# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce 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

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce 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 statistic s 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-zer o, 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-zer o, 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-zer o, 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-zer o, 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-zer o, 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 D BR 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 intr usion DBR volume percentile rank ings for all replicates and

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

Figure 5-2: PABC-2009 lower intr usion DBR volume percentile ra nkings for all replicates and

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

Figure 5-3: PCS-2012 PA lower intr usion DBR volume percentile rank ings for all replicates and

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

Figure 5-4: PABC-2009 lower intr usion DBR volume percentile ra nkings for all replicates and

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

Figure 5-5: PCS-2012 PA lower intr usion DBR volume percentile rank ings for all replicates and

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

Figure 5-6: PABC-2009 lower intr usion DBR volume percentile ra nkings for all replicates and

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

Figure 5-7: PCS-2012 PA lower intr usion DBR volume percentile rank ings for all replicates and

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

Figure 5-8: PABC-2009 lower intr usion DBR volume percentile ra nkings for all replicates and

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

Figure 5-9: PCS-2012 PA lower intr usion DBR volume percentile rank ings for all replicates and

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

Figure 5-10: PABC-2009 lower intrus ion DBR volume percentile rank ings for all replicates and

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

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 4 of 32



# Figure 5-11: Scatter plot of DB R volume versus pressure in th e 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 DB R volume versus pressure in th e 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 DB R volume versus pressure in th e intruded panel for replicate 1,

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

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

Figure 5-14: Scatter plot of DB R volume versus pressure in th e 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 m obile brine saturation versus pr essure for replicate 1, S2-DBR

scenario, lower drilling intrus ion, all intrusion times, PCS-2 012 PA. Symbols indicate the

range of DBR volumes in m 3 

# . ............................................................................................... 30

Figure 5-16: Scatter plot of m obile brine saturation versus pr essure for replicate 1, S2-DBR

scenario, lower drilling intr usion, all intrusion times, PA BC-2009. Symbols indicate the

range of DBR volumes in m 3 

# . ............................................................................................... 30

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 5 of 32



# 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 geologic (deep underground) disposal of

transuranic (TRU) waste. Cont ainment 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 Certif ication Criteria in Ti tle 40 CFR Part 194 by

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

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

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

10,000 years after facility closure. The models us ed 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 ch anges to the repository and/or the components

therein also result in updates to WIPP PA mode ls. 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 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. 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 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 fe et 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 c onsist of ventilation bulkheads, similar to those

currently used in the pane ls 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 Certificati on 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 us e in all panels (DOE, 2011). In support of this rulemaking

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

into the current PA baseline establishe d by the 2009 Performanc e Assessment Baseline

Calculation, referred to hereaf ter 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 comp ared to those obtained in the PABC-2009 as

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce 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 brin e releases (DBRs) of the PCS-2012 PA.

2 BACKGROUND

DBRs are releases of contaminated brine orig inating 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 vici nity of the repository encountered by drilling

must exceed drilling fluid hydrostatic pr essure (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 orient ed grid, which represents the vicinity of the

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

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

Dalton 1990):



#  

wf pp p 

# PtPJtq

  )()( (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-hol e pressure is defined as the

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

is less than the static pressure due to eleva tion, 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 assu ming the modified Brooks-Corey relative

permeability model:    /32

1 



#  erp 

# Sk 

# , where  is the pore distribution parameter

(WAS_AREA:PORE_DIS), S e1 

# is the effective brine satu ration without correction for

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 7 of 32



# residual gas saturation 

# )1/()(

1 br brbe 

# SSSS

  

, b 

# S is the brine saturation, and

br 

# S is the

residual brine saturati on (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)

r

e 

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

 /))(( yxr

e 

#  

# , where  x

and  y are the grid cell dimens ions of the grid cell

containing the well.

r

w 

# Well radius (0.1556 m, assuming a 12.25 i n. 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 k

s 

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

releases, and r s 

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

volume ( V i 

# ) removed.

The effective radius r s 

# is obtained by converting the cutti ngs, cavings and spallings volume

removed into a cylinder of equal volume w ith the initial height of the waste ( h i 

# ), and then

computing the radius of the cylinder:

 i i

s 

# h V

r  

# . (4)

For all WIPP PA calculations, k

s 

# 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-dimensi onal near-horizontal grid that

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

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 8 of 32



# 3 APPROACH

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

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

calculations to model the RO MPCS are discussed below.

3.1 Model Geometry

The scenarios used for the PCS-2012 PA are th e 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 ha s been chosen so as to correspond to the color

scheme used in the PCS-2012 PA BRAGFLO grid an d 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 DB R material map (logical grid) with ROM salt PCS.

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

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

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

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 9 of 32



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

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

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

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

Clayton et al., 2010).

To calculate DBR volumes the same three dr illing 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 ear lier intrusion in either the same or different waste panel. The

effects of these prior in trusions are incorporated into the ca lculations by specifying a boundary or

initial condition well at their grid location, deno ted 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.

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 10 of 32



# 3.2 Initial Conditions

Volume averaged brine pressures and brine sa turations 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 re gions and volume-averaged brine pressure and

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

These regions corresponded to the single waste pane l, 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 a nd 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 in itial pressure and satura tion 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 init ial pressure and saturation between the 10,000 year

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

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce 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 (C amphouse, 2012b) using an

appropriate scenario and at an appropriate time fo r 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 re sults are used by the code CCDFGF to interpolate volumes of waste for

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

intrusions).

4.1 Modeled Scenarios

Below an overview is given of the DBR cal culations 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 brin e saturation in the DBR

calculations at the time of intrus ion. 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 intrus ions into the repository. DBR

simulations cover a range of intr usion scenarios, locat ions, 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 reposit ory in which a DBR may occur. In the BRAGFLO

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

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

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce 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 calculati ons 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 th e repository in which a DBR may

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

years (Camphouse, 2012b). For the second or subs equent 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 calculati ons 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 pr operties of the boundary condition well correspond

to the properties at the ti me of the second intrusion.

Runs for the lower drilling location assume that th e 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 intrus ion (assumed to be at the location labeled

“boundary condition well”) and ther efore the abandoned borehole st ill connects the panel with

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

intrusion occurs at the location la beled in Figure 3-1 as the “middl e well”; a previous intrusion is

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

adjacent panel. Runs for the upper drilling lo cation 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 labele d “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 in to the repository in which a DBR may occur and

in which the first intrusion ha d intersected a pressurized Cast ile brine reserv oir at 1,000 years

(Camphouse, 2012b). Upper, middle, and lower sec ond 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 =

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 13 of 32



# 1,500 calculations per replicate). The effect of th e 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 mode ling results from the S4-BF scenario are used

as initial conditions to construc t 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 oc curs 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 intrusi on is not represented explicitly in the model.

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

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

that the second or subsequent intr usion occurs at the location labe led “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 th e repository in which a DBR may

occur and in which the first intrusion occurs at 1,000 years without inte rsecting 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 re plicate). 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 documente d 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_T ttttt_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_DBRRr Ss under class PABC09-0.

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce 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 analys is of the PABC-2009

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

consistency with previous anal yses, non-zero volumes are define d as volumes that are greater

than 10 -7 

# m 3



# .

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

6,000 for second intrusion) separate vector-scenario-drilling locat ion-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 concentra tion 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 li sted in Table 5-1. The maximum DBR volumes

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

is a consistent increase in the maximum DB R 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 mode ling results reported by Cam phouse (2012b), show that E2

intrusion scenarios in th e PCS-2012 PA yielded waste panel pre ssure 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, th e mean waste panel brine saturation is higher

at the time of intrusion in the PCS-2012 PA, re sulting in higher long-te rm waste panel brine

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

waste panel pressure and brine sa turation 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 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 only a slight decrease to th e mean waste panel brine satura tion as compared to PABC-2009 E1

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

yields an increase to the maximum DBR vol ume 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 the PABC-2009 (Cam phouse, 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,

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce 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 subs equent increase to waste panel mean pressure. This explains

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

the PABC-2009.

Table 5-1 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 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 statistic s for the PCS-2012 PA and PABC-2009 DBR calculations over all

replicates and vectors.

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

Note: The volume of direct brine rel eased was obtained from the output vari able 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 lo cation combination. The same summary statistics for the PABC2009 are included in the ta bles for comparison.

One important result that is evident from Ta ble 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% 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 PABC-2009 (Clayton et al.,

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

2011), 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

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 16 of 32



# observations support the conclusi on that lower drilling intrusi ons are the primary source for

significant DBRs.

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

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

The probability plots show the percentiles (x-axi s) 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 obs erved in scenario S2-DBR, for the PCS2012 PA the largest DBR volume o ccurs in scenario S5-DBR.Analysis Package for DBR: PABC-2009Revision 0Page 17 of 32Table 5-2: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBRvolumes over all three replicates for theS1-DBR calculationsTime(yrs)DrillingLocationNumberofVectorsMaximumvolume(m3)Averagevolume(m3)PABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PA100L000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+00350L000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+001,000L26401.51E+014.59E+011.80E‐011.01E+003,000L37525.92E+004.12E+011.16E‐016.51E‐015,000L46552.19E+013.29E+012.92E‐017.81E‐0110,000L46562.03E+013.66E+014.26E‐018.96E‐01100M000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+00350M000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+001,000M19236.33E+004.30E+015.14E‐024.56E‐013,000M32332.27E+001.40E+013.95E‐021.78E‐015,000M29322.25E+012.19E+011.24E‐012.42E‐0110,000M31302.76E+011.65E+011.32E‐011.76E‐01100U000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+00350U000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+000.00E+001,000U16176.15E+005.23E+004.75E‐023.94E‐023,000U29271.73E+001.53E+003.13E‐022.29E‐025,000U28262.02E+012.13E+017.82E‐021.21E‐0110,000U30281.91E+012.57E+019.37E‐021.16E‐01Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7m3have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is calculated as the maximumvalue of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculatedby the total of the DBR volumesdivided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in the ALGEBRACDB step 3post-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files.Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)Revision 0Page 18 of 32Table 5-3: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBRvolumes over all three replicates for theS2-DBR calculations.Time(yrs)DrillingLocationNumberofVectorsMaximumvolume(m3)Averagevolume(m3)PABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PA550L2852873.74E+014.01E+011.23E+011.19E+01750L2552453.86E+013.80E+011.16E+011.10E+012,000L1641653.78E+014.43E+017.11E+007.93E+004,000L1401334.39E+014.43E+015.38E+005.82E+0010,000L1371274.82E+015.29E+015.64E+005.10E+00550M784.41E+001.33E+011.71E‐025.40E‐02750M15197.63E+002.98E+015.02E‐023.45E‐012,000M32368.70E+003.38E+011.42E‐013.27E‐014,000M30312.10E+011.04E+019.88E‐021.39E‐0110,000M24321.79E+011.37E+011.25E‐011.77E‐01550U544.14E‐014.38E‐011.91E‐031.67E‐03750U972.35E+001.16E‐019.01E‐036.33E‐042,000U27299.68E+007.25E+001.12E‐019.15E‐024,000U27251.18E+008.23E‐011.54E‐021.02E‐0210,000U22261.24E+012.46E+017.96E‐021.14E‐01Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7m3have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is calculated as the maximumvalue of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculatedby the total of the DBR volumesdivided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in the ALGEBRACDB step 3post-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files.Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)Revision 0Page 19 of 32Table 5-4: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBRvolumes over all three replicates for theS3-DBR calculations.Time(yrs)DrillingLocationNumberofVectorsMaximumvolume(m3)Averagevolume(m3)PABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PA1,200L2312213.68E+013.55E+018.76E+00 7.27E+001,400L1661593.25E+013.18E+015.41E+00 4.49E+003,000L96852.68E+013.48E+012.47E+00 2.44E+005,000L90743.76E+014.15E+012.70E+00 2.41E+0010,000L90774.06E+014.38E+012.76E+00 2.35E+001,200M27321.81E+013.36E+011.58E‐014.85E‐011,400M32351.98E+013.48E+012.13E‐014.58E‐013,000M29343.59E+001.40E+014.48E‐021.76E‐015,000M26302.17E+012.24E+011.21E‐012.37E‐0110,000M21321.34E+011.46E+016.40E‐021.82E‐011,200U23224.39E+005.28E+004.45E‐025.51E‐021,400U23242.64E+003.20E+003.60E‐024.15E‐023,000U29311.95E+001.46E+003.39E‐022.38E‐025,000U24251.96E+012.21E+017.33E‐021.23E‐0110,000U19261.22E+012.46E+017.35E‐021.14E‐01Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7m3have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is calculated as the maximumvalue of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculatedby the total of the DBR volumesdivided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in the ALGEBRACDB step 3post-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files.Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)Revision 0Page 20 of 32Table 5-5: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBRvolumes over all three replicates for theS4-DBR calculations.Time(yrs)DrillingLocationNumberofVectorsMaximumvolume(m3)Averagevolume(m3)PABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PA550L6121.00E+003.17E+014.09E‐032.33E‐01750L591.93E+011.62E+017.36E‐022.19E‐012,000L17211.60E+014.25E+011.44E‐016.19E‐014,000L22261.92E+013.52E+019.43E‐024.04E‐0110,000L24292.04E+013.91E+012.11E‐016.97E‐01550M675.48E‐011.17E+012.47E‐034.94E‐02750M9112.61E+002.57E+011.08E‐021.82E‐012,000M18308.25E+003.30E+017.98E‐023.25E‐014,000M19281.72E+001.02E+012.00E‐021.29E‐0110,000M14271.48E+001.49E+019.71E‐031.75E‐01550U544.12E‐014.35E‐011.89E‐031.63E‐03750U862.05E+001.12E‐017.93E‐036.00E‐042,000U22259.60E+006.89E+001.05E‐018.01E‐024,000U21241.21E+009.62E‐011.26E‐021.14E‐0210,000U15221.11E+012.44E+015.08E‐021.15E‐01Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7m3have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is calculated as the maximumvalue of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculatedby the total of the DBR volumesdivided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in the ALGEBRACDB step 3post-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files.Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Panel Closure System Performance Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)Revision 0Page 21 of 32Table 5-6: Summary table of number of vectors with non-zero, maximum and average DBRvolumes over all three replicates for theS5-DBR calculations.Time(yrs)DrillingLocationNumberofVectorsMaximumvolume(m3)Averagevolume(m3)PABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PAPABC‐2009PCS‐2012PA1,200L31501.97E+014.21E+013.17E‐011.14E+001,400L15182.11E+014.12E+012.05E‐015.66E‐013,000L18216.01E+004.04E+016.79E‐023.87E‐015,000L23259.25E+003.43E+016.25E‐024.34E‐0110,000L24292.03E+015.38E+012.10E‐017.45E‐011,200M25291.81E+013.42E+011.53E‐014.24E‐011,400M26331.98E+013.53E+012.11E‐014.65E‐013,000M21314.17E+001.41E+014.01E‐021.72E‐015,000M19261.58E+001.05E+011.28E‐021.55E‐0110,000M14271.48E+001.42E+011.02E‐021.74E‐011,200U21204.32E+004.15E+003.56E‐023.74E‐021,400U20222.67E+003.59E+003.81E‐024.21E‐023,000U23252.03E+001.54E+003.13E‐022.42E‐025,000U19231.15E+001.19E+017.91E‐034.73E‐0210,000U15221.11E+012.44E+015.03E‐021.15E‐01Note: Volume releases less than 1 x 10-7m3have been reduced to 0.0 for the purposes of this table. The maximum DBR volume is calculated as the maximumvalue of the 300 vectors for each replicate-scenario-time-drilling location combination. The average DBR volume is calculatedby the total of the DBR volumesdivided by the total number of vectors. The DBR volume was obtained from the output variable BRIN_REL which is calculated in the ALGEBRACDB step 3post-processing step, and contained in the ALG3 CDB files.

# Analysis Package for DBR: PABC-2009

Revision 0

Page 22 of 32



# Figure 5-1: PCS-2012 PA lower intr usion DBR volume percentile ra nkings for all replicates and

vectors of the scenario S1-DBR.

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

vectors of scenario S1-DBR.

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 23 of 32



# Figure 5-3: PCS-2012 PA lower intr usion DBR volume percentile ra nkings for all replicates and

vectors of scenario S2-DBR.

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

vectors of scenario S2-DBR.

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 24 of 32



# Figure 5-5: PCS-2012 PA lower intr usion DBR volume percentile ra nkings for all replicates and

vectors of scenario S3-DBR.

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

vectors of scenario S3-DBR.

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 25 of 32



# Figure 5-7: PCS-2012 PA lower intr usion DBR volume percentile rank ings for all replicates and

vectors of scenario S4-DBR.

Figure 5-8: PABC-2009 lower intr usion DBR volume percentile ra nkings for all replicates and

vectors of scenario S4-DBR.

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 26 of 32



# Figure 5-9: PCS-2012 PA lower intr usion DBR volume percentile rank ings for all replicates and

vectors of scenario S5-DBR.

Figure 5-10: PABC-2009 lower intrus ion DBR volume percentile rank ings for all replicates and

vectors of scenario S5-DBR.

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 27 of 32



# 5.3 Sensitivity of Direct Brine Re leases to Input Parameters

Volume averaged brine pressure and brine satu ration 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 qual itatively 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 re pository to the Castile brine reservoir has the general effect

of simultaneously increasing the waste panel pr essure 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-D BR have very few ru ns 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 pa nel at the time of the intrusion is an important

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

DBR volume versus pressure in th e 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 vect ors having zero DBR volum es; 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 (C layton 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 repor ted 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 (das hed line in the figures) w ith a slope of about 8

m 3 

# /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 saturati on 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 th ese figures do not s how any meaningful

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

DBR volume with both br ine saturation and pressure allude d to above, with only modest

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

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 28 of 32



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

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

times in years.

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 29 of 32



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

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

of mobile brine saturation (dimensionless).

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 30 of 32



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

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

the range of DBR volumes in m 3



# .

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

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

the range of DBR volumes in m 3



# .

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce 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 inco nsequential DBR volumes. The exception to this

statement is for intrusions into a panel that ha d previously been intrude d by an earlier bore hole

that had also intruded an underlying pressurized Ca stile 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 vol umes 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, th ese 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 Nation al 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 Labo ratories, 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: Co mpliance Recertification

Application – 2009. Sandia National Labor atories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 548571.

Clayton, D.J. 2010. Analysis Package for Di rect 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 La boratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 553039.

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

Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 523935.

Helton, J.C, J.E. Bean, F.W. Berglund, F.J. Davi s, 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.

# Analysis Package for Direct Brine Releases: 2012 Pane l Closure System Performan ce Assessment (PCS-2012 PA)

Revision 0

Page 32 of 32



# Kirkes, G.R. 2011. Features, Events and Proce sses Assessment for Changes Described in

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

555237

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

Engineers of AIME.

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

Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., Richardson, TX.

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

Assessment Baseline Calculati on. Sandia National Laboratories. Carlsbad, NM. ERMS

552956

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

Redesign and Repository Reconfiguration Performance Assessment (PC3R PA),

Revision 0. Sandia National Laborat ories. Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 555249.

Stoelzel, D.M. and D.G. O'Brien. 1996. Concep tual Model Descriptio n of BRAGFLO Direct

Brine Release Calculations to Support the Compliance Certification Application (CCA

MASS Attachment 16-2). U.S. Departme nt 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 Pi lot Plant’s Compliance with the Disposal

Regulations: Certification D ecision: Final Rule. Federa l 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 Wast e Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance With the

Disposal Regulations: Recertif ication 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 Natio nal Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS

543865.