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:557393Summary 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 Brin e 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) ................................................................................ 6 2

A.2.2 Salado Flow Calcul ations (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 .................................................................................................. ....... 71Summary 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 Re lease 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 ........................................................................................................... ............... 83Summary 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 Ma terial Map for an E1 Intrusion ( Δ x, Δ y, and Δ z dimensions in meters). ........................................................................................................ ........................ 23 Figure 5-2: PCS-2012 BRAGFLO Grid and Material Map for an E1 Intrusion ( Δ x, Δ y, and Δ z dimensions in meters). ................................................................................................................... ................................ 24 Figure 5-3: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Infl ow 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 Pa nel 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 Pa nel Pressure, Scenario S2-BF. .................................................... 33 Figure 5-11: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Infl ow 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, S cenarios S1-BF and S4-BF for Years 0 to 1,000. 38 Figure 5-16: Overall Means of Waste Pa nel Pressure, Scenario S4-BF. .................................................... 38 Figure 5-17: Overall Means of Cumulative Brine Infl ow 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 Infl ow 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 Sp allings Releases . 46 Figure 5-25: PCS-2012 PA DBR Computational Gr id 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 ............. 55Summary 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 Para meters Used in the PABC-2009 .................................................. 11 Table 2-2: Sampled Panel Closure Pa rameters 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 Statis tics for Scenario S1-BF .............................................................................. ...... 26 Table 5-3: Summary Statis tics for Scenario S2-BF .............................................................................. ...... 32 Table 5-4: Summary Statis tics for Scenario S4-BF .............................................................................. ...... 37 Table 5-5: Summary Statis tics for Scenario S6-BF .............................................................................. ...... 42 Table 5-6: PA Intrusion Scenarios Used in Calculating Direct Solids Releases ........................................ 44 Table 5-7: Summary of Spalli ngs Releases by Scenario .......................................................................... .. 45 Table 5-8: DBR Summary Statistics for the PC S-2012 PA and PABC-2009 D BR Calculations ............. 49
Table 5-9: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Statistics on th e Overall Mean for Tota l Normalized Releases
in EPA Units at Probabilities of 0.1 and 0.001 ................................................................................ ........... 52 Table A-1: WIPP PA Alpha Cluste r 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 Cod es Used in the PCS-2012.............................................................................. . 62 Table A-4: Parameter Samp ling 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 a nd Output Files (Gen eric 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 (CUTTI NGS_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 Re lease 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 ......................................................................... 77Summary 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 Analys is Run Control Scripts .......................................................................... ..... 82 Table A-30: Sensitivity Analysis Input and Output Files ....................................................................... .... 82Summary 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 Certif ication Application of 1996. The 1998 rulemaking that certified WIPP to receive transuranic waste placed c onditions on the panel closure design to be implemented in the repository. The mandated “O ption D” design consists of a concrete block wall, an open drift section, and a concrete mono lith. The engineering of the panel closure has been re-assessed, and a revised design is proposed that is si mpler, 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 repos itory performance impacts associated with the replacement of the currently approv ed Option D panel closure design with the ROMPCS. Impacts are assessed via a direct comparison of result s obtained in the 2009 Pe rformance Assessment Baseline Calculation (PABC-2009) to those calc ulated in the PCS-2012 PA with the ROMPCS.

Total normalized releases calculated in the PC S-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 de sign 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 releas e components contributing to total releases in the PABC-2009, and continue to be so in the PC S-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 pre ssure (on average) than was s een in the PABC-2009. Pressure increases translate to increases in spallings volum es 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 rel eases found in the PCS2012 PA.

Increased direct brine releases are also seen in th e 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 pr essurized Castile brine, increases in pressure are accompanied by only sli ght reductions in the m ean 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 di rect brine releases in the PCS-2012 PA. The
increase in total normalized re leases seen in the PCS-2012 PA as compared to the PABC-2009 is primarily due to the increase in D BRs calculated in the PCS-2012 PA.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), locat ed 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. Containmen t of TRU waste at the WI PP is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accord ing 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 Certif ication Criteria in Ti tle 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 pe riod 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 informa tion regarding important WIPP features, events, and processes typically result s in refinements and modificat ions 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 th at occurs at five-year intervals fo llowing 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 Certifica tion Application (CCA) of 1996. Panel closures are included in WIPP PA models principally because they are a pa rt 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 c onditions on the panel closure design to be implemented in the repository. The mandated desi gn consists of a concrete block wall, an open drift section, and a concrete monolith, and was termed the “Option D” panel closure. Followingthe selection of the Option D design in 1998, the engineering of the panel closure has been reassessed, and a revised design has been establis hed 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 opera tions 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 Rulema king 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 th e ROMPCS design into the current PA baselineSummary 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 potent ial panel closure rede sign impacts. This document provides the summary repor t of the PCS-2012 PA analysis.

2 RUN-OF-MINE PANEL CLOSURE SYSTEM

The goal of the PCS-2012 PA is to quantify regulatory complian ce 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-certifi cation since the CRA-2004 PA (Stein & Zelinski 2003).

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

The ROMPCS is comprised of 100 feet of run- of-mine salt with barrier s at each end, and is illustrated in Figure 2-2. The ROM salt is ge nerated from ongoing mining operations at the WIPP and may be compacted and/or moistened as it is emplaced in a pane l entry. The barriers consist of ventilation bulkheads, similar to those currently used in the panels as room closures. The ventilation bulkheads are designed to restri ct air flows and prevent personnel access into waste-filled areas during the WI PP operational phase. In Pane ls 1, 2, and 5, where explosion
walls fabricated from concrete blocks have al ready been emplaced in the panel entries, an explosion wall is the inner barrier and a ventilat ion bulkhead will be the outer barrier, as shown in Figure 2-2(b). Explosion walls are inspec ted on a regular basis, and their anticipated
condition is also assessed thr ough numerical modeling (e.g. RockSo l, 2006). Installed explosion walls show surface spalling or slab bing of the concrete blocks as a result of the loading caused by inward creep of the salt. Numerical stress analysis of th e concrete explosion wall has
demonstrated that the free faces and the rib contac ts 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 7 .9 m 9 .1 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 riftSummary 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 (Roc ksol, 2006, Figures 7 a nd 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 wi ll 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 in cluded in the PCS-2012 PA representation of the ROMPCS. Consequently, the ROMP CS 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 developmen ts 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 para meters 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 ROMPCSSummary 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 (m 2 ) Triangular Min = 2.0 x 10 -21 PRMY (m 2 ) Mean = 1.53 x 10 -19 PRMZ (m 2 ) Max = 1.0 x 10 -17

DRZ_1 Porosity Cumulative Min = 0.0039 Mean = 0.0211 Max = 0.0548 PRMX (m 2 ) Uniform Min = 3.98 x 10 -20 PRMY (m 2 ) Mean = 1.0 x 10 -16 PRMZ (m 2 ) Max = 3.16 x 10 -13

DRZ_PCS Porosity Cumulative Min = 0.0039 Mean = 0.0211 Max = 0.0548 PRMX (m 2 ) Triangular Min = 2.0 x 10 -21 PRMY (m 2 ) Mean = 1.53 x 10 -19 PRMZ (m 2 ) Max = 1.0 x 10 -17



### ROMPCS properties in the PCS-2012 PA are base d on three time periods: from 0 to 100 years, from 100 years to 200 years, and from 200 year s to 10,000 years. Three time periods are appropriate because the process to consolidate th e ROM salt occurs over a primary time scale of approximately 100 years, while th e 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, de noted as PCS_T1 for the first 100 years, PCS_T2 from 100 to 200 years, and PCS_T3 for 200 to 10,000 years. Anal yses and calculations have shown (Camphouse et al. 2012a) that the time-dependent b ack stress imposed on the DRZ by the re-consolidated ROM salt panel closure does not become appreci able until roughly 200 years after emplacement of the ROM sa lt 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 ar e specified to the DRZ su rrounding the disposal ro oms. After 200 years,
the DRZ above and below the ROMPCS is modeled as having healed, and th is sub-region of the DRZ is represented by material DRZ_PCS. Mate rial DRZ_PCS has the same property values in
the PCS-2012 PA as were assi gned 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 RO MPCS representation used in the PCS-2012 PA. The Option D pane l closure was modeled in the PABC-2009 (and prior analyses) as having an immediate heali ng 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 asSummary 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 indistingu ishable from the DRZ above and below the waste panels . The DRZ overall (PA paramete r DRZ_1 in Table 2-1) has a permeability range varying from a minimum value of 3.98 x 10 -20 

### m 2 

### to a maximum value of
3.16 x 10 -13 

### m 2 

### in the x, y, and z directi ons. 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 firs t 200 years as compared to the PABC-2009. An expected consequence of this increased permeabili ty 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 th e DRZ material above and below them.

The complete set of parameters used to mode l the ROMPCS in the PC S-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 th rough 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 perm eability 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_PC S. Under this configurat ion, 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), w ith 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 heal ed DRZ for both the ROMPCS and the Option D closure (with equal DRZ_PCS proper ty 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 mate rials PCS_T1, PCS_T2, and PCS_T3 are shown in Table 2-2. As can be seen in that table, th ere is overlap in the porosity ranges specified for PCS_T1 and PCS_T2. This overlap could potent ially result in an increase in panel closure porosity during the transition from PCS_T1 to PCS_T2 at 100 y ears, 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:PROPER TY 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 preven t physically unrealistic increases in porositySummary 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 perm eability 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.Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance AssessmentRevision 0Page 14 of 84Table 2-2: Sampled Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PAParameterUnitsDescriptionDistributionTypeDistributionParametersDefaultValueSourcePCS_T1:POROSITY none Porosity of run-of-minepanel closure, years 0 to100Uniform Min = 0.066Max = 0.187Mean = 0.12650.1265Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 2 and page 15PCS_T2:POROSITY1none Porosity of run-of-minepanel closure, years 100 to200Uniform Min = 0.025Max = 0.075Mean = 0.050.05Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 2 and page 15PCS_T3:POROSITY2none Porosity of run-of-minepanel closure, years 200 to10,000Uniform Min = 0.001Max = 0.0519Mean = 0.02650.0265Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 2 and page 15PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG3PCS_T1:PRMY_LOGPCS_T1:PRMZ_LOGlog(m2) log10of intrinsicpermeability, X, Y, and Zdirections.Uniform Min = -21.0Max = -12.0Mean = -16.5-16.5Patterson (2012)Page 13PCS_T2:POR2PERM4PCS_T3:POR2PERMnone Distribution used tocalculate permeability fromsampled porosity valuesNormal Min = -1.72Max = 1.72Mean = 0.0SD = 0.860.0Camphouse et al.(2012a)Page 15 (sampledαvalue)PCS_T1:SAT_IBRN none Initial brine saturation ofrun-of-mine panel closureUniform Min = 0.04Max = 0.16Mean = 0.10.1Camphouse (2012b)1PCS_T2:POROSITY is constrained such that PCS_T2:POROSITY≤PCS_T1:POROSITY for a given vector in order to avoid non-physical instantaneousincreases in ROMPCS porosity at 100 years.2PCS_T3:POROSITY is constrained such that PCS_T3:POROSITY≤PCS_T2:POROSITY for a given vector in order to avoid non-physical instantaneousincreases in ROMPCS porosity at 200 years.3Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG. PCS_T1:PRMY_LOG and PCS_T1:PRMZ_LOG inherit the sampled value obtained forPCS_T1:PRMX_LOG for each vector.4Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T2:POR2PERM. PCS_T3:POR2PERM inherits the sampled value obtained for PCS_T2:POR2PERM foreach vector.Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance AssessmentRevision 0Page 15 of 84Table 2 (cont): Sampled Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PAPCS_T1:SAT_RBRN5PCS_T2:SAT_RBRNPCS_T3:SAT_RBRNnone Residual Brine Saturation Cumulative (Prob,Value):(0,0)(0.5,0.2)(1.0,0.6)0.2Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 6PCS_T1:SAT_RGAS6PCS_T2:SAT_RGASPCS_T3:SAT_RGASnone Residual Gas Saturation Uniform Min = 0.0Max = 0.4Mean = 0.20.2Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 6PCS_T1:PORE_DIS7PCS_T2:PORE_DISPCS_T3:PORE_DISnone Brooks-Corey poredistribution parameterCumulative (Prob,Value):(0,0.11)(0.5,0.94)(1.0,8.1)0.94Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 85Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T1:SAT_ RBRN. PCS_T2: SAT_ RBRN and PCS_T3: SAT_ RBRN inherit the sampled value obtainedforPCS_T1:SAT_ RBRN for each vector.6Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T1:SAT_ RGAS. PCS_T2: SAT_ RGAS and PCS_T3: SAT_ RGAS inherit the sampled value obtainedforPCS_T1:SAT_ RGAS for each vector.7Parameter values are sampled for PCS_T1:PORE_DIS. PCS_T2: PORE_DIS and PCS_T3: PORE_DIS inherit the sampled value obtained for PCS_T1:PORE_DIS for each vector.Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance AssessmentRevision 0Page 16 of 84Table 2-3: Constant Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PAParameterUnitsDescriptionValueSourcePCS_T2:PRMX_LOG8PCS_T2:PRMY_LOGPCS_T2:PRMZ_LOGlog(m2)log10of intrinsic permeability, X, Y,and Z directions.-18.6See FootnotePCS_T3:PRMX_LOG9PCS_T3:PRMY_LOGPCS_T3:PRMZ_LOGlog(m2)log10of intrinsic permeability, X, Y,and Z directions.-19.1See FootnotePCS_T1:RELP_MODPCS_T2:RELP_MODPCS_T3:RELP_MODnoneRelative Permeability Model Number4 (a modified BrooksCorey Model)Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 7PCS_T1:CAP_MODPCS_T2:CAP_MODPCS_T3:CAP_MODnoneCapillary Pressure Model Number1 (unbounded capillarypressure)Camphouse (2012b)Camphouse (2012c)PCS_T1:KPTPCS_T2:KPTPCS_T3:KPTnoneFlag to Enable Dynamic Updating ofThreshold Capillary Pressure as aFunction of Permeability0.0Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 8PCS_T1:PCT_APCS_T2:PCT_APCS_T3:PCT_APaThreshold Capillary Pressure LinearParameter0.0Camphouse (2012b)Camphouse (2012c)PCS_T1:PCT_EXPPCS_T2:PCT_EXPPCS_T3:PCT_EXPnoneThreshold Capillary PressureExponential Parameter0.0Camphouse (2012b)Camphouse (2012c)PCS_T1:PC_MAXPCS_T2:PC_MAXPCS_T3:PC_MAXPaMaximum Allowable CapillaryPressure1 x 108Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 88Permeabilities of PCS_T2 in the X, Y, and Z directions are calculated from the sampled PCS_T2:POROSITY values as described inCamphouse et al. (2012a).A constant default log-permeability is specified, however, to allow for parameter traceability inPCS-2012 PA input files as compared to those used in the PABC2009. The specified default value is the average of the minimum and maximum values listed in Table 5 of Camphouse et al. (2012a).9Permeabilities of PCS_T3 in the X, Y, and Z directions are calculated from the sampled PCS_T3:POROSITY values as described inCamphouse et al. (2012a).The specified constant default value is the average of the minimum and maximum values listed in Table 5 of Camphouse et al. (2012a).Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance AssessmentRevision 0Page 17 of 84Table 3 (cont): Constant Panel Closure Parameters for the PCS-2012 PAPCS_T1:P0_MINPCS_T2:P0_MINPCS_T3:P0_MINPaMinimum Brine Pressure forCapillary Model 3 (CAP_MOD = 3has never been used in PA)1.01325 x 105Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 8PCS_T1:COMP_RCKPCS_T2:COMP_RCKPCS_T3:COMP_RCKPa-1Bulk Compressibility8.0 x 10-11Camphouse et al.(2012a)Table 8Summary 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 as sessment that identified and ev aluated 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 ba seline) is suitable to evaluate the new closure design, or if changes to FEPs descriptions, sc reening 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 on ly 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 change s proposed by the new PCS design and were the focus of the FEPs
assessment. These two FEPs have been screen ed in (represented) as part of previous performance assessments in all scenarios, and co ntinue to be so in the PCS-2012 PA.

3 METHODOLOGY

The PA methodology accommodates both aleatory (i.e . stochastic) and episte mic (i.e. subjective) uncertainty in its constituent models. Aleatory un certainty pertains to u nknowable future events such as intrusion times and locations that may a ffect 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 constant s and the constants’ true values are uncertain
due to a lack of knowle dge about the system. An exampl e of a parameter with epistemic uncertainty is the permeability of a material. Epistemic uncertainty is accounted for by sampling of parameter values from assigne d distributions. One set of samp led values requ ired 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 variab le output to sampled parameters are documented in Kirchner (2012b). A sample si ze of 10,000 possible sequences of fu ture events is used in PA calculations to address aleatory uncertainty. The releases for each of 10,000 possible sequences
of future events are tabulate d for each of the 300 vectors, totaling 3,000,000 possible sequences.

For a random variable, the complementary cumula tive distribution functi on (CCDF) provides the probability of the variable being greater than a pa rticular value. By regulation, PA results are presented as a distribution of CCDFs of re leases (EPA 1996). Each individual CCDF summarizes the likelihood of releases across all futures for one vector of parameter values. The uncertainty in parameter values re sults in a distribution of CCDFs.

10 Kirkes (2011) also evaluate d changes associated with a proposed reconfiguration of the repository layout; the PCS changes are a subset of this FEP evalua tion. Only the elements (and FEPs) relating to the PCS redesign are germane to the PCS-2012 PA analyses.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 radionuc lides 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 Q i 

### is the 10,000 year cumulative release (in curies) of radionuclide i . Quantity L i 

### is the release limit for radionuclide i , and C is
the total transuranic i nventory (in curies) of α -emitters with half-lives greater than 20 years.

The PCS-2012 PA was developed so that the struct ure 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 updat ed, 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, drilli ng rate and plugging pattern parameters, and radionuclide solubility parameters as were used in the PABC-2009. Separate documentation was prepared describing calculations performed and re sults obtained for each code executed in the
PCS-2012 PA. Citations for this additional documen tation 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 cla ss where each file is stored. 6. File naming conventions.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 re design. Documentation of run cont rol 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 fr om drilling intrusions in repos itory 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 re ferences therein. The primary focus of the PCS-2012 PA is a dete rmination 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 D BRs 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 ar e broken out in sections below, and are compared to PABC-2009 results. Salado flow m odeling results are presented in Section 5.1.
The use of PABC-2009 Culebra tr ansport 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 rele ase in the appropriate section.

Following the completion of the PCS-2012 PA calcu lations, 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 co mpliance 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 ar e unchanged from those used for the PABC-2009. The scenarios include one undisturbed scenario (S 1-BF), four scenarios that include a singleSummary 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 re pository 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 consid ered. 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 fo rmation. An E2 intrusion assumes that the borehole passes through the reposito ry but does not encounter a br ine pocket. Scenarios S2-BF
and S3-BF model the effect of an E1 intr usion occurring at 350 years and 1000 years, respectively, after the repository is closed. Scen arios S4-BF and S5-BF mode l the effect of an E2 intrusion at 350 and 1000 years. Scenario S6-B F models an E2 intrusion occurring at 1000 years, followed by an E1 intrusion into the same panel at 2000 years. Ca lculated brine flows up
the intrusion borehole obtained in scenario S6-B F are used in PA code PANEL to determine the radionuclide source term to the Culebra. Transpor t releases from the Cu lebra 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 ap propriateness 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 calcula ted for a given quantity and scenario. Results are presented for undisturbed scenar io 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 PA BC-2009 Salado flow calculations are shown in Figure 5-1. A
minor error has been corrected in the material ma p schematic shown in Figur e 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 actualit y, the lower borehole extends to the floor of theSummary 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 computati onal grid and material map are shown in Figure 5-2. As that figure also depicts an E1 intrusion scen ario, with 350 years post-closure being the first time instance at which an intr usion 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 representa tion of the temporal
evolution of the ROMPCS in the BRAGFLO ma terial map, is fully discussed in Camphouse (2012d).Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance AssessmentRevision 0Page 23 of 84Figure 5-1: PABC-2009BRAGFLO Grid and MaterialMap for an E1 Intrusion (Δx,Δy, andΔz dimensions in meters).ZY,lowerSMftSaI_••••••0--••""""""""",.",.""""""""""""••,,•••,YCd__••Summary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance AssessmentRevision 0Page 24 of 84Figure 5-2: PCS-2012 BRAGFLOGrid and Material Map for an E1 Intrusion (Δx,Δy, andΔz dimensions in meters).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 undi sturbed 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 in crease in the mean cumulati ve 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 ye ars. 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 firs t 1,000 years. As seen in that figure, the
difference in the overall means obtained in the tw o analyses increases stea dily 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 BRNW ASIC overall mean in Figure 5-4, the rate of increase decreases sharply. At 200 years, th e difference between the BRNWASIC overall means obtained in the two analyses is roughly 600 m 3 

### , and this difference between the overall means remains fairly constant for the remainde r 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 WA S_SATB. The overall means for WAS_SATB obtained in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are pl otted together in Figur e 5-5. As seen in that figure, there is an increas e 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 pane l brine saturation. Beyond 200 years, the WAS_SATB overall means obtained in the two analyses are quali tatively very similar with differences seen in the magnitude of the re spective 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 poten tially 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 pl otted together in Figur e 5-6. As seen in that figure, the overall mean fo r gas generated in the waste pane l increased in the PCS-2012 PA. The increases seen in the mean waste panel brin e inflow and mean wast e panel brine saturation in the PCS-2012 PA result in a corresponding increase in waste pane l gas generation.

Overall means of waste panel pressure obtai ned 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-ter m 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 ge neration seen in the PCS-2012 PA translates to a long-term increase in the waste panel mean pressure.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 pr operties 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 atearly times when compared to the PABC2009. After the ROMPCS and the DRZ above and be low 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” charac teristics 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 pr essure in these two regions impacts the volume of brine moved up the shaft toward the ground su rface. The overall means of brine flow up the shaft, denoted by quantity BNSHUDRZ, obtai ned 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 opera tions and experimental ar eas. 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 br ine flow up the shaft is redu ced in the PCS-2012 PA results, primarily due to the reductions in the mean pre ssure seen in the opera tions 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

(x10 3 m 3 ) 1.78 2.38 12.46 16.67 WAS_SATB (none) 0.16 0.20 0.99 0.99 GASMOL_W (x10 6 moles) 29.09 30.84 148.40 149.00 WAS_PRES (MPa) 6.52 6.77 16.19 16.29 BNSHUDRZ (m 3 ) 2.74 2.46 34.76 32.11Summary 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 In flow 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 MeanSummary 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 Pa nel Brine Saturation, Scenario S1-BF.

Figure 5-6: Overall Means of Waste Panel Ga s 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 10 7

Time (years)GASMOL_W (moles) Scenario S1-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean
PABC-2009 Overall MeanSummary 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 10 6

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 10 6

Time (years)OPS_PRES (Pa) Scenario S1-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean
PABC-2009 Overall MeanSummary 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 Fl ow 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 MeanSummary 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 dist urbance scenario S2-BF. Results presented for this scenario are representative of those calculated for E1 in trusion scenarios (scenarios S2-BF and S3-BF), with the only difference being th e time of the intrusion. In th e 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 re gion of pressurized br ine in the Castile. Castile brine moves upward into the waste panel immediately after th e intrusion, increasing waste panel pressure, brine saturation, and impacting ot her 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 intrusio n. The long-term permeability range of the ROMPCS is lower than that prescribed to the Option D desi gn in the PABC-2009. This reducti on 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 “t ighter” 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 im pacts the volume of cumu lative brine inflow to the waste panel, denoted by qua ntity BRNWASIC. The overall means of BRNWASIC obtained
in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC- 2009 are shown together in Figu re 5-11. As seen in that figure, the increased permeability range of the RO MPCS 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 increas e in mean waste panel pressure occurs in the PCS-2012 PA results. This pressure increase sligh tly inhibits brine flow into the waste panel, resulting in a reduction in cumulative waste pane l brine inflow as compared to the PABC-2009
results.

The reduction of brine flowing into the waste pa nel 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 obtaine d in the PCS-2012 PA is reduced slightly from that cal culated in the PABC-2009 after the intrusion at 350 years. The reduction of brine inflow to the waste panel tr anslates to a reduction in waste panel brine
saturation.

The overall means of waste pane l gas generation (quantity GAS MOL_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 th e two analyses are nearly identical, with a very slightSummary 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 s light reduction in gas ge neration 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 ove rall means obtained in the two an alyses are almost identical, with a very slight increase s een 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

(x10 3 m 3 ) 14.03 13.68 182.15 182.08 WAS_SATB (none) 0.68 0.67 0.99 0.99 GASMOL_W (x10 6 moles) 54.75 54.57 149.00 149.00 WAS_PRES (MPa) 7.39 7.50 15.63 16.40 BNBHUDRZ

(x10 3 m 3 ) 3.25 3.28 166.84 169.54Summary 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 10 6

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 10 4

Time (years)BRNWASIC (m3) Scenario S2-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean
PABC-2009 Overall MeanSummary 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 Pane l Brine Saturation, Scenario S2-BF.

Figure 5-13: Overall Means of Waste Panel Ga s 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 10 7

Time (years)GASMOL_W (moles) Scenario S2-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean
PABC-2009 Overall MeanSummary 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 Fl ow 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 dist urbance scenario S4-BF. Results presented for this scenario are representative of those calculated for E2 in trusion scenarios (scenarios S4-BF and S5-BF), with the only difference being th e time of the intrusion. In th e 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 intrus ion scenario results in an immediate influx of pressurized Castile brine to the waste panel, resul ting in an increase is wa ste panel pressure when compared to undisturbed conditions. An E2 intrus ion typically has the opposite effect. For the E2 intrusion scenario, no connected pathway is created between pressurize d 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 bore hole are modeled as fa iling, with the entire borehole assuming properties equivalent to sand. The result is a depressurization of the waste panel, beginning 200 years after th e intrusion. Whereas an E1 intr usion 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 MeanSummary 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 year s to 550 years, there is a slight increase in the mean pressure for scenario S4-BF as compared to undisturbed results. Th e borehole plugs fail at 550 years, creating a pathway for waste panel pr essure release through th e 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 undisturbe d results. The overall means of waste panel pressure obtained for scenario S4-BF in the PCS-2012 PA and th e PABC-2009 are shown together in Figure 5-16. As seen in that figure, the mean waste panel pressure ob tained 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). Conseque ntly, at the time of the E2 in trusion, the mean waste panel pressure is greater in the PC S-2012 PA, and is also greater 200 years later when the borehole plugs fail. The result is a sli ghtly 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 wast e panel brine inflow can be clearly seen in Figure 5-17. At the intrusion ti me of 350 years until the borehole plugs fail at 550 years, there is only a very slight increase in quantity BRNWA SIC as compared to undisturbed conditions. After the borehole plugs fail, a decrease in the waste panel pressure occurs. This pressure reduction yields in an in crease 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 fo r quantity BRNWASIC as compared to undisturbed conditions, until the borehole plugs fail at 550 year s. The PCS-2012 PA mean waste panel brine inflow curve is already greater than that obtain ed in the PABC-2009 when the borehole plugs fail at 550 years. The increase in brine inflow s een 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 infl ow 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 pa nel. As seen in Figure 5-19, the mean waste panel brine saturation is changed very little as compared to undi sturbed conditions for the time period of 350 to 550 years. After the borehole plugs fail at 550 years, an in crease of brine inflow to the waste panel translates to a corresponding in crease in brine saturati on. The result is a PCS2012 PA mean waste brine saturati on curve that is greater than that seen in the PABC-2009Summary 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 imp acts gas generation in the waste panel. More brine flows into the waste pane l (on average) in PCS-2012 PA s cenario 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 qua ntity 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

(x10 3 m 3 ) 2.73 3.29 23.81 19.39 WAS_SATB (none) 0.28 0.33 0.99 0.99 GASMOL_W (x10 6 moles) 36.40 38.35 149.00 149.00 WAS_PRES (MPa) 4.64 4.70 14.92 15.21 BNBHUDRZ (m 3 ) 34.76 43.76 4876.89 5287.28Summary 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 Wa ste 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 10 6

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 10 6

Time (years)WAS_PRES (Pa) Scenario S4-BF

PCS-2012 Overall Mean
PABC-2009 Overall MeanSummary 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 MeanSummary 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 Brin e Saturation, Scenarios S1-BF and S4-BF for Years 0 to 1,000.

Figure 5-20: Overall Means of Waste Pane l 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 MeanSummary 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 Ga s Generation (in moles), Scenario S4-BF.

Figure 5-22: Overall Means of Brine Fl ow 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 10 7

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 MeanSummary 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 intrus ion 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 de termine 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 BNBH UDRZ in the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are shown together in Figure 5-23. As seen in th at 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. Actin ide solubilities, the repository waste inventory, and Culebra transmissivity fields are unchanged from th e 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 Cu lebra is virtually unchanged by the ROMPCS design as compared to Option D results. Conseque ntly, transport releases from the Culebra are also virtually unchanged. Incorporating PABC-2 009 Culebra transport results into the PCS-2012 PA is reasonable and appropriate.

Summary statistics for quantity BNBHUDRZ obtain ed 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

(x10 3 m 3 ) 2.92 2.94 169.03 169.30Summary 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 Fl ow up the Borehole, Scenario S6-BF.

5.2 Spallings

The replacement of the Option D panel closur e 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 rele ases, 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 sp allings volumes from a single in trusion consists of using the code CUTTINGS_S to interpol ate 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 we re also used in the PCS-2012 PA.

PA code CUTTINGS_S is also used as a tran sfer program between th e 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 th at results obtained on the BRAGFLO grid be mapped appropriately to the DBR grid. Code CUTTINGS_S is used to transfer the appropriate
scenario results obtaine d 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 MeanSummary 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 1 st 

### ) 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 scenar ios as a basis for its calculations, it does so to provide flow field results (generated wi th 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 wh ich 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 statistic s of spallings volumes for the intrusion scenarios considered by CUTTINGS_S are shown in Table 5-7 fo r 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 re sults 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 sim ilar average nonzero spallings volumes in both PA calculations. In replicates 2 and 3, the averag e 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 volum e, a larger maximum volume, and a larger percentage of vectors with spal lings considering the total from all scenarios across all three replicates (Kicker 2012).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 in crease in repository pressure also increases the percentage of vectors with spallings.

Table 5-7: Summary of Spa llings Releases by Scenario

Scenarios Total S1-DBR S2-DBR S3-D BR S4-DBR S5-DBR PCS-2012 PA

R1 Maximum [m 3 ] 2.34 9.35 8.69 1.67 1.67 9.35 Average nonzero volume [m 3 ] 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 [m 3 ] 2.76 3.69 2.76 2.76 2.76 3.69 Average nonzero volume [m 3 ] 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 [m 3 ] 6.09 7.32 3.31 2.70 3.29 7.32 Average nonzero volume [m 3 ] 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 [m 3 ] 2.24 8.29 7.97 1.67 1.67 8.29 Average nonzero volume [m 3 ] 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 [m 3 ] 2.36 2.76 1.86 2.26 1.93 2.76 Average nonzero volume [m 3 ] 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 [m 3 ] 4.91 6.23 2.62 1.47 1.49 6.23 Average nonzero volume [m 3 ] 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 vol umes on the overall mean CCDF for normalized spallings releases obtained in the PCS-2012 PA can be seen in Fi gure 5-24. As seen in that figure, the CCDF of spallings re leases obtained in the PCS-2012 PA is consistently higher than that found in the PABC-2009. The increases in sp allings volumes and in the number of vectors that result in a nonzero spallings volume translat e to an increase in spallings releases as both analyses use the same waste inventory.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 repos itory for undisturbed and disturbed conditions. PCS-2012 PA results from this application of BR AGFLO are shown in Sec tion 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 D BR calculation. The representati on of the waste area by three regions in the PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 BRAGF LO grids (see Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2) yields initial conditions to waste regions comprisi ng 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 tim ings used for the PCS2012 PA are the same as those used for the PABC-2009.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 computati onal 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 Mate rial Map (logical grid).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 Gr id 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 th at table are assessed over all th ree replicates, times, vectors and drilling locations. As was also the case in th e PABC-2009, release volumes that are less than
1x10 -7 

### m 3 

### are considered to be inconsequential and ar e not included in the ta lly 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 yiel ded 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 theSummary 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 th e PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 DBR Calculations

Scenario Number of Vectors Maximum volume (m 3 ) Average volume (m 3 )

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 volum es for scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR are due to the fact that the lower long- term permeability range of the RO MPCS as compared to Option D yields a period of increased wast e 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 pane l brine saturation as co mpared to PABC-2009 E1 intrusion results. The effects of increased pres sure and decreased brine saturation effectively cancel, resulting in only a slight increase to the maximum DBR volum e seen in the PCS-2012
PA E1 results.

For undisturbed conditions, implementation of th e ROMPCS yields higher long-term waste panel pressure (on average) than was seen in th e 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 afte r 200 years, results in increased waste panel gas generation (on average) and a subsequent increase to waste pane l mean pressure. This explains the increase in
the scenario S1-DBR maximum DBR volume fo r the PCS-2012 PA compared to the PABC2009.

Table 5-8 shows a modest (~6%) increase in th e 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 an d presented in the BRAGF LO results in Section
5.1.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 oc cur 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% occu rred during a lower dril ling 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 intrus ion, 78.0% are found in scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR, a slight decrea se from 82.9% for PA BC-2009 (Clayton et al. 2010). The majority of the non-zero DBR volumes o ccur when there is a previous E1 intrusion within the same panel. Not only are DBRs less likely to occur during u pper drilling intrusions,
but also the DBR volumes from such intrusions tend to be much smaller than those from lower drilling intrusions. For all th ree replicates of the PCS-2012 PA, the maximum DBR volume for the upper drilling location is 25.7 m 3 

### compared to 53.8 m 3 

### 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 significa nt 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 m 3 

### ) to (12 MPa, 30 m 3 

### ). As mobile saturation increases, the correlation between pressure and DBR volumes also increases.

To further facilitate comparisons of DBRs calcu lated in the PCS-2012 PA to those obtained in the PABC-2009, the overall mean CCDFs obtaine d in these two anal yses are plotted simultaneously in Figure 5-28. As seen in that figure, the CCDF curve obtained for direct brine releases shows greater mean proba bilities in the PCS-2012 PA for th e majority of release values.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, Scenar io S2-DBR, Replicate 1, Lower Intrusion, PCS2012 PA

Figure 5-28: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Overall M ean CCDFs for Normalized Direct Brine ReleasesSummary 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 pr esented 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 re lease pathway, namely cuttings and cavings releases, spallings rel eases, direct brine releases, and tr ansport 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 dist ributions 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 fo r total releases are shown together in Figure 5-34. As seen in that figure, the overa ll mean CCDFs obtained in the two analyses are nearly identical for release values less than ap proximately 0.1 EPA units. For releases greater than 0.1 EPA units, the CCDF curv e 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 illustra ted in Figure 5-28. The differences found for spallings may slightly af fect 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 PA BC-2009 to the PCS-2012 PA due to the changes in
direct brine releases calcul ated 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 Ta ble 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 approxima tely 0.41 EPA units. An increase is seen in the 95% confidence limit when compared to the PABC-2009 results, while the 90 th 

### 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 90 t h

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 10Summary 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 ReleasesSummary 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 1-3Summary 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 Ov erall Mean for Total Normalized Releases

Figure 5-34: PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 Overal l Mean CCDFs for Total Normalized ReleasesSummary 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 Compone nts 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 recei ve transuranic waste placed conditions on the panel closure design to be implemented in the repository. The mandated “Option D” design consis ts of a concrete block wall, an open drift section, and a concrete monolith. The engineering of the pane l closure has been re-assessed, and a revised design is proposed that is simpler, cheaper, and easier to construct. Th e revised panel closure design, termed the ROMPCS, is comprised of 100 feet of ROM salt with barr iers at each end. The PCS-2012 PA quantifies WIPP repository pe rformance 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 PC S-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 de sign would not result in WIPP non-compliance with the containment requirements of 40 CFR Part 191. Cuttings and cavi ngs releases and DBRs were the two primary release components contributing to total releases in the PABC-2009, andSummary 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 pre ssure (on average) than was s een in the PABC-2009. Pressure increases translate to increases in spallings volum es 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 rel eases 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 additi on to increases in waste panel pressure, implementation of the ROMPCS design results in incr eased mean waste panel brine
saturation for undisturbed conditions as well as intr usion scenarios that do not intersect a Castile brine pocket. For intrusion scenarios that in tersect a region of pre ssurized Castile brine, increases in pressure are accompanied by only sli ght reductions in the m ean waste panel brine
saturation in the PCS-2012 PA. The combined effect of these impact s 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.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 paramete rs to be implemented in the PCS-2012 PA.
Memo to Janis Trone dated Ju ly 10, 2012. Sandia National Laborat ories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS
557721.

Camphouse, R.C. 2012c. An overview of the BRA GFLO two-phase flow parameters used to model the run-of-mine salt pane l closures implemented in the PCS-2012 PA. Memo to Paul Shoemaker dated June 7, 2012. Sandia Nationa l 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 Na tional 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: An alyses, 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 Laboratorie s. 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 Certificati on of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Fiel d 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 Regul ations; Final Rule. Federa l 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: Certifi cation Decision; Final Rule, Federal Register , Vol. 63, No. 95,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 Na tional Laboratories.
ERMS 552893.

Kanney, J. F., and Kirchner, T.B. 2005. Verification of the SUMMARIZE Interface in the CRA2004 Performance Assessment Baseline Calculati on. Sandia National Labor atories, 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 Labor atories, 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, Revi sion 0. Sandia National Laborator ies, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS
555237.

Long, J.J. 2010. Execution of Performance Asse ssment 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 Pro cedure NP 19-1: Soft ware 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 Sa lado 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 Asse ssment of the Short-term Stability of the 12 Foot Explosion Isolation Wall. Report pr epared for Washington TRU Solutions, LLC.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 BRAGF LO: Compliance Recertification Application. Sandia National Laborator ies, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 530163.

Stein, J. S., Nemer, M. and Trone, J. 2005. Analys is Package for Direct Brine Releases: AP132 PA. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 540633.

WIPP PA. 2005. Design Document for PR ECCDFGF Version 1.01. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 539295

Zeitler, T.R. 2012. CCDFGF Analysis Packag e for the AP-161 (PCS-2012) Performance Assessment. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 558337.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 Hewl ett Packard (HP) AlphaSe rver 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 dist ributed 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 node s used are provided
in Table A-1.

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

Node Hardware Type # of CP Us 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 PC S-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. Thes e codes have been qualified unde r 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 Versi on 9.10 as codes to
be used in the PCS-2012 PA. The versions of th ese codes as listed in AP-161 are incorrect.
PRELHS Version 2.40 and MATSET Version 9.20 we re used in the PCS-2012 PA, and are correctly shown in Table A-2. This comprises a deviation from AP-161.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 Us ed 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.E XE 13-12-04 LIBCCGF QB0502 PRECCDFGF 1.01 PRE CCDFGF_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 Tabl e A-3, along with references to the storage location and to the appr opriate 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.E XE 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 loca tions, 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 Un certain Parameters (LHS)

Sampling of the uncertain parameters used by the various process model codes is performed with
the PRELHS and LHS codes. PRELHS reads info rmation about the ranges and distributions of the uncertain parameters from the PAPDB and form ats this information for LHS. The LHS code implements the sampling algorithms. LHS is executed once per replicate (there are three replicates).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 Names 1 CMS Library CMS Class
SCRIPT Input EVAL_LHS_AP161_R r .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Log EVAL_LHS_AP161_R r .LOG LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0

PRELHS Input LHS1_AP161_R r .INP LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Output LHS1_AP161_R r .TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Output LHS1_AP161_R r .DBG LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0

LHS Input LHS1_AP161_R r .TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Output LHS2_AP161_R r .TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Output LHS2_AP161_R r .DBG LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0

LHS Edit Input LHS_CONTROL_R r .INP NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Input LHS2_AP161_R r .TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Output LHS2_AP161_R r _CON.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0
1. 

###   1,2,3 r 



### 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, BR AGFLO, and POSTBRAG) in conjunction with several utility codes. The entire set of calcula tions 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 co mbination, calculations are performed for 100 vectors of un certain model input parameters.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 Description 1,2
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 intersect s 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 pe rform 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_STEP 3.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 GENM ESH and MATSET are shown in Table A-8.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 para meter 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 replicat e. The input and log files for the Step 2 script as well as the input and output f iles for POSTLHS are shown in Table A-9.

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

File Names 1,2 CMS Library CMS Class

SCRIPT Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP2_R r .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP2_R r .LOG LIBAP161_BF AP161-0

POSTLHS Input LHS3_DUMMY.INP LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Input LHS2_AP161_R r _CON.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Input MS_BF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Output LHS3_BF_AP161_R r _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Output LHS3_BF_AP161_R r .DBG LIBAP161_BF AP161-0

1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r 
2. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv r 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 ALGE BRACDB is used in multiple BRAGFLO steps, this use is referred to as ALG1. Step 3 is run once for each replicate. Th e 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 Names 1,2 CMS Library CMS Class

SCRIPT Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP3_R r .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP3_R r .LOG LIBAP161_BF AP161-0

ICSET Input IC_BF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Input LHS3_BF_AP161_R r _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Output IC_BF_AP161_R r _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Output IC_BF_AP161_R r _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

ALGEBRACDB Input ALG1_BF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Input IC_BF_AP161_R r _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Output ALG1_BF_AP161_R r _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Output ALG1_BF_AP161_R r _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r 
2. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv r 



### 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 vect ors in the replicate/scenario combination. The input and log file s for the Step 4 script as well as the input and output files for
PREBRAG are shown in Table A-11.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 Names 1,2,3 CMS Library 1,2 CMS Class

SCRIPT Script Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP4_R r_ S s .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Script Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP4_R r _S s .LOG LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0

PREBRAG Input BF1_AP161_S s .INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Input ALG1_BF_AP161_R r _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Output BF2_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .INP LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0 Output BF1_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT
1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r 
2. 

###   s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for each r


3. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv s 



### A.2.2.5 Salado Flow Step 5

Step 5 runs BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, and ALGE BRACDB (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 descri bed 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, th e master script writes an input file for the slave script, and then calls the slave script w ith that input file to run BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, and ALGEBRACDB. The input and l og files for the Step 5 script as well as the input and output files for BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, and ALGE BRACDB are shown in Table A-12.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 Names 1,2,3,4 CMS Library 1,2 CMS Class

MASTER SCRIPT Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_R r _S s .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_R r _S s .LOG LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0

SLAVE SCRIPT Log 4 EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_R r _S s _V vvv .LOG LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0

BRAGFLO Input BF2_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .INP LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0 Input BF2_PABC09_CLOSURE.DAT LIBPABC09_BF AP161-0 Output BF2_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .OUT NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Output BF2_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .SUM LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0 Output BF2_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .BIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Output BF2_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .ROT NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Output BF2_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .RIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

POSTBRAG Input BF2_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .BIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Input ALG1_BF_AP161_R r _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Output BF3_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0 Output BF3_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

ALGEBRACDB Input ALG2_BF_AP161.INP LIBAP161_BF AP161-0 Input BF3_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0 Output ALG2_BF_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0 Output ALG2_BF_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT
1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r 
2. 

###   s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 for each r


3. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv s  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 gene ric numerical control parameters, a new BRAGFLO input file was subm itted by the analysts and the case was re-run in
a manner similar to that described above. In or der to track these cases a special tag (“MOD”) was inserted into the BRAGFLO input file name, as well as the master sc ript 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 quantitySummary 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 th e BRAGFLO input file. Vector numbers with a (#) superscript correspond to vectors where quant ity 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 St ep 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 Names 1,2,3 CMS Library 1,2 CMS Class MASTER SCRIPT Input EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_R r _S s _V vvv _MOD.INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Log EVAL_BF_AP161_STEP5_R r _S s _V vvv _MOD.LOG LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0

BRAGFLO Input BF2_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv _MOD.INP LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0
1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r  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-13Summary 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 Vo lume Calculations (CUTTINGS_S)

The total volume of radionuclide-contaminated soli ds that may reach the surface during a drilling intrusion event is calculated by the CUTTINGS_ S code. The single in trusion 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 (CU TTINGS_S) Run Control Scripts

Step Codes in Step Scripts Scri pt 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. Fi ve scenarios, S1-DBR to S5-DBR are included in each replicate. The cuttings calculation extrac ts volume-averaged brine pressure and brine
saturation from Salado flow BRAGFLO results. These extracted quantities are then used
downstream in the calculat ion of direct brine releases. As a result, the intrusion times and locations considered during the cuttings calcul ation are identical to those used in the DBR calculation. Cuttings scenarios i ndicate 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 so lids release calculations , CUTTINGS_S scenario S2-DBR means that CUTTINGS_S uses BRAGFLO s cenario S2-BF results as the inputs for the solids release calculations, etc.). A number of intr usion times are considered for each scenario. For the CUTTINGS_S S1-DBR scenario, these are intrusions into an undisturbed repository. For other scenarios, these intrusi ons 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 re leased 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 vol ume 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 co mbination. See Stein et al. ( 2005) for an explanation of the drilling locations. Calculations are performed for a set of 100 un certain input parameter vectors for each replicate/scenario/intrusion time/intrusion location combination.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 KEPTSummary 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 pa rameter values (generated by LHS) used by CUTTINGS_S to the appropriate materials and elem ent 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 f iles for POSTLHS are shown in Table A-17.

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

File Names 1,2 CMS Library CMS Class

SCRIPT Script Input EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP2_R r .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Script Log EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP2_R r .LOG LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0

POSTLHS Input LHS3_DUMMY.INP LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Input LHS2_AP161_R r _CON.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Input MS_CUSP_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 Output LHS3_CUSP_AP161_R r _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 Output LHS3_CUSP_AP161_R r .DBG LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0
1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r  2. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv r 



### A.2.3.3 Solids Volume Step 3

Step 3 runs the CUTTINGS_S code, and is invoked for each replicat e. 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 fo r CUTTINGS_S are shown in Table A-18.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 Names 1,2,3,4,5 CMS Library 1,2 CMS Class

SCRIPT Input EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP3_R r .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Output CUSP_AP161_MASTER_R r .INP LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 Log EVAL_CUSP_AP161_STEP3_R r .LOG LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0

CUTTINGS_S Input CUSP_AP161_MASTER_R r .INP LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 Input CUSP_AP161.INP LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 Input LHS3_CUSP_AP161_R r _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 Input BF3_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0 Input MSPALL_DRS_CRA1BC_R r .OUT LIBCRA1BC_DRS AP161-0 Output CUSP_AP161_R r .TBL LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 Output CUSP_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_CUSPR r S s AP161-0 Output CUSP_AP161_R r .DBG LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0
1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r  2. 

###   1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for each s 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. 

###   L, U, M for each intrusion time c 
5. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv c 



### A.2.4 Single-Intrusion Direct Brin e Release Calculations (BRAGFLO_DBR)

Single-intrusion direct brine re lease volumes are calculated usi ng the BRAGFLO suite of codes (PREBRAG, BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG), in conjunction with several utili ty 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 re lease 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 replicat e/scenario/intrusion time/intrusion location
combination.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) Scri pt 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 da ta with ALGEBRACDB. ALGEBRACDB is run twice (ALG1 and ALG2). The RELATE code is us ed to assign material properties to element blocks. RELATE is run twice (RELATE_1 and RELA TE_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.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 Names 1,2,3,4 CMS Library 1,2 CMS Class

SCRIPT Input EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP2_R r _S s .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Log EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP2_R r _S s .LOG LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0

ALGEBRACDB Input ALG1_DBR_AP161.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 Input CUSP_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _L_V vvv .CDB 5 LIBAP161_CUSPR r S s AP161-0 Output ALG1_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output ALG1_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .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_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output REL1_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output REL1_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

RELATE_2 Input REL2_DBR_AP161_S s .INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 Input REL1_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Input BF3_AP161_R r _S s _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_BFR r S s AP161-0 Output REL2_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output REL2_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

ICSET Input IC_DBR_AP161_S s .INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 Input REL2_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output IC_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output IC_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

ALGEBRACDB Input ALG2_DBR_AP161_S s .INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 Input IC_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output ALG2_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output ALG2_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT
1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r  2. 

###   1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for each s 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. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each intrusion vvv  5. The files CUSP_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _L_V vvv .CDB do not have leading zeros in front of the intrusion time

ttttt.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 repli cate/scenario combination. The sc ript loops over the appropriate
intrusion times for the scenario. For each intrusi on time, the script loops over all three intrusion
locations. For each intrusion loca tion, the script loops over al l 100 vectors. The PREBRAG, BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG, ALGEBRACDB sequence is run for each replicate/scenario/intrusion
time/intrusion location/vect or combination. The input and log f iles for the Step 3 script as well as the input and output files for PREBR AG, BRAGFLO, POSTBRAG , ALGEBRACDB are
shown in Table A-22.

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

File Names 1,2,3,4,5,6 CMS Library 1,2 CMS Class
SCRIPT Input EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP3_R r _S s .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Input EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP3_R1_S1_T100.INP 6 LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Log EVAL_DBR_AP161_STEP3_R r _S s .LOG LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0

PREBRAG Input BF1_DBR_AP161_ c .INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 Input BF1_DBR_AP161_S1_100_ c .INP 6 LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 Input ALG2_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output BF2_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .INP LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output BF1_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

BRAGFLO Input BF2_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .INP LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output BF2_DBR_AP161_R r_ S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .OUT NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Output BF2_DBR_AP161_R r_ S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .SUM NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Output BF2_DBR_AP161_R r_ S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .BIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Output BF2_DBR_AP161_R r_ S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .ROT NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Output BF2_DBR_AP161_R r_ S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .RIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

POSTBRAG Input ALG2_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Input BF2_DBR_AP161_R r_ S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .BIN NOT KEPT NOT KEPT Output BF3_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output BF3_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

ALGEBRACDB Input ALG3_DBR_AP161.INP LIBAP161_DBR AP161-0 Input BF3_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output ALG3_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output ALG3_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPTSummary Report and Run Control for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance Assessment Revision 0

Page 77 of 84 1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r 
2. 

###   1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for each s 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. 

###   L, M, U for each intrusion c 

5. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv c  6. Files used for R1_S1_T00100 only.



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

The output CDB files from the vari ous process model codes are combin ed into text tables by the SUMMARIZE code, for subsequent use in calculati ng releases to the accessible environment. The type of data extracted from each proce ss model is described inthe 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 Ta ble A-23. A single run control script is used to extract data from CDB files for all pr ocess 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 subm it the main script to a batch queue.

Table A-23: CCDF Input Tabul ation 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 volum e 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 replicat e. The script loops over the appropriate
intrusion times for each scenari o. 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 out put files are shown in Table A-24.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 an d Output Files (Direct Brine Release)

File Names 1,2,3,4,5 CMS Library 1,2 CMS Class
SCRIPT Input EVAL_SUM_DBR_AP161_R r _S s .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Input SUM_DBR_AP161.TMPL LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 Output SUM_DBR_AP161_R r_ S s _T ttttt

_ c .INP LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 Log EVAL_SUM_DBR_AP161_R r _S s. LOG LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0

SUMMARIZE Input SUM_DBR_AP161_R r_ S s _T ttttt

_ c .INP LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 Input ALG3_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _T ttttt

_ c _V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_DBRR r S s AP161-0 Output SUM_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _Tttttt _c .TBL LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 Output SUM_DBR_AP161_R r _S s _Tttttt _c .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r 

2. 

###   1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for each s 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. 

###   L, M, U for each intrusion time c 

5. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv c 



### A.2.6 CCDF Constructi on (PRECCDFGF, CCDFGF)

The complimentary cumulative distribution functi ons (CCDFs) for radionuclide releases to the accessible environment are constructed using the PRECCDFGF/CCDFGF code suite. The calculations are separated into several steps accordi ng to the number of time s a particular code is run and to allow for timely inspection of intermedia te results. The steps, the codes run in each step, and the DCL script(s) used to pe rform the steps are shown in Table A-25.

Table A-25: CCDF Constructi on 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 AP161-0Summary 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 a nd 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 pa rameter values (generated by LHS) used by CCDFGF to the appropriate materials and elemen t block properties. St ep 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 f iles for POSTLHS are shown in Table A-27.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 Names 1,2 CMS Library CMS Class

STEP 2 Script Input EVAL_CCGF_AP161_STEP2_R r .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Script Log EVAL_CCGF_AP161_STEP2_R r .LOG LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0

POSTLHS
Input LHS3_DUMMY.INP LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Input LHS2_AP161_R r _CON.TRN LIBAP161_LHS AP161-0 Input MS_CCGF_AP161.CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 Output LHS3_CCGF_AP161_R r _V vvv. CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 Output LHS3_CCGF_AP161_R r .DBG LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0

1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r 

2. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv r 



### A.2.6.3 CCDF Construction Step 3

Step 3 uses PRECCDFGF to orga nize 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 appropria te 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 th e input and output files for PRECCDFGF are shown
in Table A-28.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 Names 1-7 CMS Library CMS Class

SCRIPT Script Input EVAL_CCGF_STEP3_AP161_R r .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Script Log EVAL_CCGF_STEP3_AP161_R r .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_R r_ V vvv .CDB LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 Input SUM_DBR_AP161_R r_ S s _T ttttt

_ c .TBL LIBAP161_SUM AP161-0 Input CUSP_AP161_R r .TBL LIBAP161_CUSP AP161-0 Input SUM_NUT_PABC09_R r_ S1

. TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 Input SUM_NUT_PABC09_R r_ S s _T ttttt. TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 Input SUM_PANEL_INT_PABC09_R r _S6_T ttttt .TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 Input SUM_ST2D_PABC09_R r _M m .TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 Input EPU_PABC09_ h H.DAT LIBPABC09_EPU AP161-0 Input SUM_PANEL_CON_PABC09_R r _S s .TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 Input SUM_PANEL_ST_PABC09_R r _S s .TBL LIBPABC09_SUM AP161-0 Output CCGF_AP161_RELTAB_R r .DAT LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0

CCDFGF Input CCGF_AP161_CONTROL_R r .INP LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 Input CCGF_AP161_RELTAB_R r .DAT LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 Output CCGF_AP161_R r .OUT LIBAP161_CCGF AP161-0 Output CCGF_AP161_R r .DBG NOT KEPT NOT KEPT

1. 

###   1, 2, 3 r 

2. 

###   001, 002, ..., 100 for each vvv r 

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. 

###   L, M, U for each intrusion for SUM_DBR c 
6. 

###   F, P m 

7. 

###   C, H h 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 cont rol script is shown in Table A-29. The input and output files for STEPWISE, as well as the i nput 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 Names 1,2 CMS Library CMS Class
SCRIPT Input EVAL_STP_AP161_*_ALL_R r .INP LIBAP161_EVAL AP161-0 Log EVAL_STP_AP161_*_ALL_R r .LOG LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0

STEPWISE Input STP_AP161_*_ALL_R r .INP LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 Input STP_AP161_LHS_R r .TRN LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 Input STP_AP161_MEANS_R r .TRN LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 Output STP_AP161_*_R r. TXT LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0 Output STP_AP161_*_R r .SP LIBAP161_STPW AP161-0

1.

2. 

###   1,2,3 r  

###   * , for each R

ANK RAW r 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 calcu lations, but prior to the completion of the summary report, an error was discovered in the ALG1 input file for BR AGFLO. 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 fo r 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 por osity 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 inspecti on, the leading-term cons tant of -21.187 in the equation above was incorrectly tr anscribed to the ALG1 input f ile as -21.87 for both materials PCS_T2 and PCS_T3. This erro r leads to calculated permeabil ities 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 im pact 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 modele d as having healed (e.g., see Figure 6-8 in Camphouse 2012d). Slightly lower calculated perm eabilites 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 y ears, with or without the transcription error. Afte r 200 years, the DRZ above and be low the ROMPCS is modeled as having healed, and is represente d by material DRZ_PCS. Mate rial 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) result s in a panel closure th at is “tighter” (on average) than the Option D closure. Permeabiliti es 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 transcripti on error, the ALG1 input file to BRAGFLO was corrected, and replicate 1 of the PCS-2012 PA was re-run star ting at the ALG1 BRAGFLO step through to CCDFGF. Files associ ated with this re-run are lo cated 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 figu re, the transcription error has essentially no impact on the replicate 1 mean for total normalized re leases. The same is also true of the 10 th 

### and 90 th 

### percentiles obtained in the origin al and corrected cases. The transcription error in the ALG1Summary 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 im pact 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