP is regulated by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) according to the regulations set forth in Title 40 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 191. The DOE demonstrates compliance with the 

containment requirements according to the Certification Criteria in Title 40 CFR Part 194 by 

means of performance assessment (PA) calculations performed by Sandia National Laboratories. 

WIPP PA calculations estimate the probability and consequence of potential radionuclide 

releases from the repository to the accessible environment for a regulatory period of 10,000 years 

after facility closure. The models used in PA are maintained and updated with new information 

as part of an ongoing process. Improved information regarding important WIPP features, events, 

and processes typically results in refinements and modifications to PA models and the 

parameters used in them. Planned changes to the repository and the components therein also 

result in updates to WIPP PA models. WIPP PA models are used to support the repository 

recertification process that occurs at five-year intervals following the receipt of the first waste 

shipment at the site in 1999. 

Waste panel closures comprise a repository feature that has been represented in WIPP PA since 

the original Compliance Certification Application (CCA) of 1996. Panel closures are included in 

WIPP PA models principally because they are a part of the disposal system, not because they 

play a substantive role in inhibiting the release of radionuclides to the outside environment. The 

DOE stated in the CCA (DOE 1996) that “The panel closure system was not designed or 

intended to support long-term repository performance.” The 1998 rulemaking that certified 

WIPP to receive transuranic waste placed conditions on the panel closure design to be 

implemented in the repository. The mandated design consists of a concrete block wall, an open 

drift section, and a concrete monolith, and was termed the “Option D” panel closure. Following 

the selection of the Option D design in 1998, the engineering of the panel closure has been reassessed, and a revised design has been established that is simpler, cheaper, and easier to 

construct. The revised panel closure design, termed the Run-of-Mine Panel Closure System 

(ROMPCS), is comprised of 100 feet of run-of-mine (ROM) salt with barriers at each end. The 

ROM salt is generated from ongoing mining operations at the WIPP and may be compacted 

and/or moistened as it is emplaced in a panel entry. The barriers consist of ventilation 

bulkheads, similar to those currently used in the panels as room closures. 

The DOE has submitted a planned change request (PCR) to the EPA requesting that EPA modify 

Condition 1 of the Final Certification Rulemaking for 40 CFR Part 194 (EPA, 1998) for the 

WIPP. The PCR submitted to EPA requests that Condition 1 be changed, and that the ROMPCS 

design be approved for use in all panels (DOE, 2011). In support of this rulemaking change, a 

PA has been completed that incorporates the ROMPCS design into the current PA baseline 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 9 of 84 

established by the 2009 Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation (PABC-2009) (Clayton et 

al., 2010). The name given to this new panel closure PA is PCS-2012, and the plan for its 

execution is detailed in AP-161 (Camphouse 2012a). PCS-2012 PA results are compared to 

PABC-2009 results as a means to quantify potential panel closure redesign impacts. This 

document provides the summary report of the PCS-2012 PA analysis. 

2 RUN-OF-MINE PANEL CLOSURE SYSTEM 

The goal of the PCS-2012 PA is to quantify regulatory compliance impacts resulting from the 

replacement of the Option D panel closure with the ROMPCS. Figure 2-1 shows the Option D 

panel closure is 40 meters long and consists of three components, namely a concrete explosion 

wall, an open drift section, and a concrete monolith. This panel closure has been implemented in 

PA analyses done in support of WIPP re-certification since the CRA-2004 PA (Stein & Zelinski 

2003). 

Figure 2-1: A Schematic of the “Option D” Panel Closure 

The ROMPCS is comprised of 100 feet of run-of-mine salt with barriers at each end, and is 

illustrated in Figure 2-2. The ROM salt is generated from ongoing mining operations at the 

WIPP and may be compacted and/or moistened as it is emplaced in a panel entry. The barriers 

consist of ventilation bulkheads, similar to those currently used in the panels as room closures. 

The ventilation bulkheads are designed to restrict air flows and prevent personnel access into 

waste-filled areas during the WIPP operational phase. In Panels 1, 2, and 5, where explosion 

walls fabricated from concrete blocks have already been emplaced in the panel entries, an 

explosion wall is the inner barrier and a ventilation bulkhead will be the outer barrier, as shown 

in Figure 2-2(b). Explosion walls are inspected on a regular basis, and their anticipated 

condition is also assessed through numerical modeling (e.g. RockSol, 2006). Installed explosion 

walls show surface spalling or slabbing of the concrete blocks as a result of the loading caused 

by inward creep of the salt. Numerical stress analysis of the concrete explosion wall has 

demonstrated that the free faces and the rib contacts will be in a condition of plastic yield with an 

W a s te d is p o s a l O p e n D rift

C o n cre te

M o n o lith

9 .1 m 7 .9 m

E x p lo s io n

W a ll

3 .7 m

40 m

2 .4 o r 2 .7 m

2 .4 m

DRZ

DRZ

O p e n D rift

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 10 of 84 

unyielded core by 7 years after emplacement (Rocksol, 2006, Figures 7 and 10). No long term 

stress analyses have been carried out; however, it is expected that the spalling and yield will be 

progressive, and that the walls will not be significant structures after the initial 100 year time 

period, due to the brittle, non-plastic behavior of concrete. The ventilation bulkheads and 

explosion walls are therefore expected to have no significant impact on long-term performance 

of the panel closures and are therefore not included in the PCS-2012 PA representation of the 

ROMPCS. Consequently, the ROMPCS is modeled as consisting of 100 feet of ROM salt in the 

PCS-2012 PA. 

(a) Panel closure with 100 feet (30.5m) of ROM salt between two ventilation bulkheads 

(b) Panel closure with 100 feet (30.5m) of ROM salt between a ventilation bulkhead & 

explosion wall 

2.1 ROMPCS Modeling and Parameterization 

The modeling approach and parameter developments undertaken to represent the ROMPCS in 

the PCS-2012 PA are documented in Camphouse et al. (2012a), Patterson (2012), and 

Camphouse (2012b). These aspects of the PCS-2012 PA are now discussed. For the sake of 

clarity in the discussion that follows, select parameters used to model the Option D panel closure 

in the PABC-2009 are shown in Table 2-1. 

Explosion

Wall

Figure 2-2: Schematic of the ROMPCS 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 11 of 84 

Table 2-1: Option D Panel Closure Parameters Used in the PABC-2009 

Material Property Distribution Statistics 

CONC_PCS 

Porosity Constant 0.05 

PRMX (m2) 

Triangular 

Min = 2.0 x 10-21

PRMY (m2) Mean = 1.53 x 10-19

PRMZ (m2) Max = 1.0 x 10-17

DRZ_1 Porosity Cumulative 

Min = 0.0039 

Mean = 0.0211 

Max = 0.0548 

PRMX (m2) 

Uniform 

Min = 3.98 x 10-20

PRMY (m2) Mean = 1.0 x 10-16

PRMZ (m2) Max = 3.16 x 10-13

DRZ_PCS Porosity Cumulative 

Min = 0.0039 

Mean = 0.0211 

Max = 0.0548 

PRMX (m2) 

Triangular 

Min = 2.0 x 10-21

PRMY (m2) Mean = 1.53 x 10-19

PRMZ (m2) Max = 1.0 x 10-17

 

ROMPCS properties in the PCS-2012 PA are based on three time periods: from 0 to 100 years, 

from 100 years to 200 years, and from 200 years to 10,000 years. Three time periods are 

appropriate because the process to consolidate the ROM salt occurs over a primary time scale of 

approximately 100 years, while the process to heal fractures in the DRZ surrounding the PCS 

occurs over a longer time scale of approximately 200 years. The ROM salt comprising the 

ROMPCS is therefore represented by three materials, denoted as PCS_T1 for the first 100 years, 

PCS_T2 from 100 to 200 years, and PCS_T3 for 200 to 10,000 years. Analyses and calculations 

have shown (Camphouse et al. 2012a) that the time-dependent back stress imposed on the DRZ 

by the re-consolidated ROM salt panel closure does not become appreciable until roughly 200 

years after emplacement of the ROM salt in the drift. As a result, it is reasonable and appropriate 

to maintain the same properties for the DRZ above and below the ROMPCS for the first 200 

years after closure as are specified to the DRZ surrounding the disposal rooms. After 200 years, 

the DRZ above and below the ROMPCS is modeled as having healed, and this sub-region of the 

DRZ is represented by material DRZ_PCS. Material DRZ_PCS has the same property values in 

the PCS-2012 PA as were assigned to it in the PABC-2009. 

The 200-year delay of DRZ healing in the PCS-2012 PA is an important distinction between the 

Option D panel closure representation used in the PABC-2009 and the ROMPCS representation 

used in the PCS-2012 PA. The Option D panel closure was modeled in the PABC-2009 (and 

prior analyses) as having an immediate healing effect on the DRZ above it, with material 

DRZ_PCS being in place at t = 0. In contrast, the ROMPCS in the PCS-2012 PA is modeled as 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 12 of 84 

having no healing effect on the DRZ until 200 years after panel closure emplacement. For the 

first 200 years, the DRZ above and below the ROMPCS is indistinguishable from the DRZ 

above and below the waste panels. The DRZ overall (PA parameter DRZ_1 in Table 2-1) has a 

permeability range varying from a minimum value of 3.98 x 10-20 m2

 to a maximum value of 

3.16 x 10-13 m

2 in the x, y, and z directions. Material DRZ_PCS has a permeability range 

varying from a minimum of 2.0 x 10-21 m

2

 to a maximum of 1.0 x 10-17 m

2 in the x, y, and z 

directions. As a result, there is a path of increased permeability (on average) above and below 

panel closures in the PCS-2012 PA for the first 200 years as compared to the PABC-2009. An 

expected consequence of this increased permeability is an increase in brine and gas flow through 

the DRZ and around the panel closure for the first 200 years. In effect, the panel closures in the 

PCS-2012 PA are “looser” than those implemented in the PABC-2009 for the first 200 years due 

to the higher permeability (on average) of the DRZ material above and below them. 

The complete set of parameters used to model the ROMPCS in the PCS-2012 PA is shown in 

Table 2-2 and Table 2-3. As developed in Camphouse et al. (2012a) and Patterson (2012), 

permeability and porosity values are obtained through sampling for ROMPCS material PCS_T1. 

However, only porosity is sampled for materials PCS_T2 and PCS_T3. Sampled porosity values 

are then used to calculate permeability values for these materials according to the algorithm 

developed on page 15 of Camphouse et al. (2012a). At 200 years, the ROMPCS material 

transitions from PCS_T2 to PCS_T3 with the DRZ region above and below PCS_T3 represented 

as healed by material DRZ_PCS. Under this configuration, the range of calculated 

permeabilities for PCS_T3 is comparable to the permeability range assigned to the Option D 

monolith (material CONC_PCS in Table 2-1), with the minimum value calculated for PCS_T3 

being roughly an order of magnitude less than the minimum CONC_PCS permeability value. As 

material DRZ_PCS represents regions of healed DRZ for both the ROMPCS and the Option D 

closure (with equal DRZ_PCS property values prescribed for both panel closure cases), the final 

ROMPCS configuration comprises a panel closure that is slightly “tighter” (on average) than the 

Option D case. 

The algorithm used to calculate permeability from a sampled porosity value depends on an 

additional sampled parameter, quantity α in the algorithm developed in Camphouse et al. 

(2012a). The name given to this additional parameter in the PCS-2012 PA is POR2PERM. 

Porosity and permeability ranges used for materials PCS_T1, PCS_T2, and PCS_T3 are shown 

in Table 2-2. As can be seen in that table, there is overlap in the porosity ranges specified for 

PCS_T1 and PCS_T2. This overlap could potentially result in an increase in panel closure 

porosity during the transition from PCS_T1 to PCS_T2 at 100 years, a non-physical result. To 

prevent this possibility, the porosity for PCS_T2 is conditionally sampled (Kirchner 2012a) in 

the PCS-2012 PA. Using the MATERIAL:PROPERTY parameter naming convention used in 

WIPP PA, the porosity for material PCS_T2 is conditionally sampled such that 

PCS_T2:POROSITY ≤ PCS_T1:POROSITY. There is also overlap in the porosity ranges 

specified for PCS_T2 and PCS_T3. To prevent physically unrealistic increases in porosity 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 13 of 84 

during the transition from PCS_T2 to PCS_T3 at 200 years, the porosity for PCS_T3 is 

conditionally sampled so that PCS_T3:POROSITY ≤ PCS_T2:POROSITY. Similar constraints 

are placed on the calculated permeability values for PCS_T2 and PCS_T3. As can be seen in 

Table 2-2, a low sampled permeability value for PCS_T1 could be followed by a higher 

calculated permeability value for PCS_T2, dependent on the sampled PCS_T2 porosity and 

POR2PERM values. An instantaneous increase in panel closure permeability after 100 years of 

creep closure is an unrealistic occurrence. To prevent this non-physical result, the calculated 

permeability value for PCS_T2 is constrained in the PCS-2012 PA such that PCS_T2:PRMX ≤

PCS_T1:PRMX. If a higher permeability value is calculated for material PCS_T2 than was 

sampled for material PCS_T1, then material PCS_T2 retains the permeability value for PCS_T1. 

The same is true for the calculated permeabilities in the y and z directions. A similar constraint 

is placed on the calculated permeability for PCS_T3 in order to prevent non-physical 

instantaneous increases in panel closure permeability at 200 years. The constraint placed on the 

calculated permeability for PCS_T3 is that PCS_T3:PRMX ≤ PCS_T2:PRMX, and likewise in 

the x and y directions. If the calculated permeability for PCS_T3 is greater than that obtained for 

PCS_T2, then PCS_T3 retains the permeabilities assigned to PCS_T2. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure Syste

Page 14 of 84 

Table 2-2: Sampled Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PA 

Parameter Units Description Distribution 

Type 

Distribution 

Parameters 

Default 

Value 

PCS_T1:POROSITY none Porosity of run-of-mine 

panel closure, years 0 to 100 

Uniform Min = 0.066 

Max = 0.187 Mean = 0.1265 

0.1265 

PCS_T2:POROSITY1 none Porosity of run-of-mine 

panel closure, years 100 to 200 

Uniform Min = 0.025 

Max = 0.075 Mean = 0.05 

0.05 

PCS_T3:POROSITY2 none Porosity of run-of-mine 

panel closure, years 200 to 10,000 

Uniform Min = 0.001 

Max = 0.0519 Mean = 0.0265 

0.0265 

PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG3PCS_T1:PRMY_LOG PCS_T1:PRMZ_LOG 

log(m2) log10 of intrinsic 

permeability, X, Y, and Z directions. 

Uniform Min = -21.0 

Max = -12.0 Mean = -16.5 

-16.5 

PCS_T2:POR2PERM4

PCS_T3:POR2PERM 

none Distribution used to 

calculate permeability from sampled porosity values 

Normal Min = -1.72 

Max = 1.72 Mean = 0.0 SD = 0.86 

0.0 

PCS_T1:SAT_IBRN none Initial brine saturation of 

run-of-mine panel closure 

Uniform Min = 0.04 

Max = 0.16 Mean = 0.1 

0.1 

1 PCS_T2:POROSITY is constrained such that PCS_T2:POROSITY 

≤ PCS_T1:POROSITY for a given vector in order to avoid non-ph

increases in ROMPCS porosity at 100 years. 

2 PCS_T3:POROSITY is constrained such that PCS_T3:POROSITY 

≤ PCS_T2:POROSITY for a given vector in order to avoid non-ph

increases in ROMPCS porosity at 200 years. 

3 Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG. PCS_T1:PRMY_LOG and PCS_T1:PRMZ_LOG inherit the sampled value 

PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG for each vector. 

4 Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T2:POR2PERM. PCS_T3:POR2PERM inherits the sampled value obtained for PCS_T2:POR

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure Syste

Page 15 of 84 

Table 2 (cont): Sampled Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PA 

PCS_T1:SAT_RBRN5PCS_T2:SAT_RBRN PCS_T3:SAT_RBRN 

none Residual Brine Saturation Cumulative (Prob,Value): 

(0,0) (0.5,0.2) (1.0,0.6) 

0.2 

PCS_T1:SAT_RGAS6PCS_T2:SAT_RGAS PCS_T3:SAT_RGAS 

none Residual Gas Saturation Uniform Min = 0.0 

Max = 0.4 Mean = 0.2 

0.2 

PCS_T1:PORE_DIS7

PCS_T2:PORE_DIS PCS_T3:PORE_DIS 

none Brooks-Corey pore 

distribution parameter 

Cumulative (Prob,Value): 

(0,0.11) (0.5,0.94) (1.0,8.1) 

0.94 

5 Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T1:SAT_ RBRN. PCS_T2: SAT_ RBRN and PCS_T3: SAT_ RBRN inherit the sampled valu

PCS_T1:SAT_ RBRN for each vector. 

6 Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T1:SAT_ RGAS. PCS_T2: SAT_ RGAS and PCS_T3: SAT_ RGAS inherit the sampled valu

PCS_T1:SAT_ RGAS for each vector. 

7 Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T1:PORE_DIS. PCS_T2: PORE_DIS and PCS_T3: PORE_DIS inherit the sampled value obt

PORE_DIS for each vector. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure Syste

Page 16 of 84 

Table 2-3: Constant Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PA 

Parameter Units Description Value PCS_T2:PRMX_LOG8PCS_T2:PRMY_LOG PCS_T2:PRMZ_LOG 

log(m2) log10 of intrinsic permeability, X, Y, 

and Z directions. 

-18.6 See 

PCS_T3:PRMX_LOG9PCS_T3:PRMY_LOG PCS_T3:PRMZ_LOG 

log(m2) log10 of intrinsic permeability, X, Y, 

and Z directions. 

-19.1 See 

PCS_T1:RELP_MOD PCS_T2:RELP_MOD PCS_T3:RELP_MOD 

none Relative Permeability Model Number 4 (a modified BrooksCorey Model) Cam

(20Tab

PCS_T1:CAP_MOD PCS_T2:CAP_MOD PCS_T3:CAP_MOD 

none Capillary Pressure Model Number 1 (unbounded capillary 

pressure) 

CamCam

PCS_T1:KPT PCS_T2:KPT PCS_T3:KPT 

none Flag to Enable Dynamic Updating of 

Threshold Capillary Pressure as a Function of Permeability 

0.0 Cam

(20Tab

PCS_T1:PCT_A PCS_T2:PCT_A PCS_T3:PCT_A 

Pa Threshold Capillary Pressure Linear 

Parameter 

0.0 Cam

Cam

PCS_T1:PCT_EXP PCS_T2:PCT_EXP PCS_T3:PCT_EXP 

none Threshold Capillary Pressure 

Exponential Parameter 

0.0 Cam

Cam

PCS_T1:PC_MAX PCS_T2:PC_MAX PCS_T3:PC_MAX 

Pa Maximum Allowable Capillary 

Pressure 

1 x 108 Cam

(20Tab

8 Permeabilities of PCS_T2 in the X, Y, and Z directions are calculated from the sampled PCS_T2:POROSITY values as described in C

A constant default log-permeability is specified, however, to allow for parameter traceability in PCS-2012 PA input files as compared t2009. The specified default value is the average of the minimum and maximum values listed in Table 5 of Camphouse et al. (2012a). 9 Permeabilities of PCS_T3 in the X, Y, and Z directions are calculated from the sampled PCS_T3:POROSITY values as described in CThe specified constant default value is the average of the minimum and maximum values listed in Table 5 of Camphouse et al. (2012a)

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure Syste

Page 17 of 84 

Table 3 (cont): Constant Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PA 

PCS_T1:P0_MIN PCS_T2:P0_MIN PCS_T3:P0_MIN 

Pa Minimum Brine Pressure for 

Capillary Model 3 (CAP_MOD = 3 has never been used in PA) 

1.01325 x 105 Cam

(20Tab

PCS_T1:COMP_RCK PCS_T2:COMP_RCK PCS_T3:COMP_RCK 

Pa-1 Bulk Compressibility 8.0 x 10-11 Cam

(20Tab

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 18 of 84 

2.2 FEPs Assessment 

The PCS-2012 PA began with an assessment that identified and evaluated the features, events, 

and processes (FEPs) that are related to the changes introduced by the proposed panel closure 

design. The purpose of the FEPs evaluation was to determine if the current FEPs baseline 

(currently the PABC-2009 FEPs baseline) is suitable to evaluate the new closure design, or if 

changes to FEPs descriptions, screening arguments, or decisions are necessary. The results of 

this assessment concluded that no changes are needed to the FEPs baseline (Kirkes 2011) 10. It 

should be pointed out that the FEPs analysis only determines that the WIPP design features are 

appropriately identified, described, and screened according to established FEPs screening 

methods. WIPP FEPs W109 Panel Closure Geometry and W110, Panel Closure Properties, are 

directly related to the changes proposed by the new PCS design and were the focus of the FEPs 

assessment. These two FEPs have been screened in (represented) as part of previous 

performance assessments in all scenarios, and continue to be so in the PCS-2012 PA. 

3 METHODOLOGY 

The PA methodology accommodates both aleatory (i.e. stochastic) and epistemic (i.e. subjective) 

uncertainty in its constituent models. Aleatory uncertainty pertains to unknowable future events 

such as intrusion times and locations that may affect repository performance. It is accounted for 

by the generation of random sequences of future events. Epistemic uncertainty concerns 

parameter values that are assumed to be constants and the constants’ true values are uncertain 

due to a lack of knowledge about the system. An example of a parameter with epistemic 

uncertainty is the permeability of a material. Epistemic uncertainty is accounted for by sampling 

of parameter values from assigned distributions. One set of sampled values required to run a 

WIPP PA calculation is termed a vector. In the PCS-2012 PA, models were executed for three 

replicates of 100 vectors. Parameter sampling performed in the PCS-2012 PA is documented in 

Kirchner (2012a), and the sensitivities of variable output to sampled parameters are documented 

in Kirchner (2012b). A sample size of 10,000 possible sequences of future events is used in PA 

calculations to address aleatory uncertainty. The releases for each of 10,000 possible sequences 

of future events are tabulated for each of the 300 vectors, totaling 3,000,000 possible sequences. 

For a random variable, the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) provides the 

probability of the variable being greater than a particular value. By regulation, PA results are 

presented as a distribution of CCDFs of releases (EPA 1996). Each individual CCDF 

summarizes the likelihood of releases across all futures for one vector of parameter values. The 

uncertainty in parameter values results in a distribution of CCDFs. 

 

10 Kirkes (2011) also evaluated changes associated with a proposed reconfiguration of the repository layout; the PCS 

changes are a subset of this FEP evaluation. Only the elements (and FEPs) relating to the PCS redesign are germane 

to the PCS-2012 PA analyses. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 19 of 84 

Releases are quantified in terms of “EPA units”. Releases in EPA units result from a 

normalization by radionuclide and the total inventory. For each radionuclide, the ratio of its 

10,000 year cumulative release (in curies) to its release limit is calculated. The sum of these 

ratios is calculated across the set of radionuclides and normalized by the transuranic inventory 

(in curies) of α-emitters with half-lives greater than 20 years. Mathematically, the formula used 

to calculate releases in terms of EPA units is of the form 

ܴ ൌ	

1 ൈ 10଺	curies

௜ܳ෍ ܥ

௜ ௜ܮ

where R is the normalized release in EPA units. Quantity Qi is the 10,000 year cumulative 

release (in curies) of radionuclide i. Quantity Li is the release limit for radionuclide i, and C is 

the total transuranic inventory (in curies) of α-emitters with half-lives greater than 20 years. 

The PCS-2012 PA was developed so that the structure of calculations performed therein was as 

similar as possible to that used in the PABC-2009. PABC-2009 calculated results potentially 

impacted by the panel closure redesign were updated, while the results from previous PAs were 

used for individual numerical codes not affected by these changes. The PCS-2012 PA utilized 

the same waste inventory information, drilling rate and plugging pattern parameters, and 

radionuclide solubility parameters as were used in the PABC-2009. Separate documentation was 

prepared describing calculations performed and results obtained for each code executed in the 

PCS-2012 PA. Citations for this additional documentation are included in the references section 

of this summary report, and are indicated in the list below. 

 Parameter Sampling (Kirchner 2012a) 

 Sensitivity Analysis (Kirchner 2012b) 

 Salado Flow (Camphouse 2012d) 

 Cuttings, Cavings, and Spallings (Kicker 2012) 

 Direct Brine Releases (Malama 2012) 

 CCDF Normalized Releases (Zeitler 2012) 

4 RUN CONTROL 

Run control documentation of codes executed in the PCS-2012 PA is provided in APPENDIX 

Appendix A. This documentation contains: 

1. A description of the hardware platform and operating system used to perform the 

calculations. 

2. A listing of the codes and versions used to perform the calculations. 

3. A listing of the scripts used to run each calculation. 

4. A listing of the input and output files for each calculation. 

5. A listing of the library and class where each file is stored. 

6. File naming conventions. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 20 of 84 

As described previously, PABC-2009 results were used for individual numerical codes primarily 

unaffected by the panel closure redesign. Documentation of run control for results calculated in 

the PABC-2009 is provided in Long (2010). 

5 RESULTS 

Replacement of the Option D panel closure with the ROMPCS design has no impact on cuttings 

and cavings releases resulting from drilling intrusions in repository waste areas. Cuttings and 

cavings results obtained in the PCS-2012 PA are identical to those found in the PABC-2009. In 

addition, Culebra transport results calculated in the PABC-2009 are also used in the PCS-202 PA 

calculations. Discussions of cuttings and cavings releases, as well as Culebra transport releases, 

calculated in the PABC-2009 can be found in Clayton et al. (2010) and the references therein. 

The primary focus of the PCS-2012 PA is a determination of pressure and brine saturation 

changes in waste-containing repository regions, and the impacts these changes have on spallings 

releases and DBRs. Spallings releases and DBRs are two of the release components used to 

calculate total normalized releases. As a result, the impact of pressure and brine saturation 

changes on total normalized releases is of interest as well. 

Summary results obtained in the PCS-2012 PA are broken out in sections below, and are 

compared to PABC-2009 results. Salado flow modeling results are presented in Section 5.1. 

The use of PABC-2009 Culebra transport results for the PCS-2012 PA is justified in Section 

5.1.4. Spallings results are presented in Section 5.2. Direct brine releases are presented in 

Section 5.3. The impact of the ROMPCS design on regulatory compliance is discussed in terms 

of total normalized releases in Section 5.4. As the CCDF is the regulatory metric used to 

demonstrate compliance, CCDFs obtained in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are 

compared for each component of release in the appropriate section. 

Following the completion of the PCS-2012 PA calculations, but prior to the completion of the 

summary report, a transcription error was discovered in the ALG1 input file for BRAGFLO. 

This error has a negligible impact on results obtained in the PCS-2012 PA, and is discussed in 

Appendix B. 

5.1 Salado Flow Results 

PA code BRAGFLO calculates the flow of brine and gas in the vicinity of the WIPP repository 

over the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. During BRAGFLO calculations, stochastic 

uncertainty is addressed by defining a set of six scenarios for which brine and gas flow is 

calculated for each of the vectors generated via parameter sampling. The total number of 

BRAGFLO simulations executed in the PCS-2012 PA is 1,800 (300 vectors times 6 scenarios). 

The six scenarios used in the PCS-2012 PA are unchanged from those used for the PABC-2009. 

The scenarios include one undisturbed scenario (S1-BF), four scenarios that include a single 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 21 of 84 

inadvertent future drilling intrusion into the repository during the 10,000 year regulatory period 

(S2-BF to S5-BF), and one scenario investigating the effect of two intrusions into a single waste 

panel (S6-BF). Two types of intrusions, denoted as E1 and E2, are considered. An E1 intrusion 

assumes the borehole passes through a waste-filled panel and into a pressurized brine pocket that 

may exist under the repository in the Castile formation. An E2 intrusion assumes that the 

borehole passes through the repository but does not encounter a brine pocket. Scenarios S2-BF 

and S3-BF model the effect of an E1 intrusion occurring at 350 years and 1000 years, 

respectively, after the repository is closed. Scenarios S4-BF and S5-BF model the effect of an E2 

intrusion at 350 and 1000 years. Scenario S6-BF models an E2 intrusion occurring at 1000 

years, followed by an E1 intrusion into the same panel at 2000 years. Calculated brine flows up 

the intrusion borehole obtained in scenario S6-BF are used in PA code PANEL to determine the 

radionuclide source term to the Culebra. Transport releases from the Culebra obtained in the 

PABC-2009 are also used in the PCS-2012 PA. PCS-2012 PA results from BRAGFLO scenario 

S6-BF are briefly discussed to justify the appropriateness of PABC-2009 Culebra transport 

calculations for the PCS-2012 PA. Table 5-1 summarizes the six scenarios used in this 

analysis. 

Table 5-1: BRAGFLO Modeling Scenarios 

Scenario Description 

S1-BF Undisturbed Repository 

S2-BF E1 intrusion at 350 years 

S3-BF E1 intrusion at 1000 years 

S4-BF E2 intrusion at 350 years 

S5-BF E2 intrusion at 1000 years 

S6-BF E2 intrusion at 1000 years; E1 intrusion at 2000 years. 

Computed results are presented for the PCS-2012 PA and compared with those obtained in the 

PABC-2009. Results are discussed in terms of overall means. Overall means are obtained by 

forming the average of the 300 realizations calculated for a given quantity and scenario. Results 

are presented for undisturbed scenario S1-BF. Intruded results are presented for scenarios S2-BF 

and S4-BF, as these are representative of the intrusion types considered in scenarios S2-BF to 

S5-BF with the only differences being the timing of drilling intrusions. Results from scenario 

S6-BF are also briefly discussed. 

Option D panel closures were implemented in the PABC-2009. The computational grid and 

material map used in the PABC-2009 Salado flow calculations are shown in Figure 5-1. A 

minor error has been corrected in the material map schematic shown in Figure 5-1. That figure 

depicts an E1 intrusion into the repository. The BRAGFLO schematic included with the PABC2009 Salado flow analysis package (Nemer 2010) depicts the lower borehole extending only to 

the bottom horizon of the lower DRZ. In actuality, the lower borehole extends to the floor of the 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 22 of 84 

intruded waste panel. The PABC-2009 BRAGFLO grid and material map shown in Figure 5-1 

has been modified so that it represents the correct extent of the lower borehole in an E1 intrusion. 

The analogous PCS-2012 PA BRAGFLO computational grid and material map are shown in 

Figure 5-2. As that figure also depicts an E1 intrusion scenario, with 350 years post-closure 

being the first time instance at which an intrusion occurs, materials DRZ_PCS and ROMPCS 

material PCS_T3 are in place at the time of all intrusions in the Salado flow calculations. The 

development of the PCS-2012 PA BRAGFLO grid, as well as the representation of the temporal 

evolution of the ROMPCS in the BRAGFLO material map, is fully discussed in Camphouse 

(2012d). 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure Syste

Page 23 of 84 

Figure 5-1: PABC-2009 BRAGFLO Grid and Material Map for an E1 Intrusion (

Δx, 

Δy, and 

Δz dimensi

Z 

Y, 

lowerSMft 

SaI_ 

•• •• •• 0 -- •

Y Cd __ •• 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure Syste

Page 24 of 84 

Figure 5-2: PCS-2012 BRAGFLO Grid and Material Map for an E1 Intrusion (

Δx, 

Δy, and 

Δz dimensio

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 25 of 84 

5.1.1 Results for an Undisturbed Repository (Scenario S1-BF) 

Results are now presented for undisturbed scenario S1-BF. For the sake of brevity in what 

follows, waste area results are discussed in terms of the waste panel. Trends discussed for the 

waste panel also apply to other repository waste areas. 

The PCS-2012 PA overall mean of cumulative brine flow into the waste panel, denoted by 

quantity BRNWASIC, is compared to the PABC-2009 overall mean of the same quantity in 

Figure 5-3. As seen in that figure, there is an increase in the mean cumulative brine flow into the 

waste panel in the PCS-2012 PA as compared to the PABC-2009. The majority of the increase 

in quantity BRNWASIC for the PCS-2012 PA occurs during the first 200 years. The increase 

during the first 200 years is readily apparent in Figure 5-4, where the time scale used to plot 

BRNWASIC overall means is restricted to the first 1,000 years. As seen in that figure, the 

difference in the overall means obtained in the two analyses increases steadily until 200 years. 

At 200 years, the ROMPCS assumes its long-term properties with the DRZ healed above and 

below it. At 200 years in the PCS-2012 PA BRNWASIC overall mean in Figure 5-4, the rate of 

increase decreases sharply. At 200 years, the difference between the BRNWASIC overall means 

obtained in the two analyses is roughly 600 m3

, and this difference between the overall means 

remains fairly constant for the remainder of the regulatory period. 

The increase of brine flow into the waste panel results in a corresponding increase in the waste 

panel brine saturation, denoted by quantity WAS_SATB. The overall means for WAS_SATB 

obtained in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are plotted together in Figure 5-5. As seen in 

that figure, there is an increase in the mean for WAS_SATB in the PCS-2012 PA as compared to 

the PABC-2009. The increase in brine inflow to the waste panel during the first 200 years 

translates to an increase in the waste panel brine saturation. Beyond 200 years, the WAS_SATB 

overall means obtained in the two analyses are qualitatively very similar with differences seen in 

the magnitude of the respective curves primarily due to increases seen in the PCS-2012 PA 

during the first 200 years. 

Increases in waste panel brine inflow and brine saturation potentially impact waste panel gas 

generation, denoted by quantity GASMOL_W. Overall means of waste panel gas generation 

obtained in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are plotted together in Figure 5-6. As seen in 

that figure, the overall mean for gas generated in the waste panel increased in the PCS-2012 PA. 

The increases seen in the mean waste panel brine inflow and mean waste panel brine saturation 

in the PCS-2012 PA result in a corresponding increase in waste panel gas generation. 

Overall means of waste panel pressure obtained in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are 

shown together in Figure 5-7. As seen in that figure, there is a long-term increase in the mean 

waste panel pressure obtained in the PCS-2012 PA as compared to the PABC-2009. The 

increase in waste panel gas generation seen in the PCS-2012 PA translates to a long-term 

increase in the waste panel mean pressure. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 26 of 84 

Pressure is released from repository waste areas to other repository regions before the ROMPCS 

and the surrounding DRZ assume their long-term properties at 200 years. The overall means of 

pressure in the operations area, denoted by quantity OPS_PRES, obtained in the PCS-2012 PA 

and the PABC-2009 are shown together in Figure 5-8. As seen in Figure 5-8, the mean pressure 

in the operations area is greater in the PCS-2012 PA at early times when compared to the PABC2009. After the ROMPCS and the DRZ above and below it assume their long-term properties at 

200 years, the rate of pressure release from repository waste areas into the operations area 

decreases. The “tighter” characteristics of the ROMPCS after 200 years results in less pressure 

being released to the operations region as compared to Option D. The result is an eventual 

decrease in the mean pressure in this region when compared to PABC-2009 results. Results 

obtained for the experimental region are virtually identical to those found for the operations area. 

The base of the repository shaft is modeled in WIPP PA as being directly between the operations 

and experimental regions. Consequently, the pressure in these two regions impacts the volume 

of brine moved up the shaft toward the ground surface. The overall means of brine flow up the 

shaft, denoted by quantity BNSHUDRZ, obtained in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are 

shown together in Figure 5-9. As seen in that figure, the trends for brine flow up the shaft 

correspond closely to pressure trends in the operations and experimental areas. At early times, 

an increase is seen in the mean volume of brine flow up the shaft in the PCS-2012 PA. 

Eventually, however, the mean brine flow up the shaft is reduced in the PCS-2012 PA results, 

primarily due to the reductions in the mean pressure seen in the operations and experimental 

areas after the ROMPCS and surrounding DRZ assume their long-term properties. 

Summary statistics for scenario S1-BF are shown in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-2: Summary Statistics for Scenario S1-BF 

Quantity 

(units) 

Mean Value Maximum Value 

PABC-2009 PCS-2012 PA PABC-2009 PCS-2012 PA

BRNWASIC 

(x103

 m3) 1.78 2.38 12.46 16.67 

WAS_SATB 

(none) 0.16 0.20 0.99 0.99 

GASMOL_W 

(x106

 moles) 29.09 30.84 148.40 149.00 

WAS_PRES 

(MPa) 6.52 6.77 16.19 16.29 

BNSHUDRZ 

(m3

) 2.74 2.46 34.76 32.11 

 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 27 of 84 

Figure 5-3: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenario S1-BF. 

Figure 5-4: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenario S1-BF and 

Years 0 to 1,000. 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Time (years)

BRNWASIC (m3)

Scenario S1-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

Time (years)

BRNWASIC (m3)

Scenario S1-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 28 of 84 

Figure 5-5: Overall Means of Waste Panel Brine Saturation, Scenario S1-BF. 

Figure 5-6: Overall Means of Waste Panel Gas Generation (in moles), Scenario S1-BF. 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Time (years)

WAS_SATB

Scenario S1-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

x 107

Time (years)

GASMOL_W (moles)

Scenario S1-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 29 of 84 

Figure 5-7: Overall Means of Waste Panel Pressure, Scenario S1-BF. 

Figure 5-8: Overall Means of Pressure in the Operations Region, Scenario S1-BF. 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

x 106

Time (years)

WAS_PRES (Pa)

Scenario S1-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

x 106

Time (years)

OPS_PRES (Pa)

Scenario S1-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 30 of 84 

Figure 5-9: Overall Means of Brine Flow up the Shaft, Scenario S1-BF. 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Time (years)

BNSHUDRZ (m3)

Scenario S1-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 31 of 84 

5.1.2 Results for an E1 Intrusion at 350 Years (Scenario S2-BF) 

Results are now presented for disturbance scenario S2-BF. Results presented for this scenario 

are representative of those calculated for E1 intrusion scenarios (scenarios S2-BF and S3-BF), 

with the only difference being the time of the intrusion. In the results that follow, PCS-2012 PA 

trends discussed for scenario S2-BF also apply to scenario S3-BF. 

The fundamental characteristic of an E1 intrusion is the creation of a connected pathway between 

the repository waste panel and a region of pressurized brine in the Castile. Castile brine moves 

upward into the waste panel immediately after the intrusion, increasing waste panel pressure, 

brine saturation, and impacting other waste panel quantities. 

The overall means of waste panel pressure obtained in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 for 

scenario S2-BF are plotted together in Figure 5-10. As seen in that figure, the mean waste panel 

pressure calculated in the PCS-2012 PA is greater than that found in the PABC-2009 for a period 

of time after the intrusion. The long-term permeability range of the ROMPCS is lower than that 

prescribed to the Option D design in the PABC-2009. This reduction results in less long-term 

brine and gas flow through the ROMPCS, away from the waste panel, as compared to Option D. 

Following the E1 intrusion at 350 years, the “tighter” ROMPCS design results in a period of 

increased waste panel pressurization as compared to the PABC-2009 results. 

An increase in waste panel pressure potentially impacts the volume of cumulative brine inflow to 

the waste panel, denoted by quantity BRNWASIC. The overall means of BRNWASIC obtained 

in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are shown together in Figure 5-11. As seen in that 

figure, the increased permeability range of the ROMPCS at early times results in greater brine 

inflow to the waste panel before the ROMPCS attains its long-term properties at 200 years. 

Following the intrusion time of 350 years, an increase in mean waste panel pressure occurs in the 

PCS-2012 PA results. This pressure increase slightly inhibits brine flow into the waste panel, 

resulting in a reduction in cumulative waste panel brine inflow as compared to the PABC-2009 

results. 

The reduction of brine flowing into the waste panel in the PCS-2012 PA impacts the waste panel 

brine saturation, denoted by quantity WAS_SATB. The overall means of quantity WAS_SATB 

obtained in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are shown together in Figure 5-12. As is 

evident in that figure, the mean waste panel brine saturation obtained in the PCS-2012 PA is 

reduced slightly from that calculated in the PABC-2009 after the intrusion at 350 years. The 

reduction of brine inflow to the waste panel translates to a reduction in waste panel brine 

saturation. 

The overall means of waste panel gas generation (quantity GASMOL_W) obtained in the PCS2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are shown together in Figure 5-13. The overall means obtained for 

quantity GASMOL_W obtained in the two analyses are nearly identical, with a very slight 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 32 of 84 

reduction seen in the PCS-2012 PA mean. This slight reduction in gas generation is most likely 

due to the reduction in waste panel brine inflow and brine saturation seen in the PCS-2012 PA 

results. 

The volume of brine flow up the intrusion borehole is denoted by quantity BNBHUDRZ. 

Overall means of BNBHUDRZ obtained in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are shown 

together in Figure 5-14. The overall means obtained in the two analyses are almost identical, 

with a very slight increase seen in the PCS-2012 PA result. 

Summary statistics for scenario S2-BF are shown in Table 5-3. 

Table 5-3: Summary Statistics for Scenario S2-BF 

Quantity 

(units) 

Mean Value Maximum Value 

PABC-2009 PCS-2012 PA PABC-2009 PCS-2012 PA

BRNWASIC 

(x103

 m3) 14.03 13.68 182.15 182.08 

WAS_SATB 

(none) 0.68 0.67 0.99 0.99 

GASMOL_W 

(x106

 moles) 54.75 54.57 149.00 149.00 

WAS_PRES 

(MPa) 7.39 7.50 15.63 16.40 

BNBHUDRZ 

(x103

 m3) 3.25 3.28 166.84 169.54 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 33 of 84 

Figure 5-10: Overall Means of Waste Panel Pressure, Scenario S2-BF. 

Figure 5-11: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenario S2-BF. 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

x 106

Time (years)

WAS_PRES (Pa)

Scenario S2-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

x 104

Time (years)

BRNWASIC (m3)

Scenario S2-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 34 of 84 

Figure 5-12: Overall Means of Waste Panel Brine Saturation, Scenario S2-BF. 

Figure 5-13: Overall Means of Waste Panel Gas Generation (in moles), Scenario S2-BF. 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Time (years)

WAS_SATB

Scenario S2-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

x 107

Time (years)

GASMOL_W (moles)

Scenario S2-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 35 of 84 

Figure 5-14: Overall Means of Brine Flow up the Borehole, Scenario S2-BF. 

5.1.3 Results for an E2 Intrusion at 350 Years (Scenario S4-BF) 

Results are now presented for disturbance scenario S4-BF. Results presented for this scenario 

are representative of those calculated for E2 intrusion scenarios (scenarios S4-BF and S5-BF), 

with the only difference being the time of the intrusion. In the results that follow, PCS-2012 PA 

trends discussed for scenario S4-BF also apply to scenario S5-BF. 

As seen in the previous section, an E1 intrusion scenario results in an immediate influx of 

pressurized Castile brine to the waste panel, resulting in an increase is waste panel pressure when 

compared to undisturbed conditions. An E2 intrusion typically has the opposite effect. For the 

E2 intrusion scenario, no connected pathway is created between pressurized Castile brine and the 

repository waste panel. Following the intrusion, concrete plugs are immediately emplaced in the 

borehole near the ground surface. Consequently, an E2 intrusion does not typically have a 

significant impact on waste panel quantities at the time of intrusion. 200 years after the time of 

intrusion, concrete plugs emplaced in the borehole are modeled as failing, with the entire 

borehole assuming properties equivalent to sand. The result is a depressurization of the waste 

panel, beginning 200 years after the intrusion. Whereas an E1 intrusion typically results in an 

immediate increase in waste panel pressure, an E2 intrusion typically results in a reduction in 

waste panel pressure 200 years after the intrusion as compared to undisturbed conditions. The 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Time (years)

BNBHUDRZ (m3)

Scenario S2-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 36 of 84 

impact of the E2 intrusion on waste panel pressure is more closely seen in Figure 5-15. In that 

figure, PCS-2012 PA overall means of waste panel pressure obtained in scenarios S1-BF and S4-

BF are plotted together with the time scale restricted to the first 1,000 years. As seen in that 

figure, no noticeable impact is seen in the mean waste panel pressure when the E2 intrusion 

occurs at 350 years. For the period of 350 years to 550 years, there is a slight increase in the 

mean pressure for scenario S4-BF as compared to undisturbed results. The borehole plugs fail at 

550 years, creating a pathway for waste panel pressure release through the borehole and toward 

the ground surface. Consequently, the mean waste panel pressure for scenario S4-BF is reduced 

sharply at 550 years when compared to undisturbed results. The overall means of waste panel 

pressure obtained for scenario S4-BF in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are shown 

together in Figure 5-16. As seen in that figure, the mean waste panel pressure obtained in the 

PCS-2012 PA is slightly greater than the PABC-2009 result. As already discussed, the PCS2012 PA mean waste panel pressure is greater than that seen in the PABC-2009 for undisturbed 

conditions (Figure 5-7). Consequently, at the time of the E2 intrusion, the mean waste panel 

pressure is greater in the PCS-2012 PA, and is also greater 200 years later when the borehole 

plugs fail. The result is a slightly higher mean pressure in the PCS-2012 PA scenario S4-BF 

result when compared to the PABC-2009. 

The impact of the E2 intrusion on cumulative waste panel brine inflow can be clearly seen in 

Figure 5-17. At the intrusion time of 350 years until the borehole plugs fail at 550 years, there is 

only a very slight increase in quantity BRNWASIC as compared to undisturbed conditions. 

After the borehole plugs fail, a decrease in the waste panel pressure occurs. This pressure 

reduction yields in an increase in brine flow into the waste panel at 550 years compared to the 

undisturbed case. The overall means for quantity BRNWASIC in the PCS-2012 PA and the 

PABC-2009 are plotted together in Figure 5-18. As evident in that figure, an increase to the 

mean waste panel cumulative brine inflow is seen in the PCS-2012 PA results. This increase is 

due to the increased waste panel brine inflow seen for undisturbed conditions (Figure 5-4). Very 

little impact is seen in the mean curve for quantity BRNWASIC as compared to undisturbed 

conditions, until the borehole plugs fail at 550 years. The PCS-2012 PA mean waste panel brine 

inflow curve is already greater than that obtained in the PABC-2009 when the borehole plugs fail 

at 550 years. The increase in brine inflow seen after the borehole plugs fail results in a PCS2012 PA mean waste panel brine inflow curve that remains greater than that seen in the PABC2009. 

The change to cumulative waste panel brine inflow seen in the PCS-2012 PA impacts the waste 

panel brine saturation. The impact of the E2 intrusion on quantity WAS_SATB is similar to that 

seen for cumulative brine flow into the waste panel. As seen in Figure 5-19, the mean waste 

panel brine saturation is changed very little as compared to undisturbed conditions for the time 

period of 350 to 550 years. After the borehole plugs fail at 550 years, an increase of brine inflow 

to the waste panel translates to a corresponding increase in brine saturation. The result is a PCS2012 PA mean waste brine saturation curve that is greater than that seen in the PABC-2009 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 37 of 84 

results (Figure 5-20). The increase in the mean cumulative brine inflow to the waste panel seen 

in the PCS-2012 PA translates to an increase in the mean waste panel brine saturation. 

The increase in waste panel brine saturation impacts gas generation in the waste panel. More 

brine flows into the waste panel (on average) in PCS-2012 PA scenario S4-BF as compared to 

the PABC-2009, resulting in an overall mean for quantity GASMOL_W in the PCS-2012 PA 

that is greater than that seen in the PABC-2009 (Figure 5-21). 

The volume of brine flowing up the borehole toward the ground surface is denoted by quantity 

BNBHUDRZ. The increase in the mean waste panel pressure seen in the PCS-2012 PA yields a 

slight long-term increase in the means of quantity BNBHUDRZ. The overall mean of this 

quantity is greater in the PCS-2012 PA, as shown in Figure 5-22. 

Summary statistics for scenario S4-BF are shown in Table 5-4. 

Table 5-4: Summary Statistics for Scenario S4-BF 

Quantity 

(units) 

Mean Value Maximum Value 

PABC-2009 PCS-2012 PA PABC-2009 PCS-2012 PA

BRNWASIC 

(x103

 m3) 2.73 3.29 23.81 19.39 

WAS_SATB 

(none) 0.28 0.33 0.99 0.99 

GASMOL_W 

(x106

 moles) 36.40 38.35 149.00 149.00 

WAS_PRES 

(MPa) 4.64 4.70 14.92 15.21 

BNBHUDRZ 

(m3

) 34.76 43.76 4876.89 5287.28 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 38 of 84 

Figure 5-15: Overall Means of Waste Panel Pressure, Scenarios S1-BF and S4-BF for Years 0 to 

1,000. 

Figure 5-16: Overall Means of Waste Panel Pressure, Scenario S4-BF. 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

x 106

Time (years)

WAS_PRES (Pa)

PCS-2012 S1-BF Overall Mean

PCS-2012 S4-BF Overall Mean

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

x 106

Time (years)

WAS_PRES (Pa)

Scenario S4-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 39 of 84 

Figure 5-17: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenarios S1-BF 

and S4-BF for Years 0 to 1,000. 

Figure 5-18: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Inflow to the Waste Panel, Scenario S4-BF. 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Time (years)

BRNWASIC (m3)

PCS-2012 S1-BF Overall Mean

PCS-2012 S4-BF Overall Mean

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Time (years)

BRNWASIC (m3)

Scenario S4-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 40 of 84 

Figure 5-19: Overall Means of Waste Panel Brine Saturation, Scenarios S1-BF and S4-BF for 

Years 0 to 1,000. 

Figure 5-20: Overall Means of Waste Panel Brine Saturation, Scenario S4-BF. 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Time (years)

WAS_SATB

PCS-2012 S1-BF Overall Mean

PCS-2012 S4-BF Overall Mean

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Time (years)

WAS_SATB

Scenario S4-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 41 of 84 

Figure 5-21: Overall Means of Waste Panel Gas Generation (in moles), Scenario S4-BF. 

Figure 5-22: Overall Means of Brine Flow up the Borehole, Scenario S4-BF. 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

x 107

Time (years)

GASMOL_W (moles)

Scenario S4-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (years)

BNBHUDRZ (m3)

Scenario S4-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 42 of 84 

5.1.4 Results for an E2 Intrusion at 1000 Years Followed by a E1 Intrusion at 2000 Years 

(Scenario S6-BF) 

BRAGFLO scenario S6-BF models an E2 intrusion occurring at 1000 years, followed by an E1 

intrusion into the same panel at 2000 years. Calculated brine flows up the intrusion borehole 

obtained in scenario S6-BF are used in PA code PANEL to determine the radionuclide source 

term to the Culebra. Transport releases from the Culebra obtained in the PABC-2009 are used in 

the PCS-2012 PA. Results from BRAGFLO scenario S6-BF are now briefly discussed to justify 

the appropriateness of PABC-2009 Culebra transport calculations for the PCS-2012 PA. 

The overall means obtained for quantity BNBHUDRZ in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 

are shown together in Figure 5-23. As seen in that figure, there is very close agreement between 

the overall means obtained in the two analyses. The replacement of the Option D panel closure 

with the ROMPCS design has a negligible impact on brine flow up the intrusion borehole in 

BRAGFLO scenario S6-BF. Actinide solubilities, the repository waste inventory, and Culebra 

transmissivity fields are unchanged from the PABC-2009 to the PCS-2012 PA. As the brine 

flows up the intrusion borehole obtained in the two analyses are virtually identical in scenario 

S6-BF, the radionuclide source term to the Culebra is virtually unchanged by the ROMPCS 

design as compared to Option D results. Consequently, transport releases from the Culebra are 

also virtually unchanged. Incorporating PABC-2009 Culebra transport results into the PCS-2012 

PA is reasonable and appropriate. 

Summary statistics for quantity BNBHUDRZ obtained in scenario S6-BF are shown in Table 

5-5. 

Table 5-5: Summary Statistics for Scenario S6-BF 

Quantity 

(units) 

Mean Value Maximum Value 

PABC-2009 PCS-2012 PA PABC-2009 PCS-2012 PA

BNBHUDRZ 

(x103

 m3) 2.92 2.94 169.03 169.30 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 43 of 84 

Figure 5-23: Overall Means of Brine Flow up the Borehole, Scenario S6-BF. 

5.2 Spallings 

The replacement of the Option D panel closure with the ROMPCS design has no impact on 

cuttings and cavings releases. Changes in repository pressures seen in the PCS-2012 PA 

BRAGFLO results potentially impact spallings releases, however. Calculation of the volume of 

solid waste material released to the surface from a single drilling intrusion into the repository due 

to spallings is a two-part procedure. First, PA code DRSPALL calculates the spallings volumes 

from a single drilling intrusion at four values of repository pressure (10, 12, 14, and 14.8 MPa). 

The second step in calculating spallings volumes from a single intrusion consists of using the 

code CUTTINGS_S to interpolate between DRSPALL volumes. The spallings volume for a 

given vector is determined in CUTTINGS_S by linearly interpolating between volumes 

calculated by DRSPALL based on the pressure calculated in each realization by BRAGFLO. 

DRSPALL volumes used in the PABC-2009 were also used in the PCS-2012 PA. 

PA code CUTTINGS_S is also used as a transfer program between the BRAGFLO Salado flow 

calculation and the BRAGFLO DBR calculation. Results obtained by BRAGFLO for each 

realization in scenarios S1-BF to S5-BF are used to initialize the flow field properties necessary 

for the calculation of DBRs. This requires that results obtained on the BRAGFLO grid be 

mapped appropriately to the DBR grid. Code CUTTINGS_S is used to transfer the appropriate 

scenario results obtained with BRAGFLO to the DBR calculation. These transferred flow results 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Time (years)

BNBHUDRZ (m3)

Scenario S6-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean

PABC-2009 Overall Mean

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 44 of 84 

are used as initial conditions in the calculation of DBRs. As a result, intrusion scenarios and 

times used in the calculation of spallings volumes correspond to those used in the calculation of 

DBRs. Five intrusion scenarios are considered in the DBR calculations, and are listed in Table 

5-6. 

Table 5-6: PA Intrusion Scenarios Used in Calculating Direct Solids Releases 

Scenario 

Conditioning (or 1st) 

Intrusion Time (year) and 

Type 

Intrusion Times – Subsequent 

(year) 

S1-DBR None 100, 350, 1000, 3000, 5000, 10000 

S2-DBR 350, E1 550, 750, 2000, 4000, 10000 

S3-DBR 1000, E1 1200, 1400, 3000, 5000, 10000 

S4-DBR 350, E2 550, 750, 2000, 4000, 10000 

S5-DBR 1000, E2 1200, 1400, 3000, 5000, 10000 

While CUTTINGS_S uses these standard DBR scenarios as a basis for its calculations, it does so 

to provide flow field results (generated with BRAGFLO) as initial conditions to the DBR 

calculation at each subsequent intrusion time. CUTTINGS_S does not model the intrusion 

scenario itself. Scenario S1-DBR corresponds to an initial intrusion into the repository, with 

repository flow conditions at the time of intrusion transferred from BRAGFLO scenario S1-BF 

results. Scenarios S2-DBR through S5-DBR are used to model an intrusion into a repository that 

has already been penetrated. The times at which intrusions are assumed to occur for each 

scenario are outlined in the last column of Table 5-6; six intrusion times are modeled for scenario 

S1-DBR, while five times are modeled for each of scenarios S2-DBR through S5-DBR. 

Utilizing the spallings volumes calculated by DRSPALL and the PCS-2012 PA repository 

pressures calculated by BRAGFLO, the impact of the ROMPCS design on spallings volumes can 

be determined. Summary statistics of spallings volumes for the intrusion scenarios considered 

by CUTTINGS_S are shown in Table 5-7 for both the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009. 

PABC-2009 results reported in that table (except for the percentage of nonzero volumes) are 

taken from Ismail (2010). While the results for the PABC-2009 and the PCS-2012 PA 

calculations are similar for some scenarios, some differences in the spallings volumes are noted. 

In general, the PCS-2012 results show increases in the maximum spallings volume across all 

three replicates. Replicate 1 showed very similar average nonzero spallings volumes in both PA 

calculations. In replicates 2 and 3, the average nonzero spallings volumes were higher for the 

PCS-2012 PA calculations compared to PABC-2009, with the most significant volume increases 

occurring in scenarios S2-DBR, S3-DBR, and S5-DBR. Overall, the general trend shows a 

slightly higher average nonzero spallings volume, a larger maximum volume, and a larger 

percentage of vectors with spallings considering the total from all scenarios across all three 

replicates (Kicker 2012). 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 45 of 84 

The change in spallings volumes between the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 is the result of 

changing repository pressures observed in BRAGFLO calculations for the PCS-2012 PA. 

Because spallings volumes directly depend on repository pressure, an increase in repository 

pressure translates into larger spallings volumes. Since there is a minimum threshold pressure 

required to create spallings, an increase in repository pressure also increases the percentage of 

vectors with spallings. 

Table 5-7: Summary of Spallings Releases by Scenario 

Scenarios Total S1-DBR S2-DBR S3-DBR S4-DBR S5-DBR 

PCS-2012 PA 

R1 

Maximum [m3

] 2.34 9.35 8.69 1.67 1.67 9.35

Average nonzero volume [m3] 0.37 0.53 0.47 0.29 0.32 0.41

Number of nonzero volumes 157 141 138 76 104 616

Percent of nonzero volumes 8.7% 9.4% 9.2% 5.1% 6.9% 7.9%

R2 

Maximum [m3] 2.76 3.69 2.76 2.76 2.76 3.69

Average nonzero volume [m3] 0.37 0.42 0.44 0.52 0.55 0.44

Number of nonzero volumes 184 165 151 79 107 686

Percent of nonzero volumes 10.2% 11.0% 10.1% 5.3% 7.1% 8.8%

R3 

Maximum [m3

] 6.09 7.32 3.31 2.70 3.29 7.32

Average nonzero volume [m3] 0.54 0.48 0.38 0.32 0.33 0.43

Number of nonzero volumes 189 134 144 72 111 650

Percent of nonzero volumes 10.5% 8.9% 9.6% 4.8% 7.4% 8.3%

PABC-2009 

R1 

Maximum [m3

] 2.24 8.29 7.97 1.67 1.67 8.29

Average nonzero volume [m3] 0.37 0.54 0.50 0.30 0.37 0.43

Number of nonzero volumes 142 117 111 59 77 506

Percent of nonzero volumes 7.9% 7.8% 7.4% 3.9% 5.1% 6.5%

R2 

Maximum [m3] 2.36 2.76 1.86 2.26 1.93 2.76

Average nonzero volume [m3] 0.32 0.39 0.37 0.50 0.47 0.39

Number of nonzero volumes 168 122 122 57 84 553

Percent of nonzero volumes 9.3% 8.1% 8.1% 3.8% 5.6% 7.1%

R3 

Maximum [m3

] 4.91 6.23 2.62 1.47 1.49 6.23

Average nonzero volume [m3] 0.53 0.39 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.38

Number of nonzero volumes 156 113 118 45 72 504

Percent of nonzero volumes 8.7% 7.5% 7.9% 3.0% 4.8% 6.5%

The impacts of the changes in spallings volumes on the overall mean CCDF for normalized 

spallings releases obtained in the PCS-2012 PA can be seen in Figure 5-24. As seen in that 

figure, the CCDF of spallings releases obtained in the PCS-2012 PA is consistently higher than 

that found in the PABC-2009. The increases in spallings volumes and in the number of vectors 

that result in a nonzero spallings volume translate to an increase in spallings releases as both 

analyses use the same waste inventory. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 46 of 84 

Figure 5-24: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Overall Mean CCDFs for Normalized Spallings 

Releases 

5.3 Direct Brine Releases 

PA code BRAGFLO is used in two ways in WIPP PA calculations. First, it is used to calculate 

the flow of brine and gas in and around the repository for undisturbed and disturbed conditions. 

PCS-2012 PA results from this application of BRAGFLO are shown in Section 5.1. Second, it is 

used for the calculation of direct brine releases. These two uses of BRAGFLO require different 

computational grids. Results obtained from the brine and gas flow calculation are used to 

initialize conditions in the DBR calculation. The representation of the waste area by three 

regions in the PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 BRAGFLO grids (see Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2) 

yields initial conditions to waste regions comprising the Waste Panel (panel 5), the South Rest of 

Repository or SROR (panels 3,4,6, and 9), and the North Rest of Repository or NROR (panels 

1,2,7,8, and 10) in the DBR calculation, with drilling intrusions considered in each of these 

regions. The types of intrusions considered in the DBR calculation and the times at which they 

occur are listed in Table 5-6. The scenarios, intrusion locations, and timings used for the PCS2012 PA are the same as those used for the PABC-2009. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 47 of 84 

The DBR numerical grid and material map used in the PCS-2012 PA calculations are shown in 

Figure 5-25, and are described in Malama (2012). The color scheme in Figure 5-25 has been 

chosen so as to correspond to the color scheme used in the PCS-2012 PA BRAGFLO grid and 

material map shown in Figure 5-2. The computational grid and material map used in the PABC2009 DBR calculations are shown in Figure 5-26. 

Figure 5-25: PCS-2012 PA DBR Computational Grid and Material Map (logical grid). 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 48 of 84 

Figure 5-26: PABC-2009 DBR Computational Grid and Material Map (logical grid). 

With the DBR computational grid and intrusion locations in hand, DBR results from the PCS2012 PA and the PABC-2009 can now be compared. Summary statistics of the calculated DBR 

volumes for replicates 1-3 and scenarios S1-DBR to S5-DBR are provided in Table 5-8. The 

maximum DBR volumes shown in that table are assessed over all three replicates, times, vectors 

and drilling locations. As was also the case in the PABC-2009, release volumes that are less than 

1x10-7 m3

 are considered to be inconsequential and are not included in the tally of vectors that 

result in DBR release volumes in the PCS-2012 PA calculations. 

Overall there is a consistent increase in the maximum DBR volumes from PABC-2009 to PCS2012 PA. The largest increases were observed in scenarios S4-DBR and S5-DBR which are 

associated with E2 intrusions. As previously discussed in the BRAGFLO results, E2 intrusion 

scenarios in the PCS-2012 PA yielded waste panel pressure that is higher, on average, than that 

seen in the PABC-2009 at the time of intrusion and it remains higher for the duration of the 

10,000 year regulatory period. Similarly, the mean waste panel brine saturation is higher at the 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 49 of 84 

time of intrusion in the PCS-2012 PA, resulting in higher long-term waste panel brine saturations 

for E2 intrusion scenarios. DBR volumes are strongly dependent on waste panel pressure and 

brine saturation at the time of intrusion. Hence, increases to these two quantities lead to 

increased maximum DBR volumes observed in scenarios S4-DBR and S5-DBR, and to the 

higher overall number of non-zero brine volume vectors. 

Table 5-8: DBR Summary Statistics for the PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 DBR Calculations 

Scenario

Number of Vectors Maximum volume (m3

) Average volume (m3)

PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA

S1‐DBR 369 419 27.6 45.9 0.1 0.4

S2‐DBR 1179 1174 48.2 52.9 2.8 2.9

S3‐DBR 926 907 40.6 43.8 1.5 1.4

S4‐DBR 211 281 20.4 42.5 0.1 0.2

S5‐DBR 314 401 21.1 53.8 0.1 0.3

Overall 2999 3182 48.2 53.8 0.9 1.0

The moderate increases in maximum DBR volumes for scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR are due 

to the fact that the lower long-term permeability range of the ROMPCS as compared to Option D 

yields a period of increased waste panel pressurization following an E1 intrusion. The increased 

mean waste panel pressure slightly inhibits brine flow into the panel after the intrusion, resulting 

in a slight decrease to the mean waste panel brine saturation as compared to PABC-2009 E1 

intrusion results. The effects of increased pressure and decreased brine saturation effectively 

cancel, resulting in only a slight increase to the maximum DBR volume seen in the PCS-2012 

PA E1 results. 

For undisturbed conditions, implementation of the ROMPCS yields higher long-term waste panel 

pressure (on average) than was seen in the PABC-2009. The increase in mean waste panel 

pressure is accompanied by an increase in the average waste panel brine saturation for the 

ROMPCS results. The ROMPCS design allows more brine inflow to the waste panel during the 

first 200 years when compared to Option D results. This increased brine inflow, combined with 

the tightness of the ROMPCS after 200 years, results in increased waste panel gas generation (on 

average) and a subsequent increase to waste panel mean pressure. This explains the increase in 

the scenario S1-DBR maximum DBR volume for the PCS-2012 PA compared to the PABC2009. 

Table 5-8 shows a modest (~6%) increase in the number of non-zero DBR volumes for the PCS2012 PA calculations compared with the PABC-2009, and modest increases in the average DBR 

volumes for all scenarios. These increases are attributable to the increases in waste panel brine 

pressure and brine saturation discussed above and presented in the BRAGFLO results in Section 

5.1. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 50 of 84 

DBR volume trends observed in the PCS-2012 PA are consistent with those found in prior 

analyses with regard to drilling location. DBRs are less likely to occur in intrusions situated in 

the upper drilling location than in the lower drilling location. Of all the intrusions that had a 

non-zero DBR volume for the PCS-2012 PA, 63.4% occurred during a lower drilling intrusion, a 

modest decrease from the value of 66.5% for PABC-2009. Furthermore, of all the intrusions that 

had a non-zero DBR volume and occur during a lower drilling intrusion, 78.0% are found in 

scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR, a slight decrease from 82.9% for PABC-2009 (Clayton et al. 

2010). The majority of the non-zero DBR volumes occur when there is a previous E1 intrusion 

within the same panel. Not only are DBRs less likely to occur during upper drilling intrusions, 

but also the DBR volumes from such intrusions tend to be much smaller than those from lower 

drilling intrusions. For all three replicates of the PCS-2012 PA, the maximum DBR volume for 

the upper drilling location is 25.7 m3

 compared to 53.8 m3 for the lower drilling location. These 

observations support the conclusion that lower drilling intrusions are the primary source for 

significant DBRs. 

The combination of relatively high pressure and brine saturation in the intruded panel is required 

for direct brine release to the surface. Figure 5-27 shows a scatter plot of DBR volume versus 

pressure in the intruded panel at different intrusion times for scenario S2-DBR, replicate 1, lower 

drilling intrusion for the PCS-2012 PA. In that figure, symbols indicate the value of the mobile 

brine saturation, defined as brine saturation minus residual brine saturation in the waste. As 

prescribed by the conceptual model, there are no DBRs until pressures exceed the 8 MPa vertical 

line in that figure. Above 8 MPa, a significant number of vectors have zero volumes; these 

vectors have mobile brine saturations less than zero and thus no brine is available in a mobile 

form to be released. Figure 5-27 shows a high concentration of results that are near a line 

extending from (8 MPa, 0 m3

) to (12 MPa, 30 m3). As mobile saturation increases, the 

correlation between pressure and DBR volumes also increases. 

To further facilitate comparisons of DBRs calculated in the PCS-2012 PA to those obtained in 

the PABC-2009, the overall mean CCDFs obtained in these two analyses are plotted 

simultaneously in Figure 5-28. As seen in that figure, the CCDF curve obtained for direct brine 

releases shows greater mean probabilities in the PCS-2012 PA for the majority of release values. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 51 of 84 

Figure 5-27: DBR Volume vs. Pressure, Scenario S2-DBR, Replicate 1, Lower Intrusion, PCS2012 PA 

Figure 5-28: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Overall Mean CCDFs for Normalized Direct Brine 

Releases 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 52 of 84 

5.4 Total Normalized Releases 

Total normalized releases for PCS-2012 PA are presented in this section and subsequently 

compared to results obtained in the PABC-2009. Total releases are calculated by forming the 

summation of releases across each potential release pathway, namely cuttings and cavings 

releases, spallings releases, direct brine releases, and transport releases. PCS-2012 PA CCDFs 

for total releases are presented in Figure 5-29, Figure 5-30, and Figure 5-31 for replicates 1, 2, 

and 3, respectively. Mean and quantile CCDF distributions for the three replicates are shown 

together in Figure 5-32. Figure 5-33 contains the 95 percent confidence limits about the overall 

mean of total releases. As seen in Figure 5-33, the overall mean for normalized total releases 

and its lower/upper 95% confidence limits are well below acceptable release limits. As a result, 

the ROMPCS design investigated in the PCS-2012 PA does not result in WIPP non-compliance 

with the containment requirements of 40 CFR Part 191. 

PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 overall mean CCDFs for total releases are shown together in 

Figure 5-34. As seen in that figure, the overall mean CCDFs obtained in the two analyses are 

nearly identical for release values less than approximately 0.1 EPA units. For releases greater 

than 0.1 EPA units, the CCDF curve obtained in the PCS-2012 PA is higher than that found in 

the PABC-2009. This increase corresponds primarily to the differences found for direct brine 

releases between the two analyses as discussed in Section 5.3 and illustrated in Figure 5-28. The 

differences found for spallings may slightly affect the total CCDF curve as well (Section 5.2, 

Figure 5-24). PCS-2012 PA cuttings and cavings results are unchanged from those found in the 

PABC-2009. The ROMPCS design investigated in the PCS-2012 PA has an impact on the 

overall mean of total releases from the PABC-2009 to the PCS-2012 PA due to the changes in 

direct brine releases calculated in those analyses (Figure 5-35) (Zeitler 2012).

A comparison of the statistics on the overall mean for total normalized releases obtained in the 

PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 can be seen in Table 5-9. At a probability of 0.1, values 

obtained for mean total releases has increased from 0.09 to 0.10 for the PCS-2012 PA. At a 

probability of 0.001, the increase in DBRs seen at that probability in the PCS-2012 PA results in 

an increase in the mean total release by approximately 0.41 EPA units. An increase is seen in the 

95% confidence limit when compared to the PABC-2009 results, while the 90th percentile 

remains the same. 

Table 5-9: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Statistics on the Overall Mean for Total Normalized 

Releases in EPA Units at Probabilities of 0.1 and 0.001 

Probability Analysis Mean Total 

Release 

90th

Percentile 

Lower 

95% CL 

Upper 

95% CL 

Release 

Limit 

0.1 PCS-2012 PA 0.10 0.17 0.10 0.10 1 

PABC-2009 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.10 1 

0.001 PCS-2012 PA 1.51 1.00 0.33 2.81 10 

PABC-2009 1.10 1.00 0.37 1.77 10 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 53 of 84 

Figure 5-29: PCS-2012 PA Replicate 1 Total Normalized Releases 

Figure 5-30: PCS-2012 PA Replicate 2 Total Normalized Releases 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 54 of 84 

Figure 5-31: PCS-2012 PA Replicate 3 Total Normalized Releases 

Figure 5-32: PCS-2012 PA Mean and Quantile CCDFs for Total Normalized Releases, 

Replicates 1-3 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 55 of 84 

Figure 5-33: PCS-2012 PA Confidence Limits on Overall Mean for Total Normalized Releases 

Figure 5-34: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Overall Mean CCDFs for Total Normalized 

Releases 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 56 of 84 

Figure 5-35: PCS-2012 PA Primary Components Contributing to Total Releases 

6 SUMMARY 

Waste panel closures comprise a repository feature that has been represented in WIPP PA since 

the original CCA of 1996. The 1998 rulemaking that certified WIPP to receive transuranic waste 

placed conditions on the panel closure design to be implemented in the repository. The 

mandated “Option D” design consists of a concrete block wall, an open drift section, and a 

concrete monolith. The engineering of the panel closure has been re-assessed, and a revised 

design is proposed that is simpler, cheaper, and easier to construct. The revised panel closure 

design, termed the ROMPCS, is comprised of 100 feet of ROM salt with barriers at each end. 

The PCS-2012 PA quantifies WIPP repository performance impacts associated with the 

replacement of the currently approved Option D panel closure design with the ROMPCS. 

Impacts are assessed via a direct comparison of results obtained in the PABC-2009 (where 

Option D was used) to those calculated in the PCS-2012 PA with the ROMPCS. 

Total normalized releases calculated in the PCS-2012 PA are greater than those found in the 

PABC-2009, but continue to remain below their regulatory limits. As a result, replacement of 

the Option D panel closure with the ROMPCS design would not result in WIPP non-compliance 

with the containment requirements of 40 CFR Part 191. Cuttings and cavings releases and DBRs 

were the two primary release components contributing to total releases in the PABC-2009, and 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 57 of 84 

continue to be so in the PCS-2012 PA. Cuttings and cavings releases are not impacted by the 

change in panel closure design, and so remain unchanged from those calculated in the PABC2009. 

For both undisturbed and intruded repository conditions, implementation of the ROMPCS yields 

higher long-term waste panel pressure (on average) than was seen in the PABC-2009. Pressure 

increases translate to increases in spallings volumes and their frequency. As a result, increased 

spallings releases are seen in the PCS-2012 PA results when compared to the PABC-2009. 

These increases do not have a significant impact on total normalized releases found in the PCS2012 PA. 

Increased DBRs are also seen in the PCS-2012 PA results. DBRs depend on waste panel 

pressure and brine saturation at the time of intrusion. In addition to increases in waste panel 

pressure, implementation of the ROMPCS design results in increased mean waste panel brine 

saturation for undisturbed conditions as well as intrusion scenarios that do not intersect a Castile 

brine pocket. For intrusion scenarios that intersect a region of pressurized Castile brine, 

increases in pressure are accompanied by only slight reductions in the mean waste panel brine 

saturation in the PCS-2012 PA. The combined effect of these impacts is an increase to DBRs in 

the PCS-2012 PA. The increase in total normalized releases seen in the PCS-2012 PA as 

compared to the PABC-2009 is primarily due to the increase in DBRs calculated in the PCS2012 PA. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 58 of 84 

7 REFERENCES 

Camphouse, R.C. 2012a. Analysis Plan for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance 

Assessment. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 557726. 

Camphouse, R.C. 2012b. A summary of parameters to be implemented in the PCS-2012 PA. 

Memo to Janis Trone dated July 10, 2012. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 

557721. 

Camphouse, R.C. 2012c. An overview of the BRAGFLO two-phase flow parameters used to 

model the run-of-mine salt panel closures implemented in the PCS-2012 PA. Memo to Paul 

Shoemaker dated June 7, 2012. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 557653. 

Camphouse, R.C. 2012d. Analysis Package for Salado Flow Modeling Done in the AP-161 

(PCS-2012) Performance Assessment. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 

558204. 

Camphouse, R.C., Gross, M., Herrick, C.G., Kicker, D.C., and Thompson, B. 2012. 

Recommendations and Justifications of Parameter Values for the Run-of-Mine Salt Panel 

Closure System Design Modeled in the PCS-2012 PA. Memo to WIPP Records Center dated 

May 3, 2012. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 557396. 

Chavez, M. J. 2006. Nuclear Waste Management Procedure NP 9-1: Analyses, Revision 6. 

Sandia National Laboratories. Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 544236. 

Clayton, D.C., Camphouse, R.C., Garner, J.W., Ismail, A.E., Kirchner, T.B., Kuhlman, K.L., and 

Nemer, M.B. 2010. Summary Report of the CRA-2009 Performance Assessment Baseline 

Calculation, Revision 1. Sandia National Laboratories. Carlsbad, New Mexico, ERMS 553039. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1996. Title 40 CFR Part 191 Compliance Certification 

Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. DOE/CAO-1996-2184. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Carlsbad Area Office. Carlsbad, NM. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2011. Panel Closure System Design, Planned Change 

Request to the EPA 40 CFR Part 194 Certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Carlsbad Field Office. Carlsbad, New Mexico. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. 40 CFR Part 194: Criteria for the 

Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance with the 40 

CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations; Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 61, 5223-5245. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Criteria for the Certification and 

Re-Certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plants Compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191 

Disposal Regulations: Certification Decision; Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 95, 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 59 of 84 

pp. 27353-27406. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 

Washington, D.C. 

Ismail, A.E. 2010. Analysis Package for Cuttings, Cavings, and Spallings: CRA-2009 

Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. 

ERMS 552893. 

Kanney, J. F., and Kirchner, T.B. 2005. Verification of the SUMMARIZE Interface in the CRA2004 Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, 

NM. ERMS 540977. 

Kicker, D.C. 2012. Analysis Package for Cuttings, Cavings, and Spallings: Panel Closure System 

Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA). Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 

558300. 

Kirchner, T.B. 2012a. Generation of the LHS Samples for the AP-161 (PCS-2012) Revision 0 

PA Calculations. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 558129. 

Kirchner, T.B. 2012b. Sensitivity of the AP-161 (PCS-2012) PA Releases to Parameters. Sandia 

National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 558342. 

Kirkes, G.R. 2011. 2011. Features, Events, and Processes Assesssment for Changes Described 

in Analysis Plan – 151, Revision 0. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 

555237. 

Long, J.J. 2010. Execution of Performance Assessment Codes for the CRA-2009 Performance 

Assessment Baseline Calculation, Revision 0. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. 

ERMS 552947. 

Long, J.J. 2012. Nuclear Waste Management Procedure NP 19-1: Software Requirements, 

Revision 13. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 557883. 

Malama, B. 2012. Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System 

Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA). Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 

558226. 

Nemer, M.B. 2010. Analysis Package for Salado Flow Modeling: CRA-2009 Performance 

Assessment Baseline Calculation. Sandia National Laboratories. Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 552956. 

Patterson, R. 2012. Response to U.S. EPA Comment Dated June 7, 2012. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Carlsbad Area Office. Carlsbad, NM. 

RockSol Consulting Group, Inc. 2006. Further Assessment of the Short-term Stability of the 12 

Foot Explosion Isolation Wall. Report prepared for Washington TRU Solutions, LLC. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 60 of 84 

Stein, J.S. and Zelinski, W. 2003. Analysis Package for BRAGFLO: Compliance Recertification 

Application. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 530163. 

Stein, J. S., Nemer, M. and Trone, J. 2005. Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: AP132 

PA. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 540633. 

WIPP PA. 2005. Design Document for PRECCDFGF Version 1.01. Sandia National 

Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 539295 

Zeitler, T.R. 2012. CCDFGF Analysis Package for the AP-161 (PCS-2012) Performance 

Assessment. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 558337. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 61 of 84 

APPENDIX A PCS-2012 PA Code Execution 

The WIPP PA Alpha Cluster consists of 8 Hewlett Packard (HP) AlphaServer nodes configured 

to share the same disk array (using Storage Area Network (SAN) technology for efficient disk 

utilization and data storage/management). This allows for highly distributed processing, while 

providing for integrated data access. The WIPP PA Alpha Cluster runs the OpenVMS operating 

system (Version 8.2). The node name and hardware description for the nodes used are provided 

in Table A-1. 

Table A-1: WIPP PA Alpha Cluster Nodes Used in PCS-2012 

Node Hardware Type # of CPUs CPU Operating System 

TBB HP AlphaServer ES47 4 Alpha EV7 Open VMS 8.2 

TRS HP AlphaServer ES47 4 Alpha EV7 Open VMS 8.2 

GNR HP AlphaServer ES47 4 Alpha EV7 Open VMS 8.2 

MC5 HP AlphaServer ES47 4 Alpha EV7 Open VMS 8.2 

CCR HP AlphaServer ES45 Model 2 4 Alpha EV68 Open VMS 8.2 

TDN HP AlphaServer ES45 Model 2 4 Alpha EV68 Open VMS 8.2 

BTO HP AlphaServer ES45 Model 2 4 Alpha EV68 Open VMS 8.2 

CSN HP AlphaServer ES45 Model 2 4 Alpha EV68 Open VMS 8.2 

A.1 WIPP PA Codes 

The major WIPP PA codes used for the AP161 PCS-2012 PA on the Alpha Cluster are shown in 

Table A-2. The library and class associated with each code on the Content Management System 

(CMS) are also shown. These codes have been qualified under Nuclear Waste Management 

Procedure NP 19-1: Software Requirements (Long 2012). 

A.1.1 Deviation 

AP-161 (Camphouse 2012a) listed PRELHS Version 2.30 and Matset Version 9.10 as codes to 

be used in the PCS-2012 PA. The versions of these codes as listed in AP-161 are incorrect. 

PRELHS Version 2.40 and MATSET Version 9.20 were used in the PCS-2012 PA, and are 

correctly shown in Table A-2. This comprises a deviation from AP-161. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 62 of 84 

Table A-2: WIPP PA VMS Software Used for the AP161 Panel Closure PA 

Code Version Executable Build 

Date 

CMS 

Library 

CMS 

Class 

ALGEBRACDB 2.35 ALGEBRACDB_PA96.EXE 31-01-96 LIBALG PA96 

BRAGFLO 6.0 BRAGFLO_QB0600.EXE 12-02-07 LIBBF QB0600 

PREBRAG 8.00 PREBRAG_QA0800.EXE 08-03-07 LIBBF QA0800 

POSTBRAG 4.00A POSTBRAG_QA0400A.EXE 28-03-07 LIBBF QA0400A 

CCDFGF 5.02 CCDFGF_QB0502.EXE 13-12-04 LIBCCGF QB0502 

PRECCDFGF 1.01 PRECCDFGF_QA0101.EXE 07-07-05 LIBCCGF QA0101 

CUTTINGS_S 6.02 CUTTINGS_S_QA0602.EXE 09-06-05 LIBCUSP QA0602 

GENMESH 6.08 GM_PA96.EXE 31-01-96 LIBGM PA96 

ICSET 2.22 ICSET_PA96.EXE 01-02-96 LIBIC PA96 

LHS 2.42 LHS_QA0242.EXE 18-01-05 LIBLHS QA0242 

PRELHS 2.40 PRELHS_QA0240.EXE 04-01-12 LIBLHS QA0240 

POSTLHS 4.07A POSTLHS_QA0407A.EXE 25-04-05 LIBLHS QA0407A 

MATSET 9.20 MATSET_QA0920.EXE 04-01-12 LIBMS QA0920 

RELATE 1.43 RELATE_PA96.EXE 06-03-96 LIBREL PA96 

STEPWISE 2.21 STEPWISE_PA96_2.EXE 02-12-96 LIBSTP PA96 

SUMMARIZE 3.01 SUMMARIZE_QB0301.EXE 21-12-05 LIBSUM QB0301 

In addition to the major codes referenced in Table A-2, a utility code was qualified and used 

under Nuclear Waste Management Procedure NP 9-1: Analyses (Chavez 2006a). The VMS 

utility code used on the WIPP PA Alpha Cluster is listed in Table A-3, along with references to 

the storage location and to the appropriate section of this document. 

Table A-3: VMS Utility Codes Used in the PCS-2012 

Utility Executable CMS Library CMS Class Section 

LHS_EDIT LHS_EDIT.EXE LIBCRA09_LHS LHS_EDIT_V1.0 A.2.1 

A.2 Calculation Flow 

The following sections describe the calculation flow for the PCS-2012 PA. The code names, 

code input and output file names and storage locations, scripts used, and script input and output 

file names and storage locations are covered. The discussion is organized according to the main 

groups of calculations and the codes that are used to perform them. 

A.2.1 Sampling of Uncertain Parameters (LHS) 

Sampling of the uncertain parameters used by the various process model codes is performed with 

the PRELHS and LHS codes. PRELHS reads information about the ranges and distributions of 

the uncertain parameters from the PAPDB and formats this information for LHS. The LHS code 

implements the sampling algorithms. LHS is executed once per replicate (there are three 

replicates). 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 63 of 84 

PRELHS and LHS are executed in sequence by the DCL script EVAL_LHS.COM shown in 

Table A-4. The input and output files for PRELHS and LHS, as well as the input and log files 

for the script are shown in Table A-5. 

Table A-4: Parameter Sampling Run Control Script 

Codes Script CMS Library CMS Class 

PRELHS, LHS EVAL_LHS.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Table A-5: Parameter Sampling Input and Output Files 

 

 File Names1 CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_LHS_AP161_Rr.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_LHS_AP161_Rr.LOG LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

 

PRELHS 

Input LHS1_AP161_Rr.INP LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Output LHS1_AP161_Rr.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Output LHS1_AP161_Rr.DBG LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

 

LHS 

Input LHS1_AP161_Rr.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Output LHS2_AP161_Rr.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Output LHS2_AP161_Rr.DBG LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

 

LHS Edit 

Input LHS_CONTROL_Rr.INP NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Input LHS2_AP161_Rr.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Output LHS2_AP161_Rr _CON.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

1. r1,2,3

A.2.2 Salado Flow Calculations (BRAGFLO) 

Brine and gas flow in and around the repository and in overlying formations is calculated using 

the BRAGFLO suite of codes (PREBRAG, BRAGFLO, and POSTBRAG) in conjunction with 

several utility codes. The entire set of calculations is performed for three replicates. Each 

replicate includes six scenarios (S1-BF to S6-BF) designed to cover a range of drilling intrusion 

types and times, as shown in Table A-6. For each replicate/scenario combination, calculations 

are performed for 100 vectors of uncertain model input parameters. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 64 of 84 

Table A-6: BRAGFLO Scenarios 

BRAGFLO Scenario Description1,2

S1-BF Undisturbed 

S2-BF E1 intrusion at 350 years 

S3-BF E1 intrusion at 1000 years 

S4-BF E2 intrusion at 350 years 

S5-BF E2 intrusion at 1000 years 

S6-BF E2 intrusion at 1000 years, E1 intrusion at 2000 years 

1. E1 intrusion penetrates the repository and intersects a brine pocket in the underlying Castile Formation. 

2. E2 intrusion penetrates the repository but does not encounter a Castile brine pocket 

The brine and gas flow calculations are divided into several steps. The steps, the codes run in 

each step, and the DCL script(s) used to perform the step are shown in Table A-7. 

Table A-7: Salado Flow Run Control Scripts 

Step Codes in Step Script(s) CMS Library CMS Class 

1 GENMESH 

MATSET EVAL_GENERIC_STEP1.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

2 POSTLHS EVAL_GENERIC_STEP2.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

3 ICSET 

ALGEBRACDB EVAL_BF_STEP3.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

4 PREBRAG EVAL_BF_STEP4.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

5 BRAGFLO 

POSTBRAG 

ALGEBRACDB 

EVAL_BF_STEP5_MASTER.COM 

EVAL_BF_STEP5_SLAVE.COM 

LIBAP161_EVAL 

LIBAP161_EVAL 

AP161-0 

AP161-0 

A.2.2.1 Salado Flow Step 1 

Step 1 uses GENMESH and MATSET to generate the computational grid and assign material 

properties to element blocks. Step 1 is run once. The input and log files for the Step 1 script as 

well as the input and output files for GENMESH and MATSET are shown in Table A-8. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 65 of 84 

Table A-8: Salado Flow Step 1 Input and Output Files 

 File Names CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP1.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP1.LOG LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

 

GENMESH 

Input GM_BF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output GM_BF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output GM_BF_AP161.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

MATSET 

Input MS_BF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Input GM_BF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output MS_BF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output MS_BF_AP161.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

A.2.2.2 Salado Flow Step 2 

Step 2 uses POSTLHS to assign the sampled parameter values used by BRAGFLO (generated by 

LHS) to the appropriate materials and element block properties. Step 2 is run once per replicate. 

POSTLHS loops over all 100 vectors in the replicate. The input and log files for the Step 2 

script as well as the input and output files for POSTLHS are shown in Table A-9. 

Table A-9: Salado Flow Step 2 Input and Output Files 

 File Names1,2 CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP2_Rr.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP2_Rr.LOG LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

 

POSTLHS 

Input LHS3_DUMMY.INP LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Input LHS2_AP161_Rr_CON.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Input MS_BF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output LHS3_BF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output LHS3_BF_AP161_Rr.DBG LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. vvv r  001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 66 of 84 

A.2.2.3 Salado Flow Step 3 

Step 3 assigns initial conditions with ICSET and performs some pre-processing of input data 

with ALGEBRACDB. Since ALGEBRACDB is used in multiple BRAGFLO steps, this use is 

referred to as ALG1. Step 3 is run once for each replicate. The script loops over all 100 vectors 

in the replicate. The input and log files for the Step 3 script as well as the input and output files 

for ICSET and ALGEBRACDB are shown in Table A-10. 

Table A-10: Salado Flow Step 3 Input and Output Files 

 File Names1,2 CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP3_Rr.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP3_Rr.LOG LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

 

ICSET 

Input IC_BF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Input LHS3_BF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output IC_BF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output IC_BF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

ALGEBRACDB 

Input ALG1_BF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Input IC_BF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output ALG1_BF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output ALG1_BF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. vvv r  001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

A.2.2.4 Salado Flow Step 4 

Step 4 consists of running the pre-processing code PREBRAG. Step 4 is repeated for each 

replicate/scenario combination. The script loops over all 100 vectors in the replicate/scenario 

combination. The input and log files for the Step 4 script as well as the input and output files for 

PREBRAG are shown in Table A-11. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 67 of 84 

Table A-11: Salado Flow Step 4 Input and Output Files 

 File Names1,2,3 CMS Library1,2 CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Script Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP4_Rr_Ss.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Script Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP4_Rr_Ss.LOG LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

 

PREBRAG 

Input BF1_AP161_Ss.INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Input ALG1_BF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output BF2_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.INP LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

Output BF1_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for each    r

3. vvv s  001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

A.2.2.5 Salado Flow Step 5 

Step 5 runs BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, and ALGEBRACDB (ALG2). This step has been 

separated from Step 4 to allow the analysts to edit/modify the BRAGFLO input file in cases 

where the generic numerical control parameters are not sufficient to obtain a converged solution. 

In the paragraphs that follow, the procedure for the general case is described first and then the 

procedure followed to re-run certain replicate/scenario/vector combinations that were run with 

modified BRAGFLO input files due to convergence problems. 

General Case 

Two DCL run control scripts are used in Step 5. The master script is invoked once for each 

replicate/scenario combination. The master script loops over all 100 vectors in the 

replicate/scenario combination. For each vector, the master script writes an input file for the 

slave script, and then calls the slave script with that input file to run BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, 

and ALGEBRACDB. The input and log files for the Step 5 script as well as the input and output 

files for BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, and ALGEBRACDB are shown in Table A-12. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 68 of 84 

Table A-12: Salado Flow Step 5 Input and Output Files (Generic Case) 

 File Names1,2,3,4 CMS Library1,2 CMS Class 

MASTER SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_Rr_Ss.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_Rr_Ss.LOG LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

 

SLAVE SCRIPT 

Log4 EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.LOG LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

 

BRAGFLO 

Input BF2_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.INP LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

Input BF2_PABC09_CLOSURE.DAT LIBPABC09_BF AP161-0 

Output BF2_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.OUT NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Output BF2_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.SUM LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

Output BF2_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.BIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Output BF2_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.ROT NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Output BF2_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.RIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

POSTBRAG 

Input BF2_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.BIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Input ALG1_BF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Output BF3_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

Output BF3_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

ALGEBRACDB 

Input ALG2_BF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 

Input BF3_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

Output ALG2_BF_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

Output ALG2_BF_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for each    r

3. vvv s  001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

4. The script inputs are echoed into the log file, so the input file is not kept 

Modified BRAGFLO Input Case 

In the few instances when BRAGFLO failed to converge using the generic numerical control 

parameters, a new BRAGFLO input file was submitted by the analysts and the case was re-run in 

a manner similar to that described above. In order to track these cases a special tag (“MOD”) 

was inserted into the BRAGFLO input file name, as well as the master script input file and log 

file names. 

The replicate/scenario/vectors requiring modified BRAGFLO input files are shown in Table 

A-13. In that table, vector numbers with a (*) superscript correspond to vectors where quantity 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 69 of 84 

FTOL_SAT was changed from 1e-2 to 1e-1 in the BRAGFLO input file. Vector numbers with a 

(#) superscript correspond to vectors where quantity FTOL_SAT was changed from 1e-2 to 1e-1 

and Convergence Test Flag was changed from 1 to 0 in the BRAGFLO input file. The modified 

file names are shown in Table A-14. All other files have the same names as for the generic case. 

Files in the libraries from the un-converged runs were replaced with files from the re-run. 

Table A-13: Salado Flow Step 5 Modified Input Runs 

Replicate Scenario Vectors 

R1 S1 29*, 51#

S2 51#

S3 51#

S4 29*, 51#

S5 51#

S6 51#

R2 S1 99* 

S4 99* 

S5 99* 

R3 S1 35* 

S2 35* 

S3 35* 

S5 35* 

S6 35* 

Table A-14: Salado Flow Step 5 Modified Input Runs File Names 

 File Names1,2,3 CMS Library1,2 CMS Class 

MASTER 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_Rr_Ss_Vvvv_MOD.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_Rr_Ss_Vvvv_MOD.LOG LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

 

BRAGFLO 

Input BF2_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv_MOD.INP LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

1. r1, 2, 3 as shown in Table A-13 

2. s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6   as shown in Table A-13 

3. vectors as shown in Table A-13 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 70 of 84 

A.2.3 Single-Intrusion Solids Volume Calculations (CUTTINGS_S) 

The total volume of radionuclide-contaminated solids that may reach the surface during a drilling 

intrusion event is calculated by the CUTTINGS_S code. The single intrusion solids volume 

calculations are divided into 3 steps. The codes run in each step, and the DCL script(s) used to 

perform the steps are shown in Table A-15. Step 3 also includes a small utility used to submit 

the script to a batch queue. 

Table A-15: Solids Volume (CUTTINGS_S) Run Control Scripts 

Step Codes in Step Scripts Script CMS Library Script CMS Class 

1 GENMESH 

MATSET 

EVAL_CUSP_STEP1.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

2 POSTLHS EVAL_CUSP_STEP2.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

3 CUTTINGS_S EVAL_CUSP_STEP3.COM 

SUB_CUSP_STEP3.COM 

LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Three replicate calculations are performed. Five scenarios, S1-DBR to S5-DBR are included in 

each replicate. The cuttings calculation extracts volume-averaged brine pressure and brine 

saturation from Salado flow BRAGFLO results. These extracted quantities are then used 

downstream in the calculation of direct brine releases. As a result, the intrusion times and 

locations considered during the cuttings calculation are identical to those used in the DBR 

calculation. Cuttings scenarios indicate which BRAGFLO scenario provides the input conditions 

for the simulation (CUTTINGS_S scenario S1-DBR means that CUTTINGS_S uses BRAGFLO 

scenario S1-BF results as the inputs for the solids release calculations, CUTTINGS_S scenario 

S2-DBR means that CUTTINGS_S uses BRAGFLO scenario S2-BF results as the inputs for the 

solids release calculations, etc.). A number of intrusion times are considered for each scenario. 

For the CUTTINGS_S S1-DBR scenario, these are intrusions into an undisturbed repository. 

For other scenarios, these intrusions are considered subsequent to the intrusion contained in the 

BRAGFLO simulation. An intrusion time of 550 years in CUTTINGS_S scenario S2-DBR 

calculates the volume of solids released by an intrusion 200 years after the E1 intrusion at 350 

years modeled in BRAGFLO scenario S2-BF. An intrusion time of 1200 years in CUTTINGS_S 

scenario S3-DBR calculates the volume of solids released by an intrusion 200 years after the E1 

intrusion at 1000 years modeled in BRAGFLO scenario S3-BF. 

Three drilling locations (upper, lower and middle) are considered for each 

replicate/scenario/intrusion time combination. See Stein et al. (2005) for an explanation of the 

drilling locations. Calculations are performed for a set of 100 uncertain input parameter vectors 

for each replicate/scenario/intrusion time/intrusion location combination. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 71 of 84 

A.2.3.1 Solids Volume Step 1 

Step 1 uses GENMESH and MATSET to generate the computational grid and assign material 

properties to element blocks. Step1 is run once. The input and log files for the script as well as 

the input and output files for GENMESH and MATSET are shown in Table A-16. 

Table A-16: Solids Volume Step 1 Input and Output Files 

File Names CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP1.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP1.LOG LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

 

GENMESH 

Input GM_CUSP_AP161.INP LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Output GM_CUSP_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Output GM_CUSP_AP161.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

MATSET 

Input MS_CUSP_AP161.INP LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Input GM_CUSP_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Output MS_CUSP_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Output MS_CUSP_AP161.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 72 of 84 

A.2.3.2 Solids Volume Step 2 

Step 2 uses POSTLHS to assign the sampled parameter values (generated by LHS) used by 

CUTTINGS_S to the appropriate materials and element block properties. Step 2 is run once per 

replicate. POSTLHS loops over all 100 vectors in the replicate. The input and log files for the 

script as well as the input and output files for POSTLHS are shown in Table A-17. 

Table A-17: Solids Volume Step 2 Input and Output Files 

File Names1,2 CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Script Input EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP2_Rr.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Script Log EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP2_Rr.LOG LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

 

POSTLHS 

Input LHS3_DUMMY.INP LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Input LHS2_AP161_Rr_CON.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Input MS_CUSP_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Output LHS3_CUSP_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Output LHS3_CUSP_AP161_Rr.DBG LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. vvv r 001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

A.2.3.3 Solids Volume Step 3 

Step 3 runs the CUTTINGS_S code, and is invoked for each replicate. The script generates the 

CUTTINGS_S master input control file. The CUTTINGS_S code itself loops over scenarios, 

intrusion times, intrusion locations, and vectors. The input and log files for the Step 3 script as 

well as the input and output files for CUTTINGS_S are shown in Table A-18. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 73 of 84 

Table A-18: Solids Volume Step 3 Input and Output Files 

File Names1,2,3,4,5 CMS Library1,2 CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP3_Rr.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Output CUSP_AP161_MASTER_Rr.INP LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Log EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP3_Rr.LOG LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

 

CUTTINGS_S 

Input CUSP_AP161_MASTER_Rr.INP LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Input CUSP_AP161.INP LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Input LHS3_CUSP_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Input BF3_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

Input MSPALL_DRS_CRA1BC_Rr.OUT LIBCRA1BC_DRS AP161-0 

Output CUSP_AP161_Rr.TBL LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Output CUSP_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_CUSPRrSs AP161-0 

Output CUSP_AP161_Rr.DBG LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. s1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for each  r

3. 

 

 

 

100,350,1000,3000,5000,10000 for S1 

550,750,2000,4000,10000 for S2, S4 

1200,1400,3000,5000,10000 for S3, S5 

ttttt



 





4. cL, U, M for each intrusion time 

5. vvv c 001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

A.2.4 Single-Intrusion Direct Brine Release Calculations (BRAGFLO_DBR) 

Single-intrusion direct brine release volumes are calculated using the BRAGFLO suite of codes 

(PREBRAG, BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG), in conjunction with several utility codes. The steps, the 

codes run in each step, and the DCL script(s) used to perform the step are shown in Table A-19. 

Three replicates are performed. Each replicate includes five scenarios (S1-DBR to S5-DBR). 

The scenario designations for the direct brine release calculations have the same meanings as 

those for the direct solids volume calculations. A number of intrusion times are considered for 

each scenario. For each intrusion time, intrusions into three locations (lower L, middle M and 

upper U) are modeled. See Stein et al. (2005) for a detailed discussion of the drilling locations. 

A set of 100 vectors is run for each replicate/scenario/intrusion time/intrusion location 

combination. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 74 of 84 

Table A-19: Direct Brine Release Run Control Scripts 

Step Codes in Step Script(s) Script CMS Library Script CMS Class 

1 GENMESH 

MATSET 

EVAL_DBR_STEP1.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

2 ALGEBRACDB 

RELATE 

ICSET 

EVAL_DBR_STEP2.COM 

SUB_DBR_STEP2.COM 

LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

3 PREBRAG 

BRAGFLO 

POSTBRAG 

ALGEBRACDB 

EVAL_DBR_STEP3.COM 

SUB_DBR_STEP3.COM 

LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

A.2.4.1 Direct Brine Release Step 1 

Step 1 uses GENMESH and MATSET to generate the computational grid and assign material 

properties to element blocks. Step 1 is run once. The input and log files for the script as well as 

the input and output files for GENMESH and MATSET are shown in Table A-20. 

Table A-20: Direct Brine Release Step 1 Input and Output Files 

File Names CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP1.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP1.LOG LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

 

GENMESH 

Input GM_DBR_AP161.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Output GM_DBR_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Output GM_DBR_AP161.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

MATSET 

Input MS_DBR_AP161.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input GM_DBR_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Output MS_DBR_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Output MS_DBR_AP161.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

A.2.4.2 Direct Brine Release Step 2 

Step 2 performs pre-processing of input data with ALGEBRACDB. ALGEBRACDB is run 

twice (ALG1 and ALG2). The RELATE code is used to assign material properties to element 

blocks. RELATE is run twice (RELATE_1 and RELATE_2). Finally, ICSET is used to assign 

initial conditions. The Step 2 script is run for each replicate/scenario combination. The script 

loops over the appropriate intrusion times for the scenario. For each intrusion time, the script 

loops over all 100 vectors. The input and log files for the Step 2 script as well as the input and 

output files for ALGEBRACDB, RELATE, and ICSET are shown in Table A-21. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 75 of 84 

Table A-21: Direct Brine Release Step 2 Input and Output Files 

 

 File Names1,2,3,4 CMS Library1,2 CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP2_Rr_Ss.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP2_Rr_Ss.LOG LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

 

ALGEBRACDB 

Input ALG1_DBR_AP161.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input CUSP_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_L_Vvvv.CDB5 LIBAP161_CUSPRrSs AP161-0 

Output ALG1_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output ALG1_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

RELATE_1 

Input REL1_DBR_AP161.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input MS_DBR_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input ALG1_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output REL1_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output REL1_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

RELATE_2 

Input REL2_DBR_AP161_Ss.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input REL1_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Input BF3_AP161_Rr_Ss_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_BFRrSs AP161-0 

Output REL2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output REL2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

ICSET 

Input IC_DBR_AP161_Ss.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input REL2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output IC_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output IC_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

ALGEBRACDB 

Input ALG2_DBR_AP161_Ss.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input IC_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output ALG2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output ALG2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. s1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for each  r

3. 

 

 

 

00100, 00350, 01000, 03000, 05000, 10000 for S1 

00550, 00750, 02000, 04000, 10000 for S2, S4 

01200, 01400, 03000, 05000, 10000 for S3, S5 

ttttt

 











4. vvv  001, 002, ..., 100 for each intrusion 

5. The files CUSP_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_L_Vvvv.CDB do not have leading zeros in front of the intrusion time 

ttttt.

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 76 of 84 

A.2.4.3 Direct Brine Release Step 3 

Step 3 runs PREBRAG, BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, and ALGEBRACDB (ALG3). The Step 3 

script is invoked for each replicate/scenario combination. The script loops over the appropriate 

intrusion times for the scenario. For each intrusion time, the script loops over all three intrusion 

locations. For each intrusion location, the script loops over all 100 vectors. The PREBRAG, 

BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, ALGEBRACDB sequence is run for each replicate/scenario/intrusion 

time/intrusion location/vector combination. The input and log files for the Step 3 script as well 

as the input and output files for PREBRAG, BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, ALGEBRACDB are 

shown in Table A-22. 

Table A-22: Direct Brine Release Step 3 Input and Output Files 

 File Names1,2,3,4,5,6 CMS Library1,2 CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP3_Rr_Ss.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Input EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP3_R1_S1_T100.INP6 LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP3_Rr_Ss.LOG LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

 

PREBRAG 

Input BF1_DBR_AP161_c.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input BF1_DBR_AP161_S1_100_c.INP6 LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input ALG2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output BF2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.INP LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output BF1_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

BRAGFLO 

Input BF2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.INP LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output BF2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.OUT NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Output BF2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.SUM NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Output BF2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.BIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Output BF2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.ROT NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Output BF2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.RIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

POSTBRAG 

Input ALG2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Input BF2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.BIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Output BF3_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output BF3_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

ALGEBRACDB 

Input ALG3_DBR_AP161.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 

Input BF3_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output ALG3_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output ALG3_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 77 of 84 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. s1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for each  r

3. 

 

 

 

00100, 00350, 01000, 03000, 05000, 10000 for S1 

00550, 00750, 02000, 04000, 10000 for S2, S4 

01200, 01400, 03000, 05000, 10000 for S3, S5 

ttttt

 











4. cL, M, U for each intrusion 

5. vvv c  001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

6. Files used for R1_S1_T00100 only. 

A.2.5 CCDF Input Tabulation (SUMMARIZE) 

The output CDB files from the various process model codes are combined into text tables by the 

SUMMARIZE code, for subsequent use in calculating releases to the accessible environment. 

The type of data extracted from each process model is described in the PRECCDFGF Design 

Document (WIPP PA 2005) and in Kanney and Kirchner (2005). The run control scripts used to 

process the CDB data for the various process models are shown in Table A-23. A single run 

control script is used to extract data from CDB files for all process model codes. The script 

performs the following steps: 

 Fetch the required CDB files 

 Write an input control file for SUMMARIZE by filling in items in an input control file 

template 

 Run SUMMARIZE on the collection of CDB files 

A small utility script is used to submit the main script to a batch queue. 

Table A-23: CCDF Input Tabulation Run Control Scripts 

Code Script Script CMS Library Script CMS Class 

SUMMARIZE 

EVAL_SUM.COM 

SUB_SUM.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

A.2.5.1 CCDF Input Tabulation for Direct Brine Release 

SUMMARIZE is used to extract and tabulate brine release volume data from the appropriate 

post-BRAGFLO_DBR ALGEBRACDB output CDB files. The run control script is invoked for 

scenarios S1-DBR through S5-DBR for each replicate. The script loops over the appropriate 

intrusion times for each scenario. There is a single SUMMARIZE input control file template, 

which the script uses to generate a SUMMARIZE input control file for each 

replicate/scenario/intrusion time/intrusion location combination. The script input and log files 

along with the SUMMARIZE input and output files are shown in Table A-24. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 78 of 84 

Table A-24: CCDF Input Tabulation Input and Output Files (Direct Brine Release) 

 File Names1,2,3,4,5 CMS Library1,2 CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_SUM_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Input SUM_DBR_AP161.TMPL LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 

Output SUM_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c.INP LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 

Log EVAL_SUM_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss.LOG LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 

 

SUMMARIZE 

Input SUM_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c.INP LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 

Input ALG3_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_DBRRrSs AP161-0 

Output SUM_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c.TBL LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 

Output SUM_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. s  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for each  r 

3. 

 

 

 

00100, 00350, 01000, 03000, 05000, 10000 for S1

00550, 00750, 02000, 04000, 10000 for S2 and S4

01200, 01400, 03000, 05000, 10000 for S3 and S5

ttttt



 





4. cL, M, U for each intrusion time 

5. vvv c  001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

A.2.6 CCDF Construction (PRECCDFGF, CCDFGF) 

The complimentary cumulative distribution functions (CCDFs) for radionuclide releases to the 

accessible environment are constructed using the PRECCDFGF/CCDFGF code suite. The 

calculations are separated into several steps according to the number of times a particular code is 

run and to allow for timely inspection of intermediate results. The steps, the codes run in each 

step, and the DCL script(s) used to perform the steps are shown in Table A-25. 

Table A-25: CCDF Construction Run Control Scripts 

Step Codes in Step Scripts CMS Library CMS Class 

1 GENMESH 

MATSET 

EVAL_CCGF_STEP1.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

2 POSTLHS EVAL_CCGF_STEP2.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

3 PRECCDFGF 

CCDFGF 

EVAL_CCGF_STEP3.COM 

SUB_CCGF_STEP3.COM 

LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 79 of 84 

A.2.6.1 CCDF Construction Step 1 

Step 1 uses GENMESH and MATSET to generate the computational grid and assign material 

properties to element blocks. Step 1 is run once. The input and log files for the script as well as 

the input and output files for GENMESH and MATSET and are shown in Table A-26. 

Table A-26: CCDF Construction Step 1 Input and Output Files 

File Names CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Script Input EVAL_CCGF_AP161_STEP1.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Script Log EVAL_CCGF_AP161_STEP1.LOG LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

 

GENMESH 

Input GM_CCGF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Output GM_CCGF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Output GM_CCGF_AP161.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

 

MATSET 

Input MS_CCGF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Input GM_CCGF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Output MS_CCGF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Output MS_CCGF_AP161.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

A.2.6.2 CCDF Construction Step 2 

Step 2 uses POSTLHS to assign the sampled parameter values (generated by LHS) used by 

CCDFGF to the appropriate materials and element block properties. Step 2 is run once per 

replicate. POSTLHS loops over all 100 vectors in the replicate. The input and log files for the 

script as well as the input and output files for POSTLHS are shown in Table A-27. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 80 of 84 

Table A-27: CCDF Construction Step 2 Input and Output Files 

File Names1,2 CMS Library CMS Class 

STEP 2 

Script Input EVAL_CCGF_AP161_STEP2_Rr.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Script Log EVAL_CCGF_AP161_STEP2_Rr.LOG LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

 

POSTLHS 

Input LHS3_DUMMY.INP LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Input LHS2_AP161_Rr_CON.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 

Input MS_CCGF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Output LHS3_CCGF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Output LHS3_CCGF_AP161_Rr.DBG LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. vvv r  001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

A.2.6.3 CCDF Construction Step 3 

Step 3 uses PRECCDFGF to organize and format output from all of the process model codes for 

use by CCDFGF (i.e. builds the release table file), then runs CCDFGF to compute the CCDFs. 

Step 3 is run once per replicate. The script loops over the appropriate scenarios and/or intrusions 

and/or waste types to fetch the large number of data files that are input to PRECCDFGF. The 

input and log files for the script as well as the input and output files for PRECCDFGF are shown 

in Table A-28. 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 81 of 84 

Table A-28: CCDF Construction Step 3 Input and Output Files 

File Names1-7 CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Script Input EVAL_CCGF_STEP3_AP161_Rr.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Script Log EVAL_CCGF_STEP3_AP161_Rr.LOG LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

 

PRECCDFGF 

Input INTRUSIONTIMES.IN LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Input MS_CCGF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Input LHS3_CCGF_AP161_Rr_Vvvv.CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Input SUM_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_c.TBL LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 

Input CUSP_AP161_Rr.TBL LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 

Input SUM_NUT_PABC09_Rr_S1.TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 

Input SUM_NUT_PABC09_Rr_Ss_Tttttt.TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 

Input SUM_PANEL_INT_PABC09_Rr_S6_Tttttt.TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 

Input SUM_ST2D_PABC09_Rr_Mm.TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 

Input EPU_PABC09_hH.DAT LIBPABC09_EPU AP161-0 

Input SUM_PANEL_CON_PABC09_Rr_Ss.TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 

Input SUM_PANEL_ST_PABC09_Rr_Ss.TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 

Output CCGF_AP161_RELTAB_Rr.DAT LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

 

CCDFGF 

Input CCGF_AP161_CONTROL_Rr.INP LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Input CCGF_AP161_RELTAB_Rr.DAT LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Output CCGF_AP161_Rr.OUT LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 

Output CCGF_AP161_Rr.DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT 

1. r1, 2, 3

2. vvv r  001, 002, ..., 100 for each 

3. 

 

 

 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for SUM_DBR 

2, 3, 4, 5 for SUM_NUT 

1, 2 for SUM_PANEL_CON and SUM_PANEL_ST 

s



  





4. 

 

 

 

00100, 00350, 01000, 03000, 05000, 10000 for S1 for each for SUM_DBR

00550, 07500, 02000, 04000, 10000 for S2, S4 for each for SUM_DBR

 01200, 01400, 03000, 05000, 10000 for S3, S5 for each 

r

r

r ttttt   

 

 

for SUM_DBR

00100, 00350 for S2, S4 for each for SUM_NUT

01000, 03000, 05000, 07000, 09000 for S3, S5 each for SUM_NUT

00100, 00350, 01000, 02000, 04000, 06000, 09000 for each for SUM_PANEL_INT

r

r

r





















5. cL, M, U for each intrusion for SUM_DBR 

6. mF, P

7. hC, H

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 82 of 84 

A.2.7 Sensitivity Analysis (STEPWISE) 

A global sensitivity analysis was conducted on the results from CCDFGF using the linear 

regression code STEPWISE. STEPWISE is executed twice per replicate once for ranked data 

(RANK) and once for raw data (RAW). The run control script is shown in Table A-29. The input 

and output files for STEPWISE, as well as the input and log files for the script are shown in 

Table A-30. 

Table A-29: Sensitivity Analysis Run Control Scripts 

Code Script Script CMS Library Script CMS Class 

STEPWISE EVAL_STP.COM LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Table A-30: Sensitivity Analysis Input and Output Files 

 File Names1,2 CMS Library CMS Class 

SCRIPT 

Input EVAL_STP_AP161_*_ALL_Rr.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 

Log EVAL_STP_AP161_*_ALL_Rr.LOG LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 

 

STEPWISE 

Input STP_AP161_*_ALL_Rr.INP LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 

Input STP_AP161_LHS_Rr.TRN LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 

Input STP_AP161_MEANS_Rr.TRN LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 

Output STP_AP161_*_Rr.TXT LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 

Output STP_AP161_*_Rr.SP LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 

1. 

2. 

r1,2,3

* , for each  RANK RAW r 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 83 of 84 

APPENDIX B Addendum 

Following the completion of the PCS-2012 PA calculations, but prior to the completion of the 

summary report, an error was discovered in the ALG1 input file for BRAGFLO. The error is 

associated with the calculation of permeability for ROMPCS materials PCS_T2 and PCS_T3. 

As seen in Camphouse et al. (2012), sampled porosity values for these materials are used to 

calculate their respective permeabilities according to 

k = 10-21.187(1 – Φ) + 1.5353 + α , 

where k is the calculated permeability, Φ is the sampled porosity value, and α is the sampled 

value from a normal distribution with a mean of 0, a standard deviation of 0.86, and truncated at 

±2 standard deviations. Upon closer inspection, the leading-term constant of -21.187 in the 

equation above was incorrectly transcribed to the ALG1 input file as -21.87 for both materials 

PCS_T2 and PCS_T3. This error leads to calculated permeabilities for materials PCS_T2 and 

PCS_T3 that are lower than the minimum listed in Camphouse et al. (2012) for some vectors. 

This transcription error has a negligible impact on the PCS-2012 PA results presented and 

discussed in this report. Indeed, for the first 200 years post-closure, gas and brine flows toward 

or away from a waste panel in the PCS-2012 PA are through the upper and lower DRZ before the 

DRZ material about the ROMPCS is modeled as having healed (e.g., see Figure 6-8 in 

Camphouse 2012d). Slightly lower calculated permeabilites for the ROMPCS in some vectors 

will not appreciably impact these flow behaviors as the DRZ about the panel closure is more 

permeable (on average) than the ROMPCS before the DRZ heals at 200 years, with or without 

the transcription error. After 200 years, the DRZ above and below the ROMPCS is modeled as 

having healed, and is represented by material DRZ_PCS. Material DRZ_PCS is unchanged from 

the PABC-2009 to the PCS-2012 PA. After 200 years, the calculated ROMPCS permeability 

range presented in Camphouse et al. (2012) results in a panel closure that is “tighter” (on 

average) than the Option D closure. Permeabilities that are lower than intended for material 

PCS_T3, due to the transcription error, do not alter this comparison between the ROMPCS and 

Option D after 200 years. 

To fully quantify the impact of the transcription error, the ALG1 input file to BRAGFLO was 

corrected, and replicate 1 of the PCS-2012 PA was re-run starting at the ALG1 BRAGFLO step 

through to CCDFGF. Files associated with this re-run are located in class CALC_MODS, and 

having the same library and naming conventions as listed in Appendix A. The results of the rerun are shown in Figure B-1, and are compared to the original PCS-2012 PA results with the 

transcription error. As is evident in that figure, the transcription error has essentially no impact 

on the replicate 1 mean for total normalized releases. The same is also true of the 10th and 90th

percentiles obtained in the original and corrected cases. The transcription error in the ALG1 

Information Only
Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment 

Revision 0 

Page 84 of 84 

input file to BRAGFLO has a negligible impact on the PCS-2012 PA results presented and 

discussed in this report. 

Figure B-1: Comparison of PCS-2012 PA Mean and Quantile CCDFs for Total Normalized 

Releases, Replicate 1 

Information Only