# APPENDIX A

Q UALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW OF THE

PCS

- 2012 PA PARAMETER DATABASE

### ii 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Acronyms

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ iv
Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... v

1.0 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1

2.0 Approach

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 3

3.0 Review of Parameter Database Migration

................................ ................................ ........... 5

4.0 Review of Parameters used in PCS

- 2012 that have Changed Since PABC

- 2009

............... 7

4.1 Errors Id entified in Parameter Data Entries

................................ ............................. 7

4.2 Transparency Concerns Identified in Parameter Data Entries

................................ . 8

4.3 Review of Supporting Documentation

................................ ................................ ... 10

4.3.1 Use of Default V alues

................................ ................................ ................ 27

4.3.2 ROM Salt Porosity and Permeability Values

................................ ............. 27

4.3.3 PCS DRZ Porosity and Permeability Values

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

4.3.4 Two

- Phase Flow Parameters

................................ ................................ ...... 31

4.4 Review of PAPDB Database

- to

- Code Interface for PCS

- 2012

............................. 34

5.0 Parameter Data Entry Process Review

................................ ................................ .............. 43

6.0 Computing Hardware

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 44

7.0 Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 45

References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 46

### iii 

# LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

............ 11

Table 2. Justification Check for Paramete rs Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have

Changed since PABC

- 2009

................................ ................................ ......................... 14

Table 3. Database

- Code Interface Test Results for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA

that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

................................ ................................ .......... 36

Table 4. W IPP PA Alpha Cluster Nodes Used in PCS

- 2012

................................ ..................... 44

### iv 

# ABBREVIATIONS AND AC RONYMS

CCA Compliance Certification Application

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DOE or the Department U.S. Department of Energy

DRZ Disturbed Rock Zone

E PA or the Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERMS Electronic Record Management System

HP Hewlett Packard

PA Performance Assessment

PABC

- 2009 2009 WIPP Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation

PAPDB Performance Assessment Parameter Database

P AVT Performance Assessment Verification Test

PC3R Panel Closure Redesign and Repository Reconfiguration Analysis

PCS Panel Closure System

PDE Parameter Data Entry

QA Quality Assurance

ROM Run

- of

- Mine

SAN Storage Area Network

SNL Sandia National Lab oratories

T1 First Time Period (0 to 100 years)

T2 Second Time Period (100 to 200 years)

T3 Third Time Period (200 to 10,000 years)

TBM Technical Baseline Migration

TSD Technical Support Document

VBA Virtual Basic for Applications

WIPP Waste Isolati on Pilot Plant

### v 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This appendix documents a quality assurance review of the changes made by DOE/SNL to the WIPP Performance Assessment Database (PAPDB) for the PCS

- 2012 PA. Of the approximately 1,700 parameters in the PAPDB, 78 changes wer e made since PABC

- 2009. Most of the changes involved the assignment of existing parameter names and values to newly defined materials for the three time periods used to model consolidation of both the ROM salt and the disturbed rock zone ( PCS DRZ) above an d below the salt. All ROM salt materials for the third time period were new because three different time periods had not previously been used in WIPP PA. Three data errors were identified by the Agency in the PCS

- 2012 PAPDB. These involved an erroneous

val ue for the mean of a distribution, an erroneous designation of a distribution type (loguniform instead of uniform), and transposition of the mean and median values of a distribution. However, none of these errors adversely affected PCS

- 2012 results. EPA ha s brought these errors to DOE’s attention and has received assurances that they will be corrected.

A review of primary and secondary supporting documents was conducted for all parameter changes and all documents were quickly retrieved from the WIPP Record s Center. Although the parameter values were generally correct, many of the supporting documents were not found to adequately justify those parameter values as used in the PCS

- 2012 analysis, and many had transparency weaknesses because the cited source doc uments were prepared for other analyses and the associated metadata described those analyses rather than the PCS

- 2012 PA. For example, the designated supporting document may have described a parameter that was used in an earlier analysis for a time period extending from zero to 200 years, but was used in the PCS

- 2012 PA for a time period extending from zero to 100 years. Transparency issues generally become problems for those trying to understand an analysis they are not already familiar with. DOE’s

approac h was to explain the differences in the supporting documentation, however EPA believes that the database should be consistent with the supporting documentation. The justification weaknesses were resolved in part by the Agency’s independent review of the te chnical basis for many of the parameter values, and in part because of the need to leave some existing parameter values unchanged to minimize differences between the PCS

- 2012 and the baseline PABC

- 2009, so that the differences in performance results could be readily attributable to the principal effects of changing the PCS design. However, modeling the progressive consolidation of ROM salt in a waste panel access drift and the subsequent consolidation of the surrounding DRZ involves processes and parameters that are new to WIPP PA. If the alternative PCS design proposed by DOE is implemented, the Agency will thoroughly evaluate all associated parameter values for

continued relevance for use in future PAs.

A database interface evaluation was performed for al l new parameters and the correct parameter values were retrieved from the PAPDB with the exception of one instance where the distribution identified for the parameter in the PAPDB was not properly sampled. However, this error did not

affect the PCS

- 2012 PA results because the returned value was the desired value. The Agency has brought this error to DOE’s attention and has received assurances that it will be corrected.

Procedures for developing, documenting, controlling, and changing parameters, and for en tering those parameters into the PAPDB, were also reviewed. The Agency found all procedural changes to be consistent with earlier versions and found all revisions to be appropriate.

### vi



## In summary, many more concerns were raised by this review than were raised in previous PA parameter reviews. However, as documented in this report, the problems identified by the Agency concern details of the PCS

- 2012 parameters that did not affect the overall PA results.

### 1 

# 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The panel closure system (PCS) at the Wast e Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) consists of barriers constructed in access drifts to filled waste panels that close the panels to further access, and reduce brine and gas transfer between the filled panels and the rest of the repository. The U.S. Department of Energy (the Department or DOE) has proposed to change the PCS design from the current “Option D” design, consisting of a concrete monolith and an explosion wall, to a design nominally consisting of 100 feet of run

- of

- mine (ROM) crushed salt fill betwee n two ventilation bulkheads. Where explosion walls already exist, only one ventilation bulkhead would be constructed on the outboard side of the ROM salt. The purpose of these bulkheads is to restrict air flows and personnel access to filled waste panels. DOE expects the ROM salt panel closure to be easier and less expensive to construct than the Option D design. In addition, the proposed design eliminates the need for an explosion wall, which has been found to be unnecessary because of low volatile gas con centrations in the waste panels (Nelson 2011). The two alternative PCS designs are more fully described in Camphouse et al. (2012 a ). Changing the panel closure design would require a new rulemaking by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (the Agency or EPA), because one of the conditions in t he 1998 Agency rulemaking that certified WIPP to receive transuranic waste mandated use of the Option D design.

The short

- term purpose of the PCS is to minimize the impact of filled waste panels on the rest of

the WIPP repository for worker protection during the repository’s operational period. After the operational period ends and the repository is closed, DOE expects that increasing pressure from the surrounding bedded salt as it creeps into the filled access drif ts will consolidate the ROM salt and eventually return it to the near undisturbed, in situ conditions of very low permeability and porosity. Over the long term, DOE expects the decreasing permeability will increasingly isolate each waste panel by reducing the exchange of brine and gas with the rest of the repository.

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), DOE’s science advisor, designed the PCS

- 2012 performance assessment (PA) to compare the long

- term performance of the WIPP repository with the proposed ROM s alt PCS against the long

- term performance with the original Option D PCS. This was achieved by revising the parameter values in the PABC

- 2009 PA, which is the current regulatory baseline, to reflect the proposed use of crushed salt instead of concrete, and to simulate the progressive consolidation of the crushed salt during creep closure. The changes primarily affect the BRAGFLO Salado Flow PA model. Only those changes that directly relate to the panel closure materials and their consolidation were made (Ca mphouse et al. 2012 a ). The

ventilation bulkheads were not simulated in the PCS

- 2012 PA because SNL does not consider them to have long

- term functionality (Camphouse et al. 2012 a ). The only change in the BRAGFLO model grid was to better simulate the ROM sal t panel closure, which is about 10 m shorter than the Option D concrete monolith (Camphouse et al. 2012 a ). DOE evaluated the effect of the proposed ROM salt PCS on long

- term repository performance by comparing the results of

the PCS

- 2012 PA against those o f the PABC

- 2009 PA.

This appendix describes the Agency’s review of the Performance Assessment Parameter Database (PAPDB), parameter traceability, adequacy of parameter documentation, and changes to the performance assessment (PA) parameters used to suppor t DOE’s PCS

- 2012 PA. The results of this review document the Agency’s evaluation of DOE’s compliance with the

### 2



## requirements of 40 CFR 194.23(c)(4). The PAPDB is a computerized database that contains the values of parameters used in PA calculations. The PAPD B also records a history of parameter value changes for different PA runs. It identifies metadata, such as parameter names, units, and distribution characteristics, and it identifies supporting documentation. Following completion of

the PABC

- 2009 PA, SNL m igrated the PAPDB to a new version and platform to improve its ease of use and to facilitate access of the parameter data by the PA codes.

### 3 

# 2.0 APPROACH

This review was conducted by Agency and contractor personnel. The scope of the review

included the followi ng:

Verification and documentation of the PAPDB migration to a new platform

Verification and documentation of changes made to the PAPDB for the PCS

- 2012 PA

Reviewing procedural documentation supporting database changes

Reviewing and evaluating supporting metadata for new and changed parameter values

Checking the ability of PA codes to accurately access input parameters from the new

database

The primary objectives of the Agency’s review were to assess the accuracy of the database migration to the new pl atform and to assess the transcription accuracy, documentation, and traceability of changes to the parameter values and metadata that were made for the PCS

- 2012 PA. Parameter values and modeling approaches for the PCS

- 2012 PA were proposed by DOE in

Februa ry 2012. Several concerns were raised by the Agency during its evaluation of DOE’s proposal and a final modeling approach was agreed upon in June 2012. The Agency’s review of the adequacy of DOE’s implementation of the modeling approach was initiated in Oc tober 2012

with an on

- site review of the PAPDB and its PA code interfaces. The PAPDB parameter database and associated metadata are maintained in Carlsbad, New Mexico, by SNL. Hard and

electronic copies of documentation supporting the parameters and their values are maintained in SNL’s WIPP Records Center in Carlsbad. The supporting documents are tracked by SNL’s Electronic Record Management System (ERMS), through which a unique identifying number is assigned to each document.

The parameter changes from PABC

- 2009 to PCS

- 2012 consisted of 48 new parameters for the ROM salt and 30 new parameters for the disturbed rock zone (DRZ) above and below the ROM

salt. This zone is herein identified as the PCS DRZ. The following activities were conducted in reviewing these parameter changes and the aforementioned database migration during the Agency review team’s October 2012 visit to Carlsbad:

Reviewed the structure of the new PAPDB and the steps taken by SNL to confirm an accurate migration of the PABC

- 2009 paramete r values and associated metadata into the

new database.

Reviewed the accuracy of data entry into the PAPDB by visually comparing the online PAPDB values with the values on the Parameter Data Entry (PDE) forms for every new parameter. Parameter units, distr ibution type, statistics, names, and references were also

reviewed.

### 4



## Checked PDE forms of all new and changed parameters for completeness, signatures, and references to supporting documentation.

Reviewed supporting documentation identified on the PDE forms for every new parameter to confirm accuracy of parameter values on the PDE forms and to evaluate the traceability of the parameter changes.

Reviewed the ability of the current PA codes to accurately access every new input parameter from the database.

Fol low

- up activities were subsequently conducted by e

- mail, telephone, and a return visit to Carlsbad in November 2012. SNL provided clarifications, copies of applicable data entry and handling quality assurance procedures, and copies of additional documentat ion as requested to address issues that developed as the review of the database changes proceeded.

### 5



# 3.0 REVIEW OF PARAMETER DATABASE MIGRATION

Following completion of PABC

- 2009, SNL developed new database software, called PAPDB Version 2.00, to replace the previous PAPDB Version 1.00, and migrated the parameter values

and associated metadata from Version 1.00 to Version 2.00. The database structure was modified to make it easier to use and to facilitate parameter data access from the PA codes on Solaris,

Lin ux, and VMS platforms. The new database resides on a MySQL Server and is physically

located on an Intel

- based server running Solaris 11 (Kirchner and Long 2012). The database migration process is more fully described by Kirchner (2011).

A primary improvem ent in the new database is the ability to accurately retrieve parameter values used in earlier PAs. PAPDB Version 2.00 is designed to default to the parameter value most recently entered into the database, and to automatically log in the analysis that used the parameter value. However, if desired, an earlier value can be returned by specifying an earlier analysis. A similar functionality was provided in PAPDB Version 1.00, but did not work properly. In addition, distributed parameters are now assigned a def ault value for use when the distribution is not to be sampled. For example, when assigning three

- dimensional, isotropic permeability values to a material, only the value of PRMX_LOG is randomly sampled using the

PRELHS code. The constant default values for PRMY_LOG and PRMZ_LOG are taken from the database as placeholders and are subsequently reassigned the same value as PRMX_LOG in

the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA file.

The methodology for retrieving parameter values from the database remains essentially unchanged. The MATSET code retrieves the default value for every parameter in the analysis. Parameter values that are to be sampled are identified in the input files to the PRELHS code, which supplies that information to the LHS code. The LHS code then retrieves 100 sam ple values per replicate from the database and supplies them to the post LHS code. If a parameter has been retrieved by LHS, the POSTLHS code replaces the default parameter value retrieved by MATSET with the parameter value retrieved by LHS. In a subsequen t step, the remaining default values retrieved by MATSET for distributed parameters are replaced by the desired value in the ALGEBRA1 file, as described in the example above. For constant parameters, the default value

is the constant value and remains unch anged. Although the default values for distributed parameters are typically the means or medians of the distributions, any value can be used as the

default value.

The PAPDB Version 2.00 database tables are constructed to store the data residing in PAPDB

Version 1.00. An Access database, ParamTransfer.mdb, was used to transfer the data from PAPDB Version 1.00 to PAPDB Version 2.00. Most of the transfers were done using queries to extract the data from the PAPDB Version 1.00 and append it to tables in PAPDB Version 2.00. The transfers were checked for completeness using a series of queries and, for the parameter value data, two VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) routines. The queries were designed to compare the PAPDB Version 2.00 values with the correspond ing values in PAPDB Version 1.00 and to show only records in the PAPDB Version 1.00 that were not matched in the PAPDB Version 2.00. Thus, the desired outcome was an empty data set.

### 6



## Verification of the transfer process involved a transfer of the data fol lowed by the deletion of selected records from the various tables and execution of the various queries to show that the missing records were detected. Following the verification of the procedures, the data were transferred once again and the same queries r un to verify that no records were dropped during the transfer. It was also necessary to generate a report that showed the records whose value string could not be matched due to differences in formatting. The records shown in that report were compared and v erified to be equivalent.

In addition to the records transferred from PAPDB Version 1.00, two sets of records were developed that were missing from the original database. The design of PAPDB Version 1.00 did not allow for multiple analyses being run under a single Analysis Plan (AP), as was done for AP

132. It appears to have kept only the records from the most recent retrieval of parameters. Furthermore, the retrieval of parameters by MATSET for use in NUTS seems to never have been recorded. To capture th ese usages of parameters, a series of queries were run to insert the missing records.

The data were transferred following verification of the transfer procedures. SNL verified an accurate data transfer by reviewing the comparison reports, as documented by Kirchner and Long (2012). Problems found in initial data transfers were corrected and in the final transfer, all of the comparison tests were successful except one, where the data did not exactly match due to formatting differences. Those test results wer e reviewed manually and the values of the two data sets were found to be equivalent.

The transfer process was reviewed by the Agency and d etailed documentation of th at review is presented in Appendix A.

### 7



# 4.0 REVIEW OF PARAMETERS USED IN PCS

- 2012 THAT HAVE

CH ANGED SINCE PABC

- 2009

This review evaluated 78 new parameters out of approximately 1,700 parameters currently in the PAPDB. All changes to the PABC

- 2009 parameter database involve new parameters, because the use of ROM salt panel closures is new to WIPP P A. Three time periods with varying material properties were introduced in PCS

- 2012 to represent time

- dependent consolidation of the ROM salt panel closure material and the related time

- dependent healing of the DRZ above and below the PCS. Time period T1 ex tends from repository closure (at time zero) to 100 years, time period T2 extends from 100 to 200 years, and time period T3 extends from 200 years to the end of the regulatory time frame at 10,000 years. Time

- dependent changes were not needed for the

prope rties of the Anhydrite AB layer modeled within the DRZ above the ROM salt , because anhydrite does not exhibit the creep characteristics of halite and would be little affected by the proposed change to ROM salt as the panel closure material.

The parameters representing the ROM salt PCS were separately entered in the PAPDB for each of the three time periods, as reflected in the material names. The parameters representing the

DRZ above and below the ROM salt were assigned pre

- existing material names DRZ_1 and DRZ_PCS. These material names were originally developed by SNL for a 2006 analysis of a ROM salt PCS, called AP

- 129, which was never formally reviewed by the Agency. Material
DRZ_1 is used in PCS

- 2012 to represent the properties of the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2, and material DRZ_PCS is used in PCS

- 2012 to represent the properties of the PCS DRZ during time period T3.

The new parameters are identified in Table 1. This table presents the parameter names (consisting of a material name and a prop erty name), the distribution type, the parameter values

used in the PCS

- 2012 analysis, the analysis where the parameter value was first used, the parameter units, and the PA code(s) using the parameter. The Parameter Data Entry (PDE) form provides the sour ce information for parameter values and associated metadata to be entered into

the PAPDB.

4.1 ERRORS IDENTIFIED IN PARAMETER DATA ENTRI ES

The parameter values and metadata entered into the PAPDB were visually compared with those

on the PDE forms and the foll owing data entry errors were identified. As noted below, none of these errors resulted in impacts to the PCS

- 2012 PA:

Parameters PCS_T1:PRMY_LOG and PCS_T1:PRMZ_LOG were identified on PDE

form PDE 20 12a and entered in the PAPDB as having loguniform distri butions, whereas they should have been identified as having uniform distributions. Parameter PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG was properly identified and sampled from a uniform distribution. No impact to the PCS

- 2012 PA resulted from this error, because constant default va lues were taken from the PAPDB for PCS_T1:PRMY_LOG and PCS_T1:PRMZ_LOG, and later set equal to the sampled value of PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG in the BRAGFO ALGEBRA1 file. The correct distributions for these parameters are given in Table 1.

### 8



## The mean of the uniform di stribution for parameter PCS_T3:POROSITY was identified

in the source document Camphouse (2012) , on PDE form PDE 2012 b , and in the PAPDB as 0.05, whereas it should have been entered as 0.0265. Again, no impact to the PCS

2012 PA resulted from this error, b ecause the mean is not used in LHS when developing a sampling scheme for a uniform distribution. The correct mean value for this parameter is given in Table 1.

The mean and median values of the cumulative distribution for PCS_T3:SAT_RBRN are

reversed on PD E form PDE 2012 b and in the PAPDB. The mean should be 0.25 and the median should be 0.2, consistent with the means and medians for the parallel parameters PCS_T1:SAT_RBRN and PCS_T2:SAT_RBRN. Again, no impact to the PCS

- 2012 PA resulted from this error, be cause the constant default value was taken from the PAPDB for PCS_T3:SAT_RBRN and later set equal to the sampled value of
PCS_T1:SAT_RBRN in the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file. The correct mean and median values for this parameter are given in Table 1.

4.2 TRANSPAREN CY CONCERNS IDENTIFI ED IN PARAMETER DATA

ENTRIES

The Agency’s transparency review of parameter data entries focused on the clarity and completeness of the PDE forms. All PDE forms were found to have properly entered and dated signatures of the individuals responsible for Concurrence, Data Entry, and QA Reviewer/Checker. The traceability concerns identified by the Agency most commonly resulted from the use of source documents that were prepared for analyses other than the PCS

- 2012 PA. Although the parameter names and values were the same in these earlier documents and resulted

in no errors for the PCS

- 2012 PA, the metadata referred to different applications of the parameter, which would be misleading to someone not familiar with the PCS

- 2012 PA. The Agency’s findings for each new parameter are presented in Table 2. Several of the more common transparency concerns are summarized below:

The parameter values to be entered into the PAPDB are commonly identified in the PDE forms by attaching one or more pages fro m source documents containing tables of parameter values and indicating on those tables which parameter values are relevant to the specific PDE form. The Agency has noted a transparency concern regarding this practice, as exemplified by PDE form PDE 20 12 a

. The parameter values to be entered are currently indicated by arrows in the margins pointing at the row in the table containing the relevant parameter and value, whereas in the past, those rows containing parameters and values not relevant to the particul ar PDE were lined out and those that were relevant were circled. The current process can be made more transparent by explaining the significance of the arrows in the PDE form and lining out the non

- relevant parameters, or by reverting to the previous pract ice of circling the relevant parameters and lining out the

rest.

The sources of the parameter values to be entered into the PAPDB are sometimes

identified on tables attached to the PDE forms that were taken from source documents. This practice can be misl eading, because although the source of the attached table can be inferred to be the source document identified on the PDE form, the “sources” of the

### 9



## parameter values identified on the table are second tier documents only identified in the

reference list of the document from which the table was taken, and are not given on the PDE form or its attachments. An example is again PDE form PDE 20 12a , where the “source” of the parameter value is identified on the attached table as, for example, “Patterson Page 13” o r “This memo.” A clarifying note should be added that “This memo” does not refer to this PDE form or its attachments, but to Camphouse (2012) , and that the citation to “Patterson” can be found in the reference list for the primary source

document Camphouse (2012) , which is identified on the PDE form.

Two parameters, PCS_T3:PORE_DIS and PCS_T3:SAT_RBRN, are assigned cumulative distributions and have documented mean values in the PAPDB. However,

PDE form PDE 2012 b for these properties does not show mean valu es for these distributions and therefore could not have been the source for them. Data entry information for the T1 and T2 versions of these parameters (for example, PDE f orm PDE

20 06c for PCS_T1:PORE_DIS) was documented on an earlier version of the PDE fo rm that prompts entry of mean values and does document those values.

Those parameters on Table 1 referenced to a First Use analysis of AP

- 129 are documented in PDE forms prepared in 2006 for SNL’s Redesigned Panel Closure System Analysis . Because that an alysis used the same material names PCS_T1 and PCS_T2, and the same parameter types and values as in the current PCS

- 2012 PA, the PAPDB entries

for AP

- 129 were used without modification for PCS

- 2012. A transparency concern arose in the metadata, however, b ecause the parameter descriptions have changed since the AP

129 analysis. In the PCS

- 2012 analysis, time period T1 extends from zero to 100 years,

while in the AP

- 129 analysis, time period T1 is described in the PDE form as extending from zero to 200 years . Also, in the PCS

- 2012 analysis, time period T2 extends from 100 to 200 years, while in the AP

- 129 analysis, time period T2 is described in the PDE form as extending from 200 to 10,000 years. Examples are provided in PDE forms PDE 2006a

and PDE 2006b for parameters PCS_T1:COMP_RCK and PCS_T2:COMP_RCK. To avoid confusion, new PDE forms with new parameter descriptions should have been developed for the PCS

- 2012 analysis. SNL’s practice of explaining these differences in parameter descriptions in the source d ocuments is not adequate, because the database and

the source documents should be consistent.

The DRZ_1 parameters on Table 1 referenced to a First Use analysis of CCA and TBM are documented in PDE forms prepared in 1996 for the CCA and in 2002 for the TB M. Because those analyses used the same material name DRZ_1 and the same parameter types and values as in the current PCS

- 2012 PA, the PAPDB entries for those parameters

were used without modification for PCS

- 2012. A transparency concern arose in the

metad ata, because the parameter descriptions have changed since the CCA and TBM analyses. In the CCA and TBM, material DRZ_1 is described as “Disturbed Rock Zone: 0 to 1000 yrs” (for example, see PDE Form SNL 1997 for DRZ

- 1:RELP_MOD, dating to

the 1996 CCA data base). In the PCS

- 2012 PA, material DRZ_1 is applied to the properties of the DRZ above and below the PCS during the time period from zero to

200 years. The current definition is not the same as that originally adopted for the CCA

and TBM. To avoid confusi on, new PDE forms with new parameter descriptions should

### 10



## have been developed for the PCS

- 2012 analysis for parameter descriptions dating back to

the CCA and TBM.

4.3 REVIEW OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Table 2 summarizes an assessment of the adequacy of suppo rting documentation for justifying the parameter changes. Table 2 provides the parameter name (material and property names), a description of the parameter type, ERMS numbers for the PDE form and principal supporting document(s), the effective date of the change, and comments that summarize the basis for the change. 1



## As previously mentioned, several concerns were raised by the Agency during its evaluation of the parameter values proposed by DOE for the PCS

- 2012 PA, and a final agreement was reached

in Jun e 2012. This agreement was based upon the modeling approach and parameter values described in a May 2012 memo by Camphouse et al. (2012 a ) and upon a proposal by DOE to lower the minimum permeability value of the ROM salt d uring time period T1 from

- 18.7 lo g(m 2 

## ), as proposed by Camphouse et al. (2012 a ), to

- 21.0 log(m 2 

## ). The development of permeability values for the time

- dependent consolidation of the crushed salt and the surrounding DRZ is further described below. As also described below, the Agency approv ed keeping several parameter values the same as in the baseline PABC

- 2009 PA to facilitate a direct comparison of results. However, when approving the PCS

- 2012 modeling approach and parameter values, the Agency noted that the PCS

- 2012 PA was designed and p arameterized to facilitate a comparison of results, and that the appropriateness of continuing to use the same modeling approach and parameter values would be re

- evaluated for the 2014 recertification PA.

1 

### Parameter Data Entry (PDE) forms are identified by ERMS number in this report and are not included in

the reference list.

### 11 

## Table 1

. Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Distribution Type Parameter Value Used in PCS

- 2012 PA First

Use Parameter

Units Used in Code Mean Other Minimum Maximum Default

PCS_T1 CAP_MOD Constant 1

- - 1 1 1 PC 3R None BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 CAP_MOD Constant 1

- - 1 1 1 PC3R None BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 CAP_MOD Constant 1

- - 1 1 1 AP 161 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 COMP_RCK Constant 8.0E

- 11

- - 8.0E

- 11 8.0E

- 11 8.0E

- 11 AP 129 Pa

- 1 BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 COMP_RCK Constant 8.0E

- 11

- - 8.0E

- 11 8.0E

- 11 8.0E

- 11 AP 129 Pa

- 1 BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 COMP_RCK Constant 8.0E

- 11

- - 8.0E

- 11 8.0E

- 11 8.0E

- 11 AP 161 Pa

- 1 BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 KPT Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 AP 129 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 KPT Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 AP 129 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 KPT Cons tant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 AP 161 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 PC

- MAX Constant 1E08

- - 1E08 1E08 1E08 AP 129 Pa BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 PC

- MAX Constant 1E08

- - 1E08 1E08 1E08 AP 129 Pa BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 PC

- MAX Constant 1E08

- - 1E08 1E08 1E08 AP 161 Pa BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 PCT_A Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 PC3R Pa BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 PCT_A Constant 0.0

- - 0.0

- - 0.0 PC3R Pa BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 PCT_A Constant 0.0

- - 0.0

- - 0.0 AP 161 Pa BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 PCT_EXP Constant 0.0

- - 0.0

- - 0.0 PC3R None BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 PCT_EXP Constant 0. 0

- - 0.0

- - 0.0 PC3R None BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 PCT_EXP Constant 0.0

- - 0.0

- - 0.0 AP 161 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 PO_MIN Constant 1.01325

E05 - - 1.01325

E05 1.01325

E05 1.01325

E05 AP 129 Pa BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 PO_MIN Constant 1.01325

E05 - - 1.01325

E05 1.01325

E 05 1.01325

E05 AP 129 Pa BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 PO_MIN Constant 1.01325

E05 - - 1.01325

E05 1.01325

E05 1.01325

E05 AP 161 Pa BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 PORE_DIS Cumulative 2.52 Median

0.94 0.11 8.1 0.94 AP 129 None PRELHS

BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 PORE_DIS Cumulative 2.52 Median

0.9 4 0.11 8.1 0.94 AP 129 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 PORE_DIS Cumulative 2.52 Median

0.94 0.11 8.1 0.94 AP 161 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 POROSITY Uniform 0.1265

- - 0.066 0.187 0.1265 AP 161 None PRELHS

BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 POROSITY Uniform 0.05

- - 0.025 0.075 0.05 AP 161 N one PRELHS

BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 POROSITY Uniform 0.0265

- - 0.001 0.0519 0.0265 AP 161 None PRELHS

BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 PRMX_LOG Uniform

- 16.5

- - - 21

- 12

- 16.5 AP 161 log(m 2 ) PRELHS

BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 PRMY_LOG Uniform

- 16.5

- - - 21

- 12

- 16.5 AP 161 log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

PC S_T1 PRMZ_LOG Uniform

- 16.5

- - - 21

- 12

- 16.5 AP 161 log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

### 12 

## Table 1

. Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Distribution Type Parameter Value Used in PCS

- 2012 PA First

Use Parameter

Units Used in Code Mean Other Minimum Maximum Default

PCS_T2 POR2PERM Normal 0.0 Std Dev

0.86 - 1.72 +1.72 0.0 AP 161 None PRELHS

BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 PRMX_LOG Constant

- 18.6

- - - 18.6

- 18.6

- 18.6 AP 161 log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 PRMY_LOG Constant

- 18.6

- - - 18.6

- 18.6

- 18.6 AP 161 log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 PRMZ_LOG Constant

- 18.6

- - - 18.6

- 18.6

- 18.6 AP 161 log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 POR2PERM Normal 0.0 Std Dev

0.86 - 1.72 +1.72 0.0 AP 161 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 PRMX_LOG Constant

- 19.1

- - - 19.1

- 19.1

- 19 .1 AP 161 log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 PRMY_LOG Constant

- 19.1

- - - 19.1

- 19.1

- 19.1 AP 161 log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 PRMZ_LOG Constant

- 19.1

- - - 19.1

- 19.1

- 19.1 AP 161 log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 RELP_MOD Constant 4

- - 4 4 4 AP 129 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 RELP_MOD C onstant 4

- - 4 4 4 AP 129 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 RELP_MOD Constant 4

- - 4 4 4 AP 129 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 SAT_IBRN Uniform 0.1

- - 0.04 0.16 0.1 AP 161 None PRELHS

BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 SAT_RBRN Cumulative 0.25 Median

0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 AP 129 None PRELHS

BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 SAT_RBRN Cumulative 0.25 Median

0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 AP 129 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 SAT_RBRN Cumulative 0.25 Median

0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 AP 161 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T1 SAT_RGAS Uniform 0.2

- - 0.0 0.4 0.2 AP 129 None PRELHS

BRAGFLO

PCS_T2 SAT_RGAS Uniform 0.2

- - 0.0 0.4 0.2 AP 129 None BRAGFLO

PCS_T3 SAT_RGAS Uniform 0.2

- - 0.0 0.4 0.2 AP 161 None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 CAP_MOD Constant 1

- - 1 1 1 CCA None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS CAP_MOD Constant 1

- - 1 1 1 TBM None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 COMP_RCK Constant 7.41E

- 10

- - 7.41E

- 10 7.41E

- 10 7.41E

- 10 CCA Pa

- 1 BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS COMP_RCK Constant 7.41E

- 10

- - 7.41E

- 10 7.41E

- 10 7.41E

- 10 TBM Pa

- 1 BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 KPT Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 CCA None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS KPT Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 TBM None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 PC_MAX Constant 1E08

- - 1E08 1E08 1E08 CCA Pa BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS PC_MAX Constant 1E08

- - 1E08 1E08 1E08 TBM Pa BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 PCT_A Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 CCA Pa BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS PCT_A Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 TBM Pa BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 PCT_EXP C onstant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 CCA None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS PCT_EXP Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 TBM None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 PRMX_LOG Uniform

- 16.0

- - - 19.4

- 12.5

- 16.0 CCA log(m 2 ) PRELHS

BRAGFLO

### 13 

## Table 1

. Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Distribution Type Parameter Value Used in PCS

- 2012 PA First

Use Parameter

Units Used in Code Mean Other Minimum Maximum Default

DRZ_ 1 PRMY_LOG Uniform

- 16.0

- - - 19.4

- 12.5

- 16.0 CCA log(m 2 ) BR AGFLO

DRZ_ 1 PRMZ_LOG Uniform

- 16.0

- - - 19.4

- 12.5

- 16.0 CCA log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS PRMX_LOG Triangular

- 18.8160 Mode

- 18.7496 - 20.699

- 17.0

- 18.7496 TBM log(m 2 ) PRELHS

BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS PRMY_LOG Triangular

- 18.8160 Mode

- 18.7496 - 20.699

- 17.0

- 18.749 6 TBM log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS PRMZ_LOG Triangular

- 18.8160 Mode

- 18.7496 - 20.699

- 17.0

- 18.7496 TBM log(m 2 ) BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 PO_MIN Constant 1.01325

E05 - - 1.01325

E05 1.01325

E05 1.01325

E05 CCA Pa BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS PO_MIN Constant 1.01325

E05 - - 1.013 25

E05 1.01325

E05 1.01325

E05 TBM Pa BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 PORE_DIS Constant 0.7

- - 0.7 0.7 0.7 CCA None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS PORE_DIS Constant 0.7

- - 0.7 0.7 0.7 TBM None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 POROSITY Cumulative 0.0211 Median

0.0129 0.0039 0.0548 0.0129 AP

- 132 None PRELHS

BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS POROSITY Cumulative 0.0211 Median

0.0129 0.0039 0.0548 0.0129 AP

- 132 None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 RELP_MOD Delta 4 Median

4 1 4 0 CCA None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS RELP_MOD Delta 4 Median

4 1 4 0 TBM None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 SAT_RBRN Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 CCA None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS SAT_RBRN Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 TBM None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ 1 SAT_RGAS Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 CCA None BRAGFLO

DRZ_ PCS SAT_RGAS Constant 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0 0.0 TBM None BRAGFLO

Notes to Table 1

First Use Anal yses:

CCA: Compliance Certification Analysis, 1996 TBM: Technical Baseline Migration Analysis, 2002

AP

- 129: Redesigned Panel Closure System Analysis, 2006

AP

- 132: 2009 Compliance Recertification Analysis, 2007

PC3R: Panel Closure Redesign and Repository Re configuration Analysis (AP

- 151), 2010

AP

- 161: PCS

- 2012 PA Analysis, 2012

### 14



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

PCS_T1 CAP_MOD Capillary pressure model

number for the ROM Salt during time period T1 544680 554623 12/20/2010 ERMS 554623 states that capillary pressure Model 1 was selected for the ROM salt during time period T1 to agree with the model selected for the DRZ above and below

the ROM salt . ERMS 557721 (not cited in the PAPDB as a source for this parameter)

adds that Model 1 is also used to avoid numerical difficulties in BRAGFLO. Model 1 is typically used when the threshold capillary pressure is set to zero, which deactivates the capillary pressure model. However, t he parameter values accepted by EPA in ERMS 557396 included a value of 2 for the capillary pressure model, which would

have a ctivated that model. The EPA subsequently performed an analysis, which showed that an activated capillary pressure model made no significant difference in repository performance. See text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for

additional information.
PCS_T2 CAP_MOD Capillary pressure model

number for the ROM Salt during time period T2 554681 554623 12/20/2010 The comment for PCS_T1:CAP_MOD also applies to PCS_T2:CAP_MOD.

PCS_T3 CAP_MOD Capillary pressure model

number for the ROM Salt during time peri od T3 557951 557721 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 states that capillary pressure Model 1 was selected for the ROM salt during time period T3 to agree with the model selected for the DRZ a round the ROM

salt and that Model 1 is also used to avoid numerical difficult ies in BRAGFLO. Model 1 is typically used when the threshold capillary pressure is set to zero , which deactivates the capillary pressure model. However, as stated above, t he parameter values accepted by EPA in ERMS 557396 included a value of 2 for the capi llary pressure model, which would have activated that model. The EPA subsequently performed an analysis, which showed that an activated capillary pressure model for

the ROM salt and surrounding DRZ made no significant difference in repository performance. See text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for additional

information.
PCS_T1 COMP_RCK Bulk compressibility of the ROM Salt during time period T1 543322 542894 3/27/2006 ERMS 542894 states that the value of this parameter was used for the crushed sa lt materials in the original shaft seal, that it is considered a reasonable estimate for reconsolidated salt, and that “the initial compressibility of the salt will be higher since it will be emplaced without compaction.” EPA has reviewed this parameter va lue and concurs that it is appropriate for reconsolidated salt. EPA believes that the use of this parameter for time periods T1 and T2, when the ROM salt likely has not fully reconsolidated, is acceptable because the ROM salt may be compacted upon emplacem ent. PCS_T2 COMP_RCK Bulk compressibility of the ROM Salt during time period T2 543322 542894 3/27/2006 The comment for PCS_T1:COMP_RCK also applies to PCS_T2:COMP_RCK.

PCS_T3 COMP_RCK Bulk compressibility of the ROM Salt during time period T3 557951 557 721 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

stat es that it was used for t he crushed salt materials in the original shaft seal

, but provides no further justification or references. EPA has reviewed this param eter value and concurs that it is appropriate for the reconsolidated salt that would be present during time period T3

.

### 15



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

PCS_T1 KPT Flag for selecting the permeability used in calculating threshold capillary pressure for the ROM Salt during time period T1 5 43323 542894 3/27/2006 ERMS 542894 states that all WIPP PA materials use the same value of 0.0 for KPT and that this parameter is specific to the capillary pressure model used in WIPP PA. This parameter is a flag for using constant or varying permeability in the threshold pressure calculation and was originally set to 0.0, because varying permeability was not used in the CCA calculations. EPA understands that when KPT is set to zero, the threshold capillary pressure is recalculated for each new material and would therefore be appropriately recalculated for the new ROM salt materials during T1, T2, and T3. EPA therefore accepts a value of 0.0 for KPT. See text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for additional information.
PCS_T2 KPT Flag for selecting t he permeability used in calculating threshold capillary pressure for the ROM Salt during time period T2 543338 542894 3/27/2006 The comment for PCS_T1:KPT also applies to PCS_T2:KPT.

PCS_T3 KPT Flag for selecting the permeability used in calculating thres hold capillary pressure for the ROM Salt during time period T3 557951 557721

557396 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

states that a ll WIPP PA materials use the same values for KPT

, but provides no

furt her justification as to why this is appropriate for the ROM salt, which is a new material in WIPP PA. Despite the weakness in DOE’s justification, EPA understands that when KPT is set to zero, the threshold capillary pressure is recalculated for each

new m aterial, and would therefore be appropriately recalculated for the new ROM salt materials during T3. EPA therefore accepts a value of 0.0 for KPT. S ee text discussion

of two

- phase flow parameters for additional information.
PCS_T1 PC

_ MAX Maximum allowable capillary pressure for the ROM Salt during time period T1 543324 542946

542894 3/27/2006 ERMS 542946 states that the values of PC_MAX and PO_MIN were reversed in

ERMS 542894 and corrects that error. ERMS 542894 states that all WIPP PA

materials use the sa me value for PC_MAX , but provides no justification for that value, nor does it refer to documents that do provide justification

. However, EPA has reviewed the value of this parameter and found it to be reasonable. EPA also notes that capillary pressure can become very large at low brine saturations

, and it is appropriate to limit the maximum value of this parameter to avoid numerical problems with BRAGFLO. EPA therefore concludes that the current value of this parameter is appropriate for PCS

- 2012. See text discussi on of two

- phase flow parameters for

additional information.
PCS_T2 PC

_ MAX Maximum allowable capillary pressure for the ROM Salt during time period T2 543339 542946

542894 3/27/2006 The comment for PCS_T1:PC_MAX also applies to PCS_T2:PC_MAX.

PCS _T3 PC

- MAX Maximum allowable capillary pressure for the ROM Salt during time period T3 557951 557721

557396 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

states that a ll WIPP PA materials use the same value for PC _MAX

, but provides no justification for that value, nor does it refer to documents that do provide justification. In addition to the above comments for PC_MAX during T1 and T2 , EPA notes that this parameter is not used when CAP_MOD is set to 1.0, as it was in PCS

- 2012 , and is therefore acceptable

. However, EPA expected CAP_MOD to be set to 2.0 for the

ROM salt. S ee text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for additional

information.

### 16



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

PCS_T1 PCT_A Threshold capillary pressure linear parameter

for the ROM Salt during time period T1 554680 554623 12/20/2010 ERMS 554623 states that PCT_A was set to 0.0 for the PCS during time period T1 to agree with the model selected for the DRZ around the ROM salt. ERMS 557721 (not cited in the PAPDB as a source for this p arameter) adds that PCT_A was also set to 0.0 to avoid numerical difficulties in BRAGFLO. Setting PCT_A to zero sets the threshold capillary pressure to zero and deactivates the capillary pressure model. The parameter values accepted by EPA in ERMS 557396 included a value of 0.56 for PCT_A, which would have activated the capillary pressure model. The EPA subsequently performed an analysis which showed that an activated capillary pressure model made no significant difference in repository performance. See te xt discussion

of two

- phase flow parameters for additional information.
PCS_T2 PCT_A Threshold capillary pressure linear parameter for the ROM Salt during time period T2 554681 554623 12/20/2010 The comment for PCS_T1:PCT_A also applies to PCS_T2:PCT_A.

P CS_T3 PCT_A Threshold capillary pressure linear parameter for the ROM Salt during time period T3 557951 557721 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 states that the value of PCS_T3:PCT_A was set to 0.0 in order to have consistency between the ROM salt and the surrounding DRZ, that a value of 0.0 was also used for the crushed salt component of the original shaft seal mode l, and that a

value of 0.0 avoid s numerical difficulties in BRAGFLO. EPA notes that setting PCT_A to zero is consistent with the selection of capillary pre ssure Model 1 and with capillary pressure modeling practice in the baseline PABC

- 2009. However, as stated above, t he parameter values accepted by EPA in ERMS 557396 included a value of 0.56 for PCT_A, which would have activated the capillary pressure model

. The EPA subsequently performed an analysis which showed that an activated capillary pressure model made no significant difference in repository performance. See text discussion

of two

- phase flow parameters for additional information.
PCS_T1 PCT_EXP Thre shold capillary pressure exponential parameter for the ROM Salt during time period

T1 554680 554623

557721 12/20/2010 ERMS 554623 states that PCT_EXP was set to 0.0 for the ROM salt during time period T1 to agree with the model selected for the DRZ around the ROM salt, which deactivates capillary pressure. PCT_EXP is typically set to zero when PCT_A is set to zero. The parameter values accepted by EPA in ERMS 557396 included a value of 0.56 for PCT_A and a value of

- 0.346 for PCT_EXP, which would have activ ated the capillary pressure model. The EPA subsequently performed an analysis which showed that an activated capillary pressure model made no significant difference in repository performance. See text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for additional

information.
PCS_T2 PCT_EXP Threshold capillary pressure exponential parameter for the ROM Salt during time period

T2 554681 554623

557721 12/20/2010 The comment for PCS_T1:PCT_EXP also applies to PCS_T2:PCT_EXP.

PCS_T3 PCT_EXP Threshold capillary

pressu re exponential parameter for the ROM Salt during time period

T3 557951 557721 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 states that the value of PCS_T3:PCT_ EXP was set to 0.0 in order to have consistency between the ROM salt and the surrounding DRZ, and that a value of

0.0 wa s also used for the crushed salt component o f the original shaft seal model. EPA notes that setting PCT_ EXP to zero is consistent with the selection of capillary pressure Model 1 and with capillary pressure modeling practice in the baseline PABC

2009 . Howe ver, t he parameter values accepted by EPA in ERMS 557396 included

### 17



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

values for PCT_A and PCT_EXP that would have activated the capillary pressure

model. The EPA subsequently performed an analysis which showed that an activated capillary pressure model made n o significant difference in repository performance.

See text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for additional information

. PCS_T1 PO_MIN Minimum allowable brine pressure for the ROM Salt during time period

T1 543327 542894

542946 3/27/2006 ERMS 5429 46 states that the values of PC_MAX and PO_MIN were reversed in

ERMS 542894 and corrects that error. ERMS 542894 states that all WIPP PA
materials use the same value for PO_MIN , but provides no justification for that value,

nor does it refer to documents t hat do provide justification . EPA notes that this parameter is only used for capillary pressure Model 3, which was not used in PCS

2012 or in PABC

- 2009. The value of this parameter

, therefore

, has no impact on the

PA results.
PCS_T2 PO_MIN Minimum allowab le brine pressure for the ROM Salt during time period

T2 543342 542894

542946 3/27/2006 The comment for PCS_T1:PO_MIN also applies to PCS_T2:PO_MIN.

PCS_T3 PO_MIN Minimum allowable brine pressure for the ROM Salt during time period

T3 557951 557721

557396 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

states that a ll WIPP PA materials use the same value for PO_MIN

, but provides no justification for that value, nor does it refer to documents that do provide justific ation

. EPA notes that this parameter is only used when CAP_MOD is set to 3.0. Because only capillary pressure Models 1 or 2 have been contemplated for PCS

- 2012, this

parameter was not used.
PCS_T1 PORE_DIS Brooks

- Corey pore distribution parameter for

the ROM Salt during time period T1 543328 542894 3/27/2006 ERMS 542894 states that all WIPP salt

- related parameters for the original shaft seal model use relative permeability Model 4, a modified Brooks

- Corey model, which requires this property. EPA has review ed the range and distribution for this parameter

and found them to be reasonable.
PCS_T2 PORE_DIS Brooks

- Corey pore distribution parameter for the ROM Salt during time period T2 543343 542894 3/27/2006 The comment for PCS_T1 : PORE_DIS also applies to PCS_ T 2: PORE_DIS

.

PCS_T3 PORE_DIS Brooks

- Corey pore distribution parameter for the ROM Salt during time period T3 557951 557721

557396 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

states that t he crushed salt materi als for the original shaft seal model use the same
values and distributions for PORE_DIS as used in PCS

- 2012 and in PABC

- 2009. EPA has reviewed the range and distribution for this parameter and found them to be

reasonable.
PCS_T1 POROSITY Porosity of the ROM Salt during time period T1 557949 557721

557396 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396 states that, depending on the method of emplacement, the initial porosity of the ROM salt will vary between 20% and 35%. The range of PCS porosity for T1 was determined at the T1 midpoint time of 50 years, when the ROM salt p orosity predicted by JAS3D modeling is a low of 6.6% for an initial porosity of 20% and a high of 18.7% for an initial porosity of 35%. EPA acknow ledges that considerable uncertainty is associated with the rate of ROM salt consolidation in a panel closure and accepts this range and the underlying uniform distribution as providing adequate estimates of ROM salt porosities for PCS

- 2012 during time per iod T1. Also see text discussion of

ROM salt porosity and permeability.

### 18



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

PCS_T2 POROSITY Porosity of the ROM Salt during time period T2 557950 557721

557396 7/23/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

states tha t the range of ROM salt porosity values for T2 is based on JAS3D modeling results, on consideration of 0.05 as the expected value, and on maintaining a range that is similar to the range for intact halite

. EPA acknowledges that considerable uncertainty is associated with the rate of ROM salt consolidation in a panel closure

and accepts this range and the underlying uniform distribution as providing adequate estimates of ROM salt porosities for PCS

- 2012 during time period T 2

. Also see text

discussion of ROM salt porosity and permeability.
PCS_T3 POROSITY Porosity of the ROM Salt during time period T3 557951 557721

557396 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

states that the ROM salt T3 porosity is assumed to be equal to the porosity for intact halite and is therefore the same as the porosity range for intact halite in WIPP PA. EPA agrees that the porosity of the ROM salt will, over time, approach that of intact halite and agrees that, based on modeling and an alog studies, the ROM salt T3 porosity range and underlying uniform distribution provide adequate estimates appropriate for the PCS

- 2012 PA

. Also see text discussion of ROM salt porosity and permeability.
PCS_T1 PRMX_LOG Permeability of the ROM

Salt in th e X

- direction during time period T1 557949 557721 7/17/2012 The cited source ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of the original

range,

- 18.7 to

- 12 log(m 2 ) , for this parameter . ERMS 557396 states that this permeability range corresponds to lab oratory data for the porosity range of 0.066 to 0.187 assigned to the parameter PCS_T1:POROSITY. ERMS 557721 refers to a 2012 DOE response to EPA questions (ERMS 557865) as the source of a revised lower value of the sampled range for this parameter

, - 21 lo g(m 2 ). However, this revised lower value was based on laboratory data that was reviewed by DOE in ERMS 557396 and rejected when developing the original range. See text section on ROM

salt porosity and permeability for additional discussion of this inconsis tency. EPA accepts the assumption that the ROM salt material is isotropic, with the same permeabilities in the X

- , Y

- , and Z

- directions.
PCS_T1 PRMY_LOG Permeability of the ROM

Salt in the Y

- direction during time period T1 557949 557721 7/17/2012 The comm ent for PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG also applies to PCS_T1:PRMY_LOG.

PCS_T1 PRMZ_LOG Permeability of the ROM

Salt in the Z

- direction during time period T1 557949 557721 7/17/2012 The comment for PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG also applies to PCS_T1:PRMZ_LOG.

PCS_T2 POR2PERM Distri bution used to calculate permeability from porosity values during time period T2 557950 557721

537396 7/23/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396 adequately describes the sampling process and the derivation of t he ROM salt permeability as a function of porosity

, but unfortunately does not mention the property

POR2PERM. POR2PERM is

, in fact

, the same as the parameter alpha in ERMS 557396 Equation 2. Except for this lapse in transparency, EPA believes that

POR2PERM (or alpha) was adequately described and justified, and provides an appropriate mechanism for incorporating uncertainty into a correlation of permeability and porosity. See the text discussion of PCS porosity and permeability for additional

information.

### 19



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

P CS_T2 PRMX_LOG Permeability of the ROM

Salt in the X

- direction during time period T2 557950 557721 7/23/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. The constant PCS_T2: PRMX_LOG default value is identified as the average of the minimum and maximum values described for T2 in ERMS 557396, Table 5. The default value is retrieved from the database and then set equal to the ROM salt permeability calculated for time period T2 based on the T2 porosity and POR2PERM value. This same

perme ability value is assigned to the X

- , Y

- , and Z

- directions. The Agency accepts this process for determining permeability values and considers th e assumption of isotropic permeability to be reasonable. See the text discussion of ROM salt porosity and permeab ility for additional information.
PCS_T2 PRMY_LOG Permeability of the ROM

Salt in the Y

- direction during time period T2 557950 557721 7/23/2012 The comment for PCS_T2: PRMX_LOG also applies to PCS_T2: PRM Y _LOG

.

PCS_T2 PRMZ_LOG Permeability of the ROM

Sal t in the Z

- direction during time period T2 557950 557721 7/23/2012 The comment for PCS_T2: PRMX_LOG also applies to PCS_T2: PRM Z _LOG

.

PCS_T3 POR2PERM Distribution used to calculate permeability from sampled porosity values during time period

T3 557951 557 721

557396 7/17/2012 The comment for PCS_T2:POR2PERM also applies to PCS_T3:POR2PERM.

PCS_T3 PRMX_LOG Permeability of the ROM

Salt in the X

- direction during time period T3 557951 557721 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this par ameter. The constant PCS_T3: PRMX_LOG default value is identified as the average of the minimum and maximum values described for T3 in ERMS 557396, Table 5. The default value is retrieved from the database and then set equal to the ROM salt permeability ca lculated for time period T3 based on the T3 porosity and POR2PERM value. This is the same process as used for calculating the PCS_T 2 : PRMX_LOG value. Th e same T3 permeability value is assigned to the X

- , Y

- , and Z

- directions. The Agency accepts this proces s for determining permeability values and considers th e assumption of isotropic permeability to be reasonable. See the text discussion of ROM salt porosity and permeability for additional information.
PCS_T3 PRMY_LOG Permeability of the ROM

Salt in the Y

- direction during time period T3 557951 557721 7/17/2012 The comment for PCS_T 3 : PRMX_LOG also applies to PCS_T 3 : PRM Y _LOG

.

PCS_T3 PRMZ_LOG Permeability of the ROM

Salt in the Z

- direction during time period T3 557951 557721 7/17/2012 The comment for PCS_T 3 : PRMX_LOG also applies to PCS_T 3 : PRM Z _LOG

.

PCS_T1 RELP_MOD Relative permeability

model number for the ROM Salt during time period T1 543333 542894 3/27/2006 ERMS 542894 states that all WIPP salt

- related parameters for the original shaft seal

model use r elative permeability Model 4, a modified Brooks

- Corey model. EPA has

reviewed this model and found it to be appropriate for the ROM salt

.

PCS_T2 RELP_MOD Relative permeability

model number for the ROM Salt during time period T2 543348 542894 3/27/2006 Th e comment for PCS_T1:RELP_MOD also applies to PCS_T2:RELP_MOD.

### 20



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

PCS_T3 RELP_MOD Relative permeability

model number for the ROM Salt during time period T2 557951 557721

557396 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

states that t he two

- phase flow model for the ROM salt PCS uses the modified Brooks

Corey model, which corresponds to relative permeability M odel 4. EPA believes that the choice of Model 4 for the ROM salt PCS is appropriate and consistent with the use of Model 4 in the baseline PABC

- 2009.
PCS_T1 SAT_IBRN Initial brine saturation of

the ROM Salt at the beginning of time period

T1 557949 557721 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 states that a range of initial brine saturations of the ROM salt was used

in the PCS

- 2012 PA to account for uncertainty in the method to be used in emplac ing the ROM salt. The low end of the range is based on loose emplacement with no added moisture. The high end of the range assumes the salt is compacted to 20% porosity with 1% by weight added moisture. The density of brine was assumed to be

1220 kg/m 3 and the density of halite was assumed to be 2140 kg/m 3 . The Agency accepts this range; however, see text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters

. PCS_T1 SAT_RBRN Residual brine saturation

o f the ROM Salt during time period T1 543334 542894 3/27/2006 ERMS 542894 states that all WIPP salt

- related parameters for the original shaft seal model use the same probability distribution and values to model residual brine saturation, and that this distr ibution is also appropriate for the ROM salt materials

, but provides no further justification or references . Because this distribution was also used

in PABC

- 2009, EPA considers it appropriate to retain it for PCS

- 2012 to simplify comparison of results. How ever, see text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters.
PCS_T2 SAT_RBRN Residual brine saturation of the ROM Salt during time period T2 543349 542894 3/27/2006 The comment for PCS_T1 : SAT_RBRN also applies to PCS_T 2: SAT_RBRN

.

PCS_T3 SAT_RBRN Residual brin e saturation of the ROM Salt during time period T3 557951 557721

557396 7/17/2012 ERMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

states that the residual brine saturation for the ROM salt uses the same values and

distributio n as for the crushed salt component of the shaft seals

, and were defined for the CCA based on a literature review and on professional judgment. A reference is provided to the original CCA justification documentation. EPA accepts these values

and distributi on as appropriate for comparative purposes in PCS

- 2012. However, see

text discussion of two

- phase parameters for additional information.
PCS_T1 SAT_RGAS Residual gas saturation of the ROM Salt during time period T1 543335 542894 3/27/2006 ERMS 542894 stat es that all WIPP salt

- related parameters for the original shaft seal model use the same probability distribution and values to model residual gas saturation, and that this distribution is also appropriate for the ROM salt materials

, but provides no further justification or references . Because this distribution was also used

in PABC

- 2009, EPA considers it appropriate to retain it for PCS

- 2012 to simplify comparison of results. However, see text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters.
PCS_T2 SAT_RGAS Residu al gas saturation of the ROM Salt during time period T2 543350 542894 3/27/2006 The comment for PCS_T1 :SAT_RGAS also applies to PCS_T 2: SAT_R GAS.

PCS_T3 SAT_RGAS Residual gas saturation of the ROM Salt during time period T3 557951 557721

557396 7/17/2012 E RMS 557721 refers to ERMS 557396 as the source of this parameter. ERMS 557396

states that the residual gas saturation for the ROM salt uses the same values and distribution as for the crushed salt component of the shaft seals

, and were defined for

the CCA based on a literature review and on professional judgment. A reference is provided to the original CCA justification documentation. EPA accepts these values and distribution appropriate for comparative purposes in PCS

- 2012. However, see text

discussion of two

- phase parameters for additional information.

### 21



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

DRZ_ 1 CAP_MOD Capillary pressure model

number for the PCS DRZ during time periods T1

and T2 545696 545496 3/01 / 2007 EPA found no mention of parameter DRZ_1:CAP_MOD in the cited source document

ERMS 545496. Despite this lack of traceability, EPA concludes that the choice of Model 1 for the capillary pressure model is appropriate, because it is consistent with SNL practice of selecting Model 1 when the threshold capillary pressure is set to zero.

See text dis cussion of two

- phase flow parameters.
DRZ_ PCS CAP_MOD Capillary pressure model

number for the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to
the DRZ_PCS are the sa me as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify those values. Material DRZ_1 was defined for the PAVT and most subsequent analyses as the DRZ from 0 to 10,000 years. Despite the

redefinition of the time frame for this material to 0 to 200 years in PCS

- 2012, EPA accepts the choice of Model 1 for the capillary pressure model as appropriate

, because it is consistent with SNL’s practice of selecting Model 1 when the threshold capillary pressure is set to zero. See text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters.
DRZ_ 1 COMP_RCK Bulk compressibility of the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 232871 232288 2/12/1996 ERMS 232288 identifies the value of this parameter that was used in PCS

- 2012 and in

PABC

- 2009 as the bulk c ompressibility of the DRZ around a waste panel for times greater than zero. Although the conceptual model of the DRZ around a waste panel is described and this compressibility value is asserted to be consistent with the conceptual model, no specific techni cal justification of this parameter value is presented, either for its original application to the DRZ around a waste panel or to its current application to the DRZ around a ROM salt panel closure . However, EPA accepts this compressibility value to minimiz e differences between PCS

- 2012 and the

baseline PABC

- 2009, and simplify comparison of results.
DRZ_ PCS COMP_RCK Bulk compressibility of the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the prop erty values assigned to the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify those values. Material DRZ_1 was defined for the PAVT and most subsequent analyses as the DRZ from 0 to 10,000 years. D espite the

redefinition of the time frame for this material in PCS

- 2012, EPA has reviewed and accepts the assigned value as representative of the bulk compressibility of nearly

intact halite.
DRZ_ 1 KPT Flag for selecting the permeability used in

calculat ing threshold capillary pressure for the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 232870 235271 4/09/1996 ERMS 235271 describes this parameter as a flag for using either constant or varying permeability in the threshold pressure calculation

, and states that t he value should be set to 0.0 because varying permeability will not be used in the CCA calculations. EPA notes that at the time this justification was prepared, material DRZ_1 was defined as representing the waste panel DRZ from time zero to 10,000 years. However, EPA accepts setting KPT to zero for PCS

- 2012

, because it is understood that the threshold capillary pressure is recalculated by BRAGFLO for each new material, and would therefore provide a threshold pressure relevant to the permeability of materia l DRZ_1 for time periods T1 and T2. See text discussion of two

- phase flow paramet ers for

additional information.
DRZ_ PCS KPT Flag for selecting the permeability used in calculating threshold capillary pressure for the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify those values. Material DRZ_1 was defined for the PAVT and most subsequent analyses as the DRZ from 0 to 10,000 years. Despite the

redefinition of the time frame for this material in PCS

- 2012, EPA accepts setting KPT

to zero for PCS

- 2012

, because it is understood that the threshold capillary press ure is

### 22



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

recalculated by BRAGFLO for each new material, and would therefore provide a threshold pressure relevant to the permeability of material DRZ_PCS for time period

T3. See text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for additional information.
DRZ_ 1 PC_MAX Maximum allowable capillary pressure for the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 232899 238568 2/05/1996 The cited source ERMS 238568 identifies this parameter as one of many “legacy parameters” and states that there are numerous sources for thes e parameters, but that the majority of parameter values can be considered as the choice of the PA analyst. A specific source for this parameter was not provided. Because PC_MAX represents a specific cutoff pressure in capillary pressure calculations, EPA c onsiders that its magnitude should have been specifically justified. However, EPA has reviewed the value of this parameter and found it to be reasonable.
DRZ_ PCS PC_MAX Maximum allowable capillary pressure for the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520 524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify those values. Material DRZ_1 was defined for the PAVT and most subsequent analyses as the DRZ from 0 to 10,000 years. Despite the

redefinition of the time frame for this material in PCS

- 2012, EPA has reviewed the value of this parameter and found it to be reasonable.
DRZ_ 1 PCT_A Threshold capillary pressure linear parameter for the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 236559 232288 2/22/1996 The assigned value of zero for PCT_A in PCS

- 2012 sets the threshold capillary pressure of the DRZ to zero during time periods T1 and T2. The material DRZ_1

ori ginally represented the DRZ around a waste panel, which was conceptually considered to not heal and retain open vertical fractures throughout the regulatory time frame because of the effect of gas pressurization. ERMS 232288 correctly states that a

zero th reshold capillary pressure is reasonable for a fractured material. EPA therefore considers a value of zero for PCT_A to be appropriate for material DRZ_1 as used in

PCS

- 2012, because it represents a fractured halite that has not fully healed. EPA also

acce pts a value of zero for this parameter to facilitate a comparison of results because

it was used in both PCS

- 2012 and PABC

- 2009. See text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for additional information.
DRZ_ PCS PCT_A Threshold capillary pressure linea r parameter for the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not

refer to document s that justify those values. Material DRZ_1 was defined for the PAVT and most subsequent analyses as the DRZ from 0 to 10,000 years. Despite the

redefinition of the time frame for this material in PCS

- 2012, EPA accepts a value of
zero for PCT_A to facilita te a comparison of results because it was used in both PCS

2012 and PABC

- 2009. However, a value of zero may not be fully appropriate for the

PCS DRZ

, because it represents a healed rather than a fractured material. See text

discussion of two

- phase flow par ameters for additional information.
DRZ_ 1 PCT_EXP Threshold capillary pressure exponential parameter for the PCS DRZ during time periods

T1 and T2 236560 232288 2/22/1996 The assigned value of zero in ERMS 232288 for PCT_EXP is consistent with the assign ed value of zero for PCT_A, which sets the threshold capillary pressure to zero. The comment for DRZ_1:PCT_A therefore also applies to DRZ_1:PCT_EXP. EPA accepts a value of zero for this parameter to facilitate comparison of results, because it

was used in both PCS

- 2012 and PABC

- 2009. See text discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for additional information.

### 23



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

DRZ_ PCS PCT_EXP Threshold capillary pressure exponential parameter for the PCS DRZ during time period

T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify those values. EPA accepts a value of zero for
DRZ_PCS: PCT_EXP for reasons sta ted above for DRZ_1:PCT_EXP . See text

discussion of two

- phase flow parameters for additional information.
DRZ_ 1 PRMX_LOG X

- direction permeability of the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 522016 519513 2/14/2002 The range and distribution of permeabil ities assigned to DRZ_1 is the same as those assigned to the DRZ around the waste panels in the PAVT and in subsequent analyses. ERMS 519513 traces the origin of this range and distribution to EPA

- mandated values for the PAVT and provides a brief summary o f their justification

. ERMS 519513 also presents additional data that support this range. EPA accepts this range and distribution as applicable to T1 and T2 because, like the DRZ around a waste panel, the PCS DRZ may not be fully healed during these time p eriods. EPA also accepts the assumption of an isotropic p ermeability for this material.
DRZ_ 1 PRMY_LOG Y

- direction permeability of the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 522016 519513 2/14/2002 The comment for DRZ_1:PRMX_LOG also applies to DRZ_1:PRMY _LOG.

DRZ_ 1 PRMZ_LOG Z

- direction permeability of the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 522016 519513 2/14/2002 The comment for DRZ_1:PRMX_LOG also applies to DRZ_1:PRMZ_LOG.

DRZ_ PCS PRMX_LOG X

- direction permeability of the PCS DRZ during time perio d T3 520524

555599 520524 2/14/2002

5/24/2011 ERMS 520524 refers to AP

- 086 (ERMS 520612) for a detailed description and

justification of m aterial DRZ_PCS . This material was originally defined as the healed

DRZ a bove the Option D concrete monolith. ERMS 520 612 states that the DRZ a bove the monolith would heal quickly and would likely have slightly higher permeability than intact halite because it is relatively thin and may have small

- scale heterogeneities

, such as thin clay seams

, that would increase its per meability. The permeability range for intact halite is

- 24 to

- 21 log(m 2 ). Material DRZ_PCS was given the same permeability range as the Option D concrete monolith

, because it met the criterion of being slightly higher than for intact halite, and so that t he DRZ and concrete monolith would act as a composite system. EPA agrees that healing of the DRZ around the ROM salt would likely be essentially complete by time period T3

, and the use of this permeability range for PCS

- 2012 is therefore acceptable for

pur poses of comparison with PABC

- 2009. EPA also accepts the assumption of an isotropic permeability for this material. However, the healing and consequent permeability reduction of the PCS DRZ is linked with the healing of the ROM salt .

S ee text discussion o f DRZ porosity and permeability.
DRZ_ PCS PRMY_LOG Y

- direction permeability of the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524

555599 520524 2/14/2002

5/24/2011 The comment for DRZ_PCS:PRMX_LOG also applies to DRZ_PCS:PRMY_LOG.

DRZ_ PCS PRMZ_LOG Z

- direction per meability of the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524

555599 520524 2/14/2002

5/24/2011 The comment for DRZ_PCS:PRMX_LOG also applies to DRZ_PCS:PRMZ_LOG.

### 24



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

DRZ_ 1 PO_MIN Minimum allowable brine pressure for the PCS DRZ during time periods T1

and T2 232903 236051 2/22/1996 The cited source document ERMS 236051 identifies only the value of this parameter

used in PCS

- 2012. It does not justify that value, nor does it refer to a document that does provide justification. However, EPA understands that this paramet er is used only in capillary pressure Model 3, which was not used in either PCS

- 2012 or in PABC

2009. EPA therefore considers this parameter value to be acceptable despite the lack of justification.
DRZ_ PCS PO_MIN Minimum allowable brine pressure for the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify thos e values. EPA understands that this parameter is used only in capillary pressure Model 3, which was not used in either PCS

- 2012 or in

PABC

- 2009. EPA therefore considers this parameter value to be acceptable despite the lack of justification.
DRZ_ 1 PORE_D IS Brooks

- Corey pore distribution parameter for the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 232901 232288 2/12/1996 ERMS 232288 identifies the assigned constant value of 0.7 for this parameter as the median for Salado halite; however, for the ROM salt PCS, t his parameter is sampled from a cumulative distribution with a median value of 0.94. EPA accepts a constant value of 0.7 for this parameter to facilitate comparison of results because it was used

in both PCS

- 2012 and PABC

- 2009. However, the difference in m edian values and the

use of a constant value for the PCS DRZ versus a distributed value for the ROM salt PCS should be justified.
DRZ_ PCS PORE_DIS Brooks

- Corey pore distribution parameter for the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify those values. Material DRZ_1 was defined for the

PAVT and most subsequent analyses as the DRZ from 0 to 10,000 years. Despite the

redefinition of the time frame for this material in PCS

- 2012, EPA accepts a constant value of 0.7 for this parameter for the reasons given above for DRZ_1:PORE_DIS.
DRZ_ 1 POROSITY Porosit y of the PCS DRZ during time periods T1

and T2 545795 545755 4/10/2007 ERMS 545755 corrects an error in the maximum value of parameter S_HALITE:POROSITY and also lists the porosity range and distribution used for
DRZ_1:POROSITY

, but provides no justificati on for those parameters, nor does it refer to a document that does provide justification. However, ERMS 557396 states that the initial porosity of the PCS DRZ is set equal to the porosity of the DRZ around the waste panels. EPA accepts this approach as rea sonable despite a lack of justification in the cited source document

. DRZ_ PCS POROSITY Porosity of the PCS DRZ during time period T3 545795 545755 4/10/2007 ERMS 545755 corrects an error in the maximum value of parameter S_HALITE:POROSITY and also lists the porosity range and distribution used for
DRZ_PCS:POROSITY

, but provides no justification for those parameters, nor does it refer to a document that does provide justification. However, ERMS 557396 states that the long

- term value of DRZ_PCS:POROSITY is the same as the porosity of the DRZ around the Option D panel closure (which is also the same as the initial DRZ_1 porosity around the panel closures). Although the long

- term DRZ porosity would be expected to be smaller than the initial porosity due to con solidation effects, EPA accepts the range and distribution for the DRZ_PCS porosity used in PCS

- 2012

, because they were also used in PABC

- 2009 and therefore facil itate a comparison of

results.

### 25



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

DRZ_ 1 RELP_MOD Relative permeability

model number for the

PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 232910 232288 2/13/1996 ERMS 232288 identifies the two

- phase flow model as “Brooks/Corey (same as Halite).” EPA considers it appropriate to use the same model for DRZ_1 as for the intact halite. However, this parameter is shown in the cited PDE form and the PAPDB as distributed using a Delta function with a probability of 0.33 for a value of 1 (which selects Permeability Model 1, a modified van Genuchten

- Parker model) and a probability of 0.67 for a value of 4 (which selec ts Permeability Model 4, a modified

Brooks

- Corey model). Despite specifying a distributed value in the database , this distribution was not sampled and a value of 4 was returned for every vector. Although EPA accepts this result because Model 4 is the desir ed Brooks

- Corey model, the inconsistencies between the database, the justification, and the actual sampling practice are not acceptable. See text discussion of Table 3 for more information.
DRZ_ PCS RELP_MOD Relative permeability

model number for the

PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify those val ues. Although this parameter is shown in the

PDE form and the PAPDB as distributed using a Delta function with a probability of

0.33 for a value of 1 (which selects Permeability Model 1) and a probability of 0.67 for a value of 4 (which selects Permeabilit y Model 4), a value of 4 was returned for every vector. Although EPA accepts this result because Model 4 is the desired

Brooks

- Corey model, the inconsistency between the database and the actual sampling practice is not acceptable. See text discussion of Ta ble 3 for more information.
DRZ_ 1 SAT_RBRN Residual brine saturation of the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 232912 238568 12/05/1996 The cited source ERMS 238568 identifies this parameter as one of many “legacy parameters” and states that there are numerous sources for those parameters, but the majority can be considered as the choice of the PA analyst. A specific source for this parameter was not provided. Because SAT_RBRN represents a cutoff saturation below which brine cannot flow, EPA considers that its magnitude should have been specifically justified. EPA accepts the assigned constant value of zero for this parameter to facilitate comparison of results, because it was used in both PCS

- 2012

and PABC

- 2009. However, EPA notes that while a value of zero may be appropriate for a fractured medium and may therefore be justified for a fractured DRZ during time periods T1 and T2, it may not be appropriate for consolidated materials. In addition,
SAT_RBRN is treated as a constant for the DRZ_PCS while it was sampled over a range from zero to 0.6 for the ROM salt material. The lack of consistent treatment and the appropriateness of a zero value should be justified. EPA accepts the value of
DRZ_1:SAT_RBRN used in PCS

- 2012 despite a lack of justification, bec ause it was

also used in PABC

- 2009 and facilitates comparison of results. Also see text discussion

of two

- phase flow parameters.
DRZ_ PCS SAT_RBRN Residual brine saturation of the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states th at, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT material DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify those values. Material DRZ_1 was defined for the PAVT and most subsequent analys es as the DRZ from 0 to 10,000 years. In considering the redefinition of the time frame for this material in PCS

- 2012, EPA notes that while a value of zero may be appropriate for a fractured medium, it may not be appropriate for a consolidated and healed D RZ, such as is conceptually assumed for the DRZ_PCS during T3. In addition, SAT_RBRN is treated as a constant for the DRZ_PCS while it was sampled over a range from zero to 0.6 for the ROM salt

### 26



## Table 2

. Justification Check for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 PA that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material

Name Property Name Parameter Type Parameter

D ata Entry

ERMS No. Supporting

Document

ERMS No. Effective

Date Comments

material. The lack of consistent treatment and the appropriate ness of a zero value should be justified. EPA accepts the value of DRZ_PCS:SAT_RBRN used in PCS

2012 despite a lack of justification, because it was also used in PABC

- 2009 and facilitates comparison of results. Also see text discussion of two

- phase flow

pa rameters DRZ_ 1 SAT_RGAS Residual gas saturation of the PCS DRZ during time periods T1 and T2 232913 238568 12/05/1996 The cited source ERMS 238568 identifies this parameter as one of many “legacy parameters” and states that there are numerous sources for those parameters, but the majority can be considered as the choice of the PA analyst. A specific source for this parameter was not provided. Because SAT_RGAS represents a specific cutoff saturation below which gas cannot flow, EPA considers that its magni tude should have been specifically justified. EPA accepts the assigned constant value of zero for this parameter to facilitate comparison of results because it was used in both PCS

2012 and PABC

- 2009. However, EPA notes that a value of zero may not be

appr opriate for consolidated materials, and that SAT_RGAS was sampled over a range from zero to 0.4 for the ROM salt material. The lack of consistent treatment and appropriateness of a zero value should be justified. Also see text discussion of two

phase flow parameters. DRZ_ PCS SAT_RGAS Residual gas saturation of the PCS DRZ during time period T3 520524 520524 2/14/2002 ERMS 520524 states that, except for permeabilities, the property values assigned to
the DRZ_PCS are the same as those used for the PAVT mate rial DRZ_1, but does not refer to documents that justify those values. Material DRZ_1 was defined for the PAVT and most subsequent analyses as the DRZ from 0 to 10,000 years. In considering the redefinition of the time frame for this material in PCS

- 2012, EPA notes that while a value of zero may be appropriate for a fractured medium, it may not be appropriate for a consolidated and healed DRZ, such as is conceptually assumed for the DRZ_PCS during T3. In addition, SAT_RGAS is treated as a constant for the

D RZ_PCS while it was sampled over a range from zero to 0.4 for the ROM salt material. The lack of consistent treatment and the appropriateness of a zero value should be justified. EPA accepts the value of DRZ_PCS:SAT_RGAS used in PCS

2012 despite a lack of justification, because it was also used in PABC

- 2009 and facilitates comparison of results. Also see text discussion of two

- phase flow

parameters

. References for Supporting Documents : ERMS 232288: Vaughn 1996 a ERMS 232910: SNL 1997 ERMS 235271: Vaughn 199 6 b ERMS 236051: Vaughn 1996 c ERMS 238568: Tierney and Vaughn 1996

ERMS 519513: Wall 2001

ERMS 520524: Stein 2002 a ERMS 520612: Stein 2002 b ERMS 542894: Vugrin et al. 2006 ERMS 542946: Vugrin 2006

ERMS 543322: PDE 2006a

ERMS 543328: PDE 20 06c

ERMS 545496: V ugrin and Nemer 2007

ERMS 545755: Ismail 2007 ERMS 554623: Camphouse 2010 ERMS 557396: Camphouse et al. 2012 a ERMS 557721: Camphouse 2012

ERMS 557865: Patterson 2012

ERMS 557949: PDE 20 12a

ERMS 557951: PDE 2012 b

### 27



## 4.3.1 Use of Default Values

As previously noted , distributed parameters are now assigned a default value in the PAPDB for use when the distribution is not to be sampled (Kirchner 2011). Seven parameters were sampled for the ROM salt materials and three parameters were sampled for the PCS DRZ materials. The sampled parameters are shown in Table 1. When a sampled parameter value is applied without change for all three time periods in the PCS

- 2012 analysis, the sampling occurs during the first time period where the parameter is used. The default value, sho wn in Table 1, is retrieved from the database for subsequent time periods and is later set equal to the original sampled value in the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file. This same process is used for directional permeabilities in isotropic media. The X

- direction permea bility PRMX_LOG is sampled, default values are retrieved from the database for PRMY_LOG and PRMZ_LOG, and are later set equal to the
PRMX_LOG value in the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file.

The foregoing sampling process is applied to four of the six sampled ROM sal t properties (PORE_DIS; POR2PERM; SAT_RBRN, and SAT_RGAS) and is also applied to all sampled PCS DRZ properties (PRMX, Y, Z_LOG; POROSITY; and RELP_MOD). The ROM salt property POR2PERM applies only to time periods T2 and T3. The ROM salt property
POROSITY is separately sampled from uniform distributions for the three time periods T1, T2, and T3. The initial brine saturation of the ROM salt, SAT_IBRN, is sampled from a uniform distribution. The sampled value is applied at time zero and replaces the brine sat uration calculated during the 5 year preclosure time period. The ROM salt permeability is directly sampled for T1. For T2 and T3, default values are taken from the database and the permeabilities

used in the PCS

- 2012 analysis are calculated as a function o f the randomly selected values of POR2PERM and POROSITY. This process is further explained below.

4.3.2 ROM Salt Porosity and Permeability Values

The porosity of the ROM salt is sampled from a uniform distribution for time period T1. For time period T2, the RO M salt porosity is sampled from a different uniform distribution and is compared to the porosity value sampled for T1. If the T2 value is greater than the T1 value, a new T2 value is calculated that is less than or equal to the T1 value. Similarly, f or tim e period T3, the ROM salt porosity is sampled from a third uniform distribution and is compared to the porosity value determined for T2. If the T3 value is greater than the T2 value, a new T3 value is calculated that is less than or equal to the T2 value. This approach is appropriate because the porosity of the ROM salt should be monotonically decreasing during creep closure. The porosity ranges for the three time periods are shown in Table 1.

The log permeability of the ROM salt is sampled from a uniform distribution for time period T1, independent of the sampled porosity value for T1. The log permeability for the ROM salt is then determined for time period T2 as a function of the T2 porosity and the sampled value of a parameter called PCS_T2:POR2PERM that is used to correlate permeability with porosity. SNL developed a correlation between porosity (expressed as fractional salt density) and log permeability based on laboratory brine permeability studies by Brodsky (1994). Development of

this correlation is described by Camphouse et al. (2012 a ). This correlation showed that the permeability of moist, crushed salt consolidating under an external applied stress tends to

### 28



## decrease as the porosity decreases. Such a correlation is logical and would be generally exp ected. Consolidation data for moist crushed salt is also appropriate, as compared with data for dry crushed salt, because moist conditions are expected in the post

- closure repository. A least squares linear fit to the data served to identify the expected v alue of log permeability as a function of porosity, and at a given porosity the distribution of test results around this expected value was shown to be reasonably well approximated by a normal distribution. This normal distribution was standardized by taki ng the expected value as the mean, assigning the mean a default value of zero, and sampling over two standard deviations from the mean. The sampled
value of PCS_T2: POR2PERM is the deviation from the mean of this normal distribution of log permeability valu es.

Knowing the value of PCS_T2:POROSITY, an algorithm in the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file calculates the actual value of the mean permeability corresponding to that porosity and replaces the default value of zero with the actual value. Knowing the value PCS_T2 : POR2PERM , the algorithm also uses the deviation from that mean to calculate the value of PCS_T2:PRMX_LOG. Because the ROM salt is assumed to be isotropic, this same log permeability is assigned to
PCS_T2:PRMY_LOG and PCS_T2:PRMZ_LOG. The PAPDB contains on ly constant default values of PCS_T2:PRMX_LOG, PCS_T2:PRMY_LOG, and PCS_T2:PRMZ_LOG as placeholders. These default values are the means of the overall ranges of log permeability values corresponding to the range of porosities applicable to time period T2 a nd are the same for all three directional permeabilities. These default values are replaced by the calculated values once the actual log permeabilities are determined.

A separate calculation is then made to compare the T2 permeability with the T1 permeab ility. If the T2 permeability is greater than the sampled T1 permeability, the T2 permeability is set equal to the T1 permeability. This approach is appropriate

, because the permeability of the ROM salt should be monotonically decreasing during creep closu re.

A similar process is used to determine the T3 permeability, however for this time period, the value of POR2PERM is assumed to be the same as for time period T2. This is accomplished by retrieving a constant default value of 0.0 from the PAPDB for par ameter PCS_T3: POR2PERM and replacing that default value with the sampled value of PCS_T2: POR2PERM in the

BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file. This approach maintains the same deviation from the mean for the permeability distribution during time periods T2 and T3 and is appropriate

, because if an above normal permeability is sampled for T2, for example, it is reasonable that the permeability for T3

would also likely be above normal.

Knowing the value of PCS_T3:POROSITY, an algorithm in the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file

calculat es the actual value of the mean and replaces the default mean value of zero with the actual value. Knowing that the value of PCS_T3: POR2PERM is the same as the value of
PCS_T2: POR2PERM , this algorithm also uses the deviation from that mean to calculate the

value of PCS_T3:PRMX_LOG. Because the ROM salt is assumed to be isotropic, this same log permeability is assigned to the Y

- and Z

- directional permeabilities during time period T3. Again, the PAPDB contains only constant default values of PCS_T3:PRMX_LOG, PCS_T3:PRMY_LOG, and PCS_T3:PRMZ_LOG as placeholders. These default values are the means of the overall range of log permeability values corresponding to the range of porosities

### 29



## applicable to time period T3 and are replaced by the calculated values once th e actual log permeabilities are determined. The T3 permeabilities calculated in this manner will generally be different from the T2 permeabilities because of the differences in porosity values.

A separate calculation is then made to compare the T3 permeab ility with the T2 permeability. If

the T 3 permeability is greater than the T 2 permeability, the T 3 permeability is set equal to the T 2 permeability. This approach is appropriate, because the permeability of the ROM salt should be monotonically decreasing d uring creep closure.

The ROM salt log permeability used in the PCS

- 2012 PA for time period T1 ranges over nine orders of magnitude, from a low of

- 21 log(m 2 

## ) (1×10 - 21 

## m 2 

## ) to a high of

- 12 log(m 2 

## ) (1×10 - 12



## m 2 

## ). The default value of

- 16.5 for PCS_T1:PRMY_LO G, and PCS_T1:PRMZ_LOG is the mean of this range. This range was developed by SNL based on laboratory data for consolidated crushed salt at or near the minimum (0.066) and maximum (0.187) porosities in the range sampled for time period T1.

The ROM salt l og permeability for time period T2 ranges from

- 20.8 log(m 2 

## ) (1.44×10 - 21 

## m 2 

## ) to

- 16.3 log(m 2 

## ) (4.55×10 - 17 

## m 2 

## ), however only the mean constant default value of

- 18.6 log(m 2 

## ) is

entered into the PAPDB for all three T2 directional permeabilities. The ROM salt log permeability for time period T3 ranges from

- 21.4 log(m 2 

## ) (4.46×10 - 22 

## m 2 

## ) to

- 16.8 log(m 2 

## ) (1.47×10 - 17 

## m 2 

## ), however only the mean constant default value of

- 19.1 log(m 2 

## ) is entered in to
the PAPDB for all three T3 directional permeabilities. These perm eability ranges are not provided in the PAPDB, but are documented in Camphouse et al. (2012 a ).

Following completion of the PCS

- 2012 PA calculations, an error in calculating the permeability of the ROM salt materials for time periods T2 and T3 was discover ed in the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file. The permeability is calculated using the equation

k = 10 - 21.187( 1

– Φ) + 1.5353 + α



## where k is the calculated permeability, Φ is the sampled porosity value, and α is the sampled
POR2PERM value from a normal distribution with a mean of 0, a standard deviation of 0.86, and truncated at ±2 standard deviations. Upon clos er inspection, The Agency found that the leading

term constant of

- 21.187 in this equation was incorrectly transcribed to the ALGEBRA1 input

file as

- 21.87 for both materials PCS_T2 and PCS_T3. This error led to calculated permeabilities for
materials PCS_ T2 and PCS_T3 that were lower than the minimum values listed above for some vectors. However, as described in Camphouse et al. (2012 b ), this transcription error was found to have a negligible impact on the PCS

- 2012 PA results. SNL reran Replicate 1 of the PCS

- 2012 PA with the corrected equation and the resulting releases were virtually identical with those of the original analysis.

As previously described, the original range of T1 log permeabilities was from

- 18.7 to

- 12.0 log(m 2 

## ), and the low end was lat er extended from

- 18.7 to

- 21.0 log(m 2 

## ) based on the minimum value from Test 3 of Case et al. (1987), as corrected for the Klinkenberg effect (Patterson 2012). Case et al.’s Test 3 w as f or moist WIPP salt with 20 mm maximum grain size

.

### 30



## These same test resu lts were considered by Camphouse et al. (2012 a ), but were not used when developing the original T1 permeability range “

... because the maximum grain size for Test 3, 20 mm, is somewhat smaller than the measured maximum grain size for WIPP salt, 38 mm.” (Camph ouse et al. 2012 a). Generally, permeability would be expected to drop more rapidly when consolidating a finer

- grained material than when consolidating a coarser

- grained material. However, Patterson notes a disagreement on the magnitude of this effect in la boratory test results and concludes that, “The impact of grain size on permeability measurements for moistened cores of crushed salt is ambiguous at this time” (Patterson 2012).

In light of the apparent disagreement within DOE over whether to include the Case et al. Test 3 results in the range of ROM salt permeabilities for T1, the Agency performed an independent evaluation of the appropriateness of the T1 permeability range for the purpose of the PCS

- 2012

PA. The Agency observes that the range of permeab ilities used in the PCS

- 2012 PA for time period T1 is larger than the ranges for the subsequent time periods, suggesting a greater uncertainty during T1. This uncertainty arises in part from uncertainty in the rate at which the ROM salt is compressed durin g creep closure, and also in part from uncertainty in the method that will be used by DOE to emplace the ROM salt. The Agency also notes that the minimum permeability of

- 21.0 log(m 2 

## ) during T1 is less than the minimum permeability during T2 for the

entire range of T2 porosities, and is also less than the minimum permeability during T3 for most T3 porosities. These comparisons indicate an inconsistency with the aforementioned conceptual model of monotonically decreasing permeability over time, as well as an inconsistency between the permeability data sets used by DOE.

The adjustments SNL has made to the sampled/calculated values of porosity and permeability to assure physically reasonable monotonic decreases in the values of these parameters with time has also contributed to some permeabilities falling below the originally agreed

- upon two standard deviation range for T2 and T3. Although the Agency believes that the minimum ROM salt permeability of

- 21.0 log(m 2 

## ) during time period T1 may be unrealistically l ow for coarse WIPP ROM salt in an initial time period of 100 years, the Agency understands that the T2 and T3 data sets from Brodsky (1994) are relatively sparse, and that a high degree of uncertainty is associated with the consolidation of an ROM salt pan el closure during T1. The Agency accepts the use of the applied permeability range for T1 because of the uncertainty involved, and because a log permeability of

- 21.0 log(m 2 

## ) is several orders of magnitude higher than the lowest permeability

of

- 24.0 log(m 2 

## ) used for intact WIPP halite, indicating that complete healing of the ROM salt has not yet occurred. However, if the Agency approves DOE’s proposal to modify the PCS design and if the uncertainty in the T1 permeability range is reduced, for example when the initial conditions of the ROM salt are better understood once the method of salt emplacement is determined by DOE or if additional relevant data become available, the Agency may re

- evaluate the appropriateness of the T1 ROM salt permeability range for use in future PAs.

4.3.3 PCS DRZ Porosity and Permeability Values

As indicated in Tables 1 and 2, the porosity values for the DRZ above and below the ROM salt were not adequately justified and were modeled as unchanging during all three time periods. The

perme ability data were better supported and did generally reflect a decrease over time, as would be expected with a consolidating material. However, the permeability ranges for material DRZ_1

### 31



## (early time) overlap with those for material DRZ_PCS (late time), whi ch may result in an unrealistic permeability increase in late time because the distributions are sampled independently. Additionally, the PCS DRZ permeability is independent of the ROM salt permeability, even though the conceptual model described by Campho use et al. (2012 a ) states,

“ As ROM salt reaches higher fractional densities during consolidation, back stress will be imposed on the surrounding rock mass leading to eventual healing of the disturbed rock zone (DRZ).” The Agency agrees that healing of the PCS DRZ cannot occur until sufficient back stress is generated by the ROM salt and such back stress cannot be generated until the ROM salt is sufficiently consolidated to significantly reduce its porosity and permeability. It is apparent

that the decrease in permeability of the PCS DRZ is correlated with the decrease in permeability

of the ROM salt . Although t he Agency agreed with the PCS DRZ values used in PCS

- 2012 to maintain consistency with PABC

- 2009 and simplify comparison of results, the appropriatene ss of conditioning for monotonic decreases in porosity and permeability over time, and for correlating decreases in PCS DRZ porosity and permeability with decreases in ROM salt porosity and permeability, may be evaluated by the Agency for the 2014 recertif ication PA.

4.3.4 Two

- Phase Flow Parameters

Relative permeability Model 4 is a Brooks

- Corey model that was modified by SNL to use a residual gas saturation in calculating the effective saturation for the relative permeability of the

non

- wetting (gas) phase. Mo del 4 was used to model two

- phase flow in the PCS

- 2012 PA for both the ROM salt and the surrounding PCS DRZ. Inputs for this model specific to two

- phase flow include a capillary pressure model CAP_MOD, a pore distribution PORE_DIS, an initial

brine saturat ion SAT_IBRN, a residual brine saturation SAT_RBRN, and a residual gas saturation SAT_RGAS. Capillary pressure Models 1 and 2 are generally used in WIPP PA. Model 1 is similar to Model 2, except that Model 2 invokes a maximum value for the capillary

pressu re, while Model 1 has no maximum and is typically used when the threshold capillary pressure is set to zero, which deactivates the model. Inputs for the capillary pressure models include a maximum allowable capillary pressure PC_MAX (for Model 2) and a thr eshold capillary pressure P t 

## . If the threshold capillary pressure is set to zero, the material is modeled in BRAGFLO as having no (zero) capillary pressure. A minimum allowable capillary pressure PO_MIN must also be specified in the database, but is only u sed in capillary pressure Model 3,

which was not used in either PCS

- 2012 or PABC

- 2009.

Threshold capillary pressure is the pressure required for a gas to overcome capillary forces and

enter a brine

- saturated salt. Threshold capillary pressure for the Broo ks

- Corey model is

calculated as

P t 

## = a k

– b



## where a is called the linear parameter, designated in WIPP PA as the property PCT_A, k is the permeability of the material in the X

- direction, and b is the exponential parameter, designated in WIPP PA as the p roperty PCT_EXP. Both a and b are constants in WIPP PA. Inputs for the threshold capillary pressure model are, therefore, PCT_A, PCT_EXP, the permeability k, and a flag called KPT that determines whether k is constant (KPT = 0.0) or whether k changes with time (KPT = 1.0) during the analysis. According to Chris Camphouse (SNL’s BRAGFLO

### 32



## administrator), k is automatically reset to the current X

- direction permeability each time the material changes. Therefore, even if KPT is set to zero, the threshold capillar y pressure is recalculated for the ROM salt for each time period T1, T2, and T3, because PCS_T1, PCS_T2, and PCS_T3 each represent a different material in BRAGFLO.

Two

- phase flow parameters for unconsolidated salt were first developed in WIPP PA for

model ing the DRZ around the waste panels and for modeling the salt component of the original shaft seal. The waste panel DRZ was considered to retain open fractures and relatively high permeabilities (compared to intact halite) for the entire regulatory time fr ame because of the disruptive effects of gas pressurization from waste decomposition. The salt component of the original shaft seal was to be emplaced as a porous material using ROM WIPP salt, also with a relatively high permeability. The open fractures an d pores of the waste panel DRZ were considered to result in an essentially zero threshold capillary pressure, a zero residual brine saturation, and a zero residual gas saturation. Capillary pressures are not modeled in a material if the threshold capillary pressure is zero. In addition, KPT was set to zero, because permeabilities remained constant during a given realization.

Zero values continued to be assigned to these DRZ parameters until the DOE proposed a modified panel closure design that used ROM sal t, whose consolidation was to be specifically modeled over three time periods in the PCS

- 2012 PA. The agreed upon parameterization for that PA included a nonzero threshold capillary pressure for the ROM salt, a residual brine saturation that was sampled ov er a range from 0.0 to 0.6, and a residual gas saturation that was sampled over a range from 0.0 to 0.4. The effect of nonzero values for these parameters is to add restrictions to the flow of brine and gas in the salt. Low values approaching zero for thre shold capillary pressure, residual brine saturation, and residual gas saturation may be appropriate for materials that have open fractures, but nonzero values would be expected for consolidated materials. Capillary pressure Model 2 is typically used when t he threshold capillary pressure is nonzero, and that model was specified in the agreed

- upon parameterization. Zero values for these parameters were used for the PCS DRZ to maintain consistency with the baseline PABC

- 2009 and simplify comparison of the effe cts of different panel closure designs.

As previously stated, capillary pressure Model 1 is typically used in WIPP PA when the threshold capillary pressure is zero. When performing the PCS

- 2012 PA, DOE found that a nonzero threshold capillary pressure for the ROM salt caused numerical difficulties in BRAGFLO and resolved this problem by setting the threshold capillary pressure for the ROM salt to zero. Because this change was not consistent with the parameterization that the Agency had previously agreed up on and the effect of a nonzero threshold capillary pressure could not be

determined from the PCS

- 2012 results, the Agency requested DOE to correct the numerical

difficulties in BRAGFLO and rerun the PCS

- 2012 PA with nonzero threshold capillary pressures

in the ROM salt.

SNL found that the aforementioned numerical difficulties arose when the threshold capillary

pressure was nonzer o and the initial brine saturation was less than the residual brine saturation. In capillary pressure Model 2, BRAGFLO computes the brine saturation at which the capillary pressure equals the maximum allowable capillary pressure, PCMAX. Because capillary pressure increases as brine saturation decreases, this calculated value is the minimum allowable brine

### 33



## saturation for the particu lar material. If the initial brine saturation is less than this minimum value, the capillary pressure is set to the PCMAX value of 1 × 10 8 

## Pa (Nemer 2007 b ). In previous analyses, the initial brine saturation was set to 1.0 (a fully saturated condition) at time

- 5 years for the DRZ and intact halite in the vicinity of a waste panel, and at time zero, the brine saturation was the saturation calculated by BRAGFLO after 5 years of drainage into the waste panel. However, for the ROM salt, the initial brine satur ation SAT_IBRN was reset to a much drier condition at time zero that was representative of the expected range of brine saturations for granular ROM salt. Because this initial saturation was less than the minimum value, the capillary pressure was increased to 1 × 10 8 

## Pa at time zero. Because gas pressure equals brine pressure plus capillary pressure, BRAGFLO also increased gas pressure at time zero by 1 × 10 8 

## Pa over the brine pressure to maintain equilibrium conditions. Because the gas pressure in adjacent materials at time zero was still low, this sudden increase created an unrealistically high gas pressure gradient that resulted in numerical difficulties in BRAGFLO. Numerical difficulties can also arise as the brine saturation drops and approaches the resi dual brine saturation because capillary pressures are increasing rapidly at these low saturations. In addition to the lack of a physical reason why the gas pressure in the repository should suddenly increase to a high value at time zero, as discussed below , brine saturations below the residual brine saturation represent a

non

- physical condition in BRAGFLO.

In previous analyses, the aforementioned numerical difficulties in BRAGFLO were resolved by reverting to capillary pressure Model 1 and setting the thre shold capillary pressure to zero. This set the capillary pressure to zero and made the gas pressure equal to the brine pressure, thereby eliminating large gas pressure gradients between adjacent materials. A nonzero threshold capillary pressure can be spec ified in Model 1, but unlike Model 2, no maximum value for capillary pressure is provided in Model 1. Because there is no maximum capillary pressure in Model 1, if the brine saturation is below the residual brine saturation, the capillary pressure is

arbit rarily set to zero (Nemer 2007 b ). This default, coupled with a zero capillary pressure for higher brine saturations, set capillary pressure in Model 1 to zero for any brine saturation. Eliminating capillary pressure altogether eliminated large gas pressure gradients and allowed BRAGFLO to converge more readily.

The initial brine saturation for the ROM salt was determined to range from 0.04 to 0.16, assuming a granular material that had dried and was partially rewetted, whereas the residual

brine saturation was sampled over a range from 0.0 to 0.6, resulting in many vectors with sampled residual brine saturations greater than the initial brine saturations. Although the range of initial brine saturations is physically reasonable, they can only be reached by a ssuming an evaporative or chemically based moisture removal process that is not modeled in BRAGFLO. Under the humid conditions modeled in BRAGFLO, such a drying process could not happen, because it would require brine flow in salt to occur below the lower limit that such flow could occur, as defined by the residual brine saturation. This numerical problem can be resolved by setting the initial brine saturation above the residual brine saturation. It was temporarily resolved by SNL by increasing the initial brine saturation of the ROM salt to 1.0. The Agency considers the assumption of higher brine saturations to be appropriate, because humid conditions are expected to develop in the repository soon after closure.

### 34



## SNL reran the corrected BRAGFLO code with an initial brine saturation of the ROM salt at time zero reset to 1.0 and nonzero threshold capillary pressures in the ROM salt for all three time periods. The initial brine saturation in the PCS DRZ did not need to be changed, because it was

set to 1.0 at t ime

- 5 years and not reset at time zero. The results showed that including threshold capillary pressures in the ROM salt made no significant difference in the mean repository releases. Because SNL’s BRAGFLO runs were not reviewed for quality assurance purp oses, the WIPP PA codes were reviewed and rerun by the Agency with the same results. The Agency therefore concludes that DOE’s deviation from the agreed

- upon parameterization in PCS

- 2012 is acceptable.

As described above, the Agency accepted retention in the PCS

- 2012 PA of several parameter

values from the PABC

- 2009 PA to simplify comparison of results by focusing only on parameter value changes that were potentially significant and resulted directly from the proposed changes in PCS design. However, when agreeing with the parameter values for the PCS

- 2012 PA in June 2012, the Agency noted that although the multi

- phase flow and other parameters in BRAGFLO could remain as they have been in past PAs, they may be re

- evaluated for appropriateness in the

2014 re certification PA.

4.4 REVIEW OF PAPDB DATA BASE

- TO

- CODE INTERFACE FOR P CS

- 2012

Accurate access by the WIPP PA codes of PAPDB parameter values was evaluated by visually comparing code input files with PAPDB database values. The PA code input files were accesse d by SNL staff member Jennifer Long in the SNL Carlsbad office. The input files were observed and compared with PAPDB values by the Agency review team. This review was conducted for all parameters used in PCS

- 2012 that have changed since CRA

- 2009. The resu lts of this review

are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 presents the parameter name (material and property), the code that used the parameter, the names of the input file and library that were accessed, the parameter value in PAPDB, the parameter value returned from the PAPDB, and comments providing additional details. In every case, the code using the parameter was BRAGFLO. BRAGFLO Version 6.0 (Nemer 2007 a ) was

used in both PCS

- 2012 and in CRA

- 2009. For all constant parameters, the value returned was the

same as the PAPDB value. For all distributed parameters, the value returned was within the range of the parameter distribution. For distributed parameters, two or more values were generally returned, representing samples for specific replicates and vectors random ly selected by the Agency reviewer. In all but one case, the correct values were returned.

The single exception was the sampled value for DRZ_1:RELP_MOD. This parameter identifies the relative permeability model to be used for material DRZ_1 . This paramet er is entered into the PAPDB as a sampled value from a Delta function with a probability of 0.33 for a value of 1 (which selects relative permeability Model 1, a modified van Genuchten

- Parker model) and a probability of 0.67 for a value of 4 (which selects relative permeability Model 4, a modified

Brooks

- Corey model). However, three different vectors were checked from three replicates, and

in each case a value of 4 was returned. The sampled results were further checked and a value of 4

was returned for ever y vector in every replicate. Although this indicates a problem with the PRELHS sampling algorithm, the Agency concludes that it has no impact on the PCS

- 2012

### 35



## results, because relative permeability Model 4 is the desired model for the modified Brooks

Corey model used in PCS

- 2012 and PABC

- 2009. This problem did not exist for the parameter DRZ_PCS:RELP_MOD, because the default value of zero was returned and later set equal to the sampled value for DRZ_1:RELP_MOD in the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file. This problem also

did not exist for the ROM salt , because the value of RELP_MOD for that material is entered in the PAPDB as a constant equal to 4 for all three time periods. The Agency informed Chris Camphouse (SNL) of this error. He confirmed the error and said it would a lso have been present

in PABC

- 2009 and will be corrected by changing this parameter to a constant value.

The methodology used to establish a value for DRZ_1:POROSITY is complex and warrants a brief explanation. The porosity of the DRZ around the PCS is t he same as the porosity of the DRZ around a waste panel. The value of this parameter is derived from a sampled porosity value for intact halite which, once determined, remains unchanged throughout the regulatory time frame. Most such parameters are sampled for the first time period (usually the zero to 200

- year time period of DRZ_1 for the DRZ PCS) and a default value is taken from the database for later time periods (in this case, the 200 to 10,000

- year time period for material DRZ_PCS) that is subsequentl y set equal to the sampled value for the earlier time period in the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file. However, for DRZ_1:POROSITY, the default value rather than a sampled value is taken from the database and is then set equal to the value for parameter DRZ_0:POROSITY in the BRAGFLO ALGEBRA1 file . DRZ_0:POROSITY is the porosity assigned to the DRZ for the time period

- 5 years to time zero. This time period is used to establish initial conditions in the DRZ at time zero for BRAGFLO parameters, such as initial

brine satu ration. The value of DRZ_0:POROSITY is equal to the sampled porosity value for intact halite, S_HALITE:POROSITY, plus a constant value of 0.0029 (parameter DRZ_0:ADDPOR). This correlation assures that the porosity of the DRZ is always greater than the poro sity of intact halite. Although the distributions for DRZ_0:POROSITY,
DRZ_1:POROSITY, DRZ PCS:POROSITY, and S_HALITE:POROSITY are correct in the PAPDB, only the distribution for S_HALITE:POROSITY is actually sampled. This parameter was handled the same way in the PCS

- 2012 PA as it was in the PABC

- 2009.

### 36 

## Table 3

. Database

- Code Interface Test Results for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 P A that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Code File Name Library PAPDB

Value Value

Returned Comments

PCS_T1 CAP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 1 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T2 CAP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 1 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T3 CAP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP1 61_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 1 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T1 COMP_RCK BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 8.0E

- 11 8.0E

- 11 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T2 COMP_RCK BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 8.0E

- 11 8.0E

- 11 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T3 COMP_RCK BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 8.0E

- 11 8.0E

- 11 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T1 KPT BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T2 KPT BRAGFL O LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T3 KPT BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T1 PC

- MAX BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.0E08 1.0E08 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T2 PC

- MAX BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.0E08 1.0E08 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T3 PC

- MAX BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.0E08 1.0E08 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T1 PCT_A BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T2 PCT_A BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T3 PCT_A BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 T he correct value was returned.

PCS_T1 PCT_EXP BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T2 PCT_EXP BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T3 PCT_EXP BRAGF LO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T1 PO_MIN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.01325E05 1.01325E05 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T2 PO_MIN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.01325E05 1.01325E05 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T3 PO_MIN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.01325E05 1.01325E05 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T1 PORE_DIS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.11 to 8.1 0.5301 Valu e from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.11 to 8.1.

PCS_T1 PORE_DIS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.11 to 8.1 7.108 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.11 to 8.1.

PCS_T2 PORE_DIS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.11 to 8.1 0.940 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 PORE_DIS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.11 to 8.1 0.940 Value from R1 V57. The default val ue was correctly returned.

### 37 

## Table 3

. Database

- Code Interface Test Results for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 P A that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Code File Name Library PAPDB

Value Value

Returned Comments

PCS_T2 PORE_DIS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.11 to 8.1 0.940 Value from R3 V42. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 PORE_DIS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.11 to 8.1 0.940 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 PORE_DIS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.11 to 8.1 0.940 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 PORE_DIS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161 _BF 0.11 to 8.1 0.940 Value from R3 V42. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T1 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.066 to

0.187 0.09049 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.066 to 0. 187.

PCS_T1 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.066 to

0.187 0.07102 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.066 to 0.187.

PCS_T2 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.025 to

0 .075 0.06855 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.025 to 0.075.

PCS_T2 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.025 to

0.075 0.02965 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value correctly lies within the sample d range

of 0.025 to 0.075.

PCS_T2 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.025 to

0.075 0.02683 Value from R3 V42. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.025 to 0.075.

PCS_T3 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.001 to

0.0519 0.03087 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.001 to 0.0519.

PCS_T3 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.001 to

0.0519 0.01855 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value

correct ly lies within the sampled range

of 0.001 to 0.0519.

PCS_T3 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.001 to

0.0519 0.01705 Value from R3 V42. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.001 to 0.0519.

PCS_T1 PRMX_LOG BRAGFL O LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 21 to

- 12

- 14.24 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 21 to

- 12.

PCS_T1 PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 21 to

- 12

- 18.04 Value from R1 V57. Sampled va lue correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 21 to

- 12.

PCS_T1 PRMY_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 16.5

- 16.5 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T1 PRMY_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_B F

- 16.5

- 16.5 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T1 PRMZ_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 16.5

- 16.5 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

### 38 

## Table 3

. Database

- Code Interface Test Results for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 P A that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Code File Name Library PAPDB

Value Value

Returned Comments

PCS_T1 PRMZ_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V05 7.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 16.5

- 16.5 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 POR2PERM BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF - 1.72 to

+1.72 0.8755 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 1.7 2 to +1.72.

PCS_T2 POR2PERM BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF - 1.72 to

+1.72 - 1.092 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 1.72 to +1.72.

PCS_T2 PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18. 6

- 18.6 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned. See text

discussion.

PCS_T2 PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18.6

- 18.6 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 PRMY_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_ BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18.6

- 18.6 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 PRMY_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18.6

- 18.6 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 PRMZ_L OG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18.6

- 18.6 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 PRMZ_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18.6

- 18.6 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned

.

PCS_T3 POR2PERM BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF - 1.72 to

+1.72 0 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned. See text

discussion.

PCS_T3 POR2PERM BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF - 1.72 to

+1.72 0 Value from R 1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 19.1

- 19.1 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned. See text

discussion.

PCS_T3 PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 19.1

- 19.1 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 PRMY_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 19.1

- 19.1 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 PRMY_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_A P161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 19.1

- 19.1 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 PRMZ_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 19.1

- 19.1 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 PRMZ_LOG B RAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 19.1

- 19.1 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T1 RELP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 4 4 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T2 RELP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_ R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 4 4 The correct value was returned.

PCS_T3 RELP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 4 4 The correct value was returned.

### 39 

## Table 3

. Database

- Code Interface Test Results for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 P A that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Code File Name Library PAPDB

Value Value

Returned Comments

PCS_T1 SAT_IBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.04 to 0.16 0.1335 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.04 to 0.16.

PCS_T1 SAT_IBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.04 to 0.16 0.1337 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.04 to 0.16.

PCS_T1 SAT_RBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.6 0.1561 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.0 to 0.6.

PCS_T1 SAT_RBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.6 0.5511 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.0 to 0.6.

PCS_T2 SAT_RBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.6 0.2 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 SAT_RBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_ V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.6 0.2 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 SAT_RBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.6 0.2 Value from R3 V42. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 SAT_RBRN BRA GFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.6 0.2 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 SAT_RBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.6 0.2 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned

.
PCS_T3 SAT_RBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.6 0.2 Value from R3 V42. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T1 SAT_RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.4 0.105 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value

co rrectly lies within the sampled range

of 0.0 to 0.4.

PCS_T1 SAT_RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.4 0.07844 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of 0.0 to 0.4.

PCS_T2 SAT_RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_ AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.4 0.2 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 SAT_RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.4 0.2 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T2 SAT _RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.4 0.2 Value from R3 V42. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 SAT_RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.4 0.2 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 SAT_RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.4 0.2 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

PCS_T3 SAT_RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 to 0.4 0.2 Value from R3 V42. The defau lt value was correctly returned.

### 40 

## Table 3

. Database

- Code Interface Test Results for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 P A that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Code File Name Library PAPDB

Value Value

Returned Comments

DRZ_ 1 CAP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 1 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ PCS CAP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 1 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ 1 COMP_RCK BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 7.41E

- 10 7.41E

- 10 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ PCS COMP_RCK BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 7.41E

- 10 7.41E

- 10 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ 1 KPT BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP16 1_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ PCS KPT BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ 1 PC_MAX BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.0E08 1.0E08 The correct value was returned.

DRZ _ PCS PC_MAX BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.0E08 1.0E08 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ 1 PCT_A BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ PCS PCT_A BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB L IBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ 1 PCT_EXP BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ PCS PCT_EXP BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ 1 PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 19.4 to

- 12.5

- 13.05 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 19.4 to

- 12.5.

DRZ_ 1 PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 19.4 to

- 12.5

- 16.37 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 19.4 to

- 12.5.

DRZ_ 1 PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 19.4 to

- 12.5

- 14.48 Value from R3 V42. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 19.4 to

- 12.5.

DRZ_ 1 PRMY_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 16.0

- 16.0 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ 1 PRMY_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 16.0

- 16.0 Value from R1 V57. The de fault value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ 1 PRMZ_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 16.0

- 16.0 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ 1 PRMZ_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 16.0

- 16.0 Value fro m R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ PCS PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF - 20.699 to

- 17.0 - 18.4 Value from R2 V31. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 20.699 to

- 17.0.

DRZ_ PCS PRMX_LOG BR AGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF - 20.699 to

- 17.0 - 17.79 Value from R1 V57. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 20.699 to

- 17.0.

### 41 

## Table 3

. Database

- Code Interface Test Results for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 P A that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Code File Name Library PAPDB

Value Value

Returned Comments

DRZ_ PCS PRMX_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF - 20.699 to

- 17.0 - 19.53 Val ue from R3 V42. Sampled value correctly lies within the sampled range

of

- 20.699 to

- 17.0.

DRZ_ PCS PRMY_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18.7496

- 18.7496 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ PCS PRMY_LOG BR AGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18.7496

- 18.7496 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ PCS PRMZ_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18.7496

- 18.7496 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ PCS PRMZ_LOG BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF

- 18.7496

- 18.7496 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ 1 PO_MIN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.01325E05 1.01325E05 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ PCS PO_MIN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1.01325E05 1.01325E05 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ 1 PORE_DIS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.7 0.7 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ PCS PORE_DIS BRA GFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.7 0.7 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ 1 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0039 to

0.0548 0.0129 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned . See text

discussion.

DRZ _ 1 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0039 to

0.0548 0.0129 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned . See text

discussion.

DRZ_ 1 POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0039 to

0.0548 0.0129 Valu e from R3 V42. The default value was correctly returned . See text

discussion.

DRZ_ PCS POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0039 to

0.0548 0.0129 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ PCS POROSITY BRAGFLO L HS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0039 to

0.0548 0.0129 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ PCS POROSITY BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0039 to

0.0548 0.0129 Value from R3 V42. The default value

was corr ectly returned.

DRZ_ 1 RELP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 or 4 4 Value from R2 V31. A value of 4 was returned in every sample whereas it should have only been returned an average of 67% of time. See text

discussion.

DRZ_ 1 RELP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 or 4 4 Value from R1 V57. Same comment as

for R2 V31.

DRZ_ 1 RELP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 or 4 4 Value from R3 V42. Same comment as

for R2 V31.

DRZ_ PCS RELP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_ AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 or 4 0 Value from R2 V31. The default value was correctly returned.

### 42 

## Table 3

. Database

- Code Interface Test Results for Parameters Used in the PCS

- 2012 P A that have Changed since PABC

- 2009

Material Name Property Name Code File Name Library PAPDB

Value Value

Returned Comments

DRZ_ PCS RELP_MOD BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R1_V057.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 or 4 0 Value from R1 V57. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ PCS RELP_MOD BR AGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R3_V042.CDB LIBAP161_BF 1 or 4 0 Value from R3 V42. The default value was correctly returned.

DRZ_ 1 SAT_RBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ PCS SAT_RBRN BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP16 1_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ 1 SAT_RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct value was returned.

DRZ_ PCS SAT_RGAS BRAGFLO LHS3_BF_AP161_R2_V031.CDB LIBAP161_BF 0.0 0.0 The correct va lue was returned.

### 43



# 5.0 PARAMETER DATA ENTRY PROCESS REVIEW

Parameter data entry process and control were evaluated by reviewing the PDE forms used as the basis for data entry into the PAPDB, in accordance with SNL Procedure NP 9

- 2 Rev 01,

Parameters . This p rocedure was most recently updated in August 2006 and is the same procedure that was reviewed by the Agency for PABC

- 2009. This procedure prescribes the processes for developing, documenting, controlling, and changing parameters used in compliance

- level an d programmatic PA calculations performed by SNL in support of the WIPP. Parameter values are required to be developed and documented in accordance with approved, procedurally driven planning documents. NP 9

- 2 Rev 01 provides detailed instructions for

enter ing or changing a parameter value in the PAPDB. Responsibilities for checking and approval are clearly defined and appropriate. No concerns regarding this procedure were

identified.

EPA also reviewed Activity Specific Procedure SP 9

- 5 Rev 01, Parameter Da ta Entry, for

PABC

- 2009. This procedure has since been recalled, because data entry in PAPDB Version 2.00 is accomplished directly by responding to prompts in the database input files. The master input

file is called Parameter Database Data Entry . It prese nts a series of options for various tasks: identifying a new code; identifying new documents; defining new analyses; entering new parameters; and setting up a new analysis. Under the New Parameter button, for example, choices are given for adding a new mat erial, adding a new property, adding a new parameter, adding parameter attributes, and adding parameter documentation. Under Add New Parameter

, for example, the material name, property name, units, and reference type (such as reference constant) are entere d. The Agency reviewed the data entry options and found them to be complete. Entries made through this system are manually checked for accuracy against the PDE forms and signed off. Additionally, the Agency found no problems related to the functioning of

t he PAPDB Version 2.00 in its database

– code interface review. The new database appears to be working well and provides an enhancement over PAPDB Version 1.00.

Each PDE form for the 78 parameters that are new or have been changed since PABC

- 2009 was inspe cted by the Agency for completeness to confirm that all appropriate blanks were filled in and the necessary signatures were provided. Accuracy of the data entry process was checked by visually comparing the information on the form with the information show n in the online PAPDB. Although several errors were found in the documentation used to create the PDE forms, in none of the cases were errors found in the entered parameter values when compared to the

forms.

A review of the PDE forms supporting the param eter changes between PABC

- 2009 and PCS

2012 determined that they were completely and correctly filled out. Handwritten changes were found on several forms correcting the associated metadata. These hand entries were dated and initialed by the originator of the form or by another responsible individual and were, therefore, acceptable.

### 44 

# 6.0 COMPUTING HARDWARE

Run control for BRAGFLO is documented in Camphouse et al. (2012 b ). The calculations that were affected by the changes from PABC

- 2009 were updated, while the results from previous PAs were used for the calculations that were relatively unaffected by the changes. For PCS

- 2012 calculations, the codes were executed on the WIPP PA Alpha Cluster consisting of 8 Hewlett Packard (HP) AlphaServer nodes configured to sh are the same disk array using Storage Area Network (SAN) technology for efficient disk utilization and data storage and management. This allows for highly distributed processing while providing for integrated data access. The WIPP PA Alpha Cluster runs the Open VMS operating system (Version 8.2). The node name and hardware description for the nodes used are provided in Table 4.

Table 4

. WIPP PA Alpha Cluster Nodes Used in PCS

- 2012

Node Hardware Type Number of CPUs CPU Operating Syst em
TBB HP AlphaServer ES47 4 Alpha EV7 Open VMS 8.2

TRS HP AlphaServer ES47 4 Alpha EV7 Open VMS 8.2

GNR HP AlphaServer ES47 4 Alpha EV7 Open VMS 8.2

MC5 HP AlphaServer ES47 4 Alpha EV7 Open VMS 8.2

CCR HP AlphaServer ES45 Model 2 4 Alpha EV68 Open VM S 8.2

TDN HP AlphaServer ES45 Model 2 4 Alpha EV68 Open VMS 8.2

BTO HP AlphaServer ES45 Model 2 4 Alpha EV68 Open VMS 8.2

CSN HP AlphaServer ES45 Model 2 4 Alpha EV68 Open VMS 8.2



## Brine and gas flow in and around the repository and in overlying format ions are calculated using the BRAGFLO suite of codes (PREBRAG, BRAGFLO, and POSTBRAG) in conjunction with several utility codes. Sampling of the uncertain parameters used by the various process model codes is performed with the PRELHS and LHS codes. PRELHS reads information about the ranges and distributions of the uncertain parameters from the PAPDB and formats this information for LHS. The LHS code implements the sampling algorithms. LHS is executed once per replicate. Each of the three replicates include s six scenarios designed to cover a range of drilling intrusion types and times. For each replicate/scenario combination, calculations are performed for 100 vectors of uncertain model input parameters. Additional run control information is provided by Camp house et al. (2012 b ).

### 45 

# 7.0 CONCLUSIONS

Although a number of database problems were identified in this review, none had a significant

effect on the results of the PCS

- 2012 analysis. Of the approximately 1,700 parameters in the PAPDB, 78 changes were made sinc e PABC

- 2009. Most of the changes involved the assignment of existing parameter names and values to newly defined materials used in the ROM salt PCS and newly defined time periods applied to the PCS DRZ. All PCS_T3 materials were new,

because three differen t time periods had not previously been used in WIPP PA. Three data errors

were identified in the PAPDB. All resulted from errors in source data tables and none resulted from transcription errors in preparing parameter data entry forms or in entering values into the PAPDB. However, none of these errors adversely affected PCS

- 2012 results.

A check of primary and secondary supporting documents was made for all parameter changes, and all documents were quickly retrieved from the WIPP Records Center. Many of th e supporting documents were not found to adequately justify the parameter values used in the

PCS

- 2012 analysis, and many had transparency weaknesses, because the cited source documents were prepared for other analyses and the associated metadata described those analyses rather

than the PCS

- 2012 PA.

A database interface evaluation was performed for all new parameters and the correct parameter values were retrieved from the PAPDB in all but one case, where the parameter was not sampled

from the distribution described in the database. This error had no effect on the PCS

- 2012 PA

results.

Procedures for developing, documenting, controlling, and changing parameters, and for entering those parameters into the PAPDB, were also reviewed. The Agency found all proce dural changes to be consistent with earlier versions and found all revisions to be appropriate.

In summary, many more concerns were raised by this review than were raised in previous PA parameter reviews. However, as documented in this report, the Agency’ s concerns address

details of the PCS

- 2012 PA database that did not affect the overall results.

### 46 

# REFERENCES

Brodsky, N.S., 1994. Hydrostatic and Shear Consolidation Tests With Permeability

Measurements on Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Crushed Salt. Sandia Na tional Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM. SAND93

- 7058.

Camphouse, Chris 2010. Value Recommendation and Justification for Properties CAP_MOD, PCT_A, and PCT_EXP for Materials PCS_T1 and PCS_T2 Used in the WIPP Panel Closure Redesign and Repository Reconfigurat ion Performance Assessment. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, December 20. ERMS 554623.

Camphouse, R.C., 2012. Letter from R.C. Camphouse to J. Trone, Subj: A summary of parameters to be implemented in the PCS

- 2012 PA. Sandia National Laborator ies, Carlsbad, New Mexico. July 12, 2012. ERMS 557721.

Camphouse, R., Gross, M., Herrick, C., Kicker, D., and Thompson, B. 2012 a . Recommendations

and Justifications of Parameter Values for the Run

- of

- Mine Salt Panel Closure System Design

Modeled in the PC S

- 2012 PA. Sandia National Laboratories. Carlsbad, NM, May 3. ERMS

557396.

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

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

As sessment. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. October 31. ERMS 558365.

Case, John B., Peter C. Kelsall, and James L. Withiam. 1987. Laboratory Investigation of

Crushed Salt Consolidation. 28 th 

## US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Tucson, Arizona

, June 29

– July 1

, 1987.

Ismail, A.E. 2007. Revised Porosity Estimates for the DRZ. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, April 10. ERMS 545755.

Kirchner, Thomas 2011. Analysis Plan for Migration of the WIPP PA Parameter Database from SQL Server to MySQL

. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, September 12. ERMS

556953.

Kirchner, Thomas B., and Long, Jennifer 2012. Report on the Migration of the WIPP PA Parameter Database from SQL Server to MySQL. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, February 23. ERMS 557128.

Nelson, R.A. 2011. Radiolytic Hydrogen Generation and Methanogenesis in WIPP: An Empirical Point of View. Waste Management 2011 Conference, Feb. 27

– Mar ch 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ.

Nemer, Martin 2007 a . Design Document Criteria for BRAGFLO V ersion 6.0. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 545015.

### 47



## Nemer, Martin 2007 b . User’s Manual for BRAGFLO Version 6.0. Sandia National Laboratories,
Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 545016.

Patterson, Russell. 2012. Response to U.S. EPA Comment Dated June 7, 2012. U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Carlsbad Area Office. Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 557865.

PDE 2006a. Parameter Data Entry. PCS_T1 : COMP_RCK. March 27, 2006. ERMS 543322.

PDE 2006b. Parameter Data Entry. PCS_T2 : COMP_RCK. March 27, 2006. ERMS 543337.

PDE 20 06c . Parameter Data Entry. PCS_T1:PORE_DIS. March 27, 2006. ERMS 543328.

PDE 2012a. Parameter Data Entry. PCS_T1:POROSITY; PCS_T1:PRMX_LOG; PCS_T1:PRMY_LOG; PCS_T1:PRMZ_LOG; PCS_T1:SAT_IBRN. July 17, 2012. ERMS

557949.

PDE 2012 b . Parameter Data Entry. PCS_T3:POROSITY; PCS_T3:POR2PERM; PCS_T3:SAT_RBRN; PCS_T3:SAT_RGAS; PCS_T3:PORE_DIS; PCS_T3:PRMX_LOG; PCS_T3:PRMY_LOG; PCS_T3:PRMZ_LOG; PCS_T3:RELP_MOD; PCS_T3:CAP_MOD; PCS_T3:KPT; PCS_T3:PCT_A; PCS_T3:PCT_EXP; PCS_T3:PC_MAX; PCS_T 3:PO_MIN; PCS_T3:COMP_RCK. July 17, 2012. ERMS 557951.

SNL 1997. Internal memo from M. Martell to S. Howarth. Subj: Cross Reference of Category 4B Parameters to the Analysis Package for the Code utilizing the parameter. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuq uerque, New Mexico. March 3, 1997. ERMS 232910.

Stein, Joshua 2002 a . Parameter Values for New Materials CONC_PCS and DRZ_PCS. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, February 13. ERMS 520524

.

Stein, Joshua 2002 b

. Analysis Plan for Calculations of Sa lado Flow: Technical Baseline Migration (TBM), AP

- 086 . Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, February 12. ERMS

520612.

Tierney, M

. , and P. Vaughn, 1996. Designation of "Legacy Parameters" and "Placeholders" in

the WIPP Parameter Database. Sandia Nat ional Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, June 17. ERMS

238568

.

Vaughn, P

., 1996 a . Revision to DRZ and TZ Properties to be Used in the BRAGFLO CCA Calculations. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, January 24. ERMS 232288.

Vaughn, P

., 1996 b

. KPT Modeling Feature. 

## Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, February 19. ERMS 235271

.

Vaughn, P

., 1996 c . idpram PO_MIN. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, February 20.

ERMS 236051.

### 48



## Vugrin, E. 2006. Correction of PC_MAX and PO_MIN Values in Table 7 of “ Recommendation and Justification of Parameter Values for Representation of the Redesigned Panel Closure System.” Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, March 24. ERMS 542946.

Vugrin, E., Hansen, F., and Thompson, B. 2006. Recommendation and Justifica tion of Parameter Values for Representation of the Redesigned Panel Closure System. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, March 23. ERMS 542894.

Vugrin, Eric D., and Nemer, Martin B. 2007. Analysis Plan for the 2009 Compliance Recertification Applic ation Performance Assessment, Revision 0. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, February 28. ERMS 545496.

Wall, Donald 2001. Technical Baseline Migration Parameter Report, Revision 0. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM, September 28. ERMS 51 9513.