Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 2 of 32 

Table of Contents 

1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................5

2 Background ..............................................................................................................................6

3 Approach ..................................................................................................................................8

3.1 Model Geometry ..................................................................................................................8

3.2 Initial Conditions ...............................................................................................................10

4 Calculation Methodology .......................................................................................................11

4.1 Modeled Scenarios .............................................................................................................11

4.1.1 Scenario 1 (S1-DBR) .............................................................................................11

4.1.2 Scenario 2 (S2-DBR) .............................................................................................12

4.1.3 Scenario 3 (S3-DBR) .............................................................................................12

4.1.4 Scenario 4 (S4-DBR) .............................................................................................13

4.1.5 Scenario 5 (S5-DBR) .............................................................................................13

4.2 Run Control ........................................................................................................................13

5 Results ....................................................................................................................................14

5.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................14

5.2 Direct Brine Releases from the Lower Drilling Location ..................................................15

5.3 Sensitivity of Direct Brine Releases to Input Parameters ..................................................27

6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................31

7 References ..............................................................................................................................31

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 3 of 32 

List of Tables 

Table 4-1: Scenarios used in BRAGFLO Salado flow modeling. ............................................... 11

Table 4-2: Intrusion times modeled by DBR for each scenario. .................................................. 12

Table 5-1: Summary statistics for the PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 DBR calculations over all 

replicates and vectors. ........................................................................................................... 15

Table 5-2: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR 

volumes over all three replicates for the S1-DBR calculations ............................................ 17

Table 5-3: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR 

volumes over all three replicates for the S2-DBR calculations. ........................................... 18

Table 5-4: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR 

volumes over all three replicates for the S3-DBR calculations. ........................................... 19

Table 5-5: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR 

volumes over all three replicates for the S4-DBR calculations. ........................................... 20

Table 5-6: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR 

volumes over all three replicates for the S5-DBR calculations. ........................................... 21

List of Figures 

Figure 3-1: PCS-2012 PA DBR material map (logical grid) with ROM salt PCS. ....................... 8

Figure 3-2: PABC-2009 DBR material map (logical grid) with Option D panel closure (after 

Clayton et al., 2010). ............................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3-3. Regions to be used to transfer initial pressure and saturation between the 10,000 year 

BRAGFLO grid and the DBR grid for the PABC-2009. ...................................................... 10

Figure 5-1: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of the scenario S1-DBR. ........................................................................................... 22

Figure 5-2: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S1-DBR.................................................................................................. 22

Figure 5-3: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S2-DBR.................................................................................................. 23

Figure 5-4: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S2-DBR.................................................................................................. 23

Figure 5-5: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S3-DBR.................................................................................................. 24

Figure 5-6: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S3-DBR.................................................................................................. 24

Figure 5-7: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S4-DBR.................................................................................................. 25

Figure 5-8: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S4-DBR.................................................................................................. 25

Figure 5-9: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S5-DBR.................................................................................................. 26

Figure 5-10: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S5-DBR.................................................................................................. 26

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 4 of 32 

Figure 5-11: Scatter plot of DBR volume versus pressure in the intruded panel for replicate 1, 

S2-DBR scenario, lower drilling intrusion, PCS-2012 PA. Symbols indicate intrusion times 

in years. ................................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 5-12: Scatter plot of DBR volume versus pressure in the intruded panel for replicate 1, 

S2-DBR scenario, lower drilling intrusion, PABC-2009. Symbols indicate intrusion times 

in years. ................................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 5-13: Scatter plot of DBR volume versus pressure in the intruded panel for replicate 1, 

S2-DBR scenario, lower drilling intrusion, PCS-2012 PA. Symbols indicate the range of 

mobile brine saturation (dimensionless). .............................................................................. 29

Figure 5-14: Scatter plot of DBR volume versus pressure in the intruded panel for replicate 1, 

S2-DBR scenario, lower drilling intrusion, PABC-2009. Symbols indicate the range of 

mobile brine saturation (dimensionless). .............................................................................. 29

Figure 5-15: Scatter plot of mobile brine saturation versus pressure for replicate 1, S2-DBR 

scenario, lower drilling intrusion, all intrusion times, PCS-2012 PA. Symbols indicate the 

range of DBR volumes in m3

. ............................................................................................... 30

Figure 5-16: Scatter plot of mobile brine saturation versus pressure for replicate 1, S2-DBR 

scenario, lower drilling intrusion, all intrusion times, PABC-2009. Symbols indicate the 

range of DBR volumes in m3

. ............................................................................................... 30

 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 5 of 32 

1 INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(SNL). WIPP PA calculations estimate the probability and consequence of potential 

radionuclide releases from the repository to the accessible environment for a regulatory period of 

10,000 years after facility closure. The models used in PA are maintained and updated with new 

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

features, events, and processes typically results in refinements and modifications to PA models 

and the parameters used in them. Planned changes to the repository and/or the components 

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

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

first waste shipment at the site in 1999. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

generated from ongoing mining operations at the WIPP and may be compacted and/or moistened 

as it is emplaced in a panel entry. The barriers consist of ventilation bulkheads, similar to those 

currently used in the panels as room closures. 

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

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

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

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

change, a performance assessment has been completed that incorporates the ROMPCS design 

into the current PA baseline established by the 2009 Performance Assessment Baseline 

Calculation, referred to hereafter as 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 those obtained in the PABC-2009 as 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 6 of 32 

a means to quantify potential impacts due to the panel closure redesign. This analysis package 

details the analysis of direct brine releases (DBRs) of the PCS-2012 PA. 

2 BACKGROUND 

DBRs are releases of contaminated brine originating in the repository and flowing up an 

intrusion borehole during the period of drilling. In order for DBR to occur, two criteria must be 

satisfied (Stoelzel and O’Brien 1996): 

1. Volume averaged brine pressure in the vicinity of the repository encountered by drilling 

must exceed drilling fluid hydrostatic pressure (calculated to be 8 MPa). 

2. Brine saturation in the repository must exceed the residual brine saturation of the waste 

material (sampled from a uniform distribution ranging from 0.0 to 0.552). 

If both of these criteria are met, a DBR is calculated using the multi-phase flow code BRAGFLO 

with a two dimensional, semi-horizontally oriented grid, which represents the vicinity of the 

waste panels. If either of these conditions is not satisfied, no DBR is calculated. 

DBRs are calculated from the following well deliverability equation in BRAGFLO (Mattax and 

Dalton 1990): 

  p  pp  PtPJtq wf )()( (1) 

where ݍ௣ሺݐሻ is the volumetric brine flux to the well as a function of time, ܬ ௣is the well 

productivity index, ܲ௣ሺݐሻ is the volume averaged brine pressure of the repository in the vicinity 

of the intrusion as a function of time, and ܲ௪௙ is the flowing bottom-hole pressure (assumed to 

be constant during each drilling intrusion). The flowing bottom-hole pressure is defined as the 

dynamic pressure at the inlet to the wellbore adjacent to the point of entry into the repository. It 

is less than the static pressure due to elevation, friction and acceleration effects (Stoelzel and 

O’Brien 1996). 

The well productivity index, ܬ௣, quantifies how readily brine can enter the well and flow to the 

surface. It is calculated from the following equation (Mattax and Dalton 1990; Chappelear and 

Williamson 1981): 





 



















 

2

1 ln

2

s

r

r

hkk

J

w

e

p

rp

P





 (2) 

where 

k Intrinsic permeability of the waste (constant: 2.4 x 10-13 m

2

, WAS_AREA:PRMX_LOG) 

rp k Relative permeability of the waste assuming the modified Brooks-Corey relative 

permeability model:  /32 

1

  erp Sk , where  is the pore distribution parameter 

(WAS_AREA:PORE_DIS), Se1 is the effective brine saturation without correction for 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 7 of 32 

residual gas saturation )1/()( 1   brbe  SSSS br , Sb is the brine saturation, and Sbr is the 

residual brine saturation (WAS_AREA:SAT_RBRN)

h Crushed panel height, defined as   )1/()1( ii hh , where ݄௜ is initial panel height 

(3.96 m), ߶௜ is the initial room-scale porosity (0.848, WAS_AREA:POROSITY)), and ߶

is the room-scale porosity at the time of intrusion (calculated by BRAGFLO see Helton et 

al. 1998) 

 Brine dynamic viscosity (0.0021 Pa-s, BRINESAL:VISCO) 

re Equivalent drainage radius of the grid block containing the well and is defined by 

e  yxr /))((  , where x and y are the grid cell dimensions of the grid cell 

containing the well. 

rw Well radius (0.1556 m, assuming a 12.25 in. drill bit diameter, BOREHOLE:DIAMMOD 

divided by two) 

s Skin factor (enhanced well productivity due to the presence of a cavity at base of well) 

The skin factor is calculated using (Lee 1982): 































 

s

w

s r

r

k

k

s ln1 , (3) 

where ks is the permeability of an open channel as a result of cuttings, cavings and spallings 

releases, and rs is the effective radius of the well bore with the cuttings, cavings and spallings 

volume (Vi) removed. 

The effective radius rs is obtained by converting the cuttings, cavings and spallings volume 

removed into a cylinder of equal volume with the initial height of the waste (hi), and then 

computing the radius of the cylinder: 

i



i

s h

V

r  . (4) 

For all WIPP PA calculations, ks is assumed to be infinite, in which case Equation (3) simplifies 

to 















 

s

w

r

r

s ln . (5) 

DBRs are calculated using the code BRAGFLO and a two-dimensional near-horizontal grid that 

dips 1° to the south. Five scenarios were simulated and are discussed in section 4.1. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 8 of 32 

3 APPROACH 

The conceptual models implemented in the PCS-2012 PA calculations are unchanged from those 

used in the PABC-2009 (Clayton et al., 2010). Changes incorporated in the PCS-2012 PA DBR 

calculations to model the ROMPCS are discussed below. 

3.1 Model Geometry 

The scenarios used for the PCS-2012 PA are the same as those used for the PABC-2009. The 

DBR numerical grid and material map used in the PCS-2012 PA calculations is shown in Figure 

3-1. Note that the color scheme in Figure 3-1 has been chosen so as to correspond to the color 

scheme used in the PCS-2012 PA BRAGFLO grid and material map (Figure 3-4 to Figure 3-8 in 

Camphouse 2012b). The PABC-2009 DBR numerical grid and material map is shown in Figure 

3-2. 

Figure 3-1: PCS-2012 PA DBR material map (logical grid) with ROM salt PCS. 

The Option D panel closure modeled in the PABC-2009 is 40 meters long whereas the ROMPCS 

modeled in the PCS-2012 PA is 30.48 meters (100 feet) long. As a result, grid cell lengths 

corresponding to panel closures were reduced to 30.48 meters in the PCS-2012 PA. In addition, 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 9 of 32 

the ROMPCS, which is modeled as run-of-mine salt in the PCS-2012 PA, has no concrete 

component that is “keyed in” to the surrounding DRZ. As a result, material elements 

corresponding to equivalent DRZ/concrete in the PABC-2009 are replaced by DRZ in the PCS2012 PA. 

 

Figure 3-2: PABC-2009 DBR material map (logical grid) with Option D panel closure (after 

Clayton et al., 2010). 

To calculate DBR volumes the same three drilling locations considered in PABC-2009 are 

considered in PCS-2012, namely: upper (up-dip), middle and lower (down-dip) locations. These 

are shown in Figure 3-1 (compare with Figure 3-2). Some of the calculations for DBR are for a 

drilling intrusion preceded by an earlier intrusion in either the same or different waste panel. The 

effects of these prior intrusions are incorporated into the calculations by specifying a boundary or 

initial condition well at their grid location, denoted by the red dot in Figure 3-1. The properties 

of the boundary condition well depend on the type of the prior intrusion and the time that has 

elapsed since its occurrence. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 10 of 32 

3.2 Initial Conditions 

Volume averaged brine pressures and brine saturations are calculated from the 10,000 year 

BRAGFLO simulations. The BRAGFLO results, corresponding to the time of intrusion, are 

used in the DBR simulations as initial conditions. The waste regions in the BRAGFLO grid and 

the DBR grid are each divided into three regions and volume-averaged brine pressure and 

saturations are transferred from corresponding regions in the BRAGFLO grid to the DBR grid. 

These regions corresponded to the single waste panel, south rest of repository (SRR), and north 

rest of repository (NRR). This method ensures that the relative volumes of these regions are 

equal between the 10,000 year BRAGFLO runs and the DBR runs. The definition of these 

repository regions can be seen in Figure 3-1. 

Figure 3-3 illustrates the method used to transfer initial conditions in the waste for the PCS-2012 

PA, which is unchanged from the PABC-2009 DBR runs. The volume averaged pressure and 

saturation from the three waste-filled regions in the BRAGFLO grid (WAS_AREA, SRR, NRR) 

at the time of the intrusion are used as the initial pressure and saturation for the three waste 

regions in the DBR grid (Lower, Middle, and Upper, respectively). The pressure and saturation 

can change during the DBR calculations. 

Figure 3-3. Regions to be used to transfer initial pressure and saturation between the 10,000 year 

BRAGFLO grid and the DBR grid for the PABC-2009. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 11 of 32 

4 CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 

DBR calculations are divided into five scenarios. Each DBR scenario represents an intrusion 

into the repository due to a drilling event. The initial conditions for the DBR simulations are 

obtained from the BRAGFLO Salado Flow simulations (Camphouse, 2012b) using an 

appropriate scenario and at an appropriate time for the particular drilling intrusion time. An E1 

intrusion scenario is defined as an intrusion into the repository, which creates a pathway to a 

pressurized brine pocket below the repository. An E2 intrusion scenario is defined as an 

intrusion into the repository that terminates in the repository and does not create a pathway to a 

pressurized brine pocket below the repository. The results of the DBR calculations are the 

volumes of brine that leave the repository and reach the surface at the time of drilling and up to 

4.5 days after. These results are used by the code CCDFGF to interpolate volumes of waste for 

the specific conditions that arise in a given future (location and timing of future drilling 

intrusions). 

4.1 Modeled Scenarios 

Below an overview is given of the DBR calculations performed for the PCS-2012 PA. In 

performing DBR calculations, the five BRAGLFO scenarios S1-BF to S5-BF used in Salado 

flow modeling are used to set volume-averaged brine pressure and brine saturation in the DBR 

calculations at the time of intrusion. These BRAGFLO Salado flow scenarios are listed in Table 

4-1. 

Table 4-1: Scenarios used in BRAGFLO Salado flow modeling.

Scenario Description 

S1-BF Undisturbed Repository 

S2-BF E1 intrusion at 350 years 

S3-BF E1 intrusion at 1,000 years 

S4-BF E2 intrusion at 350 years 

S5-BF E2 intrusion at 1,000 years 

With the brine pressure and brine saturation transferred from the Salado flow results, DBR 

calculations quantify impacts due to initial or subsequent intrusions into the repository. DBR 

simulations cover a range of intrusion scenarios, locations, and timing using five scenarios, S1-

DBR to S5-DBR. A summary of intrusion times for each scenario is given in Table 4-2. 

4.1.1 Scenario 1 (S1-DBR) 

The BRAGFLO Salado modeling results from the S1-BF scenario are used as initial conditions 

to construct the first intrusion into the repository in which a DBR may occur. In the BRAGFLO 

Salado flow modeling (Camphouse, 2012b), this scenario represents an undisturbed repository. 

In the computation of DBRs for this scenario, upper, middle, and lower drilling intrusions are 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 12 of 32 

modeled at 100, 350, 1,000, 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000 years (3 locations  6 intrusion times  100 

vectors = 1,800 calculations per replicate). 

Table 4-2: Intrusion times modeled by DBR for each scenario. 

Scenario Intrusion times (years) 

S1-DBR 100, 350, 1000, 3000, 5000, 10000 

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

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

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

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

4.1.2 Scenario 2 (S2-DBR) 

The BRAGFLO Salado flow modeling results from the S2-BF scenario are used as initial 

conditions to construct a second or subsequent intrusion into the repository in which a DBR may 

occur and in which the first intrusion had intersected a pressurized Castile brine reservoir at 350 

years (Camphouse, 2012b). For the second or subsequent intrusion, upper, middle, and lower 

drilling intrusions were modeled at 550, 750, 2,000, 4,000 and 10,000 years (3 locations  5 

intrusion times  100 vectors = 1,500 calculations per replicate). The effect of the prior E1 

intrusion is incorporated in the calculations by the specification of a boundary condition well as 

denoted by the red dot in Figure 3-1. The properties of the boundary condition well correspond 

to the properties at the time of the second intrusion. 

Runs for the lower drilling location assume that the second or subsequent intrusion occurs at the 

location labeled in Figure 3-1 as the “down-dip well”. This represents an intrusion in the same 

panel that was intersected by a previous intrusion (assumed to be at the location labeled 

“boundary condition well”) and therefore the abandoned borehole still connects the panel with 

the brine reservoir. Runs for the middle drilling location assume that the second or subsequent 

intrusion occurs at the location labeled in Figure 3-1 as the “middle well”; a previous intrusion is 

assumed to have occurred at the location labeled “boundary condition well,” which is in an 

adjacent panel. Runs for the upper drilling location assume that the second or subsequent 

intrusion occurs at the location labeled “up-dip well” in Figure 3-1; a previous intrusion is 

assumed to have occurred at the location labeled “boundary condition well,” which is in a panel 

that is not adjacent to the current intrusion. 

4.1.3 Scenario 3 (S3-DBR) 

The BRAGFLO Salado modeling results from the S3-BF scenario are used as initial conditions 

to construct a second or subsequent intrusion into the repository in which a DBR may occur and 

in which the first intrusion had intersected a pressurized Castile brine reservoir at 1,000 years 

(Camphouse, 2012b). Upper, middle, and lower second or subsequent intrusions are modeled at 

1,200, 1,400, 3,000, 5,000 and 10,000 years (3 locations  5 intrusion times  100 vectors = 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 13 of 32 

1,500 calculations per replicate). The effect of the prior E1 intrusion and the lower, middle, and 

upper drilling locations are treated the same as for the S2-DBR scenario. 

4.1.4 Scenario 4 (S4-DBR) 

For this scenario, the BRAGFLO Salado flow modeling results from the S4-BF scenario are used 

as initial conditions to construct a second or subsequent intrusion into the repository in which a 

DBR may occur and in which the first intrusion occurs at 350 years without hitting a Castile 

brine reservoir (Camphouse, 2012b). Upper, middle, and lower second or subsequent intrusions 

are modeled at 550, 750, 2,000, 4,000 and 10,000 years (3 locations  5 intrusion times  100 

vectors = 1,500 calculations per replicate). Runs for the lower drilling location assume the 

second or subsequent intrusion occurs at the location labeled in Figure 3-1 as the “down-dip 

well”. This represents an intrusion into the same panel that was intersected by a previous E2 

intrusion. The borehole from the previous intrusion is not represented explicitly in the model. 

Runs for the middle drilling location assume that the second or subsequent intrusion occurs at the 

location labeled in Figures 3-1 as the “middle well.” Runs for the upper drilling location assume 

that the second or subsequent intrusion occurs at the location labeled “up-dip well” in Figure 3-1. 

4.1.5 Scenario 5 (S5-DBR) 

The BRAGFLO Salado flow modeling results from the S5-BF scenario are used as initial 

conditions to construct a second or subsequent intrusion into the repository in which a DBR may 

occur and in which the first intrusion occurs at 1,000 years without intersecting a Castile brine 

reservoir (Camphouse, 2012). Upper, middle, and lower second or subsequent intrusions are be 

modeled at 1,200, 1,400, 3,000, 5,000 and 10,000 years (3 locations  5 intrusion times  100 

vectors = 1,500 calculations per replicate). The lower, middle, and upper drilling locations are 

treated the same as for the S4-DBR scenario. 

4.2 Run Control 

Run control, including code versions used and descriptions of code sequencing used to obtain 

DBR results in the PCS-2012 PA, are documented in Camphouse et al. (2012). PCS-2012 PA 

initial conditions and results obtained from BRAGFLO DBR pre- and post-processing, 

respectively, are contained in files with the names: 

1. ALG2_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_Vvvv.CDB and 

2. ALG3_DBR_AP161_Rr_Ss_Tttttt_ c_Vvvv.CDB, 

where r (the replicate number) equals 1,2, or 3, s (the scenario number) equals 1,2,3,4,5, or 6, ttttt 

(time in years) equals 00550, 00750, 02000, 04000, or 10000, c (drilling location) is either L, M 

or U, and vvv (the vector number) is between 001 and 100. These files are located in CMS 

library LIBAP161_DBRRrSs under class AP161-0. PABC-2009 results used herein for purposes 

comparison have equivalent file names with ‘AP161’ replaced by ‘PABC09’, and are located in 

CMS library LIBPABC09_DBRRrSs under class PABC09-0. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 14 of 32 

5 RESULTS 

The DBR calculations over all three replicates of the PCS-2012 are presented in this section and 

compared to results from all three replicates of the PABC-2009. The analysis of the PABC-2009 

results is described in Clayton (2008) and will only be summarized herein as appropriate. For 

consistency with previous analyses, non-zero volumes are defined as volumes that are greater 

than 10-7 m3. 

Each replicate of DBR calculations resulted in 7,800 (1,800 for first intrusion and 1,500×4= 

6,000 for second intrusion) separate vector-scenario-drilling location-time combinations. These 

results are used as input to the code CCDFGF, which then calculates a release for any vectorintrusion time combination. This is done by first, linearly interpolating modeled volumes 

between the fixed intrusion times (Table 4-2) and second, multiplying the resulting intrusionspecific DBR volume with the radionuclide concentration calculated for that vector and intrusion 

time by the code PANEL (Garner 2010). 

5.1 Summary 

In this section, results from the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009 are compared. Pertinent 

summary statistics for the calculations are listed in Table 5-1. The maximum DBR volumes 

shown in the table are over all three replicates, times, vectors and drilling locations. Overall there 

is a consistent increase in the maximum DBR volumes from PABC-2009 to PCS-2012 PA. The 

largest increases were observed in scenarios S4-DBR and S5-DBR which are associated with E2 

intrusions. The BRAGFLO modeling results reported by Camphouse (2012b), show that E2 

intrusion scenarios in the PCS-2012 PA yielded waste panel pressure that is higher, on average, 

than that seen in the PABC-2009 at the time of intrusion and it remains higher for the duration 

of the 10,000 year regulatory period. Similarly, the mean waste panel brine saturation is higher 

at the time of intrusion in the PCS-2012 PA, resulting in higher long-term waste panel brine 

saturations for E2 intrusion scenarios (Camphouse, 2012b). DBRs are strongly dependent on 

waste panel pressure and brine saturation at the time of intrusion. Hence, increases to these two 

quantities lead to the increased maximum DBR volumes observed in scenarios S4-DBR and S5-

DBR, and to the higher overall number of non-zero brine volume vectors. 

The moderate increases in maximum DBR volumes for scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR are due 

to the fact that the lower long-term permeability range of the ROMPCS as compared to Option D 

yields a period of increased waste panel pressurization following an E1 intrusion. The increased 

mean waste panel pressure slightly inhibits brine flow into the panel after the intrusion, resulting 

in only a slight decrease to the mean waste panel brine saturation as compared to PABC-2009 E1 

intrusion results. The combination of increased pressure and a slight decrease to brine saturation 

yields an increase to the maximum DBR volume seen in the PCS-2012 PA E1 results. 

For undisturbed conditions, implementation of the ROMPCS yields higher long-term waste panel 

pressure (on average) than was seen in the PABC-2009 (Camphouse, 2012b). 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, 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 15 of 32 

combined with the tightness of the ROMPCS after 200 years, results in increased waste panel gas 

generation (on average) and a subsequent increase to waste panel mean pressure. This explains 

the increase in the scenario S1-DBR maximum DBR volume for the PCS-2012 PA compared to 

the PABC-2009. 

Table 5-1 shows a modest (~6%) increase in the number of non-zero DBR volumes for the PCS2012 PA calculations compared with the PABC-2009, and modest increases in the average DBR 

volumes for all scenarios. These increases attributable to the increases in waste panel brine 

pressure and brine saturation discussed above and presented in more detail in Camphouse 

(2012b). 

Table 5-1: Summary statistics for the PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 DBR calculations over all 

replicates and vectors. 

Scenario

Number of Vectors Maximum volume (m3

) Average volume (m3)

PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA

S1‐DBR 369 419 27.6 45.9 0.1 0.4

S2‐DBR 1179 1174 48.2 52.9 2.8 2.9

S3‐DBR 926 907 40.6 43.8 1.5 1.4

S4‐DBR 211 281 20.4 42.5 0.1 0.2

S5‐DBR 314 401 21.1 53.8 0.1 0.3

Overall 2999 3182 48.2 53.8 0.9 1.0

Note: The volume of direct brine released was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in 

the ALGEBRACDB step 3 post-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files. 

5.2 Direct Brine Releases from the Lower Drilling Location 

Table 5-2 through Table 5-6 summarize the number of vectors for the PCS-2012 PA calculations 

with non-zero DBR volumes, and the maximum and average DBR volumes for the 300 vectors 

in each scenario-time-drilling location combination. The same summary statistics for the PABC2009 are included in the tables for comparison. 

One important result that is evident from Table 5-2 through Table 5-6 and has been reported 

consistently in previously analyses is that DBRs are less likely to occur in intrusions situated in 

the upper drilling location than in the lower drilling location. Of all the intrusions that had a 

non-zero DBR volume for the PCS-2012 PA, 63.4% occurred during a lower drilling intrusion, a 

modest decrease from the value of 66.5% for PABC-2009. Furthermore, of all the intrusions that 

had a non-zero DBR volume and occur during a lower drilling intrusion, 78.0% are found in 

scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR, a slight decrease from 82.9% for PABC-2009 (Clayton et al., 

2010). Therefore, as has been observed previously (Clayton et al., 2010; Pasch and Camphouse, 

2011), the majority of the non-zero DBR volumes occur when there is a previous E1 intrusion 

within the same panel. Not only are DBRs less likely to occur during upper drilling intrusions, 

but also the DBR volumes from such intrusions tend to be much smaller than those from lower 

drilling intrusions. For all three replicates of the PCS-2012 PA, the maximum DBR volume for 

the upper drilling location is 25.7 m3

 compared to 53.8 m3 for the lower drilling location. These 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 16 of 32 

observations support the conclusion that lower drilling intrusions are the primary source for 

significant DBRs. 

Figures 5-1 to 5-10 are probability plots of the DBR volumes for scenarios S1-DBR to S5-DBR 

for all three replicates. Results of the PCS-2012 PA are compared to those of the PABC-2009. 

The probability plots show the percentiles (x-axis) of the DBR volumes (y-axis). The plots of 

PCS-2012 PA results are generally similar to those of the PABC-2009. However, unlike the 

PABC-2009 where the largest DBR volume was observed in scenario S2-DBR, for the PCS2012 PA the largest DBR volume occurs in scenario S5-DBR. 

 

Information Only
Analysis Pack

Table 5-2: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR volumes over all t

S1-DBR calculations 

Time (yrs)

Drilling

Location

Number of Vectors Maximum volume (m3) Average vo

PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 

100 L 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 350 L 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 

1,000 L 26 40 1.51E+01 4.59E+01 1.80E‐01 3,000 L 37 52 5.92E+00 4.12E+01 1.16E‐01 5,000 L 46 55 2.19E+01 3.29E+01 2.92E‐01 

10,000 L 46 56 2.03E+01 3.66E+01 4.26E‐01 

100 M 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 350 M 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 

1,000 M 19 23 6.33E+00 4.30E+01 5.14E‐02 3,000 M 32 33 2.27E+00 1.40E+01 3.95E‐02 5,000 M 29 32 2.25E+01 2.19E+01 1.24E‐01 

10,000 M 31 30 2.76E+01 1.65E+01 1.32E‐01 

100 U 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 350 U 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 

1,000 U 16 17 6.15E+00 5.23E+00 4.75E‐02 3,000 U 29 27 1.73E+00 1.53E+00 3.13E‐02 5,000 U 28 26 2.02E+01 2.13E+01 7.82E‐02 

10,000 U 30 28 1.91E+01 2.57E+01 9.37E‐02 

Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7 m3 have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is c

value of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculated by the 

divided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in tpost-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance A

Table 5-3: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR volumes over all t

S2-DBR calculations.

Time (yrs)

Drilling

Location

Number of Vectors Maximum volume (m3) Average vo

PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 

550 L 285 287 3.74E+01 4.01E+01 1.23E+01 750 L 255 245 3.86E+01 3.80E+01 1.16E+01 

2,000 L 164 165 3.78E+01 4.43E+01 7.11E+00 4,000 L 140 133 4.39E+01 4.43E+01 5.38E+00 

10,000 L 137 127 4.82E+01 5.29E+01 5.64E+00 

550 M 7 8 4.41E+00 1.33E+01 1.71E‐02 750 M 15 19 7.63E+00 2.98E+01 5.02E‐02 

2,000 M 32 36 8.70E+00 3.38E+01 1.42E‐01 4,000 M 30 31 2.10E+01 1.04E+01 9.88E‐02 

10,000 M 24 32 1.79E+01 1.37E+01 1.25E‐01 

550 U 5 4 4.14E‐01 4.38E‐01 1.91E‐03 750 U 9 7 2.35E+00 1.16E‐01 9.01E‐03 

2,000 U 27 29 9.68E+00 7.25E+00 1.12E‐01 4,000 U 27 25 1.18E+00 8.23E‐01 1.54E‐02 

10,000 U 22 26 1.24E+01 2.46E+01 7.96E‐02 

Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7 m3 have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is c

value of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculated by the 

divided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in tpost-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance A

Table 5-4: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR volumes over all t

S3-DBR calculations. 

Time (yrs)

Drilling

Location

Number of Vectors Maximum volume (m3) Average 

PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 

1,200 L 231 221 3.68E+01 3.55E+01 8.76E+00 1,400 L 166 159 3.25E+01 3.18E+01 5.41E+00 3,000 L 96 85 2.68E+01 3.48E+01 2.47E+00 5,000 L 90 74 3.76E+01 4.15E+01 2.70E+00 

10,000 L 90 77 4.06E+01 4.38E+01 2.76E+00 

1,200 M 27 32 1.81E+01 3.36E+01 1.58E‐01 1,400 M 32 35 1.98E+01 3.48E+01 2.13E‐01 3,000 M 29 34 3.59E+00 1.40E+01 4.48E‐02 5,000 M 26 30 2.17E+01 2.24E+01 1.21E‐01 

10,000 M 21 32 1.34E+01 1.46E+01 6.40E‐02 

1,200 U 23 22 4.39E+00 5.28E+00 4.45E‐02 1,400 U 23 24 2.64E+00 3.20E+00 3.60E‐02 3,000 U 29 31 1.95E+00 1.46E+00 3.39E‐02 5,000 U 24 25 1.96E+01 2.21E+01 7.33E‐02 

10,000 U 19 26 1.22E+01 2.46E+01 7.35E‐02 

Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7 m3 have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is c

value of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculated by the 

divided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in tpost-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance A

Table 5-5: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR volumes over all t

S4-DBR calculations. 

Time (yrs)

Drilling

Location

Number of Vectors Maximum volume (m3) Average v

PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 

550 L 6 12 1.00E+00 3.17E+01 4.09E‐03 750 L 5 9 1.93E+01 1.62E+01 7.36E‐02 

2,000 L 17 21 1.60E+01 4.25E+01 1.44E‐01 4,000 L 22 26 1.92E+01 3.52E+01 9.43E‐02 

10,000 L 24 29 2.04E+01 3.91E+01 2.11E‐01 

550 M 6 7 5.48E‐01 1.17E+01 2.47E‐03 750 M 9 11 2.61E+00 2.57E+01 1.08E‐02 

2,000 M 18 30 8.25E+00 3.30E+01 7.98E‐02 4,000 M 19 28 1.72E+00 1.02E+01 2.00E‐02 

10,000 M 14 27 1.48E+00 1.49E+01 9.71E‐03 

550 U 5 4 4.12E‐01 4.35E‐01 1.89E‐03 750 U 8 6 2.05E+00 1.12E‐01 7.93E‐03 

2,000 U 22 25 9.60E+00 6.89E+00 1.05E‐01 4,000 U 21 24 1.21E+00 9.62E‐01 1.26E‐02 

10,000 U 15 22 1.11E+01 2.44E+01 5.08E‐02 

Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7 m3 have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is c

value of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculated by the 

divided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in tpost-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance A

Table 5-6: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBR volumes over all t

S5-DBR calculations. 

Time (yrs)

Drilling

Location

Number of Vectors Maximum volume (m3) Average 

PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 PCS‐2012 PA PABC‐2009 

1,200 L 31 50 1.97E+01 4.21E+01 3.17E‐01 1,400 L 15 18 2.11E+01 4.12E+01 2.05E‐01 3,000 L 18 21 6.01E+00 4.04E+01 6.79E‐02 5,000 L 23 25 9.25E+00 3.43E+01 6.25E‐02 

10,000 L 24 29 2.03E+01 5.38E+01 2.10E‐01 

1,200 M 25 29 1.81E+01 3.42E+01 1.53E‐01 1,400 M 26 33 1.98E+01 3.53E+01 2.11E‐01 3,000 M 21 31 4.17E+00 1.41E+01 4.01E‐02 5,000 M 19 26 1.58E+00 1.05E+01 1.28E‐02 

10,000 M 14 27 1.48E+00 1.42E+01 1.02E‐02 

1,200 U 21 20 4.32E+00 4.15E+00 3.56E‐02 1,400 U 20 22 2.67E+00 3.59E+00 3.81E‐02 3,000 U 23 25 2.03E+00 1.54E+00 3.13E‐02 5,000 U 19 23 1.15E+00 1.19E+01 7.91E‐03 

10,000 U 15 22 1.11E+01 2.44E+01 5.03E‐02 

 Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7 m3 have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is c

value of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculated by the 

divided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in tpost-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for DBR: PABC-2009 

Revision 0 

Page 22 of 32 

Figure 5-1: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of the scenario S1-DBR. 

Figure 5-2: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S1-DBR. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 23 of 32 

Figure 5-3: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S2-DBR. 

Figure 5-4: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S2-DBR. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 24 of 32 

Figure 5-5: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S3-DBR. 

Figure 5-6: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S3-DBR. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 25 of 32 

Figure 5-7: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S4-DBR. 

Figure 5-8: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S4-DBR. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 26 of 32 

Figure 5-9: PCS-2012 PA lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S5-DBR. 

Figure 5-10: PABC-2009 lower intrusion DBR volume percentile rankings for all replicates and 

vectors of scenario S5-DBR. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 27 of 32 

5.3 Sensitivity of Direct Brine Releases to Input Parameters 

Volume averaged brine pressure and brine saturation in the intruded panel are the two most 

important variables that control DBR volumes (Clayton 2008). The sensitivity of the DBR 

volumes to these two variables is discussed qualitatively here. For the plots given below, the 

values of these parameters were extracted from the ALG2 files from the DBR calculations. 

Scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR have significant DBR volumes because the presence of a 

previous borehole connecting the repository to the Castile brine reservoir has the general effect 

of simultaneously increasing the waste panel pressure and brine saturation. The sensitivity 

analysis presented here focuses on scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR because these scenarios have 

the greatest number of significant DBR volumes. As in previous DBR analyses performed 

hitherto, scenarios S1-DBR, S4-DBR, and S5-DBR have very few runs with non-zero DBR 

volumes and are thus excluded from the sensitivity analysis presented herein. Due to the close 

similarity between scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR, only scenario S2-DBR is discussed in the 

sensitivity analysis. 

Volume averaged brine pressure in the intruded panel at the time of the intrusion is an important 

factor for many vectors. Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12 show scenario S2-DBR scatter plots of 

DBR volume versus pressure in the intruded panel at different intrusion times for the case of a 

lower (down-dip) location of drilling intrusion for the PCS-2012 PA and the PABC-2009, 

respectively. As prescribed by the conceptual model, there are no DBRs until the brine pressure 

exceeds the hydrostatic threshold of 8 MPa, indicated in the figures by the vertical line. Above 8 

MPa, there is still a significant number of vectors having zero DBR volumes; these vectors have 

associated mobile brine saturations that are less than zero and thus no brine is available in a 

mobile form to be released (Clayton et al., 2010). Figure 5-13 and Figure 5-14 show scatter plots 

of the same data as in Figures 5-11 and 5-12 but for different mobile brine saturation ranges. 

They show that DBR volumes tend to increase with increasing pressure and increasing mobile 

brine saturation, the variables to which DBR volumes are historically sensitive. 

As the case was with the PABC-2009 results reported in Clayton et al. (2010) and reproduced 

here in Figures 5-12 and 5-14, the PCS-2012 PA results in Figures 5-11 and 5-13 show a 

clustering of the data about a linear trend (dashed line in the figures) with a slope of about 8 

m3

/MPa and intersecting the pressure axis at 8 MPa. Comparing results in Figure 5-11 to those in 

Figure 5-13 reveals that the linearity of the clustering is more strongly dependent on mobile 

brine saturation than it is on intrusion time. The results further indicate that the linearity of the 

correlation between pressure and DBR volumes increases with increasing mobile brine 

saturation. 

Figure 5-15 and Figure 5-16 are plots of mobile brine saturation versus pressure for the S2-DBR 

scenario for all intrusion times with symbols indicating the range of DBR volumes, for the PCS2012 PA and the PABC-2009, respectively. Though these figures do not show any meaningful 

correlation between mobile brine saturation and brine pressure, they show the general increase in 

DBR volume with both brine saturation and pressure alluded to above, with only modest 

differences between the PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 results. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 28 of 32 

Figure 5-11: Scatter plot of DBR volume versus pressure in the intruded panel for replicate 1, 

S2-DBR scenario, lower drilling intrusion, PCS-2012 PA. Symbols indicate intrusion 

times in years. 

Figure 5-12: Scatter plot of DBR volume versus pressure in the intruded panel for replicate 1, 

S2-DBR scenario, lower drilling intrusion, PABC-2009. Symbols indicate intrusion 

times in years. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 29 of 32 

Figure 5-13: Scatter plot of DBR volume versus pressure in the intruded panel for replicate 1, 

S2-DBR scenario, lower drilling intrusion, PCS-2012 PA. Symbols indicate the range 

of mobile brine saturation (dimensionless). 

Figure 5-14: Scatter plot of DBR volume versus pressure in the intruded panel for replicate 1, 

S2-DBR scenario, lower drilling intrusion, PABC-2009. Symbols indicate the range 

of mobile brine saturation (dimensionless). 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 30 of 32 

Figure 5-15: Scatter plot of mobile brine saturation versus pressure for replicate 1, S2-DBR 

scenario, lower drilling intrusion, all intrusion times, PCS-2012 PA. Symbols indicate 

the range of DBR volumes in m3

. 

Figure 5-16: Scatter plot of mobile brine saturation versus pressure for replicate 1, S2-DBR 

scenario, lower drilling intrusion, all intrusion times, PABC-2009. Symbols indicate 

the range of DBR volumes in m3

. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 31 of 32 

6 CONCLUSIONS 

The DBR results from all three replicates of the PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 show that direct 

brine releases to the surface are very unlikely for most intrusions into the repository and in most 

cases such intrusions result in non-zero but inconsequential DBR volumes. The exception to this 

statement is for intrusions into a panel that had previously been intruded by an earlier bore hole 

that had also intruded an underlying pressurized Castile brine reservoir. Such intrusions are 

represented in PA by the lower drilling intrusions in the scenarios S2-DBR and S3-DBR. Based 

on a comparison of the results from the PCS-2012 PA to those from the PABC-2009, it is 

concluded that the PCS-2012 PA maximum DBR volumes are higher for each scenario, the 

frequency of DBR releases is slightly (almost imperceptibly) higher, and the variability in DBR 

volumes is higher. As in previous analyses, these results have been explained in terms of the 

parameters that affect DBR volumes. 

7 REFERENCES 

Camphouse, R.C. 2012a. Analysis Plan for the 2012 WIPP Panel Closure System Performance 

Assessment. AP-161, Revision 0. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 

557726. 

Camphouse, R.C. 2012b. Analysis Package for Salado Flow Modeling Done in the AP-161 

(PCS-2012) Performance Assessment. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. 

ERMS 558204. 

Camphouse, R.C., D.C. Kicker, T.B. Kirchner, J.J. Long, B. Malama, and Zeitler, T.R. 2012. 

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

Performance Assessment. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. (in preparation) 

Chappelear, J.E. and A.S. Williamson. 1981. Representing Wells in Numerical Reservoir 

Simulation. ERMS 249488. 

Clayton, D.J. 2008. Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: Compliance Recertification 

Application – 2009. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 548571. 

Clayton, D.J. 2010. Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: CRA-2009 Performance 

Assessment Baseline Calculation, Revision 0. Sandia National Laboratories. Carlsbad, 

NM. ERMS 552829. 

Clayton, D.J., R.C. Camphouse, J.W. Garner, A.E. Ismail, T.B. Kirchner, K.L. Kuhlman, and 

M.B. Nemer. 2010. Summary Report of the CRA-2009 Performance Assessment 

Baseline Calculation. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 553039. 

Hansen, C. W. 2002. Analysis Report for the Panel Closure Impact Assessment. Sandia National 

Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 523935. 

Helton, J.C, J.E. Bean, F.W. Berglund, F.J. Davis, K. Economy, J.W. Garner, J.D. Johnson, R.J. 

MacKinnon, J. Miller, D.G. O'Brien, J.L. Ramsey, J.D. Schreiber, A. Shinta, L.N. Smith, 

D.M. Stoelzel, C. Stockman and P. Vaughn. 1998. Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis 

Results Obtained in the 1996 Performance Assessment for the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. SAND98-0365, ERMS 252619. 

Information Only
Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA) 

Revision 0 

Page 32 of 32 

Kirkes, G.R. 2011. Features, Events and Processes Assessment for Changes Described in 

Analysis Plan – 151, Revision 0. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 

555237 

Lee, J. 1982. Well Testing. SPE Textbook Series Vol. 1. New York, NY: Society of Petroleum 

Engineers of AIME. 

Mattax, C.C. and R.L. Dalton. 1990. Reservoir Simulation. Henery L. Doherty Memorial Fund 

Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., Richardson, TX. 

Nemer, M.B. 2010. Analysis Package for Salado Flow Modeling: CRA-2009 Performance 

Assessment Baseline Calculation. Sandia National Laboratories. Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 

552956 

Pasch, J. and C. Camphouse, 2011. Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: Panel Closure 

Redesign and Repository Reconfiguration Performance Assessment (PC3R PA), 

Revision 0. Sandia National Laboratories. Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 555249. 

Stoelzel, D.M. and D.G. O'Brien. 1996. Conceptual Model Description of BRAGFLO Direct 

Brine Release Calculations to Support the Compliance Certification Application (CCA 

MASS Attachment 16-2). U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 239090. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. 40 CFR 194, Criteria for the Certification 

and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance with the Disposal 

Regulations: Certification Decision: Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 63, 27354-27406. 

ERMS 251924. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. 40 CFR Part 194 Criteria for the 

Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance With the 

Disposal Regulations: Recertification Decision, Federal Register No. 222, Vol. 75, pp. 

70584-70595, November 18, 2010. 

Vugrin, E.D. and S.C. Dunagan. 2006. Analysis Package for the Impact Assessment of the 

Redesigned WIPP Panel Closure. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 

543865. 

Information Only