In Situ Field Testing of Processes REV 03, ICN 00 ANL-NBS-HS-000005 November 2004 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this scientific analysis report is to update and document the data and subsequent analyses from ambient field-testing activities performed in underground drifts and surface-based boreholes through unsaturated zone (UZ) tuff rock units. In situ testing, monitoring, and associated laboratory studies are conducted to directly assess and evaluate the waste emplacement environment and the natural barriers to radionuclide transport at Yucca Mountain. This scientific analysis report supports and provides data to UZ flow and transport model reports, which in turn contribute to the Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) of Yucca Mountain, an important document for the license application (LA). The objectives of ambient field-testing activities are described in Section 1.1. This report is the third revision (REV 03), which supercedes REV 02. The scientific analysis of data for inputs to model calibration and validation as documented in REV 02 were developed in accordance with the Technical Work Plan (TWP) Technical Work Plan for: Performance Assessment Unsaturated Zone (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]). This revision was developed in accordance with the Technical Work Plan for: Unsaturated Zone Flow Analysis and Model Report Integration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 1.2.4) for better integrated, consistent, transparent, traceable, and more complete documentation in this scientific analysis report and associated UZ flow and transport model reports. No additional testing or analyses were performed as part of this revision. The list of relevant acceptance criteria is provided by Technical Work Plan for: Unsaturated Zone Flow Analysis and Model Report Integration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654]), Table 3-1. Additional deviations from the TWP regarding the features, events, and processes (FEPs) list are discussed in Section 1.3. Documentation in this report includes descriptions of how, and under what conditions, the tests were conducted. The descriptions and analyses provide data useful for refining and confirming the understanding of flow, drift seepage, and transport processes in the UZ. The UZ testing activities included measurement of permeability distribution, quantification of the seepage of water into the drifts, evaluation of fracture-matrix interaction, study of flow along faults, testing of flow and transport between drifts, characterization of hydrologic heterogeneity along drifts, estimation of drying effects on the rock surrounding the drifts due to ventilation, monitoring of moisture conditions in open and sealed drifts, and determination of the degree of minimum construction water migration below drift. These field tests were conducted in two underground drifts at Yucca Mountain, the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) drift, and the cross-drift for Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB), as described in Section 1.2. Samples collected in boreholes and underground drifts have been used for additional hydrochemical and isotopic analyses for additional understanding of the UZ setting. The UZ transport tests conducted at the nearby Busted Butte site (see Figure 1-4) are also described in this scientific analysis report. In general, the results discussed in this report are from studies conducted using one or a combination of the following three testing approaches: (1) air-injection tests, (2) liquid-release tests, and (3) moisture monitoring. The air-injection tests quantify the spatial variability (heterogeneity) of permeability. The liquid-release tests provide an evaluation of in situ fracture flow and the competing processes of matrix imbibition. In addition to active testing, sensors in boreholes and along drifts are used to monitor the in situ and perturbed conditions, evaluating the In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-2 November 2004 impact of excavation, ventilation, and construction-water usage on the surrounding rocks. The field studies are supplemented by laboratory testing. Table 1-1 summarizes common testing approaches used in different (main) testing activities. The testing activities are analyzed in Section 6. Table 1-1 provides cross-referencing for comparisons of the same types of data from various tests. Table 1-1. Approaches and Main Activities in In Situ Field Testing of Processes Testing Approaches Testing Activities Air injection tests along boreholes Air-permeability distributions and excavation-induced enhancements (Section 6.1) Cross-hole connectivity (Section 6.5) Systematic hydrologic characterization (Section 6.11) Liquid release tests from borehole intervals Seepage into drift (Section 6.2) Tracer-migration delineation (Section 6.3) Fracture-matrix interaction (Section 6.6) Fault and matrix flow (Section 6.7) Systematic hydrologic characterization (Section 6.11) Drift-to-drift flow and transport (Section 6.12) Busted Butte transport test (Section 6.13) Moisture monitoring (relative humidity, temperature) and evaporation measurements Seepage into drift (Section 6.2) Moisture monitoring and bulkhead study (Section 6.10) Systematic hydrologic characterization (Section 6.11) Wetting front monitoring and potential measurements Fracture-matrix interaction (Section 6.6) Fault and matrix flow (Section 6.7) Construction water migration (Section 6.9) Drift-to-drift flow and transport (Section 6.12) Laboratory hydrological measurements of rock and water samples Tracer penetration and water imbibition (Section 6.4) Systematic hydrologic characterization (Section 6.11) Busted Butte transport test (Section 6.13) Laboratory hydrochemical measurements of rock and water samples Tracer-migration delineation (Section 6.3) Tracer penetration and water imbibition (Section 6.4) Fracture-matrix interaction (Section 6.6) Construction water migration (Section 6.9) Moisture monitoring and bulkhead study (Section 6.10) Busted Butte transport test (Section 6.13) Geochemical and isotopic observations (Section 6.14) Laboratory isotopic measurements of rock and water samples Moisture monitoring and bulkhead study (Section 6.10) Geochemical and isotopic observations (Section 6.14) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-3 November 2004 This scientific analysis report focuses on the results of the tests. For information as documented in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]), the overall planning documents for field tests and data collection include the following field work packages (FWPs): • Moisture Studies in the ESF (YMP 2002 [DIRS 160262]), FWP-ESF-96-004 • UZ Transport Test at Busted Butte (YMP 2001 [DIRS 171430]), FWP-ESF-97-002 • Field Test Data Collection System (YMP 2000 [DIRS 161209]), FWP-ESF-96-001. The specific site investigation test plans (SITPs) include: • Moisture Monitoring in the ECRB Bulkhead Cross-Drift (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158187]), SITP-02-UZ-001 • Niche 5 Seepage Testing (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200]), SITP-02-UZ-002 • Alcove 8 Flow and Seepage Testing (BSC 2002 [DIRS 157606]), SITP-02-UZ-003 • Systematic Hydrological Characterization (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158202]), SITP-02-UZ-004 • 36Cl Validation (USGS 2002 [DIRS 158196]), SITP-02-UZ-005 • Busted Butte Transport Testing (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158459]), SITP-02-UZ-006, • UZ Hydrochemistry Investigations (USGS 2002 [DIRS 158194]), SITP-02-UZ-007 • Moisture Monitoring Investigations and Alcove 7 Studies (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158189]), SITP-02-UZ-010. The tests are used to enhance understanding of UZ flow, seepage, and transport processes. The observations and measurements in underground drifts contribute to characterization of hydrologic and geochemical features. The support provided (by this report) to the discussion of features, events and processes (FEPs) is summarized in Section 1.3, and discussed in detail in Section 6. The data collected in UZ tests contribute to model verification and validation. The following reports provide indirect input to this report: • Yucca Mountain Site Description (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734]) • Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170029]). The following analysis and model reports use the data collected by ambient field-testing activities summarized in this report (either by direct citation or by use of an output DTN): • Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data • In-Drift Natural Convection and Condensation • Conceptual Model and Numerical Approaches for UZ Flow and Transport • Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM) • Analysis of Hydrogeologic Properties Data • Calibrated Properties Model • Abstraction of Drift Seepage • Radionuclide Transport Models under Ambient Conditions • Drift-Scale Coupled Processes (DST and TH Seepage) Models In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-4 November 2004 • Drift Scale THM Model • Features, Events, and Processes in UZ Flow and Transport. The interrelationships of this scientific analysis report with specific model reports beyond direct use of the data are discussed in Section 6 and summarized in Section 7. The output data from this scientific analysis report are also described in Section 7. 1.1 OBJECTIVES AND PROCESSES ANALYZED BY THE AMBIENT FIELD TESTING ACTIVITIES The field-test findings and their implications for drift seepage, fracture flow, matrix imbibition, moisture evolution, and radionuclide transport can be used to address performance assessment (PA) uncertainties and repository design issues. The UZ site-scale models and the drift-scale models require field data for partitioning UZ flux into a fast fracture-flow component and a slow matrix-flow component. This partitioning is controlled by fracture-matrix interaction. The damping of infiltration pulses and diversion by the Paintbrush nonwelded tuff unit (PTn) above the Topopah Spring welded hydrogeologic unit (TSw) are potential mechanisms for infiltration and percolation flux redistribution. In the vicinity of the repository, perturbations by drift excavation, air ventilation, and water usage can change the hydrologic regime in the UZ. Retardation by sorption on the rock matrix and dispersion through fractures are processes affecting the migration of tracers and the dilution of radionuclides in the UZ below the drifts. Some of these processes and related uncertainties, issues, and concerns are addressed by the ambient testing program at underground test sites at Yucca Mountain, and are documented in Section 6. The data uncertainties are integral parts of overall uncertainties in the understanding of processes and in constraining model assessments. Variabilities and uncertainties in both field and laboratory data are presented for cases with sufficient data to be amenable for statistical analyses. 1.2 LOCATIONS OF TEST SITES The repository will be located in the TSw upper lithophysal (Tptpul), the middle nonlithophysal (Tptpmn), the lower lithophysal (Tptpll), and the lower nonlithophysal (Tptpln) units (stratigraphic nomenclature from Proposed Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic Units of the Paintbrush Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada) (Buesch et al. 1996 [DIRS 100106], pp. 5–8, Table 2)). The test sites sample all of these hydrogeologic units. As shown in Figure 1-1, the ESF penetrates and provides access to Tptpul, Tptpmn, as well as other units that overlie the repository horizon. The ECRB provides accesses to all four hydrogeologic units to be encountered by the repository. Approximately 80 percent of the repository would be constructed within the Tptpll zone (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168489], Appendix H for area fractions: Tptpul: 4.5 percent, Tptpmn: 12.4 percent, Tptpll: 80.5 percent, Tptpln: 2.6 percent). Below the TSw lies the Calico Hills tuff (CHn) unit, which is not accessible by either the ESF main drift or the ECRB cross-drift. The CHn unit is exposed at Busted Butte, 8 km southeast of the repository area. This Busted Butte outcrop is the site of the Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (UZTT), which is described in Section 6.13. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-5 November 2004 Figure 1-2 illustrates the locations of four alcoves (Alcoves 1, 2, 3, and 4) along the north ramp, and three alcoves (Alcoves 5, 6, and 7) and four niches (Niches 3107, 3566, 3650, and 4788) along the main drift of the ESF. The numerical identification for each niche denotes the distance, in meters, from the North Portal. These niches are also referred to as Niches 1, 2, 3, and 4, in accordance to the time sequence of excavation (so that Niche 1 = Niche 3566, Niche 2 = Niche 3650, Niche 3 = Niche 3107, and Niche 4 = Niche 4788, along the ESF main drift). The ECRB cross-drift branches out from the ESF north ramp, crosses over the main drift near Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and reaches the western boundary of the repository block, as illustrated in Figure 1-3. Many emplacement drifts will be in the lower tuff units. The lower units Tptpll and Tptpln have hydrologic characteristics different from Tptpmn, with spatially variable lithophysal cavity and fracture densities affecting the amount of seepage and fracture-matrix flow partition. A systematic study with transient air injection and pulse liquid release along four boreholes drilled into the crown of the ECRB cross-drift has been conducted to evaluate spatial heterogeneity effects. One alcove (Alcove 8) in Tptpul and one niche (Niche CD 1620 or Niche 5, with CD denoting ECRB cross-drift) in Tptpll have been excavated in the ECRB cross-drift. Note that Alcove 8 in the ECRB cross-drift (illustrated in Figure 1-1) is located directly (approximately 20 m) above Niche 3 (Niche 3107) in the ESF main drift (illustrated in Figure 1-2). The ECRB cross-drift penetrates the Yucca Mountain block and crosses the Solitario Canyon fault. The ECRB cross-drift has four bulkheads, as illustrated in Figure 1-1, to hydrologically isolate particular sections of the cross-drift, such as the section that contains the fault. Figure 1-4 provides a panoramic view of the Yucca Mountain ridge, with Solitario Canyon in the foreground and Busted Butte in the background to the southeast of the repository block. Table 1-2 summarizes the testing activities at different test sites with various measurements. The details of testing techniques are described in Section 6. Table 1-2 is for cross-referencing of similar testing approaches applied to different sites and different sections of this document. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-6 November 2004 Table 1-2. Underground Tests at Different Locations Section(s) of this Report Niche Drift Alcove 3566 3650 3107 4788 CD 1620 ESF Testing Activity Described in Indicated Section(s) of this Report 1 4 6 7 8 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) North Ramp Main Drift South Ramp ECRB Busted Butte Air– Permeability 6.12.5 6.5.2 6.5.2 6.6.1 6.1.2 6.1.2 6.1.2 6.1.2 6.1.2 6.5.2 6.1.2 – – – 6.11.2 6.13.5 Liquid Observation – – – – – 6.2.1 – – – – – – – 6.10.2 – Dyed Flow Path – – – – – 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 – – – – – 6.13.2 Seepage Threshold 6.12.5 – – – – – 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 – – – 6.11.2 – Liquid Release 6.12.5 6.7.2 6.6.2 – 6.12.2 – 6.2.1 6.3 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 – – – 6.11.2 6.13.3 Evaporation Measurement – – – – – – – 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 – – – 6.11.2 – Wetting Front/Potential – 6.7.2 6.6.2 – – 6.8 – 6.12.2 – – 6.10.1 6.9.2 6.10.1 6.9.2 6.10.1 – Moisture Monitoring – – – – – 6.10.1 – 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.2.1 6.10.1 6.10.1 6.10.1 6.10.2 – Geophysical Tomography – – – – 6.12.3. – – 6.12.3 – – – – – – 6.13.4 Lab Hydrology – – 6.10.1 6.10.1 – 6.10.1 6.4 6.10.1 6.4.1 – – – – 6.10.1 6.11.3 6.13 Tracer Analysis – – – – – – 6.3 6.4 6.12.2 6.4 – – – – – 6.13 Geochemistry – – 6.14.2 6.14.2 – – – – – – 6.14 6.10.1 6.14 6.10.1 6.14 6.10 6.14 – Isotopic Analysis – – 6.14.2 6.14.2 – 6.14.2 – – – – 6.14 6.14 6.14 6.10.3 6.14 – In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-7 November 2004 NOTE: The vertical cross section in Panel b of Figure 1-1 is along the ECRB cross-drift in nominally the northeast to southwest direction. Figure 1-1. Schematic Illustration of Spatial Distribution of Hydrogeologic Units Intersected by the Repository Horizon (Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-8 November 2004 Alluvium Tiva Canyon Tuff Yucca Mtn Tuff Topopah Spring Tuff 10+00 0+00 30+00 40+00 78+77 45+00 Nevada Northing (m) Nevada Easting (m) 171000 172000 173000 174000 20+00 Drill Hole Wash Fault Bow Ridge Fault 235000 234000 233000 232000 231000 230000 Ghost Dance Fault 50+00 55+00 60+00 Thermal Testing Alcove 5 (2827 m) Pah Canyon Tuff Alcove 4 (1027.8 m) Alcoves 1&2 (42.5, 168.2 m) Alcove 3 (754 m) 70+00 Niche 3566 (Niche 1) and Niche 3650 (Niche 2) Alcove 6 (3737 m) Alcove 7 (5064 m) 35+00 Sundance Fault Niches 3107 (Niche 3) Niche 4788 (Niche 4) Figure 1-2. Schematic Illustration of Alcove and Niche Locations in the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-9 November 2004                           !  "# $%  !  &    !  '&&  ! $&     (  )  *+, $ & *"  -                                   NOTE: The ECRB cross-drift branches out from the north ramp of the ESF, crosses over the main drift, and accesses the western fault boundary of the repository block at Yucca Mountain. Alcoves and niches are illustrated in Figure 1-2 for the ESF and in Figure 1-1 for the ECRB cross-drift. Figure 1-3. Schematic Illustration of the ESF and ECRB Cross-Drift In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-10 November 2004 Figure 1-4. Photo of Yucca Mountain Ridge and Busted Butte, Taken from the Northwest across the Solitario Canyon Fault 1.3 SUPPORT TO FEP ANALYSIS AND TECHNICAL ISSUE RESOLUTION This scientific analysis report provides summaries of data, part of which are used in modeling and abstraction reports (as listed in Section 7), and to support the FEPs analysis. Table 1-3 contains a list of selected FEPs taken from the LA FEP List (DTN: MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 [DIRS 170760]) that are associated with the subject matter of this report. This list deviates from the list in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Table 2.1.5-1) as follows: FEP 2.2.07.15.0B is an excluded FEP and thus is not discussed in Table 1-3; FEPs 1.2.02.02.0A, 2.2.08.01.0B, 2.2.08.08.0B, 2.2.08.09.0B, 2.2.08.10.0B, and 2.2.09.01.0B are not discussed in Table 1-3 because they do not directly impact the TSPA-LA treatment (i.e., they are included through other analysis or model reports). FEP 2.2.07.02.0A is included in Table 1-3 because the data presented in this analysis report impact the TSPA-LA treatment of this FEP. This analysis report provides part of the basis for the treatment of FEPs as discussed in the report Features, Events, and Processes in UZ Flow and Transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170012]). The UZ FEP report, together with other UZ model reports listed in Section 1, are downstream reports of this scientific analysis report. These downstream reports (rather than this report itself) provide direct inputs to address issues discussed in Total System Performance Assessment–License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2002 [DIRS 160146], Section 3.2.2). The cross-reference for each FEP to the relevant sections of this report, is given in Table 1-3. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-11 November 2004 Table 1-3. Features, Events, and Processes Addressed in this Scientific Analysis Report LA FEP Number FEP Name Relevant Section(s) of This Report 1.2.02.01.0A Fractures Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, and 6.9 2.2.01.01.0A Mechanical effects of excavation/construction in the near field Section 6.1 2.2.07.02.0A Unsaturated groundwater flow in the geosphere Sections 6.1 and 6.2 2.2.07.08.0A Fracture flow in the UZ Sections 6.2, 6.6, and 6.9 2.2.07.09.0A Matrix imbibition in the UZ Sections 6.4 and 6.7 2.2.07.18.0A Film flow into the repository Section 6.2 2.2.07.20.0A Flow diversion around repository drifts Sections 6.2 and 6.11.3 2.3.11.03.0A Infiltration and recharge Section 6.12 NOTES: FEP = feature, event, and process; LA = license application; UZ = unsaturated zone. This scientific analysis report also supports the resolutions of Key Technical Issues, including: ECRB moisture monitoring (Section 6.10); Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) testing (Section 6.11); flow through the Calico Hills nonwelded vitric (Section 6.13); and analogue radionuclide data from test blocks at Busted Butte (Section 6.13). 1.4 CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS The field-testing activities and the associated analyses are subject to the constraints and limitations of spatial locations and temporal durations for tests conducted in the underground drifts. One niche, Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), has been excavated in the Tptpll unit. Most of the other existing testing alcoves and niches in the ESF (shown in Figure 1-2) are located at or above the horizon of the Tptpmn unit. Test results and analyses from these sites provide data for the upper and middle tuff units. Some of the active flow tests were conducted within a few hours to a few days of each other because of limited accessibility to the test beds in the evenings and on weekends. Depending on system characteristics, the establishment of steady-state conditions can require longer tests. Some tests used automatic data acquisition systems for long-term monitoring and liquid releases, subject to power interruptions and equipment malfunctions. These constraints and limitations are addressed in the analyses of Section 6, if applicable. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 1-12 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 2-1 November 2004 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE Development of this scientific analysis report has been determined to be subject to the Yucca Mountain Project quality assurance (QA) program as indicated in the Technical Work Plan for: Unsaturated Zone Flow Analysis and Model Report Integration, (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 8.1). Approved QA procedures identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 4) have been used to conduct and document the activities described in this scientific analysis report. The governing procedure for the documentation of this report is AP-SIII.9Q, Analyses. The TWP also identifies the methods used to control the electronic management of data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 8.4) during the analysis and documentation activities. This scientific analysis report provides data for UZ flow, drift seepage, and UZ transport in natural barriers that are classified in the Q-list (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361]) as Safety Category because they are important to waste isolation, as defined in AP-2.22Q, Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. The report contributes to the analyses and modeling data used to support PA. The conclusions of this scientific analysis report do not affect the repository design or engineered features important to safety, as defined in AP-2.22Q. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 2-2 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 3-1 November 2004 3. USE OF SOFTWARE The software used in this study is listed in Table 3-1. The qualified software was obtained from Software Configuration Management (SCM), is appropriate for its intended use, and is used only within the range of validation. For data collection, only acquired software embedded as an integral part of the Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) was utilized. The M&TE software was controlled by AP-12.1Q, Control of Measuring and Test Equipment and Calibration Standards. Software developed or modified for data collection is discussed in the data document associated with each DTN and associated software management reports; the description and use of M&TE software is not within the scope of this scientific analysis report. Table 3-1. Software and Routines Software Name and Version Software Tracking Number (STN) DIRS Reference Number Platform and Operating System ECRB-XYZ V.03 30093-V.03 147402 PC, Windows 98 The software program ECRB-XYZ V.03 (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 147402]) calculates the coordinates of a given ECRB station number; no other software or calculation method was considered because no software alternative is available for this project-specific task. No models were used for the analyses performed in this scientific analysis report. Microsoft Excel 97, Microsoft Excel Version 7, Microsoft Excel 2002, EARTHVISION V4.0, CorelDRAW v11.633, Adobe Illustrator 10.0.3, Igor Pr 4.08, Photoshop 7.0.1, MacGPS Pro 4.0.3, DataDesk 6.2, and NOeSYS 2.0 were used for visual display or graphic representation of data. Simple calculations (such as the evaluation of mean and standard deviations) are documented in Appendix I of this scientific analysis report. The graphic software is exempt from software qualification per LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 3-2 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-1 November 2004 4. INPUTS Field data collected from underground drifts that characterize ambient and in situ field-testing conditions include the following: • Pneumatic pressure and air-permeability data (pre- and post-excavation) for ESF niches • Pneumatic pressure and air-permeability data from Alcove 4, Alcove 6, and Alcove 8 • Seepage and liquid-release data • Laboratory dye measurements and sorptivity data • Water-potential data and electrical resistivity probe data from drift walls and boreholes • In-drift relative humidity and temperature data (under both ventilated and nonventilated conditions) • Chemical analysis data • Geologic mapping data • UZ transport testing data from Busted Butte • Geochemical data and isotope data from underground drifts and boreholes. The properties resulting from the analyses of the above field data include air-permeability distributions, fracture network connectivity, fracture flow-path distributions, seepage percentages, seepage thresholds, fracture characteristic curves, formation intake rates, wetting-front travel times, fracture porosities, fracture volumes, fracture flow fractions, tracer distributions, matrix imbibitions, retardation factors, fault and matrix flow rates, water-potential distributions, construction-water migration times, relative humidities, moisture conditions, and hydrochemical distributions. 4.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT INPUTS The Q-status of all inputs and a description of the data are shown in the Technical Data Management System (TDMS). The direct inputs to the scientific analysis report were obtained from the TDMS. The input data used in this scientific analysis report are summarized in tables, which are organized to correspond to equivalent subsections in Section 6. Because one of the main objectives of this scientific analysis report is to document the data, both direct inputs and corroborating data are summarized together in this section, using separate tables to clearly distinguish different categories. Direct inputs are key data collected, interpreted, illustrated, or tabulated in this scientific analysis report. All other Data Tracking Numbers (DTNs) identified for corroborative data are tabulated in tables without the “direct input” designation. Where tables that are divided into Part a, Part b, and Part c, Part a is for direct input data, and Parts b and c contain corroborative data. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-2 November 2004 With the focus of this scientific analysis on the ambient field-testing activities performed in underground drifts through UZ tuff rock units (Section 1), some data collected from monitoring activities, data from surface-based field activities, and data from laboratory testing activities are not included in the “direct input” tables. These data are potentially important for downstream users for different modeling purposes. The downstream users can make different category selections based on different criteria. If corroborative data are not presented immediately following the direct input data, they are less informative than presentation of the inputs in separated sections. The direct inputs are presented in the following sections and tables: • Section 4.1.1.1, Table 4-1a on Data Used to Illustrate Air-Permeability Distributions and Excavation-Induced Enhancements • Section 4.1.2.1, Table 4-2a on Data Used to Illustrate Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage-Test Results • Section 4.1.3, Table 4-3 on Data Used to Illustrate Tracer-Migration Delineation at Niche 5 (Niche CD 3650) • Section 4.1.4, Table 4-4 on Data Used to Illustrate Tracer Penetration and Water Imbibition into Welded Tuff Matrix • Section 4.1.5, Table 4-5 on Data Used to Illustrate Crosshole Analysis of Air-Injection Tests • Section 4.1.6, Table 4-6 on Data Used to Illustrate Fracture Flow in Fracture-Matrix Test Bed at Alcove 6 • Section 4.1.7.1, Table 4-7a on Data Used to Illustrate Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at Alcove 4 • Section 4.1.8, Table 4-8 on Data Used to Compile Water-Potential Measurements in Niches • Section 4.1.9, Table 4-9 on Data Used to Illustrate Observations of Construction-Water Migration • Section 4.1.10.1, Table 4-10a on Data Used to Illustrate Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis in Underground Drifts • Section 4.1.11.1, Table 4-11a on Data Used to Illustrate Systematic Hydrological Characterization Results • Section 4.1.12.1, Table 4-12a on Data Used to Illustrate Flow and Transport Test Results at Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) • Section 4.1.13.1, Table 4-13a on Data Used to Illustrate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test Results • Section 4.1.14.1, Table 4-14a on Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-3 November 2004 Other associated data are summarized within additional tables of this report. The uncertainties related to input data and parameters are presented in Section 6 of this scientific analysis report. 4.1.1 Data of Air-Permeability Distributions and Excavation-Induced Enhancements 4.1.1.1 Data Used to Illustrate Air-Permeability Distributions and Excavation-Induced Enhancements (Direct Input) Table 4-1a. Data Used to Illustrate Air-Permeability Distributions and Excavation-Induced Enhancements (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description LB0011AIRKTEST.001a [DIRS 153155] I3 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11 6-2 6-6 I-1 Air-permeability measurements in Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) of the ESF. LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593] – 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 6-2 6-6 Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) in the ESF (pre-excavation). LB990601233124.001a [DIRS 105888] – 6-12 6-14 6-2 6-6 Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) in the ESF (post-excavation). LB980912332245.001 [DIRS 110828] – 6-6 Air-injection data from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) of the ESF (radial boreholes). LB0012AIRKTEST.001a [DIRS 154586] – 6-16 6-3 6-6 Air-permeability testing in Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620 upper boreholes, pre-excavation). LB0110AKN5POST.001a [DIRS 156904] – 6-16 6-3 6-6 Air-permeability measurement in Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620 upper boreholes, post-excavation). LB002181233124.001a [DIRS 146878] – 6-17 6-4 6-6 Air-permeability and pneumatic-pressure data collected from Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620 side boreholes, pre-excavation). LB0110AK23POST.001a [DIRS 156905] – 6-17 6-4 6-6 Air-permeability measurement in Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620 side boreholes, post-excavation). LB980901233124.009 [DIRS 105856] – – 6-6 Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data from Alcove 4 in the ESF. LB980901233124.004 [DIRS 105855] – – 6-6 Pneumatic pressure and air-permeability data from Alcove 6 in the ESF. LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748] – 6-18 6-5 6-6 Air-permeability data from Alcove 8. a Input DTN used to generate Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-4 November 2004 4.1.1.2 Data Used to Corroborate Analysis of Air-Permeability Distributions and Excavation-Induced Enhancements (For Reference) Table 4-1b. Data Used to Corroborate Analysis of Air-Permeability Distributions and Excavation-Induced Enhancements (For Reference) Used in Inputs Section Figure Table Description MO0008GSC00269.000 [DIRS 166198] 6.1.1.2 – – As-built ECRB Alcove 8, construction observation alcove boreholes (#1 through 7). LB990901233124.004 a [DIRS 123273], Data Table S00017_002 – – 6-6 Statistical analyses of air-permeability data from Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 (Niche 4788), as well as Alcove 4 and Alcove 6. a Other data tables also used as input in Section 6.5 on crosshole connectivity as shown in Table 4-5. ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block. 4.1.2 Data of Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage-Test Results 4.1.2.1 Data Used to Illustrate Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage-Test Results (Direct Input) Table 4-2a. Data Used to Illustrate Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage-Test Results (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description LB980001233124.004 a [DIRS 136583] 6.2.1.1 6.2.1.2, 6.2.1.3.1 6.2.2.1 6.2.2.3 6.2.2.4 D2 D3.2 6-25 6-48 6-11 B-1 B-4 D-1 Liquid-release test data from Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) of the ESF. LB980901233124.003 a [DIRS 105592] 6.2.1.1 6.2.1.2 D2 D3.2 6-25 6-47 6-48 6-49 6-50 D-1 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11 B-1 B-4 B-5 B-7 B-8 D-1 Liquid-release and tracer tests in Niche 36501 (Niche 3650), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) in the ESF, as well as fracture flow and seepage testing in the ESF. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-5 November 2004 Table 4-2a. Data Used to Illustrate Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage-Test Results (Direct Input) (Continued) Used in Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 a b [DIRS 153145] 6.2.1.3.3 6-28 6-29 6-48 B-2 B-3b B-8 Niche 4 (Niche 4788) seepage tests measuring injected and captured water masses over time. Time spans include considerations for pumping time, wetting-front arrival time, and dripping duration. LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 a [DIRS 155681] 6.2.1.1 6.2.1.2 6-25 B-1 Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) seepage tests–pre-excavation. LB990601233124.001 a [DIRS 105888] – – 6-9 B-4 Seepage data feed to UZ drift-scale flow model for TSPA-SR. LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792] C4 F1 I6.1 6-37 6-38 6-40 6-41 6-42 6-43 6-44 6-45 6-46 C-1 I-3 Liquid-release and tracer tests in Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in the ECRB. a Input DTN for Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. b Input DTN for Output DTN: LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; SR = Site Recommendation; TSPA = Total System Performance Assessment; UZ = unsaturated zone. 4.1.2.2 Data Used to Corroborate Analysis and Interpretation of Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage Tests (For Reference) Table 4-2b. Data Used to Corroborate Analysis and Interpretation of Niche Liquid-Release and Seepage Tests (For Reference) Used in Description Inputs Section Figure Table MO0107GSC01069.000 [DIRS 156941] – – B-2 ESF Niche 4 (Niche 4788) borehole as-built data. MO0107GSC01061.000 [DIRS 155369] 6.2.1.3.5.2 C-1 – As-built profile Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) bat-wing excavation. MO0312GSC03176.000 [DIRS 169532] 6.2.1.3.5.2 – – ECRB Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) borehole as-built data. NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-6 November 2004 4.1.3 Data Used to Illustrate Tracer-Migration Delineation at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) (Direct Input) Table 4-3. Data Used to Illustrate Tracer-Migration Delineation at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051] – 6-52 6-53 6-54 6-55 6-56 6-57 6-58 6-59 6-12 Tracer detection data from core samples for tracers injected in Niche 2 (Niche 3650) in the ESF. NOTE: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 4.1.4 Data Used to Illustrate Tracer Penetration and Water Imbibition into Welded Tuff Matrix (Direct Input) Table 4-4. Data Used to Illustrate Tracer Penetration and Water Imbibition into Welded Tuff Matrix (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] – – 6-13 6-14 Liquid-release tests in Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650). LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] – – 6-13 Liquid-release and tracer tests in Niche 1 (Niche 3566), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) in the ESF. LB990901233124.003 [DIRS 155690] 6.4.1.4 6-61 6-62 6-63 6-64 E-1 E-2 6-14 6-15 Tracer lab analyses of dye penetration in Niche 2 (Niche 3650) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) of the ESF. LB0110TUFTRACR.001 [DIRS 156979] – 6-65 6-66 – Spatial distribution of applied tracers and the distribution of intrinsic tuff elements profiled using LA-ICP-MS. NOTES: ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility; LA-ICP-MS=Laser Ablation Analyzed by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-7 November 2004 4.1.5 Data Used to Illustrate Crosshole Analysis of Air-Injection Tests (Direct Input) Table 4-5. Data Used to Illustrate Crosshole Analysis of Air-Injection Tests (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description LB980901233124.004 [DIRS 105855] – 6-68 – Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data from Alcove 6 in the ESF. LB980901233124.009 [DIRS 105856] – 6-71 – Pneumatic-pressure and air-permeability data from Alcove 4 in the ESF. LB990901233124.004 [DIRS 123273] – 6-67 6-69 6-72 6-73 – Air-permeability crosshole connectivity in Alcove 6, Alcove 4, and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) of the ESF. NOTE: ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility. 4.1.6 Data Used to Illustrate Fracture Flow in Fracture-Matrix Test Bed at Alcove 6 (Direct Input) Table 4-6. Data Used to Illustrate Fracture Flow in Fracture-Matrix Test Bed at Alcove 6 (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description LB990901233124.002 [DIRS 146883] – 6-75 6-76 6-77 6-78 6-79 6-80 6-81 6-82 6-16 6-17 Alcove 6 flow data, including electrical resistance, water injection, intake rate, and water-potential measurements. LB990901233124.001 [DIRS 155694] – 6-82 – Alcove 6 tracer tests: the breakthrough of tracers, relating to the volume and the measured tracer concentration of the collected liquid at four collection trays in Alcove 6 experiments. 4.1.7 Data of Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at Alcove 4 4.1.7.1 Data Used to Illustrate Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at Alcove 4 (Direct Input) Table 4-7a. Data Used to Illustrate Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at Alcove 4 (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figures Table Description LB990901233124.005 [DIRS 146884] – 6-85 6-86 6-87 6-88 6-89 6-90 6-18 Alcove 4 flow data, including electrical resistance, water injection, and intake rate measurements. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-8 November 2004 4.1.7.2 Data Used to Corroborate Analysis of Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at Alcove 4 (For Reference) Table 4-7b. Data Used to Corroborate Analysis of Flow through the Fault and Matrix in the Test Bed at Alcove 4 (For Reference) Used in Inputs Section Figure Table Description GS960908314224.020 [DIRS 106059] 6.7.1.1 – – Analysis report: geology of the north ramp–stations 4+00 to 28+00 data: detailed line survey and full-periphery geotechnical map–Alcoves 3 and 4, and comparative geological cross section-stations 0+60 to 28+00. 4.1.8 Data Used to Compile Water-Potential Measurements in Niches (Direct Input) Table 4-8. Data Used to Compile Water-Potential Measurements in Niches (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figures Tables Description LB0406ESFNH2OP.001 [DIRS 171588] – 6-94 6-95 G-1 G-2 6-19 6-20 6-21 Water-potential measurements in Niche 1 (Niche 3566), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), and Niche 3 (Niche 3107) of the ESF. NOTE: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 4.1.9 Data Used to Illustrate Observations of Construction-Water Migration (Direct Input) Table 4-9. Data Used to Illustrate Observations of Construction-Water Migration (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figures Tables Description LB980901233124.014 [DIRS 105858] – 6-99 6-100 6-22 6-23 Borehole monitoring at the single borehole in the ECRB and ECRB crossover point in the ESF. NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-9 November 2004 4.1.10 Data of Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis in Underground Drifts 4.1.10.1 Data Used to Illustrate Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis in Underground Drifts (Direct Input) Table 4-10a. Data Used to Illustrate Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis in Underground Drifts (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table Description LB990901233124.006 [DIRS 135137] – 6-103 6-104 6-24 Moisture data from the ECRB cross-drift; relative humidity data from various cross-drift stations. LAJF831222AQ98.007 [DIRS 122730] – 6-105 – Chloride, bromide, and sulfate analysis of salts leached from ECRB-CWAT#1, #2, and #3 drillcore. GS990908314224.010 [DIRS 152631] – 6-108 – Comparative cross section along the ECRB cross-drift. GS990408314224.006 [DIRS 108409] – – 6-25 Full periphery geological maps for Station 20+00 to 26+81, ECRB cross-drift. LB0110ECRBH2OP.001 [DIRS 156883] – 6-109 – Measurements of water potential at three locations between successive bulkhead doors in the ECRB. LB0307ECRBRHTB.001 [DIRS 164843] 6.10.2.3 6-110 6-111 6-112 6-122 6-123 – Measurements of relative humidity, temperature, and barometric pressure at four locations between successive bulkhead doors in the ECRB. LB0301ECRBRHTB.001 [DIRS 164605] 6.10.2.2 6.10.2.2.2 6.10.2.2.3 6-114 6-115 6-116 6-117 6-118 6-119 6-120 6-121 – Observations of entries made on June 23, 2001, and October 1–2, 2001. LB0110ECRBH2OA.001 [DIRS 156886] – 6-124 6-125 6-26 Anion-cation measurements for water samples from nonventilated sections of the ECRB. LB0110ECRBH2OI.001 [DIRS 156887] – 6-126 6-26 Deuterium and DEL O-18 measurements for water samples from nonventilated sections of the ECRB. NOTES: CWAT = Construction Water; ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-10 November 2004 4.1.10.2 Data on Drift Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis (For Reference) Table 4-10b. Data on Drift Moisture Monitoring and Water Analysis (For Reference) Used in Inputs Section Figure Table Description LB960800831224.001 [DIRS 105793] 6.10.1.2.1 – 6-24 Relative humidity, temperature, and pressure in ESF monitoring stations. LB970300831224.001 [DIRS 105794] – – 6-24 Moisture data report from October 1996 to January 1997. LB970801233124.001 [DIRS 105796] 6.10.1.2.1 – 6-24 Moisture monitoring data collected at ESF sensor stations. LB970901233124.002 [DIRS 105798] – – 6-24 Moisture monitoring data collected at stationary moisture stations. GS970208312242.001 [DIRS 135119] – – 6-24 Moisture monitoring in the ESF, Oct. 1, 1996, to Jan. 31, 1997. GS970708312242.002 [DIRS 135123] – – 6-24 Moisture monitoring in the ESF, Feb. 1, 1997, to July 31, 1997. GS980908312242.024 [DIRS 135132] – – 6-24 Moisture monitoring in the ESF, August 1, 1997, to July 31, 1998. GS980908312242.035 [DIRS 135133] – – 6-24 Moisture monitoring in the ECRB. GS021008312242.003 [DIRS 162178] 6.10.1.2.2 – – Temperature and water-potential data from Alcove 3 and Alcove 4. GS030608312231.002 [DIRS 165547] 6.10.2.2 – – Digital image data from the moisture monitoring tests in the ECRB bulkheaded cross-drift from January 22, 2001, to February 3, 2003. MO0006J13WTRCM.00 0 [DIRS 151029] – 6-125 – J-13 well water composition. LB0108CO2DST05.001 [DIRS 156888] – 6-126 – Concentration data for CO2 from gas samples collected from hydrology holes in drift-scale test. LB0011CO2DST08.001 [DIRS 153460] – 6-126 – Contents of gas samples collected from the following drift-scale test holes: 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 185; and the following control areas: Heater Drift #2 and AO drift air. NOTES: ECRB=Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-11 November 2004 4.1.10.3 Data on Water Potential and Saturation Measurements (For Reference) Table 4-10c. Data on Water Potential and Saturation Measurements (For Reference) Used in Inputs Section Figure Table(s) Description LB0406ESFNH2OP.001a [DIRS 171588] – – 6-25 3 main boreholes, 5 lateral boreholes in Niche 1 (Niche 3566) water potential. GS980908312242.022 [DIRS 135157] – – 6-25 Heat-dissipation-probe drill holes water potential. GS980908312242.033 [DIRS 107168] – – 6-25 6-26 1 core hole in Alcove 3 water potential and saturation. GS980908312242.032 [DIRS 107177] – – 6-25 6-26 2 core holes in Alcove 4 water potential and saturation. GS980308312242.004 [DIRS 107172] – – 6-25 18 north ramp boreholes, 3 Alcove 4 boreholes, and 46 south ramp boreholes, HQ, 2 m length water potential. GS980308312242.002 [DIRS 135163] – – 6-25 Heat-dissipation-probe drill holes water potential. LB980901233124.014 b [DIRS 105858] – – 6-25 6-26 43 psychrometers on ESF drift walls, 1 slant borehole below the invert, 43 TDR probes on ESF drift walls. GS980908312242.036 [DIRS 119820] – – 6-25 6 heat-dissipation-probe drill holes water potential. GS970808312232.005 [DIRS 105978] – – 6-25 USW NRG-7a, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, USW UZ-7a, and USW SD-12 water potential. GS971108312232.007 [DIRS 105980] – – 6-25 USW NRG-7a, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, USW UZ-7a, and USW SD-12 water potential. GS980408312232.001 [DIRS 105982] – – 6-25 USW NRG-7a, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, USW UZ-7a, and USW SD-12 water potential. GS031208312232.002 [DIRS 171748] – – 6-25 USW NRG-7a, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, USW UZ-7a, and USW SD-12 water potential. GS980908312242.018 [DIRS 135170] – – 6-26 3 main boreholes, 6 lateral boreholes in Niche 1 (Niche 3566). GS980908312242.020 [DIRS 135172] – – 6-26 7 main boreholes in Niche 2 (Niche 3650). GS980908312242.029 [DIRS 135175] – – 6-26 3 boreholes in Alcove 6. GS980908312242.028 [DIRS 135176] – – 6-26 1 borehole in Alcove 7 saturation. GS980308312242.005 [DIRS 107165] – – 6-26 PTn Borehole core saturation. GS980308312242.003 [DIRS 135180] – – 6-26 South ramp core saturation. GS980308312242.001 [DIRS 135181] – – 6-26 TDR measurements of saturation. GS980908312242.030 [DIRS 135224] – – 6-26 1 slant borehole core saturation. a Also used as input in Section 6.8 on niche water-potential measurement, as shown in Table 4-8. b Also used as input in Section 6.9 on construction-water migration, as shown in Table 4-9. ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; TDR = time domain reflectrometry. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-12 November 2004 4.1.11 Data of Systematic Hydrological Characterization 4.1.11.1 Data Used to Illustrate Systematic Hydrological Characterization Results (Direct Input) Table 4-11a. Data Used to Illustrate Systematic Hydrological Characterization Results (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description LB00090012213U.001 a [DIRS 153141] 6.11.2.1 6-130 6-131 6-29 Two sets of air-k (pneumatic conductivity) tests at 3 intervals in title borehole. Air-k derived from steady-state pressure response. LB00090012213U.002 a [DIRS 153154] – 6-131 6-132 6-133 6-134 6-135 6-148 – Eleven sets of seepage tests. Liquid-release tests from Borehole SYBT-ECRB-LA#2 at CS 17+26 in cross-drift. LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 a [DIRS 156877] – 6-136 6-137 6-138 6-148 – Measurements of seepage from injection tests in boreholes located in the drift crown of the ECRB. LB0110ECRBLIQR.001a [DIRS 156878] – 6-139 6-148 – Measurements of seepage from injection tests in boreholes located in the drift crown of the ECRB. LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 a [DIRS 156879] I6.2 6-140 6-148 I-4 Measurements of seepage from injection tests in boreholes located in the drift crown of the ECRB. LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462] I6.3 6-141 6-142 6-143 6-148 I-3 I-6 I-7 Systematic testing in SYBT-ECRB- LA#3 (May–July 2001). LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227] I6.4 6-144 6-145 6-146 6-148 I-8 I-9 I-10 Measurements of seepage from injection tests in boreholes located in the drift crown of the SYBT-ECRB-LA#4. a Input DTNs used to generate Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. CS = Construction Station (ESF main loop); ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 4.1.11.2 Data Used to Corroborate Analyses and Interpretations of Systematic Hydrological Characterization (For Reference) Table 4-11b. Data Used to Corroborate Analyses and Interpretations of Systematic Hydrological Characterization (For Reference) Used in Inputs Section Figure Table Description LB980912332245.002 [DIRS 105593] 6.11.3.1 – – Gas tracer data from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) of the ESF LB0110COREPROP.0 01 [DIRS 157169] 6.11.3.1 – – Data measured from cores drilled in the ECRB: porosity, saturation, bulk density, gravimetric water content, particle density NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-13 November 2004 4.1.12 Data of Observations from the Test at Alcove 8/Niche 3107 4.1.12.1 Data Used to Illustrate Flow and Transport Test Results at Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) (Direct Input) Table 4-12a. Data Used to Illustrate Flow and Transport Test Results at Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description GS020508312242.001 [DIRS 162129] 6.12.2.1 6-152 6-153 – Trenched fault infiltration in Alcove 8, 3/5/2001–6/1/2001. GS020908312242.002 [DIRS 162141] 6.12.2.1 6-152 6-153 – Trenched fault infiltration in Alcove 8, 6/1/2001–3/26/2002. GS030208312242.003 [DIRS 165544] 6.12.2.1 6-152 6-153 – Trenched fault infiltration in Alcove 8, 3/26/2002–8/20/2002. LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001] I6.5 6-154 6-155 6-156 6-158 I-3 I-11a I-11b I-12 Preliminary observations from the fault test at Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107). LB0204NICH3TRC.001 [DIRS 158478] – 6-158 6-159 – Fault infiltration test tracer sampling April 2001-March 2002. LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165461] I6.5 6-155 I-3 I-11c I-12 Resistance measurements from Borehole 10 in Niche 3107 (Niche 3, 5/23/2001–9/3/2002). LB0303A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 162570] – 6-155 6-157 6-159 I-3 – Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) seepage data compilation. LB0110A8N3GPRB.00 1 [DIRS 156912] – 6-160 6-161 – Pre-seepage test ground penetrating radar tomography in radial borehole arrays between Alcove 8 (ECRB) and Niche 3107 (Niche 3, ESF). GS031008312242.007 [DIRS 166089] 6.12.4 6-163 6-164 – Large plot infiltration in Alcove 8, 8/20/2002–11/19/2002. GS030608312242.005 [DIRS 166200] – 6-163 – Surface infiltration in a large plot in Alcove 8 using permeameters from 11/19/2002– 03/24/2003. LB0306A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165405] – 6-165 6-166 – Fault infiltration test from Alcove 8 to Niche 3107 (Niche 3, 9/18/2002–10/16/2002). LB0308A8N3SEEP.001 [DIRS 166090] – 6-166 – Measurements of seepage at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) from injection tests in an infiltration plot located at Alcove 8 of the ECRB, 10/16/2002–4/2/2003. NOTES: ECRB=Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-14 November 2004 4.1.12.2 Data for Alcove 8 / Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Tests and Summary of the Alcove 1 Tests (For Reference) Table 4-12b. Data for Alcove 8 / Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Tests and Summary of the Alcove 1 Tests (For Reference) Used in Inputs Section Figure Table Description GS030508312242.004 [DIRS 165545] 6.12.1.2 – – Photographs from Niche 3 (Niche 3107) of the Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) seepage experiment during construction showing construction water in Niche 3 (Niche 3107), 3/6/2000 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 a [DIRS 103769] 6.12.1.2 – – Geologic framework model, Version GFM 3.1 GS010608312242.004 [DIRS 165542] 6.12.1.3.1 – – Crossover Alcove/Seepage into Niche 3 (Niche 3107): small plot infiltration using a cylinder permeameter, 8/9/2000–8/21/2000 GS010608312242.002 [DIRS 165543] 6.12.1.3.1 – – Crossover Alcove/Seepage into Niche 3 (Niche 3107): small plot infiltration using a box permeameter, 8/28/2000–12/14/2000 GS990108312242.006 [DIRS 162979] – – 6-30 Pulse flow meter data for infiltration on surface, Phase I, May 9, 1998–December 4, 1998 GS000308312242.002 [DIRS 156911] 6.12.5.1 – 6-30 Seepage data for water collected in Alcove 1, Phase I, 5/5/1998–8/27/1998 GS000808312242.006 [DIRS 162980] – – 6-30 Pulse flow meter data for infiltration on surface, Phase II, 2/19/1999–6/20/2000 GS000399991221.003 [DIRS 147024] – – 6-30 Preliminary infiltration, seepage, tracer data, Phase II, 2/19/1999–12/15/1999 GS001108312242.009 [DIRS 165202] – – 6-30 Tracer data for water collected in Alcove 1, Phase II, 5/9/1999–7/5/2000 a The Technical Data Management System shows DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769] to be superseded by DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]; however, the new DTN does not include the data used for development of this analysis. The comment section on the Technical Data Information Form for the more recent DTN also states: “GFM2000 does not invalidate GFM3.1.” This scientific analysis report maintains the use of the original DTN. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-15 November 2004 4.1.13 Data of Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test 4.1.13.1 Data Used to Illustrate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test Results (Direct Input) Table 4-13a. Data Used to Illustrate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test Results (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description a LA0302WS831372.001 [DIRS 162765] – 6-172 6-173 – Fluorescein plumes observed in Phase 1a mineback. LA9909WS831372.001 [DIRS 122739] 6.13.2.2 6-175 6-176 6-177 6-178 6-179 – Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase I collection pad extract concentrations. LA9909WS831372.002 [DIRS 122741] 6.13.2.2 6-175 6-176 6-177 6-178 6-179 – Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase I collection pad tracer loading and tracer concentrations. LA0112WS831372.001 [DIRS 157100] – 6-182 6-183 6-184 6-185 6-186 – Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase II collection pad tracer loading. LA0112WS831372.002 [DIRS 157115] – 6-182 6-183 6-184 6-185 6-186 – Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase II collection pad tracer concentrations. LA0112WS831372.003 [DIRS 157106] – 6-182 6-183 6-184 6-185 6-186 – Busted Butte UZ transport test: Phase II normalized collection pad tracer concentrations. LB00032412213U.001 [DIRS 149214] – 6-187 6-188 6-189 6-190 – Busted Butte ground-penetrating-radar data collected June 1998 through February 2000 at the Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (UZTT): GPR velocity data. LB0110BSTBTGPR.001 [DIRS 156913] – 6-190 – Time sequence ground-penetrating-radar tomography for the Busted Butte tracer imbibition test. LA0201WS831372.004 [DIRS 165422] – 6-191 6-192 – Calculated moisture content for the Busted Butte site Phase II collection boreholes. LA0008WS831372.001 [DIRS 156582] – 6-193 6-194 – Calculated daily injection rates for the Busted Butte UZTTs. a Roman or Arabic numerals are used interchangeably in the designation of test phases; they are consistent with their usage in the supporting DTN. GPR = Ground Penetrating Radar; UZ = unsaturated zone. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-16 November 2004 4.1.13.2 Data Used to Corroborate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (For Reference) Table 4-13b. Data Used to Corroborate Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (For Reference) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table(s) Description LA9909WS831372.016 [DIRS 140093] 6.13.1.11 – – Ion chromatography pore-water analysis for rock samples from Busted Butte (used in report as reference for pore-water composition). LA9909WS831372.017 [DIRS 140097] 6.13.1.11 – – pH pore water in rock samples from Busted Butte (used in report as reference for pore-water composition). LA9909WS831372.018 [DIRS 140101] 6.13.1.11 – – Gravimetric moisture content of rock samples from Busted Butte (used in report as reference for pore-water composition). LA9910WS831372.008 [DIRS 147156] 6.13.2.1 – 6-36 Busted Butte UZTT: gravimetric moisture content and bromide concentration in selected Phase 1A rock samples. MO0004GSC00167.000 [DIRS 150300] 6-187 6-188 – As-built coordinates of boreholes in the test alcove and running drift, Busted Butte test facility (BBTF). LL990612704244.098 [DIRS 147168] 6.13.4.2 – – ERT data for Busted Butte, electrical properties of the rock were measured during infiltration. LA0311SD831372.001 [DIRS 166197] 6.13.5.2 – – In situ air permeability measurements at Busted Butte. LA0108TV12213U.001 [DIRS 161525] 6.13.6 – – Static batch sorption coefficients and retardation coefficients. GS990708314224.007 [DIRS 164604] H6 – – Detailed line survey data for Busted Butte access drift and Busted Butte cross-drift. LA0204SL831372.001 [DIRS 164749] H7 H-2 H-1 Mineralogy of the Busted Butte Phase 2 test block. LA0207SL831372.001 [DIRS 160824] – – H-3 Lithostratigraphic classification of hydrologicproperty core-sampling depths, Busted Butte Phase 2 test block. GS990708312242.008 [DIRS 109822] – – H-3 H-6 Physical and hydraulic properties of core samples from Busted Butte boreholes. GS960808312231.004 [DIRS 108985] – – H-4 Physical properties, water content, and water potential for samples from lower depths in Boreholes USW SD-7 and USW SD-12. Submitted: 08/30/96. GS960808312231.005 [DIRS 108995] – – H-5 Saturated hydraulic conductivity of Busted Butte. GS951108312231.009 [DIRS 108984] – – H-5 Physical properties, water content, and water potential for Borehole USW SD-7. Submitted: 09/26/95. GS990308312242.007 [DIRS 107185] – – H-6 Laboratory and centrifuge measurements of physical and hydraulic properties of core samples from Busted Butte boreholes. NOTES: ERT = Electrical Resistance Tomography; UZTT = Unsaturated Zone Transport Test. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-17 November 2004 4.1.14 Data of Geochemical Interpretations 4.1.14.1 Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations (Direct Input) Table 4-14a. Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations (Direct Input) Used in Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description GS020408312272.003 [DIRS 160899] – – 6-37 Collection and analysis of pore-water samples for the period from April 2001 to February 2002. Water chemistry analyses for physical parameters; common anions and cations from 15 ECRB-SYS-Series boreholes, USW SD-9 and USW NRG-7/7A. GS030408312272.002 [DIRS 165226] – – 6-37 Analysis of water-quality samples for the period from July 2002 to November 2002. Water chemistry analyses for physical parameters; common anions and cations; and trace metals. GS000308313211.001 [DIRS 162015] 6.14.1.2 I6.6 – 6-38 6-39 6-40 Geochemistry of repository block—chemical composition of rock from ECRB cross-drift. LAJF831222AQ98.004 [DIRS 107364] – 6-195 6-41 Chloride, bromide, sulfate, and chlorine-36 analyses of salts leached from ESF rock samples. LAJF831222AQ98.009 [DIRS 145650] – 6-195 – Chlorine-36 analyses of salts leached from ESF Niche 1 (Niche 3566) drillcore. GS990183122410.001 [DIRS 146125] – – 6-42 Tritium data from pore water from ESF borehole cores, 1997 analyses by USGS. Tritium abundance data from Boreholes ESFAL# 3-RBT#1, ESF-AL#3-RBT#4, ESF-AL#4-RBT#1, ESF-NAD-GTB#1A, ESF-NDR-MF#1, ESF-SAD-GTB#1, ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#1, ESF-SRMOISTSTDY# 2 and ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#13, for the period 1/16/97 through 11/6/97. GS020408312272.002 [DIRS 162342] – – 6-42 Tritium abundance data from pore water in core samples from Yucca Mountain ESF boreholes for the period of 4/30/1998–3/21/2001. GS021208312272.005 [DIRS 162934] – – 6-42 Tritium abundance data from pore water in core samples from Yucca Mountain ESF ECRB. May 20, 2001 to July 23, 2002. GS030208312272.001 [DIRS 162935] – – 6-42 Gas and water vapor chemistry data in Yucca Mountain ESF ECRB bulkheads. GS010808315215.003 [DIRS 164844] – 6-196 6-199 – Fluid inclusion homogenization temperatures from the ESF and ECRB, 12/99 to 4/01. GS020908315215.003 [DIRS 164846] – 6-196 6-197 6-198 6-199 – Fluid inclusion homogenization temperatures from ESF and ECRB calcite and fluorite samples, 10/01 to 5/02. NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; USGS = United States Geological Survey. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-18 November 2004 Table 4-14a. Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations (Direct Input) (Continued) Used Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description GS970208315215.005 [DIRS 107351] – 6-197 6-198 6-199 – Carbon and oxygen stable isotope Kiel analyses of calcite from the ESF and USW G-1, G-2 AND G-4, UE-25 A#1, USW NRG-6 and NRG-7/7A, and UE-25 UZ#16, April 1996–January 1997. GS970808315215.010 [DIRS 145920] – 6-197 6-198 6-199 – Carbon and oxygen stable isotope analyses of calcite from the ESF and USW G-1, G-2, AND G-3/GU-3, from 01/16/97 to 07/18/97. GS980908315213.002 [DIRS 146088] – 6-197 6-198 6-199 – Carbon and oxygen stable isotopic compositions of ESF secondary calcite occurrences, 10/1/97 to 8/15/98. GS990908315213.001 [DIRS 153379] – 6-197 6-198 6-199 – Stable carbon and oxygen isotope macro- and micro-analysis of calcite from the ESF between 2/96 and 5/99. GS020908315215.004 [DIRS 164847] – 6-199 – Stable carbon and oxygen isotope analyses of ESF/ECRB calcite and USW SD-6 and USW WT-24 whole rock; 1/1999–6/2002. GS010808315215.004 [DIRS 164850] – 6-199 – Uranium and lead concentrations, lead isotopic compositions, and U-Pb isotope ages for the ESF secondary minerals determined at the Royal Ontario Museum between April 20, 2000, and April 19, 2001. GS021008315215.005 [DIRS 164848] – 6-199 – Uranium, thorium, and lead concentrations, lead isotopic compositions, U-Pb isotope ages and 234U/238U and 230Th/238U activity ratios for the ESF and ECRB secondary calcite, opal, chalcedony and fluorite determined at the Royal Ontario Museum between 11/16/01 and 4/7/02. GS021208315215.009 [DIRS 164750] I5 6-203 I-2 6-44 I-2 U abundances, 238U-234U-230Th-232Th activity ratios, and calculated 230Th/U ages, and initial 234U/238U activity ratios determined for sequential in situ microdigestions of opal hemispheres from the ESF by thermal ionization mass spectrometry. GS021208312272.008 [DIRS 164609] 6.14.3.2 6-204 6-205 6-206 6-207 6-208 6-45 Uranium and thorium concentrations and 234U-230Th-238U-232Th isotopic compositions from whole rock samples from the ECRB cross-drift and ESF collected between December 5–6, 2001, and analyzed between February and June 2002. GS020608315215.002 [DIRS 162126] 6.14.1.2 6-209 6-216 6-217 – Carbon dioxide abundances, carbon dioxide concentrations, and normative calcite concentrations for cuttings from Boreholes USW SD-6, USW WT-24, and ECRB cross-drift boreholes, Area 25, Nevada Test Site, determined by carbon dioxide evolution between May 25, 2000, and September 8, 2000. NOTES: ECRB=Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-19 November 2004 Table 4-14a. Data Used to Support Geochemical Interpretations (Direct Input) (Continued) Used in Inputs Section(s) Figure(s) Table(s) Description GS021008315215.007 [DIRS 162127] 6.14.1.2 6-209 6-216 – Carbon dioxide abundance, carbon dioxide concentration, and normative calcite concentrations in 333 powdered cuttings samples from Borehole USW WT-24 determined by CO2 evolution between July 1998 and August 1999. GS030808315215.001 [DIRS 165426] – 6-204 6-210 6-217 6-218 – Calcite and opal mineralization occurrences in lithophysal cavities, fractures, and breccia zones from the line survey in the east-west cross-drift. GS030908315215.002 [DIRS 166097] – 6-209 6-216 6-217 – XRF fluorescence elemental compositions determined on cuttings from USW SD-6 and USW WT-24. NOTES: ESF=Exploratory Studies Facility; XRF=X-ray fluorescence. 4.1.14.2 Data Used to Corroborate Geochemical Interpretations (For Reference) Table 4-14b. Data Used to Corroborate Geochemical Interpretations (For Reference) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description LA0002JF12213U.001 [DIRS 154760] 6.14.1.1 – – Chemistry data for pore water extracted from drillcore from surface-based Boreholes USW NRG-6, USW NRG-7A, USW UZ-7A, USW UZ-14, UE-25 UZ#16, USW UZ-N55, USW SD-6, USW SD-7, USW SD-9, USW SD- 12, and USW WT-24. LA0002JF12213U.002 [DIRS 156281] 6.14.1.1 – – Chemistry data for pore water extracted from ESF, cross-drift, and Busted Butte drillcore. LAJF831222AQ98.011 [DIRS 145402] 6.14.1.1 – – Chloride, bromide, sulfate, and chlorine-36 analyses of springs, groundwater, perched water, and surface runoff. LA9909JF831222.012 [DIRS 122736] 6.14.1.1 – – Chloride, bromide, and sulfate analyses of pore water extracted from ESF Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) drillcore. LL030408023121.027 [DIRS 162949] – – 6-41 Cl concentrations and Cl ratios obtained from YM rock samples and analyzed by accelerator mass spectrometry and ion chromatography. LL031200223121.036 [DIRS 168531] – 6-195 6-41 Chlorine concentrations and chlorine ratios obtained from YM rock samples and analyzed by accelerator mass spectrometry. LA0305RR831222.001 [DIRS 163422] – – 6-41 Chlorine-36 and Cl in salts leached from rock samples for the chloride-36 validation study. LA0307RR831222.001 [DIRS 164091] – – 6-41 Chloride, bromide, sulfate, and chlorine-36 analyses of salts leached from cross-drift samples in FY99 and FY00. NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-20 November 2004 Table 4-14b. Data Used to Corroborate Geochemical Interpretations (For Reference) (Continued) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description LA0307RR831222.002 [DIRS 164090] – – 6-41 Chloride, bromide, sulfate, and chlorine-36 analyses of salts leached from ESF 36Cl validation drillcore samples in FY99. GS021208315215.008 [DIRS 164851] – 6-200 6-201 6-202 6-43 238U-234U-230Th-232Th isotope ratios and calculated ages for opal hemispheres from sample hd2074 (spc00506577) at Station 30+51 in the ESF determined using ion-probe mass spectrometry. GS951208312272.002 [DIRS 151649] 6.14.2.2 – – Tritium analyses of pore water from USW UZ-14, USW NRG-6, USW NRG-7A, and UE-25 UZ#16; and of perched water from USW SD-7, USW SD-9, USW UZ-14, and USW NRG-7A from 12/09/92 to 5/15/95. GS990183122410.004 [DIRS 146129] 6.14.2.2 – – Tritium data from pore water from ESF borehole cores, 1998 analyses by University of Miami. Tritium abundance data from Boreholes ESF-NAD-GTB#1A, ESF-NDR-MF#1, ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#1, ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#2, ESF-SRMOISTSTDY# 4, ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#5, ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#6, ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#7, ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#13 and ESF-SR-MOISTSTDY#16, for the period 3/31/98 through 8/20/98. GS990408314224.001 [DIRS 108396] – 6-204 – ESF, ECRB cross-drift, detailed line survey data collected from stations 00+00.89 to 14+95.18. GS990408314224.002 [DIRS 105625] – 6-204 – ESF, ECRB cross-drift, detailed line survey data collected from stations 15+00.85 to 26+63.85. GS971108314224.020 [DIRS 105561] – 6-204 6-213 6-214 – Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 0+60 to Station 4+00, north ramp starter tunnel, ESF. GS971108314224.021 [DIRS 106007] – 6-204 6-213 6-214 – Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 4+00 to Station 8+00, north ramp, ESF. GS950508314224.003 [DIRS 107488] – 6-207 – Provisional results: geotechnical data - full periphery map data from north ramp of the ESF, Stations 0+60 to 4+00. GS980308315215.008 [DIRS 107355] – 6-210 6-211 6-212 6-213 6-215 6-218 – Line survey data from the ESF obtained to estimate secondary mineral abundance. GS960708314224.008 [DIRS 105617] – 6-214 – Provisional results: geotechnical data for Station 30+00 to Station 35+00, main drift of the ESF. Detailed line survey data. GS000608314224.004 [DIRS 152573] – 6-214 – Provisional results: geotechnical data for Station 35+00 to Station 40+00, main drift of the ESF. NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; FY = Fiscal Year; YM = Yucca Mountain. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-21 November 2004 Table 4-14b. Data Used to Corroborate Geochemical Interpretations (For Reference) (Continued) Used in Inputs Section Figure(s) Table Description GS960708314224.010 [DIRS 106031] – 6-214 – Provisional results: geotechnical data for Station 40+00 to Station 45+00, main drift of the ESF. Detailed line survey data. VA supporting data. GS960908314224.014 [DIRS 106033] – 6-213 6-214 – Provisional results - ESF main drift, Station 50+00 to Station 55+00. Detailed line survey data. GS970208314224.003 [DIRS 106048] – 6-213 6-214 – Geotechnical data for Station 60+00 to Station 65+00, south ramp of the ESF. Provisional results; detailed line survey data. GS971108314224.022 [DIRS 106009] – 6-213 6-214 – Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 8+00 to Station 10+00, north ramp, ESF. GS971108314224.023 [DIRS 106010] – 6-213 6-214 – Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 10+00 to Station 18+00, north ramp, ESF. GS971108314224.024 [DIRS 106023] – 6-213 6-214 – Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 18+00 to Station 26+00, north ramp, ESF. GS971108314224.025 [DIRS 106025] – 6-213 6-214 – Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 26+00 to Station 30+00, north ramp and main drift, ESF. GS971108314224.026 [DIRS 106032] – 6-213 6-214 – Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 45+00 to Station 50+00, main drift, ESF. GS971108314224.028 [DIRS 106047] – 6-213 6-214 – Revision 1 of detailed line survey data, Station 55+00 to Station 60+00, main drift and south ramp, ESF. NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 4.2 CRITERIA The general requirements to be satisfied by the TSPA-LA are stated in 10 CFR 63.114 [DIRS 156605]. Technical requirements to be satisfied by the TSPA-LA are identified in the Yucca Mountain Project Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]). The acceptance criteria that will be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to determine whether the technical requirements have been met are identified in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). The pertinent requirements and acceptance criteria for this scientific analysis report are summarized in Table 4-15. Appropriate criteria for this scientific analysis report are Criteria 2 and 3 from Section 2.2.1.3.3.3 (Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting Engineered Barriers and Waste Forms), Section 2.2.1.3.6.3 (Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone), and Section 2.2.1.3.7.3 (Radionuclide Transport in the Unsaturated Zone) of the YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). These criteria are documented in Table 3-1 of the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], and are listed in Table 4-15. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-22 November 2004 Table 4-15. Project Requirements and YMRP Acceptance Criteria Applicable to This Scientific Analysis Report Requirement Number a Requirement Title a 10 CFR 63 Link YMRP Acceptance Criteria PRD-002/T- 015 Requirements for Performance Assessment 10 CFR 63.114(a-c) [DIRS 156605] Section 2.2.1.3.3.3, Criteria 2 and 3 for Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting Waste Packages and Waste Forms b Section 2.2.1.3.6.3, Criteria 2 and 3 for Flow Path in the UZ c Section 2.2.1.3.7.3, Criteria 2 and 3 for Radionuclide Transport in the UZ d a From Canori and Leitner (2003 [DIRS 166275]). b From NRC (2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.3.3). c From NRC (2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.6.3). d From NRC (2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.7.3). UZ = unsaturated zone; YMRP = Yucca Mountain Review Plan. The acceptance criteria identified in Sections 2.2.1.3.3.3, 2.2.1.3.6.3, and 2.2.1.3.7.3 of the YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) are included below. In cases where subsidiary criteria are listed in the YMRP for a given criterion, only the subsidiary criteria addressed by this scientific analysis are listed below. Where a subcriterion includes several components, only some of those components may be addressed. How these components are addressed is summarized in Section 7.15 of this report. Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.3.3, Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting Engineered Barriers and Waste Forms. Acceptance Criterion 2, Data are Sufficient for Model Justification: (1) Geological, hydrological, and geochemical values used in the license application are adequately justified. Adequate description of how the data were used, interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the parameters is provided; Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model Abstraction: (2) Parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, and bounding assumptions used in the total system performance assessment calculations of quantity and chemistry of water contacting engineered barriers and waste forms are technically defensible and reasonable, based on data from the Yucca Mountain region (e.g., results from large block and drift-scale heater and niche tests), and a combination of techniques that may include laboratory experiments, field measurements, natural analog research, and process-level modeling studies; In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-23 November 2004 Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.6, Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification: (1) Hydrological and thermal-hydrological-mechanical-chemical values used in the license application are adequately justified. Adequate descriptions of how the data were used, interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the parameters are provided; (2) The data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the unsaturated zone are collected using acceptable techniques; (5) Sensitivity or uncertainty analyses are performed to assess data sufficiency, and verify the possible need for additional data; Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model Abstraction: (5) Coupled processes are adequately represented; (6) Uncertainties in the characteristics of the natural system and engineered materials are considered. Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.7, Radionuclide Transport in the Unsaturated Zone Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification: (1) Geological, hydrological, and geochemical values, used in the license application, are adequately justified (e.g., flow-path length, sorption coefficients, retardation factors, colloid concentrations, etc.). Adequate descriptions of how the data were used, interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the parameters are provided; (3) Data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the unsaturated zone, including the influence of structural features, fracture distributions, fracture properties, and stratigraphy, used in the total system performance assessment abstraction are based on appropriate techniques. These techniques may include laboratory experiments, site-specific field measurements, natural analog research, and process-level modeling studies. As appropriate, sensitivity or uncertainty analyses, used to support the U.S. Department of Energy total system performance assessment abstraction, are adequate to determine the possible need for additional data. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 4-24 November 2004 Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model Abstraction: (2) For those radionuclides where the total system performance assessment abstraction indicates that transport in fractures and matrix in the unsaturated zone is important to waste isolation: (i) estimated flow and transport parameters are appropriate and valid, based on techniques that may include laboratory experiments, field measurements, natural analog research, and process-level modeling studies, conducted under conditions relevant to the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain; and (ii) models are demonstrated to adequately reproduce field transport test results. For example, if a sorption coefficient approach is used, the assumptions implicit in that approach are verified; (4) Uncertainty is adequately represented in parameter development for conceptual models, process-level models, and alternative conceptual models, considered in developing the abstraction of radionuclide transport in the unsaturated zone. This may be done either through sensitivity analyses or use of conservative limits. The following additional criteria are identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 3.4). The work documented in the scientific analysis report will be consistent with the activities performed as part of Technical Work Plan: Regulatory Integration Evaluation of Analysis and Model Reports Supporting the TSPA-LA (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169653]) and will fulfill a portion of the Phase 2 work identified in that plan. It will also satisfy the requirements of AP-16.1Q, Condition Reporting and Resolution to enable closure of condition reports (CRs) generated as a result of the Corrective Action Program. Other requirements related to boundary conditions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 3.5) do not apply to this scientific analysis report. 4.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS No codes, standards, or regulations other than those identified in the Project Requirements Documents (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], Table 2-3) and determined to be applicable in Table 4-15, were used in this analysis report. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 5-1 November 2004 5. ASSUMPTIONS This scientific analysis report on ambient field-testing of processes presents data collected in underground drifts at Yucca Mountain and its vicinity. No assumptions of parameters were used to supplement the measured data. Discussions on issues related to analysis and measurement approximation are included in Section 6. Other than supportable approximations that were necessary in order to use various analytic formulas and established scientific methods, physical assumptions were unnecessary, because no predicted values or simulated results were presented. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 5-2 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-1 November 2004 6. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS DISCUSSION This section describes the field-testing results pertaining to UZ processes in underground drifts at Yucca Mountain and its vicinity. The field activities range from decimeter-scale drift-seepage tests above niches, to meter-scale fracture-matrix-interaction tests above slots in alcoves, to decameter-scale flow and transport tests in test blocks or between drifts, to kilometer-scale moisture-monitoring studies along drifts. Niches are room-size excavations, slots are excavations below test beds in alcove walls, and alcoves are side drifts along the ESF Main Loop and ECRB cross-drift. Specifically, this section contains data and analysis pertaining to the following topics: • Section 6.1 and Section 6.5 present the test-site characteristics of niches and alcoves from pneumatic air-permeability test results (with Section 6.1 on permeability profiles and Section 6.5 on crosshole connections). • Section 6.2 shows that drift-seepage thresholds exist and that seepage-threshold data can be interpreted using the capillary barrier theory. It also presents liquid-flow-path data for niche sites. • Section 6.3 and Section 6.4 present laboratory-measurement results for tracer migration and matrix imbibition for welded tuff samples from the ESF (with Section 6.3 on tracer distribution in the field and Section 6.4 on tracer and fluid penetration into the rock matrix). • Section 6.6 presents the results of two series of fracture-matrix interaction tests to quantify the partitioning of flux into fast and slow components. • Section 6.7 presents the results for flow tests in the Paintbrush nonwelded tuff (PTn) test bed. • Section 6.8 summarizes data collected on ambient water-potential distribution in niches. • Section 6.9 summarizes observations on construction-water migration. • Section 6.10 presents data collected on moisture monitoring and water analyses in open drifts under the influence of ventilation and in closed drifts behind bulkheads, including the ECRB cross-drift and Alcove 7. • Section 6.11 presents the results from systematic hydrological characterization using slanted boreholes along the ECRB cross-drift. • Section 6.12 presents the results of drift-to-drift tests from liquid releases in Alcove 8 and wetting-front and seepage detection at Niche 3 (Niche 3107). In addition, data from the surface-to-drift tests at Alcove 1 are presented. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-2 November 2004 • Section 6.13 presents the results of different phases of transport tests at Busted Butte. • Section 6.14 summarizes geochemical and isotope data in pore water, rocks, and fracture in-fill minerals collected from test locations in different tuff units. The list of data supporting these analyses can be found in the tables labeled “b” and “c” of Section 4.1. The tests performed in niches and alcoves along the ESF are illustrated in Figure 6-1. Seepage into drifts at the repository level is related to water percolating down from the ground surface. Drift-seepage tests at niche sites quantify the seepage from liquid pulses released above the niches. Percolation flux has a fast fracture-flow component and a slow matrix-flow component. This partitioning of flow is evaluated at the fracture-matrix test bed in Alcove 6. The heterogeneous hydrogeologic setting (with alternating tuff layers) determines the percolation distribution throughout the UZ, with input from infiltration at the ground surface boundary. The mechanism of redistributing near-surface fracture flow by the porous PTn, especially the flow-damping process by the PTn unit, is studied in a test bed in Alcove 4. The PTn unit examined at Alcove 4 consists of layered, altered, and bedded tuffs transected by a fault. Wetter climate conditions increase the infiltration, as quantified in an artificial infiltration test in Alcove 1 and in moisture monitoring at depth in Alcove 7. The seepage threshold data from niches and from systematic hydrological characterization are inputs to the model report Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). Figure 6-1 illustrates general issues (DOE 1998 [DIRS 100550], Section 3.1; Figure 3-1) pertaining to UZ flow processes of seepage, percolation, and infiltration. The tests illustrated in Figure 6-1 focus on different issues to quantify the functional relationships among these processes. Seepage is smaller than percolation flux because of capillarity-induced drift diversion (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764], Section 6), and percolation may be smaller than infiltration because of lateral diversion of percolating water along tuff interfaces to bounding faults. All tests use tracers to assist the characterization of plume migration. Figure 6-2 illustrates the ECRB cross-drift to ESF main drift seepage collection system to study the migration of water and tracer flow from one drift to another. The crossover point is located in the northern pabrt of the ESF, as illustrated in Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3. In 1998, the seepage monitoring system was used to monitor the migration of construction water from the ECRB cross-drift. Niche 3 (Niche 3107), originally excavated and used for the drift seepage study, is part of the drift-to-drift study as a seepage collection site. The existing horizontal boreholes at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) are used for wetting-front monitoring for liquid released from Alcove 8, excavated from the ECRB cross-drift and directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107). Because neither the ESF main drift nor the ECRB cross-drift reaches the Calico Hills hydrogeologic tuff unit (CHn) below the repository block, a dedicated drift complex was excavated at Busted Butte, 8 km southeast of Yucca Mountain, to evaluate flow and transport processes in vitric CHn. Early results were first reported in the report Unsaturated Zone and Saturated Zone Transport Properties (CRWMS M&O 2001 [DIRS 154024]). The different field-testing phases and recent updates are presented in Section 6.13. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-3 November 2004 Geochemical and isotope data have been collected from laboratory analyses of samples from various experiments in different test locations. These data have been used to refine the conceptual understanding of the site and for inputs to process models. Results are discussed in the report Yucca Mountain Site Description (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734]). Section 6.14 presents geochemical and isotope data. Each testing activity has unique findings to contribute to the assessment of unsaturated flow and transport processes at Yucca Mountain. The progress and analyses of field-test results are presented in the following fourteen subsections for fourteen testing activities. Scientific notebooks (with relevant page numbers) used for recording the ESF Field Testing activities and analyses described in this scientific analysis report are listed in Table 6-1. Flow Testing & Monitoring Locations Ambient Testing in the ESF seepage = percolation = infiltration % of seepage % of fracture flow % of infiltration Alcove 6 Alcoves 1 & 7 / / before excavation after excavation Alcove 4 Five Niches Alcove 1 % of diversion TSPA Issues: percolation seepage fast flow diversion wet climate ***** NOTE: The tests evaluate functional relationships between UZ processes to resolve TSPA issues. Different colors are used to schematically track the source of the water to its respective release point. Figure 6-1. Schematic Illustration of Flow Tests in the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-4 November 2004 Wetting front sensors/ fluid collection tray Niche 3107 Vertical seepage boreholes above Niche 3107 Alcove 8 (angled, horizontal) ECRB Cross Drift Main Drift CS 3062 Invert-crown separation of elevation 17.5m Thermal Test Alcove Water release NOTE: Wetting-front sensors and fluid collection trays monitored the construction-water migration. Both the ECRB cross-drift and the main drift, together with Alcove 8 and Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and its boreholes, are horizontal in this illustration. Alcove 8 is directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107). Figure 6-2. Schematic Illustration of the Crossover Point of ECRB Cross-Drift with the Main Drift In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-5 November 2004 Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa M&O Scientific Notebook ID Lab Scientific Notebook ID Cited Pages or Page Range(s) of Scientific Notebook Relevant Section(s) of This Report Citation SN-LBNL-SCI-065-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-6 1–158 6.1 (air-K), 6.2 (seepage) Wang 1997 [DIRS 156530] SN-LBNL-SCI-066-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-6A 1–159 6.1 (air-K), 6.2 (seepage) Wang 1997 [DIRS 156534] SN-LBNL-SCI-121-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-6B 1–159 6.1 (air-K), 6.2 (seepage) Wang 1999 [DIRS 156538] SN-LBNL-SCI-122-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-6C 1–159 6.1 (air-K), 6.2 (seepage) Wang 1999 [DIRS 153449] SN-LBNL-SCI-078-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWPJC- 6.2 1–110, 115–125, 133– 135, 144–146, 149–157 6.1 (air-K), 6.5 (cross-hole) Cook 2001 [DIRS 156902] SN-LBNL-SCI-113-V1 YMP-LBNL-RCT-1 62–73, 80–157 6.2 (seepage) Trautz 1999 [DIRS 156563] SN-LBNL-SCI-156-V1 YMP-LBNL-RCT-2 27–160 6.2 (seepage) Trautz 2001 [DIRS 156903] SN-LBNL-SCI-177-V1 YMP-LBNL-RCT-3 4-94 6.2 (seepage) Trautz 2001 [DIRS 157022] SN-LBNL-SCI-177-V2 YMP-LBNL-RCT-4 88–91, 116–117, 120, 130–159, 190–195, 198–221, 298–299 6.2-App. C4 (seepage) Trautz 2001 [DIRS 161208] SN-LBNL-SCI- 221-V1 YMP-LBNL-RCT-5 154-160, 162-234, 239-301 6.2-App. C4 (seepage) Trautz 2003 [DIRS 166248] SN-LBNL-SCI- 221-V2 YMP-LBNL-RCT-6 14–67 6.2-App. C4 (seepage) Wang 2003 [DIRS 165376] SN-LBNL-SCI-089-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH- 1 1–153 6.3 (tracer migration), 6.4 (imbibition) Hu 1999 [DIRS 156539] SN-LBNL-SCI-090-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH- 1A 20–22, 37–48, 54, 68–82, 86–99, 103–126 6.3 (tracer migration), 6.4 (imbibition) Hu 1999 [DIRS 156540] SN-LBNL-SCI-091-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH- 1B 9, 27, 35, 40, 42, 48–73, 77, 81–94, 107–110, 115, 118–119, 123–142, 149, 154–155 6.3 (tracer migration), 6.4 (imbibition) Hu 1999 [DIRS 156541] SN-LBNL-SCI-092-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH- 1C 13, 16–25, 39–41, 51– 102, 105–112, 116, 128–133, 139–140, 143–145 6.3 (tracer migration), 6.4 (imbibition) Hu 1999 [DIRS 156542] SN-LBNL-SCI-093-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSWQH- 1D 3–153 6.3 (tracer migration), 6.4 (imbibition) Hu 1999 [DIRS 155691] In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-6 November 2004 Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) M&O Scientific Notebook ID Lab Scientific Notebook ID Cited Pages or Page Range(s) of Scientific Notebook Relevant Section(s) of This Report Citation SN-LBNL-SCI-154-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1E 130-136, 145-146 6.3 (tracer migration), 6.4 (imbibition) Hu 2000 [DIRS 156473] SN-LBNL-SCI-102-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-1 1–117 6.6 (fracturematrix interaction Alcove 6) Salve 1999 [DIRS 155692] SN-LBNL-SCI-104-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-1A 1–39 6.6 (fracturematrix interaction Alcove 6) Salve 1999 [DIRS 156547] SN-LBNL-SCI-105-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-2 1–7, 8-127 6.6 (fracturematrix interaction Alcove 6) 6.7 (PTn Alcove 4) Salve 2000 [DIRS 156548] SN-LBNL-SCI-042-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-CMO-1 1–15, 18, 22, 45–-54 6.7 (PTn Alcove 4) Oldenburg 2000 [DIRS 156558] SN-LBNL-SCI-088-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-JJH-1 1–71 6.7 (PTn Alcove 4) Hinds 2000 [DIRS 156557] SN-LBNL-SCI-048-VI YMP-LBNL-JW-1.2 103–152 6.8 (water potential) 6.9 (construction water migration) Salve 1999 [DIRS 156552] SN-LBNL-SCI-133-V1 YMP-LBNL-JW-1.2A 1–43 6.8 (water potential) 6.9 (construction water migration) Salve 1999 [DIRS 156555] SN-LBNL-SCI-116-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-4.3 1–24, 61–67, 74–81 6.10 (ESF moisture) Wang 2000 [DIRS 156559] SN-LBNL-SCI-150-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-JS-1 18, 148 6.10 (ECRB moisture) Stepek 2000 [DIRS 156561] SN-LBNL-SCI-182-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-4 1–147 6.10.1 (ECRB moisture) Salve 2002 [DIRS 165378] SN-LBNL-SCI-182-V2 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-6 1–59 6.10.1 (ECRB moisture) Wang 2003 [DIRS 165376] SN-USGS-SCI-110-V1 N/A 1–99 6.10 (Niche Moisture) Guertal 2000 [DIRS 165384] SN-USGS-SCI-128-V1 N/A 1–301 6.10.1 (ECRB moisture) Hudson 2002 [DIRS 165391] SN-USGS-SCI-128-V2 N/A 1–297 6.10.1 (ECRB moisture) Hudson 2002 [DIRS 165392] In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-7 November 2004 Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) M&O Scientific Notebook ID Lab Scientific Notebook ID Cited Pages or Page Range(s) of Scientific Notebook Relevant Section(s) of This Report Citation SN-USGS-SCI-128-V3 N/A 1–141 6.10.4 (Alcove 7) Hudson 2003 [DIRS 165273] SN-USGS-SCI-133-V1 N/A 1–157 6.10.1 (ECRB moisture) Hudson 2002 [DIRS 163398] SN-USGS-SCI-133-V2 N/A 1–147 6.10.1 (ECRB moisture) Hudson 2003 [DIRS 165393] SN-LBNL-SCI-179-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-YWT-1 1–44 6.11 (ECRB systematic) Tsang and Wang 2000 [DIRS 165375] SN-LBNL-SCI-179-V2 YMP-LBNL-JSW-YWT-2 8–48, 72–73, 98–99, 114–129 6.11 (ECRB systematic) Wang 2003 [DIRS 165376] SN-LBNL-SCI-216-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-PJC-6.3 7–19, 22–27, 46, 58– 60, 70–76 6.11 (ECRB systematic) Wang 2003 [DIRS 165376] SN-LBNL-SCI-181-V1 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-5 1–156 6.12 (Alcove 8- Niche 3 [Niche 3107]) Salve 2003 [DIRS 165377] SN-LBNL-SCI-181-V2 YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-5.1 1–24 6.12 (Alcove 8- Niche 3 [Niche 3107]) Wang 2003 [DIRS 165376] SN-USGS-SCI-120-V1 N/A 1–172 6.12 (Alcove 8- Niche 3 [Niche 3107]) Hudson 2002 [DIRS 165385] SN-USGS-SCI-120-V2 N/A 1–182 6.12 (Alcove 8- Niche 3 [Niche 3107]) Hudson 2002 [DIRS 165386] SN-USGS-SCI-120-V3 N/A 1–179 6.12 (Alcove 8- Niche 3 [Niche 3107]) Hudson 2002 [DIRS 165387] SN-USGS-SCI-120-V4 N/A 1–190 6.12 (Alcove 8- Niche 3 [Niche 3107]) Hudson and Guertal 2002 [DIRS 165388] SN-USGS-SCI-120-V5 N/A 1–157 6.12 (Alcove 8- Niche 3 [Niche 3107]) Hudson 2002 [DIRS 166103] SN-USGS-SCI-120-V6 N/A 1–147 6.12 (Alcove 8- Niche 3 [Niche 3107]) Hudson 2002 [DIRS 165389] SN-USGS-SCI-120-V7 N/A 1–148 6.12 (Alcove 8- Niche 3 [Niche 3107]) Hudson 2003 [DIRS 165390] SN-USGS-SCI-108-V1 N/A 1-98 6.12.5 (Alcove 1) Guertal 2001 [DIRS 164070] SN-LANL-SCI-038-V1 LA-EES-1-NBK-99-005 1–161 6.13 (sample analyses) Bussod 2001 [DIRS 165281] In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-8 November 2004 Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) M&O Scientific Notebook ID Lab Scientific Notebook ID Cited Pages or Page Range(s) of Scientific Notebook Relevant Section(s) of This Report Citation SN-LANL-SCI-039-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-020 1–161 6.13 (UZTT) Bussod 1999 [DIRS 146978] SN-LANL-SCI-040-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-010 1–156 6.13 (UZTT) Bussod 1998 [DIRS 149129] SN-LANL-SCI-041-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-011 1– 38 6.13.2 (UZTT injection) Soll et al. 2001 [DIRS 165296] SN-LANL-SCI-042-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-012 1–130 6.13.3 (UZTT injection) Dunn 2001 [DIRS 165297] SN-LANL-SCI-043-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-013 1–26 6.13.5 (UZTT air-K) Bussod and Stockton 1999 [DIRS 165324] SN-LANL-SCI-044-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-014 1–11 6.13.5 (UZTT air-K) Wyckoff 1999 [DIRS 165298] SN-LANL-SCI-046-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-016 1–44 6.13.5 (UZTT air-K) Lowry 2001 [DIRS 164632] SN-LANL-SCI-106-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-99-003 1–120 6.13 (UZTT) Soll and Bussod 2001 [DIRS 165299] SN-LANL-SCI-127-V1 LA-CST-NBK-99-002 1–7 6.13.1 (tracers) Bussod and Turin 2000 [DIRS 165300] SN-LANL-SCI-133-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-018 1–7 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Bussod and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165301] SN-LANL-SCI-136-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-017 1–7 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Bussod and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165303] SN-LANL-SCI-145-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-001 1–159 6.13.1 (tracers) Bussod et al. 2000 [DIRS 165305] SN-LANL-SCI-159-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-002 1–9 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Bussod and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165306] SN-LANL-SCI-160-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-012 1–7 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Bussod and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165308] SN-LANL-SCI-161-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-015 1–7 6.13.2, 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Bussod and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165310] SN-LANL-SCI-163-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-016 1–10 6.13.2, 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Bussod and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165311] SN-LANL-SCI-169-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-009 1–7 6.13.2, 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Bussod and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165312] In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-9 November 2004 Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) M&O Scientific Notebook ID Lab Scientific Notebook ID Cited Pages or Page Range(s) of Scientific Notebook Relevant Section(s) of This Report Citation SN-LANL-SCI-184-V1 N/A 1–6 6.13.2, 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Soll and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165313] SN-LANL-SCI-188-V1 N/A 1–7 6.13.2, 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Soll and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165316] SN-LANL-SCI-191-V1 LA-CST-NBK-99-004 1–10 6.13.2 (sorption) Bussod et al. 2000 [DIRS 165317] SN-LANL-SCI-192-V1 LA-CST-NBK-99-003 1–8 6.13.2, 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Bussod and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165319] SN-LANL-SCI-193-V1 N/A 1–8 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Soll and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165320] SN-LANL-SCI-199-V1 LA-CST-NBK-98-004 1–810 6.13 (pad collection) Bussod and Turin 2001 [DIRS 165321] SN-LANL-SCI-205-V1 N/A 1–56, photos 1–31 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 1999 [DIRS 166105] SN-LANL-SCI-206-V1 N/A 86326–86406 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165323] SN-LANL-SCI-206-V2 N/A 99176–99254 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165325] SN-LANL-SCI-206-V3 N/A 99326–99405 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165326] SN-LANL-SCI-206-V4 N/A 99551–99630 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165328] SN-LANL-SCI-206-V5 N/A 99701–99779 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165330] SN-LANL-SCI-206-V6 N/A 92851–92930 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165333] SN-LANL-SCI-206-V7 N/A 100226–100303 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2003 [DIRS 165335] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V1 N/A 83101–83181 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165336] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V2 N/A 83326–83406 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165348] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V3 N/A 83476–83556 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165349] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V4 N/A 97976–98055 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165350] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V5 N/A 98051–98130 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165351] In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-10 November 2004 Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) M&O Scientific Notebook ID Lab Scientific Notebook ID Cited Pages or Page Range(s) of Scientific Notebook Relevant Section(s) of This Report Citation SN-LANL-SCI-207-V6 N/A 98126–98205 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165352] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V7 N/A 99251–99329 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165354] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V8 N/A 99401–99480 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165356] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V9 N/A 99626–99705 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165358] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V10 N/A 99776–99854 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165338] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V11 N/A 92776–92855 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165340] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V12 N/A 100151–100229 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165344] SN-LANL-SCI-207-V13 N/A 100451–100528 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2003 [DIRS 165346] SN-LANL-SCI-208-V1 N/A 91276–91356 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165360] SN-LANL-SCI-208-V2 N/A 86701–86780 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2001 [DIRS 165361] SN-LANL-SCI-208-V3 N/A 99476–99542 6.13.6 (BBTF block) Drew 2002 [DIRS 165362] SN-LANL-SCI-220-V1 LA-EES-1-NBK-94-002 1–101 6.13.1, App. H (CHn mineralogy) Levy 2001 [DIRS 165363] SN-LANL-SCI-228-V1 LA-EES-5-NBK-98-019 1–4 6.13.2 (injection) Bussod and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165364] SN-LANL-SCI-232-V1 N/A 1–9 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Soll and Wolfsberg 2000 [DIRS 165365] SN-LANL-SCI-239-V1 N/A 1–103, 290–291 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Soll et al. 2002 [DIRS 165366] SN-LANL-SCI-241-V1 N/A 1–90 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Soll and Wolfsberg 2002 [DIRS 165367] SN-LANL-SCI-252-V1 N/A 1–77 6.13.3 (overcore) Turin 2001 [DIRS 165368] SN-LANL-SCI-253-V1 N/A 1–168 6.13.2, 6.13.3 (tracer analyses) Haga 2001 [DIRS 165369] In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-11 November 2004 Table 6-1. Scientific Notebooksa (Continued) M&O Scientific Notebook ID Lab Scientific Notebook ID Cited Pages or Page Range(s) of Scientific Notebook Relevant Section(s) of This Report Citation SN-LANL-SCI-256-V1 N/A 1–75 6.13.1, App. H (CHn mineralogy) Levy 2002 [DIRS 165370] SN-LANL-SCI-257-V1 N/A 1 6.13.3 Soll 2001 [DIRS 165371] SN-LANL-SCI-261-V1 N/A 1–53 6.13.1, App. H (CHn mineralogy) Soll and Aldrich 2002 [DIRS 165372] SN-LBNL-SCI-119-V1 YMP-LBNL-ELM-KHW-1 1–48 6.13.4 (ground penetrating radar) Williams 2000 [DIRS 165373] SN-LBNL-SCI-119-V2 YMP-LBNL-ELM-KHW-2 1–32 6.13.4 (ground penetrating radar) Williams 2002 [DIRS 165374] SN-LBNL-SCI-193-V1 YMP-LBNL-ELM-JP-1 1–25 6.13.4 (ground penetrating radar) Peterson 2002 [DIRS 165379] SN-LLNL-SCI-421-V1 N/A 1–155 6.13.4 (electrical resistance tomography) Daily and Buettner 2002 [DIRS 165380] SN-USGS-SCI-117-V1 N/A 1–75 6.13.1, App. H (hydrological properties) Flint 2001 [DIRS 165381] SN-USGS-SCI-117-V2 N/A 1–98 6.13.1, App. H (hydrological properties) Flint 2001 [DIRS 165382] SN-USGS-SCI-117-V3 N/A 1–73 6.13.1, App. H (hydrological properties) Flint et al. 2002 [DIRS 165383] a The list of scientific notebooks is sorted first by different tests (represented by the subsection number to the second heading in the fourth column), and then by the scientific notebook IDs (listed in the first column). The listed scientific notebooks contain relevant and corroborating data for testing activities discussed in Section 6. Some scientific notebooks have test pages specified, others have the whole notebook ranges listed. In addition to data collection, the scientific notebooks in general contain entries pertaining to test configuration, test design, equipment set-up, sensor calibration, review records, and other test-related data. Data analyses are primarily developed from entries in the scientific notebooks; data interpretations are supplemented by open literature surveys and professional exchanges, with the results documented in publications and in the scientific analysis report. Section 6.14 (geochemical and isotopic data collection) investigators use technical procedures instead of scientific notebooks in data collections. The technical procedures, together with other data such as test-site configurations and sensor accuracies, are in site-investigation test plans and fieldwork packages governing the testing activities, listed in Section 1 of this report, and in Section 1 and Table 2.4 of the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]). NOTES: BBTF = Busted Butte Test Facility; CHn = Calico Hills Non-welded Hydrogeologic Unit; ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility; N/A not applicable; UZTT = Unsaturated Zone Transport Test. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-12 November 2004 Standardized scientific analysis methods were used. Alternate scientific approaches and technical methods are evaluated in Section 6. For example, analytic solutions are used to analyze seepage data instead of numerical models (see Section 6.2); psychrometer data are compared with electrical resistivity probe data (see Section 6.9); and ion-microprobe results are compared with microdigestion results (see Section 6.14). Other alternate scientific approaches and/or technical methods were not used because the investigators are not familiar with them. Variability and uncertainty are also evaluated in Section 6. Variability and uncertainty are described in Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative Conceptual Models, Model Abstractions, and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158794], Section 4.1), as follows: Variability, also referred to as aleatory uncertainty, arises due to natural randomness or heterogeneity. This first type of uncertainty cannot be reduced through further testing and data collection; it can only be better characterized. Thus, this first type of uncertainty is also referred to as irreducible uncertainty. It is typically accounted for using geostatistical approaches, e.g., using appropriate probability distribution functions. Uncertainty, also referred to as epistemic uncertainty, arises from lack of knowledge about a parameter because the data are limited or there are alternative interpretations of the available data. This second type of uncertainty can be reduced because the state of knowledge can be improved by further testing or data collection. Consequently, this second type of uncertainty is also referred to as reducible uncertainty. In this report, the term variability is used for aleatory uncertainty, and the term uncertainty is used for epistemic uncertainty. Uncertainty may have different sources depending on how the parameter in question is derived (e.g., whether derived from measurements, analyses, or models), as follows: • Measurement uncertainty refers to the exactness of the actual measurement method and related data processing. • Spatial variability uncertainty refers to the uncertainty in parameters describing the spatial variability of data, typically arising from the limited number of samples. • Conceptual model uncertainty arises when the appropriateness of a conceptual model developed for the physical system cannot be fully assessed. • Estimation uncertainty arises if the resulting parameter is estimated from a random process (e.g., from noisy data or from a Monte Carlo analysis), giving a range of possible results. This scientific analysis report focuses on spatial variability uncertainty of data collected from testing of processes. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-13 November 2004 6.1 AIR-PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS AND EXCAVATION-INDUCED ENHANCEMENTS Pneumatic air-permeability tests were undertaken at various locations in the ESF to characterize the potential fluid flow paths in the rock. The repository host rock consists predominantly of unsaturated, fractured welded tuff. Airflow occurs mainly through the fractures. Therefore, air-permeability tests characterize the fracture network and may be utilized to study fracture heterogeneity. Because the fracture network is very permeable, the pressure field returns to ambient conditions quickly, generally within minutes, after air injection is stopped. As a result, many tests can be performed quickly, allowing measurements of fracture heterogeneity. The specific objectives for pneumatic testing include: • Profiling the air permeability of boreholes along their length • Investigating the effects of nearby excavation on the permeability of a rock mass • Enabling a site-to-site comparison of air-permeability statistics and related scale effects. In these tests, packer assemblies (see Appendix A) were inflated in clusters of boreholes drilled into the fractured rock, and air was injected into specific intervals at constant mass flux while pressure responses were monitored in other borehole intervals. Two basic types of data are readily available from pneumatic testing and are used to satisfy these testing objectives: (1) single-borehole air-permeability profiles, which are used for borehole-to-borehole and site-to-site comparisons, and (2) crosshole pressure-response data, which enable a determination of connectivity (through fracture networks) between locations at a given site. This section focuses on the permeability profiles for boreholes in niche and alcove sites. Permeability profiles before niche excavation are compared with profiles measured after niche and alcove excavation. Both pre- and post-excavation air-permeability tests were conducted before the seepage tests described in Section 6.2. The crosshole data analyses are presented in Section 6.5. Air-permeability data are used as the basis (1) for developing heterogeneous permeability fields for drift-scale models, and (2) for the distribution of permeabilities sampled during TSPA-LA calculations. 6.1.1 Niche Test Site and Borehole Configuration Extensive air-permeability measurements have been made in borehole clusters at five niches and at three alcoves within the ESF tunnel, as part of a program to select locations for liquid-release tests. The air permeability along each borehole in a cluster serves as a guide to the selection of the liquid-release intervals. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-14 November 2004 6.1.1.1 Site Selection Various niche and alcove sites were selected for study, based on fracture and hydrologic data collected in the ESF, as illustrated in Figure 6-3. Four niches were excavated along the main drift of the ESF and a fifth in the ECRB Cross-Drift. The first niche site is located at Construction Station (CS) 35+66 (hereafter referred to as Niche 1 (Niche 3566), located 3566 m from the ESF North Portal) in a brecciated zone between the Sundance fault and a cooling joint, where a preferential flow path is believed to be present [based on elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios described in Yucca Mountain Site Description (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 5.2)]. Niche 1 (Niche 3566) was sealed with a bulkhead to conduct long-term monitoring of in situ conditions. The second niche site is located at CS 36+50 [Niche 2 (Niche 3650)] in a competent rock mass with lower fracture density than Niche 1 (Niche 3566). The third niche is located at CS 31+07 [Niche 3 (Niche 3107)] in close proximity to the crossover point located at CS 30+62. A test alcove (Alcove 8) has been excavated from the ECRB Cross-Drift to a position immediately above Niche 3 (Niche 3107), so that a large-scale drift-to-drift test could be conducted at this location. The fourth niche site is located at CS 47+88 [Niche 4 (Niche 4788)] in a 950 m long exposure of the middle nonlithophysal zone, referred to by Buesch and Spengler (1998 [DIRS 101433], p. 19) as the intensely fractured zone. The fifth niche is located at ECRB Cross-Drift CS 16+20 [Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620)] near the center of the repository block. The first four niches described above were excavated on the west side of the ESF main drift within the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring welded tuff unit (TSw). The fifth niche in the ECRB Cross-Drift is excavated in the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the TSw, which is the tuff unit in which most of the repository emplacement drifts would be located. Alcove 8 is excavated in the upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul) of the ECRB Cross-Drift. (Air permeability tests in two other alcoves, Alcove 4 and Alcove 6, are described in Section 6.5; along a systematic hydrologic characterization borehole in Section 6.11.2.1; and along a borehole at Busted Butte in Section 6.13.5.2.) 6.1.1.2 Borehole Configuration Prior to niche excavation, three boreholes were drilled at Niche 1 (Niche 3566), and seven boreholes per niche were drilled at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 (Niche 4788). Boreholes were drilled before excavation into both the rock to be excavated and the surrounding rock to gain access to the testing and monitoring area. Figure 6-4 shows the schematics of borehole clusters tested at the first four niche sites. Both types of boreholes were tested before niche excavation, and the surrounding boreholes were retested after excavation, allowing a study of excavation effects on the permeability of the surrounding rock. All boreholes shown in Figure 6-4 are parallel to the niche axis, as illustrated in Figure 6-5. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-15 November 2004 Figure 6-3. Location Map for Niche 3 (Niche 3107), Niche 1 (Niche 3566), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 4 (Niche 4788), and Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-16 November 2004 U M B Niche 3566 3.25 m CL MR ML B1.5 B2.5 UL UM UR Niche 3107 2.5 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m Final ceiling elevation near mid point of niche Starting ceiling elevation near opening to niche 3.25 m CL MR ML B1.5 B2.5 UL UM UR Niche 4788 2.5 m Starting elevation of niche ceiling at opening Final elevation of niche ceiling at depth of 2.9 m and beyond 3.25 m CL 2.5 m 4.0 m 3.25 m 2.5 m CL MR ML BR BL UL UM UR Niche 3650 4.0 m 4.0 m 4.0 m (a) (b) (c) (d) NOTES: All measurements are approximate and do not represent surveyed as-built conditions. The niche faces are on the west wall of the main drift of the Exploratory Studies Facility. See Figure 6-6 for borehole notations. CL denotes centerline. Figure 6-4. Schematic Illustration of the End View of Borehole Clusters at Niche Sites In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-17 November 2004 CL N 2 Meters 0 1 U, M and B CL N UM UR UL ML, BL MR, BR CL N UM, B1.5 and B2.5 UL UR ML MR CL N UM, B1.5 and B2.5 UL UR ML MR Niche 3566 (a) Niche 3650 (b) Niche 3107 ESF ESF ESF ESF (c) Niche 4788 (d) Niche Centerline Borehole Axis NOTES: All measurements are approximate and do not represent surveyed as-built conditions. The boreholes shown are oriented horizontally in the northwestern direction parallel to the niche axis. See Figure 6-6 for borehole notations. CL denotes centerline. Figure 6-5. Schematic Illustration of the Plan View of Borehole Clusters at Niche Sites Three boreholes were originally drilled at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) along the same vertical plane coincident with the center of the niche (Panel a of Figure 6-4 and Panel a of Figure 6-5).1 The three boreholes were assigned the designations U, M, and B, corresponding to the upper, middle, and bottom borehole, respectively. Borehole M and Borehole B were subsequently removed when the rock was mined out to create the niche; Borehole U is still intact. Panel b of Figure 6-4 and Panel b of Figure 6-5 show the location of the seven boreholes drilled at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). Three of the boreholes, designated UL, UM, and UR (upper left, upper middle, and upper right, respectively), were drilled approximately 1 m apart and 0.65 m above the crown of the niche in the same horizontal plane. The remaining boreholes, ML, MR, BL, and BR (middle left, middle right, bottom left, and bottom right, respectively), were drilled within 1Figures 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 were generated using field measurements recorded in Scientific Notebooks (Wang 1997 [DIRS 156530], Wang 1997 [DIRS 156534]), Wang 1999 [DIRS 156538], Wang 1999 [DIRS 153449], and Trautz 1999 [DIRS 156563]) and/or using pre-built plans for niche excavation. Therefore, these figures show the idealized shape of the niches and approximate locations of the boreholes. Figure 6-7 was generated using the as-built data (DTN: MO0008GSC00269.000 [DIRS 166198]). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-18 November 2004 the boundaries of the proposed niche and were subsequently mined out when the niche was excavated as planned. Panel c of Figure 6-4 and Panel c of Figure 6-5 show the final configuration of the seven boreholes drilled at Niche 3 (Niche 3107). The original intent was to drill the middle boreholes (Borehole ML and Borehole MR) beyond the limits of the proposed excavation to monitor the movement of moisture around the niche during subsequent testing. Unfortunately, the middle boreholes were not drilled at the correct elevation above Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and were partially mined away during excavation. The three upper boreholes (UL, UM, and UR) remained intact and were used in wetting front detection in the Alcove 8/Niche 3 (Niche 3107) tests, as described in Section 6.12.2.2. Boreholes at Alcove 8 (located directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107)) are described at the end of this section. The final configuration of the seven boreholes drilled at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) is illustrated in Panel d of Figure 6-4 and Panel d of Figure 6-5. A misinterpretation of a survey mark, along with bad ground conditions (i.e., falling rock or collapsing ground conditions) at Niche 4 (Niche 4788), also resulted in the partial loss of Borehole ML at this site. The original plan was to drill the U and M series boreholes outside the excavation. After the excavation of Niche 1 (Niche 3566), a special set of horizontal boreholes was drilled from within the niche into the walls and end of the niche in a radial pattern. A similar scheme was used at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) after its excavation. These boreholes are not shown on the plan views. Air-permeability testing has been performed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). Special boreholes to discern the effects of excavation on permeability were drilled alongside the proposed excavation site, parallel to the planned location of the niche wall. These boreholes were designated “AK” because they were intended primarily for air permeability use. Figure 6-6a and Figure 6-6c show (in plan and cross-sectional view, respectively) these three boreholes designated AK1, AK2, and AK3, which were drilled 1 m apart in a horizontal plane, with the first borehole 1 m from the proposed niche wall and level with the elevation of the ECRB spring line. Before the inner excavation at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), seven additional boreholes were drilled as shown in Panel b of Figure 6-6, Panel d of Figure 6-6, and Panel e of Figure 6-6 in plan, elevation, and side view respectively, designated B1.75, ML, MM, MR, UL, UM, and UR. All of these boreholes, except Borehole B1.75, were drilled above the proposed inner-niche location. Subsequent excavation of the inner part of the niche mined out Borehole B1.75. These seven boreholes are also designated as Borehole 1 through Borehole 7 in Section 6.2.1.3.5.2. After pre- and post-excavation air permeability tests at Niche CD 1620 (Niche 5), two slots (also referred to as “bat wings”) were excavated into the sidewalls of the niche, as described in Section 6.2.1.3.5.2. Alcove 8 is located directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107). Air-permeability measurements were performed in the near-vertical boreholes drilled from the invert of Alcove 8, toward Niche 3 (Niche 3107). These boreholes were drilled to surround the area designated for the pond experiment, as described in Section 6.12.4. These air-permeability tests were made to provide correlation with the ground penetrating radar imaging in the same boreholes (Section 6.12.3), as opposed to providing direct locations for borehole water releases (as with the other In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-19 November 2004 air-permeability measurement intervals). They were also intended to allow retesting to observe changes in relative permeability caused by possible partial saturation as a result of the pond experiment. The alcove plan and face views are shown with approximate borehole locations, designated as #1 to #6, in Panel a of Figure 6-7 and Panel b of Figure 6-7, respectively. 0 2 4 6 8 Niche Centerline Borehole Axis Access Drift Stand Off AK3 20.0m AK2 21.5m AK1 23.0m (a) 0 1 2 3 4 UM, MM & B1.75 Stand Off Access Drift UR & MR UL & ML 20.0 m from end of Access Drift (beginning of niche opening) (b) Access Drift AK1 AK2 AK3 Niche CD 1620 (c) Access Drift Stand off 0.0 m 2.5 m 4.25 m 4.75 m 6.0 m 3.0 m Borehole B1.75 Borehole ML, MM & MR Borehole UL, UM & UR 0.0 m 5.0 15.0 20.0 2.5 m 1.75 m 0.5 m 2.5 m (e) Approximate Scale Approximate Scale CL B1.75 ML MM MR 1.0 m Niche CD 1620 Niche CD 1620 Niche CD 1620 Niche CD 1620 2.5 m 0.75 m 2.5 m 0.0 m 1.0 m 2.0 m 2.0 m 1.0 m 1.0 m 4.25 m 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 m UM UR UL 2.0 m 2.0 m (d) U=Upper, M=Middle, B=Bottom L =Left, R=Right 1.75 = Depth in meters below  middle holes CL CL CL N N ECRB AK boreholes on the Side Liquid Release Boreholes In and Above the Niche AK boreholes on the Side Liquid Release Boreholes In and Above the Niche Liquid Release Boreholes In and Above the Niche 3.5 m NOTES: All measurements are approximate and do not represent surveyed as-built conditions. The niche face is on the southeast wall of the ECRB Cross-Drift. CL denotes centerline. Figure 6-6. Schematic Illustration of the End and Plan Views of Borehole Clusters at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-20 November 2004 (a) CL CL CL N Access Drift Alcove #1 #2 #4 #3 #5 #6 EC RB CS 7+98 1.7 m 2.0 m 6.4 m 5.8 m #1 #2 #3,4 #5 #6 CL 12 .5 m 3.6 m 3.3 m Drill Bay 10.0 m 11.0 m (b) Alcove 8 NOTES: All measurements are approximate. Borehole as-built data are in DTN: MO0008GSC00269.000 [DIRS 166198]. The niche face is on the southeast wall of the ECRB Cross-Drift. CL denotes centerline. Figure 6-7. Schematic Illustration of the Plan and End Views of Borehole Clusters at Alcove 8 6.1.2 Air-Permeability Testing, Spatial Distribution, and Statistical Analysis Approximately 3,500 separate air injections have been undertaken in the in situ studies underground at Yucca Mountain. Nearly one quarter-million pressure-response curves have been logged in the studies. The number of tests lends itself to visualization and statistical comparison of the flow connections and distributions of permeability in the rock mass. The specially designed equipment for pneumatic testing is described in Appendix A. With this equipment, it is feasible to conduct tests for site-to-site and borehole-to-borehole comparisons, both before and after excavation. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-21 November 2004 6.1.2.1 Data Reduction and Air-Permeability Determination Data in the field were acquired in the form of voltage output from the various instruments and converted in real time or post-test time to physical units, using the calibration data of each instrument. At Niche 3 (Niche 3107), Niche 4 (Niche 4788), Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), and Alcove 8, data acquisition was fully automated, so that log entries for each individual injection test could be done by computer and correlation with the data files linked. Each of these tests was given three minutes to reach steady state. (An interval of three minutes was shown, by transient responses, to be sufficient time for the development of steady states.) To maximize the signal-to-noise ratio, the maximum flow rate obtainable with the system was chosen for the purpose of the permeability calculation, i.e., the rate was maximized but did not cause the interval pressure to exceed the pressure at which leakage around the packer might occur. Because each injection test was repeated to accommodate two different observation-packer configurations, two tests for each injection location from which to choose flow and pressure data for the single-borehole results were conducted. When graphed, the two are usually indistinguishable. Preference is given to the lower of the two if a difference can be discerned, because the higher value is likely caused by leaks in the packer sealing. Reported data consist of the acquisition filename, test location, time, date, channel or interval number, flow rate, ambient pressure, and steady-state injection pressure. The derived steady-state single-borehole permeability can be obtained using Equation (6-1). In air-permeability tests conducted to characterize the fracture heterogeneity of the test sites, permeability values were obtained from pressure changes and flow rates using the following modified Hvorslev's formula (LeCain 1995 [DIRS 101700], p. 10, Equation 15): ( )sc f w sc sc T P P L T r L Q P k 2 1 2 2 ln - . .. . . .. . = p µ (Eq. 6-1)2 where: k = permeability, m2. Psc = standard pressure, Pa. Qsc = flow-rate at standard conditions, m3/s. µ = dynamic viscosity of air, Pa·s. L = length of zone, m. rw = radius of bore, m. 2 The solution is derived for a steady-state ellipsoidal flow field around a finite line source. If the length L in the natural logarithm term in Equation 6-1 is replaced by an external radius Re, this formula is identical to the cylindrical flow solution with an ambient constant pressure boundary at the external radius (Muskat 1982 [DIRS 134132], p. 734). This replacement is used in Section 6.2.2.1 to estimate permeability for post-excavation liquid flow paths from the borehole interval to the niche ceiling. Note that “ln” is the natural logarithm. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-22 November 2004 Tf = temperature of formation, K. P2 = injection zone pressure at steady-state, Pa. P1 = ambient pressure, Pa. Tsc = standard temperature, K. In this calculation, standard pressure is 1.013 × 105 Pa (one atmosphere). The dynamic viscosity of air used is 1.78 × 10-5 Pa·s. Temperature contributions to Equation 6-1 are negligible, with Tf approximately equal to Tsc for ambient-temperature testing conditions. See Appendix Section I3 for details pertaining to how this calculation was performed. Two approximations are used in calculating permeability using Equation 6-1. The Hvorslev’s formula requires that air behave as an ideal gas. This requirement is approximately true at the ambient temperatures and pressures used in the air-permeability tests. In addition, a finite line source is used to represent a borehole injection interval. This representation is applied to the borehole injection interval, where all airflow is approximated to be in the radial direction (none in the axial direction). This is justified because in the air-permeability tests, the length of injection zone was 0.3048 m and the radius of the borehole was 0.0381 m. The injection zone is a long, thin cylinder. Flows along axial directions were blocked by packers, and occurrences of packer leaks were monitored by pressures in adjacent borehole intervals, as described in Appendix A. Although the fractured tuff of the niches is not a homogeneous or infinite medium, the Hvorslev equation provides a consistent method of calculating effective permeabilities on the scale of the injection interval, enabling comparison of the test results for various injection locations. Because the heterogeneity of the surrounding medium is not known a priori, the permeabilities calculated by analytic formula are estimates of effective values around the injection borehole intervals. The results of the air-permeability tests are used to characterize the heterogeneity of the medium of niche sites and test beds. Another requirement of this approach is that airflows are mainly through fractures and governed by Darcy's law. Darcy's law is used to relate flux to pressure gradients (Bear 1972 [DIRS 156269]). The justification for this is that: under the ambient unsaturated conditions in fractured tuff at Yucca Mountain, capillary forces confine the liquid mainly to the matrix. This leaves the fracture network, which is more permeable than the tuff matrix, available for gas flow. Deviations from Darcy’s law may result either from turbulent flow or from the gas slip-flow phenomenon (Klinkenberg 1942 [DIRS 106105]), but neither of these effects is considered significant. Slip flow is significant only in pores with dimensions similar to the mean free path of air molecules (Bear 1972 [DIRS 156269]). Apertures of the fractures in Yucca Mountain are much larger than the molecular mean free path. Pressure drop is proportional to flow rate in laminar flow, which is required for Darcy's law, but not in turbulent flow (Bear 1972 [DIRS 156269]). These experiments were conducted at multiple flow rates to detect any evidence of deviation from Darcy’s law due to turbulence, and none was found. Finally, small effects potentially associated with movement of residual water within the fractures and the multirate approach to check packer leak-by and other nonlinear effects (e.g., turbulence) are discussed in Appendix A, Section A4. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-23 November 2004 6.1.2.2 Permeability Profiles All boreholes at niches as illustrated in Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 are nominally 10 m long and 0.0762 m in diameter. Those in Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 were nominally 15 m long and 0.0762 m in diameter. The boreholes were dry-drilled with compressed air to remove drill cuttings. Both the packer length and the test interval length are 0.3 m in all cases. Additional details pertaining to equipment configuration and test execution are provided in Appendix A. Whereas most of the niches were excavated so as to preserve certain boreholes surrounding them (in order to remeasure the air permeability in these holes after excavation), Alcove 8 was constructed for other purposes and only later adapted for air-permeability testing; consequently, no pre-excavation air permeabilities are available. 6.1.2.2.1 Pre- and Post-Excavation Permeability Profiles Permeability profiles along boreholes at the five niches show the permeability value from each test interval, plotted against the location of the middle of the test interval (also referred to as “test zone”). Figure 6-8 illustrates three Niche 1 (Niche 3566) permeability profiles along the upper, middle, and bottom boreholes, which are parallel to the niche axis. The air-permeability tests were conducted before niche excavation. Niche 1 (Niche 3566), the first niche excavated in the ESF, is located in the vicinity of the Sundance fault. All three boreholes penetrated brecciated zones in the last one-third of their lengths, with broken rock pieces preventing packer insertion beyond this depth. A wet feature within a brecciated zone was observed at the end of this niche, right after completion of dry excavation (Wang et al. 1999 [DIRS 106146], p. 331, Figure (4c)). The width of the wet feature is comparable to the borehole-interval length of 0.3 m, used in the air-permeability tests (this section) and liquid-release seepage tests (Section 6.2). After niche excavation, six additional horizontal boreholes were drilled from the inside of Niche 1 (Niche 3566), fanning out radially in different directions. Only two radial boreholes were tested and analyzed in Niche 1 (Niche 3566); this niche was sealed for moisture monitoring after testing the two radial boreholes, and additional air-permeability and seepage testing in this niche was deferred. The permeability profiles for two radial boreholes on the left side of the niche are illustrated in Figure 6-9. These boreholes also penetrated brecciated zones. The absence of data from the deeper portion of one of the boreholes in Figure 6-9 is related to the intrinsic difficulties of brecciated zone testing due to poor borehole conditions, which prevent the maintenance of a proper seal (see also Appendix Section A4 for a discussion of issues pertaining to packer leak-by in testing). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-24 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 upper a) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 middle b) Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). Figure 6-8. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Axial Boreholes at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-25 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 bottom c) NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). Figure 6-8. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Axial Boreholes at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) (Continued) Figure 6-10 illustrates both the pre- and post-excavation permeability profiles along three upper boreholes at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). On all the plots with both pre- and post-excavation data, a line is drawn through the profiles to indicate the geometric average of each (see Appendix Section I1 for calculations). This mean includes only intervals that were tested in common both before and after excavation. The permeability increases could be interpreted as the opening of pre-existing fractures induced by stress releases associated with niche excavation (Wang and Elsworth 1999 [DIRS 104366], pp. 751 to 757). The niches were excavated using an Alpine Miner (a mechanical device with a rotary head), as opposed to drilling and blasting, to cut the rocks below the upper-level boreholes, to minimize potential effects on permeability from excavation-induced damages and fracturing. Intervals with high pre-excavation permeability recorded the smallest post-excavation permeability changes. In additional to mechanical effects, some of the permeability increases can be related to the intersection of previously dead-ended fractures with the excavated free surface. For borehole intervals, beyond the extent of the niche excavation, the permeability values are less altered. Figure 6-11 illustrates the pre-excavation permeability profiles of the other four boreholes. The middle- and bottom-level boreholes were available for air-injection testing only before niche excavation, because they were subsequently removed by excavation. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-26 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 R6 a) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 R1 b) Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). Figure 6-9. Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Radial Boreholes at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-27 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UM PRE UM PRE ga UM POST UM POST ga a) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UL PRE UL PRE ga UL POST UL POST ga b) Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. NOTE: “ga” is the geometric average. In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). NOTE: Tested borehole intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. Figure 6-10. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-28 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UR PRE UR PRE ga UR POST UR POST ga bc) Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. NOTES: “ga” is the geometric average. In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. Figure 6-10. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) (Continued) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-29 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 ML a) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 MR b) Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). Figure 6-11. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-30 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 BL c) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 BR d) Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. NOTE: In DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], a zone number, rather than the actual position in the borehole, is reported. Zone 1 is centered at 0.5 m, and each successive zone is 0.3 m further into the borehole (e.g., zone 2 is centered at 0.8 m). Figure 6-11. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) (Continued) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-32 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UM PRE UM PRE ga UM POST UM POST ga b) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UR PRE UR PRE ga UR POST UR POST ga c) Source: DTNs: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593] for pre-excavation data, LB990601233124.001 [DIRS 105888] for post-excavation data. NOTE: Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. Figure 6-12. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) (Continued) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-33 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 ML a) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 MR b) Source: DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593]. Figure 6-13. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-34 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 B1.5 c) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 B2.5 d) Source: DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593]. Figure 6-13. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) (Continued) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-35 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UL PRE UL PRE ga UL POST UL POST ga a) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UM PRE UM PRE ga UM POST UM POST ga b) Source: DTNs: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593] for pre-excavation data, LB990601233124.001 [DIRS 105888] for post-excavation data. NOTE: Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. Figure 6-14. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-36 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UR PRE UR PRE ga UR POST UR POST ga c) Source: DTNs: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593] for pre-excavation data, LB990601233124.001 [DIRS 105888] for post-excavation data. NOTE: Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. Figure 6-14. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) (Continued) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-37 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 ML a) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 B1.5 b) Source: DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593]. NOTE: Two or more measurements were made at each position. The least value of calculated permeability is reported here as being the most likely to be unaffected by leak-by. Figure 6-15. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-38 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 B2.5 c) Source: DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593]. NOTE: Two or more measurements were made at each position. The least value of calculated permeability is reported here as being the most likely to be unaffected by leak-by. Figure 6-15. Pre-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Middle and Bottom Boreholes at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) (Continued) At Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), measurements taken before and after excavation at the inner niche area and alongside the outer niche area allowed comparison of excavation effects on permeability profiles for boreholes situated above the excavation versus those situated alongside the excavation. Profiles were taken of Borehole UL, Borehole UM, and Borehole ML over the inner niche area both before and after the inner niche excavation, as illustrated in Figure 6-16. (From all boreholes drilled above the niche, only Boreholes UL, UM, and ML were testable; all other boreholes were blocked by borehole debris.) Similarly, the AK borehole closest to the proposed niche wall became blocked close to the collar before any measurements could be taken. The other two, AK2 and AK3, were successfully profiled with air-k measurements at 0.3-m intervals. After excavation of the outer niche, the AK boreholes were again profiled. In Figure 6-17, comparison of the profiles of the two AK boreholes does not show as significant a change as the comparison of the profiles of the boreholes above the niche in Figure 6-16. For the overhead boreholes, certain borehole sections change permeability more than others do, whereas the change in the geometric average (subscript “ga” in figures in this report) for the AK boreholes alongside the excavation is smaller than it is for the overhead boreholes. Although the Borehole UL and the Borehole AK2 are roughly the same distance from their respective mined surfaces of the niche, they show a marked difference in the change of the geometric average of permeability. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-39 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UL PRE UL PRE ga UL POST UL POST ga a) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 UM PRE UM PRE ga UM POST UM POST ga b) Source: DTNs: LB0012AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 154586] for pre-excavation data; LB0110AKN5POST.001 [DIRS 156904] for post-excavation data. Figure 6-16. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-40 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 ML PRE ML PRE ga ML POST ML POST ga c) Source: DTNs: LB0012AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 154586] for pre-excavation data; LB0110AKN5POST.001 [DIRS 156904] for post-excavation data. Figure 6-16. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along Upper Boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (Continued) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-41 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 AK2 PRE AK2 PRE ga AK2 POST AK2 POST ga a) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 AK3 PRE AK3 PRE ga AK3 POST AK3 POST ga b) Source: DTNs: LB002181233124.001 [DIRS 146878]; LB0110AK23POST.001 [DIRS 156905]. NOTE: Tested intervals are 0.3 m long; plotted position is at beginning of tested interval. Figure 6-17. Pre- and Post-Excavation Air-Permeability Profiles along AK Side Boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-42 November 2004 6.1.2.2.2 Vertical Permeability Profiles Near-vertical borehole air-permeability profile data were collected in Alcove 8. Figure 6-18 (Panels a to f) shows the permeability as a function of depth for each of the boreholes drilled from the invert of Alcove 8. All boreholes have local peaks and sections of relatively uniform permeabilities along their depths, and high permeabilities toward the bottom. Borehole 1, Borehole 3, and Borehole 4 exhibit relatively long sections of low permeability, followed by a 3 to 5 order-of-magnitude increase starting at approximately 6 m for Borehole 5, 10 m for Borehole 3, and 8 m for Borehole 4. These permeability increases could be locally associated with the Tptpul-Tptpmn interface which is approximately midway between Alcove 8 and Niche 107 (Niche 3), as discussed in Section 6.12.1.2 on the geometry and in Section 6.12.3 on the results of geophysical imaging of the drift-to-drift test bed. 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 borehole 5 a) Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. Figure 6-18. Air-Permeability Profiles along Boreholes Drilled from in Alcove 8 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-43 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 borehole 4 b) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 borehole 2 c) Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. Figure 6-18. Air-Permeability Profiles along Boreholes Drilled from in Alcove 8 (Continued) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-44 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m 2 borehole 3 d) 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 borehole 1 e) Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. Figure 6-18. Air-Permeability Profiles down Boreholes in Alcove 8 (Continued) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-45 November 2004 1.E-15 1.E-14 1.E-13 1.E-12 1.E-11 1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 position in borehole (meters) Permeability m2 borehole 6 f) Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. Figure 6-18. Air-Permeability Profiles down Boreholes in Alcove 8 (Continued) 6.1.2.3 Permeability Change as a Function of Initial Permeability The plots presented in this section highlight the difference in the character of borehole permeability changes (caused by nearby excavation). The post-excavation permeability for a particular interval in a borehole, divided by the pre-excavation permeability for the same interval in a borehole, is the interval change ratio caused by excavation. A plot of the logarithmic change ratio versus the logarithm of the pre-excavation permeability shows a dependence of the change on the initial value. Figure 6-19 and Figure 6-20 show the changes for three of the overhead boreholes and two of the side boreholes, respectively, that were tested at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (see Appendix Section I4 for details on ratio, trend, and slope calculations). The data for the overhead boreholes support the notion that the initially low permeability zones change the most. For the side boreholes (with borehole designation AK), however, the trend is weaker, and they can be divided into a small population of intervals with strong change dependency, and a larger population with no dependency. Initial permeabilities were evenly distributed in both populations. Change ratios for the pre- and post-excavation testing previously undertaken at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) (all in overhead boreholes) are shown in Figure 6-21, Figure 6-22, and Figure 6-23, respectively. The change-ratio plots for these niches in the middle nonlithophysal zone of TSw show stronger correlation between initial permeability and the change ratio. Additionally, from the geometric averages in the profile plots, it can be seen that all these middle nonlithophysal niches show a larger average excavation effect than the boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in the lower lithophysal zone of the TSw. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-46 November 2004 Niche CD 1620 Permeability Change R2 = 0.1109 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 Log Initial Permeability (m2) Log Change Ratio ML UL UM Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. Figure 6-19. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Overhead Boreholes Niche CD 1620 AK Holes Permeability Change R2 = 0.1713 -1 0 1 2 3 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 Log Initial Permeability (m2) Log Change Ratio AK2 AK3 Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. Figure 6-20. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) AK Boreholes In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-47 November 2004 Niche 3650 Permeability Change R2 = 0.1244 -1 0 1 2 3 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 Log Initial Permeability (m2) Log Change Ratio UL UM UR Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. Figure 6-21. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Niche 3107 Permeability Change R2 = 0.1597 -1 0 1 2 3 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 Log Initial Permeability (m2) Log Change Ratio UL UM UR Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. Figure 6-22. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 3 (Niche 3107) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-48 November 2004 Niche 4788 Permeability Change R2 = 0.1587 -1 0 1 2 3 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 Log Initial Permeability (m2) Log Change Ratio UL UM UR MR Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. Figure 6-23. Change-Ratio Plot for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) 6.1.2.4 Statistical Summary of Air-Permeability Distributions The air-permeability measurement is one of the most effective methods to quantify the natural variability of unsaturated fractured rocks (Cook 2000 [DIRS 165411]). Table 6-2 summarizes the average (arithmetic and geometric) values, standard deviations, and ranges of variations in pre- and post-excavation permeability of individual boreholes and of whole niche sites (see Appendix Section I1 for calculations). Also included are the averages, deviations, and ranges of interval change ratios for individual boreholes and whole niches. (The ratios are calculated from the pre- and post-excavation permeability values for each interval before the statistical analyses.) Table 6-3 shows similar data for the overhead boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). Table 6-4 shows this data for the side holes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). For assessing the excavation-induced impacts, the analyses in Table 6-2, Table 6-3, and Table 6-4 incorporate retested boreholes only. Drift-scale variations along boreholes and between different boreholes within the same niche test site are larger than differences between different sites. Table 6-5 shows the statistics from the single data set for Alcove 8. Variability among intervals within boreholes in this case straddles that for the whole site. In addition, Alcove 8 shows the largest range of values of any site yet tested. Table 6-6 summarizes the geometric means and standard deviations of all clusters of boreholes tested in the ESF as a function of site location and rock type. The permeability values from the excavated boreholes are included in these averaging results. Pre-excavation (log-geometric) means and standard deviations were derived from averaging permeability data from all available boreholes in each niche or alcove cluster. The middle- and lower-level boreholes supplement the upper boreholes to characterize the three-dimensional (3-D) space in the test beds, and locate flow paths during pre-excavation conditions. After excavation with only upper boreholes in a horizontal plane remaining, the air-permeability tests can characterize only the zones above the niche ceilings.) Because the pre-excavation holes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) are the same set as those for post-excavation testing, both types of tests are included for this case. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-49 November 2004 Each borehole cluster has a distinct air-permeability character. The spatial variability in permeability is considerable at the borehole-interval scale of 0.3 m before averaging the data over the 10 m scale along the boreholes and the 100 m3 volume, i.e., obtaining averages for borehole clusters (3 to 7 boreholes). Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 1 (Niche 3566) each have a “radial” entry in the table, which indicates boreholes that are drilled from inside the niches after excavation. Permeability values from these Niche 3 (Niche 3107) boreholes (profiles not shown) vary little from those of the pre-excavation boreholes, indicative of the uniformity of the formation around Niche 3 (Niche 3107). In the case of Niche 1 (Niche 3566), however, the radial boreholes that were tested ran through the brecciated zone within the niche wall, and thus exhibited higher permeability than that of the pre-excavation boreholes. The results for the borehole cluster at Alcove 8 show the highest standard deviation, which may be a result of the traversal of the contact (by the boreholes). The entries in Table 6-6 for Alcove 4 and Alcove 6 are included for completeness, and will be discussed in Section 6.5. Standard deviation from the statistical analysis is a measure of variability, also referred to as aleatory uncertainty, for natural randomness or heterogeneity [as discussed in Section 6 and in Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative Conceptual Models, Model Abstractions and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158794])]. ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-50 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes Table 6-2. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes above Niches 2, 3, and 4 Borehole Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Pre- Excavation Post- Excavation Post/Pre Ratio a Pre- Excavation Post- Excavation Post/Pre Ratio a Pre- Excavation Post- Excavation Post/Pre Ratio a Geometric Mean UL 7.26E-14 2.09E-12 20.75 2.22E-14 4.55E-13 20.51 1.41E-13 1.07E-12 7.62 UM 4.29E-14 1.64E-12 33.29 5.81E-14 4.82E-13 8.72 1.81E-13 2.56E-12 11.09 UR 4.27E-14 1.01E-12 23.56 3.32E-14 2.64E-13 8.94 6.27E-14 6.27E-13 9.42 All 3 5.07E-14 1.51E-12 25.38 3.50E-14 3.87E-13 11.69 1.05E-13 1.20E-12 9.42 Arithmetic Mean UL 8.59E-12 2.98E-11 47.06 8.12E-14 1.46E-12 135.48 2.82E-13 2.07E-12 14.28 UM 1.01E-12 7.78E-12 72.98 1.14E-13 1.55E-12 21.36 8.59E-13 6.19E-12 26.43 UR 1.27E-13 4.59E-12 53.62 1.14E-13 1.04E-12 30.95 4.42E-13 3.79E-12 45.09 All 3 3.24E-12 1.40E-11 57.89 1.03E-13 1.35E-12 62.60 5.05E-13 3.99E-12 28.55 Minimum Value UL 1.86E-15 1.45E-14 0.67 1.44E-15 2.90E-15 1.06 9.16E-15 3.57E-14 0.67 UM 5.40E-15 9.88E-14 1.19 4.10E-15 1.24E-14 0.43 8.99E-15 6.56E-14 1.64 UR 1.53E-15 3.02E-15 1.01 1.43E-15 3.72E-15 0.63 8.01E-15 1.98E-14 0.24 All 3 1.53E-15 3.02E-15 0.67 1.43E-15 2.90E-15 0.43 8.01E-15 1.98E-14 0.24 Maximum Value UL 1.27E-10 7.15E-10 271.15 5.32E-13 7.99E-12 1229.23 1.15E-12 8.44E-12 51.54 UM 2.28E-11 1.01E-10 427.91 5.15E-13 1.40E-11 153.02 3.56E-12 2.50E-11 110.52 UR 8.07E-13 4.66E-11 310.67 8.06E-13 5.80E-12 184.13 3.83E-12 2.51E-11 386.90 All 3 1.27E-10 7.15E-10 427.91 8.06E-13 1.40E-11 1229.23 3.83E-12 2.51E-11 386.90 Range of Log UL 4.83 4.69 2.61 2.57 3.44 3.06 2.10 2.37 1.89 UM 3.63 3.01 2.56 2.10 3.05 2.55 2.60 2.58 1.83 UR 2.72 4.19 2.49 2.75 3.19 2.47 2.68 3.10 3.21 All 3 4.92 5.38 2.80 2.75 3.68 3.45 2.68 3.10 3.21 ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-51 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes Table 6-2. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes above Niches 2, 3, and 4 (Continued) Borehole Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Pre- Excavation Post- Excavation Post/Pre Ratio a Pre- Excavation Post- Excavation Post/Pre Ratio a Pre- Excavation Post- Excavation Post/Pre Ratio a Std. Dev. of Log UL 1.18 0.84 0.69 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.57 0.54 UM 0.80 0.70 0.62 0.57 0.71 0.61 0.95 0.70 0.58 UR 0.73 1.05 0.66 0.79 0.90 0.74 0.85 0.94 0.84 All 3 0.93 0.88 0.66 0.74 0.82 0.75 0.79 0.78 0.67 Source(s): Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Pre- and Post-Excavation DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]. Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Pre-Excavation DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593], Post Excavation DTN: LB990601233124.001 [DIRS 105888]. Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Pre-Excavation DTN: LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593], Post-Excavation DTN: LB990601233124.001 [DIRS 105888]. Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001 [Summary]. a The post/pre ratio is the ratio of post-excavation to pre-excavation permeabilities. This ratio was calculated for each interval in each borehole. Values reported are the statistical measures (maximum, minimum, mean, etc.) of all post/pre ratios calculated for each borehole. Where more than one measurement of permeability was made at a position, the least value is used in averaging. UL = Upper Left; UM = Upper Middle; UR = Upper Right. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-52 November 2004 Table 6-3. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes above Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Overhead Borehole Pre-Excavation Post-Excavation Post/Pre Ratio a Geometric Mean ML 1.23E-11 2.14E-11 1.75 UL 5.54E-12 5.48E-11 9.89 UM 2.40E-12 3.32E-12 1.38 All 3 3.88E-12 9.19E-12 2.37 Arithmetic Mean ML 7.88E-11 5.15E-11 2.93 UL 1.75E-11 5.90E-10 22.75 UM 7.58E-11 4.90E-10 17.84 All 3 6.14E-11 4.44E-10 16.65 Minimum ML 1.06E-12 3.30E-12 0.11 UL 1.46E-13 1.19E-12 0.74 UM 9.28E-15 4.82E-14 2.26E-03 All 3 9.28E-15 4.82E-14 2.26E-03 Maximum ML 2.86E-10 1.82E-10 7.33 UL 4.53E-11 4.03E-09 115.10 UM 1.19E-09 9.51E-09 354.12 All 3 1.19E-09 9.51E-09 354.12 Log of Range ML 2.43 1.74 1.82 UL 2.49 3.53 2.19 UM 5.11 5.30 5.19 All 3 5.11 5.30 5.19 Std. Dev of Log ML 1.03 0.63 0.57 UL 0.87 1.22 0.63 UM 1.25 1.25 1.19 All 3 1.14 1.27 1.04 Source: DTNs: LB0012AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 154586] for pre-excavation data; LB0110AKN5POST.001 [DIRS 156904] for post-excavation data. a The post/pre ratio is the ratio of post-excavation to pre-excavation permeabilities. This ratio was calculated for each interval in each borehole. Values reported are the statistical measures (maximum, minimum, mean, etc.) of all post/pre ratios calculated for each borehole. Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-53 November 2004 Table 6-4. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes alongside Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Side Borehole Pre-Excavation Post-Excavation Post/Pre Ratio Geometric Mean AK2 3.28E-12 5.41E-12 1.65 AK3 3.98E-12 8.81E-12 2.22 Both 3.61E-12 6.90E-12 1.91 Arithmetic Mean AK2 1.09E-11 1.58E-11 5.79 AK3 9.00E-12 1.50E-11 18.53 Both 9.93E-12 1.54E-11 12.16 Minimum AK2 4.01E-14 3.44E-14 0.86 AK3 1.46E-13 1.19E-12 0.84 Both 4.01E-14 3.44E-14 0.84 Maximum AK2 5.14E-11 5.88E-11 95.51 AK3 3.01E-11 3.40E-11 363.64 Both 5.14E-11 5.88E-11 363.64 Range of Log AK2 3.11 3.23 2.05 AK3 2.51 2.45 2.64 Both 3.11 3.23 2.64 Std Dev of Log AK2 0.82 0.83 0.44 AK3 0.72 0.61 0.61 Both 0.77 0.73 0.53 Source: DTNs: LB002181233124.001 [DIRS 146878] for pre-excavation data; LB0110AK23POST.001 [DIRS 156905] for post-excavation data. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-54 November 2004 Table 6-5. Summary Statistics of Air Permeability (m2) from Boreholes under Alcove 8 Alcove 8 Borehole Geometric Mean Arithmetic Mean BH1 1.76E-13 1.71E-10 BH2 6.41E-14 3.48E-13 BH3 1.33E-14 3.55E-13 BH4 6.29E-14 2.44E-10 BH5 5.11E-14 4.93E-13 BH6 1.11E-12 4.19E-11 All 6 8.67E-14 7.52E-11 Borehole Minimum Maximum BH1 4.72E-15 3.17E-09 BH2 4.83E-15 5.46E-12 BH3 3.61E-15 5.28E-12 BH4 4.45E-15 6.25E-09 BH5 3.60E-15 7.06E-12 BH6 1.48E-14 1.13E-09 All 6 3.60E-15 6.25E-09 Borehole Range of log Std Dev of log BH1 5.83 1.51 BH2 3.05 0.83 BH3 3.17 0.89 BH4 6.15 1.46 BH5 3.29 0.98 BH6 4.88 1.20 All 6 6.24 1.29 Source: DTN: LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748]. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-55 November 2004 Table 6-6. Comparison of Geometric Means and Standard Deviations of Niches and Alcoves in the Exploratory Studies Facility at Yucca Mountain log(k) (m2) Borehole Cluster Comment/Type of Site Mean Standard Deviation Niche 1 (Niche 3566) Pre-Excavation Intersects brecciated zone -13.0 0.92 Niche 1 (Niche 3566) Radial Predominantly within brecciated zone -11.8 0.66 Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Pre-Excavation Moderately fractured welded tuff -13.4 0.81 Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Post-Excavation Post-excavation welded tuff -11.8 0.88 Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Pre-Excavation Moderately fractured welded tuff -13.4 0.70 Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Post-Excavation Post-excavation welded tuff -12.4 0.82 Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Radial Moderately fractured welded tuff -13.8 0.92 Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Pre-Excavation Highly fractured welded tuff -13.0 0.85 Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Post-Excavation Post-excavation welded tuff -11.9 0.78 Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Pre-Excavation side Lithophysal cavities; holes on side of excavation -11.4 0.77 Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Post-Excavation side Lithophysal cavities; holes on side of excavation -11.2 0.73 Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Pre-Excavation overhead Lithophysal cavities; holes above excavation -11.4 1.14 Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Post-Excavation overhead Lithophysal cavities; holes above excavation -11.0 1.27 Alcove 4 Discrete faulted and fractured non-welded tuff -13.0 0.93 Alcove 6 Highly fractured post-excavation welded tuff -11.9 0.67 Alcove 8 Transition from upper lithophysal to welded fractured nonlithophysal in near-vertical boreholes -13.1 1.29 Source: DTNs: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155], LB980901233124.101 [DIRS 136593], LB990601233124.001 [DIRS 105888], LB980901233124.004 [DIRS 105855], LB980901233124.009 [DIRS 105856], LB980912332245.001 [DIRS 110828], LB0302ALC8AIRK.001 [DIRS 164748], LB0012AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 154586], LB002181233124.001 [DIRS 146878], LB0110AK23POST.001 [DIRS 156905], LB0110AKN5POST.001 [DIRS 156904]. Summary: DTN: LB990901233124.004 [DIRS 123273] (enhanced with Niche CD 1620 [Niche 5] and Alcove 8 results). CD = Enhanced Characterization of Repository Block Cross-Drift. 6.2 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE NICHE LIQUID-RELEASE AND SEEPAGE-TEST DATA The ESF Drift Seepage Test and Niche Moisture Study (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]) characterize the seepage process and further the understanding of how moisture could seep into drifts. Specific objectives of the study were: • To measure in situ hydrologic properties of the repository host rock for use in Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]) and Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167652]). • To provide a database of liquid-release and seepage data that could be used to validate models of seepage and other related UZ processes. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-56 November 2004 • To evaluate drift-scale seepage processes to quantify the extent to which seepage is excluded from entering an underground cavity. • To determine the seepage threshold below which percolating water does not seep into a drift. The objectives of the study are realized through a combination of field experiments, including air-injection, liquid-release, and seepage tests. Analytic solutions are used in the data analyses presented in this section to estimate the seepage thresholds, capillary barrier strengths, water-potential values, and characteristic relationships along seepage flow paths. Local homogeneity is the main approximation in the analytic solutions used in estimating the air-permeability values and liquid seepage flow field. Numerical models have been formulated in the model report Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]) to evaluate the effects of spatial heterogeneity on the effective seepage parameters, with the heterogeneity field based on the air-permeability distribution (described in Section 6.1). The seepage calibration model is the basis for other model reports in estimating the seepage fraction and distribution over the waste-emplacement drifts. The downstream model reports include Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167652]) and Abstraction of Drift Seepage (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169131]). Early results were based on short-duration releases of small amounts of water (on the order of one liter) above Niche 2 (Niche 3650), leading to limited coverage of the fracture network involved in flow diversion around the opening. Moreover, the seepage amount is likely affected by storage effects, which are insignificant for the prediction of long-term seepage behavior. These short-duration tests (originally designed to simulate the arrivals of episodic percolation events through fast flow paths into ventilated drifts), do not provide the data sets needed by the seepage calibration model and other PA models. In order to address this issue, later tests in Niche 3 (Niche 3107), Niche 4 (Niche 4788) and Niche 5 (Niche 1620) were redesigned as long-duration liquid-release test. 6.2.1 Review of Data Obtained from Liquid-Release and Seepage Tests Conducted at Niches This section provides a general overview of the tests, including field activities performed before, during, and after the niches were excavated. 6.2.1.1 Pre-Excavation Liquid-Release Test Data Before seepage tests in excavated niches were conducted, the niche test sites are characterized by air-permeability tests (Section 6.1) and by pre-excavation liquid-release tests discussed in this section. The pre-excavation liquid-release tests introduced a finite amount of dyed water to characterize the flow paths within the niche space. The main objective is to determine the relative strength between the gravity force that moves the liquid downward and the capillary forces that tend to spread the liquid laterally. The flow paths were subsequently characterized during niche excavation (Section 6.2.1.2). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-57 November 2004 Hundreds of air-injection tests were conducted in the boreholes at niche sites before excavation. The test results were used to determine the distribution of single-borehole air permeabilities within the rock mass (see Section 6.1). These data were then used to select test intervals for subsequent liquid-release tests. Both high and low permeability intervals were selected for liquid-release tests. Liquid-release tests were conducted in the same boreholes as the air-injection tests by pumping water containing colored or fluorescent dyes at a constant rate into various 0.3-m-long test intervals (for a description of the testing equipment, see discussion of Figure 6-39 in Section 6.2.1.3.5.2). A finite amount of dye-spiked water, typically 1 L, was introduced into each test interval. The water was introduced slowly to minimize buildup of fluid pressure in the test interval. Various colored and fluorescent tracers were used during the study to document the flow paths traveled by the wetting front. For the remainder of this section, the term “water” will be used to describe the test fluid, which may or may not have contained a tracer. Pre-excavation liquid-release tests were performed during early June and early August 1997, in boreholes installed before the excavation of Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650), respectively. Pre-excavation liquid-release tests were performed at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788), starting in late April and late June 1998, respectively. Pre-excavation liquid-release tests were also performed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in the lower lithophysal zone in April 2000. The data from these pre-excavation tests, including the mass of water released, pumping rates and times, and liquid-release rates, were tabulated and entered into the TDMS, and assigned DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] for Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650); DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] for Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788); and DTN: LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 155681] for Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). The tables include directly measured mass, pumping rates, return flow rates, and derived quantities of average liquid release rates from the differences of the measured rates. 6.2.1.2 Niche Excavation Activities The niches were excavated with an Alpine Miner, a mechanical device, using minimal water in order to observe and photograph the distribution of fractures and dye within the welded tuff. As reported in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583], dye was observed along individual fractures as well as along intersecting fractures to depths within the range of 0 to 2.6 m below the liquid-release points at the Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) sites. Dye was observed at a maximum depth of approximately 1.2 m below the release point at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and approximately 1.8 m at Niche 4 (Niche 4788), as reported in DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. Dye was observed at a maximum depth of approximately 1.4 m below the release point at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), as reported in DTN: LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 155681]. (In this report, if a given DTN consists of multiple files, the DTN and data report table name are both identified.) Flow of water through a relatively undisturbed fracture-matrix system was documented in this manner. During the mining operation at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650), two types of flow paths were observed in the field, based on the observed pattern of dye: (1) flow through individual or small groups of high-angle fractures; and (2) flow through several interconnected In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-58 November 2004 low- and high-angle fractures, creating a fracture network. Dye was observed along individual fractures and fracture networks to a maximum depth of 2.6 m below the release points in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the TSw. The vertically elongated dye pattern suggests that water is predominantly flowing downwards. In contrast, an approximately spherical dye pattern (centered at the release point) was observed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), located in the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the TSw. Dye was observed in fractures and lithophysal cavities to a maximum depth of 1.4 m. In comparison to the experiments performed in the middle nonlithophysal unit, the dye patterns observed in Niche 5 were more symmetric, with the lateral edges of the wetted area lying approximately equal distance from the release point. Figure 6-24 compares examples of flow paths observed in the Tptpmn at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) with dye patterns observed in the Tptpll at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (See Section 6.1.2.2.1 for the observation of a damp feature included in the figure). The observed damp feature and the dye patterns suggest that flow through fractures in the Tptpmn is predominately gravity-driven. In contrast, the symmetry of the dye patterns observed in the Tptpll suggests that capillary forces may be more important in this zone. Dye was observed in numerous lithophysal cavities in the Tptpll. No direct field evidence exists showing that water accumulated and dripped into the cavities, even though the liquid-release fluxes applied during the test were 1,000 times greater than the natural flux, estimated at 10 mm/year. No dye stains on the ceiling were observed to line up directly above stains on the floor of the cavities. An example of dye observed on the floor of a lithophysal cavity is illustrated in Panel (d) of Figure 6-24, suggesting capillary-induced upward fluid movement is a likely mechanism to introduce fluid into the cavity. Capillary forces appear to be stronger in the Tptpll despite the fact that the average air permeability of the Tptpll is greater than that of the Tptpmn. Typically, capillary forces are less important in higher-permeability media than in lower-permeability materials. This may indicate that the air-permeability measurements performed in the Tptpll are influenced by the lithophysal cavities, which may connect relatively large fractures with smaller fractures, effectively contributing to the relatively strong capillarity. Note that some of the lithophysal cavities had a thick layer of drill cuttings (i.e., dust) coating their surfaces. This layer of dust could influence the flow patterns (as represented by the dye stain) and depth of wetting-front migration observed in the Tptpll. This dust was introduced into the cavities intersecting the borings when the boreholes were air-cored. The dust could act as a highly transmissive surface zone (compared to the rock matrix) that could enhance the uniform spread of the wetting front. The dust could also impede the movement of water and dye through the fractures by imbibing and retaining the moisture close to the point of release. In general, the maximum distance that the wetting front traveled through the Tptpmn from the point of injection to the furthest point of observation increased with the mass of water injected. The data did not show that the type of flow (i.e., network or vertical fracture flow) had any significant influence on the maximum travel distance. Figure 6-25 shows that on average, results of tests conducted in the Tptpmn are far more gravity-dominated (i.e., had a higher aspect ratio) than results of tests performed in the Tptpll. Computation of the aspect ratio was performed in the Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-1. The average line for Tptpll in In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-59 November 2004 Figure 6-25 is influenced by a single data point with a high aspect ratio [possibly associated with a fracture or fractures connected to the borehole (Trautz 2001 [DIRS 157022], p. 69). Without this data point, the average is much closer to 1 (i.e., the aspect ratio of a spherical pattern.) Sources: Wang et al. (1999 [DIRS 106146], Figures 4a, 4c); Trautz (2001 [DIRS 157022] pp. 79, 84). NOTES: (a) Naturally Occurring Wet Feature at Niche 1 (Niche 3566), (b) Blue-Dyed Flow Path at Niche 1 (Niche 3566), (c) Pink-Dyed Flow Path at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), (d) Pink Stain on the Floor of a Lithophysal Cavity at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). Figure 6-24. Photographic Illustrations of Flow Paths Observed During Niche Excavations In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-60 November 2004 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Mass of Liquid Released (g) Aspect Ratio (m/m) Niche 3107 - Tptpmn Niche 3566 - Tptpmn Niche 3650 - Tptpmn Niche 4788 - Tptpmn Niche CD1620 - Tptpll Ave. Tptpmn Ave. Tptpll Source: DTNs: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]; LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]; LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 155681]. Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. Figure 6-25. Mass of Water Released versus Aspect Ratio 6.2.1.3 Post-Excavation Seepage Tests A series of seepage tests was performed at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and Niche 4 (Niche 4788). In general, the tests were used to quantify the amount of water seeping into the drift from a localized water source of known duration and intensity. The tests were also used to establish the niche seepage-threshold (Ko*), defined as the largest flux of water that can be introduced into the test borehole without resulting in seepage into the niche. The borehole flux values were derived from the pumping rate and the wetted area estimated for the borehole interval (i.e., a cylindrical, wetted area). This is different from the horizontal reference plane used in the definition of the percolation flux. Therefore, the resulting definition of niche seepage threshold is different from the definition used for performance assessment, where the seepage threshold is related to the steady-state background percolation flux averaged over an approximately 5-m long section of a waste emplacement drift. After post-excavation air-permeability tests (described in Section 6.1), seepage tests were conducted by pumping water into select test intervals in Borehole UL, Borehole UM, and Borehole UR located above each niche. The distance from the test intervals to the niche ceiling is within the range of 0.58 to 1.23 m for all the niche sites. (Computation of the distance is inserted in an Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-2.) The tests were performed by sealing a short interval of borehole using an inflatable packer system, similar to the system used in the air-injection tests described in Appendix A. Any water that migrated from the borehole to the niche ceiling and dripped into the opening was captured and weighed. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-61 November 2004 For each packer interval, a liquid-return (overflow) line prevented buildup of excess pressure. If the liquid injection rate was higher than the release rate into the formation and return flow was observed, the liquid-release rate was determined by the difference between injection flow rate and return flow rate. The observation of return flows would indicate that the pumping rate exceeded the Ks of the fracture network around the borehole interval. (For tests with low liquid volume, and in cases of significant storage in the borehole interval, instances of no return flow did not imply that the pumping conditions represented unsaturated conditions.) While liquid-release tests in the open Niche 2 (Niche 3650) were conducted with semi-automated injection and manual seepage collection in an open niche, tests in Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were conducted in sealed niches and with evaporation controls, and tests in Niche 5 (Niche 1620) involved fully automated operation and control. Detailed descriptions of the lower lithophysal (Tptpll) Niche 5 tests are presented in Section 6.2.1.3.5.2. 6.2.1.3.1 Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Seepage-Test Data Forty niche seepage tests were performed on 16 test intervals positioned above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) beginning in late 1997 and ending in early 1998. Water migrated through the rock and seeped into the niche in 10 out of the 16 zones tested. The niche seepage threshold was determined for the 10 zones that seeped. Seepage and liquid-release data were tabulated and entered into the TDMS, where it was assigned DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]. The mass of water released to the formation was computed by mass balance. In turn, the liquid-release rate (Qs) for each test was computed by dividing the mass released by the respective duration of each test; thus, these values represent time-averaged rates. The rate at which water was released to the formation was in the range of 0.007 to 2.892 grams per second (g/s), and the total mass released was in the range of 274.5 to 5597.5 grams (g) per test, as summarized in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]. When water appeared at the niche ceiling during a test and dripped into the opening, it was collected in the capture system and weighed. Figure 6-26 shows the approximate location of the capture system and test intervals relative to the niche boundaries, and the sequence of dyes and number of tests performed on each test interval. The wetting front typically arrived at the niche ceiling directly below the test zone. Most of the water was typically captured in only one or two 0.3-m-by-0.3-m cells located directly beneath the test interval. In the immediate vicinity of locations where the niche ceiling and the conducting fractures intersect, the relative humidity could be high from local evaporation. However, the localized humid conditions were not met everywhere within the niche and/or the ESF main drift. Maintenance of high relative humidity conditions was important for long-term seepage tests, because the evaporation effects could have a substantial impact on the analysis of the seepage data, with models setting postemplacement high-humidity conditions in the seepage threshold estimation. The potential impact of evaporation effects is discussed in Section 6.7 of Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-62 November 2004 The mass of water captured was in the range of 0.0 to 568.6 g per test, as reported in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]. The niche seepage percentage is defined as the mass of water that dripped into the capture system, divided by the mass of water released to the rock: )" ( " )" ( " 100 g Released Mass g Captured Mass Percentage Seepage Niche × = (Eq. 6-2) The niche seepage percentage varied from 0 percent for zones that did not seep, to 56.2 percent for a predominantly gravity-driven flow through a highly saturated fracture (DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]). The niche seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) were conducted with release of relatively small amounts of liquid over short durations. Multiple tests were conducted in multiple borehole intervals. To address the model needs of steady-state data in controlled relative humidity conditions, the later tests in Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were conducted in selected borehole intervals with larger amounts of liquid over longer durations, as described in the following two sections.                                  !  "    #  $%& '  (   &   $   )"  "  * + ,-  . $ /#   . $ .* + /  0  / "&     $ &   1 2    "     "          3#45  #45  6 7 $ &  0   8  9   9 :  9  :  9  0& &+ 6 "    +    "&    #   5 ###   Figure 6-26. Schematic Illustration of Seepage Capture System and Test Intervals at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-63 November 2004 6.2.1.3.2 Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Seepage-Test Data Beginning in early 1999 and ending in late 1999, twelve niche seepage tests were performed on two test intervals positioned above Niche 3 (Niche 3107). Water migrated through the rock and seeped into the niche for one out of the two zones tested. The niche seepage threshold was determined for the zone that seeped. The seepage and liquid-release data were tabulated and entered into the TDMS, where it was assigned DTN: LB0010NICH3LIQ.001 [DIRS 153144]. The borehole flux values were derived from the pumping rate and the wetted area estimated for the borehole interval. As with Niche 2 (Niche 3650), the mass of water released to the formation was computed by a mass balance. The liquid release-rate (Qs) for each test was computed by dividing the mass released by the respective duration of each test; thus, these values represent time-averaged rates. The rate at which water was released to the formation was in the range of 0.014 to 0.102 g/s for all of the tests, and the mass released was in the range of 4229.5 to 23 831.4 g per test. The mass of seepage water captured in the niche was in the range of 0.0 to 15 715.1 g per test. The seepage percentage defined by Equation 6-2 varied from 0 percent (i.e., no seepage was observed), to 70.1 percent. The niche seepage tests were conducted with the bulkhead doors at the entrance to the niche closed and sealed. In addition, the air space within the niche was artificially humidified to increase the relative humidity as high as practical to minimize the effects of evaporation resulting from ESF ventilation. One open-faced water bath was placed inside the niche to freely supply moisture to the niche space. The water loss volume resulting from evaporation was used to estimate the average evaporation rate over the niche space. The test conditions (e.g., high humidity and low evaporation rates) are representative of steady seepage into a drift that could potentially occur after the repository is closed, the heat load and temperature rise from the decaying waste have dissipated, and air in the sealed repository equilibrates with the surrounding rock and is at, or near, 100-percent relative humidity. The relative humidity and temperature within Niche 3 (Niche 3107) is shown in Figure 6-27. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-64 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB0010NICH3LIQ.001 [DIRS 153144]. Figure 6-27. Relative Humidity and Temperature Inside Niche 3 (Niche 3107) 6.2.1.3.3 Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Seepage-Test Data Beginning in late 1999 and ending in mid-2000, 13 niche seepage tests were performed on three test intervals positioned above Niche 4 (Niche 4788). Water migrated through the rock and seeped into the niche from all zones tested. The niche seepage threshold was determined for two of the three zones that seeped. The seepage and liquid-release data were tabulated and entered into the TDMS, where it was assigned DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]. The borehole flux values for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were derived from the pumping rate and the wetted area estimated for the borehole interval. The long-duration data from Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were analyzed in Section 6.6 of the model report Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). The seepage calibration model analyzed the transient behavior, storage effects, and memory effects (which may occur in a series of tests) to determine the effective seepage parameters. The parameters were then used in the model report Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167652]) to determine the seepage threshold flux relative to percolation flux. The final input to TSPA-LA is evaluated in Abstraction of Drift Seepage (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169131]). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-65 November 2004 The rate at which water was released to the formation was in the range of 0.008 to 0.092 grams per second (g/s) for all of the tests, and the mass released was in the range of 1474.9 to 39 514.6 g per test. The mass of seepage water captured in the niche was in the range of 0.0 to 15 555.1 g per test. The niche seepage percentage defined by Equation 6-2 was within the range of 0 percent to 68.7 percent. Again, the seepage tests were conducted with the bulkhead doors at the entrance to the niche closed and sealed, and the air space within the niche artificially humidified to minimize evaporation. Figure 6-28 shows the relative humidity and temperature inside of Niche 4. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 10/17/99 11/14/99 12/12/99 1/9/00 2/6/00 3/5/00 4/2/00 4/30/00 5/28/00 Date Relative Humidity (%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Temperature (C) Relative Humidity (%) Temperature (C) Source: DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]: native data files Niche 4 h&T 3-10-00.csv, Niche 4 RH&T 4-1-00.csv, and Niche 4788 R&T 6-8-00.csv; data report S00429_007. Figure 6-28. Relative Humidity and Temperature Inside Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Figure 6-29 illustrates the injection rate into a borehole interval, the return rate (a non-zero return rate is obtained if the injection rate exceeds the capacity of the fractured rock to take up the injected water), and the stabilization of niche seepage rate of water collected in the niche trays. If tests were not long enough before niche stabilization, the niche seepage ratio was not well defined. Various operating conditions and niche moisture conditions may contribute to the fluctuations observed in the early time data. The execution of long-duration tests to ensure quasi-steady conditions contributed to the robustness of seepage quantification at selected borehole intervals. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-66 November 2004 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 1/5/00 1/8/00 1/11/00 1/14/00 Date/Time Flow Rate (g/s) Release Rate Return Rate Seepage Rate Steady Seepage Source: DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]: native data file Niche 4788 UR 5.18-5.48m 1-5-2000.csv, data report S00429_007. Figure 6-29. Stabilized Flow Rates Observed during Test #1 1-5-00 Conducted on Test Interval UR at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) 6.2.1.3.4 Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Wetting-Area Data In this section, an example of niche wetting-area data from a seepage test run in Niche 4 (Niche 4788) is discussed. The progression of the wetting fronts along the niche ceiling with time was recorded on videotape, and still images from the videos were captured and digitized. Wetting fronts were traced from these captured still images; they were later adjusted by reference to marked grid points and other features on the niche crown, and to sketches made during the tests, to correct for distortion caused by the oblique camera view of the niche crown. They were then superimposed over corresponding areas of a fracture map of the niche crown (Trautz 2001 [DIRS 156903], pp. 57–62). Figure 6-30 shows the wetting-front sequence for a seepage test begun June 26, 2000, with water released from the interval 7.62–7.93 m from the collar of Borehole UL. The release rate at the borehole interval was 0.02 g/s, and the seepage into the niche corresponded to 14 percent of the water released. Several observations can be made from Figure 6-30. The influence of fractures on the shape and orientation of the wet spot appears to be relatively minor in the June 26, 2000, test. The initial wetting fronts in these tests are displaced laterally from the vertical projections (the shortest paths) of the release intervals onto the crown, and the wetting fronts overall are not symmetrical about those projections. Note that the niche ceiling is uneven and slightly curved. A borehole partly cut by the niche crown may have affected the lateral spreading of the wetting front. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-67 November 2004 Figure 6-31 shows the wetting-front growth with time for the seepage test. Each data point corresponds to one of the numbered contours in Figure 6-30. The x-axis refers to time elapsed since the first wet spot appeared on the crown, rather than from the first release of water. The plot in Figure 6-32 pertains to the shape progression of the wet spot. If the two-dimensional (2-D) shape of a front remained constant as it grew, with subsequent fronts expanding uniformly and maintaining shape similarity between them, the slope of its line in Figure 6-32 would be constant. This is nearly the case through the early part of the test, with somewhat greater irregularity seen after the eight or ninth front (or data point). The average value of the slope for this test is approximately 0.25, somewhat less than the 0.28 slope, which would apply for a circle; this reflects the slightly elongated wetting fronts observed for this test. The conclusions reached through this testing are: 1. There is either no correlation or only a weak correlation between fracture characteristics and the shape, extent, and orientation of the wet area developing at a niche or drift ceiling, 2. Drip locations are likely to be determined by the topography of the ceiling rather than fracture patterns, and 3. The area available for evaporation of potential seepage water is significantly larger than the area of the fractures intersected by the drift. 6.2.1.3.5 Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Slot and Seepage-Threshold Tests The specific test plan for this series of tests is Niche 5 Seepage Testing, SITP-02-UZ-002 (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200]). The objectives for the Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) seepage tests are the same as for the other niche seepage tests. Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) is in the lower lithophysal (Tptpll) unit; the first four niches are in the middle nonlithophysal (Tptpmn) unit. More automation was employed in the Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) tests than was employed in the testing at the other niches. 6.2.1.3.5.1 Background Information The study site is located at cross-drift construction station (CD) 16+20 near the center of the ECRB and the repository block shown in Figure 6-3, and is known as Niche 5 or Niche CD 1620. The site was selected because it is located near the center of the repository block within the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring welded tuff (TSw). Approximately 80 percent of the repository would be constructed within the Tptpll zone, as described in Section 1.2. Thus, characterization of seepage into waste emplacement drifts constructed in this zone is important to the performance and design of natural and engineered barriers. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-68 November 2004 1 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 8 10 10 12 14 14 16 16 16 18 18 18 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 10 20 10 12 2 0.5 m 10 cm rock bolt borehole partly cut by crown fractures breccia grid points at 1-ft intervals hole Map symbols: 2,10 0,10 0,8 2,8 4,8 6,8 0,12 2,12 4,10 6,10 4,12 6,12 0,14 2,14 4,14 6,14 Output DTN: LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. NOTES: Blue contours are outlines of wetting fronts. Numbers along wetting fronts correlate with the order of data points in Figure 6-31, and the time corresponding to each front can be determined from that figure. Pink bars indicate approximate positions of release intervals in boreholes above the niche, projected onto the crown. Figure 6-30. Wetting-Front Sequences Overlying Fracture Map of Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Ceiling from Seepage Test Begun June 26, 2000 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-69 November 2004 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 time (s*106) wetted area (m2) UL 6/26/00: Area vs. Time Output DTN: LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. NOTE: Each plotted point represents data for one of the numbered curves shown in Figure 6-30. Figure 6-31. Wetting-Front Area (m2) versus Time (s) for the Seepage Test Shown in Figure 6-30 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 wetting perimeter (m) square root of wetted area (m) UL 6/26/00: Area1/2 vs. Perimeter Output DTN: LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. NOTE: Data points correspond to those in Figure 6-31. Figure 6-32. Square Root of Area (m) Plotted versus Perimeter (m) for Each of the Wetting Fronts in the Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Seepage Test In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-70 November 2004 The Tptpll contains large naturally occurring cavities (referred to as lithophysal cavities or lithophysae) that are attributed to gas and vapor-phase constituents entrapped and redistributed during the initial deposition, compaction, and gas migration out of the TSw (Buesch and Spengle 1998 [DIRS 101433], p. 21). Lithophysal cavities are quite large at the site, with some in the range of 0.5 to 0.75 m in length and 0.2 to 0.3 m in height. Fractures are also present, but the majority of these appear to be cooling features associated with lithophysal cavities. These fractures primarily form halos or rinds around the cavities. Very few through-going fractures of significant length were mapped. However, given the high permeability of the rock observed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) and reported in Section 6.1.2.2.1, the fracture rinds and lithophysal cavities do not appear to be dead-end features. Rather, short fractures appear to link the cavities and rinds, giving the entire network a larger average permeability than was observed in the densely welded, middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the TSw, where fractures dominate and lithophysal cavities are sparse. As noted in Section 6.2.1.1, liquid-release tests were performed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in April 2000, before the construction of the access drift and niche in May 2000. Bulkhead doors were installed across the entrance to the excavation and sealed immediately upon construction to minimize evaporation and drying of the rock surrounding the drift. An initial post-excavation seepage test, performed in late February 2001, ended approximately 39 days later in April 2001. Water did not seep, nor did the wetting front appear at the niche ceiling during this test after releasing approximately 300 L of water. (Data are not provided for this test because, with the exception of observing that no seepage was observed after releasing a large volume of water, they are inconsequential.) This test showed that the Tptpll had a high storage capacity (because of the large lithophysal cavities) or was able to divert large quantities of water laterally around the drift through preferential flow paths not connected directly to the opening. The lack of seepage into the niche and the failure of the wetting front to appear at the niche ceiling during the initial test prompted significant changes to the objectives of the seepage-testing program planned for Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). Two slots were constructed in the sidewall of the original niche to accomplish the following objectives, supplementing those described in Section 6.2: • Demonstrate that the capillary barrier moves water laterally around the opening to the walls of the niche, where it would collect in the slot. • Provide a water mass balance. The mass balance was intended to show that the flow field had reached steady state by demonstrating that the amount of water released to the formation was balanced by the amount of water recovered as seepage from the niche ceiling and slot, plus the unrecovered amount of water lost to evaporation as the wetting front spread across the niche ceiling. The sections that follow describe the test configuration, operation, and equipment used to address these objectives and provide representative test results showing the type of data collected. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-71 November 2004 6.2.1.3.5.2 Description of Post-Excavation Seepage Tests Test Configuration Seven 15- to 17-m-long boreholes were drilled in January 2000 at the Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) site (shown in Figures 6-33 through 6-35) before niche construction. (The same seven boreholes are also described in Section 6.1.1.2 with different borehole names, with the following corresponding borehole designations: Borehole 1 = Borehole B1.75; Borehole 2 = Borehole ML; Borehole 3 = Borehole NM; Borehole 4 = Borehole MR; Borehole 5 = Borehole UL; Borehole 6 = Borehole UM; and Borehole 7 = Borehole UR. Boreholes will be referred to hereafter by number only [e.g., Borehole 7] and not by their full designation [e.g., ECRB-Niche1620#7].) Each borehole is nominally 0.0762 m (3 inches) in diameter, with the exception of Borehole 7, which was mistakenly drilled to a nominal diameter of 0.1016 m (4 inches) using a larger-diameter core bit. Post-excavation seepage tests were not performed on Borehole 7, because the straddle packer system used to isolate the injection zone was not designed to fit the larger-diameter borehole. The first borehole (Borehole 1) was installed at the approximate position shown in Figure 6-33 through Figure 6-35. Dye-spiked water was released into eight 0.3-m-long test intervals within this borehole before niche construction, as noted in Section 6.2.1.1. The position of the dye within the rock was then photographed and mapped during niche excavation, and Borehole 1 was intentionally removed during the mining process described in Section 6.2.1.2. A set of three boreholes (designated Borehole 2, Borehole 3, and Borehole 4) were drilled parallel to the axis of the niche in the same horizontal plane, located approximately 1.0 to 1.3 m above the opening of the niche. These boreholes are collectively referred to as the horizontal boreholes. The horizontal boreholes are spaced approximately 1 m apart. A second set of three boreholes (designated Borehole 5, Borehole 6, and Borehole 7) was drilled directly above the horizontal boreholes, at a 6° to 8° upward inclined angle (based on as-built data in MO0312GSC03176.000 [DIRS 169532], approximately 1° higher than the design angle in Figure 6-33). These boreholes are collectively referred to as the inclined boreholes. The collar of the inclined boreholes is located within 0.4 to 0.5 m of the horizontal boreholes. The upper boreholes are inclined so that the distance between the boreholes and the niche ceiling varies from approximately 1.4 m to 3.0 m. In combination with the horizontal boreholes, the scale of the post-excavation seepage tests can vary from 1.0 to 3.0 m, the latter measurement being slightly larger than the radius of the niche. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-72 November 2004 Source: Test Plan for: Niche 5 Seepage Testing (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200], Figure 2). Figure 6-33. Side View of the Boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Source: Test Plan for: Niche 5 Seepage Testing (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200], Figure 3). Figure 6-34. Plan View of the Boreholes at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) In May 2000, a mechanical excavator was used to mine out the rock to create Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620). The niche is approximately 15.5 m long by 4 m wide by 3.3 m high (Figure 6-33 through Figure 6-35). Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) was constructed along the south side of the cross-drift (at the location shown in Figure 6-3) within the lower lithophysal zone of the TSw unit (Tptpll). Water was used during niche construction to suppress dust generated during mining activities. Split-set rock bolts were installed in the ceiling of the niche immediately following construction to provide ground support for the excavation. In May 2001, construction began on two slots located in the sidewalls of the niche as shown in Figure 6-35 (the slots are also referred to as “bat wings”). The original intent was to construct a 6-m-long–by–1-m-high–by–1.5-m-deep slot in each wall of the niche to aid in the collection of water. The slot design was based on the premise that, because of the capillary barrier, water would move laterally around the opening, where it would collect at a low spot and drip into the slot (near Points A in Figure 6-35). The initial design was to slope the ceiling of the slot back toward the niche to produce a low point for water to collect and by creating a capillary barrier, to prevent water from flowing around the backside of the slot. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-73 November 2004 3.4 CL #3 Niche CD 1620 2.5 0.0 m 1.0 1.0 4.4 1.0 1.0 m #6 #7 #5 2.0 m 2.0 m #4 #2 #1 4.8 1.5 20”– 5” 1.0 A Slot Slot A 3.4 CL #3 Niche CD 1620 2.5 0.0 m 1.0 1.0 4.4 1.0 1.0 m #6 #7 #5 2.0 m 2.0 m #4 #2 #1 4.8 1.5 20”– 5” 1.0 A Slot Slot A Source: Test Plan for: Niche 5 Seepage Testing (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158200], Figure 4). Figure 6-35. Schematic Illustration of Front View of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Facing South, Showing Location of Boreholes (#1–#7) Additional ground support consisting of Williams’ rock bolts was installed in the ceiling of the niche before slot construction, to help stabilize the underground opening. These bolts supplemented the split-set rock bolts already in place, effectively doubling the number of bolts and decreasing the rock bolt spacing to approximately 0.5 m. Even with additional ground support, the unstable rock conditions at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) caused sections of the initial slot ceiling (Points A) to collapse during its construction, resulting in an excavation that did not meet the desired construction and testing specifications. Slot construction activities were halted after creating a 3.3-m-long irregular-shaped excavation in the left rib and a short (less than 1 m) excavation in the right rib of the niche. Improvements to the 3.3-m-long slot were made after construction by installing a wooden header and post system to support the brow of the slot excavation (i.e., near Point A on the left), keeping it from collapsing further (Figure 6-36 through Figure 6-38). The rock behind the header was then chipped away by hand to create the best sloping ceiling possible, given the circumstances. Additional ground support, consisting of metal house jacks, was provided farther back in the slot to provide more stability. Figure 6-36 shows the final size and shape of the slots. Note that there are five profiles (numbered 2 through 6) in Figure 6-36, showing the irregular shape of the longest slot. Profile 2 and Profile 6 define the lateral ends of the slot. The remaining profiles (3–5) are located between the two lateral ends with a distance of approximately 0.5 to 1.3 m separating the profiles and numbered sequentially. For additional detail on the slot profiles, refer to the surveyor drawing (DTN: MO0107GSC01061.000 [DIRS 155369]) provided in Appendix Section C1. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-74 November 2004 NOTE: Profile #2 is located closest to the niche entrance and # 6 is farthest away, based on DTN: MO0107GSC01061.000 [DIRS 155369]. Figure 6-36. Schematic Illustration of Front View of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Facing South Showing Profiles 1–6 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-75 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. Figure 6-37. Photograph of Left (East) Rib of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Facing the Opening of a 3.3-m-Long Slot and Showing Ground Support In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-76 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. Figure 6-38. Photograph of Left (East) Rib of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Showing Ceiling of Slot and Ground Support In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-77 November 2004 The pilot hole from one of the rock bolts struck two test boreholes, Boreholes 2 and 5. A rock bolt was subsequently installed in the pilot hole, blocking both test boreholes at a depth of 5.6 m from their collars, rendering the remaining 10 m of each borehole inaccessible. The rock bolts were subsequently removed by cutting through them laterally from within the test boreholes. This improved the depth available for testing from 5.6 to 7.9 m in Borehole 2 and from 5.6 to 10 m in Borehole 5. A straddle-packer assembly also became stuck in Borehole 4 when air-injection tests were conducted on this borehole. Numerous attempts to recover the packer were unsuccessful. Unstable ground conditions, resulting in loose rock and debris sloughing off the walls of lithophysal cavities intersecting the boreholes, also contributed to several “natural” borehole blockages. The boreholes were vacuumed out to remove as much debris as possible before testing began. Borehole 3, Borehole 4, and Borehole 6 were blocked at approximately 12.0 m, 9.0 m, and 10.5 m, respectively, by large rocks and debris that could not be extracted during the cleaning process. Table 6-7 summarizes the total depth and length of boreholes available for testing. Table 6-7. Borehole Depth Summary Borehole Designation Available for Testing (m) Total Depth (m) ECRB-Niche1620#1 N/A a 15.4 ECRB-Niche1620#2 0–7.9 16.0 ECRB-Niche1620#3 0–12.0 15.5 ECRB-Niche1620#4 0–9.0 15.0 ECRB-Niche1620#5 0–10.0 15.9 ECRB-Niche1620#6 0–10.5 16.0 ECRB-Niche1620#7 N/A b 14.8 Source: BSC 2001 ([DIRS 158200] Table 1). N/A = Not available. a Borehole intentionally excavated during niche construction. b Borehole diameter is too large and inconsistent with dimensions of test equipment. Test Operation and Control Equipment Custom-designed and built test equipment described in this section was used to operate and control the tests. In general, a seepage test is performed by pumping water at a known rate from a release reservoir sitting on an electronic balance through the release line, release manifold, and downhole straddle packer to the release or test interval located in the borehole (Figure 6-39). The straddle packer consists of a series of rubber glands that the test operator inflates with compressed air (in the same manner as is done with a balloon) inside the borehole. When inflated with air, the packers create a 0.3-m-long test interval, isolated from up and downhole sections of the borehole, thus preventing water from migrating throughout the length of the borehole during the experiment. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-78 November 2004 In the event that the pumping rate exceeds the infiltration capacity of the rock, water may begin to pond in the borehole and pressurize the test interval. An outlet (also called the “return port”) located in the test interval prevents this from occurring. Water may rise to the level of the return port where it will flow by gravity back through the return line, straddle packer, and return manifold, to the return reservoir, where it will accumulate and be weighed by the return balance. The overflow line limits the maximum ponding depth of water within the borehole to approximately 0.05 m, thus preventing overpressurization of the test zone by the pump. Water that enters the test interval percolates down through the rock, where it may eventually seep into the niche opening. A capture manifold referred to as seepage collection system is used to capture the water seeping into the niche and to route it to the capture reservoir, where it will accumulate and be weighed by the capture balance(s). Figure 6-39. General Process Diagram for Seepage Testing at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Figure 6-39 provides a summary of the general processes that the test operator can change during a seepage test, including the release, return, and capture rates. The control variables are represented by ovals labeled in Figure 6-39. Control variables are affected by the process variables (e.g., pump speed, valve position) changed by the operator. Additional detail on the test operation and control equipment is provided in Appendix Section C2. A plastic tarp was hung from the outside of the aluminum frame (shown in Figure 6-40 and Figure 6-41) to the wooden supports at the edge of the slot shown in Figure 6-36 through Figure 6-38 to collect water seeping into the slot. The outlet from the slot seepage collection system drained through a pinch valve (that could also be controlled by the operator) to the capture balance. Process Variables: - Pumping Rate (Mass) - Fluid Pressure Release Reservoir Balance 1 Return Reservoir Balance 2 Release Interval Water OUT Release Manifold Return Manifold Water IN Capture Reservoir(s) Balance 3 and/or 4 Capture Manifold Water OUT Release Rate Seepage Rate and Distribution Fractures Drift Borehole Packer Pressure In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-79 November 2004 Field personnel were not allowed to enter the slot, or hang the tarp off the wooden and steel ground support system inside the slot, because of health and safety issues concerning rock instability. This restriction prevented the entire slot area (with corresponding depth C shown in Figure 6-36) from being covered by the slot seepage collection system. The water diverted by the niche and flowing into the slot was not measured. To meet, in part, the original objectives, a much smaller area (with corresponding depth A shown in Figure 6-36) was covered instead by the slot seepage collection system. The majority of the slot seepage collection system was not beneath the slot ceiling itself, but rather beneath the sharply curved section of the niche where the niche ceiling meets the wall. The flow along the wall and the portion of flow behind the wall in the proximity of the niche was captured in this remedial seepage collection configuration. Data Acquisition Equipment Calibrated instruments and data loggers were used to collect mass (g), temperature (°C), humidity (percent), and pressure (pounds per square inch gauge, psig) data during the tests. Mettler Toledo model PG, PG-s, and SG series electronic balances were used to measure the mass that water was pumped into the test interval, that flowed back through the return line, and was captured as seepage. Initially, during the early stages of testing (May 3, 2002, through May 16, 2002), two Mettler Toledo balances were used to measure the seepage mass into the niche. Starting on May 16, 2002, only a single balance was used to measure these same data. Mettler Toledo balances were also set up inside and outside the niche to measure the rate of evaporation from an open pan of water sitting on the balance. The data acquisition control described in Appendix Section C3 was used to query the balance for the mass and to derive the mass rate on a user-defined time interval. A calibrated Campbell Scientific, Inc. model CR10x datalogger was used to measure and record the measurements made by 12 calibrated Vaisala model HMP45C temperature and humidity probes located inside and outside the niche. Eleven of the probes were installed at various distances from the bulkhead to measure the air humidity and temperature distribution inside the niche. The twelfth sensor was installed outside the bulkheaded area of the niche to measure the temperature and humidity of the air in the ECRB; see Trautz (2003 [DIRS 166248], p. 162) for a detailed description of the probe locations. The same calibrated Campbell datalogger was used to measure and record the measurements made by Setra model C204 pressure transducers (0–25 psig). The transducers were used to measure liquid pressures (air or water) inside the release and return lines leading to the test interval during the tests. These data were collected primarily for the purpose of monitoring and controlling the test equipment. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-80 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. Figure 6-40. Capture System Installation Showing Plastic Capture Trays and Tarp in Slot In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-81 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. Figure 6-41. Capture System Showing Tarp Installed Next to Slot In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-82 November 2004 Time-lapse video recordings of the niche ceiling and bottom of the capture trays were made during the tests to record the spread of the wetting front across the ceiling and dripping into the capture system. Sony model DCR-TRV900 video camcorders (mini-DV format) were used for this purpose. Test Operating Conditions A seepage test was typically conducted by pumping water at a constant rate through an injection line into a 0.3-m-long isolated test interval, located in one of the boreholes described in Table 6-7. Electronic balances were used to monitor the cumulative mass at which water was pumped into the borehole, as well as return flow (if any occurred). Return flow occurred when the pumping rate exceeds the infiltration capacity of the rock. Water migrating from the release point through the rock to the niche ceiling might drip into the niche, where it was collected in a capture system consisting of plastic trays and a tarp in the slot. Water drained by gravity through a network of tubes into a closed container, resting on an electronic balance. The balance was used to measure the cumulative mass of water that seeps into the niche and the seepage rate was determined by dividing the amounts accumulated by the time they took to collect. One or more containers and balances might be employed for collecting seepage water. Evaporation of water from the containers, the capture system, and the wetted area of the niche ceiling during seepage tests can influence the outcome of the seepage experiments. The effects of evaporation on the test results were minimized by employing the following techniques: 1. The bulkhead door at the entrance to the niche was closed and sealed during the seepage tests. This helped limit the exchange of dry air in the ECRB (typically less than 40 percent relative humidity) with moist air found within the niche (typically greater than 85 percent relative humidity). 2. Access to the interior of the niche during testing was limited to authorized field-test personnel. Remote monitoring of the niche ceiling, and the capture trays, using digital video and remote monitoring of test equipment, minimized the number of trips inside the niche, thus limiting the exchange of air. 3. Fluid containers and transmission lines were closed systems, minimizing the effect of evaporation. 4. The potential existed for water to evaporate from the niche ceiling and diffuse into the air within the niche. Seepage water may have potentially evaporated from the capture trays before the water had time to accumulate and drain into the tubing connecting the trays to the closed container on the seepage balance(s). Therefore, the relative humidity of the air inside the niche was artificially elevated to minimize evaporation, using a centrifugal-type humidifier capable of producing water vapor at a rate of approximately 1 kg per hour. Humidification occurred 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, under the condition that electrical power was available to operate the humidifier. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-83 November 2004 5. Electrical lighting within the niche was minimized to limit sources of heat that enhance evaporation. Sufficient lighting was provided, however, for video imaging of the wetted area spreading across the niche ceiling. 6. A small pan, resting on an electronic balance, was set inside the drift to directly measure the mass evaporative flux. 6.2.1.3.5.3 Test Summary This section provides an overview of the seepage tests performed at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) and summarizes the type of data collected by evaluating and interpreting data for Test #2 9-17-02 conducted from September 17, 2002, through October 28, 2002. The analysis of the Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) seepage test data (together with analyses of other niche seepage data) for model calibration can be found in the model report, Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). Appendix Section C4 summarizes general test information, including borehole number, depth of the test interval measured in meters from the datum near the borehole collar, test name, and test start and end dates. Seepage tests, initiated at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in early May 2002, ran through late May 2002, when the instruments and sensors were removed for routine calibration. Testing resumed in mid-July 2002, upon reinstalling the calibrated instruments, and continued through late October 2002 with seven tests performed over this period. Evaporation Pan Data Evaporation pan data were measured using a single balance loaded with a container filled with water. Figure 6-42 shows the evaporation flux inside and outside the niche during Test #2 9-17-02. The plot indicates that the average evaporation flux outside of the niche is approximately a factor of 20 greater than the average evaporation flux inside the niche. (Note that the evaporation data collected during the study and found in the original data files are the evaporation rates [g/s]. These were converted to evaporation fluxes [g/s-m2] shown in Figure 6-42 by dividing the evaporation rate by the surface area of the evaporation pan [i.e., pr2, where r is the radius of the pan].) The radius of the evaporation pan inside the niche was 0.075 m (0.15-m diameter reported by Trautz (2003 [DIRS 166248], p. 187) divided by 2) and the pan outside the niche was 0.122 m (9 5/8 in. diameter reported by Trautz (2003 [DIRS 166248], p. 187), converted as follows to radius r in meters (9 5/8 in. × 2.54 cm/in. × 1/100 m/cm) divided by 2). Details of this calculation may be found in Appendix Section I6.1. The peak evaporation rates associated with the saw-tooth pattern, observed in the evaporation pan data collected outside the niche, correspond to refilling the evaporation container with fresh warm water from the water supply of the mine. Warm water evaporates faster until it cools down. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-84 November 2004 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 9/16/2002 9/21/2002 9/26/2002 10/1/2002 10/6/2002 10/11/2002 10/16/2002 10/21/2002 10/26/2002 10/31/2002 Date Evaporation Mass Flux (g/s-m2) EvapIn EvapOut Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792] Test #2 9-17-02: native data files Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv and Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv. Figure 6-42. Evaporation Rate Inside and Outside Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) During Test #2 9-17-02 Relative Humidity and Temperature The data files that contain relative humidity and temperature data from measurements taken inside and outside the niche, and the liquid pressure data measured in the release and return lines during the test, are identified in Appendix Section C4. (The pressure in the release and return lines were relatively constant during a given test and, therefore, no further discussion of these results is included in this report.) These data were collected using the sensors and Campbell Scientific, Inc., dataloggers described in Appendix Section C3. Figure 6-43 shows the relative humidity and temperature of the air inside and outside the niche during Test #2 9-17-02 (September 17, 2002, to October 28, 2002). The relative humidity and temperature inside the niche were very stable, within the range of approximately 90 to 94 percent and 24°C to 25°C, respectively. The sudden drop in relative humidity observed in mid- and late-September was caused by the exchange of cool moist air inside the drift with dry warm air outside the niche when field personnel opened the bulkhead and entered the niche. A slight rise in inside air temperature is noted over the measurement period. This is probably caused by the cooler inside temperatures slowly equilibrating with the warming temperature outside the niche. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-85 November 2004 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 9/16/02 9/21/02 9/26/02 10/1/02 10/6/02 10/11/02 10/16/02 10/21/02 10/26/02 10/31/02 Date Relative Humidity (%) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Temperature (C) Out - RH In - RH Out - Temp In - Temp Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792] Test #2 9-17-02: native data files N5_RH-T-p_9-18-02.csv, N5_RH-T-p_10-18-02.csv, and N5_RH-T-p_10-29-02.csv. Figure 6-43. Relative Humidity and Temperature of Air Inside and Outside Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) During Test #2 9-17-02 The air temperature outside the niche in the ECRB is also quite stable (33°C to 34°C), but the relative humidity fluctuates between 8 and 21 percent. The fluctuation in relative humidity can be attributed to the tunnel ventilation system that draws moisture into the ECRB from outside the ESF. Relative humidity conditions in this case are influenced by outside weather conditions. Test Data–Liquid Release and Seepage Rates Figure 6-44 shows a plot of the liquid-release mass flow rate into the formation from the borehole and the total seepage mass flow rate entering the niche during Test #2 9-17-02. A peristaltic pump was used to pump water into the borehole, creating small surges in the rate that give the appearance that the release rate varies with time (i.e., the somewhat parallel release-rate “lines” in Figure 6-44). The average release rate (approximately 0.023 g/s) was fairly constant from September 17, 2002, to October 19, 2002, after which time it steadily declined between October 20, 2002, and October 28, 2002, to a rate of 0.019 g/s. Seepage into the niche began on October 1, 2002, based on a definitive increase in mass observed on the capture balance. The seepage rate continued to increase through October 20, 2002, when it suddenly started to decline and stopped seeping on October 23, 2002. This corresponds within a day to the decline in the liquid release rate noted in the previous paragraph. The sudden halt in seepage caused by a 10- to 20-percent reduction in the release rate suggests that a seepage threshold exists in the Tptpll that is very sensitive to the release mass flow rate. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-86 November 2004 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 9/16/02 9/21/02 9/26/02 10/1/02 10/6/02 10/11/02 10/16/02 10/21/02 10/26/02 10/31/02 Date Seepage Mass Flow Rate (g/s) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 Release Mass Flow Rate (g/s) Seepage Release Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792] Test #2 9-17-02: native data files Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9- 17-02_#1a (srate).csv and Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 (srate).csv. Figure 6-44. Liquid-Release Rate into Borehole 5 and Seepage of Water into the Capture System of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) during Test #2 9-17-02 Figure 6-45 shows a plot of the total seepage rate into the niche (triangles) and the seepage rate captured by the tarp (diamonds) installed at the entrance to the slot (Area A, Figure 6-36). Seepage captured by the tarp follows the same pattern over time as the total seepage, the latter of which represents water collected from all the capture compartments. Seepage captured by the tarp is a large component of the total seepage into the drift, approaching 80 to 90 percent of the total during specific periods of time. Both seepage and the seepage captured by the tarp declined and dropped off to zero as the release rate declined after October 20, 2002. 6.2.1.3.5.4 Summary–Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Tests performed during the study (including the example experiment, Test #2 9-17-02) indicate that a measurable seepage threshold exists for the Tptpll–a stated objective of the niche study. Unfortunately, because of the constraints associated with installation of the slot collection system described in Section 6.2.1.3.5.2, investigators were unable to determine whether the water seeping onto the tarp during Test #2 9-17-02 and Test #1 7-15-02 (the only two tests in which seepage onto the tarp occurred) originated from the slot or from the niche ceiling next to the slot. Several attempts to observe seepage were made, but the seepage rates were so slow that visual evidence of seepage from the slot was not obtained. With the approximation that all of the seepage was derived from the slot, the results of Test #2 9-17-02 demonstrate that the slot did not effectively capture lateral movement of water around the niche, because seepage into the slot ceased when the seepage threshold was reached. The lack of seepage into the slot implies that the revised objectives of the test stated in Section 6.2.1.3.5.1 were not met in this study. Specifically, a water mass balance was not achieved because the laterally diverted seepage water In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-87 November 2004 was not collected in the slot. Photographic evidence has been collected in Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), showing the wetted area spreading down the sidewall during the test (Figure 6-46), providing qualitative evidence that flow was diverted around the niche. Trautz and Wang (2002 [DIRS 160335]) showed (using photographic evidence) that the wetted area spreads across the ceiling and down the terminal face and sidewall of Niche 4 (Niche 4788) in Tptpmn. -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 9/16/02 9/21/02 9/26/02 10/1/02 10/6/02 10/11/02 10/16/02 10/21/02 10/26/02 10/31/02 Date Seepage Mass Flow Rate (g/s) Total Tarp Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792] Test #2 9-17-02: native data files Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9- 17-02_#1.csv, Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1a (srate).csv, and Test #2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 (srate).csv. Figure 6-45. Total Seepage and Seepage into the Tarp Area at the Entrance to the Slot 6.2.2 Niche Seepage Threshold and Fracture Characteristic Curves This section is presented to document an alternate analysis of seepage data based on analytic solutions developed for capillary barriers. The analysis is different from the PA methodology presented in Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]), which is based on a numerical model with a heterogeneous fracture continuum representation and inverse modeling of primarily steady-state seepage data. The parameters determined by numerical calibration are related to the conceptual and numerical model used during calibration (i.e., the estimated value for the capillary-strength parameter depends, for example, on the numerical discretization used (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764], Section 6.3.3.3)). The dependence of the estimated values on the model structure is acceptable and even desired as long as the structure of the model used for seepage predictions is consistent with that used for calibration (see the discussion in Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764], Section 8.1)). Therefore, the analysis results (specifically, the derived capillary-strength parameter and seepage-threshold value) presented in this section are not comparable with the PA results. This constraint applies to both the seepage threshold In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-88 November 2004 analyses and fracture characteristic curves (derived from transient seepage data) described in this section. However, they are valid within the context of the analysis presented in this section, and they corroborate the presence of a capillary barrier and a seepage threshold. The niche seepage data collected from short-duration tests in ten intervals at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), long-term tests in one interval at Niche 3 (Niche 3107), and long-term tests in three intervals at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) are analyzed in this section. As stated in Section 6.2.1.3.1, Section 6.2.1.3.2, and Section 6.2.1.3.3, the niche seepage threshold is defined in terms of the pumping rate and the wetted area estimated for the borehole interval. This definition of the niche seepage threshold is different from the definition used by PA, which relates the seepage threshold to the steady-state background percolation flux averaged over drift-scale and site-scale areas. Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. Figure 6-46. Wetted Area Spreading Down the Sidewall in Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-89 November 2004 6.2.2.1 Post-Excavation Liquid-Release and Niche Seepage Threshold For a given test interval, seepage tests were initially conducted at high liquid-release rates (injection rates into borehole interval without excessive pressure buildup). Subsequent tests were performed at lower liquid-release rates to determine whether a threshold could be estimated below which seepage into the niche would no longer occur. Figure 6-47 shows a plot of the seepage percentages observed during four tests conducted at different release flux (qs) in Borehole UM at the same interval, located 5.49 to 5.79 m from the borehole collar at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). A linear regression was performed on the four data points to compute the equation for the trendline and the R-squared values (R2) reported in Figure 6-47 and tabulated in Table 6-8. This exercise was repeated for the tested intervals at all the niches, to produce the regression data reported in Table 6-8 for all the zones that seeped. The R-squared values are computed separately for each interval and are listed for those intervals where three or more data points are available. (The linear regression was performed in an Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Tables B-3a through B-4e.) For the purposes of this analysis, qs is approximately equal to the net downward flux (Ko). This approximation is a conservative estimate of Ko (Trautz and Wang 2002 [DIRS 160335]). Table 6-8 also summarizes the niche seepage threshold (Ko*), defined as the liquid-release flux below which water will not seep into the drift (i.e., see Ko* defined in Figure 6-47). The Ko* values were determined using the regression equations provided in Table 6-8 by setting the seepage percentage, y, equal to 0, and then solving for Ko = Ko* [Ko* = Ko(y = 0)]. Details on this analysis and calculation procedures are in Appendices B and I. Here, the symbol Ko is used to denote the liquid-release flux used in the regression model to distinguish it from the liquid-release flux computed using the field data (qs). In terms of Ko and Ko *, the niche seepage threshold is defined as follows: • If the liquid-release flux exceeds the seepage threshold flux (Ko greater than Ko*) for the given interval, then water will seep into the drift. • If the liquid-release flux is less than the seepage threshold flux (Ko less than Ko*), then water will not enter the cavity. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-90 November 2004 Linear Regression y = 5.89Ln(Ko) + 87.5 R2 = 0.96 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1.0E-07 1.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 Liquid-Release Flux, qs (m/s) Seepage Percentage, y (%) Data Linear regression Seepage Threshold Flux, K o* Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. NOTES: Seepage tests were conducted for the interval 5.49 to 5.79 m from the collar of Borehole UM at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). The parameter a-1 is also referred as the capillary strength. Figure 6-47. Liquid-Release Flux versus Seepage Percentage Table 6-8. Seepage Threshold Fluxes (Ko *). Niche Borehole Name and Depth Interval (m) Linear Regression Equation Data Points Correlation Coefficient (R2) Niche Seepage Threshold Ko * (m/s) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Kl (m/s) 3107 UM 4.88-5.18 y = 30.440ln(Ko) + 456.085 8 0.820 3.11E-07 N/A UL 7.01-7.32 y = 0.6833ln(Ko) + 8.5742 2 N/R 3.55E-06 8.98E-05 UL 7.62-7.92 y = 5.7394ln(Ko) + 92.627 3 0.979 9.80E-08 1.51E-04 UM 4.27-4.57 y = 5.2757ln(Ko) + 79.443 4 0.921 2.89E-07 2.62E-05 UM 4.88-5.18 y = 2.304ln(Ko) + 31.767 3 0.975 1.03E-06 2.52E-03 UM 5.49-5.79 y = 5.8876ln(Ko) + 87.528 4 0.963 3.50E-07 2.16E-05 3650 UR 4.27-4.57 y = 0.314ln(Ko) + 4.3283 2 N/R 1.03E-06 4.08E-05 Seepage threshold flux, K0* In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-91 November 2004 Table 6-8. Seepage Threshold Fluxes (Ko *) (Continued) Niche Borehole Name and Depth Interval (m) Linear Regression Equation Data Points Correlation Coefficient (R2) Niche Seepage Threshold Ko * (m/s) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Kl (m/s) UR 4.88-5.18 y = 0.3165ln(Ko) + 4.3751 2 N/R 9.92E-07 9.87E-05 UR 5.49-5.79 y = 28.419ln(Ko) + 351.09 2 N/R 4.31E-06 1.71E-05 UR 6.10-6.40 y = 4.2169ln(Ko) + 79.596 2 N/R 6.35E-09 3.01E-05 3650 UR 6.71-7.01 y = 10.574ln(Ko) + 165.28 3 0.974 1.63E-07 2.28E-04 UL 7.62-7.93 y = 9.273ln(Ko) + 148.119 4 0.929 1.16E-07 2.46E-05 UM 6.10-6.40 y = 15.697ln(Ko) + 243.611 4 0.980 1.82E-07 2.45E-04 4788 UR 5.18-5.48 y = 25.415ln(Ko) + 410.285 3 0.970 9.75E-08 3.92E-06 Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. NOTES: Various data sets were used to generate Table 6-8. Refer to Appendix Tables B-3 and B-4, and Appendix Section I5 for details. The saturated conductivity in the last column was calculated from the fracture permeability for the zone measured in the air-injection tests (Appendix Section D2). N/A = Not applicable. The test could not be completed as planned because of rock properties outside the measurable range of the equipment. N/R = Not reported, because two data points result in perfect correlation (R2 =1.0), therefore, correlation coefficient is meaningless. y = Predicted seepage percentage. Ko = Net downward liquid-release flux from regression model (m/s). ln = Natural logarithm. In the capillary barrier conceptual model, the flow can be easily diverted if the liquid permeability is large (see Section 6.2.2.2). To illustrate and evaluate this concept, the air permeabilities obtained from the post-excavation air-injection tests were converted into equivalent saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kl) for liquid flow (DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]) as shown by Wang (1999 [DIRS 153449], pp. 34–38) for Niche 2 (Niche 3650), to produce the values recorded in Table 6-8 and plotted in Figure 6-48. Figure 6-48 shows a log-log plot of Ko * versus K for 10 test intervals at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) and three test intervals at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) where seepage occurred. For each test interval, multiple tests with different release rates were conducted to estimate the niche seepage threshold. (Computation of Ko * and Kl was performed in an Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-4. Kl could not be calculated for Niche 3 [Niche 3107] because the air-permeability test could not be completed as planned: the rock properties were outside the measurable range of the equipment.) The straight line in Figure 6-48 is derived from an analytic solution described in Section 6.2.2.2. The estimation of Kl using air-permeability test data is evaluated in Appendix Section D2. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-92 November 2004 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 Seepage Threshold Flux, K0* (m/s) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, K l l (m/s) Niche 3650 Niche 4788 a-1 = 0.0019 m Decreasing a-1 (gravity dominates) Increasing a-1 (capillarity dominates) Source: DTNs: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]; LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]; LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. NOTES: Various data sets were used to generate this figure. See Appendix Tables B-4 and B-6 for details. 1/ a is referred to as the capillary-strength parameter. Figure 6-48. Seepage Threshold Flux 6.2.2.2 Capillary Strength ( a -1) of Fractures Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743]) recognized that buried cylindrical cavities are obstacles to flow, preventing water from entering the cavity. The following theoretical relation between Ko * and Kl was provided by Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], p. 19, Section 3.4): ( ) [ ] 1 max * - = s K K l o . (Eq. 6-3) where s is the value of the dimensionless cavity length and . max is the maximum value of the dimensionless potential . at the boundary of the cavity. Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], p. 20, Equation 56) show that . max occurs at the apex or crown of a cylindrical cavity. The dimensionless cavity length, s, is a measure of the relative importance of gravity and capillarity in determining flow. As s approaches zero, capillarity dominates, whereas gravity dominates as s tends toward infinity An exponential functional relation between unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K( .), and water potential, ., is used (Philip et al. 1989 [DIRS 105743], Equation 12, p. 18): ( ) ( ) e e K K l . . a . - = (Eq. 6-4) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-93 November 2004 Kl is the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Pullan 1990 [DIRS 106141], p. 1221), .e is the air-entry potential, Kl is the conductivity at . = .e , and a-1 is the capillary-strength parameter. For fractures, the air-entry potential is small and negligible. This Gardner exponential functional relation is used by Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], p. 18, Equation 12) and by Braester (1973 [DIRS 106088], p. 688, Equation 5)] to transform and linearize the unsaturated governing equations. Equation 6-4 is also used in Section 6.2.2.4 to estimate water potential. Another model for unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and water potential is the van Genuchten model with its own capillary-strength parameter and pore-size distribution parameter (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764], Section 6.3.2.3). The distinction between model-dependent capillary-strength parameters should be noted when comparing results from the analysis presented in this section and the results from the seepage calibration model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]) and the seepage model for PA (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167652]). Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], p. 18, Equation 14) note that the dimensionless cavity length s in Equation 6-3 is related to the capillary strength parameter a-1 (Equation 6-4) and a characteristic length of the cavity l by the following expression: l a 5 . 0 = s (Eq. 6-5) When s is large, Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], Section 6, pp. 23–25) demonstrate that a boundary layer adjoining the ceiling of the cavity surface will develop. This allows the steady flow equation to be replaced by a boundary-layer equation that is readily solved. The asymptotic expansion of .max for large values of s yields (Philip et al. 1989 [DIRS 105743], p. 23, Equation 84): K - + - + = 2 max 2 1 2 2 s s s . (Eq. 6-6) Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], Table 1) note that when s is greater than or equal to 1, the first three terms on the right side of Equation 6-6 produce an adequate estimate that is within 12 percent (or less) of the exact value of . max. Therefore, using appropriate values for Ko *, l, and Kl, the capillary strength ( a-1) for the porous medium from Equation 6-3, Equation 6-5, and the first three terms in Equation 6-6, can be estimated. This technique was utilized to compute the a-1 values reported in Table 6-9, using the values for Ko * derived in Section 6.2.2.1. The Kl values were derived from post-excavation air-injection tests summarized in Table 6-8, and a value of two was used for l, which is approximately equal to the radius of the curvature of the niche ceiling. By taking the reciprocal of the a-1 reported in Table 6-9, which in this case also equals s, all the s-values (with the exception of Niche 3 [Niche 3107] Borehole UM, Interval 4.88–5.18 m) are greater than one, justifying the use of Equation 6-6. The s-value for Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Borehole UM, Interval 4.88–5.18 m is slightly less than one (i.e., 0.43), implying that the use of Equation 6-6 will result in a larger error in a-1 for this test. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-94 November 2004 Table 6-9. Alpha (a) Values Estimated for the Fractures Niche Borehole and Interval (m) Output Capillary Strength a-1 (m) UL 7.01-7.32 0.0855 UL 7.62-7.92 0.0013 UM 4.27-4.57 0.0225 UM 4.88-5.18 0.0008 UM 5.49-5.79 0.0334 UR 4.27-4.57 0.0532 UR 4.88-5.18 0.0205 UR 5.49-5.79 0.71 UR 6.10-6.40 0.0004 3650 UR 6.71-7.01 0.0014 UL 7.62-7.93 0.0095 UM 6.10-6.40 0.0015 4788 UR 5.18-5.48 0.0523 Theoretical limit 0.0019 Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]; LB990601233124.001 [DIRS 105888]. NOTE: Various data sets were used to derive a-1. Refer to Appendix Table B-5 for details. An early analysis based on visual inspection and straight-line fitting of Niche 2 (Niche 3650) short-duration test data in Figure 6-48 is documented by Trautz and Wang (2001 [DIRS 165419]). In this section of this scientific analysis report, the Niche 2 (Niche 3650) data analyses are compared with the results of long-duration tests at Niche 4 (Niche 4788). Philip, in “The Scattering Analog for Infiltration in Porous Media” (1989 [DIRS 156974]) reports that a-1 varies from 0.05 m or less (for coarse-grained soils) to 5 m or more (for fine-textured soils). In comparison, the values reported in Table 6-9 range from 0.001 to 0.71 m for the fractures tested, with the lower bound below that normally reported in the literature for soils. Philip (1989 [DIRS 156974]) and White and Sully (1987 [DIRS 106152], p. 1514) recognized that a-1 is a permeability-weighted mean soil-water potential directly related to the macroscopic capillary length, or pore radius, r, of the medium, as follows: ( ) r g cos 2 2 1 . . . = a- (Eq. 6-7) where ., ., and . are the surface tension, density, and contact angle of the fluid, respectively, and g is gravitational acceleration. The surface tension . is the surface energy per unit area, or equivalent, surface force per unit length. The right-side of Equation 6-7 is known as Laplace’s capillary formula, which is equal to the height |h| of fluid rise in a small diameter cylindrical tube. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-95 November 2004 For a pair of parallel plates with width L much greater than the aperture b, the upward force component along two liquid-air-solid interfaces with contact angle . is .cos(.) × (2L), and the downward weight of the liquid rise is .g × (Lb|h|). From force balance, the capillary equation relating the capillary rise |h| with fracture aperture b is obtained. Therefore, Equation 6-7 can also be used to estimate the height of fluid rise between two smooth parallel plates (analogous to a fracture) by substituting the aperture b, or separation distance between plates for r in Equation 6-7. Bouwer (1966 [DIRS 155682], p. 733) and Raats and Gardner (1971 [DIRS 155683], p. 922) described the macroscopic capillary length, and hence 2a-1, as a “mean” height of capillary rise above a water table, or the “mean” air-entry head. In this case, the significance of 2a-1 is that it represents the mean height that water can be retained in the fractures above the drift (without seeping) because of the capillary barrier. Note that the capillary mechanism has a limited range of validity. If the fracture aperture or capillary radius is large, the radius of curvature of the meniscus will be infinite and the capillary effect will be negligible. For a wetting fluid with contact angle . = 0, the hemispherical surface at top of the rise can no longer be defined when b or r is greater than the height |h|. Therefore the maximum capillary size (with b = |h| or r = |h| in Equation 6-7) is (Wang and Narasimhan (1993 [DIRS 106793], p. 329)): 2 / 1 max g 2 b . .. . . .. . . . = (Eq. 6-8) For . = 0.072 kg/s2, . = 998 kg/m3, and g = 9.8 m/s2 the nominal aperture size is 3.84 mm, which, using Equation 6-7, corresponds to a limiting value for a-1 equal to 0.0019 m. Figure 6-48 was generated by plotting the Ko * values derived in Section 6.2.2.1 along with their corresponding Kl values reported in Table 6-8. The line in Figure 6-48 represents the practical limit of Equation 6-3 calculated using the limiting value of a-1 derived from Equation 6-7 and Equation 6-8. Therefore, values of a-1 less than 0.0019 m correspond to nominal apertures that are greater than 3.84 mm, the point at which capillary forces vanish and gravity forces dominate flow. Several data points are slightly above the line in Figure 6-48. This implies that gravity forces dominate fluid flow through these features. 6.2.2.3 Estimated Volumetric Water Content ( . ) of Fractures The niche seepage data can also be used to obtain estimates of the change in volumetric water content ., where . is equal to (volume of water in fractures)/(bulk volume of fractured tuff) of the fractures. Direct measurement of fracture . in the field is difficult at best using conventional hydrologic techniques (e.g., using neutron moisture logs). Therefore, an alternate method of measuring average volumetric water contents indirectly, using wetting-front arrival times observed at the niche ceiling during the seepage tests, is described in the remainder of this subsection. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-96 November 2004 Based on mass conservation along the vertical flow path, the depth of the wetting front below the water source is: ( ) n ave s p t q z . . - = (Eq. 6-9) where zp is the depth from the water-supply surface to the leading edge of the wetting front, qs is the constant flux of water supplied at the source, t is the arrival time of the front at depth zp, .ave is the average water content, and .n is the initial or antecedent (or residual) water content. Using the arrival time for the wetting front observed at the niche ceiling (DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]) and the qs data (DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]), it is possible to estimate the change in volumetric water content change .. = .ave - .n for each seepage test by applying Equation 6-9. (Computation of .. was performed in an Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-8 for Niche 4788 [Niche 4]. The .. was not computed for Niche 3 [Niche 3107]; see Section 6.2.2.4.) Table 6-10 provides a summary of the estimated .. values for zones where three or more seepage tests were conducted. With the approximation that the initial, antecedent, or residual moisture content .n is negligible compared to .ave, then .. becomes a measure of the average volumetric water content. The water-content values, shown in Table 6-10, are within the range of 0.09 percent to 5.0 percent. Surprisingly, this indicates that the saturated water contents or porosities of the fractures could be as high as 5 percent, which is greater than expected. In turn, these values could influence travel-time calculations computed for the UZ, because water transport time is proportional to water content. Using larger water content for the fractures would result in longer transport times. The approach used to estimate water contents for the fractures are evaluated in Appendix Section D1 and Appendix Section D3. Table 6-10. Estimated Changes in Volumetric Water Content (. .) Niche Borehole Name and Interval (m) Test Name Liquid Release Flux qs, (m/s) Average Water Content Change . . = .ave- .n (m3/m3) UL 7.62-7.92 Test #2 1-6-98 9.49E-06 0.0101 UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 2-12-98 1.89E-06 0.0017 UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 3-4-98 2.33E-07 0.0009 UM 4.27-4.57 Test 5 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.78E-05 0.0242 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 12-3-97 9.42E-06 0.0146 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 12-3-97 9.47E-06 0.0075 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 1-7-98 8.82E-07 0.0120 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 2-10-98 3.09E-07 0.0063 3650 UM 4.88-5.18 Test 1 Niche 3650 (11-12-97) 5.41E-05 0.0150 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-97 November 2004 Table 6-10. Estimated Changes in Volumetric Water Content (. .) (Continued) Niche Borehole Name and Interval (m) Test Name Liquid Release Flux qs, (m/s) Average Water Content Change . . = .ave- .n (m3/m3) UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 12-4-97 9.49E-06 0.0043 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #2 12-5-97 2.70E-06 0.0040 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 1-8-98 8.75E-07 0.0082 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 3-6-98 2.48E-07 0.0083 UM 5.49-5.79 Test 4 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.87E-05 0.0124 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #2 12-4-97 9.43E-06 0.0061 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 1-9-98 1.08E-06 0.0046 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 2-11-98 2.55E-07 0.0040 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 1-13-98 3.68E-06 0.0024 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 2-3-98 1.91E-06 0.0018 3650 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 3-5-98 2.48E-07 0.0017 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-3-99 1.65E-06 0.0200 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 9.22E-07 0.0057 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 3.59E-07 0.0101 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 01-24-00 1.46E-07 0.0115 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 11-16-99 1.72E-06 0.0489 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 7.33E-07 0.0503 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 3.83E-07 0.0331 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 3-14-2000 1.66E-07 0.0355 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-7-99 1.69E-06 0.0092 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 1-5-2000 7.11E-07 0.0055 4788 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 1.65E-07 0.0055 Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. 6.2.2.4 Estimated Water Potentials ( .) of Fractures The direct measurement of water potentials is difficult to make in unsaturated fractures because hydrologic instruments are not readily adaptable to measuring such small features. Therefore, an indirect measure of the water potential ( .) was formulated using the a values computed in Section 6.2.2.2. Dividing both sides of Equation 6-4 by Kl (saturated hydraulic conductivity), setting the liquid injection rate as the unsaturated conductivity (i.e., ) ( . K qs = ), and taking the natural logarithm of both sides of the equation, produces the following solution: ( ) a . l s K q / ln = (Eq. 6-10) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-98 November 2004 (The air-entry potential .e is set to zero in the solution.) Using the values for qs and Kl reported in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] and the a-values from Table 6-9, . was computed for several Niche 2 (Niche 3650) tests by employing Equation 6-10. (Computation of . was performed in an Excel spreadsheet documented in Appendix Table B-7 for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) ( . was not computed for Niche 3 [Niche 3107] because a value for Kl could not be computed: the corresponding air permeability value was not measurable with the equipment that was used.) A summary of the resulting . values is provided in Table 6-11. Table 6-11. Estimated Water Potential (.) for the Fractures Niche Borehole and Interval (m) Test Name Absolute Value of the Water Potential . (m) UL 7.62-7.92 Test #2 1-6-98 3.59E-03 UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 2-12-98 5.68E-03 UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 3-4-98 8.39E-03 UM 4.27-4.57 Test 5 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 8.26E-03 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 12-3-97 2.30E-02 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 12-3-97 2.29E-02 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 1-7-98 7.64E-02 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 2-10-98 1.00E-01 UM 4.88-5.18 Test 1 Niche 3650 (11-12-97) 3.13E-03 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 12-4-97 4.56E-03 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #2 12-5-97 5.58E-03 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 1-8-98 6.50E-03 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 3-6-98 7.53E-03 UM 5.49-5.79 Test 4Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 1.95E-02 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #2 12-4-97 2.77E-02 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 1-9-98 1.00E-01 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 2-11-98 1.48E-01 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 1-13-98 5.90E-03 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 2-3-98 6.84E-03 3650 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 3-5-98 9.76E-03 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-3-99 2.56E-02 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 3.12E-02 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 4.01E-02 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 01-24-00 4.86E-02 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 11-16-99 7.38E-03 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 8.65E-03 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 9.61E-03 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 3-14-2000 1.09E-02 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-7-99 4.41E-02 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 1-5-2000 8.93E-02 4788 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 1.66E-01 Source: DTNs: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]; LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. NOTE: Various data sets were used to generate this table. See Appendix Table B-7 for details. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-99 November 2004 6.2.2.5 Fracture-Water Characteristic Curves The volumetric water-content values from Section 6.2.2.3 and the water-potential values derived in Section 6.2.2.4 are plotted in Figure 6-49 to create a water-characteristic curve for the fractures. Only those test intervals where three or more tests were conducted are included in the figure. (Inclusion of zones that have only two data points, joined by a straight line, contributes little to an understanding of the functional relation between . and ..) Note that the data fall into two groups, exhibiting similar water-retention characteristics. The first group (designated in Figure 6-49 as N3650 UL 7.62-7.92 m, N3650 UR 6.71-7.01 m, and N3650 4.88-5.18 m) consists of high-permeability fractures that drain over a narrow range of water potentials. The second group (N3650 UM 4.27-4.57 m, N3650 UM 5.49-5.79 m, N4788 UM 6.10-6.40 m, N4788 UL 7.62-7.93 m, and N4788 UR 5.18-5.48 m) consists of lower-permeability fractures that drain over a relatively larger range of water potentials. Residual water remaining in the fracture after the initial test can cause subsequent test data (collected during a test performed at a similar rate) to shift to the left, parallel to the x-axis, as shown in Figure 6-50 for test interval N3650 UM 4.27-4.57 m. The second and third tests from this interval were conducted at nearly identical fluxes (9.42 × 10-6 versus 9.47 × 10-6 m/s) separated in time by less than two hours. The wetting front arrived at the niche ceiling during the second test in approximately half the time required for the first test, resulting in a . . value that is half that for the second test compared to the first. The fourth and fifth tests in the sequence were performed approximately one and two months later, respectively. Evidence of the effects of wetting history is not readily apparent for these tests, which were conducted at lower fluxes (corresponding to lower water contents), indicating that the fractures drained or dried out prior to retesting. 6.3 ANALYSES OF TRACER-MIGRATION DELINEATION AT NICHE 2 (NICHE 3650) Upon completion of the series of seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) described in Section 6.2.1.3.1, an episodic tracer migration test was conducted to elucidate the flow paths above the niche ceiling. The distribution of tracers from both the final tracer migration test and previous liquid-release and seepage-threshold tests are presented in this section. Tracer-stained rock samples were analyzed in the laboratory for the determination of tracer distributions. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-100 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. Output DTN: LB0110LIQR0015.001. NOTES: Various data sets were used to generate this figure. See Appendix Tables B-7 and B-8 for details. s = Saturated conditions. h = Data point influenced by wetting history. Figure 6-49. Water Retention Curves for Fractures 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 Absolute Value of Water Potential (m 1 2 3 4 5 Numbers indicate testing sequence Arrow indicates effect of wetting history on water content. Test 2 and 3 conducted at nearly the same flow rate separated in time by < 2 hours. Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. NOTE: Various data sets were used to generate this figure. Refer to Appendix Tables B-7 and B-8 for details. Figure 6-50. Effect of Wetting History on Water Retention Curves for Test Interval N3650 UM 4.27-4.57 m In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-101 November 2004 6.3.1 Tracer Distribution from the Tracer-Migration Test 6.3.1.1 Field Studies at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) As described in Section 6.1, seven 0.0762-m-diameter boreholes were drilled at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). Three of these boreholes, designated UL, UM, and UR, were drilled approximately 1 m apart and 0.65 m above the niche ceiling in the same horizontal plane as shown in Panel (b) of Figure 6-4. An array of twelve sampling boreholes was drilled to collect core samples for tracer analyses, as shown in Figure 6-51. The core analyses delineated the extent of tracer migration from the final episodic liquid-release event as well as for all previous tracer and liquid-release tests. There were three sets of liquid injection tests conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) in the following order: 1. Before the Niche excavation, liquid release tests with dye-spiked water were conducted in early August 1997, as described in Section 6.2.1.1. Flow paths were observed during niche excavation as described in Section 6.2.1.2. 2. Seepage tests were performed with water on borehole test intervals along Borehole UL, Borehole UM, and Borehole UR positioned above the niche from late 1997 to early 1998, as described in Section 6.2.1.3.1. 3. The episodic tracer migration test was conducted in September 1998, as described in Section 6.3.1.2. Liquid-release tests were conducted before the niche excavation to evaluate how far a finite pulse of liquid would travel through unsaturated fractured rock (Section 6.2.1). Water containing colored dyes was used to mark the wetted area and flow paths resulting from each test. The niche was then dry-excavated (using an Alpine Miner) to observe and photograph the distribution of fractures and dye within the welded tuff (see Section 6.2.1 of this report, and Wang et al. 1999 [DIRS 106146], pp. 329–332). Along the three upper boreholes (Borehole UL, Borehole UM, Borehole UR), two Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) dyes were released before niche excavation: FD&C Blue No. 1 and FD&C Red No. 40. Blue and red bars in Panel (a) of Figure 6-51 on the upper-left side of test-interval locations represent the pre-excavation liquid-release tests. After niche excavation, a series of short-duration seepage tests was performed to determine the amount of liquid that would seep into the mined opening (Section 6.2.1.3.1). Post-excavation liquid-injection tests were conducted both with and without tracers. Post-excavation tracers included FD&C Blue No. 1, Sulpho Rhodamine B, Pyranine, FD&C Yellow No. 6, Acid Yellow 7, and Amino G Acid. The post-excavation seepage test sequences are summarized schematically on the lower right side of test-interval locations in Panel (a) of Figure 6-51. 6.3.1.2 Tracer Migration Test The tracer migration test was conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) six months after the seepage tests. From September 16, 1998, to September 18, 1998, water containing seven tracers In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-102 November 2004 (4.60 g/L NaI, 4.60 g/L CaI2, 4.60 g/L CaBr2, 1.56 g/L FD&C Blue No. 1, 1.76 g/L FD&C Yellow No. 5, 0.019 g/L 2,3-difluorobenzoic acid, and 0.018 g/L pentafluorobenzoic acid) was released into a highly permeable zone located in Borehole UM, 4.88–5.18 m from the borehole collar. Iodide, bromide, and fluorinated benzoic acids were used as nonreactive tracers; the others were applied as sorbing tracers. The release rate was 0.013 g/s, with a total released volume of approximately 1.52 L. The wetting front was observed to reach the niche ceiling in a large fracture/breakout, but water did not drip into the niche. Niche 3650 UL UM UR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (b) (a) Niche 3650 NOTES: The red-colored cylinder denotes the release interval of the tracer migration test. (a) = Plan view with liquid-release/dye application history. (b) = 3-D view from inside the niche. Figure 6-51. Schematic of Sampling Borehole Array In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-103 November 2004 From September 23 to October 1, 1998, twelve sampling boreholes, nominally 1.5 m long, were drilled into the niche ceiling around the liquid-release interval to determine the extent of the tracer migration. Rock-core samples were collected during the drilling process for subsequent laboratory chemical analyses. (Refer to Wang 1999 [DIRS 153449], pp. 99–107, 123, and 124 for a detailed description of this tracer migration test.) Panel (b) of Figure 6-51 shows a 3-D perspective view of the sampling borehole array. The cores from the boreholes were 4.47 cm in diameter and were divided into sections during coring, with each section separately wrapped in Saran Wrap®. Each wrapped sample was placed inside a Lexan® liner (with tape wrapping sealing both ends of the liners) and sealed in a Protecore® packet. The interval for each section was noted on the packet, which was assigned a unique numeric identifier. The tracer chemical information is shown by Hu (1999 [DIRS 156541], pp. 154–155), and Hu (1999 [DIRS 155691], p. 151). Tracer analysis results and discussions are presented as concentration ratios (independent of chemical purity). Appendix E, Sections E2 and E3 describe core sample processing and aqueous tracer measurement for the analyses of tracer distribution. Iodide and FD&C Yellow No. 5 concentrations were not detected above background levels in the samples collected from the twelve boreholes drilled around the release interval. Iodide and FD&C Yellow No. 5 were applied only during the tracer migration test and were not used in earlier seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). These results indicate that the sampling borehole array did not capture the tracer plume of the tracer migration test. Liquid migration was most likely localized and very possibly confined within the 1.0-m-by-1.6-m area directly below the liquid-release interval. Several rock-chip samples were collected from the ceiling of Niche 2 (Niche 3650) in March 2001. These samples were obtained directly under the release interval of the tracer migration test (within a radius of approximately 20 cm), and within the twelve sampling boreholes. Six samples have been processed for chemical concentration measurements as documented by Hu (1999 [DIRS 155691], pp. 143–144), and Hu (2000 [DIRS 156473]). Iodide was detected in all six of the analyzed samples, confirming the arrival of iodide from the wetting front observed at the niche ceiling during the tracer migration test. FD&C Yellow No. 5 was not found among the samples, possibly because of its higher sorption compared to iodide. 6.3.2 Delineation of Tracer Distributions from Previous Liquid-Release Tests Tests before the tracer migration test were conducted at different borehole intervals at various flow rates to determine the seepage thresholds for each interval. A total of 40 liquid-release tests over 16 borehole intervals were conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), using both water with and without dye tracers as shown in Panel (a) of Figure 6-51. The distributions of these tracers were evaluated through the analyses of cores from the twelve sampling boreholes drilled into the flow domains. Examples of measured dye concentration versus borehole interval are shown in Figure 6-52 and Figure 6-53. The distribution of the tracers above the niche is used to assess the extent of tracer spreading and to provide data for the evaluation of seepage processes. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-104 November 2004 Tracer data are presented as dimensionless ratios of the detected tracer level to the background level. A higher ratio indicates the stronger presence of the tracer in the particular interval of a borehole. These detection ratios provide sufficient information about the spatial distributions of tracers, reconcile the difference in measurement techniques (i.e., ultraviolet/visible and fluorescence spectrophotometers), and eliminate the need to use and verify chemical purity information provided by the manufacturers. In Section 6.3.2.2, the measured dye distributions are illustrated in three dimensions, based on as-built borehole survey coordinates using EARTHVISION V4.0 software (LBNL 1998 [DIRS 152835]). 6.3.2.1 Detection of Tracers Several dyes from previous applications of seepage tests (discussed in Section 6.2.1.3.1) were detected within the borehole samples, as summarized in Table 6-12. FD&C Blue No. 1 was present in seven out of 12 boreholes, with some of the boreholes containing relatively high concentrations of the tracer. Sulpho Rhodamine B was detected within four borehole samples. Overall, the dye distribution pattern was relatively spotty, reflecting the complex interplay of preferential flow paths and liquid application history. All of the previous liquid-release and seepage tests were conducted at least six months before the tracer migration test (see Section 6.3.1). Table 6-12. Compilation of Tracer Detection versus Borehole Location Borehole ID FD&C Blue No. 1 Sulpho Rhodamine B FD&C Yellow No. 6 Pyranine Acid Yellow 7 Amino G Acid 1 - +++ - - - - 2 +++ - - - +++++ + 3 +++ - - - - - 4 - - - - - - 5 - - - - - - 6 - - - - - - 7 +++++ +++++ +++ - - - 8 +++ - - - - - 9 + - - - - - 10 +++ +++++ - + - - 11 +++++ + - +++ - - 12 - - - - - - Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. NOTES: - = Detection ratio is less than 3 (treated as absent) within this particular borehole. + = The highest detection ratio is between 3 and 100 within this particular borehole. +++ = The highest detection ratio is between 100 and 1,000 within this particular borehole. +++++ = The highest detection ratio is greater than 1,000 within this particular borehole. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-105 November 2004 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0-8 8-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-61 61-73 73-79 79-85 88-98 98-110 110-122 122-137 137-152 152-168 Depth Interval from Borehole Collar (cm) Detection Ratio FD&C Blue No. 1 Borehole 7 (a) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0-8 8-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-61 61-73 73-79 79-85 88-98 98-110 110-122 122-137 137-152 152-168 Depth Interval from Borehole Collar (cm) Detection Ratio Sulpho Rhodamine B Borehole 7 (b) Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. NOTES: Duplicate measurements were taken at each specific interval. (a) = FD&C Blue No. 1. (b) = Sulpho Rhodamine B. Figure 6-52. Dye Detection along Borehole 7 of Niche 3650 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-106 November 2004 0 100 200 300 400 500 0-6 6-16 16-33 33-45 45-57 57-67 67-76 76-85 85-93 93-101 101-113 113-125 125-137 137-152 Depth Interval from Borehole Collar (cm) Detection Ratio (a) Pyranine Borehole 11 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0-6 6-19 19-33 33-44 44-56 56-67 67-77 77-88 88-98 98-107 107-120 120-134 134-143 143-152 Depth Interval from Borehole Collar (cm) Detection Ratio Acid Yellow 7 Borehole 2 (b) Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. Figure 6-53. Dye Detection of (a) Pyranine along Borehole 11 and (b) Acid Yellow 7 along Borehole 2 of Niche 3650 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-107 November 2004 6.3.2.2 Distribution of Dyes FD&C Blue No. 1 was released in six intervals during pre-excavation liquid-release tests and in four intervals during post-excavation seepage tests (including one with a mixture of blue and yellow dyes). The blue dye distributions, together with release-interval locations, are illustrated in Figure 6-54. Boreholes where the tracer was not detected are represented by narrow lines. The multiple releases and dilutions introduced a complex application history. Overall results suggested that most regions containing blue dye were associated with tracer tests from nearby release intervals. Sulpho Rhodamine B was used in eight seepage tests along seven borehole intervals. Figure 6-55 illustrates the results for Sulpho Rhodamine B. Near Borehole 7, Sulpho Rhodamine B was released once (in the interval UM 4.88-5.18 m), followed by three releases of water without dyes, and once with a mixture of FD&C Blue No. 1 and FD&C Yellow No. 6. The Sulpho Rhodamine B in Borehole 7, and near the niche ceiling in Borehole 8, most likely originated from this release episode. There was no Sulpho Rhodamine B detected in Borehole 3, Borehole 9, and Borehole 12. This suggested that the Sulpho Rhodamine B was likely migrating downward, rather than spreading laterally. In Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Pyranine, Acid Yellow 7, and Amino G Acid were used only once. Pyranine, Acid Yellow 7, and Amino G Acid are fluorescent dyes, and the low detection limits achievable with the fluorescence spectrophotometer provide confidence for the delineation of dye-stained flow paths within the sampling borehole array. Additionally, FD&C Yellow No. 6 was used once at Borehole UM, Interval 4.88-5.18 m within the sampling borehole array, and another time at Borehole UL, Interval 7.62-7.92 m outside the borehole array (Panel (a) of Figure 6-51). The observations from these tracer distributions also showed localized distributions of tracers, confirming downward migration (not the lateral spreading that was observed in the earlier tests). Pyranine, for example, was detected at neighboring Boreholes 10 and 11; its presence was much stronger at Borehole 10 than at Borehole 11 (Table 6-12 and Figure 6-56). Borehole 11 is located almost exactly below the interval of UM 4.27-4.57 m where Pyranine was released. Four episodes of water-only seepage tests were conducted following this Pyranine application. These liquid releases did not seem to enhance extensive lateral spreading. Overall, the lateral spreading of Pyranine was observed to be approximately 0.75 m to the left (i.e., at Borehole 10), resulting from these five release tests. However, its presence at Borehole 10 was only slightly above the background level. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-108 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinders denote intervals of early-release events. The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. Figure 6-54. Three-Dimensional View of FD&C Blue No. 1 Detection Related to the Release Interval above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-109 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinders denote intervals of early-release events. The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. Figure 6-55. Three-Dimensional View of Sulpho Rhodamine B Detection Related to the Release Interval above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-110 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinderdenotes an interval of an early-release event. The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. Figure 6-56. Three-Dimensional View of Pyranine Detection Related to the Release Interval above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) Acid Yellow 7 was detected only at Borehole 2, approximately 0.3 m from Interval UM 6.10-6.40 m where it was released (see Figure 6-57). Amino G Acid was also detected near the detection limit at Borehole 2, approximately 0.3 m from Interval UM 5.49-5.79 m where it was released (see Figure 6-58). Note that although the Interval UM 5.49-5.79 m was encompassed within the sampling borehole array, Amino G Acid was not detected in any other borehole. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-111 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer-release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinder denotes an interval of an earlier release event. The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. Figure 6-57. Three-Dimensional View of Acid Yellow 7 Detection Related to the Release Interval above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-112 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. NOTES: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinder denotes an interval of an early-release event. The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. Figure 6-58. Three-Dimensional View of Amino G Acid Detection Related to the Release Interval above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) The last dye distribution shown pertains to FD&C Yellow No. 6 (Figure 6-59). The dye was present at Borehole 7. Borehole 7 was approximately 0.5 m from Interval UM 4.88-5.18 m where both FD&C Yellow No. 6 and FD&C Blue No. 1 were simultaneously released. This release episode had one of the lowest release rates (0.013 g/s), and one of the largest release volumes (5597 g) of all liquid-release tests conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) (see Section 6.2). Borehole 7 is located in the middle of the sampling borehole array. The observation that FD&C Yellow No. 6 was only present in Borehole 7 further demonstrated the localized characteristics of liquid flow with limited lateral spreading, even in this case with comparatively large release volume. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-113 November 2004 Source: DTN: LB990601233124.003 [DIRS 106051]. NOTE: The red cylinder denotes the tracer release interval of the tracer migration test; the orange cylinder denotes an interval of an early-release event. (One of the two release intervals is the same as the last release event, represented by the red cylinder.) The sampling boreholes are individually identified. Detection ratios (dimensionless) are presented in the legend. Tracer concentrations are presented in dimensionless detection ratios as described in Section 6.3.2. Figure 6-59. Three-Dimensional View of FD&C Yellow No. 6 Detection Related to the Release Intervals above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-114 November 2004 The dye distribution plots also indicate that some dyes migrated above the injection intervals, as illustrated in Figure 6-54 for FD&C Blue No. 1, in Figure 6-56 for Pyranine; and to a lesser degree in Figure 6-55 for Sulpho Rhodamine B, in Figure 6-57 for Acid Yellow 7, and in Figure 6-58 for Amino G Acid. This is an interesting observation, indicating that fairly strong capillary forces may induce upward movements against gravity. Similar behavior was also observed in the Busted Butte test, as described in Section 6.13.3.1.1. 6.4 ANALYSES OF TRACER PENETRATION AND WATER IMBIBITION INTO WELDED TUFF MATRIX The objectives of this study are to investigate water flow and tracer transport, focusing on the relative extents of fracture flow and fracture-matrix interaction in the unsaturated, fractured tuff through a combination of field and laboratory experiments. Fieldwork was conducted in the ESF niches with liquid containing tracers released at specified borehole intervals. Tracer-stained rock samples were collected during niche excavation for subsequent laboratory analyses. Clean rock samples, collected from the same stratigraphic unit, were machined into cylinders for laboratory studies of tracer penetration into the rock matrix under different initial water-saturation levels. The use of laser-ablation inductively coupled-plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) to investigate chemical transport and sorption in unsaturated tuff is also presented. 6.4.1 Penetration of Dyes into Rocks from the Niches Samples for laboratory analyses were collected from Niche 2 (Niche 3650) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788). The niche test sites, borehole configurations, liquid-release tests, and tracers used in the field are described in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3. Laboratory tests under controlled conditions were conducted to compare the travel front behavior of moisture, nonreactive bromide, and sorbing dye tracers (FD&C Blue No. 1 and Sulpho Rhodamine B). Sample drilling and tracer profiling techniques were developed. The descriptions and evaluations of laboratory analyses are presented in Appendix E. 6.4.1.1 Field Observations During the niche excavation, as described in Section 6.2.1.2, dye was observed along individual fractures and intersecting fractures to a maximum depth of 2.6 m below the liquid-release points at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), and to a maximum depth of approximately 1.8 m at Niche 4 (Niche 4788). In general, the dye remained relatively close to the release interval and did not spread laterally more than 0.5 m. Figure 6-60 is a photograph taken during the excavation of Niche 4 (Niche 4788), showing the wall face with the fracture network stained by FD&C Blue No. 1. Results of post-excavation liquid-seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) also indicate fast fracture flow with limited lateral spreading, because seepage water was captured in trays that are either directly below the test interval or next to them. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-221 November 2004 6.11 ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS OF SYSTEMATIC HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION A systematic approach (testing at regular intervals regardless of specific features arising from spatial heterogeneity) was chosen for performing hydrologic characterization along the ECRB Cross-Drift (Cook et al. 2003 [DIRS 165424]). These tests took place in boreholes drilled at regular intervals along the ECRB Cross-Drift within the lower lithophysal zone of the TSw. The lower lithophysal welded tuff unit is intersected by many small fractures (less than 1 m long) and interspersed with many lithophysal cavities (ranging in size from 15 to 100 cm). The size and spacing of both the fractures and lithophysal cavities vary appreciably along the drift walls (the drift is 5 m in diameter) over an 800-m stretch. This indicates that hydrologic characteristics at one particular location may not be representative of the entire unit. Therefore, a systematic approach of testing at regular intervals was adopted to acquire knowledge of the heterogeneous hydrologic characteristics of this unit, in which more than 80 percent of the repository will reside. The specific test plan for this series of tests is Systematic Hydrological Characterization, SITP-02-UZ-004 (BSC 2001 [DIRS 158202]). The data from the systematic hydrologic characterization in the ECRB Cross-Drift (i.e., air-permeability data and the data from liquid-release tests, including injection rates, seepage rates, relative humidity, and evaporation rate) were used as part of the model development, calibration, and validation of the seepage calibration model (BSC 2004 [171764]). The systematic approach was to complement other hydrologic testing in the ambient testing program, in which test locations were selected either by avoiding or focusing on specific features (such as large fractures or an abundance of fractures or cavities). Systematic hydrologic characterization investigated the hydrologic properties that are important to repository performance. Field measurements included: • Air-injection tests that give a measure of fracture permeability • Liquid-release tests that determine the ability of the open drift to act as a capillary barrier (diverting water around itself) as well as the potential for water seeping into the drift • Crosshole gas-tracer tests to measure the effective porosity of the rock mass. 6.11.1 Systematic Borehole Testing Setup 6.11.1.1 Systematic Borehole Configuration Figure 6-127 shows a schematic of the arrays of boreholes (all 20 m in length) drilled at regular intervals along the ECRB Cross-Drift. The borehole arrays are divided into three groups. Group I consists of low-angled boreholes drilled from the crown of the 5-m-diameter ECRB Cross-Drift, inclined at 15 degrees from the drift axis. These boreholes were intended for both air-injection and liquid-release tests, with the spacing of adjacent boreholes from collar to collar at 30 m. Group II consists of near-vertical boreholes drilled from the crown of the drift. Group III consists of pairs of parallel horizontal boreholes, spaced 3 m apart and drilled from the In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-222 November 2004 side of the drift. The former (Group II) were intended for air-injection tests to determine the effect of drift excavation on fracture properties, and the latter (Group III) were for gas-tracer tests to determine the effective porosity. Group II and III boreholes are in groups of three, spaced 90 m apart, as shown in Figure 6-127. The Group I boreholes are the primary ones used for study in this investigation. Four boreholes were tested. Their collars are located at CD 17+49, CD 17+26, CD 16+95, and CD 16+65, respectively, from the ECRB portal. Because of the location of a bulkhead at CD 17+63, drilling operations in the ECRB-Cross-Drift are precluded beyond CD 17+63; as a result, the first two boreholes are separated by only 23 m. All of the boreholes are inclined up toward the portal end of the ECRB Cross-Drift. I II III TT2K002 TT2K001 II Air Permeability (Effect of excavation) III Gas Tracer (Porosity) I Air Permeability Liquid Injection NOTE: The drift portal is to the left of the schematic. Figure 6-127. Schematic of Borehole Configuration in the ECRB Cross-Drift for Systematic Characterization of the Lower Lithophysal Unit In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-223 November 2004 6.11.1.2 Equipment The equipment system was custom-designed for the systematic characterization study, based on two criteria: automation and mobility. Field-scale measurements involving liquid flow in unsaturated rock require continuous testing, lasting for weeks to months, whereas the ECRB Cross-Drift was open only for eight hours, four days every week. Therefore, the control of test equipment was fully automated, allowing remote manipulation via computer network when there is no human presence at the field site. The second criterion, mobility, was achieved by designing all equipment needed for the systematic characterization as units to fit on flatbed rail cars. This enabled investigators to efficiently transport equipment from one test station to another along the ECRB Cross-Drift. A schematic of the testing equipment for air injection and liquid release is shown in Figure 6-128. The main function of the equipment was to distribute water at a specified rate along a specified length of borehole and to capture and quantify any water that makes its way from the borehole through the rock formation as seepage into the drift. The key components of the system are the packer assembly, water supply hardware, and seepage capture system. 6.11.1.2.1 Packer Assembly The packer assembly used inflatable-rubber-packer units to seal off sections of the borehole (so that released water cannot reach these sections) and separated each borehole into three nonsealed 1.83-m-long water-release sections. The three sealing sections of the packer assembly use 3-m-long, soft inflatable rubber tubing (0.64-cm-thick wall) supported by and clamped at each end onto a 5-cm stainless-steel core, for an overall diameter of 6.3 cm. The relatively long (3 m) packers were intended to provide effective sealing in a lithophysal unit, where cavities can be as deep as 1 m. The cores of these rubberized sections contain internal tubing to inflate the rubber up to the size of the borehole diameter (7.6 cm), by means of compressed air. Of the three water-delivery sections, also made of 5-cm-diameter stainless tubing, two lie between the three rubberized sections in the borehole, and the third lies beyond the farthest rubber section into the borehole. Because of the small-angle incline of the borehole, the vertical distance from the nearest section to the drift crown is approximately 1 m, whereas the vertical distance between the second and the farthest (that is, farthest into the borehole) sections and the crown are approximately 2.5 m and 4 m, respectively. (Note that if used for air-injection tests, Zone 3 is longer than the other zones (which are 1.83 m long), because the last zone begins at the end of the third packer and extends to the end of the 20-m-long borehole.) Water was released into these unsealed sections or zones by one of two means. One method used a single release point close to the rubber sealing section at the upper end of the unsealed zone. The other method used multiple orifices along an unsealed section to enable water to be released at six evenly spaced locations along the entire unsealed section. Tubing resides inside each of the delivery sections for single-point injection, for multipoint injection at six evenly spaced locations, and for drainage of overflow, should the delivery rate prove to be too high for all the water to completely enter the formation. One additional tube from each delivery section connected it to a pressure transducer located outside the hole, to measure air pressure in each zone. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-224 November 2004 Figure 6-128. A Schematic of the Equipment System: Packer Assembly, Water Supply and Air-Injection Component, Seepage Collection Component, and Data Acquisition and Control In keeping with the design requirements of the testing site, the sections of packer assembly were shipped as separate parts and assembled at the site. O-rings at the connections between sections ensured that the annuli left in the vicinity of the water-delivery sections were sealed from atmospheric conditions inside the hollow, open-packer core. The packer inflation, water supply, and water drain tubing from all sections extended through the core of the packer assembly to the outside of the borehole, where it was connected to the water supply system. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-225 November 2004 6.11.1.2.2 Water Supply System Each delivery section in the borehole had its own water supply system. The triplicate design allowed testing in all three zones of the same borehole simultaneously. The water supply hardware controlled the amount of water delivered to a section and measured the total quantity of water supplied to that section over time. In addition, the supply hardware also measured, over time, the quantity of any return flow through the drain port from the delivery section. Each supply system made use of twin vertical, cylindrical bottles to supply and measure the water that was delivered. The bottles were 1.5 m tall and 20 cm in diameter, a size that enabled mobility of the units between test locations without sacrificing volume resolution or supply volume. One bottle could fill from the tunnel water supply, while the other was pumped, so that the supply and measurement system could run without interruption. Located at the base of each bottle, differential-pressure transducers (which cancel atmospheric changes) measured the head of water in each bottle. These transducers, when multiplied by the known area of a bottle, yield the water quantity residing in the bottle. One of two sizes of electronically controlled gear pumps pushed water from the bottom of the active supply bottle up to the packer assembly for water delivery. The two different-sized pumps were used to provide a supply-rate range of 10 mL/min to 2000 mL/min. The crossover from the small pump to the large pump was at approximately 300 mL/min. Valves enabled either bottle to supply either pump with the single-point delivery tube or the multipoint delivery tube. Another valve attached to each bottle directed any return flow to run back into the inactive bottle, so that this flow could be measured. One more valve at each bottle supplied each with refill water from the tunnel supply when needed. All the valves were pneumatically actuated via airlines controlled by solenoids. Electronic relays under computer control operated the solenoids. Voltage signals delivered by digital-to-analog converters under computer control governed the pumps, and an analog-to-digital converter with multiplexor converted the current-loop output of the transducers to digital format, which was recorded by the same computer used for valve and pump control. 6.11.1.2.3 Seepage-Capture System Hardware for seepage capture at each zone consisted of a horizontally mounted U-shaped polyvinyl chloride (PVC) curtain, which captured seepage from the rock under the release zone and funneled it into twin collection bottles designed similarly to the supply bottles. A valve at the bottom of each bottle allows drainage into a continuous drain, while another valve at the top of each determines whether collected water can enter. This configuration allowed drainage of one bottle without interruption of seepage collection and measurement in the other. The collection system also utilized differential-pressure transducers to obtain the head of water (and, therefore, the quantity of water) in the bottles. The 20-cm diameter of the collection system implies that a volume of 0.03 L of seepage water needs to be accumulated for every millimeter rise of water level. As with the supply system, the collection system is serviced by computer recording and control system. Figure 6-128 shows the arrangement of the capture curtains relative to the packer system. The capture curtain is 4 m long (more than double the 1.83-m length of the release zone). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-226 November 2004 6.11.1.2.4 Air-Injection System The packer system also included an air-injection system for determining the air permeability of each delivery zone. The single-point delivery tubes included valves that allowed water to drain and air to be introduced into each zone. Mass-flow controllers deliver air at constant-mass flux through the single-point injection line. Dedicated absolute-pressure transducers for each zone enabled air-pressure measurements during air injection and thus allow calculation of air permeability. The mass-flow controllers were computer-controlled, and airflow rates were recorded by the data acquisition system. Measurements of air-permeability in other test beds in the underground drifts were presented in Section 6.1 and Section 6.5. 6.11.1.2.5 Control and Recording System In addition to continuous recording of all transducer outputs, the computer interface for the supply and collection systems enabled the processes to be controlled manually or automatically. The computer incorporated remote-control capability, so that the systems could be started and controlled through computer networks. Figure 6-129 shows the front panel from the user interface on the computer control. Depicted are the supply bottles at the top and the collection bottles at the bottom. Three completely independent systems are used, one for each zone. The Zone 1 system is shown operating on automatic control, using the low flow pump at 50-percent flow capacity from Bottle A. Return flow is being collected in supply Bottle B. Seepage is being collected in Bottle B while Bottle A is draining. Operational water paths are highlighted with thicker lines. The toggle switch on the Zone 1 control panel (z1 auto) is on to enable automatic operation. When this switch is enabled, manual operation of the valve and pump controls is disabled, and they merely function as indicators from which to monitor the automatic operation. The controls are then operated automatically. Other zones are not operating. 6.11.1.2.6 Automation Program The operator specifies pump rate and selects the water-delivery zone. All other aspects of control are performed automatically. Pumping starts in Bottle A, while Bottle B collects return water, until the water content read by the Bottle A transducer indicates that this bottle is nearly empty. At this point, Bottle B is filled to a preset limit (as monitored by the pressure transducer) if it is not at this limit already. When Bottle B is filled, pumping is switched from Bottle A to Bottle B. Bottle A is then able to collect any return flow. While filling from the main water supply, bottles are unable to collect return flow. Because filling is a rapid event, this pause in recording does not affect data collection. If filling does not occur rapidly enough to prepare the second bottle before the first one runs dry, the pump is switched to the second bottle even before it is completely full when a lower limit is passed (as read by the transducer of the first bottle). To obtain a continuous record of all the water delivered to a zone, the total volume of water from the bottle being emptied is subtracted from the water content at the start of the emptying of that bottle. This net refill value is then added to the previous total. A similar arrangement works for the return-water record. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-227 November 2004 Figure 6-129. Schematic Illustration of Front Panel for Control Interface on Computer 6.11.1.2.7 System Fail-Safes To avoid overfilling of the bottles or the pumps running dry in the event of a failure in the automatic control system, or inadvertent use of the controls on manual setting, the system employs float switches at the top and bottom of the bottles as a backup to the automation. The bottom float switches when triggered (depicted in light gray in Figure 6-129 for the Zone 2 and Zone 3 systems), forcing the associated pumps to stay off even if requested by a user or automation system to operate. The top float switches interrupt the electrical current to the fill valves when triggered. In the event of a computer shutdown such as during a power failure, all the relays and pump controls are turned off, causing the system to default to a stand-by mode. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-228 November 2004 6.11.2 Systematic Testing Results and Observations Sets of completed tests in four low-angle boreholes (belonging to Group I as noted in Figure 6-127), Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1, Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2, Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3, and Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#4, will be described in Sections 6.11.2.1 through 6.11.2.12 in the order in which tests were performed. 6.11.2.1 Air-Injection Tests and Liquid-Release Tests in LA#2, Initiated on May 11, 2000 Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 (also referred to as LA#2) is collared at ECRB Cross-Drift Station CD 17+26. Three packers isolated the borehole into three zones. The vertical distance from the middle of the 1.83-m-long liquid-release interval of Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 to the drift crown is 1.58 m, 2.84 m, and 4.10 m, respectively. Air-permeability estimates for the three zones are calculated from the steady-state pressure response induced by constant-flow-rate air injection; the estimates are summarized in Table 6-29 (DTN: LB00090012213U.001 [DIRS 153141]). Table 6-29. Air-Permeability Values for the Three Zones in Borehole LA#2 Zone ID Zone Length (m) Air Permeability k (m 2), for Packer Inflation at 27.5 PSI Air Permeability k (m 2), for Packer Inflation at 32.5 PSI LA#2 Zone 1 1.83 2.5 × 10-11 2.3 × 10-11 LA#2 Zone 2 1.83 2.7 × 10-11 2.5 × 10-11 LA#2 Zone 3 5.18 1.1 × 10-11 0.95 × 10-11 Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.001 [DIRS 153141]. PSI = pounds per square inch. Pressure response and injection flow rates are shown in Figure 6-130. The fast rise and decay of the pressure in response to initiation and termination of air injection indicate very little storage effect. The air-permeability measurements were repeated for a lower and higher packer inflation pressure. The repeatability of the two measurements for different packer inflation pressure indicates that there was minimal between-zone leakage from improper sealing of the packers. Following the air-injection tests in all three zones, a liquid-release test was conducted in Zone 1 only. A large liquid release rate of approximately 450 mL/min was initiated in Zone 1 through one single release point in the 1.83-m-long injection zone. No return flow was detected; this indicated that all released water was able to enter the rock formation through the injection section. Figure 6-131 gives the cumulative volume of water supplied to Zone 1 (left axis) and the cumulative volume of water collected in the seepage-collection system (right axis) as a function of time. Figure 6-131 indicates that the initiation of water release was at 9:31 am and the start of seepage collection was at 12:00 (although a wet spot first appeared at the drift ceiling at 11:10, and water began to seep shortly after). Understandably, a time lag existed between the first wetting of the drift ceiling and the time when enough water had collected in the seepage-collection cylinder to cause a measurable change in the water level (nominally, a 3-mm change in water level for every 100 mL of water). The wetting of the drift ceiling expanded with time, and by 15:15, the wetted area was approximately 0.8 m2. The following morning In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-229 November 2004 (May 12, 2000), it was noted that in addition to the seepage from the wetted drift ceiling directly below the injection zone, water was also seeping through a rock bolt borehole beyond the edge of the capture curtain. The capture curtain was 4 m in length and was approximately centered below the 1.83-m liquid injection zone. Seeped water from the rock bolt borehole was missed by the seepage collection data acquisition and may be related to the recorded decrease in seepage rate after approximately 20:00 on May 11 (as shown in Figure 6-131). The water release into Zone 1 was terminated at 8:36 on May 12, 2000. Pressure Response to Air Injection 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 5/10/00 11:30 5/10/00 11:45 5/10/00 12:00 5/10/00 12:15 5/10/00 12:30 5/10/00 12:45 5/10/00 13:00 5/10/00 13:15 5/10/00 13:30 Date/Time Differential Pressure (Pa) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Air Mass Flow Rate (Standard Liters Per Minute) delta P zone 1 Pa delta P zone 2 Pa delta P zone 3 Pa 500 MFC (SLPM) Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.001 [DIRS 153141]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. NOTE: MFC = mass flow controller; Pa = Pascals; SLPM = Standard liters per minute. Figure 6-130. Pressure Responses (Pink, Orange, and Green) to Constant Mass Flow of Air-Injection (Blue) for Estimation of Fracture Permeability in Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-230 November 2004 Zone 1 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 5/11/00 04:48 5/11/00 09:36 5/11/00 14:24 5/11/00 19:12 5/12/00 00:00 5/12/00 04:48 5/12/00 09:36 5/12/00 14:24 5/12/00 19:12 Injection (Liters) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Seepage (Liters) injection seepage Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. Figure 6-131. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 1 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative Seepage into the ECRB Cross-Drift for a Test Performed between May 11 and May 12, 2000 6.11.2.2 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 in Borehole LA#2, Initiated on May 17, 2000 Between 11:45 am and 11:49 am on May 17, 2000, liquid release into Zones 1, 2, and 3 was initiated (Figure 6-132). The multipoint mode of injection was used so that water was evenly spread along each 1.83-m-long zone. A liquid-release rate of 30 mL/min was intended for each zone. However, for the same specified water-release pump rate, the actual release rate to each zone would differ because of the difference in zone elevation. Figure 6-132 shows the cumulative volume of water supplied to Zones 1, 2, and 3 (left axis) and the cumulative volume of seepage (right axis). Note that seepage from Zone 1 was recorded beginning on May 18, 2000 (3:11), but seepage from Zone 2 and Zone 3 was never above the noise level of the data. In the morning of May 18, 2000, it was found that the software controlling the filling of supply Bottle B was not functioning properly. Delivery of water to all three zones was therefore terminated May 18, 2000 (9:08). Figure 6-132 shows that the cumulative volume of water supplied to Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 ceases to increase after May 17, 2000 (21:23), May 18, 2000 (0:39), and May 18, 2000 (7:13), respectively. These were the times at which Bottle A was empty and the water supply was switched to Bottle B. However, onsite inspection revealed that refill of Bottle B was being mechanically controlled by the float switches. Consequently, water was continually being released from Bottle B, presumably at the prevailing pumping rate prior to the fill problem. Therefore, although Figure 6-132 gives the false impression of no cumulative In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-231 November 2004 increase in supply water, in fact water was being supplied to the rock formation from Bottle B, possibly at the prevailing rate (as supplied by Bottle A), until May 18, 2000 (9:08). The noise in the cumulative seepage data in Figure 6-132 (and in subsequent figures showing seepage rate data) can be attributed to the slow response time of the differential-pressure transducers to atmospheric pressure fluctuations. Although the water level in the seepage-collection cylinders responded instantaneously to the atmospheric fluctuations, filters placed in the differential-pressure-transducer ports caused a delayed response. The filters were originally put in place to keep the ports clean; they were removed in late May 2001. As a result of this and other random errors and fluctuations, cumulative seepage rates presented in the figures below may occasionally show a decline. Such temporal declines in cumulative volumes associated with small seepage rates are not physical. Zone 1,2 and 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5/17/2000 09:36 5/17/2000 14:24 5/17/2000 19:12 5/18/2000 00:00 5/18/2000 04:48 5/18/2000 09:36 5/18/2000 14:24 Injection (Liters) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Seepage (Liters) injection zone 1 injection zone 2 injection zone 3 seepage zone 1 seepage zone 2 seepage zone 3 Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. NOTE: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes associated with small seepage rates are not physical; they are a result of slow response times of the differential-pressure transducers and other random fluctuations. Figure 6-132. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zones 1, 2, and Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative Seepage into the ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between May 17 and May 18, 2000 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-232 November 2004 6.11.2.3 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 in Borehole LA#2, Initiated on May 23, 2000 The faulty software control of the filling function in the May 17, 2000, tests was resolved. Liquid-release tests from multiple points in Zone 1, Zone 2, and Zone 3 were resumed at 14:25 on May 23, 2000, at the intended rate of 30 mL/min. Data for the three zones will be discussed separately. 6.11.2.3.1 Zone 1 Figure 6-133 shows cumulative supply (left axis) and cumulative seepage volume (right axis) as a function of time from May 23, 2000, to June 1, 2000, 11:14, when water release was terminated. Data show that seepage collection initiated on May 24, 2000, 13:19, although a wetted spot approximately 0.5 m in diameter was observed as early as 8:40. The rate of supply water was approximately 28 mL/min, and the rate of seepage stabilized to approximately 4 to 5 mL/min within a week. Zone 1 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 5/23/00 5/24/00 5/25/00 5/26/00 5/27/00 5/28/00 5/29/00 5/30/00 5/31/00 6/1/00 6/2/00 Injection (Liters) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Seepage (Liters) injection seepage Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. Figure 6-133. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 1 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative Seepage into the ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between May 23 and June 1, 2000 6.11.2.3.2 Zone 2 Water release continued from May 23, 2000, through June 8, 2000. Multiweek liquid-release tests were stopped and restarted periodically to keep data files at a manageable size. Every time the software control routine was restarted, new data files with date/time stamp were generated, In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-233 November 2004 and cumulative supply and seepage reference was restarted at zero. Figure 6-134 shows cumulative supply (left axis) and cumulative seepage volume (right axis) in two graphs: Panel a – (representing the period from May 23 to June 1) and Panel b – (representing the period from June 1 to June 8) because the test was stopped on June 1, 2000, 11:14 and restarted at June 1, 11:23. Panel a of Figure 6-134 shows that seepage from Zone 2 initiates on May 29, 2000, at 20:26. Step-like structures are very prominent in the cumulative volume of seepage water data in Panel b of Figure 6-134, indicating two different slopes and therefore different rates of seepage. The periods of larger slope (higher seepage rate of approximately 2-3 mL/min) in Panel b of Figure 6-134 can be correlated to evenings and weekends when the underground tunnels were closed for access and the ventilation system was not in operation. Data in Figure 6-133 for Zone 1 also give different slopes for seepage-water volume versus time, depending on whether ventilation is on or off. The step-like signature in Figure 6-133 is subtler than that in Panel b of Figure 6-134 because of the higher seepage rate in Zone 1. That water seeping into the drift has partly evaporated places uncertainty on the seepage data, because even when the ventilation is not in operation in the evenings and on weekends, the relative humidity in the underground tunnels is still far below 100 percent. As a result, although data in Figure 6-133 and Figure 6-134 give a measure of the amount of water lost to evaporation promoted by active ventilation, they do not provide data on the amount of water lost to evaporation in the absence of active ventilation. In response to these initial results, subsequent tests the systematic measuring system was modified for subsequent tests to incorporate measurements of relative humidity and evaporation rate (from an open pan) in the tunnel space between the drift crown and the seepage-collection PVC curtain enclosure. No direct measurement system exists to ascertain the evaporation rate from within the fracture system. 6.11.2.3.3 Zone 3 Cumulative supply and cumulative seepage data for Zone 3 between May 23, 2000, and June 27, 2000, are presented in Panels a through d of Figure 6-135. Because of unanticipated experimental problems concerning the interface between the software control and the valves controlling the water supply system for this zone, the release of water was interrupted for two periods during 34 days of testing. The periods where no water was supplied were: (1) two days (between May 30 and June 1), and (2) 11 days (between June 3 and June 14). The problem was fully corrected from June 14 onwards, and the first indication of seepage water being collected in the seepage bottles for Zone 3 was recorded by the data acquisition system on June 26, 2000, at noon. Other testing activities in the underground tunnel necessitated the termination of water release in Zone 3 (as well as monitoring of data), only approximately eight hours after the first onset of seepage. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-234 November 2004 (a) Zone 2 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 5/23/00 5/24/00 5/25/00 5/26/00 5/27/00 5/28/00 5/29/00 5/30/00 5/31/00 6/1/00 6/2/00 Injection (Liters) 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 Seepage (Liters) injection seepage (b) Zone 2 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 6/1/00 6/2/00 6/3/00 6/4/00 6/5/00 6/6/00 6/7/00 6/8/00 6/9/00 Injection (Liters) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Seepage (Liters) injection seepage Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes associated with small seepage rates shown in Panel a of Figure 6-134 are not physical; they are a result of slow response times of the differential-pressure transducers and other random fluctuations. Panel a = May 23–June 1, 2000; Panel b = June 1–June 8, 2000 Figure 6-134. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative Seepage into ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between May 23 and June 8, 2000 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-235 November 2004 (a) Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 5/23/00 5/24/00 5/25/00 5/26/00 5/27/00 5/28/00 5/29/00 5/30/00 5/31/00 6/1/00 6/2/00 Injection (Liters) 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 Seepage (Liters) injection seepage (b) Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 6/1/00 00:00 6/1/00 12:00 6/2/00 00:00 6/2/00 12:00 6/3/00 00:00 6/3/00 12:00 6/4/00 00:00 6/4/00 12:00 Injection (Liters) 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Seepage (Liters) injection seepage Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes associated with small seepage rates are not physical; they are a result of slow response times of the differential-pressure transducers and other random fluctuations. Panel a = May 23–June 1; Panel b = June 1–June 4; Panel c = June 14–June 18; and Panel d = June 18–June 27. Figure 6-135. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative Seepage into ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between May 23 and June 27, 2000 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-236 November 2004 (c) Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 50 100 150 200 250 6/14/00 00:00 6/14/00 12:00 6/15/00 00:00 6/15/00 12:00 6/16/00 00:00 6/16/00 12:00 6/17/00 00:00 6/17/00 12:00 6/18/00 00:00 6/18/00 12:00 6/19/00 00:00 Injection (Liters) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Seepage (Liters) injection seepage (d) Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 6/18/00 6/19/00 6/20/00 6/21/00 6/22/00 6/23/00 6/24/00 6/25/00 6/26/00 6/27/00 6/28/00 Injection (Liters) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Seepage (Liters) injection seepage Source: DTN: LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes associated with small seepage rates are not physical; they are a result of slow response times of the differential-pressure transducers and other random fluctuations. Panel a = May 23–June 1; Panel b = June 1–June 4; Panel c = June 14–June 18; and Panel d = June 18–June 27. Figure 6-135. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative Seepage into ECRB Cross-Drift for Tests Performed between May 23 and June 27, 2000 (Continued) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-237 November 2004 6.11.2.4 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2 and Zone 3 in Borehole LA#2: October 23 to December 1, 2000 Other activities in the ECRB Cross-Drift prevented the redeployment of systematic testing equipment for four months after the tests described in Section 6.11.2.3. In this later set of testing, liquid-release tests were repeated in Zone 2 and Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2, specifically to evaluate the impact of evaporation from active ventilation and less-than-100-percent relative humidity on seepage data. The following modifications to the test design and measuring system were made after completion of the previous test in June 2000: • Additional curtains were installed on the two ends of the V-shaped seepage-capture PVC curtains shown in Figure 6-128, to mitigate drying of the wetted drift crown from ventilation. • Humidity and temperature sensors were placed within the curtain enclosures of Zone 2 and Zone 3 to investigate the correlation of humidity conditions to seepage data. • A camera was installed to observe the drift ceiling below the injection section of Zone 2 to monitor the evolution of wetting. Cumulative water supply and cumulative seepage data for Zones 2 and 3 are shown in Figure 6-136. Data show that the first recorded seepage (as indicated by a rise in water level in the seepage collection cylinder) occurred on October 31 at approximately 20:00, for both Zone 2 and Zone 3. Observations taken periodically of the drift ceiling below Zone 2 indicate that a wetted area first appeared on October 27 around 8:00 and expanded with time. The wetted area on the drift ceiling could be estimated by counting the number of ground-support wire-mesh grids it covered. Observations indicate that by November 7, 2000, the wetted area stopped expanding and stabilized at approximately 6.8 m2. Derivatives of the cumulative supply and cumulative seepage from Figure 6-136 give the rates of supply and seepage. Supply rate, seepage rate, and relative humidity and temperature within the capture curtain enclosure for Zone 2 and Zone 3 are shown in Figure 6-137 and Figure 6-138, respectively. Note that the relative humidity was approximately 35 percent prior to initiation of seepage on October 31, 2000. Coincidentally, the vent line in the ECRB Cross-Drift collapsed on October 31, 2000, cutting off the ventilation. Note that the humidity within the capture curtain enclosures of Zone 2 and Zone 3 rose to almost 90 percent by November 7, 2000. Following the collapse of the vent line, ventilation was only partially restored (that is, power was on at times and off at times) in the ECRB Cross-Drift throughout the then-current set of tests, and the humidity reading varied with time between the pre-seepage value of 35 percent and the high of 90 percent. Figure 6-137 and Figure 6-138 show that the seepage rates in Zones 2 and 3 track the relative humidity (that is, seepage rates increase and decrease with the rise and fall of relative humidity values). The seepage rate in Zone 3 is higher than that in Zone 2, reaching a high of approximately 6 mL/min. This may result from the higher water-release rate in Zone 3 (approximately 38 mL/min, as compared to approximately 34 mL/min in Zone 2). Possibly, the smaller size of the wetted area on the drift ceiling in Zone 3 (compared to that in Zone 2) led to In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-238 November 2004 less evaporation and thus higher seepage in Zone 3. Note that the measuring system had only one camera positioned to monitor Zone 2, and the vent-line collapse and subsequent delay in repair prevented access to the Borehole LA#2 test site for direct observation of the drift ceiling. Note also that there were several brief periods of interruption of liquid release on November 26, 29, and 30 2000 (these show up as abrupt changes in Figure 6-136) as a result of network-connection power outages and problems with the equipment-computer interface. These control-program shutdowns required a few restarts of liquid injection. Liquid release to Zone 2 and Zone 3 was terminated on December 1, 2001. Zone 2 and Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Cumulative Volumes 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 10/23/00 10/28/00 11/2/00 11/7/00 11/12/00 11/17/00 11/22/00 11/27/00 12/2/00 12/7/00 Injection (Liters) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Seepage (Liters) injection zone 2 injection zone 3 seepage zone 2 seepage zone 3 Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 [DIRS 156877]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. NOTE: Temporal declines in cumulative injection and seepage volumes shown in Panel a of Figure 6-140 are a result of resetting the water level in the supply and seepage bottles. Figure 6-136. Cumulative Water Supplied to Zone 2 and Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 and Cumulative Seepage into ECRB Cross-Drift for Test Performed between October 23, 2000, and December 1, 2000 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-239 November 2004 Zone 2 of Borehole LA#2 Rates, Relative Humidity and Temperature 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10/23/00 10/28/00 11/2/00 11/7/00 11/12/00 11/17/00 11/22/00 11/27/00 12/2/00 12/7/00 Rate (mL/min), RH (%) 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 T (C) injection rate seep rate inside RH inside T Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 [DIRS 156877]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. Figure 6-137. Supply Rate, Seepage Rate and Relative Humidity and Temperature for Liquid-Release Test Performed in Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 between October 23, 2000, and December 1, 2000 Zone 3 of Borehole LA#2 Rates, Relative Humidity and Temperature 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10/23/00 10/28/00 11/2/00 11/7/00 11/12/00 11/17/00 11/22/00 11/27/00 12/2/00 12/7/00 Rate (mL/min) and RH (%) 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 29 T (C) injection rate seep rate inside RH inside T Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 [DIRS 156877]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. Figure 6-138. Supply Rate, Seepage Rate, and Relative Humidity and Temperature for Liquid-Release Test Performed in Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2 between October 23, 2000, and December 1, 2000 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-240 November 2004 6.11.2.5 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1: December 20, 2000, to January 2, 2001 Similar to Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#2, Borehole LA#1 is a low-angle near-horizontal borehole (inclination of 15 degrees from the ECRB Cross-Drift axis), drilled from the ECRB Cross-Drift crown. It is collared at ECRB Cross-Drift Station CD 17+49, immediately outside of the first bulkhead. Rock fragments that fell into the borehole (postdrilling) caused the borehole to be totally obstructed from the point 8.2 m from the collar to the end of the 20-m-long hole. Therefore, only one zone instead of the intended three (as in Borehole LA#2) was accessible for fluid testing. Zone 2 was isolated by two inflated packers and nominally at 3.0–4.9 m from the collar. Therefore, height of mid-zone from drift crown was 1.03 m. Liquid release carried out in this zone took place through the six equally spaced outlet nozzles. To better evaluate the impact of evaporation on the seepage data, an evaporation pan within the space enclosed by the seepage capture and end curtains was installed. A differential-pressure transducer monitored the drop in water level from evaporation. Liquid release into Zone 2 started on December 20, 2000, 14:56, with a water-release rate of 15 mL/min. The ECRB Cross-Drift was closed and not ventilated during the experimental period, so the test was run and monitored remotely. A power outage occurred shortly after 12:00 a.m. December 25 terminated the liquid injection and data acquisition at 0:22, December 26, 2000. Power was restored on December 28, 2000, and the data acquisition system was restarted remotely. Unfortunately, the pumps that deliver water could not be restarted properly. Also, observations taken periodically of the drift ceiling show the beginning of a wet spot the morning of December 25 prior to the power outage, indicating the first arrival of water to the drift ceiling. Panel a of Figure 6-139 shows that approximately 103 L of water had been released into Zone 2 at the time of this first arrival of water at the drift ceiling. Because the water release stopped approximately 15 hours later and could not be resumed, the test did not run long enough to generate seepage. Panels a and b of Figure 6-139 also show that the relative humidity within the curtain enclosure remained between approximately 12 and 14 percent, and temperature between approximately 26°C and 26.3°C throughout the data acquisition period. Panel b of Figure 6-139 shows that the data from the evaporation pan indicate the evaporation rate was approximately 3 mm/day. The ECRB Cross-Drift was reopened January 2, 2001, but other field activities (such as opening of the bulkhead) required the removal of systematic test equipment from the ECRB Cross-Drift and prevented resumption of the liquid release test in Borehole LA#1. Data acquisition in Borehole LA#1 was terminated on January 2, 2001. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-241 November 2004 (a) Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Cumulative Volume and Relative Humidity 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 12/20/00 12/21/00 12/22/00 12/23/00 12/24/00 12/25/00 12/26/00 12/27/00 Injection (Liters) 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 RH (%) injection RH (b) Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Evaporation and Temperature 25 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.8 26 26.2 26.4 26.6 26.8 27 12/20/00 12/21/00 12/22/00 12/23/00 12/24/00 12/25/00 12/26/00 12/27/00 Temperature (C) 158 160 162 164 166 168 170 172 174 176 178 Evaporation (mm) temperature evaporation pan height Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 156878]. Output DTN: LB0110SYST0015.001. NOTES: Panel a = Relative humidity and cumulative water supplied to Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1. Panel b = Temperature and water level in the evaporation pan for liquid-release test performed between December 20, 2000, and December 26, 2000. Figure 6-139. Cumulative Supply Volume, Relative Humidity, Evaporation, and Temperature Measurements for Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-242 November 2004 6.11.2.6 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1: February 28 to April 30, 2001 This test, initiated on February 28, 2001, was a resumption of the test conducted in December 2000. Line release of water over a 1.83-m-long zone was initially set at the same rate as that of the December tests (approximately 15 mL/min). Observations show that the first appearance of a wet spot (water arriving at the drift ceiling) was on March 3, 2001, 16:23; that is, approximately 75 hours after initiation of water release. Panel a of Figure 6-140, which shows the cumulative supply and seepage of water, indicates that approximately 60 L of water had been introduced into the formation at this time. The seepage collection system (rise in water level in the seepage collection cylinder) registered the initiation of seepage at approximately 22:00 on March 15, 12 days after the observation of the first wetting on the drift ceiling. During this period, the actual water-release rate had increased from 14 mL/min to more than 20 mL/min. Following March 15 was a three-day weekend when ventilation was turned off, during which time the average injection remained at approximately 20 mL/min, and average seepage was approximately 1 mL/min. Panel b of Figure 6-140 shows that on Monday, March 19, when ventilation resumed, the seepage rate decreased dramatically (almost to zero). This was true even during the next three-day weekend (March 23 to March 25). Recorded seepage continued to be approximately zero through the following week. Observations also show that the wetted area on the drift ceiling had shrunk. A study of the plotted data (Panel b of Figure 6-140) indicates that the average release rate during this period had fallen to around 18 mL/min. Data therefore indicate that, in general, the actual water-release rate needed to be above a threshold of 20 mL/min for recorded seepage. An unplanned interruption of water release occurred on March 29, 2001, 4:43, because of an air-compressor problem. Water release was resumed on April 3, 2001, 9:50, at 42 mL/min, and seepage-collection data acquisition began to record non-zero seepage at approximately 20 hours after resumption of water release. A planned power outage caused another interruption of water release between April 5, 2001, 17:48, and April 9, 2001, 12:08. Water-release to Borehole LA#1 resumed on April 9, 2001, 12:08, at a rate of approximately 42 mL/min. Data indicate the onset of seepage at approximately 20 hours after resumption of water release. The seepage rate increases from approximately 7 mL/min to approximately 10 mL/min on April 16, 2001. Water release was intentionally interrupted twice, each pause lasting for less than a day. The first pause of water release occurred on April 16, 2001, 15:22. After a pause of 18 hours and 20 minutes, water release was resumed, and seepage was observed approximately 16 hours later. On April 24, 2001, 16:54, water release was again interrupted, and restarted on April 25, 2001, 11:39. Seepage began approximately 16 hours after restart. Following both of these planned water-release pauses, the water-release rate was approximately 42 mL/min, and seepage was approximately 10 mL/min. The declining water level in the evaporation pan (Panel c of Figure 6-140) indicated that the evaporation rate is approximately 3 mm/day. Coupling this data with the largest, relatively stable, wetted area estimated from observations of the drift ceiling (approximately 4.5 m2) would give an upper bound of the evaporation from the wetted drift surface a rate of 9.5 mL/min. Testing in Borehole LA#1 was concluded on April 30, 2001. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-243 November 2004 (a) Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Cumulative Volumes 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 2/28/01 3/10/01 3/20/01 3/30/01 4/9/01 4/19/01 4/29/01 Injection (Liters) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Seepage (Liters) injection seepage (b) Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Rates 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2/28/01 3/10/01 3/20/01 3/30/01 4/9/01 4/19/01 4/29/01 Injection Rate (mL/min) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Seepage Rate (mL/min) injection rate seepage rate Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879]. NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes shown in Panel a of Figure 6-140 are a result of resetting the water level in the supply and seepage bottles. Panel a = Cumulative water supplied to Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 and related seepage for test performed between February 28 and April 30, 2001. Panel b = Water supply rate and seepage rate. Panel c = Relative humidity, temperature, and the water level in the evaporation pan. Figure 6-140. Measurements for Borehole Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-244 November 2004 (c) Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Evaporation, Relative Humidity and Temperature 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 2/28/01 3/10/01 3/20/01 3/30/01 4/9/01 4/19/01 4/29/01 Evaporation (mm) and RH (%) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Temperature (C) evaporation pan height RH temperature Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879]. NOTES: Temporal declines in cumulative volumes shown in Panel a of Figure 6-140 are a result of resetting the water level in the supply and seepage bottles. Panel a = Cumulative water supplied to Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 and related seepage for test performed between February 28 and April 30, 2001. Panel b = Water supply rate and seepage rate. Panel c = Relative humidity, temperature, and the water level in the evaporation pan. Figure 6-140. Measurements for Borehole Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#1 (Continued) 6.11.2.7 Borehole LA#3 and Liquid-Release Test in Zone 1, Borehole LA#3: May 10 to June 18, 2001 Tests in Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3 (also known as Borehole LA#3) began on May 10, 2001. This 15-degree low-angle hole was collared at ECRB Station CD 16+95 in the drift crown. The borehole was divided into three sections for water release using the systematic hydrologic packer system. The three sections for water release spanned 5.5 m to 7.3 m, 10.4 m to 12.2 m, and 15.2 m to 17.1 m, respectively, from the collar. The midpoints of each of the zones were therefore 1.7 m, 2.9 m, and 4.2 m, respectively, above the crown of the drift. The rubber on the first two packer sealing sections could not maintain inflation due to piercing of the rubber, and therefore could not seal the first two zones of the borehole. With Zone 1 lower in elevation than Zone 2 and Zone 3, the test of water release into Zone 1 proceeded, with no release into Zone 2 during most of Zone 1 test period (see Section 6.11.2.8 for tests in Zone 2 of Borehole LA#3). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-245 November 2004 Plots of Zone 1 injection and seepage from May 17, 2001, to May 23, 2001, (Figure 6-141) show no seepage with a constant liquid injection rate of approximately 36 mL/min; however, some seepage water missed the collection system. When test was resumed on May 23, 2001, the injection rate was maintained at approximately 24 mL/min, and the tarp for Zone 1 was repositioned (closer to the collar) to capture all seepage water. Zone 1 of Borehole LA#3 -2.78 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 5/15/01 5/20/01 5/25/01 5/30/01 6/4/01 6/9/01 6/14/01 6/19/01 Volume (Liters) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Rate (mL/min), Evaporation (mm) injection volume seepage volume injection rate seepage rate evaporation pan height (mm) Linear (evaporation pan height (mm)) Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. NOTE: Linear curve fit for evaporation uses Excel trendline option for putting a curve fit onto an existing plot. Slope is from the equation generated by Excel for the fit. See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. The slope for the fitted evaporation drop is –2.78 millimeters per day. Temporal declines in cumulative volumes are a result of resetting the water level in the supply and seepage bottles. Figure 6-141. Cumulative Water Volume and Rate Supplied to Zone 1 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3, Related Seepage Rate, and Evaporation with Linear Fit and Slope (mm drop per day) for the Test Performed between May 17 and June 19, 2001 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-246 November 2004 Figure 6-141 shows that the seepage rate reached steady state by May 31, 2001, at approximately 8 mL/min. A wet spot on the ceiling was noted as early as May 24, 2001, near the edge of the tarp closest to the borehole collar. Another wetted area developed toward the opposite end of the tarp and started seeping by May 29, 2001. This second spot was 1.2 m in diameter, and on May 31, 2001, it increased to 1.37 m in diameter, extending from approximately 3.66 m from the collar to approximately 5.03 m from the collar. The estimated rate lost to evaporation from the 1.37-m-diameter wet spot was determined as follows: 1. The area of the wet spot is 3.1416 × ((100×1.37)/2)2 = 14 741 cm2 (Appendix Section I6). 2. Data on drop of water level in the evaporation pan shows an average rate of 2.78 mm/day (1.93 × 10-4 cm/min) from the slope of the evaporation line in Figure 6-141, so that the evaporation rate from the wetted area is 1.93 × 10-4 × 14 741 = 2.85 mL/min. 3. With an injection rate of 25 mL/min, a recorded seepage of approximately 8 mL/min, and an evaporation rate of approximately 2.85 mL/min, the rate of water being diverted around the drift is approximately 14 mL/min (assuming steady-state conditions). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-247 November 2004 The decline in seepage rate starting on June 7, 2001, may in part be attributed to increased evaporation caused by a larger wetted area observed on the drift ceiling. The increasing size of the wetted area may itself be regarded as a form of surface water flow that suppresses the formation of seeps by both growing in size (and thus accommodating more water) and by increasing the evaporation area. On June 6, 2001, this wetted spot was observed to be 1.83 m in length (along the drift axis) and 2.44 m in width. On June 13, 2001, 11:25, the wetted spot that had first appeared on May 24, 2001, closer to the collar edge of the tarp, that had not seeped, had expanded to approximately 0.91 m in diameter and had started to drip. By June 13, 2001, 15:45, the two wetted spots had merged and formed one spot approximately 3.05 m in length. When comparing the wetted area (on June 13, 2001) consisting of one ellipse (with principal axes of 1.83 m and 2.44 m) and a circle of 0.91 m in diameter to that of one circle of diameter 1.37 m (the previous wet spot from May 31, 2001), a ratio of [(2.44/2 × 1.83/2) + (0.91/2)2]/(1.37/2)2 = 2.82 is obtained (Appendix Section I6). If the evaporation rate from the wetted area on May 31, 2001, was 2.85 mL/min, then the evaporation rate from the wetted area on June 13, 2001, could have been as high as 2.82 × 2.85 = 8.04 mL/min, or 5.2 mL/min higher than that on May 31, 2001 (assuming that the pan evaporation rate was the same). This is the same order of magnitude as the observed seepage rate decline from approximately 8 mL/min in the beginning of June to approximately 3.0 mL/min by mid-June. On June 17, 2001, injection to Zone 1 was stopped. Seepage stopped within 40 minutes of turning off the injection. On June 19, 2001, all work was stopped, including seepage collection, so that the equipment could be temporarily moved to allow other tunnel activities to take place. The results from Zone 1, Borehole LA#3, highlighted some of the complexity of flow paths occurring during the course of systematic testing. They showed that subtle changes occur in the geometry and number of the wetted areas, even at steady water-release rates. 6.11.2.8 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2, Borehole LA#3: May 10 to July 23, 2001 Liquid release in Zone 2 was also initiated on May 17, 2001, but seepage missed the collection tarps immediately below Zone 2. Moreover, it is possible that some test interference occurred between release at Zone 1 and release at Zone 2. Consequently, testing at Zone 2 was terminated on May 21, 2001, and resumed on June 20, 2001, following the conclusion of a liquid release test in Zone 1. Seepage from water released in Zone 2 was then expected to fall on collection tarp 1, which had been moved 2.7 m closer to the collar of Borehole LA#3 on May 23, 2001. Collection tarp 2 was moved back on June 19, 2001, to directly under injection Zone 2. (It had previously been repositioned directly under Zone 1 to take the place of the Zone 1 tarp when it was placed near the collar.) Liquid injection in Zone 2 started on June 20, 2001. There was a power outage on July 1, 2001, and testing was resumed on July 5, 2001. For the test on May 17, 2001, only release data exists (seepage missed the collection tarps). For the tests on June 20, 2001, and July 5, 2001, when water was injected into Zone 2, seepage was collected from the Zone 1 tarp. The fact that seepage in the Zone 1 collection tarp contained water released in Zone 2 with no other seepage location evident indicates that the packer system may indeed have failed, so that water ran along the borehole to Zone 1. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-248 November 2004 Zone 2 of Borehole LA#3 -3.26 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 6/21/01 6/26/01 7/1/01 7/6/01 7/11/01 7/16/01 7/21/01 7/26/01 Volume (Liters) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Rate (mL/min), Evaporation (mm) zone 2 injection volume seepage volume zone 2 injection rate seepage rate fit to evaporation pan height (mm) Linear (fit to evaporation pan height (mm)) Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. NOTE: Linear curve fit for evaporation uses Microsoft Excel trendline option for putting a curve fit onto an existing plot. The slope of –3.26 mm/day is from the equation generated by Microsoft Excel for the fit. See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. Temporal declines in cumulative volumes are a result of resetting the water level in the supply bottle. Figure 6-142. Cumulative Water Volume and Rate Supplied to and Seeped from Zone 2 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3 and Evaporation with Linear Fit and Slope (millimeter drop per day) for Test Performed from June 20 to July 24, 2001 Figure 6-142 shows that the injection rate in Zone 2 was changed in discrete steps. It started from the low of approximately 11 mL/min at the initiation of test on June 20, 2001, to approximately 25 mL/min between June 22, 2001, and June 27, 2001, to approximately 30 mL/min until June 28, 2001, at 11:00, at which time the rate was increased to approximately 49 mL/min. On June 29, 2001, at 10:30, the rate was increased to 63 mL/min. Seepage collection initiated on June 29, 2001, at 16:11 and the rate was approximately 10–15 mL/min just before an unplanned power outage on July 1, 2001, at 3:16. When the work was restarted on July 5, 2001, testing continued at the higher rate of injection, approximately 65 mL/min, as before the power outage. The seepage resumed almost immediately, confirming that the fast paths (connected paths for liquid flow comprised mostly of fractures) between release point and drift ceiling had been established. The seepage rate had increased to the pre–power-outage level within approximately five hours of resumption of water release. The drop of seepage to zero on July 6, 2001, turned out to be from a leak in the tubing of a collection bottle. The leak was repaired on July 10, 2001, at 14:31, accompanied by a quick response of the seepage rate, which increased to approximately 16 mL/min. In an attempt to estimate the seepage threshold, the liquid release was reduced stepwise. On July 13, 2001, at 17:04, the release rate was reduced In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-249 November 2004 from approximately 71 mL/min to approximately 48 mL/min. The seepage rate decreased from the average of approximately 16 mL/min to approximately 3 mL/min. Assuming that the loss due to evaporation had not changed (the slope of the evaporation drop is similar before July 13, 2001, and after July 13, 2001), the data may indicate that the difference in diversion of release water around the drift opening caused by varying inflow rates is approximately (71-16)-(48-3) = 10 mL/min (Appendix Section I6). The water release rate was further decreased on July 16, 2001, at 11:53, from 48 mL/min, to 33 mL/min and the recorded seepage almost disappeared. However, field observations in the morning of July 16 also indicated the presence of a small seep between the tarps of Zone 1 and Zone 2. That small seep was missed by the data collection system. Field observations indicated that that missed seepage rate could still be approximately 2 mL/min. That is, the prevailing release rate of 33 mL/min was still above the seepage threshold. Because the field schedule for testing in the ECRB Cross-Drift, there was no opportunity for additional investigation of the seepage threshold, and water release was terminated on July 20, 2001. 6.11.2.9 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 3, Borehole LA#3: May 10 to July 23, 2001 Testing in Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3 took place from May 10 to July 23, 2001, concurrently with the testing at other zones in the same borehole. However, the net inflow into Zone 3 was very small, with most of the introduced water returning from the release zone as a result of low formation permeability. Therefore, no test interference with the other zones from Zone 3 was expected. Plots of injection, return, and net inflow rates are shown in Figure 6-143. Liquid-release tests in the periods May 17 to 22, May 23 to June 18, June 21 to July 1, and July 5 to July 20 indicate that (except for brief periods on May 17 and May 23), the formation essentially could not take in any significant amount of water, regardless of the rate of injection. The average rate of water intake was approximately 0.5 mL/min when the injection rate was set quite high. At lower injection rates, the net inflow was close to zero after steady state conditions had been reached. This seems to indicate that Zone 3 was possibly lined with cavities that initially filled up, but whose bottoms are sealed so that little water can leave the cavities. In other words, the cavity population around injection Zone 3 is so large and the fracture population so small that very little introduced water can access the connected fractures that form the “fast paths” that lead to the crown. The “fast paths” are those that allow intake of water at tens and even hundreds of mL/min in all the liquid release tests until this one. Seepage was seen only from Zone 1, the zone closest to the previous borehole, which had multiple fast path characteristics. This seepage came from both Zone 1 and Zone 2 injections, indicating that the borehole may have participated in movement of water from the Zone 2 release line to the seep seen at Zone 1. Various patterns and rates of seepage were apparent on the Zone 1 crown. In addition, there was almost 100-percent water return from Zone 3 testing, but zero return from Zone 1 and Zone 2 testing. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-250 November 2004 Zone 3 of Borehole LA#3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 5/9/01 5/19/01 5/29/01 6/8/01 6/18/01 6/28/01 7/8/01 7/18/01 7/28/01 Injection & Return Rate (mL/min) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Rate (ml/min) Inlfow Rate (mL/min) zone 3 injection rate zone 3 return rate net inflow Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. NOTE: See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. Figure 6-143. Rate Supplied to, Returned from, and Rate of Net Inflow from Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#3 for Test Performed from May 17, 2001, to July 24, 2001 6.11.2.10 Borehole LA#4 and Liquid-Release Test in Zone 1 of Borehole LA#4: February 5 to March 11, 2002 Tests in Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#4 (also referred to as Borehole LA#4) began on February 5, 2002, and ended in November 2002. This fourth 15-degree low-angle hole was collared at ECRB CS 16+65 in the drift crown. The borehole was again divided into three sections for water release using the systematic hydrologic packer system. The three sections for water release spanned 3.9 m to 5.7 m, 8.8 m to 10.6 m, and 13.6 m to 15.5 m, respectively, from the collar. The midpoints of each of the zones were therefore 1.2 m, 2.5 m, and 3.8 m, respectively, above the crown of the drift. At Borehole LA#4, a modification to the packer system whereby the durability of the rubber sections was enhanced, ensured that a proper seal formed between the rock and the inflated sealing sections in the borehole. Water-leak problems at the sealing sections were therefore not an issue at Borehole LA#4, as they may have been at Borehole LA#3. Testing at Zone 1, Borehole LA#4 started on February 5, 2002, and proceeded through March 11, 2002. Plots for injection and water return volumes and rates into Zone 1 at Borehole LA#4 (see Figure 6-144) show a behavior similar to that in Zone 3 of Borehole LA#3 (i.e., a relatively high percentage of return flow occurred). An initial high rate of inflow into the formation occurred upon initiation of water release, after which the net inflow becomes quite small. As in Zone 3, Borehole LA#3, the net inflow increased slightly when the absolute In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-251 November 2004 injection rate was increased most likely because of the slight rate dependency of the water-delivery-system geometry in that the water is more evenly distributed at higher rates and thus is more likely to enter the formation. The combination of results from Zone 3, Borehole LA#3, and Zone 1, Borehole LA#4, indicate that the tight formation properties seen in both possibly continue through both zones over a distance of slightly less than 18 m. No seepage was captured from the testing at Zone 1, Borehole LA#4. Unlike Zone 3, Borehole LA#3, however, some wetting occurred at the crown. During the course of testing, the evaporation averaged approximately 2.8 mm per day (the closest estimate for that time of year—see Figure 6-142), which, combined with a maximum observed wetted area of 12 000 cm2, gives 2.3 mL/min of evaporation from the crown. The maximum infiltration rate of approximately 30 mL/min was obtained at the maximum injection rate of 120 mL/min, so that the diversion around the crown measured 27.7 mL/min or 92 percent of inflow. Zone 1 of Borehole LA#4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2/3/02 2/8/02 2/13/02 2/18/02 2/23/02 2/28/02 3/5/02 3/10/02 3/15/02 Volume (Liters) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Rate (mL/min) zone 1 injection volume zone 1 return volume injection rate return rate net release rate Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. NOTE: See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. Temporal declines in cumulative volumes are a result of resetting the water levels in the supply and return bottles. Figure 6-144. Volume and Rate of Water Supplied to, Returned from, and Rate of Net Inflow from Zone 1 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#4 for Test Conducted from February 6 to March 9, 2002 6.11.2.11 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 2, Borehole LA#4: October 8 to November 18, 2002 Testing at Zone 2 of Borehole LA#4 ran from October 8, 2002, to November 18, 2002. Owing to scheduling complexities, testing was performed some time after the other tests at Borehole LA#4 but with no noticeable effects on the systematic type of testing. Figure 6-145 shows plots of volumes injected and captured with rates and evaporation drop during testing at Zone 2, Borehole LA#4. The difference between the injection rate and the seepage rate (net loss rate) indicates the rate of water diverted around the drift or lost due to evaporation. No return flow at this location occurred regardless of the injection rate. The average evaporation rate was In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-252 November 2004 measured at approximately 5.73 mm/day over the course of testing at Zone 2. Observations indicated that on October 23, 2002, the wet patch on the crown had an area of approximately 8 m2. Evaporation from the crown surface is therefore estimated to be approximately 32 mL/min. Given a net loss rate of 40 mL/min., the diversion rate is approximately 8 mL/min. (i.e., approximately 18 percent of the injection rate of 44 mL/min). From the plots, the loss rate (water diverted or evaporated) appears to be slightly higher (as a fraction of injection rate) at lower injection rates. This phenomenon suggests that at very high injection rates in Zone 2, a higher percentage of introduced water would have seeped into the drift. Zone 2 of Borehole LA#4 -5.73 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 10/6/02 10/11/02 10/16/02 10/21/02 10/26/02 10/31/02 11/5/02 11/10/02 11/15/02 11/20/02 11/25/02 Volume (Liters) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Rate (mL/min), Evaporation (mm) z2 injection volume z2 seepage volume injection rate seepage rate net loss rate evaporation pan height (mm) Linear (evaporation pan height (mm)) Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. NOTE: Linear curve fit for evaporation uses Microsoft Excel trendline option for putting a curve fit onto an existing plot. Slope is from the equation generated by Microsoft Excel for the fit. See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. Figure 6-145. Injection and Seepage Volumes; Injection, Seepage, and Net Rates; and Evaporation Drop for Liquid-Release Test Conducted in Zone 2 of ECRB-SYBT-LA#4 2 between October 8 and November 18, 2002 6.11.2.12 Liquid-Release Test in Zone 3, Borehole LA#4: February 5 to February 28, 2002 During the Zone 1 testing at Borehole LA#4, Zone 3 at Borehole LA#4 underwent testing from February 5, 2002, to February 28, 2002. The two zones were sufficiently far apart along the drift (approximately 10 m) to ensure that no test interference was likely. In contrast to the flow characteristics observed at Borehole LA#4 Zone 2, Zone 3 provided an example of another as-yet-unseen flow characteristic. Again, like Zone 2, no return flow occurred, regardless of injection rate. However, all flow into the zone was accepted, and no seepage or wetted areas were observed. Even at inflow rates in excess of 200 mL/min., no water flowed into the drift. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-253 November 2004 Figure 6-146 shows plots of the injected volume and corresponding injection and inflow rates into Zone 3. Zone 3 of Borehole LA#4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2/3/02 2/8/02 2/13/02 2/18/02 2/23/02 2/28/02 3/5/02 Volume (Liters) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Rate (mL/min) zone 3 injection zone 3 injection rate net inflow Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. NOTE: See Appendix Section I6.3 for calculation details. Figure 6-146. Volume and Rate of Water Supplied to, Returned from, and Rate of Net Inflow from Zone 3 of Borehole ECRB-SYBT-LA#4 for Test Conducted from February 6 to February 28, 2002 6.11.3 Systematic Testing Discussion and Interpretation Several important results become apparent when examining the data presented in Section 6.11.2. One result is the insight into the role of fractures, matrix, and lithophysal cavities in liquid flow through the partially saturated lower lithophysal unit. Another is the assessment of the nonintersecting flow (a combination of diversion by capillary barrier and of alternate flow paths) around the drift excavation. A third important result is the estimation of a threshold flux at the water-release borehole, below which seepage into the drift does not occur. The first few locations that were tested allowed for significant progress in understanding these hydrologic characteristics of the lower lithophysal unit. Direct comparisons of the same type of data from location to location provide knowledge applicable to a portion of the ECRB Cross-Drift. 6.11.3.1 Participation of Lithophysal Cavities in Storage and Flow Paths Lithophysal cavities, fractures, and matrix contribute to the overall porosity of the lower lithophysal rock. Drift-wall mapping along the ECRB Cross-Drift indicates a mean lithophysal cavity porosity of 0.125 in the lower lithophysal unit (Mongano et al. 1999 [DIRS 149850]). Gas-tracer measurements of the effective porosity in the middle nonlithophysal unit indicate that fracture porosity is approximately 0.01 (DTN: LB980912332245.002 [DIRS 105593]). Both cavities and fractures are expected to be essentially dry at ambient conditions. Laboratory In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-254 November 2004 measurements from 453 samples from surface-based boreholes give the mean matrix porosity of 0.13 and a mean saturation of 0.78 for the lower lithophysal unit (Flint 1998 [DIRS 100033]). Fourteen measurements on cores from boreholes drilled for systematic testing at the ECRB Cross-Drift Station CD 17+49 (DTN: LB0110COREPROP.001 [DIRS 157169]) give results similar to those reported by Flint (1998 [DIRS 100033]): mean values of 0.12 for matrix porosity and 0.72 for liquid saturation. Because of the high ambient liquid saturation, the matrix contributes only approximately 0.03 in porosity that is available for liquid storage from systematic testing. In liquid-release tests (such as those conducted for the systematic testing), fractures and possibly large cavities determine the steady-state flow behavior of the fractures-matrix-lithophysal-cavity system; slow-draining cavities and the matrix contribute to the initial storage. Of the initial test storage features, slow-draining cavities and the matrix contribute to one-time storage; only fractures and open cavities contribute to subsequent “steady-state” storage. Thus, in a flow test at a new borehole where no water has yet been introduced, all the storage components should be in full effect. The water released into the formation will partition into storage and steady flow paths. If the fast paths themselves have a significant storage component, this should lengthen the first arrival time for water (from the delivery point in the borehole to the exit point in the drift) and increase the amount of water needed to do so. Data from pre-excavation liquid-release tests (Section 6.2) and the dye observations during excavation of Niche 5 (Niche 1620) suggest that the shape of the flow plume in close vicinity to the release point is roughly circular. During a liquid-release test, as soon as water is observed at the crown of the drift, the maximum distance of any flow can be interpreted to have reached (along fast paths) the surface of a cylinder, the diameter of which is the distance between the middle of the release zone and the crown, as illustrated in Panel a of Figure 6-147. The cylinder length would be roughly that of the release zone. This cylindrical volume concept is applied during the first-time test period when the connected paths are being developed, as a bounding envelope that contains the fast, connected paths. At later times in the test, during the steady-state phase, water may have moved well beyond the bounds of this cylinder. The volume of water injected up to the point of first wetting at the drift ceiling, divided by the volume of this cylinder, gives the effective porosity for establishing fast paths. Note that the effective porosity measured this way is very much injection-rate–dependent, because the degree to which different components of actual porosity participate in the flow path varies according to their time of exposure to the flow (in this case, the time of exposure to the flow is the time needed for water to reach the edge of the cylinder). For the test in Borehole LA#2 Zone 1 (see Section 6.11.2.1), Figure 6-131 shows that 46 L (0.046 m3) of water had been introduced at the first wetting of the drift crown. The volume of the cylindrical plume (diameter 1.58 m and length 1.83 m) is estimated to be 3.6 m3. Hence, the estimated effective porosity used to establish fast paths is 0.046 m3/3.6 m3 = 0.013. Water was released into Borehole LA#2 Zone 1 at a relatively high rate of 450 mL/min. For the test in Borehole LA#1 (see Section 6.11.2.5), the diameter of the cylinder is 1.03 m, and the length is 1.83 m, for a volume of 1.53 m3. Flow volume for the initial wetting of Borehole LA#1 was 103 L (0.103 m3), which gives an effective porosity of 0.067. In this case, the water was released at a much slower rate of 15 mL/min. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-255 November 2004 The two estimated values of 0.013 and 0.067 representing the effective porosity prior to the establishment of fast paths lead to the following interpretation: In the case of Borehole LA#2 Zone 1, when the release rate was as high as 450 mL/min., the fracture porosity was accessed with little imbibition into the matrix at the time of intersection with the drift. In addition, for the lithophysal cavities that act as a capillary barrier with the very high release rate, little water would be expected to seep into these cavities. For Borehole LA#1, when the release rate was approximately 30 times slower at 15 mL/min., the flowing water would have time to access the matrix porosity, and less would be diverted around the lithophysal cavities. The difference in effective-porosity results from these two tests could thus be a measure of the component of storage due to matrix and slow-filling cavities. Because cavities are the primary contributor to actual porosity in the system, even a little participation in the flow path would raise the effective porosity. In the case of Borehole LA#1, cavities seem to contribute up to a maximum of approximately 0.057 (effective porosity minus fracture porosity, not accounting for matrix participation) and a minimum of 0.027 (if all available matrix porosity participates). These values indicate that only one quarter to one half of the lithophysal cavity volume (porosity of 0.125) participates in the liquid storage. One refinement in the evaluation of effective porosity was to study the process of restarting a water-release test after some pauses in activity. For Borehole LA#1, after slightly more than two months, a new test was performed (Section 6.11.2.6). The first arrival was observed after only 60 L, giving a new effective porosity of 0.039. Therefore, evidence suggests the liquid storage from the matrix and cavities filled in the initial test (Section 6.11.2.5) did not drain completely during this two-month lapse. The difference between the new value and that of 0.067 from the previous test in the same location is 0.028 and could be a measure of the capacity of the matrix and the slow-draining lithophysal cavities. Lastly, the difference between the storage measured from the already wet slow test (storage from fast-draining cavities and fractures) and the initially dry high-rate tests (storage by fractures only) gives the drainable cavity porosity of 0.039-0.013 = 0.026, or slightly less than one quarter of the estimated porosity representing slow-draining lithophysal cavities and the matrix. 6.11.3.2 Estimation of the Steady-State Diversion Flow around the Drift At steady state, the saturation of fractures, cavities, and matrix is not changing. All the water that is injected (a known rate) can be partitioned into water collected as seepage (measured), water lost to evaporation, and water that does not seep into the drift because it bypasses the drift or is diverted on account of the capillary barrier. The rate of water loss to evaporation can be quantified from pan measurements and the size of the wetted area; the rate of diverted flow can be derived from a water balance. One of the key outcomes of seepage testing is to estimate the fraction of introduced water that is diverted around the opening during steady-state flow, i.e., after the establishment of connected paths between the borehole and drift ceiling. A fraction of the water will bypass the drift opening because of nonuniform flow introduced by discrete features and heterogeneity. At the drift crown, additional flow will be diverted around the drift, because the drift acts as a capillary barrier. The total component of diverted water (from flow channeling and capillary effects) can, In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-256 November 2004 as a rough approximation, be thought of as the difference between the rate of injection and the rate of seepage into the drift when the test has reached steady-state conditions, provided that there are no other losses. However, the systematic data (Section 6.11.2.3, Section 6.11.2.4, and Section 6.11.2.6) show clearly that evaporation contributes to the difference in the recorded injected and seeped volume of water. Evaporation is essential and thus must be taken into account. The evaporation contribution to the wetted-drift ceiling can be estimated by multiplying the flux from an evaporation pan mounted just below the seep by the wetted area associated with the seep. All monitoring data for the water-level drop in the evaporation pan show that the evaporation flux is approximately 3 mm/day for the wide range (15 to 90 percent) of relative humidity encountered. An upper bound of evaporation rate from systematic testing may be obtained by multiplying the evaporation flux of 3 mm/day by the largest wetted area recorded (in the form of photographs) during bi-hourly (every half hour) observations at Borehole LA#2, 6.8 m2 (Section 6.11.2.4). The resultant evaporation rate is approximately 14.4 mL/min. Note that the potential for injected water to leave the test system from barometric pumping and from vapor transport in a drying front behind the drift wall has not been included; the estimate is thus uncertain. During the period from February 28, 2001, to April 30, 2001 (see Section 6.11.2.6), injection proceeded at an approximate rate of 17.5 mL/min. at Borehole LA#1. Observational evidence showed that the crown underneath the injected zone was wet, but no seepage was collected during this period. The exception was for the period from the afternoon of March 15, 2001, to the morning of March 19, 2001, corresponding to a weekend shutdown of the ventilation, during which seepage occurred at a rate of 0.6 mL/min. The next weekend shutdown did not cause any seepage. Given that slight variations in ventilation conditions determined whether seepage occurred at a very low rate or not at all, indicates that the system was near the seepage threshold. The evaporation rate from the largest wetted area at Borehole LA#1 (4.6 m2) of 9.5 mL/min. left 8 mL/min. of flow from the injection unaccounted for; this can be interpreted to be the diverted flow. Section 6.11.2.6 (Panel b of Figure 6-140) also shows that a seepage collection rate of 8.5 mL/min. was obtained at Borehole LA#1 for a higher injection rate of approximately 40 mL/min. during the period from April 10, 2001, to April 16, 2001. The diverted flow (i.e., the injection rate minus seepage and evaporation) is 22.0 mL/min., or approximately 55 percent of the injection rate. An estimate of the diverted component can also be obtained from the seepage volume drained after long-term injection has been stopped. This volume can be compared to the volume required to initiate seepage after water release has been restarted. Water will drain out of the system and be collected as seepage for some time after injection is terminated. In all systematic tests for which data is provided in this report, the drainage period lasted less than 24 hours. This is the fraction of the storage volume between the release zone and the drift that overcomes the seepage threshold. Upon resumption of water release, the volume required to initiate seeping into the drift, the refill volume, is that which has to supply both the flow path for seepage the diversion paths. The difference between the drainage seep volume and the refill volume suggests the volume of the diversion paths. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-257 November 2004 Several pause studies were performed at Borehole LA#1 to obtain this volume of diversion pathways. Correction for effects of rock-surface evaporation to both the drainage value and the volume to reinitiate seep is incorporated into this estimate. Evaporation decreases the measured drainage volume, and increases the required refill volume. During one test pause in Borehole LA#1, on April 16, 2001, the seep drainage was 1.1 L, but an additional 10.3 L can be attributed to evaporation for the whole period that the injection is turned off. Evaporation is interpreted to be at its maximum of 9.5 mL/min. for the duration of 18 hours. This interpretation is conservative, because observations of the drift ceiling indicate that size reduction of the wetted surface commences with the termination of water release, and evaporation would decrease and cease within this period. Consequently, longer duration pauses would cause approximately the same amount of surface evaporation. When injection is restarted on April 17, 2001, at the same rate as on April 10, 2001, it took 16 hours to refill (releasing 40 L) before seepage resumed. This volume is partly evaporated at a rate of 9.5 mL/min, so that the real refill volume is 34 L. Some of volume contributing to drainage collection can be associated with the water hanging from the ceiling, i.e., water that is contained in the wet spot. If the component exists, it should be fairly well cancelled out by a converse contribution to the wet spot during refill. Even when accounting for strong evaporation, the refill volume is approximately twice the drainage volume, meaning that more than half the flow is nonintersecting. This number agrees favorably with the rate method of obtaining nonintersection steady-state flow for the period of injection just before the April 16, 2001, pause and also for the earlier lower-rate test. Note that this method of calculating the nonintersecting component of flow, even though transient, will nevertheless be independent of injection rate because the time-dependent features (slow-filling cavities and the matrix) no longer participate in a refill test. 6.11.3.3 Minimum Injection Rate Needed to Induce Seepage At the scale of the drift, flow is more likely to occur in concentrated regions than as a uniform front; a line release from a borehole occurs locally over the projected area of the borehole zone. This area emulates one of these concentrated regions at a given distance above the drift. During the testing at Borehole LA#1 (Section 6.11.2.5) for the period from December 20, 2001, to December 26, 2001, observations (in the form of photographs) every half-hour confirmed that at the flow rate of 15 mL/min., with no ventilation, seepage on the ceiling was just observable as a tiny spot on the morning of December 25, 2001. Little evaporation was expected to occur from the surface because the spot had no significant area. The spot stayed small for the remainder of the test, indicating that the system as a whole was approaching steady state. The 15 mL/min. of injected flow in this case appears to barely reach the crown. Thus, the threshold below which seepage into the drift does not occur is 15 mL/min. for this location. 6.11.3.4 Estimation of Evaporation from within the Fracture System Along Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 in Zone 2, the test sequence with water release at the relatively high rate of 42 mL/min. (Panel b of Figure 6-40) leads to the interpretation illustrated in Figure 6-147. Seepage was observed within a day of water-injection resumption on April 3, 2001; and April 9, 2001 (after pauses of 4 and 5 days); and on April 17, 2001, after a pause of 18 hours. These observations indicated that “fast paths,” connected paths comprised of flowing higher-permeability features, had been established as depicted in Panel a of Figure 6-147. This delay in the onset of seepage after a pause-induced drainage (depicted in In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-258 November 2004 Panel b of Figure 6-147) enabled the measurement of the capacity of water needed to refill the transient storage (that is, the storage volume needed before seepage occurs, depicted in yellow in Panel c Figure 6-147) of these fast paths upon resumption of water release. Tunnel wall Ventilation tube Utilities Collection bottle Cavity Fracture Borehole Tunnel wall Ventilation tube Utilities Collection bottle Cavity Fracture Borehole Tunnel wall Ventilation tube Utilities Collection bottle Cavity Fracture Borehole (a) (b) (c) NOTES: Panel a = Depiction of fast paths and storage areas for flowing seepage. Panel b = Pause in flow and subsequent drainage. Panel c = Refill of fast paths. Figure 6-147. Borehole Flow and Path Details This volume exists because flow through fractures takes a finite amount of time to travel and needs to refill its paths before seepage again takes place. This volume is the same as that of the water lost from all the paths during the pauses. After the 5-day pause, refill took 20 hours at a rate of 42 mL/min. The refill volume in this case was approximately 50 L. For a pause of 18 hours, the refill volume was approximately 40 L. The refill volume is thus seen as not very sensitive to the pause time. Drainage during each pause was the same and was complete long before the end of each of these pauses. Any additional loss was a result of longer-lasting processes, such as drainage of the residual water (i.e., water between the injection point and the niche that flows at rates below the seepage threshold, evaporation within the fracture system, or matrix imbibition). The small difference in refill volumes provides a measure of the rate of water moving out of the flow path by evaporation (or any other process) after drainage. An estimate of this rate can be generated by dividing the difference in refill volumes by the difference in pause length. The result for this rate is 2.0 mL/min. If the surface area of the hanging water is not greatly different from that of the moving water, then this number also gives an indication of the rate of maximum evaporation from the fracture system at other times during the testing phase. No other quantifiable factors are included in the evaporation estimation. 6.11.3.5 Characteristics and Scale of Flow Heterogeneity along the Drift As the systematic hydrologic testing progressed toward the ECRB portal, a catalogue of flow characteristics for a growing length of drift was developed. Not only can the various flow characteristics themselves be logged, but the distances for which they persist along the drift can In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-259 November 2004 also be measured (for a summary, see Figure 6-148). The larger rock volume tested with the systematic approach revealed flow characteristics (such as 100-percent return flow and 100-percent flow diversion) that were not observed in the niche studies. The results indicate the level and the physical dimensions of the heterogeneity at the drift scale. This flow heterogeneity and its scales are not immediately apparent by simple visual observation and feature mapping of the surface of the drift, and were only discernable with a systematic approach to hydrologic testing. 6.11.3.6 Summary of Systematic Hydrologic Testing The following provides a summary of the work performed for the Systematic Hydrologic Testing activities in the ECRB: A graphical summary of the results for nonintersecting (diverted) flow at steady state is provided in Figure 6-148. Ten tests have been performed in arrays of 20-m-long boreholes, with collar-to-collar nominal spacing of 30 m. Additional curtains were installed on the two ends of the V-shaped seepage-capture PVC curtains, and a camera was installed to take observations of the drift ceiling below the injection section. After completion of testing in Zone 1 of Borehole LA#2, two evaporation pans were installed within the space enclosed by the seepage capture and end curtains; i.e., ventilation effects were reduced and evaporation rates were measured for all remaining tests, starting with liquid release into Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 Zone 2, and ending with the test in Zone 3 of Borehole LA#4 Zone 3). As a result of the Borehole LA#2 and Borehole LA#1 tests, effective porosity for one-time fill cavities was 0.028, for drainable cavities 0.027, and for fractures 0.013. Effective porosity is defined here as total volume water necessary to initiate seepage, divided by the potential volume of participating formation; thus, it is rate dependent. The threshold flux determined from testing in Zone 2 of Borehole LA#1 was found to be 15 mL/min. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 6-260 November 2004 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LA1 z2 Location (spacing between bar clusters is roughly proportional to spacing between zones) Rate at Steady State (mL/min) Injection Return Evaporation Seepage Diversion % Diversion % Diversion Source: DTNs: LB0110ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 156878]; LB0110ECRBLIQR.003 [DIRS 156877]; LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879]; LB00090012213U.001 [DIRS 153141]; LB00090012213U.002 [DIRS 153154]; LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462] LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. NOTES: Injection, return, evaporation, and seepage are all either from the text in Section 6.11 of this report, or are estimates based on figures in this report that have the relevant data. Diversion is injection minus return, evaporation, and seepage. Percent diverted is diversion divided by the difference between injection and return. No evaporation data are available for testing in Zone 1 of Borehole LA#2 (because no ventilation control curtains were in use at the time) and, therefore, no diversion or percent diverted was calculated. Percent diverted for Borehole LA#3 Zone 3 is not quantifiable because there was 100-percent return flow. Some of the evaporation rates are estimates from tests run under similar conditions. Figure 6-148. Summary Plot Showing Injection, Return Flow, Evaporation, and Diversion in All Systematic Hydrologic Tests In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-1 November 2004 7. CONCLUSIONS Since the inception of the ambient field testing program in 1995 (during the excavation of the ESF), progress has been made on: • drift seepage studies in niches and the ECRB Cross-Drift, • air-permeability testing, • fracture/fault flow tests in alcoves, • wetting-front and moisture monitoring along ESF drifts, • drift-scale infiltration and tracer testing, • tracer transport testing at Busted Butte, and • geochemical evaluations. This report focuses on in situ field-testing of processes. The technical summary and conclusions for analyses in Section 6.1 through Section 6.14 are provided in Section 7.1 through Section 7.14, respectively. In brief, the key findings for each technical area include: Seepage Studies Key findings from Section 6.2 (on seepage tests in niches): • The presence of a seepage threshold was well established by seepage tests in three niches along the ESF main drift in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) (Table 6-8, Section 6.2.2.1). Long-term seepage tests behind sealed bulkheads at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) confirmed the seepage results of early short-term transient tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). • ECRB Cross-Drift Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), located in the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), has large permeability and strong capillarity, as indicated by air-permeability tests and flow-path patterns observed during niche excavation (Table 6-6, Figure 6-24, Section 6.2.1.2). • The presence of a seepage threshold was confirmed in the lower lithophysal niche testing, with seepage reduced to zero as the liquid release rate decreased (Figure 6-44, Section 6.2.1.3.5.3). • Water flowing along niche sidewalls was observed in Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (Figure 6-46, Section 6.2.1.3.5.4), and in Niche 4 (Niche 4788). Key findings from field observations and test results from Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620): • The borehole conditions in the lower lithophysal tuff (Tptpll) are, in general, much worse than the borehole conditions in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn), with loose rock blocking several boreholes. This is also true of slots constructed in the Tptpll (Table 6-7, Figure 6-36, Section 6.2.1.3.5.2). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-2 November 2004 • The mass balance tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) did not achieve the objective of determining the amount of water diverted by the drift. Safety concerns prevented proper installation of the water collection system within the slot space (Section 6.2.1.3.5.4). Key findings from additional seepage tests in Section 6.11 (on systematic hydrologic characterization): • Liquid release tests have been conducted in intervals along four slanted boreholes, covering a drift segment more than 100 m long, along the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll). In some tests, seepage diversion (of injected water around the drift) was nearly 100-percent effective; in other tests it was less than 10-percent effective (Figure 6-148, Section 6.11.3.6). • Systematic hydrologic characterization along the ECRB Cross-Drift through the lower lithophysal (Tptpll) zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) quantified the ventilation effects on measured seepage in this heterogeneous unit (examples found in Figure 6-141, Section 6.11.2.7, Figure 6.142, Section 6.11.2.8; summary provided in Figure 6-148, Section 6.11.3.6). Key findings from Section 6.3 (on tracer migration evaluation after niche seepage tests): • Dyes and nonreactive tracers were confined locally (within a 1.0-m-by-1.6-m area for the last test in Niche 2 (Niche 3650)), near the liquid-release points above the niche ceiling (Section 6.3.1.2), as were tracers released from multiple sequences of short-term seepage tests (Section 6.3.2.2). Air-Permeability Testing Key findings from Section 6.1 (on air-permeability characterization of heterogeneous fracture networks), and from Section 6.5 (on pneumatic flow path connections): • Heterogeneity was systematically evaluated with air-injection tests. The variations in borehole-scale and drift-scale permeability values, and the variations in permeability enhancements induced by excavation effects, are orders of magnitude larger than the site-to-site variations of average values along the ESF main drift (Section 6.1.2.4). In addition to mechanical effects due to excavation, some of the increase in permeability is probably caused by the creation of new connections (of previously dead-ended fractures) to the open drift boundary. • Pneumatic flow paths through fractures were spatially heterogeneous and discrete in the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) (Figure 6-67, Figure 6-69, Section 6.5.1). • Fault zone flow paths and nonwelded tuff layers contributed to the complexity of pneumatic responses in the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) zone, with an argillic layer effectively dampening the pneumatic responses (Figure 6-73, Section 6.5.2). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-3 November 2004 Fracture/Fault Flow Tests in Alcoves Key findings from Section 6.6 (on welded tuff fracture-matrix interaction tests), and from Section 6.7 (on nonwelded tuff fault and matrix tests): • Liquid flow paths through fractures were spatially heterogeneous and discrete in the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) (Figure 6-80, Section 6.6.2.3). • Flow in fractures in the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) was intermittent in nature, even when the flow boundary conditions were stable (Panel b of Figure 6-79, Section 6.6.2.3). • The Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) zone (both fault and matrix) has a large capacity to dampen infiltration pulses. During releases in boreholes above the slot, no seepage water was detected in the slot (see Section 6.7.1.2 on slot observation, Section 6.7.2.1.2 on water transport times in fault, and Section 6.7.2.2.2 on water transport times in the matrix). Wetting-Front and Moisture Monitoring Key findings from Section 6.8 (on water-potential measurements), from Section 6.9 (on construction water migration), and from Section 6.10 (on moisture monitoring and water analysis in underground drifts): • Rock dryout zones were shown to extend approximately 3 m into the wall of a ventilated drift section (Figure 6-95, Section 6.8.2.3, Panel c of Figure 6-109, Section 6.10.2.1.1). • In actively ventilated sections, large changes in relative humidity conditions could be related to moisture removal by ventilation (Section 6.10.1.2.1). • The last one-third of the ECRB Cross-Drift was sealed intermittently for days to months over a total period of several years. Nevertheless, based on water-potential measurements in the boreholes (Figure 6-109, Section 6.10.2.1.1), rocks that had partially dried out as a result of ventilation were not completely rewetted. • The occurrence of temperature and relative humidity differences necessary for condensation and moisture redistribution were established by variations in the in-drift moisture sensors (Section 6.10.2.1). • Wet areas and droplets were observed, and liquid samples of condensate were collected, during entries into sealed sections of the ECRB Cross-Drift (Section 10.2.2). Based on limited chemical analyses of the relatively clean water collected, the presence of water was attributed to condensation (Section 6.10.3.1). • Construction water was detected more than 10 m below the invert at the starter tunnel of the ECRB Cross-Drift (Section 6.9.2.1), and more than 30 m below the invert at a location in the highly fractured zone (Figure 6-105, Section 6.10.1.3). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-4 November 2004 Drift-Scale Infiltration and Tracer Testing Key findings from Section 6.12 (on drift-to-drift infiltration and seepage tests), and from Section 6.1 (on air-permeability measurements): • Infiltration, wetting-front detection, and seepage collection data for faults were collected at the drift-to-drift test site, located between Alcove 8 in the ECRB Cross-Drift and Niche 3 (Niche 3107) in the ESF main drift (Section 6.12.2). The location of the Tptpul-Tptpmn interface between two tuff units that comprise the test site has been confirmed by baseline geophysical tomographies (Section 6.12.3). • The air-permeability data measured in the slanted boreholes below Alcove 8 had large variability associated with the transition from the upper lithophysal zone to the middle nonlithophysal zone across the Tptpul-Tptpmn tuff interface (Section 6.1.2.2.2). • Breakthrough curves of two tracers in the fault test clearly indicated that the molecular size of tracers had a considerable effect on transport: the larger tracer had a faster transport, and the smaller tracer was delayed by effective matrix diffusion into tuff blocks next to the fractures (Figure 6-159, Section 6.12.2.4). Tracer Transport Testing at Busted Butte Key findings from Section 6.13 (on Busted Butte transport tests): • The Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (UZTT) at Busted Butte provided field-scale data on transport properties of the vitric Calico Hills hydrogeological unit and the basal vitrophyre at the tuff interface between Topopah Spring and Calico Hills units (Section 6.13.1.2). • Capillarity was shown to be strong in the vitric Calico Hills (Figure 6-173, Section 6.13.2.1). • Spatial heterogeneity was shown to affect transport through the vitrophyre (Section 6.13.2.2). • It was shown that sorbing tracers did not move significantly (Section 6.13.3). The plume migration was evaluated by mine-back sample analyses (Section 6.13.3.4), and by periodic ground penetrating radar (GPR) tomography (Section 6.13.4). • Neutron moisture data and laboratory radionuclide transport data corroborated the findings that were based on tracer pad analyses and mine-out images from the UZTT (Section 6.13.5). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-5 November 2004 Geochemical Evaluations Key findings from Section 6.14 (on geochemical and isotopic measurements): • Along the ECRB Cross-Drift, pore-water chemistry exhibits greater variability than the heterogeneity in rock mineral distribution (Section 6.14.1). • The bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl signals in fault/feature locations might exist along the ESF north ramp and ESF main drift (Figure 6-195, Section 6.14.2.1.1). Samples with high tritium-activity levels (indicating young water) were found at multiple locations, especially along the south ramp of the ESF and in sections of the ECRB Cross-Drift (Section 6.14.2.2). • Uranium isotope data illustrate the sensitivity of redistribution and transport to percolation flux magnitude (Section 6.14.3). • Fracture calcite/opal data support the understanding that only a small percentage of fracture surfaces are coated primarily on the footwalls, that lithophysal cavities have secondary precipitates only at the bottom, that growth rates are low, and that the inferred percolation and seepage rates are small (Section 6.14.4). The following UZ model reports contain information on the status of field testing and monitoring activities at different sites in the ESF (information and findings relevant to modeling are also listed): • Extensive pneumatic air-permeability tests were conducted in borehole clusters before and after niche excavation, and in alcove test beds before liquid releases (Section 6.1). The test results are inputs to Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]; Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167652]; and Abstraction of Drift Seepage (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169131]). • Immediately after excavation of Niche 1 (Niche 3566), which is located in the vicinity of the Sundance fault, an elongated, damp feature was visible at the back wall of the niche (Section 6.1.2.2.1, Figure 6-24 in Section 6.2.1.2). The feature disappeared most likely due to evaporation. The niche was then sealed and kept closed for more than two years in order to reduce evaporation effects. However, the damp feature did not reappear. • Niche 2 (Niche 3650), located in a fractured setting away from faults, was the site of 40 liquid-release tests that were conducted to quantify seepage thresholds (Section 6.2.l.3.1). The core samples from the last of these tests were analyzed for tracer distribution (Section 6.3, Section 6.4). • Niche 3 (Niche 3107), located in a relatively uniform rock mass below the crossover point between the ESF main drift and the ECRB Cross-Drift, was the site of the drift-todrift fault tests and the large plot tests for matrix diffusion and active fracture model calibration and validation (Section 6.3.1.3.2, Section 6.12). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-6 November 2004 • Niche 4 (Niche 4788), located in a highly fractured zone, was the site of pre- and post-excavation characterization, and several long-term seepage testing sequences (Section 6.2.1.3.3). • Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), located near the center of the repository in the lower lithophysal zone, was the site of a series of consecutive seepage tests. The data from these tests were used as inputs to the report Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). Evaporation losses were quantified and used to improve the seepage calibration model (Section 6.2.1.3.5). • Systematic hydrologic characterization along the ECRB Cross-Drift (Section 6.11): 1. Provided data from the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) used as part of the calibration and validation of the seepage calibration model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]), 2. Provided observations on the heterogeneity of fractures and lithophysal cavities, and 3. Quantified ventilation effects along the open drift. • Alcove 1, located 30 m below the ground surface near the ESF North Portal in the Tiva Canyon welded tuff (TCw) unit, was the site of a large-scale infiltration study. The test results from two series of flow and tracer tests were analyzed in Liu et al. (2003 [DIRS 162470]). Matrix diffusion was shown to be important in the dilution of the tracer concentration, and in the reduction of the tracer breakthrough at the Alcove 1 test site (Section 6.12.5). • Alcove 4, located in a layered zone with a fault bounded by the porous Paintbrush nonwelded tuff (PTn) unit, was the site of a series of tests that were undertaken to evaluate the migration of injected water (Section 6.7). The effectiveness of dampening liquid pulses was found to be consistent with the relatively uniform and steady flow distribution in the Paintbrush nonwelded tuff (PTn) unit described in UZ Flow Models and Submodels (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861]). • Alcove 6, located in a fractured zone that included relatively competent matrix blocks, was the site of a series of tests, in which water dripping into a slot below the test bed was collected and measured (Section 6.6). The large fracture flow (outflow into the slot below the test bed) percentage was consistent with the percentage predicted by UZ Flow Models and Submodels (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861]). • The Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) data (liquid release rate, seepage rate, tracer breakthroughs in Section 6.12) as part of the validation of the UZ flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861]) and the UZ radionuclide transport model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164500]). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-7 November 2004 • Water potentials have been measured with heat dissipation probes, psychrometers, and tensiometers in ESF boreholes at alcoves, at niches, and along the ECRB Cross-Drift (Section 6.6, Section 6.7, Section 6.8, Section 6.9, Section 6.10, and Section 6.12). The results of water-potential data from the ECRB were used as part of the validation of the UZ flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861]). The dryout-zone data were also considered in the design of the repository and of ground-support systems, and were used to quantify vapor flux into the drift for evaluation of in-drift conditions. • Construction-water migration was monitored at the starter tunnel of the ECRB Cross-Drift, and below the crossover point (Section 6.9). Data on the distributions of lithium-bromide tracers from boreholes drilled into the drift floor (invert) (Section 6.10.1.3) were inputs to the Yucca Mountain site description document. • Moisture monitoring stations continued to collect data to evaluate the impact of tunnel ventilation on moisture removal (Section 6.10.1.2). • Condensation observed in the sealed sections of the ECRB Cross-Drift provided additional insights regarding in-drift redistribution of moisture under thermal and relative humidity variations (Section 6.10.2). • Busted Butte transport test data (plume configuration, tracer distributions, and breakthrough, in Section 6.13) from Phase 1A, Phase 1B, and Phase 2 were used as part of the validation of the UZ radionuclide transport model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164500]). • The chloride data and data pertaining to several geochemistry and transport properties (Section 6.14) were used as part of the validation of the UZ flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861]) and the UZ radionuclide transport model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164500]). The ambient testing program has evolved from its initial focus on the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), to a focus on the lower lithophysal unit (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), to a focus on both the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) above the repository horizon and the Calico Hills nonwelded (CHn) below the repository horizon. The tests were used as direct input for the calibration of UZ process models, as indirect input for their validation, and as corroborative evidence to support or refute existing and alternate conceptual models for seepage into drifts, fracture flow, fracture-matrix interaction, and drainage and migration below the repository. Because most of the repository horizon is in the lower lithophysal unit (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), it is important to characterize this unit, to determine whether the presence of lithophysal cavities and friable tuff media has significant effects on the seepage distributions and percolation characteristics. The seepage-threshold quantification was confirmed with long-term tests. The long-term tests also addressed the concerns regarding the capillary barrier concept under steady-state conditions, the effects of evaporation, and the effects of moisture storage and flow-diversion capacities. Quantification of spatial distribution of fast flow paths, and assessment of temporal variations of episodic percolation events, have been advanced by testing and monitoring refinements for in situ conditions. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-8 November 2004 The emphasis of this report is on active-flow testing in niches and alcoves. These activities, together with many other laboratory and field activities analyzed in other analysis and model reports, provide data for inputs to other model reports for process evaluation, calibration, and validation. Sections 7.1 to 7.14 present summaries of data analyses found in Sections 6.1 to 6.14, respectively. Credible interpretations can be achieved with close interactions between testing and modeling, as documented in the model reports and scientific analysis reports cited, and on an activity-by-activity basis. This report may be affected by technical product input that requires confirmation. The status of the technical product input data quality can be confirmed by review of the DIRS database. Technical product outputs have been generated to document and summarize the results from analyses of some sets of DTNs. In some cases, the technical product outputs are directly used by downstream models. In other cases, the technical product output has been generated with suggestions for potential uses. For cases in which technical product output DTNs were issued, the use of each technical product output is summarized, and discussions of associated uncertainties and limitations of data are included. The DTNs generated as product output from this report are summarized in Table 7-1 (see also discussions in Sections 7.1, 7.2.1, and 7.11). Two Yucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP) acceptance criteria for this report are listed in Section 4.2: 1. data sufficiency for model justification, and 2. data uncertainty characterization for propagation through models. These criteria are addressed in this report by: • reporting the statistics of parameter distributions (for cases of field measurements and laboratory experiments with sufficient data), • by describing the challenges and chronologies of data collection issues during the test and measurement periods, and • by comparing different techniques, where available, for quantification of similar parameters for the same unsaturated processes, over different scales. The measured results are analyzed and reported in this report for use as inputs to other UZ and coupled-process models. The process models form the basis for additional abstractions, through use of the ranges of measured parameters and other sources of information. Summaries of various activities (for data sufficiency and uncertainty evaluations) are presented in Sections 7.1 through 7.14. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-9 November 2004 Table 7-1. Output DTNs from This Report Data Tracking Number Title LB0110LIQR0015.001 Developed Data for Liquid Release/Seepage Tests and Systematic Testing LB0110NICH4LIQ.001 Niche 4788 Ceiling – Wetting Front Data LB0110SYST0015.001 Developed Data for Systematic Testing LB0310AIRK0015.001 Developed Data for Air-K Tests 7.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF AIR-PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTION AND EXCAVATION-INDUCED ENHANCEMENT IN NICHES The pneumatic packer system (that included automated controls and automated data acquisition) was used to conduct systematic and extensive air-permeability tests in borehole clusters at five niches and other test beds. Single-hole permeability data were used to detect changes in permeability (and boundary conditions) as a result of nearby excavation, and to characterize sites. Pre- and post-excavation permeability profiles (with a 0.3-m spatial resolution) for boreholes used for drift-seepage and liquid-release tests are presented in this report. Air-permeability distributions were used as inputs to the report Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]), to assess the capillary-barrier and seepage-threshold mechanisms. (Fractures immediately above the niches are important to the evaluation of seepage into drifts.) The approach summarized in Cook (2000 [DIRS 165411]), and in Wang and Ellsworth (1999 [DIRS 104366]), is used to collect the air-permeability distribution data described in Section 6.1. The main results from air-permeability profile and distribution analyses are: • The excavation-induced permeability enhancements in borehole intervals are large, with an average borehole enhancement of one to two orders of magnitude. • Borehole-scale and drift-scale distributions, and excavation-induced enhancements of permeability variations, are orders of magnitude larger than the site-to-site variations of average values along the ESF main drift (Section 6.1.2.4). Because spatial variability at the drift scale controls local flow path and seepage, it is important to characterize the permeability distribution in fractured tuff. The relatively small difference in mean permeability values for different niches reduced uncertainties associated with site-scale spatial heterogeneity. The liquid-seepage tests in locally distinct niches resulted in seepage-threshold values within a relatively narrow range. The uncertainties for seepage into drifts were well established for the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), where four existing niches were located. The seepage evaluation with nearly continuous releases was carried out for the lower lithophysal tuff unit (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), to acquire the necessary data for the majority of the repository horizon. Output DTN: LB0310AIRK0015.001 (for computed ratios of post-excavation air-permeability data over pre-excavation air-permeability data) is the technical product output from the analysis presented in Section 6.1 of this report. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-10 November 2004 The permeability ratios in this DTN are presented in Section 6.1.2.3. As shown in Figures 6-19 through Figure 6-23, the correlation coefficient R2 of the ratio as a function of initial permeability has low values (from approximately 0.11 to approximately 0.17), representing a poor fit. These results, together with permeability profiles in Section 6.1.1 and statistical analyses summarized in Tables 6-2 through 6-6, provide the basis for understanding the permeability-stress coupling, and the measure of natural variability of the fractures of the tuff units. Heterogeneity quantification is important for other hydrologic processes. Downstream users of the air-permeability data must recognize the natural variability and spatial heterogeneity, and must quantify the hydrologic effects in a manner that is consistent with the air-permeability measures. 7.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF LIQUID-RELEASE AND SEEPAGE TESTS IN NICHES Liquid releases and seepage tests (Trautz and Wang 2002 [DIRS 160335]; 2001 [DIRS 165419]; and Wang et al. 1999 [DIRS 106146]) were used to collect seepage data, as described in Section 6.2 and summarized in Sections 7.2.1 through 7.2.3. 7.2.1 Pre-Excavation Liquid-Release Testing and Niche Excavation Activities Numerous liquid-release tests were conducted prior to the excavation of each niche, to evaluate how far a finite pulse of water would be transported through relatively undisturbed fractures located in the middle nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). Similar tests were conducted in the lower lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), to identify the main difference (in effective capillary strengths) between these two major repository host rocks. The maximum depth of the wetting front increased as the mass of injected fluid increased. Based on the results, it appears that maximum-depth data cannot discriminate the type of flow (i.e., high-angle fracture flow versus network flow) observed during the test. Lateral spreading and the aspect ratio (i.e., ratio of depth to lateral spreading) may be stronger measures of the type of flow that predominates. Increased lateral spreading of the wetting front is related to well-connected fracture networks that contain both high- and low-angle fractures; large aspect ratios are related to flow in individual vertical fractures. Some additional details are as follows: • Flow in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) is dominated by gravity, with large aspect ratios observed in most flow paths. • The lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) has some flow paths with symmetric patterns, indicating relatively strong capillarity capable of spreading the plumes. DTN LB0110LIQR0015.001 (for liquid-release test analyses and computed seepage rates) and DTN LB0110NICH4LIQ.001 (for wetting front characterization in the ceiling of Niche 4 [Niche 4788]) are technical product outputs from the analyses presented in Section 6.2.1 of this report. DTN LB0110LIQR0015.001 was used in the development of the water retention curves for fractures (illustrated in Figure 6-49 and summarized in Table 6-10 and Table 6-11). Various data sets were used to generate the water retention curves; seepage threshold fluxes were determined In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-11 November 2004 through use of the test data that had relatively high correlation coefficients in Table 6-8. Although the data for the seepage thresholds have high certainty, the analyses that used analytic solutions had uncertainties associated with the approximations of medium uniformity. Downstream models, such as the seepage calibration model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]), recognized this limitation, and formulated the heterogeneous numerical models, and took into consideration air-permeability distributions. DTN LB0110NICH4LIQ.001 was used in the analyses of wetting-front movements observed on a niche ceiling, as illustrated in Figure 6-30. The relatively uniform patterns at early times, and the interferences by fractures at later times, are presented to facilitate a better understanding of the seepage and diversion mechanisms. The DTN was generated for use by models with fractures explicitly taken into account. To use such an approach, additional data (of fracture characteristics for each discrete fracture) is needed. 7.2.2 Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), Niche 4 (Niche 4788), and Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) The focus of the seepage tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) was to investigate the amount of water that would drip into a mined opening from transient liquid-release events of short duration. The tests can be summarized as follows: • Forty post-excavation liquid-release tests were conducted on 16 different test intervals located above Niche 2 (Niche 3650) within the middle nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff unit. • Of the 16 zones tested, water seeped into the capture system from 10 zones; water appeared at the niche ceiling, but did not drip, in three zones; and, in three zones, no water appeared. • The seepage percentage (defined as the amount of water captured in the niche, divided by the amount of water released into the rock) values ranged from 0 to 56.2. During the early stages of testing, the memory effect, or wetting history, was determined to have a profound impact on seepage. If the liquid-release tests were performed too close together in time, it was found (as expected) that the seepage percentage increased dramatically. This is because the fractures contained residual moisture, and their unsaturated conductivity was higher during subsequent tests. The test with a 56.2-percent seepage result (the third test in a series of four tests in the same interval) was conducted within 2 hours of the second test, which had 23.2 percent seepage. By comparison, the first test, which was conducted 20 days before the second test, had a fairly consistent result of 22.6 percent seepage. Some additional details are as follows: • The seepage-threshold flux (defined as the flux of water that, when introduced into the injection borehole, results in zero seepage) was evaluated for the 10 zones that seeped that are noted in Section 6.2.2.1 (Table 6-8 lists the 10 tests in Niche 2 (Niche 3650), and includes seepage threshold determinations). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-12 November 2004 • The seepage-threshold fluxes measured at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) varied from 6.35 × 10-9 to 4.31 × 10-6 m/s (equivalent to 200 to 136 000 mm/year). • Analytical techniques specific to a homogenous, unsaturated porous medium, derived by Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743]), were used to evaluate and interpret the seepage-threshold data. Two types of flow paths were observed in the field during the mining operation, as described in Section 6.2.1.2. Estimates of the volumetric water content were produced in Section 6.2.2.3, using wetting-front arrival times recorded during the seepage tests. The a-values resulting from the analyses performed in Section 6.2.2.2 were used to estimate the water potentials of the fractures reported in Section 6.2.2.4. Water-potential estimates and the corresponding volumetric water contents were used to construct the fracture-water retention curves presented in Section 6.2.2.5. Examination of these plots indicates that: • Fractures appear to drain very quickly (Figure 6-49). • Saturated water content may be as high as 5 percent (Table 6-10). The approach of using short-term tests at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) in ventilated conditions was replaced by long-term tests at both Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) under controlled high-humidity conditions. The series of Niche 4 (Niche 4788) tests was more complete (see Table 6-8 on seepage threshold analyses, with three test intervals in Niche 4 (Niche 4788) versus one test interval in Niche 3 (Niche 3107)) and was used in the seepage calibration model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]) to calibrate and validate the model. The analytic solution approach presented in this report indicated that: • The seepage thresholds determined by the long-term tests are comparable to the seepage thresholds determined by short-term tests (Table 6-8, Section 6.2.2.1 on comparison; Section 6.2.1.3 on test durations). For Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in the lower lithophysal tuff, Test #2 demonstrated that: • Seepage thresholds exist even with the series of tests conducted consecutively, with essentially no waiting periods between tests at different rates (see example in Figure 6-44, Section 6.2.1.3.5.3). • The slot did not effectively capture lateral movement of water around the niche (Section 6.2.1.3.5.2). The lack of evidence that seepage occurred into the slot implies that the supplemental objectives of the test, stated in Section 6.2.1.3.5.1, were not met in this study. However, both at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) and Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), photographic evidence showed that when water was introduced into boreholes above the niche: • A wetted area spread across the ceiling and down the terminal face and sidewall of Niche 4 (Niche 4788) in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) (Trautz and Wang 2002 [DIRS 160335]). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-13 November 2004 • A wetted area spread down the sidewall of Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) in the lower lithophysal tuff Tptpll (Figure 6-46). 7.2.3 Constraints and Limitations of the Niche Seepage Test Results The seepage test results at Niche 2 (Niche 3650), including the determinations of the seepage thresholds, were based on multiple liquid-release tests of short duration and with small amounts of water released (on the order of one liter). Injection rates in some of the test were high enough to induce seepage. The relative humidity in the open niche was affected by the ventilation in the ESF main drift and was thus low, leading to evaporation and water removal from the rock through the vapor phase. These evaporation effects may have reduced the liquid seepage flux used to determine the seepage threshold. An additional source of uncertainty is the unknown storage capacity of the formation between the injection point and the niche ceiling. These uncertainties were addressed by: 1. Controlling and/or monitoring evaporation conditions in the niches, 2. Performing long-term liquid-release tests to reduce storage effects, and/or 3. Analyzing the seepage-rate data through use of a numerical model that accounts for evaporation and storage effects. The liquid-release tests at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) were conducted over periods significantly longer than the tests conducted in Niche 2 (Niche 3650), with some at lower release rates and under better control of ventilation and humidity effects. Within a finite testing period, long-duration water releases may not have been followed by sufficiently long recovery periods before the next test, with a different rate, was initiated. The same long-duration approaches have been used in tests at the lower lithophysal unit (Tptpll) at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620), where some tests were conducted with essentially no recovery periods between tests with different rates. The constraints and limitations of the seepage test results in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) with recovery periods, and in the lower lithophysal zone (Tptpll) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) with minimal recovery periods, should be carefully evaluated to assess their applicability. The intended use of niche test data is for seepage process evaluation. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-14 November 2004 7.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF TRACER-MIGRATION DELINEATION AT NICHE 2 (NICHE 3650) Tracer distribution in cores after a liquid-release event at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) is analyzed in Section 6.3. Niche 2 (Niche 3650) was the first of three niches (Niche 2 [Niche 3650], Niche 3 [Niche 3107], and Niche 4 [Niche 4788]) in which a series of seepage tests was conducted in the middle nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). The results of multiple sequences of short-term seepage tests showed that: • Spatial distributions of tracers that resulted from early liquid-release tests conducted in Niche 2 (Niche 3650) consistently pointed to localized flow with limited lateral spreading. • Tracer migration from the last short-term test was localized and possibly confined within the 1.0-m-by-1.6-m area directly below the liquid-release interval, with a vertical scale of approximately 0.7 m. This conclusion was based mainly on analyses of iodine as a conservative tracer. Liquid-release tests reported in Section 6.2 indicated that post-excavation seepage water was captured, in most cases, directly beneath the test zone or in capture cells adjoining the interval. Flow-path observations during niche excavations generally showed that the dyes did not spread laterally to great extents (also see preliminary results of Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) reported in Wang et al. (1999 [DIRS 106146], pp. 329–332)). Gravity-driven flow was the primary flow mechanism in fracture systems, either through individual fractures and/or through the fracture network connected to the release intervals. In Section 6.4 of this report, results of additional laboratory tests of tracer sorption and fracture-matrix interactions are presented. The absence of nonreactive tracers, especially iodine (introduced only at the last pulse release), together with the localized spatial distributions of dyes long after the liquid releases, suggests that the gravity-driven component is strong. Capillary imbibition and capillary barrier effects could promote lateral spreading. Note that dye is sorbing (i.e., the observed dye pattern represents the minimum extent of water migration), which makes the related interpretation uncertain. The results provide a data set for flow path distribution from multiple liquid releases that use different tracers. The data set can be used to quantify natural variability and uncertainties of flow and transport on the scale of a few meters. Because the tracer distributions are based on cores recovered from a cluster of boreholes, uncertainties exist that are associated with flow and transport out the domain between the boreholes. Ventilation drying may also contribute to the uncertainties in the test interpretation. These considerations should be taken into account in using the data set for detailed calculations of the flow and transport processes in this spatial scale of a few meters. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-15 November 2004 7.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ON TRACER PENETRATION AND WATER IMBIBITION INTO WELDED TUFF MATRIX Field and laboratory tracer experiments have been conducted to investigate the flow partitioning between fracture flow and matrix imbibition under unsaturated conditions. During niche excavation, dye-stained rock samples were collected for laboratory analyses. Additional tuff samples collected from the repository horizon were machined as rock cores for laboratory studies of tracer penetration into the rock matrix, with two different initial water saturations. In the drift seepage tests that used dye tracers, seepage-water samples were collected. A rock-drilling and sampling technique was developed to profile the tracer concentration in the rock matrix, as discussed in Section 6.4 and in Hu et al. (2002 [DIRS 165412]). The samples were collected in Niche 2 (Niche 3650). The laboratory evaluation complements the evaluation documented in Section 6.3 for the site in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). Some additional details are as follows: • For rock samples, the sorbing dye-tracer penetration depths were on the order of several millimeters from the fractures that permitted flow. • In well-controlled laboratory tracer-imbibition tests under both high and low initial water saturations, the concentration profiles of sorbing dyes lag behind the nonreactive bromide front, with the dye transport distance of a few millimeters over the contact time (approximately 18 hours). • If the initial water saturation is relatively high (75.8 percent), the bromide front lags significantly behind the moisture front. However, if the initial water saturation is relatively low (12.5 percent), the bromide front is comparable to the moisture front. • Retardation of sorbing tracers increased with a decrease in saturation, as measured in the dry core and in the wet core. This verified the functional relationship between retardation and water content. • Core measurements can be used to measure retardation factors in in situ conditions, to check the results of batch experiments that used crushed tuff in saturated conditions. Data presented in Section 6.4 revealed subtle processes (especially at the interface boundary region between the core bottom and the water reservoir) that simulated the contact of flow-permitting fractures with the adjoining tuff matrix. Data of flow partitioning, front separation, and tracer retardation can be used for validation of fracture-matrix interaction and fracture flow models. The uncertainties of the laboratory measurements are associated with the spatial resolution limitations of drilling and sampling techniques (see Figure 6-62, Section 6.4.1.4) and analytic accuracy (see Appendix E for additional evaluations). Compared to field-testing conditions, these measurement uncertainties are small. The laboratory measurements provided improved process understanding and alternate approaches for block rock characterization, complementing the measurements from crushed rock samples. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-16 November 2004 7.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF SINGLE-HOLE PERMEABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS AND CROSSHOLE CONNECTIVITY ANALYSES Crosshole analyses of pneumatic air-permeability test data are presented for Niche 4 (Niche 4788), Alcove 6, and Alcove 4 in Section 6.5. Crosshole connectivity analyses for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) are used in the seepage tests in this highly fractured zone. The pneumatic air-permeability test results were used for interval selection and test interpretation in the series of tests conducted for fracture flows and fracture-matrix interactions in the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) at Alcove 6, and for fault and matrix flows in Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) in Alcove 4. Niche 4 (Niche 4788) and Alcove 6 are in the fractured middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). Alcove 4 is in porous Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) tuff. The main results from permeability distribution and crosshole analyses are: • Welded-tuff test sites had distinct flow paths that were clearly identified by crosshole analyses from isolated injection intervals to observation intervals (Section 6.5.1). • The fracture flow connections were predominately unidirectional (an injection interval induced a response in an observation interval, but the interval did not necessarily detect injection into the original observation interval) (Section 6.5.1). • The Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) test bed in Alcove 4 had many more pneumatic flow connections than the corresponding Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw) sites in niches and in Alcove 6. Weaker connections were trimmed out to reveal the stronger connections (Figure 6-72, Figure 6-73). • Using crosshole analyses, the argillic layer in the test bed was shown to be a nearly impermeable barrier (Figure 6-73, Section 6.5.2). • Stronger flow connections were associated with a fault in the test bed at Alcove 4. A high-permeability zone near the end of the test block was identified by the air-permeability results and crosshole analyses (Figure 6-73, Section 6.5.2). The crosshole air-injection tests presented visually (see Section 6.5) primarily support the selection of liquid injection intervals. The uncertainty in measured air-injection rates and induced pressure buildup are expected to be small compared to the variability in formation properties and the conceptual model uncertainties. The uncertainties associated with permeability testing (Section 6.1.2.4) also apply to the evaluation of the crosshole responses. The crosshole analysis results can be used for heterogeneous model evaluation over the spatial domain covered by the borehole clusters. Discrete fracture network models can use the crosshole analysis for inputs for the heterogeneity field. 7.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF FRACTURE FLOW IN THE FRACTURE-MATRIX TEST BED AT ALCOVE 6 Fracture flow data were collected in a slotted test bed located at Alcove 6 of the ESF within the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). The existence of a slot below the injection zones made it possible In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-17 November 2004 to quantify both the inflow into the system, and the outflow at the lower boundary, and to better evaluate the flow field in underground test conditions, as described in Section 6.6, and in Salve et al. (2002 [DIRS 161318]), and in Hu et al. (2001 [DIRS 165413]). In this field study, techniques developed to investigate flow in fractured welded tuffs were evaluated. Results from field tests suggest that certain fundamental flow parameters (such as transport times, percolation, and seepage rates) can be characterized in situ. Alcove 6 is in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), with a well-defined fracture network through competent welded tuff rock. The test results revealed aspects of flow in unsaturated, fractured systems, and provided insight into the conceptualization of flow through unsaturated and fractured rock formations. The Alcove 6 test was the first test (on unsaturated fractured tuff conducted in the ESF) that attempted to take water mass conservation explicitly into account. In field tests, controlling the boundaries is frequently difficult, and liquid can flow to unknown domains. Transient data collected at Alcove 6 also contribute to the evaluation of unsaturated flow in fractured tuffs. Several sets of liquid-release tests were conducted through use of localized injections of liquid into a low-permeability zone (LPZ) and into a high-permeability zone (HPZ) along a borehole. The major test results were: • For all injections into both LPZ and HPZ, changes in electrical resistance and psychrometer readings were detected in two monitoring boreholes approximately 0.6 m below the point of injection. • For the LPZ tests, water did not seep into the slot located 1.65 m below the point of injection. • The liquid-release rate into the LPZ was observed to steadily decrease by two orders of magnitude (from greater than 30 mL/minute to less than 0.1 mL/minute) over a 24-hour period. • In the HPZ, liquid-release rates under constant-head conditions were significantly higher (approximately 100 mL/minute), with intermittent changes observed in the intake rate. • For injection tests in the HPZ, water was observed to drip into the slot in 3 to 7 minutes at high injection rates (rates of approximately 28 to approximately 100 mL/min.); in 1 hour at the low injection rate of 14 mL/min.; and in 5 hours at the lowest rate of 5 mL/min. • During the course of each test, seepage rates measured in the slot showed intermittent responses despite constant-head or constant-rate conditions imposed at the input boundary (Panel b of Figure 6-79, Section 6.6.2.3). • The percentage of the cumulative volume of water that was recovered in the slot was observed to increase with time in most tests, and approached steady-state values after approximately 10 L of water had been injected (Section 6.6.2.1). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-18 November 2004 • The highest injected-water recovery rate for high-rate injection tests was 80 percent (Figure 6-79, Section 6.6.2.3). • The minimum volumes of fracture flow paths were estimated, for each test, from measurements of fluid volume before wetting front arrivals, and from measurements of drainage volume into the slot after termination of injection. The cumulative flow path volumes were found to vary from approximately 0.5 L to approximately 1.3 L after termination of liquid injection (Figure 6-81, Section 6.6.2.3). • Plug-flow processes were observed with tracer analyses. “New” water replaced “old” water from the previous test, with some backdiffusion effects occurring, as indicated by rebounding (Figure 6-82, Section 6.6.2.4). The stepped and intermittent changes could be associated with heterogeneous distribution of storage volumes in the connected fracture flow paths, in the dead-end fractures, and in the rock matrix blocks. The test results from Alcove 6 could be used to evaluate fracture flows and fracture-matrix interactions. Significant uncertainties were associated with a series of tests that were conducted that used relatively short durations in comparison with the duration of seepage tests in niches. Nevertheless, the qualitative understanding gained from Alcove 6 testing could be used for the design of other tests, such as the Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) tests described in Section 6.12. 7.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF FLOW THROUGH THE FAULT AND MATRIX IN THE TEST BED AT ALCOVE 4 Fault and matrix flow data were collected in a test bed located in the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) unit at Alcove 4 in the ESF. Using a series of horizontal boreholes, the intake rates and plume transport times in various locations within the test bed were determined, as described in Section 6.7, and in Salve et al. (2003 [DIRS 164470]), and in Salve and Oldenburg (2001 [DIRS 157316]). These test results revealed aspects of flow in a fault located within the nonwelded tuffs, and provided insights into the flow properties of the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) tuff. With the exception of a well-defined fault trace, no visible fracture traces were evident in the bulk of the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) tuff test bed. A series of localized liquid-release tests helped determine that: • Intake rates within a fault located in the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) decreased as more water was introduced into the release zone (i.e., from an initial value of approximately 200 mL/min. to approximately 50 mL/min. after 193 L of water entered the injection zone). • The transport time of the wetting front that resulted from water released in the fault decreased when the fault was wet (i.e., in closely timed tests, the plume was transported more quickly in subsequent releases). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-19 November 2004 • Over time, the hydrologic properties of the fault appeared to change (water was transported along the fault at significantly slower rates). • The matrix adjoining the fault imbibed water that was introduced into the fault. Changes in saturation were seen at distances greater than 1.0 m from the point of release. • The intake rates and wetting-front transport times in the matrix were significantly slower than they were in the fault. Water released into the matrix was observed to be transported 0.45 m in 14 days. Significant uncertainties were associated with a series of tests that were conducted that used relatively short durations in comparison with the duration of seepage tests in niches. Furthermore, the volume of water that was injected (to induce seepage and water collection in the slot below) was insufficient. Nevertheless, the tests provided a qualitative understanding of the flow through the nonwelded tuff unit, and showed that the unit had large dampening capacities for modulating infiltrating pulses. 7.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF WATER-POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS CONDUCTED IN THREE NICHES WITHIN THE ESF MAIN DRIFT Psychrometer measurements in the ESF suggested significant variability in water potentials between and within Niche 1 (Niche 3566), Niche 2 (Niche 3650), and Niche 3 (Niche 3107). All three niches were in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). The main observations were: • The effects of ventilation might have penetrated the rock to depths in excess of 3 m. • Two possible zones were observed to have significantly higher water potentials in Niche 1 (Niche 3566). The first was observed at the end of the middle borehole. The second was detected 6.25 m into Borehole A in Niche 1 (Niche 3566). Borehole A was drilled from the niche, toward the Sundance fault. • Large variability in water potential (-15 and -84 m) existed in the short 0.9-m distance between two boreholes at Niche 3 (Niche 3107). • At 10-m depths (i.e. in the zone unaffected by drift ventilation), Niche 1 (Niche 3566, with potential 0.4 to -13 m) appeared to be wetter than Niche 2 (Niche 3650, with potential -1 to -39 m). These potential measurements were taken before the bulkhead closed in Niche 1 (Niche 3566), and before seepage measurements in Niche 2 (Niche 3650) and in Niche 3 (Niche 3107) were taken. The data are presented in this report for future comparisons with potential measurements elsewhere in the ESF, including the ECRB Cross-Drift. Psychrometer measurements are sensitive to testing conditions, as discussed in Appendix G. The measurement uncertainties associated with water potential in the field are relatively large (see Appendix G) in comparison with other hydrologic measurements, such as saturation from core In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-20 November 2004 measurements. The data from measurements taken before bulkhead closure were also greatly influenced by ventilation drying. The results indicate that wet conditions existed in the vicinity of the Sundance fault. The absolute magnitude of the water potential should only be used when the measurement uncertainties and test site ventilating conditions are taken into account. 7.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF MONITORING CONSTRUCTION-WATER MIGRATION The sensors in a borehole below the starter tunnel of the ECRB Cross-Drift detected conditions associated with wetting-front migration. Yet no seepage was observed at the crossover point along the ESF main drift below the ECRB Cross-Drift. The ECRB Cross-Drift starter tunnel is located in the upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). The crossover point in the ESF main drift is located in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). The specific observations were: • A ponding event that occurred on March 8, 1998, increased water-potential values up to a depth of 8.65 m (17.3 m along the borehole). • Along the borehole, the impact of changes in water-potential values occurred at different locations, and at different times, during the monitoring period. Early in March 1998, the large impact was restricted to close to the borehole collar. By early April 1998, this impact was more pronounced at a depth of between 4.7 and 5.7 m (between 9.4 and 11.4 m along the borehole). • One concern related to the use of a slanting borehole to measure wetting-front migration is the possibility of the bore cavity short-circuiting flow paths. Such a short-circuiting does not appear to have happened, as indicated by the analysis of recovery responses observed at the depth of 5.2 m. At that depth, the response to a wetting event was negligible when compared with other psychrometers close to (above and below) this location, suggesting that this zone was well-isolated (hydraulically) from the adjacent zones, and the wetting front did not reach it. • The performance of the ERPs, when compared with the performance of psychrometers, suggests that the probes (without any change to their design) could be effectively used as a qualitative tool to detect the arrival (or departure) of wetting fronts. Unlike psychrometers, the probes were relatively inexpensive, easy to maintain, and had a low failure rate. Such advantages made them particularly useful for extensive downhole monitoring applications in fractured-rock environments, such as found at Yucca Mountain. • At the crossover point, no seepage was observed, nor were wetting-front signals detected at the crossover point when the ECRB Cross-Drift tunnel boring machine (TBM) passed above the ESF main drift. The TBM apparently did not use enough water to induce dripping into the ESF main drift, located 17.5 m below it. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-21 November 2004 In the repository at Yucca Mountain, performance-confirmation drifts are to be located above (or below) the waste emplacement drifts, to monitor the waste-induced impacts. It is therefore important to evaluate drift-to-drift migration and drift seepage, and to detect wetting fronts. The experience gained in the integrated monitoring station at the crossover point (with seepage collection trays, water-potential and wetting-front sensors, and thermal/visual imaging devices) can be applied to future testing and monitoring tasks. These observations of wetting front migrations associated with construction water usage are of a qualitative nature because of limited sensor sensitivities, and uncertainties in the total amount and rates of water used for the excavation. Nevertheless, the findings provided order-ofmagnitude estimates on the migration below drifts. 7.10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF ANALYSES OF CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS Some observations of ESF moisture conditions are presented in Sections 6.10.1. The ESF main drift is in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). Sections of the ECRB Cross-Drift were sealed off by bulkheads; such sections are in the lower lithophysal (Tptpll) and lower nonlithophysal (Tptpln) zones of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), and the Solitario Canyon fault. The observations can be summarized as follows: • Shortly after drift excavation, high humidity conditions were detected near the TBM. • In the month after the excavation, the relative humidity gradient near the end of the ESF tunnel was greater than the gradient close to the entrance. • Construction water migration results are presented in Section 6.10.1.3 and in Finsterle et al. (2002 [DIRS 165415]). • The construction water reached a minimum depth of 30 m at a borehole outside Alcove 7 (Figure 6-105). In the ongoing moisture study of bulkheaded sections in the ECRB Cross-Drift, observations were as follows: • Water-potential measurements in boreholes suggest that the tuff matrix is still relatively dry to a depth of 0.5 to 1.0 m. • Moisture conditions (relative humidity and temperature) respond (relatively) quickly to bulkhead entries and TBM power fluctuations. • Wet spots were observed and liquid water was collected in sections and, based on chemical analyses of the clean water collected, the presence of water can likely be attributed to condensation. Isotopic signatures indicated that the collected water underwent an evaporation shift. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-22 November 2004 Qualitative observations, moisture evolution data, drying profiles into the rocks, and chemical analyses of collected water were used to address questions regarding the origin of water (i.e., whether it resulted from seepage or condensation). Limitations and uncertainties in the supporting information prevent a conclusive determination of the origin of the observed water. Nevertheless, there are strong indications that the water resulted from condensation processes. 7.11 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF SYSTEMATIC HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION ALONG THE ECRB CROSS-DRIFT Hydrologic characterization of the lower lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring welded tuff zone (Tptpll) was initiated in the ECRB Cross-Drift, using the systematic approach of testing at regular intervals as described in Section 6.11 and in Cook et al. (2003 [DIRS 165424]). Analyses of data from several sets of tests were performed in 10 zones, using four low-angle boreholes. The results indicated that: • Small fractures (less than 1 m in length) were well connected, giving rise to air-permeability values on the order of 10-11 m2. The connected fractures probably constituted the main contribution to fast paths for liquid flow. • In the transient process of establishing the fast paths between the water release (at a vertical distance of between 1 and 5 m above the drift) and the drift ceiling, some water imbibed into the rock matrix, and some water seeped into the lithophysal cavities. Out of the available storage porosity of 0.125 of the lithophysal cavities, approximately 20 to 50 percent participated in taking in water introduced when the rate of injection was tens of milliliters per minute. When the water-release rate was an order of magnitude higher, water flow primarily occured in the fractures, with little participation from the matrix or lithophysal cavities during the time required to intersect the drift. • Under steady-state conditions, water introduced from one to several meters above the drift flowed down toward the drift in preferential paths, not in a plume. A fraction of the water missed the drift because of nonuniform flow from fracture heterogeneity, and a fraction of the water was diverted around the drift because of capillary effects. The former component of nonintersecting flow was controlled by geometry, and was likely independent of the water-release rate. • An injection-rate estimate was made (from a borehole of a given area at a given distance above the drift), below which there was no seepage into the drift. Based on the information discussed in Section 6.11.3.3 (for Borehole LA#1), a value of 15 mL/min was obtained, for a projected borehole area of 0.13 m2, at an average height of 1.3 m above the drift. • Because of the low humidity inside the ECRB Cross-Drift, and because of the drift ventilation system, effects of evaporation must be considered when interpreting seepage data from systematic testing. After the completion of the first set of tests (when the significance of evaporation was first noted), relative humidity measurements and open-pan evaporation measurements were incorporated into the systematic-testing equipment system. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-23 November 2004 • Systematic testing in Boreholes LA#2 and LA#1 revealed an effective porosity of 0.028 for one-time fill cavities, 0.027 for drainable cavities, and 0.013 for fractures. • Systematic testing in Boreholes LA#3 and LA#4 revealed very heterogeneous responses, ranging from tight zones with low capacities to take up water injected into the borehole intervals, to a high-permeability zone in which nearly 100 percent of all injected water was diverted around the drift. DTN LB0110SYST0015.001 (computed comparisons from systematic testing) is technical product output from the analysis presented in Section 6.11 of this report. DTN LB0110SYST0015.001 was generated in 2001 for systematic testing results from raw data for the first two slanted boreholes drilled into the crown of the ECRB Cross-Drift, as illustrated in Figures 6-130 through 6-139. Later data sets include data processing, and eliminate the need to generate this type of technical product output. From the perspective of the objectives of this report, the strength of systematic testing was its potential to provide insight regarding how spatial heterogeneity impacts seepage, flow, and transport processes. Uncertainties associated with ventilation effects were a significant component of the testing conditions in the periodically ventilated ECRB Cross-Drift (and can be accounted for using pan-evaporation data). The systematic-testing data set was the first set available in 2001 for seepage evaluation in the lower lithophysal zone, and the data set was used in a later revision of the seepage calibration model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171764]). 7.12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF DRIFT-TO-DRIFT TESTS BETWEEN ALCOVE 8 AND NICHE 3 (NICHE 3107) Alcove 8 is located in the upper lithophysal tuff (Tptpul) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), approximately 20 m directly above Niche 3 (Niche 3107) in the middle nonlithophysal zone (Tptpmn) of the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw). Data obtained during Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) testing characterizes the response of the system to releases of water under constant-head conditions. Specifically: • Infiltration rates along the fault reached quasi–steady-state conditions approximately 45 days after water was introduced to the infiltration zones, and the infiltration rates varied at different locations along the fault. • Observations of saturation changes within the fault indicated the velocity of the wetting front (vertically along the fault) was approximately 0.65 m/s. • Seepage observations indicated that quasi–steady-state conditions may have been reached two months after the initial releases into the fault. • Radar data collected in support of the Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) infiltration experiment suggested that this method was appropriate for investigating subsurface anomalies that may have been related to moisture migration. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-24 November 2004 • Experimental results indicated that matrix diffusion had an important effect on solute transport. • An observed low seepage recovery rate from the fault implied good communication between the fault and the surrounding fracture networks. • Similar tracer arrival times (corresponding to the peak concentration values) for most flow paths suggests that macrodispersion may not be important for solute transport in unsaturated fractured rock. • The observation of the first seepage spot in Niche 3 (Niche 3107), 21 days after water was introduced along the nonfaulted section of Alcove 8, suggests that wetting-front velocity was approximately 1.0 m/day below the large plot test bed. The relatively long flow distance of approximately 20 m between the injection plot in Alcove 8 and the ceiling of Niche 3107 (Niche 3) provides possibilities for water to be diverted through discrete geological features (such as fractures or the contact between the upper lithophysal and middle nonlithophysal zones), thus bypassing the collection system in the niche. The fact that only a portion of the released water can be accounted for leads to confidence that the physical processes that were expected to impact seepage are indeed effective. However, uncertainties arise in the detailed interpretations, because of the lack of mass balance. 7.13 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BUSTED BUTTE UNSATURATED ZONE TRANSPORT TEST The UZTT at Busted Butte was designed to address uncertainties associated with flow and transport in the UZ, particularly in the Calico Hills unit. The UZTT was comprised of three tightly integrated efforts: the field test, a parallel laboratory program, and assessment and validation of computational models. Section 6.13 and Appendix H present the results of the field test and associated laboratory analyses. The model assessment and validation are reported in Radionuclide Transport Models Under Ambient Conditions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164500]). The tracer sorption to vitric tuffs of Busted Butte is also described in Turin et al. 2002 [DIRS 164633]. The design of the UZTT began in 1997. Injection of tracers for Phase 1 began in April 1998, and Phase 2 injection was completed in October 2000. The mineback excavation of Phase 2 continued in 2001. The results provide important information regarding the UZ transport performance of the Calico Hills hydrologic units, and include the following main conclusions: • Flow and transport in the Calico Hills hydrologic units (Tac and Tptpv1) were strongly capillary dominated, as observed from fluorescein distributions in the Phase 1A test. • Fractures in the Tptpv1 and Tac zones at Busted Butte did not act as fast flow paths, as observed in Phase 1A; they appeared to play a role as a barrier or permeability contrast boundary. • Heterogeneity appears to have had a significant effect on flow, as observed in Phase 1A for layer contacts and in Phase 2 for faults. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-25 November 2004 • Breakthrough times of nonreactive bromide were approximately linear with transport distance. • Sorption can delay chemical transport, as shown from the breakthrough curves of lithium. • Neutron moisture data corroborate plume and breakthrough data pertaining to moisture changes associated with injections into the test block. • Laboratory measurements with radionuclides were taken, to complement measurements taken during field tracer testing; technetium (as the pertechneate anion) moved slightly faster than tritiated water in a small 1-ft3 block, and at approximately the same velocity in a 1-m3 block (both blocks were from the Busted Butte site). Uncertainties exist in the degree of sorption. Note that the delay of chemical transport across the complex interface between the injection point in the vitrophyre and the detection point in the Calico Hills nonwelded (CHn) can potentially be attributed to sorption. The interface may introduce flow and transport processes that divert water and tracer in an unpredictable fashion. Some interference of grout residue in the formation may also contribute to uncertainty in the interpretation of fluid movement. 7.14 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FOR GEOCHEMICAL AND ISOTOPIC OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE UNSATURATED ZONE Section 6.14 and references therein describe the geochemical and isotopic observations and analyses of samples collected primarily along the underground drifts in the UZ of the ESF. The summaries are presented in the following sections: • Section 7.14.1 (for Section 6.14.1) addresses pore water and rock geochemistry. • Section 7.14.2 (for Section 6.14.2) addresses isotopic examination of 36Cl and tritium for potential fast flow signals, and fluid-inclusion temperature signals for thermal history, at Yucca Mountain. • Section 7.14.3 (for Section 6.14.3) addresses uranium isotopic studies of past climate records, and delineation of UZ flow zones. • Section 7.14.4 (for Section 6.14.4) addresses fracture mineral distributions and implications. Some model interpretations and detailed analyses are documented in cited references. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-26 November 2004 7.14.1 Pore Water and Bulk Repository Rock Unit Geochemistry An analysis and an interpretation of pore-water data are found in Section 6.14.1.1. Rock chemistry in the ECRB Cross-Drift is compiled in Section 6.14.1.2. In the Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw), the results indicate: • The dissolved ion composition of pore water shows considerable stratigraphic and lateral variability (Table 6-37, Section 6.14.1.1). • The variability in major and trace elements, and in mineral contents of the rocks, is exceedingly small (Table 6-38, Table 6-39, Table 6-40, Section 6.14.1.2). The existence of pore-water variability in the repository deep underground testifies to the inefficiency of advective or diffusional mixing in the downward percolation of pore water. The rock samples from the ECRB Cross-Drift represent both lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones. The analyses indicate the chemical homogeneity of the phenocryst-poor rhyolite unit (Topopah Spring Tuff (TSw)), excluding localized deposits of vapor-phase minerals and low-temperature calcite and opal in fractures, cavities, and faults (Peterman and Cloke 2002 [DIRS 162576]). 7.14.2 Isotope Geochemical Studies Fast-flow paths and the thermal history at Yucca Mountain have been evaluated in Section 6.14.2. 7.14.2.1 Isotope Geochemical Studies of 36Cl/Cl Signatures The 36Cl validation study results are briefly presented in Section 6.14.2. 7.14.2.2 Tritium in Pore Water The analyses of tritium in pore water from several locations within the ESF main drift and ECRB Cross-Drift indicate that substantial amounts of young pore water exist: • In the Bow Ridge fault above the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) unit. • In the south ramp of the ESF, where the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) unit is faulted and offset. • In the ECRB (from 750 to 950 m along the ECRB Cross-Drift), in the upper lithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring welded tuff (Tptpul). The occurrences of young pore water in the Bow Ridge fault and in the south ramp of the ESF are clearly linked to the absence of the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) subunits or the inability of such subunits to impede downward percolation of young water at those locations. In the ECRB Cross-Drift, what features may provide the pathways for the percolation of young water is unclear. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-27 November 2004 The distribution of young percolation water in the ESF main drift and ECRB Cross-Drift does not generally agree with that determined from chlorine isotopes (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1998 [DIRS 162737]): • Analyses of chlorine-36 indicate significant percolation of young water at the Drill Hole Wash fault and Sundance fault. Only a fraction of 52 samples contained tritium-activity levels in excess of the 1-TU threshold that indicates the presence of young water (Section 6.14.2.2.2). • Analyses of chlorine-36 in the ESF south ramp did not identify the presence of young water. The majority of 23 samples contained tritium-activity levels in excess of the 1-TU threshold (Section 6.14.2.2.2). It is possible that, in the Drill Hole Wash fault and Sundance fault, the pore water near the fractures that provided the fast pathways evaporated, due to the barometric pumping of relatively dry air. If this did occur, the evaporated water could leave behind chloride salts containing post–weapons-testing isotope ratios, although the tritium evidence would evaporate with the water. In the ESF south ramp, where numerous samples contained post-weapons-testing levels of tritium, it is possible that large amounts of old chloride were dissolved during percolation of the young water, such that any post–weapons-testing chlorine-36 ratios would be unrecognizable. Measurement uncertainties are discussed in Section 6.14. 7.14.2.3 Thermal Regime • The sequence of thermal history at Yucca Mountain was reconstructed from depositional temperatures inferred from fluid inclusions, oxygen isotope evaluations, and uranium-thorium geochronologic studies. • Depositional temperatures of secondary mineral deposits in the UZ at Yucca Mountain, estimated from the fluid-inclusion Th, and calculated from calcite d18O values, range from present-day ambient to as high as 93°C. • Coupled with depositional ages interpolated or extrapolated from uranium-lead geochronologic studies of associated chalcedony or opal, these temperature estimates demonstrate a thermal history that is generally consistent with regional heating from the deep magmatic sources responsible for the silicic volcanism 15 to 11 million years ago. • Maximum temperatures in the UZ occurred more than 10 million years ago, followed by slow cooling to near-modern ambient temperatures between 2 and 4 millions years ago. • The UZ appears to have been at or near present-day ambient temperatures for the past 2 to 4 million years. • Several deposits in the ESF north ramp, however, appear to have formed at temperatures too high to reflect conductive heating from a magmatic heat source. These deposits are associated with fractures present since early cooling of the Tiva Canyon Tuff, and may record fumarolic activity during posteruptive cooling of the tuffs 12.7 million years ago. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-28 November 2004 The implications are as follows: • None of the thermal data requires, or is consistent with, deposition from upwelling hydrothermal fluids. • The sparse and scattered distribution of the secondary mineral deposits, and their restriction to fracture footwalls and cavity floors, is incompatible with deposition from upwelling of hydrothermal fluids. Upwelling would cause local flooding of the open spaces, and result in a pervasive deposition of secondary minerals that is not observed. • The distribution and morphology, as well as the geochemical characteristics of the deposits, are fully consistent with deposition from meteoric waters infiltrating at the surface and percolating through the UZ, but at temperatures greater than modern ambient temperatures in the period before 4 to 2 million years ago. 7.14.3 Uranium Studies Uranium isotope ratios are used to indicate past climate conditions and flow paths in the UZ in Section 6.14.3. 7.14.3.1 Uranium-Series Dating Two methods of uranium-series dating were applied to finely laminated opal hemispheres formed within unsaturated felsic tuffs at Yucca Mountain: 1. An ion microprobe was used to determine isotope compositions of 45-µm-diameter spots on transects across two millimeter-sized opal hemispheres. 2. In situ microdigestions were used to sequentially remove 2- to 5-µm-thick layers of surface material. Both methods substantially improved spatial resolution of the analyses relative to the millimeter-scale subsamples analyzed previously by standard total-digestion techniques. As a result, the opal growth histories can be reconstructed in more detail. Ion-microprobe 230Th/U and model 234U/238U dates from traverses across two opal hemispheres indicate that: • Age increases progressively with microstratigraphic depth. Spots near the base of the hemispheres have ages of more than one million years. • The age-depth relations define average opal growth rates of 0.56 and 0.683 mm/Ma for two separate hemispheres. In situ microdigestions resulted in even finer spatial resolution (2 to 5 µm per analysis), and the youngest dates. • Reliable 230Th/U dates for the outermost layers of several hemispheres range from 6.34 ± 0.12 to 11.6 ± 1.4 ka. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-29 November 2004 Sequential microdigestions from the outer 22 µm of one hemisphere yielded: • Dates of approximately 37.1 ± 1.6 ka, resulting in an average growth rate of 0.68 mm/Ma. • Opal growth rates that appear to have been faster between approximately 25 and 40 ka (1.16 mm/Ma), and slower between approximately 5 and 25 ka (0.35 mm/Ma). • A lack of outermost opal dates younger than approximately 6 ka, and age-depth intercepts of 3 to 10 ka, both of which imply that opal was not deposited in the last several-thousand years. Although dates determined by these two methods do not represent the highest levels of precision, they are considered reliable because of the overall consistency of both ages and initial 234U/238U ratios in both data sets, and because of the identical average growth rates calculated for the two different scales of sample resolution. Collectively, these data: • Confirm the previously hypothesized conceptual model of “continuous” deposition for Yucca Mountain UZ secondary minerals (Neymark and Paces 2000 [DIRS 127012]; Neymark et al. 2000 [DIRS 162710]; and Paces et al. 2001 [DIRS 156507]). • Demonstrate that material is added at very slow rates from solutions seeping into air-filled cavities, and that these rates are likely correlated with climate-controlled percolation flux. • Imply (based on the absence of mineral growth over the last several-thousand years) that seepage may cease completely during the most arid parts of Pleistocene climate cycles. The data do not provide conclusive evidence that the growth patterns observed in opal hemispheres (taken from sample HD2074) are correlated with other UZ mineral deposits, and do not provide conclusive evidence regarding whether these patterns can be correlated more reliably with other climate signals. 7.14.3.2 Uranium-series Flow Paths in the UZ TIMS analyses of 234U-238U-230Th-232Th in whole-rock samples confirmed earlier indications of 234U-230Th-238U disequilibria in the Yucca Mountain UZ tuffs: • Results indicated that radioactive disequilibria were present as a result of both matrix and fracture flow, and that the degree of disequilibrium between these two environments is similar. • Results also showed systematic differences in 234U/238U and 230Th/238U ratios that are consistent with sample location within the UZ, and with hydrologic concepts of higher percolation fluxes in the shallow Bow Ridge fault zone (20 to 30 m depth) and lower fluxes at the repository horizon (220 to 300 m depth). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-30 November 2004 Data from most samples of welded tuff at the repository horizon experienced lesser rates of 238U removal and greater loss of 234U relative to 238U. In contrast, samples from the shallow Bow Ridge fault zone show a higher degree of 238U loss and smaller preferential 234U loss, indicating isotopic evolution in an environment with greater amounts of water/rock interaction. Samples in the footwall block of the Bow Ridge fault zone show some evidence for uranium-gain that may be coupled to water/rock interactions within the fault zone. The amount of water/rock interaction estimated from these uranium-series data may be lower for rocks in the repository horizon at Yucca Mountain than they appear to be in other crystalline rock environments. Results from these samples suggest that uranium-series data may provide a tool for identifying zones of lesser and greater percolation flux within the Yucca Mountain UZ. These types of data may therefore offer a means of independently testing numerical models of flow and transport. 7.14.4 Fracture Mineralogy Low-temperature deposits of calcite and opal are present in open cavities and fractures within the volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain. The abundances of these minerals have been estimated in Section 6.14.4 by surveying underground tunnels and by direct measurement of carbonate in borehole cuttings. Some additional details are as follows: • The abundances are log-normally distributed about a mean value of 0.03 percent of the rock volume, based on ESF line survey data. • The abundance of calcite and opal is generally not correlated with faults, fracture density, or topography, although one line survey with a large abundance is located beneath Drill Hole Wash, and is possibly associated with a nearby fault. • Both line survey data collected in the ECRB Cross-Drift, and estimates of calcite abundance from the nearby Borehole USW SD-6, show a decrease in calcite with stratigraphic depth. This is interpreted as indicating a decrease in seepage with depth (Marshall et al. 2003 [DIRS 162891]). Although little uncertainty is associated with the statistical information on mineral abundances and analytical techniques (see Section 6.14), correlating these abundances with percolation or seepage flux requires the use of additional data and supporting assumptions (see Marshall et al. 2003 [DIRS 162891]); the resulting interpretations are thus uncertain and remain qualitative. 7.15 HOW THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ARE ADDRESSED The following information describes how this report addresses the acceptance criteria in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Sections 2.2.1.3.3.3, 2.2.1.3.6.3, and 2.2.1.3.7.3): • Only those acceptance criteria that are applicable to this report (see Section 4.2) are discussed. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-31 November 2004 • In most cases, the applicable acceptance criteria are not addressed solely by this report; rather, the acceptance criteria are fully addressed when this report is considered in conjunction with other analysis and model reports that describe flow and transport in the UZ. • Where a subcriterion includes several components, only the applicable components are addressed. How these components are addressed is summarized in the remainder of this section. Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.3, Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting Engineered Barriers and Waste Forms. Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. Subcriterion (1): Data used in defining the waste emplacement environment were collected, described, interpreted, and synthesized as described in Sections 4, 6, and 7. Hydrologic and geological data contained in this report are adequately described and justified herein and in conjunction with the data source, in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and through interpretation of the conclusions based on the data analysis. Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 describe the sources of the data. Detailed information in Sections 6.1 through 6.14 adequately describes the analysis and interpretation of these data. Sections 7.1 through 7.14 describe, in detail, the results and conclusions derived from the testing and data analysis. Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model Abstraction. Subcriterion (2): The parameter values and distributions are developed based on Yucca Mountain data from field measurements and laboratory experiments. As discussed in detail in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 and Sections 6.1 through 6.14, the data are derived from direct studies of geological units of concern to Yucca Mountain, are developed and documented using appropriate scientific techniques, and are compiled by application of QA (quality assurance) methodologies. These data are, therefore, reasonable and technically defensible. Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.6, Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. Subcriterion (1): Sections 6.1 through 6.14 and the summaries in Sections 7.1 through 7.14 present the hydrologic information gathered to describe the ambient flow of water in the drift vicinity. These sections adequately justify the choice and use of the data, and provide fully adequate, detailed descriptions of how the data were or can be used, interpreted and synthesized into parameters relating to ambient drift flow and seepage. Subcriterion (2): As discussed in detail in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 and Sections 6.1 through 6.14, the data were developed using acceptable scientific techniques, and were compiled utilizing QA methodology. The QA program (Section 2) ensures the quality of the data used in In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-32 November 2004 this report. Approved QA procedures identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169654], Section 4) have been used to conduct and document the activities described in this report. Subcriterion (5): The analyses described in Sections 6.1 through 6.14 were performed to assess data sufficiency and the possible need for additional data. This is exemplified in the use of the understanding gained from relatively short-duration Alcove 6 testing to design other tests, such as the Alcove-8/Niche-3 (Niche 3107) tests described in Section 6.12. The later tests have much longer durations over larger scales. Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model Abstraction: (Note that this report does not discuss conceptual models, process models, or abstraction models. The criteria discussed below thus address only a small aspect of the related issues. See relevant model reports for a more detailed discussion of how data uncertainty is propagated through model abstraction.) Subcriterion (5): This report documents the data and subsequent analyses from ambient field-testing activities performed in underground drifts through UZ tuff rock units. Coupled processes (such as pore-water chemical changes and fracture flow-diffusion interactions) are incorporated into the data through the experimental results. Subcriterion (6): Uncertainties in the characteristics of the natural system are considered in the detailed evaluations included in this report. The summaries of measurement results and uncertainties are discussed in Sections 6.1 through 6.14. The results of this report (summarized in Sections 7.1 through 7.14) provide data for, and analyze uncertainties that could propagate through, UZ process and abstraction models (see Section 7 for a listing of model reports and abstractions that use this data). Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.7, Radionuclide Transport in the Unsaturated Zone Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification: Subcriterion (1): Data used in defining the waste emplacement environment are collected, described, interpreted, and synthesized as described in Sections 4, 6, and 7. Hydrologic and geological data described in this report are adequately described and justified in defining the data source, in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and through interpretation of the conclusions based on the data analysis. Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 describe the sources of the data. Detailed information in Sections 6.1 through 6.14 adequately describes the analysis and interpretation of these data. Sections 7.1 through 7.14 describe, in detail, the results and conclusions derived from the testing and data analysis. Subcriterion (3): The parameter values and distributions are developed based on Yucca Mountain data from field measurements, laboratory experiments, and natural analogue research (Sections 6.1 through 6.14). As discussed in detail in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 and Sections 6.1 through 6.14, the data reflect the characteristics of Yucca Mountain structural features, fracture distributions, fracture properties, and stratigraphy; are developed using appropriate scientific techniques; and are compiled utilizing QA methodology. Summaries are In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-33 November 2004 presented in Sections 7.1 through 7.14 for various activities for data sufficiency, and are carried out as discussed in Sections 6.1 through 6.14. Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through Model Abstraction: (Note that this report does not discuss conceptual models, process models, or abstraction models. The criteria discussed below thus address only a small aspect of the related issues. See relevant model reports for a more detailed discussion of how data uncertainty is propagated through model abstraction.) Subcriterion (2): Estimated flow and transport parameter values and distributions are developed based on Yucca Mountain data from field measurements (including air-injection tests, moisture monitoring, and liquid-release tests (Sections 6.1 through 6.13)), laboratory experiments (experiments on core borings and laboratory radionuclide transport data), and test data at analogue sites (data from the test block at Busted Butte (Section 6.13.6) and isotopic observations and analysis (Section 6.14)). As discussed in detail in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.14 and Sections 6.1 through 6.14, the data reflect the characteristics of Yucca Mountain UZ structural features, fracture distributions, fracture properties, and stratigraphy; are developed using appropriate scientific techniques; and are compiled utilizing QA methodology. The parameters developed in this report are, therefore, appropriate and valid for the UZ at Yucca Mountain. Subcriterion (4): Parameters developed in this report have been adequately analyzed for uncertainties pertaining to sampling or measurement errors, analytical uncertainties, scaling uncertainties, and uncertainties in laboratory measurements. These analyses are noted in the detailed discussions in Sections 6.1 through 6.14, and in the summaries presented in Sections 7.1 through 7.14. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 7-34 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-1 November 2004 8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES The following is a list of the references cited in this document. Column 2 represents the unique six-digit numerical identifier (the Document Input Reference System [DIRS] number), which is placed in the text following the reference callout (e.g., BSC 2004 [DIRS 167969]). The purpose of these numbers is to assist the reader in locating a specific reference. Within the reference list, multiple sources by the same author (e.g., BSC 2004) are sorted alphabetically by title. 8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED Andreini, M.S. and Steenhuis, T.S. 1990. “Preferential Paths of Flow Under Conventional and Conservation Tillage.” Geoderma, 46, 85-102. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 245381. 106071 Axelrod, D.I. 1979. “Age and Origin of Sonoran Desert Vegetation.” Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences. Number 132. San Francisco, California: California Academy of Sciences. TIC: 218991. 161531 Barr, D.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Singleton, W.L.; Albin, A.L.; Lung, R.C.; Lee, A.C.; Beason, S.C.; and Eatman, G.L.W. 1996. Geology of the North Ramp — Stations 4+00 to 28+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0496. 100029 Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Environmental Science Series. Biswas, A.K., ed. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 217356. 156269 Beason, S.C.; Turlington, G.A.; Lung, R.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; Ryter, D.; and Barr, D.L. 1996. Geology of the North Ramp - Station 0+60 to 4+00, Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0449. 101191 Benson, L. and Klieforth, H. 1989. “Stable Isotopes in Precipitation and Ground Water in the Yucca Mountain Region, Southern Nevada: Paleoclimatic Implications.” Aspects of Climate Variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas. Peterson, D.H., ed.. Geophysical Monograph 55. Pages 41-59. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 224413. 104370 Bish, D.L. and Vaniman, D.T. 1985. Mineralogic Summary of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-10543-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19950412.0041. 101196 Bodvarsson, G.S. and Bandurraga, T.M., eds. 1996. Development and Calibration of the Three-Dimensional Site-Scale Unsaturated Zone Model of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LBNL-39315. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970701.0692. 100102 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-2 November 2004 Bouwer, H. 1966. “Rapid Field Measurement of Air Entry Value and Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil as Significant Parameters in Flow System Analysis.” Water Resources Research, 2, (4), 729-738. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 225260. 155682 Braester, C. 1973. “Moisture Variation at the Soil Surface and the Advance of the Wetting Front During Infiltration at Constant Flux.” Water Resources Research, 9, (3), 687-694. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 242383. 106088 Broxton, D.E.; Chipera, S.J.; Byers, F.M., Jr.; and Rautman, C.A. 1993. Geologic Evaluation of Six Nonwelded Tuff Sites in the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain, Nevada for a Surface-Based Test Facility for the Yucca Mountain Project. LA-12542-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: NNA.19940224.0128. 107386 Broxton, D.E.; Warren, R.G.; Byers, F.M.; and Scott, R.B. 1989. “Chemical and Mineralogic Trends Within the Timber Mountain–Oasis Valley Caldera Complex, Nevada: Evidence for Multiple Cycles of Chemical Evolution in a Long-Lived Silicic Magma System.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, (B5), 5961-5985. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 225928. 100024 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Test Plan for: Moisture Monitoring in the ECRB Bulkheaded Cross Drift. SITP-02-UZ-001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20011018.0011. 158187 BSC 2001. Test Plan for: Niche 5 Seepage Testing. SITP-02-UZ-002 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020117.0200. 158200 BSC 2001. Test Plan for: Systematic Hydrological Testing in the ECRB Cross Drift. SITP-02-UZ-004 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020128.0432. 158202 BSC 2002. Guidelines for Developing and Documenting Alternative Conceptual Models, Model Abstractions, and Parameter Uncertainty in the Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application. TDR-WIS-PA-000008 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020904.0002. 158794 BSC 2002. Test Plan for the Unsaturated Zone Transport Test at Busted Butte, Nevada. SITP-02-UZ-006 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020509.0352. 158459 BSC 2002. Test Plan for: Alcove 8 Flow & Seepage Testing. SITP-02-UZ-003 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020204.0144. 157606 BSC 2002. Test Plan for: Moisture Monitoring Investigations and Alcove 7 Studies. SITP-02-UZ-010 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020117.0199. 158189 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-3 November 2004 BSC 2002. Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020923.0175. 160146 BSC 2004. Abstraction of Drift Seepage. MDL-NBS-HS-000019 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20041103.0003. 169131 BSC 2004. Analysis of Hydrologic Properties Data. ANL-NBS-HS-000042 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20041005.0004. 170038 BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Emplacement Drift Configuration and Environment. 800-IED-MGR0-00201-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040326.0001. 168489 BSC 2004. Features, Events, and Processes in UZ Flow and Transport. ANL-NBS-MD-000001, Rev. 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 170012 BSC 2004. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040827.0008. 170029 BSC 2004. Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report. MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040908.0006. 170031 BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 168361 BSC 2004. Radionuclide Transport Models Under Ambient Conditions. MDL-NBSHS- 000008 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20041101.0002. 164500 BSC 2004. Seepage Calibration Model and Seepage Testing Data. MDL-NBS-HS-000004 REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040922.0003. 171764 BSC 2004. Seepage Model for PA Including Drift Collapse. MDL-NBS-HS-000002 REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040922.0008. 167652 BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Performance Assessment Unsaturated Zone. TWP-NBS-HS-000003 REV 02 Errata 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20030102.0108; DOC.20040121.0001. 167969 BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Evaluation of Analysis and Model Reports Supporting the TSPA-LA. TWP-MGR-PA-000014 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040603.0001. 169653 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-5 November 2004 Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-98-015, Busted Butte Pad Processing Notebook # 1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-161-V1. ACC: MOL.20001219.0002. 165310 Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-98-016, Busted Butte Project Sample Tracking Forms. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-163-V1. ACC: MOL.20000926.0192. 165311 Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-98-017, Busted Butte Project IC/ICPAES Notebook. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-136-V1. ACC: MOL.20001023.0241. 165303 Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-98-018, Busted Butte Project Microscopy Notebook. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-133-V1. ACC: MOL.20000926.0199. 165301 Bussod, G. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-99-003, Busted Butte ICPMS. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-192-V1. ACC: MOL.20000926.0201. 165319 Bussod, G.; Turin, H.J.; and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. Busted Butte Tracer Preparation Notebook #1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-145-V1. ACC: MOL.20000710.0325; MOL.19991109.0060. 165305 Bussod, G.; Turin, H.J.; and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-CST-NBK-99-004; YMP Busted Butte Sorption. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-191-V1. ACC: MOL.20001219.0012. 165317 Bussod, G.Y. 1998. Busted Butte On-Site Logbook #1, UZ Transport Field Test (LA-EES-5-NBK-98-010). Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-040-V1. ACC: MOL.20000321.0288. 149129 Bussod, G.Y. and Stockton, J. 1999. J. Stockton SEA-YMP Notebook #1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-043-V1. ACC: MOL.19990719.0103; MOL.19991109.0114. 165324 Bussod, G.Y. and Turin, H.J. 2001. LA-CST-NBK-98-004, Busted Butte Collection Pad Notebook. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-199-V1. ACC: MOL.20010718.0258. 165321 Bussod, G.Y. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. LA-EES-5-NBK-98-019, UZTT Cylinder Volume Notebook - Phase 1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-228-V1. ACC: MOL.20000926.0182; MOL.20001219.0023. 165364 Bussod, G.Y.; Coen, K.; and Eckhardt, R.C. 1998. LA Testing Status Report: Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test FY 98. SPU85M4. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. TIC: 246363. 131513 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-6 November 2004 Bussod, G.Y.; Turin, H.J.; and Lowry, W.E. 1999. Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Test: Fiscal Year 1998 Status Report. LA-13670-SR. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. TIC: 250657. 155695 Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. TER-MGR-MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 166275 Carlos, B.A.; Chipera, S.J.; Bish, D.L.; and Craven, S.J. 1993. “Fracture-Lining Manganese Oxide Minerals in Silicic Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, U.S.A.” Chemical Geology, 107, 47-69. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 208629. 105210 Cheng, H.; Edwards, R.L.; Hoff, J.; Gallup, C.D.; Richards, D.A.; and Asmerom, Y. 2000. “The Half-Lives of Uranium-234 and Thorium-230.” Chemical Geology, 169, 17-33. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 249205. 153475 Chipera, S.J.; Vaniman, D.T.; and Bish, D.L. 1996. Zeolite Abundances and the Vitric-to-Zeolitic Transition in Drill Holes USW SD-7, 9, and 12, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-EES-1-TIP-96-005. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970407.0339. 101331 Clark, I.D. and Fritz, P. 1997. Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers. TIC: 233503. 105738 Cook, P. 2000. “In Situ Pneumatic Testing at Yucca Mountain.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37, (1-2), 357-367. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 254967. 165411 Cook, P. 2001. Drift Scale Seepage Test. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-PJC-6.2. ACC: MOL.20011105.0080. 156902 Cook, P.J.; Salve, R.; Freifeld, B.M.; and Tsang, Y.T. 2003. “Measurement System for Systematic Hydrological Characterization of Unsaturated Fractured Welded Tuff in a Mined Underground Tunnel.” Ground Water, 41, (4), 449-457. Westerville, Ohio: National Ground Water Association. TIC: 211670. 165424 Coplen, T.B.; Hopple, J.A.; Böhlke, J.K.; Peiser, H.S.; Rieder, S.E.; Krouse, H.R.; Rosman, K.J.R.; Ding, T.; Vocke, R.D., Jr.; Révész, K.M.; Lamberty, A.; Taylor, P.; and De Bièvre, P. 2003. Compilation of Minimum and Maximum Isotope Ratios of Selected Elements in Naturally Occurring Terrestrial Materials and Reagents. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4222. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 255203. 165235 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-7 November 2004 CRWMS (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System) M&O (Management and Operating Contractor) 1999. Exploratory Studies Facility, Cross Drift Alcove #8 Plan and Sections. BABEAF000-01717-2100-40312 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990608.0041. 156876 CRWMS M&O 2001. Unsaturated Zone and Saturated Zone Transport Properties (U0100). ANL-NBS-HS-000019 REV 00 ICN 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20010201.0026. 154024 Daily, B. and Buettner, M. 2002. Electrical Resistance Tomography at the Unsaturated Zone Transport Test at Busted Butte. Scientific Notebook SN-LLNL-SCI-421-V1. ACC: MOL.20010522.0183; MOL.20020418.0126. 165380 Descour, J.M.; Hanna, K.; Conover, D.; and Hoekstra, B. 2001. Seismic Tomography Technology for the Water Infiltration Experiment. TDR-EBS-MD-000017 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20010508.0194. 156869 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Total System Performance Assessment. Volume 3 of Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE/RW-0508. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19981007.0030. 100550 Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Experiment General Laboratory Notebook - 3. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-208-V3. ACC: MOL.20021023.0183. 165362 Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 6. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V6. ACC: MOL.20021104.0186. 165333 Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook-5. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V5. ACC: MOL.20020827.0022. 165330 Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 10. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V10. ACC: MOL.20020827.0025. 165338 Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 11. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V11. ACC: MOL.20021023.0178. 165340 Drew, D. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 12. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V12. ACC: MOL.20030313.0074. 165344 Drew, D. 2003. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 7. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V7. ACC: MOL.20030717.0441. 165335 Drew, D. 2003. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 13. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V13. ACC: MOL.20030904.0343. 165346 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-8 November 2004 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Experiment General Notebook - 1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-208-V1. ACC: MOL.20010830.0390. 165360 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Experiment General Notebook - 2. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-208-V2. ACC: MOL.20011219.0336. 165361 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Field Notebook - 1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-205-V1. ACC: MOL.20010716.0243. 166105 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V1. ACC: MOL.20010830.0375. 165323 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook -2. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V2. ACC: MOL.20011219.0343. 165325 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V1. ACC: MOL.20010830.0387. 165336 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 2. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V2. ACC: MOL.20010830.0378. 165348 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 3. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V3. ACC: MOL.20010830.0380. 165349 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 4. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V4. ACC: MOL.20010910.0212. 165350 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 5. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V5. ACC: MOL.20010910.0214. 165351 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 6. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V6. ACC: MOL.20011219.0346. 165352 Drew, D.J. 2001. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 7. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V7. ACC: MOL.20020417.0399. 165354 Drew, D.J. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 4. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V4. ACC: MOL.20020628.0360. 165328 Drew, D.J. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Saturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook -3. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-206-V3. ACC: MOL.20020625.0175. 165326 Drew, D.J. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 8. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V8. ACC: MOL.20020625.0181. 165356 Drew, D.J. 2002. AECL Busted Butte Unsaturated Experiment Laboratory Notebook - 9. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-207-V9. ACC: MOL.20020625.0178. 165358 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-9 November 2004 Dublyansky, Y.; Ford, D.; and Reutski, V. 2001. “Traces of Epigenetic Hydrothermal Activity at Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Preliminary Data on the Fluid Inclusion and Stable Isotope Evidence.” Chemical Geology, 173, (1-3), 125-149. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 253849. 161543 Dublyansky, Y.; Reutsky, V.; and Shugurova, N. 1996. “Fluid Inclusions in Calcite from the Yucca Mountain Exploratory Tunnel.” Sixth Biennial Pan American Conference on Research in Fluid Inclusions, May 30 - June 1, 1996. Brown, P.E. and Hagemann, S.G., eds. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Geology, University of Wisconsin. TIC: 237704. 109204 Dunn, S. 2001. LA-EES-5-NBK-98-012: SEA: S. Salvit-Dunn, 03/23/98, SEA-YMP Lab Notebook #1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-042-V1. ACC: MOL.19991109.0078; MOL.20011119.0378; MOL.20011119.0379; MOL.20011119.0380. 165297 Fabryka-Martin, J.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Dixon, P.R.; Levy, S.; Musgrave, J.; and Turin, H.J. 1996. Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies: Sampling, Analysis and Simulation of Chlorine-36 in the Exploratory Studies Facility. Milestone 3783M. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970103.0047. 144839 Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; Turin, H.J.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Brenner, D.L.; Dixon, P.R.; and Musgrave, J.A. 1998. Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies as of August 1996. LA-13458-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.20031119.0395. 162737 Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Dixon, P.R.; Levy, S.S.; Musgrave, J.A.; and Turin, H.J. 1997. Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies: Sampling, Analysis, and Simulation of Chlorine-36 in the Exploratory Studies Facility. LA-13352-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19980812.0254. 100145 Farnham, I.M.; Meigs, L.C.; Dominguez, M.E.; Lindley, K.; Daniels, J.M.; and Stetzenbach, K.J. 2000. “Evaluation of Tracers Used for the WIPP Tracer Tests.” Appendix H of Interpretations of Tracer Tests Performed in the Culebra Dolomite at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site. Meigs, L.C.; Beauheim, R.L.; and Jones, T.L., eds. SAND97-3109. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. TIC: 255153. 165254 Faure, G. 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology. 2nd Edition. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 237212. 105559 Finsterle, S.; Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; and Wang, J.S.Y. 2002. “Migration of a Water Pulse Through Fractured Porous Media.” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 54, (1-2), 37-57. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254968. 165415 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-10 November 2004 Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; Kwicklis, E.M.; and Fabryka-Martin, J. 2001. “Evolution of the Conceptual Model of Unsaturated Zone Hydrology at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Journal of Hydrology, 247, (1-2), 1-30. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 250932. 156351 Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E.; Kwicklis, E.M.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; and Fabryka-Martin, J.M. 2001. “Hydrology of Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Reviews of Geophysics, 39, (4), 447-470. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 254964. 164506 Flint, A.L.; Hevesi, J.A.; and Flint, L.E. 1996. Conceptual and Numerical Model of Infiltration for the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada. Milestone 3GUI623M. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970409.0087. 100147 Flint, L. 2001. Busted Butte Hydrologic Properties. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-117-V1. ACC: MOL.20020214.0398. 165381 Flint, L. 2001. Busted Butte Hydrologic Properties. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-117-V2. ACC: MOL.20020214.0399. 165382 Flint, L.; Hudson, D.; and Kostalek, T. 2002. Busted Butte Hydrologic Properties. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-117-V3. ACC: MOL.20020926.0130. 165383 Flint, L.E. 1998. Characterization of Hydrogeologic Units Using Matrix Properties, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4243. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980429.0512. 100033 Flood, T.P.; Vogel, T.A.; and Schuraytz, B.C. 1989. “Chemical Evolution of a Magmatic System: The Paintbrush Tuff, Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, (B5), 5943-5960. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 235505. 164636 Forester, R.M.; Bradbury, J.P.; Carter, C.; Elvidge-Tuma, A.B.; Hemphill, M.L.; Lundstrom, S.C.; Mahan, S.A.; Marshall, B.D.; Neymark, L.A.; Paces, J.B.; Sharpe, S.E.; Whelan, J.F.; and Wigand, P.E. 1999. The Climatic and Hydrologic History of Southern Nevada During the Late Quaternary. Open-File Report 98-635. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 245717. 109425 Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. TIC: 217571. 101173 Gascoyne, M. 2003. “Soluble Salts in the Yucca Mountain Tuff and their Significance.” Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 340-347. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254202. 162716 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-11 November 2004 Gascoyne, M. and Schwarcz, H.P. 1986. “Radionuclide Migration over Recent Geologic Time in a Granitic Pluton.” Chemical Geology, 59, 75-85. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254779. 164720 Gascoyne, M.; Miller, N.H.; and Neymark, L.A. 2002. “Uranium-Series Disequilibrium in Tuffs from Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as Evidence of Pore-Fluid Flow Over the Last Million Years.” Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 781-792. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 251901. 154800 Geldon, A.L.; Umari, A.M.A.; Fahy, M.F.; Earle, J.D.; Gemmell, J.M.; and Darnell, J. 1997. Results of Hydraulic and Conservative Tracer Tests in Miocene Tuffaceous Rocks at the C-Hole Complex, 1995 to 1997, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Milestone SP23PM3. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980122.0412. 100397 Ghuman, B.S. and Prihar, S.S. 1980. “Chloride Displacement by Water in Homogeneous Columns of Three Soils.” Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44, (1), 17-21. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America. TIC: 246698. 106099 Grim, R.E. 1968. “Clay-Water System.” Clay Mineralogy. 2nd Edition. Pages 234-277. New York, New York: McGraw Hill. TIC: 247447. 164642 GSA (Geological Society of America) 1995. Rock Color Chart with Genuine Munsell® Color Chips. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 242285. 105787 Guertal, W. 2001. Seepage into Alcove 1. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-108-V1. ACC: MOL.20011219.0325. 164070 Guertal, W. and Flint, A. 2000. ESF Niche Studies. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-110-V1. ACC: MOL.20000512.0035. 165384 Haga, M. 2001. Marc Haga Busted Butte Personal Laboratory Notebook. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-253-V1. ACC: MOL.20020128.0171. 165369 Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. San Diego, California: Academic Press. TIC: 254422. 165404 Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. New York, New York: Academic Press. TIC: 215655. 101134 Hinds, J. 2000. Percolation and Seepage. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-JJH-1. ACC: MOL.20000307.0066; MOL.20000419.0645. 156557 Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1. ACC: MOL.19991013.0463. 156539 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-12 November 2004 Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1A. ACC: MOL.20000107.0345. 156540 Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1B. ACC: MOL.20000107.0346. 156541 Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1C. ACC: MOL.19991210.0212. 156542 Hu, M.Q. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1D. ACC: MOL.19991013.0467. 155691 Hu, M.Q. 2000. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone-ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-QH-1E. ACC: MOL.19991013.0468; MOL.20010201.0419. 156473 Hu, Q.; Kneafsey, T.J.; Trautz, R.C.; and Wang, J.S.Y. 2002. “Tracer Penetration into Welded Tuff Matrix from Flowing Fractures.” Vadose Zone Journal, 1, (1), 102-112. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America. TIC: 254966. 165412 Hu, Q.; Salve, S.; Stringfellow, W.T.; and Wang, J.S.Y. 2001. “Field Tracer-Transport Tests in Unsaturated Fractured Tuff.” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 51, (1-2), 1-12. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254969. 165413 Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V1. ACC: MOL.20020513.0380. 165385 Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V2. ACC: MOL.20020513.0381. 165386 Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V3. ACC: MOL.20020513.0382. 165387 Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V5. ACC: MOL.20020920.0307. 166103 Hudson, D. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V6. ACC: MOL.20030106.0357. 165389 Hudson, D. 2003. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V7. ACC: MOL.20030402.0103. 165390 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-13 November 2004 Hudson, D. and Guertal, W. 2002. Crossover Alcove - Seepage into Niche 3 and Tracer Testing. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-120-V4. ACC: MOL.20020513.0383. 165388 Hudson, D.B. 2002. Bulkhead Moisture Monitoring in the Cross Drift. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-133-V1. ACC: MOL.20021125.0122. 163398 Hudson, D.B. 2002. Moisture Monitoring in the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) and Cross Drift. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-128-V1. ACC: MOL.20020520.0349. 165391 Hudson, D.B. 2002. Moisture Monitoring in the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) and Cross Drift. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-128-V2. ACC: MOL.20021125.0124. 165392 Hudson, D.B. 2003. Bulkhead Moisture Monitoring in the Cross Drift. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-133-V2. ACC: MOL.20030711.0158. 165393 Hudson, D.B. 2003. Moisture Monitoring in the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) and Cross Drift. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-128-V3. ACC: MOL.20030821.0214. 165273 Jaffey, A.H.; Flynn, K.F.; Glendenin, L.E.; Bentley, W.C.; and Essling, A.M. 1971. “Precision Measurement of Half-Lives and Specific Activities of 235U and 238U.” Physical Review C, 4, (5), 1889-1906. Ridge, New York: American Institute of Physics. TIC: 254712. 164637 Kasnavia, T.; Vu, D.; and Sabatini, D.A. 1999. “Fluorescent Dye and Media Properties Affecting Sorption and Tracer Selection.” Ground Water, 37, (3), 376-381. Westerville, Ohio: Association of Ground Water Scientists & Engineers. TIC: 254708. 164629 Kaufman, A. 1969. “The Th232 Concentration of Surface Ocean Water.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 33, (6), 717-724. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 254837. 164722 Kearney, M.L.; Wolfsberg, L.E.; Groffman, A.R.; Jones, C.L.; and Turin, H.J. 2000. “Solubility of Rare Earth Elements and Transition Metals as a Function of Increasing pH During Unsaturated-Zone Transport Tests at Busted Butte, Nevada.” Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 32, (7), A-209. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 249113. 165255 Klinkenberg, L.J. 1942. “The Permeability of Porous Media to Liquids and Gases.” Drilling and Production Practice 1941. New York, New York: American Petroleum Institute. TIC: 217454. 106105 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-14 November 2004 Kurzmack, M.; LeCain, G.D.; and Hudson, D. 2002. “Relative Humidity, Pressure, and Temperature Values from the Ghost Dance Fault Alcove 7, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 34, (6), 59. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 254868. 162333 LeCain, G.D. 1995. Pneumatic Testing in 45-Degree-Inclined Boreholes in Ash-Flow Tuff Near Superior, Arizona. Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4073. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19960715.0083. 101700 LeCain, G.D. 1998. Results from Air-Injection and Tracer Testing in the Upper Tiva Canyon, Bow Ridge Fault, and Upper Paintbrush Contact Alcoves of the Exploratory Studies Facility, August 1994 through July 1996, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4058. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980625.0344. 100052 LeCain, G.D.; Lu, N.; and Kurzmack, M. 2002. Use of Temperature, Pressure, and Water Potential Data to Estimate Infiltration and Monitor Percolation in Pagany Wash Associated with the Winter of 1997–98 El Niño Precipitation, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4035. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 252641. 158511 Levy, S.; Chipera, S.; WoldeGabriel, G.; Fabryka-Martin, J.; Roach, J.; and Sweetkind, D. 1999. “Flow-Path Textures and Mineralogy in Tuffs of the Unsaturated Zone.” Faults and Subsurface Fluid Flow in the Shallow Crust. Geophysical Monograph 113. 159-183. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 254128. 162740 Levy, S.S. 2001. LA-EES-1-NBK-94-002, Mineralogic/Petrologic/Structural Studies in Support of Unsaturated Zone Flow and Transport Test. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-220-V1. ACC: MOL.20010705.0124. 165363 Levy, S.S. 2002. Busted Butte Applicability Studies. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-256-V1. ACC: MOL.20021104.0185. 165370 Lipman, P.W. and McKay, E.J. 1965. Geologic Map of the Topopah Spring SW Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-439. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 212352. 104158 Lipman, P.W.; Christiansen, R.L.; and O’Connor, J.T. 1966. A Compositionally Zoned Ash-Flow Sheet in Southern Nevada. Professional Paper 524-F. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 219972. 100773 Liu, H-H.; Haukwa, C.B.; Ahlers, C.F.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; Flint, A.L.; and Guertal, W.B. 2003. “Modeling Flow and Transport in Unsaturated Fractured Rock: An Evaluation of the Continuum Approach.” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 173-188. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254205. 162470 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-15 November 2004 Lowry, W. 2001. LA-EES-5-NBK-98-016; SEA: W.Lowry, 03/23/98, SEA-YMP, Lab Notebook #1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-046-V1. ACC: MOL.20011212.0024. 164632 Lundstrom, S.C.; Paces, J.B.; and Mahan, S.M. 1996. “Late Quaternary History of Fortymile Wash, Southern Nevada: A Record of Geomorphic Response to Climate Change in the Yucca Mountain Region.” Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 28, (7), A-552. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 247474. 136523 Marshall, B.D. and Futa, K. 2003. “Strontium in Pore Water from the Topopah Spring Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 373-376. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254204. 162717 Marshall, B.D. and Whelan, J.F. 2000. “Isotope Geochemistry of Calcite Coatings and the Thermal History of the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 32, (7), A-259. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 249113. 154415 Marshall, B.D. and Whelan, J.F. 2001. “Simulating the Thermal History of the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 33, (6), A-375. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 252701. 163591 Marshall, B.D.; Neymark, L.A.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2003. “Estimation of Past Seepage Volumes from Calcite Distribution in the Topopah Spring Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 237-247. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254210. 162891 Marshall, B.D.; Neymark, L.A.; Paces, J.B.; Peterman, Z.E.; and Whelan, J.F. 2000. “Seepage Flux Conceptualized from Secondary Calcite in Lithophysal Cavities in the Topopah Spring Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” SME Annual Meeting, February 28- March 1, 2000, Salt Lake City, Utah. Preprint 00-12. Littleton, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration. TIC: 248608. 151018 Marshall, B.D.; Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Whelan, J.F.; and Peterman, Z.E. 1998. “Secondary Minerals Record Past Percolation Flux at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. Pages 127-129. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 237082. 107415 Mongano, G.S.; Singleton, W.L.; Moyer, T.C.; Beason, S.C.; Eatman, G.L.W.; Albin, A.L.; and Lung, R.C. 1999. Geology of the ECRB Cross Drift - Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Deliverable SPG42GM3. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20000324.0614. 149850 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-16 November 2004 Moyer, T.C. and Geslin, J.K. 1995. Lithostratigraphy of the Calico Hills Formation and Prow Pass Tuff (Crater Flat Group) at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File Report 94-460. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19941208.0003. 101269 Moyer, T.C.; Geslin, J.K.; and Flint, L.E. 1996. Stratigraphic Relations and Hydrologic Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Nonwelded (PTn) Hydrologic Unit, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File Report 95-397. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970204.0216. 100162 Muskat, M. 1982. The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids through Porous Media. Boston, Massachusetts: International Human Resources Development Corporation. TIC: 208295. 134132 Neymark, L.A. and Amelin, Y. 2002. “Extreme U-Th-Pb Fractionation Among Hydrogenic Fracture-Coating Minerals in Felsic Tuffs at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA: Implications for Geochronology.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 66, (15A), Page A552. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 254805. 164725 Neymark, L.A. and Paces, J.B. 2000. “Consequences of Slow Growth for 230Th/U Dating of Quaternary Opals, Yucca Mountain, NV, USA.” Chemical Geology, 164, (1-2), 143-160. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 246316. 127012 Neymark, L.A.; Amelin, Y.; Paces, J.B.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2002. “U-Pb Ages of Secondary Silica at Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Implications for the Paleohydrology of the Unsaturated Zone.” Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 709-734. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 252598. 158673 Neymark, L.A.; Amelin, Y.V.; and Paces, J.B. 2000. “206Pb–230Th–234U–238U and 207Pb–235U Geochronology of Quaternary Opal, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 64, (17), 2913-2928. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 253360. 162710 Neymark, L.A.; Amelin, Y.V.; Paces, J.B.; and Peterman, Z.E. 1998. “U-Pb Age Evidence for Long-Term Stability of the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain.” High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. Pages 85-87. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 237082. 109140 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 163274 Oldenburg, C. 2000. Percolation and Seepage. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-CMO-1. ACC: MOL.20000922.0075. 156558 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-17 November 2004 Ostlund, H.G. 1987. “Tritium.” Volume 7 of GEOSECS Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean Expeditions. Shorebased Data and Graphics. Pages 7-10. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. TIC: 254317. 163335 Paces, J.B. and Neymark, L.A. 2003. “U-Series Disequilibrium as a Test for Unsaturated-Zone Hydrologic Models at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 27-38. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254201. 162900 Paces, J.B. and Whelan, J.F. 2001. “Water-Table Fluctuations in the Amargosa Desert, Nye County, Nevada.” “Back to the Future - Managing the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to Create a More Secure Energy Future,” Proceedings of the 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), Las Vegas, Nevada, April 29-May 3, 2001. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 247873. 154724 Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Marshall, B.D.; Whelan, J.F.; and Peterman, Z.E. 1998. “Inferences for Yucca Mountain Unsaturated-Zone Hydrology from Secondary Minerals.” High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. Pages 36-39. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 237082. 107408 Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Marshall, B.D.; Whelan, J.F.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2001. Ages and Origins of Calcite and Opal in the Exploratory Studies Facility Tunnel, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4049. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 251284. 156507 Paces, J.B.; Peterman, Z.E.; Neymark, L.A.; Nimz, G.J.; Gascoyne, M.; and Marshall, B.D. 2003. “Summary of Chlorine-36 Validation Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 348-356. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254253. 162738 Paces, J.B.; Taylor, E.M.; and Bush, C. 1993. “Late Quaternary History and Uranium Isotopic Compositions of Ground Water Discharge Deposits, Crater Flat, Nevada.” High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 26-30, 1993. 2, 1573-1580. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 208542. 106474 Peterman, Z.E. and Cloke, P.L. 2001. “Geochemical Homogeneity of Tuffs at the Potential Repository Level, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” “Back to the Future - Managing the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to Create a More Secure Energy Future,” Proceedings of the 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), Las Vegas, Nevada, April 29-May 3, 2001. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 247873. 155696 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-18 November 2004 Peterman, Z.E. and Cloke, P.L. 2002. “Geochemistry of Rock Units at the Potential Repository Level, Yucca Mountain, Nevada (includes Erratum).” Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6, 7), 683-698, 955-958. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 252516; 252517. 162576 Peterman, Z.E. and Futa, K. 1996. Geochemistry of Core Samples of the Tiva Canyon Tuff from Drill Hole UE-25 NRG#3, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File Report 95-325. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19961118.0132. 106494 Peterman, Z.E. and Marshall, B.D. 2002. “Geochemistry of Pore Water from Densely Welded Topopah Spring Tuff at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” GSA Abstracts with Programs, 34, (6), 308. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 254868. 162992 Peterman, Z.E.; Spengler, R.W.; Singer, F.R.; and Dickerson, R.P. 1993. “Isotopic and Trace Element Variability in Altered and Unaltered Tuffs at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 26-30, 1993. 2, 1940-1947. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 208542. 106498 Peterson, J. 2002. Busted Butte (YMP-LBNL-ELM-JP-1). Scientific Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-193-V1. ACC: MOL.20030115.0004. 165379 Philip, J.R. 1986. “Linearized Unsteady Multidimensional Infiltration.” Water Resources Research, 22, (12), 1717-1727. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 239826. 106133 Philip, J.R. 1989. “The Scattering Analog for Infiltration in Porous Media.” Reviews of Geophysics, 27, (4), 431-448. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 251332. 156974 Philip, J.R.; Knight, J.H.; and Waechter, R.T. 1989. “Unsaturated Seepage and Subterranean Holes: Conspectus, and Exclusion Problem for Circular Cylindrical Cavities.” Water Resources Research, 25, (1), 16-28. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 239117. 105743 Porro, I. and Wierenga, P.J. 1993. “Transient and Steady-State Transport through a Large Unsaturated Soil Column.” Ground Water, 31, (2), 193-200. Dublin, Ohio: National Ground Water Association. TIC: 246899. 134083 Pruess, K. 1999. “A Mechanistic Model for Water Seepage Through Thick Unsaturated Zones in Fractured Rocks of Low Matrix Permeability.” Water Resources Research, 35, (4), 1039-1051. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 244913. 104250 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-19 November 2004 Pullan, A.J. 1990. “The Quasilinear Approximation for Unsaturated Porous Media Flow.” Water Resources Resources, 26, (6), 1219-1234. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 239824. 106141 Raats, P.A.C. and Gardner, W.R. 1971. “Comparison of Empirical Relationships Between Pressure Head and Hydraulic Conductivity and Some Observations on Radially Symmetric Flow.” Water Resources Research, 7, (4), 921-928. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 239815. 155683 Rautman, C.A. and Engstrom, D.A. 1996. Geology of the USW SD-12 Drill Hole Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND96-1368. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19970613.0101. 100642 Rautman, C.A. and Engstrom, D.A. 1996. Geology of the USW SD-7 Drill Hole Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND96-1474. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19971218.0442. 101008 Reimus, P.W.; Adams, A.; Haga, M.J.; Humphrey, A.; Callahan, T.; Anghel, I.; and Counce, D. 1999. Results and Interpretation of Hydraulic and Tracer Testing in the Prow Pass Tuff at the C-Holes. Milestone SP32E7M4. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. TIC: 246377. 126243 Rosholt, J.N. 1983. “Isotopic Composition of Uranium and Thorium in Crystalline Rocks.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 88, (B9), 7315-7330. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 254838. 164723 Russo, R.E.; Mao, X.; Borisov, O.V.; and Liu, H. 2000. “Laser Ablation in Atomic Spectroscopy.” Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry. Meyers, R.A., ed. Pages 9485-9506. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 250479. 155697 Sabatini, D.A. and Austin, T.A. 1991. “Characteristics of Rhodamine WT and Fluorescein as Adsorbing Ground-Water Tracers.” Ground Water, 29, (3), 341-349. Westerville, Ohio: Association of Ground Water Scientists & Engineers. TIC: 254709. 164630 Salve, R. 1999. Fracture Flow, Fracture-Matrix Interaction. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-1. ACC: MOL.19991013.0470. 155692 Salve, R. 1999. Fracture Flow, Fracture-Matrix Interaction. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-1A. ACC: MOL.19991013.0471. 156547 Salve, R. 1999. Measurements of Moisture Potential in P Tunnel Calico Hills using Tensiometers and Psychrometers. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JW-1.2A. ACC: MOL.19991013.0473. 156555 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-20 November 2004 Salve, R. 1999. Measurements of Moisture Potential in P Tunnel/Calico Hills using Tensiometers and Psychrometers. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JW-1.2. ACC: MOL.20000215.0229. 156552 Salve, R. 2000. Percolation and Seepage. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-2. ACC: MOL.20000908.0236. 156548 Salve, R. 2002. YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-4 UZ Investigations-ESF/Drift-FY00. Scientific Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-182-V1. ACC: MOL.20020708.0384. 165378 Salve, R. 2003. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF, YMP-LBNL-JSW-RS-5-UZ Investigations-ESF/XDrift. Scientific Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-181-V1. ACC: MOL.20030430.0281. 165377 Salve, R. and Oldenburg, C.M. 2001. “Water Flow Within a Fault in Altered Nonwelded Tuff.” Water Resources Research, 37, (12), 3043-3056. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 251485. 157316 Salve, R.; Oldenburg, C.M.; and Wang, J.S.Y. 2003. “Fault-Matrix Interactions in Nonwelded Tuff of the Paintbrush Group at Yucca Mountain.” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 269-286. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254205. 164470 Salve, R.; Wang, J.S.Y.; and Doughty, C. 2002. “Liquid-Release Tests in Unsaturated Fractured Welded Tuffs: I. Field Investigations.” Journal of Hydrology, 256, (1-2), 60-79. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 253774. 161318 Sass, J.H.; Dudley, W.W., Jr.; and Lachenbruch, A.H. 1995. “Regional Thermal Setting.” Chapter 8 of Major Results of Geophysical Investigations at Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Southern Nevada. Oliver, H.W.; Ponce, D.A.; and Hunter, W.C., eds. Open-File Report 95-74. Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980305.0122. 101288 Sass, J.H.; Lachenbruch, A.H.; Dudley, W.W., Jr.; Priest, S.S.; and Munroe, R.J. 1988. Temperature, Thermal Conductivity, and Heat Flow Near Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Some Tectonic and Hydrologic Implications. Open-File Report 87-649. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203195. 100644 Sawyer, D.A.; Fleck, R.J.; Lanphere, M.A.; Warren, R.G.; Broxton, D.E.; and Hudson, M.R. 1994. “Episodic Caldera Volcanism in the Miocene Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field: Revised Stratigraphic Framework, 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology, and Implications for Magmatism and Extension.” Geological Society of America Bulletin, 106, (10), 1304-1318. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 222523. 100075 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-21 November 2004 Scanlon, B.R. 2000. “Uncertainties in Estimating Water Fluxes and Residence Times Using Environmental Tracers in an Arid Unsaturated Zone.” Water Resources Research, 36, (2), 395-409. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 256442. 171740 Schuraytz, B.C.; Vogel, T.A.; and Younker, L.W. 1989. “Evidence for Dynamic Withdrawal from a Layered Magma Body: The Topopah Spring Tuff, Southwestern Nevada.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, (B5), 5925-5942. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 225936. 107248 Scott, R.B. and Bonk, J. 1984. Preliminary Geologic Map of Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, with Geologic Sections. Open-File Report 84-494. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: HQS.19880517.1443. 104181 Scott, R.B. and Castellanos, M. 1984. Stratigraphic and Structural Relations of Volcanic Rocks in Drill Holes USW GU-3 and USW G-3, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Open-File Report 84-491. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19870519.0095. 101291 Selby, S.M., ed. 1975. CRC Standard Mathematical Tables. 23rd Edition. Cleveland, Ohio: CRC Press. TIC: 247118. 106143 Soll, W. 2001. Busted Butte UZTT Phase 2A Tracer Level Records. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-257-V1. ACC: MOL.20010605.0371. 165371 Soll, W. and Aldrich, M.J. 2002. Mineralogic/Petrologic/Structural Studies in Support of Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Flow and Transport Test. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-261-V1. ACC: MOL.20020517.0132. 165372 Soll, W. and Bussod, G.Y. 2001. LA-EES-5-NBK-99-003 Busted Butte On-Site Logbook #3, UZ Transport Field Test. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-106-V1. ACC: MOL.20010531.0104. 165299 Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. Busted Butte Project IC/ICP-AES Notebook #2. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-188-V1. ACC: MOL.20001023.0243. 165316 Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. Busted Butte Project Tracking Forms # 3. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-232-V1. ACC: MOL.20001219.0006. 165365 Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. Pad Concentration and Loading Calculations. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-193-V1. ACC: MOL.20000926.0190. 165320 Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2000. The Busted Butte Project Sample Tracking Forms # 2. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-184-V1. ACC: MOL.20000926.0188. 165313 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-22 November 2004 Soll, W. and Wolfsberg, L. 2002. Busted Butte Research and Development Notebook for Chemical Analyses. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-241-V1. ACC: MOL.20021104.0176. 165367 Soll, W.; Bussod, G.; and Mason, N.G. 2001. LA-EES-5-NBK-98-011, Sensor Design / N. Mason SEA-YMP Notebook #1. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-041-V1. ACC: MOL.20011212.0020. 165296 Soll, W.; Turin, H.J.; and Wolfsberg, L. 2002. Busted Butte Master Notebook for Chemical Analyses. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-239-V1. ACC: MOL.20030121.0082. 165366 Spaulding, W.G. 1985. Vegetation and Climates of the Last 45,000 Years in the Vicinity of the Nevada Test Site, South-Central Nevada. Professional Paper 1329. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203210. 106883 Steiger, R.H. and Jager, E. 1977. “Subcommission on Geochronology: Convention on the Use of Decay Constants in Geo- and Cosmochronology.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 36, 359-362. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 236817. 133377 Stepek, J. 2000. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-JS-1. ACC: MOL.19991013.0476; MOL.20010724.0086. 156561 SubTerra. 1998. Final Report, TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc., Busted Butte Test Facility. Project: 97-35. Kirkland, Washington: SubTerra. TIC: 247628. 147703 Szabo, B.J. and Kyser, T.K. 1990. “Ages and Stable-Isotope Compositions of Secondary Calcite and Opal in Drill Cores from Tertiary Volcanic Rocks of the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada.” Geological Society of America Bulletin, 102, 1714-1719. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 221927. 109172 Thompson, R.S. 1991. “Pliocene Environments and Climates in the Western United States.” Quaternary Science Reviews, 10, 115-132. Oxford, United Kingdom: Pergamon Press. TIC: 234260. 109175 Thorstenson, D.C.; Weeks, E.P.; Haas, H.; Busenberg, E.; Plummer, L.N.; and Peters, C.A. 1998. “Chemistry of Unsaturated Zone Gases Sampled in Open Boreholes at the Crest of Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Data and Basic Concepts of Chemical and Physical Processes in the Mountain.” Water Resources Research, 34, (6), 1507-1529. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 246315. 126827 Tokunaga, T.K. and Wan, J. 1997. “Water Film Flow Along Fracture Surfaces of Porous Rock.” Water Resources Research, 33, (6), 1287-1295. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 242739. 139195 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-23 November 2004 Trautz, R. 2003. YMP-LBNL-RCT-5 Moisture Monitoring in the ESF (Phase 2)/Drift Seepage Test. SN-LBNL-SCI-221-V1. ACC: MOL.20011029.0234; MOL.20020923.0235; MOL.20030929.0011. 166248 Trautz, R.C. 1999. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF (Phase 2)/Drift Seepage Test. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-RCT-1. ACC: MOL.20000306.0470; MOL.20001121.0084. 156563 Trautz, R.C. 2001. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF (Phase 2)/Drift Seepage Test. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-RCT-2. ACC: MOL.20011030.0706. 156903 Trautz, R.C. 2001. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF (Phase 2)/Drift Seepage Test. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-RCT-4. ACC: MOL.20020508.0272. 161208 Trautz, R.C. 2001. Niche Excavation; Liquid Flow Testing; Borehole Drilling and Pneumatic Testing; Drift Seepage Testing. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-RCT-3. ACC: MOL.20011116.0083. 157022 Trautz, R.C. and Wang, J.S.Y. 2001. “Evaluation of Seepage into an Underground Opening Using Small-Scale Field Experiments, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Mining Engineering, 53, (12), 41-44. Littleton, Colorado: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. TIC: 253862. 165419 Trautz, R.C. and Wang, J.S.Y. 2002. “Seepage into an Underground Opening Constructed in Unsaturated Fractured Rock Under Evaporative Conditions.” Water Resources Research, 38, (10), 6-1 through 6-14. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 253348. 160335 Tsang, Y. and Wang, J. 2000. ECRB Systematic Hydrological Testing. Scientific Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-179-V1. ACC: MOL.20001016.0017. 165375 Tseng, P-H. and Bussod, G.Y. 2001. “Evaluation of the Filter Paper Technique for In Situ Sampling of Solute Transport in Unsaturated Soils and Tuffs.” Water Resources Research, 37, (7), 1913-1928. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 255448. 166793 Turin, H.J. 2001. Busted Butte Phase II Overcore and Mineback Activities. Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-252-V1. ACC: MOL.20020204.0180. 165368 Turin, H.J.; Groffman, A.R.; Wolfsberg, L.E.; Roach, J.L.; and Strietelmeier, B.A. 2002. “Tracer and Radionuclide Sorption to Vitric Tuffs of Busted Butte, Nevada.” Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 825-836. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 254046. 164633 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2001. Simulation of Net Infiltration for Modern and Potential Future Climates. ANL-NBS-HS-000032 REV 00 ICN 02. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20011119.0334. 160355 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-24 November 2004 USGS 2002. Test Plan for: Chlorine-36 Validation. SITP-02-UZ-005 REV 00. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020213.0179. 158196 USGS 2002. Test Plan for: UZ Hydrochemistry Investigations. SITP-02-UZ-007 REV 00. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020204.0146. 158194 Vandergraaf, T.T.; Drew, D.J.; and Ticknor, K.V. 2002. Busted Butte Report on Laboratory Radionuclide Migration Experiments in Non-Welded Tuff Under Unsaturated Conditions. AECL-12170. Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. ACC: MOL.20030919.0118. 165099 Vandergraaf, T.T.; Drew, D.J.; Ticknor, K.V.; and Seddon, W.A. 2002. “Radionuclide Migration Experiments at a Scale of up to 1 Metre in Tuff Blocks Under Unsaturated Conditions.” Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 34, (6), 237. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 254868. 165133 Vaniman, D.T.; Chipera, S.J.; Bish, D.L.; Carey, J.W.; and Levy, S.S. 2001. “Quantification of Unsaturated-Zone Alteration and Cation Exchange in Zeolitized Tuffs at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 65, (20), 3409-3433. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 251574. 157427 Vigier, N.; Bourdon, B.; Turner, S.; and Allègre, C.J. 2001. “Erosion Timescales Derived from U-Decay Series Measurements in Rivers.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 193, (3-4), 549-563. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254755. 164719 Wang, J. 1997. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6. ACC: MOL.19991013.0459. 156530 Wang, J. 1997. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6A. ACC: MOL.19991013.0460. 156534 Wang, J. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6B. ACC: MOL.19991013.0461. 156538 Wang, J. 1999. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone - ESF Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6C. ACC: MOL.19991013.0462. 153449 Wang, J. 2000. Characterization of Yucca Mountain Percolation in the Unsaturated Zone - Exploratory Shaft Facility Study. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-4.3. ACC: MOL.19991018.0187; MOL.20000808.0010. 156559 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-25 November 2004 Wang, J.S. 2003. “Scientific Notebooks Referenced in Scientific Analysis Report U0015, In-Situ Field Testing Processes, ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 02.” Memorandum from J.S. Wang (BSC) to File, December 2, 2003, with attachments. ACC: MOL.20031202.0097. 165376 Wang, J.S.Y. and Elsworth, D. 1999. “Permeability Changes Induced by Excavation in Fractured Tuff.” Rock Mechanics for Industry, Proceedings of the 37th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Vail, Colorado, USA, 6-9 June 1999. Amadei, B.; Kranz, R.L.; Scott, G.A.; and Smeallie, P.H., eds. 2, 751-757. Brookfield, Vermont: A.A. Balkema. TIC: 245246. 104366 Wang, J.S.Y. and Narasimhan, T.N. 1993. “Unsaturated Flow in Fractured Porous Media.” Chapter 7 of Flow and Contaminant Transport in Fractured Rock. Bear, J.; Tsang, C-F.; and de Marsily, G., eds. San Diego, California: Academic Press. TIC: 235461. 106793 Wang, J.S.Y.; Flint, A.L.; Nitao, J.J.; Chesnut, D.A.; Cook, P.; Cook, N.G.W.; Birkholzer, J.; Freifeld, B.; Flint, L.E.; Ellet, K.; Mitchell, A.J.; Homuth, E.F.; Griego, G.J.; Cerny, J.A.; and Johnson, C.L. 1996. Evaluation of Moisture Evolution in the Exploratory Studies Facility. Milestone TR31K6M. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19961231.0089. 101309 Wang, J.S.Y.; Trautz, R.C.; Cook, P.J.; Finsterle, S.; James, A.L.; and Birkholzer, J. 1999. “Field Tests and Model Analyses of Seepage into Drift.” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 38, (1-3), 323-347. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 244160. 106146 Warrick, A.W.; Biggar, J.W.; and Nielsen, D.R. 1971. “Simultaneous Solute and Water Transfer for an Unsaturated Soil.” Water Resources Research, 7, (5), 1216-1225. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 245674. 106150 Whelan, J.F. and Moscati, R.J. 1998. “9 M.Y. Record of Southern Nevada Climate from Yucca Mountain Secondary Minerals.” High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. Pages 12-15. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 237082. 109179 Whelan, J.F.; Moscati, R.J.; Allerton, S.B.M.; and Marshall, B.D. 1998. Applications of Isotope Geochemistry to the Reconstruction of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Paleohydrology—Status of Investigations: June 1996. Open-File Report 98-83. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19981012.0740. 137305 Whelan, J.F.; Neymark, L.A.; Roedder, E.; and Moscati, R.J. 2003. “Thermochronology of Secondary Minerals from the Yucca Mountain Unsaturated Zone.” Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 357-366. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254368. 163590 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-26 November 2004 Whelan, J.F.; Paces, J.B.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2002. “Physical and Stable-Isotope Evidence for Formation of Secondary Calcite and Silica in the Unsaturated Zone, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 735-750. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 253462. 160442 Whelan, J.F.; Roedder, E.; and Paces, J.B. 2001. “Evidence for an Unsaturated-Zone Origin of Secondary Minerals in Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” “Back to the Future - Managing the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to Create a More Secure Energy Future,” Proceedings of the 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), Las Vegas, Nevada, April 29-May 3, 2001. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 247873. 154773 Whelan, J.F.; Vaniman, D.T.; Stuckless, J.S.; and Moscati, R.J. 1994. “Paleoclimatic and Paleohydrologic Records from Secondary Calcite: Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 22-26, 1994. 4, 2738-2745. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 210984. 100091 White, A.F.; Bullen, T.D.; Vivit, D.V.; Schulz, M.S.; and Clow, D.W. 1999. “The Role of Disseminated Calcite in the Chemical Weathering of Granitoid Rocks.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 63, (13/14), 1939-1953. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 248634. 151450 White, I. and Sully, M.J. 1987. “Macroscopic and Microscopic Capillary Length and Time Scales from Field Infiltration.” Water Resources Research, 23, (8), 1514-1522. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 239821. 106152 Williams, K. 2000. Busted Butte. Scientific Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-119-V1. ACC: MOL.20001011.0059. 165373 Williams, K. 2002. YMP-LBNL-ELM-KHW-2 UZ Busted Butte. Scientific Notebook SN-LBNL-SCI-119-V2. ACC: MOL.20021126.0232. 165374 Wilson, N.S.F.; Cline, J.S.; and Lundberg, S.A.W. 2000. “Paragenesis and Chemical Composition of Secondary Mineralization at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 32, (7), A-260. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 249113. 154279 Wilson, N.S.F.; Cline, J.S.; Rotert, J.; and Amelin, Y.V. 2000. “Timing and Temperature of Fluid Movement at Yucca Mountain, NV: Fluid Inclusion Analyses and U-Pb and U-Series Dating.” Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 32, (7), A-260. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 249113. 154280 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-27 November 2004 Wilson, S.F. and Cline, J.S. 2001. “Paragenesis, Temperature and Timing of Secondary Minerals at Yucca Mountain.” “Back to the Future - Managing the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle to Create a More Secure Energy Future,” Proceedings of the 9th International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM), Las Vegas, Nevada, April 29-May 3, 2001. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 247873. 155426 Winograd, I.J.; Szabo, B.J.; Coplen, T.B.; Riggs, A.C.; and Kolesar, P.T. 1985. “Two- Million-Year Record of Deuterium Depletion in Great Basin Ground Waters.” Science, 227, 519-522. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. TIC: 216799. 109187 Wu, Y.S.; Liu, H.H.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; and Zellmer, K.E. 2001. A Triple-Continuum Approach for Modeling Flow and Transport Processes in Fractured Rock. LBNL-48875. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. TIC: 251297. 156399 Wyckoff, D. 1999. Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (LA-EES-5-NBK-98-014). Scientific Notebook SN-LANL-SCI-044-V1. ACC: MOL.20001023.0116. 165298 Yang, I.C. 2002. “Percolation Flux and Transport Velocity in the Unsaturated Zone, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 807-817. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 253605. 160839 Yang, I.C.; Peterman, Z.E.; and Scofield, K.M. 2003. “Chemical Analyses of Pore Water from Boreholes USW SD-6 and USW WT-24, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 361-380. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254205. 164631 Yang, I.C.; Rattray, G.W.; and Yu, P. 1996. Interpretation of Chemical and Isotopic Data from Boreholes in the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4058. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980528.0216. 100194 Yang, I.C.; Yu, P.; Rattray, G.W.; Ferarese, J.S.; and Ryan, J.N. 1998. Hydrochemical Investigations in Characterizing the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4132. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19981012.0790. 101441 YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 2000. Field Test Data Collection Systems. Field Work Package FWP-ESF-96-001, Rev. 3. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.20001228.0231. 161209 YMP 2001. UZ Transport Test at Busted Butte. Field Work Package FWP-ESF-97-002, Rev. 7. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.20010122.0092. 171430 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-28 November 2004 YMP 2002. Moisture Studies in the ESF. FWP-ESF-96-004, Rev. 8. Washington, D.C.: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.20020209.0120. 160262 Youden, W.J. 1951. Statistical Methods for Chemists. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons. TIC: 248814. 153339 8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 156605 AP-2.22Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040714.0002. AP-16.1Q, Rev. 8, ICN 2. Condition Reporting and Resolution. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040812.0002. AP-12.1Q, Rev. 0, ICN 2. Control of Measuring and Test Equipment and Calibration Standards. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040429.0006. AP-SIII.9Q, Rev. 1, ICN 7. Scientific Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040920.0001 LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20041005.0008. YMP-LBNL-TIP/GP 5.0, Rev. 0 Mod. 0. Ground Penetrating Radar Data Acquisition. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19990205.0129. 8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER GS000308312242.002. Phase 1 of Water Collection in Alcove 1 from 05/05/98 to 08/27/98. Submittal date: 03/01/2000. 156911 GS000308313211.001. Geochemistry of Repository Block. Submittal date: 03/27/2000. 162015 GS000399991221.003. Preliminary Alcove 1 Infiltration Experiment Data. Submittal date: 03/10/2000. 147024 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-29 November 2004 GS000608314224.004. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 35+00 to Station 40+00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 06/20/2000. 152573 GS000808312242.006. Pulse Flow Meter Data for the Alcove 1 Infiltration Experiment from 02/19/99 to 06/20/00. Submittal date: 09/07/2000. 162980 GS001108312242.009. Tracker Data for the Alcove 1 Infiltration Experiment, Phase II 05/09/99 to 07/05/00. Submittal date: 11/07/2000. 165202 GS010608312242.002. Small Plot Infiltration in Alcove 8 Using a Box Permeameter from August 28, 2000 to December 14, 2000. Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 165543 GS010608312242.004. Crossover Alcove/Seepage into Niche 3; Small Plot Infiltration Using a Cylinder Permeameter from August 9, 2000 to August 21, 2000. Submittal date: 06/28/2001. 165542 GS010808315215.003. Fluid Inclusion Homogenization Temperatures from the ESF, ECRB, and EWCD, 12/99 to 4/01. Submittal date: 09/04/2001. 164844 GS010808315215.004. Uranium and Lead Concentrations, Lead Isotopic Compositions, and U-Pb Isotope Ages for the ESF Secondary Minerals Determined at the Royal Ontario Museum between April 20, 2000 and April 19, 2001. Submittal date: 08/29/2001. 164850 GS020408312272.002. Tritium Abundance Data from Pore-Water in Core Samples from Yucca Mountain ESF Boreholes for the Period of April 30, 1998 through March 21, 2001. Submittal date: 05/08/2002. 162342 GS020408312272.003. Collection and Analysis of Pore Water Samples for the Period from April 2001 to February 2002. Submittal date: 04/24/2002. 160899 GS020508312242.001. Trench Fault Infiltration in Alcove 8 Using Permeameters from March 5, 2001 to June 1, 2001. Submittal date: 05/22/2002. 162129 GS020608315215.002. Carbon Dioxide Abundances, Carbon Dioxide Concentrations, and Normative Calcite Concentrations for Cuttings from Borehole USW SD-6, USW WT-24, and ECRB Cross Drift Boreholes, Determined by Carbon Dioxide Evolution, May 25, 2000 and September 8, 2000. Submittal date: 06/26/2002. 162126 GS020908312242.002. Trenched Fault Infiltration in Alcove 8 Using Permeameters from June 1, 2001 to March 26, 2002. Submittal date: 09/17/2002. 162141 GS020908315215.003. Fluid Inclusion Homogenization Temperatures from the ESF and ECRB, 10/01 to 5/02. Submittal date: 09/26/2001. 164846 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-30 November 2004 GS020908315215.004. Stable Carbon and Oxygen Isotope Analyses of ESF/ECRB Calcite and USW SD-6 and USW WT-24 Whole Rock; 1/1999-6/2002. Submittal date: 10/16/2002. 164847 GS021008312242.003. Moisture Monitoring in ESF, Alcoves 3 and 4, from April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2002. Submittal date: 01/15/2003. 162178 GS021008315215.005. Uranium, Thorium, and Lead Concentrations, Lead Isotopic Compositions, U-Pb Isotope Ages and 234U/238U and 230TH/238U Activity Ratios for the ESF and ECRB Secondary Minerals Determined at the Royal Ontario Museum between 11/16/01 and 4/7/02. Submittal date: 10/21/2002. 164848 GS021008315215.007. Carbon Dioxide and Normative Calcite Concentrations in Powdered Cuttings from Borehole USW WT-24 Determined by CO2 Evolution between July 1998 and August 1999. Submittal date: 11/07/2002. 162127 GS021208312272.005. Tritium Abundance Data from Pore-Water in Core Samples from Yucca Mountain ESF ECRB. Submittal date: 12/19/2002. 162934 GS021208312272.008. Uranium and Thorium Concentrations and 234U-230TH- 238U-232TH Isotopic Compositions from Whole Rock Samples from the ECRB Cross-Drift and ESF Analyzed between February and June, 2002. Submittal date: 01/28/2003. 164609 GS021208315215.008. 238U-234U-230TH-232TH Isotope Ratios and Calculated Ages for Opal Hemispheres from Sample HD2074 (SPC00506577) at Station 30+51 in the Exploratory Studies Facility Determined Using Ion-Probe Mass Spectrometry. Submittal date: 12/19/2002. 164851 GS021208315215.009. U Abundances, 238U-234U-230TH-232TH Activity Ratios, and Calculated 230TH/U Ages, and Initial 234U/238U Activity Ratios Determined for Sequential In-Situ Microdigestions of Opal Hemispheres from the ESF by Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry. Submittal date: 12/19/2002. 164750 GS030208312242.003. Trenched Fault Infiltration in Alcove 8 Using Permeameters from March 26, 2002 to August 20, 2002. Submittal date: 03/10/2003. 165544 GS030208312272.001. Gas and Water Vapor Chemistry Data in Yucca Mountain ESF ECRB Bulkheads. Submittal date: 03/11/2003. 162935 GS030408312272.002. Analysis of Water-Quality Samples for the Period from July 2002 to November 2002. Submittal date: 05/07/2003. 165226 GS030508312242.004. Photographs from Niche 3 of the Alcove 8/Niche 3 Seepage Experiment During Construction Showing Construction Water in Niche 3, March 6, 2000. Submittal date: 06/03/2003. 165545 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-31 November 2004 GS030608312231.002. Digital Image Data from the Moisture Monitoring Tests in the ECRB Bulkheaded Cross Drift from January 22, 2001 to February 3, 2003. Submittal date: 07/09/2003. 165547 GS030608312242.005. Surface Infiltration in a Large Plot in Alcove 8 Using Permeameters from November 19, 2002 to March 24, 2003. Submittal date: 06/24/2003. 166200 GS030808315215.001. Line Survey Information from the East-West Cross-Drift Obtained to Estimate Secondary Mineral Abundance. Submittal date: 09/23/2003. 165426 GS030908315215.002. X-Ray Fluorescence Elemental Compositions Determined on Cuttings from USW SD-6 and USW WT-24 Analyzed from May 20, 1998 to March 13, 2001. Submittal date: 10/20/2003. 166097 GS031008312242.007. Surface Infiltration in a Large Plot in Alcove 8 Using Permeameters from August 20, 2002 to November 19, 2002. Submittal date: 10/31/2003. 166089 GS031208312232.002. Deep UZ Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-25 UZ#4, USW NRG-6, UE-25 UZ#5, USW UZ-7A and USW SD-12 for the Time Period 4/1/98 through 9/30/98. Submittal date: 07/15/2004. 171748 GS950508314224.003. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data - Full Periphery Map Data from North Ramp of the Exploratory Studies Facility, Stations 0+60 to 4+00. Submittal date: 05/24/1995. 107488 GS951108312231.009. Physical Properties, Water Content, and Water Potential for Borehole USW SD-7. Submittal date: 09/26/1995. 108984 GS951208312272.002. Tritium Analyses of Porewater from USW UZ-14, USW NRG-6, USW NRG-7A and UE-25 UZ#16 and of Perched Water from USW SD-7, USW SD-9, USW UZ-14 and USW NRG-7A from 12/09/92 to 5/15/95. Submittal date: 12/15/1995. 151649 GS960708314224.008. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 30 + 00 to Station 35 + 00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/05/1996. 105617 GS960708314224.010. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 40+00 to Station 45+00, Main Drift of the ESF. Submittal date: 08/05/1996. 106031 GS960808312231.004. Physical Properties, Water Content and Water Potential for Samples from Lower Depths in Boreholes USW SD- 7 and USW SD-12. Submittal date: 08/30/1996. 108985 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-32 November 2004 GS960808312231.005. Water Permeability and Relative Humidity Calculated Porosity for Samples from Boreholes USW SD-7, USW SD-9, USW SD-12 and USW UZ-14. Submittal date: 08/30/1996. 108995 GS960908314224.014. Provisional Results - ESF Main Drift, Station 50+00 to Station 55+00. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 106033 GS960908314224.020. Analysis Report: Geology of the North Ramp - Stations 4+00 to 28+00 and Data: Detailed Line Survey and Full-Periphery Geotechnical Map - Alcoves 3 (UPCA) and 4 (LPCA), and Comparative Geologic Cross Section - Stations 0+60 to 28+00. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 106059 GS970208312242.001. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF, Oct. 1, 1996 through Jan. 31, 1997. Submittal date: 02/19/1997. 135119 GS970208314224.003. Geotechnical Data for Station 60+00 to Station 65+00, South Ramp of the ESF. Submittal date: 02/12/1997. 106048 GS970208315215.005. Carbon and Oxygen Stable Isotope Kiel Analyses of Calcite from the ESF and USW G-1, G-2 and G-4, UE-25 A#1, USW NRG-6 and NRG-7/7A, and UE-25 UZ#16, April 1996 – January 1997. Submittal date: 02/27/1997. 107351 GS970708312242.002. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF, Feb. 1, 1997 through July 31, 1997. Submittal date: 07/18/1997. 135123 GS970808312232.005. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-25 UZ#4, UE-25 UZ#5, USW UZ-7A and USW SD-12 for the Time Period 1/1/97 - 6/30/97. Submittal date: 08/28/1997. 105978 GS970808315215.010. Carbon and Oxygen Stable Isotope Analyses of Calcite from the ESF and USW G-1, G-2, and G-3/GU-3, from 01/16/97 to 07/18/97. Submittal date: 08/18/1997. 145920 GS971108312232.007. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-25 UZ #4, UE-25 UZ #5, USW UZ-7A and USW SD-12 for the Time Period 7/1/97 - 9/30/97. Submittal date: 11/18/1997. 105980 GS971108314224.020. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 0+60 to Station 4+00, North Ramp Starter Tunnel, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 105561 GS971108314224.021. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 4+00 to Station 8+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 106007 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-33 November 2004 GS971108314224.022. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 8+00 to Station 10+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 106009 GS971108314224.023. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 10 + 00 to Station 18 + 00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 106010 GS971108314224.024. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 18+00 to Station 26+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 106023 GS971108314224.025. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 26+00 to Station 30+00, North Ramp and Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 106025 GS971108314224.026. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 45+00 to Station 50+00, Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 106032 GS971108314224.028. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 55+00 to Station 60+00, Main Drift and South Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. Submittal date: 12/03/1997. 106047 GS980308312242.001. Time Domain Reflectometry Measurements in the South Ramp of the ESF, August 1, 1997 to January 4, 1998. Submittal date: 03/04/1998. 135181 GS980308312242.002. Heat Dissipation Probe Measurements in the South Ramp of the ESF, August 1, 1997 to January 31, 1998. Submittal date: 03/09/1998. 135163 GS980308312242.003. Physical Properties of Borehole Samples from the ESF South Ramp (ESF Station 59+65M to ESF Station 76+33M). Submittal date: 03/16/1998. 135180 GS980308312242.004. Water Potential Measurements Using the Filter Paper Technique for Borehole Samples from the ESF North Ramp (ESF Station 7+27 M to ESF Station 10+70 M) and the ESF South Ramp (ESF Station 59+65 M to 76+33 M). Submittal date: 03/19/1998. 107172 GS980308312242.005. Physical Properties of Lexan-Sealed Borehole Samples from the PIN Exposure in the ESF North Ramp (ESF Station 7+27 M to ESF Station 10+70 M). Submittal date: 03/11/1998. 107165 GS980308315215.008. Line Survey Information from the Exploratory Studies Facility Obtained to Estimate Secondary Mineral Abundance. Submittal date: 03/24/1998. 107355 GS980408312232.001. Deep Unsaturated Zone Surface-Based Borehole Instrumentation Program Data from Boreholes USW NRG-7A, UE-25 UZ #4, USW NRG-6, UE-25 UZ #5, USW UZ-7A and USW SD-12 for the Time Period 10/01/97 - 03/31/98. Submittal date: 04/16/1998. 105982 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-34 November 2004 GS980908312242.018. Physical Properties of Borehole Core Samples from ESF-MD-NICHE3566#1, ESF-MD-NICHE3566#2, ESF-MD-NICHE3566#3A, ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#1, ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#2, ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#3, ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#4, ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#5, and ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#6. Submittal date: 09/03/1998. 135170 GS980908312242.020. Physical Properties of Borehole Core Samples from ESF-MD-NICHE3650#1, ESF-MD-NICHE3650#2, ESF-MD-NICHE3650#3, ESF-MD-NICHE3650#4, ESF-MD-NICHE3650#5, ESF-MD-NICHE3650#6, and ESF-MD-NICHE3650#7. Submittal date: 09/05/1998. 135172 GS980908312242.022. Water Potentials Measured with Heat Dissipation Probes in Twenty-One Drill Holes in Niche 1 (ESF-NICHE3566) from 11/04/97 to 07/31/98. Submittal date: 09/11/1998. 135157 GS980908312242.024. Moisture Monitoring in the ESF, August 1, 1997 to July 31, 1998. Submittal date: 09/15/1998. 135132 GS980908312242.028. Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Borehole Core Samples from ESF-SAD-GTB#1. Submittal date: 09/16/1998. 135176 GS980908312242.029. Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Borehole Core Samples from ESF-NDR-MF#1, ESF-NDR-MF#2, and ESF-NDR-MF#4 in Alcove 6 of the ESF. Submittal date: 09/17/1998. 135175 GS980908312242.030. Physical Properties of Borehole Core Samples from ESF-ECRB-SLANT#2. Submittal date: 09/17/1998. 135224 GS980908312242.032. Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Borehole Core Samples and Water Potential Measurements Using the Filter Paper Technique for Borehole Samples from ESF-LPCA-PTN#1 and ESF-LPCA-PTN#2 in Alcove 4. Submittal date: 09/17/1998. 107177 GS980908312242.033. Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Borehole Core Samples and Water Potential Measurements Using the Filter Paper Technique for Borehole Samples from ESF-UPCA-PTN#1 in Alcove 3 of the ESF. Submittal date: 09/17/1998. 107168 GS980908312242.035. Moisture Monitoring in the ECRB, 04/08/98 to 07/31/98. Submittal date: 09/24/1998. 135133 GS980908312242.036. Water Potentials Measured with Heat Dissipation Probes in ECRB Holes from 4/23/98 to 7/31/98. Submittal date: 09/22/1998. 119820 GS980908315213.002. Carbon and Oxygen Stable Isotopic Compositions of Exploratory Studies Facility Secondary Calcite Occurrences, 10/01/97 to 08/15/98. Submittal date: 09/16/1998. 146088 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-35 November 2004 GS990108312242.005. Temperature, Relative Humidity and Barometric Pressure Data for Alcove 7 of the ESF from 12/08/97 to 12/12/98. Submittal date: 01/28/1999. 166000 GS990108312242.006. Pulse Flow Meter Data for the Alcove 1 Infiltration Experiment from 03/08/98 to 12/04/98. Submittal date: 01/29/1999. 162979 GS990183122410.001. Tritium Data from Pore Water from ESF Borehole Cores, 1997 Analyses by USES. Submittal date: 01/06/1999. 146125 GS990183122410.004. Tritium Data from Pore Water from ESF Borehole Cores, 1998 Analyses by University of Miami. Submittal date: 10/14/1999. 146129 GS990308312242.007. Laboratory and Centrifuge Measurements of Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Core Samples from Busted Butte Boreholes UZTT-BB-INJ-1, UZTT-BB-INJ-3, UZTT-BB-INJ-4, UZTT-BB-INJ-6, UZTT-BB-COL-5 and UZTT-BB-COL-8. Submittal date: 03/22/1999. 107185 GS990408314224.001. Detailed Line Survey Data for Stations 00+00.89 to 14+95.18, ECRB Cross-Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 108396 GS990408314224.002. Detailed Line Survey Data for Stations 15+00.85 to 26+63.85, ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 105625 GS990408314224.006. Full-Periphery Geologic Maps for Station 20+00 to 26+81, ECRB Cross Drift. Submittal date: 09/09/1999. 108409 GS990708312242.008. Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Core Samples from Busted Butte Boreholes. Submittal date: 07/01/1999. 109822 GS990708314224.007. Detailed Line Survey Data for Busted Butte Access Drift and Busted Butte Cross Drift. Submittal date: 11/02/1999. 164604 GS990908314224.010. Geology of the ECRB Cross Drift: Graphical Data. Submittal date: 09/14/1999. 152631 GS990908315213.001. Stable Carbon and Oxygen Isotope Data for Calcite from the ESF and Analyzed 2/96 - 5/99. Submittal date: 10/28/1999. 153379 LA0002JF12213U.001. Chemistry Data for Porewater Extracted from Drillcore from Surface-Based Boreholes USW NRG-6, USW NRG-7A, USW UZ-7A, USW UZ-14, UE-25 UZ#16, USW UZ-N55, USW SD-6, USW SD-7, USW SD-9, USW SD-12, and USW WT-24. Submittal date: 02/15/2000. 154760 LA0002JF12213U.002. Chemistry Data for Porewater Extracted from ESF, Cross Drift and Busted Butte Drill Core. Submittal date: 02/15/2000. 156281 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-36 November 2004 LA0008WS831372.001. Calculated Daily Injection Rates for the Busted Butte Unsaturated Zone Transport Tests. Submittal date: 08/23/2000. 156582 LA0108TV12213U.001. Static Batch Sorption Coefficients and Retardation Coefficients. Submittal date: 08/14/2001. 161525 LA0112WS831372.001. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Phase II Collection Pad Tracer Loading. Submittal date: 12/06/2001. 157100 LA0112WS831372.002. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Phase II Collection Pad Tracer Concentrations. Submittal date: 12/06/2001. 157115 LA0112WS831372.003. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Phase II Normalized Collection Pad Tracer Concentrations. Submittal date: 12/06/2001. 157106 LA0201WS831372.004. Calculated Moisture Content for the Busted Butte Site Phase II Collection Boreholes. Submittal date: 01/03/2002. 165422 LA0204SL831372.001. Mineralogy of the Busted Butte Phase 2 Test Block. Submittal date: 04/17/2002. 164749 LA0207SL831372.001. Lithostratigraphic Classification of Hydrologic-Property Core-Sampling Depths, Busted Butte Phase 2 Test Block. Submittal date: 07/16/2002. 160824 LA0302WS831372.001. Fluorescein Plume Images from the Phase 1A Mineback at Busted Butte. Submittal date: 02/26/2003. 162765 LA0305RR831222.001. Chlorine-36 and Cl in Salts Leached from Rock Samples for the Chlorine-36 Validation Study. Submittal date: 05/22/2003. 163422 LA0307RR831222.001. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached from Cross Drift Rock Samples in FY99 and FY00. Submittal date: 07/09/2003. 164091 LA0307RR831222.002. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached from ESF 36Cl Validation Drillcore Samples in FY99. Submittal date: 07/09/2003. 164090 LA0311SD831372.001. In-Situ Air Permeability Measurements at Busted Butte. Submittal date: 11/19/2003. 166197 LA9909JF831222.012. Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Analyses of Porewater Extracted from ESF Niche 3566 (Niche #1) and ESF 3650 (Niche #2) Drillcore. Submittal date: 09/29/1999. 122736 LA9909WS831372.001. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Faze I Collection Pad Extract Concentrations. Submittal date: 09/29/1999. 122739 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-37 November 2004 LA9909WS831372.002. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Phase I Collection Pad Tracer Loading and Tracer Concentrations. Submittal date: 09/30/1999. 122741 LA9909WS831372.015. ICPAES Porewater Analysis for Rock Samples from Busted Butte, NV. Submittal date: 10/01/1999. 140089 LA9909WS831372.016. ION Chromatography Porewater Analysis for Rock Samples from Busted Butte, NV. Submittal date: 09/30/1999. 140093 LA9909WS831372.017. pH of Porewater of Rock Samples from Busted Butte, NV. Submittal date: 09/30/1999. 140097 LA9909WS831372.018. Gravimetric Moisture Content of Rock Samples from Busted Butte, NV. Submittal date: 09/30/1999. 140101 LA9910WS831372.008. Busted Butte UZ Transport Test: Gravimetric Moisture Content and Bromide Concentration in Selected Phase 1A Rock Samples. Submittal date: 11/03/1999. 147156 LAJF831222AQ98.004. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached from ESF Rock Samples. Submittal date: 09/10/1998. 107364 LAJF831222AQ98.007. Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Analyses of Salts Leached from ECRB-CWAT#1, #2, and #3 Drill Core. Submittal date: 09/09/1998. 122730 LAJF831222AQ98.009. Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached from ESF Niche 3566 (Niche #1) Drillcore. Submittal date: 09/09/1998. 145650 LAJF831222AQ98.011. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Springs, Groundwater, Porewater, Perched Water and Surface Runoff. Submittal date: 09/10/1998. 145402 Langmuir, D. and Herman, J.S. 1980. “The Mobility of Thorium in Natural Waters at Low Temperatures.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 44, 1753-1766. New York, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 237029. 147527 LB00032412213U.001. Busted Butte Ground Penetrating Radar Data Collected June 1998 through February 2000 at the Unsaturated Zone Transport Test (UZTT): GPR Velocity Data. Submittal date: 03/24/2000. 149214 LB00090012213U.001. Air K Testing in Borehole SYBT-ERCB-LA#2 at CS 17+26 in Cross Drift. Submittal date: 11/03/2000. 153141 LB00090012213U.002. Liquid Release Tests from Borehole SYBT-ECRB-LA#2 at CS 17+26 in Cross Drift. Submittal date: 11/09/2000. 153154 LB0010NICH3LIQ.001. Niche 3107 Seepage Test. Submittal date: 11/02/2000. 153144 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-38 November 2004 LB0010NICH4LIQ.001. Niche 4788 Seepage Test. Submittal date: 11/02/2000. 153145 LB0011AIRKTEST.001. Air Permeability Testing in Niches 3566 and 3650. Submittal date: 11/08/2000. 153155 LB0011CO2DST08.001. Isotope Data for CO2 from Gas Samples Collected from Hydrology Holes in Drift-Scale Test. Submittal date: 12/09/2000. 153460 LB0012AIRKTEST.001. Niche 5 Air K Testing 3/23/00-4/3/00. Submittal date: 12/21/2000. 154586 LB002181233124.001. Air Permeability and Pneumatic Pressure Data Collected Between October 27, 1999 through November 7, 1999 from Niche 5 (ECRB Niche 1620) of the ESF. Submittal date: 02/18/2000. 146878 LB0102NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests - Pre Excavation. Submittal date: 02/28/2001. 155681 LB0108CO2DST05.001. Concentration and Isotope Data for CO2 and H2O from Gas Samples Collected from Hydrology Holes in Drift-Scale Test - May and August 1999, April 2000, January and April 2001. Submittal date: 08/27/2001. 156888 LB0110A8N3GPRB.001. Alcove 8/Niche 3 GPR Baseline Data. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156912 LB0110A8N3LIQR.001. Preliminary Observations from the Fault Test at Alcove8/Niche3. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 157001 LB0110AK23POST.001. AK2 and AK3 Post-Excavation Air-K. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156905 LB0110AKN5POST.001. Niche 5 (1620 in ECRB) Post-Excavation Air-K. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156904 LB0110BSTBTGPR.001. Busted Butte GPR Data. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156913 LB0110COREPROP.001. Lab Measurements of 14 Matrix Cores. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 157169 LB0110ECRBH2OA.001. ECRB Water Analyses. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156886 LB0110ECRBH2OI.001. Isotope Data for Water Samples Collected from the ECRB. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156887 LB0110ECRBH2OP.001. Water Potential Data from Three Locations in the ECRB. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156883 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-39 November 2004 LB0110ECRBLIQR.001. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#1, 12/20/2000. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156878 LB0110ECRBLIQR.002. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#1, 2/28/2001. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156879 LB0110ECRBLIQR.003. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#2, 10/23/2000. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156877 LB0110TUFTRACR.001. Using Laser Ablation to Study Tracer Movement in Tuff. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. 156979 LB0203ECRBLIQR.001. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#3(May-July 2001). Submittal date: 03/20/2002. 158462 LB0204NICH3TRC.001. Fault Infiltration Test Tracer Sampling Apr 2001-Mar 2002. Submittal date: 04/30/2002. 158478 LB0207NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620). Submittal date: 07/09/2002. 160408 LB0208NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620), July-August 2002. Submittal date: 08/22/2002. 161210 LB0209A8N3LIQR.001. Resistance Measurements from Borehole 10 in Niche3 (5/23/2001 - 9/3/2002). Submittal date: 09/11/2002. 165461 LB0209NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620), June-August 2002. Submittal date: 09/11/2002. 160796 LB0210NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620), August-October 2002. Submittal date: 10/25/2002. 161211 LB0211NICH5LIQ.001. Niche 5 Seepage Tests (CD 1620), August-October 2002. Submittal date: 11/14/2002. 160792 LB0301ECRBRHTB.001. Moisture Monitoring at Four Locations in the ECRB. Submittal date: 01/31/2003. 164605 LB0301SYTSTLA4.001. Systematic Testing in ECRB-SYBT-LA#4. Submittal date: 01/31/2003. 165227 LB0302ALC8AIRK.001. Alcove 8 Air Permeability Testing. Submittal date: 02/28/2003. 164748 LB0303A8N3LIQR.001. Alcove 8 - Niche 3 Seepage Data Compilation. Submittal date: 03/19/2003. 162570 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-40 November 2004 LB0306A8N3LIQR.001. Fault Infiltration Test from Alcoves to Niche3 (9/18/2002 - 10/16/2002). Submittal date: 06/19/2003. 165405 LB0307ECRBRHTB.001. Moisture Monitoring at Four Locations in the ECRB. Submittal date: 07/30/2003. 164843 LB0308A8N3SEEP.001. Niche 3 Seepage (10/16/2002-04/02/2003). Submittal date: 08/29/2003. 166090 LB0406ESFNH2OP.001. Water Potential Measurements in Niches 3566, 3650, and 3107 of the ESF. Submittal date: 06/21/2004. 171588 LB960800831224.001. Relative Humidity, Temperature, and Pressure in ESF Monitoring Stations. Submittal date: 08/23/1996. 105793 LB970300831224.001. Moisture Data Report from October 1996 to January, 1997. Submittal date: 03/13/1997. 105794 LB970801233124.001. Moisture Monitoring Data Collected at ESF Sensor Stations. Submittal date: 08/27/1997. 105796 LB970901233124.002. Moisture Monitoring Data Collected at Stationary Moisture Stations. Submittal date: 09/30/1997. 105798 LB980001233124.004. Liquid Release Test Data from Niche 3566 and Niche 3650 of the ESF in Milestone Report, “Drift Seepage Test and Niche Moisture Study: Phase 1 Report on Flux Threshold Determination, Air Permeability Distribution, and Water Potential Measurement. Submittal date: 11/23/1999. 136583 LB980901233124.003. Liquid Release and Tracer Tests in Niches 3566, 3650, 3107, and 4788 in the ESF. Submittal date: 09/14/1998. 105592 LB980901233124.004. Pneumatic Pressure and Air Permeability Data from Alcove 6 in the ESF. Submittal date: 09/14/1998. 105855 LB980901233124.009. Pneumatic Pressure and Air Permeability Data from Alcove 4 in the ESF. Submittal date: 09/14/1998. 105856 LB980901233124.014. Borehole Monitoring at the Single Borehole in the ECRB and ECRB Crossover Point in the ESF. Submittal date: 09/14/1998. 105858 LB980901233124.101. Pneumatic Pressure and Air Permeability Data from Niche 3107 and Niche 4788 in the ESF from Chapter 2 of Report SP33PBM4: Fracture Flow and Seepage Testing in the ESF, FY98. Submittal date: 11/23/1999. 136593 LB980912332245.001. Air Injection Data from Niche 3107 of the ESF. Submittal date: 09/30/1998. 110828 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-41 November 2004 LB980912332245.002. Gas Tracer Data from Niche 3107 of the ESF. Submittal date: 09/30/1998. 105593 LB990601233124.001. Seepage Data Feed to UZ Drift-Scale Flow Model for TSPA-SR. Submittal date: 06/18/1999. 105888 LB990601233124.003. Seepage Data Feed to UZ Drift-Scale Flow Model for TSPA-SR. Submittal date: 06/18/1999. 106051 LB990901233124.001. Alcove 6 Tracer Tests for AMR U0015, “In Situ Field Testing of Processes.” Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 155694 LB990901233124.002. Alcove 6 Flow Data for AMR U0015, “In Situ Field Testing of Processes”. Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 146883 LB990901233124.003. Tracer Lab Analyses of Dye Penetration in Niches 3650 and 4788 of the ESF for AMR U0015, “In Situ Field Testing of Processes.” Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 155690 LB990901233124.004. Air Permeability Cross-Hole Connectivity in Alcove 6, Alcove 4, and Niche 4 of the ESF for AMR U0015, “In Situ Testing of Field Processes”. Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 123273 LB990901233124.005. Alcove 4 Flow Data for AMR U0015, “In Situ Field Testing of Processes”. Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 146884 LB990901233124.006. Moisture Data from the ECRB Cross Drift for AMR U0015, “In Situ Testing of Field Processes”. Submittal date: 11/01/1999. 135137 LL030408023121.027. Cl Abundance and Cl Ratios of Leachates from ESF Core Samples. Submittal date: 04/17/2003. 162949 LL031200223121.036. Cl Abundance and Cl Ratio of Leachates from ESF Core Samples. Submittal date: 12/03/2003. 168531 LL990612704244.098. ERT Data for Busted Butte. Submittal date: 06/21/1999. 147168 MO0004GSC00167.000. As-Built Coordinate of Boreholes in the Test Alcove and Running Drift, Busted Butte Test Facility (BBTF). Submittal date: 04/20/2000. 150300 MO0006J13WTRCM.000. Recommended Mean Values of Major Constituents in J-13 Well Water. Submittal date: 06/07/2000. 151029 MO0008GSC00269.000. As-Built ECRB Alcove 8, Construction Observation Alcove (COA) - Boreholes (#1 through 7). Submittal date: 08/01/2000. 166198 MO0012MWDGFM02.002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). Submittal date: 12/18/2000. 153777 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV03 8-42 November 2004 MO0107GSC01061.000. As-Built Profile of Bat-Wing Excavation, Niche #5 ECRB. Submittal date: 07/03/2001. 155369 MO0107GSC01069.000. ESF Niche #4 (Niche 4788) Borehole As-Built Information. Submittal date: 07/19/2001. 156941 MO0312GSC03176.000. ECRB - Niche #5 (Niche 1620) Borehole As-Built Information. Submittal date: 12/01/2003. 169532 MO0407SEPFEPLA.000. LA FOP List. Submittal date: 07/20/2004. 170760 MO9901MWDGFM31.000. Geologic Framework Model. Submittal date: 01/06/1999. 103769 8.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER LB0110LIQR0015.001. Developed Data for Liquid Release/Seepage Tests and Systematic Testing. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. LB0110NICH4LIQ.001. Niche 4788 Ceiling - Wetting Front Data. Submittal date: 11/12/2001. LB0110SYST0015.001. Developed Data for Systematic Testing. Submittal date: 12/06/2001. LB0310AIRK0015.001. Developed Data for Air-K Tests. Submittal date: 10/07/2003. 8.5 SOFTWARE CODES CRWMS M&O 1999. Software Routine: ECRB-XYZ. V.03. PC. 30093-V.03. 147402 LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) 1998. Software Code: EARTHVISION. V4.0. SGI, IRIX 6.4. 30035-2 V4.0. 152835 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 APPENDIX A AUTOMATED AIR-INJECTION SYSTEM In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 A-1 November 2004 A1. AUTOMATIC PNEUMATIC INJECTION PACKERS The pneumatic-testing equipment is a specially designed packer system fabricated to consider specific testing needs. For site-to-site and borehole-to-borehole comparisons to be meaningful, it must be possible for many boreholes, at numerous sites, to be tested in a controlled manner. For determination of connectivity between boreholes, all permutations of injection and response zones at a site must be examined, so the boreholes must be instrumented for simultaneous measurements. In heterogeneous rock, such as that at the ESF, compensating for variations in results caused by different test configurations (such as test interval length or test scale) is difficult. Therefore, only one parameter (in this case, the location of the test zone) is varied at a time, to keep the testing as consistent as possible. To ensure that the air permeability of unaltered rock would be measured, boreholes were drilled dry and at low speed, a process that minimizes damage to the formation and thereby allows the packer systems to be placed along the entire length of each borehole. In light of the need for consistency, the same packer design is used for injection and observation. This approach is amenable to the automation and remote control necessary for establishing consistent testing regimens, and accommodating the large number of tests. Inflatable rubber sealing bladders on a packer string can be manipulated independently, and divide a borehole into 14 different zones over the length of the string. Zone resolution is 0.3 m, and the bladders cover the entire length of the string. This configuration allows 4.8 m of borehole to be covered by one string. One 3.2-mm-diameter port (for pressure measurement) and one 6.4-mm-diameter port (for air-injection service) is assigned to each zone. Up to seven boreholes can be instrumented at one time (for a discussion of borehole limitations, see Section 6.2). All packer inflation and air-injection lines can be controlled automatically. A modular design allows partial dismantling of the packer strings in the field, for repair or work in tight quarters. Figure A-1 shows a diagram of a portion of a packer assembly. injection lines pressure sensing lines 0.3 m 0.3 m inflated rubber bladder Tubes service either of two zones depending on inflation. interval deflated rubber bladder rock packer body Figure A-1. Schematic of Automatic Packer Design If all bladders are inflated at the same time, the packer string seals the entire section of borehole that is occupied by the string. However, by inflating only every other bladder (and leaving the remaining bladders deflated), an alternating sequence of open and closed (sealed) intervals is produced. Depending on the setting of the injection control valves, an open interval becomes either an observation zone used to monitor pressure, or an injection zone where air is introduced In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 A-2 November 2004 (under pressure) during a test. Once tests have been performed in these open zones, the inflated bladders are deflated and the deflated bladders are inflated (causing those zones that were once closed to become open and those that were originally open to become closed). In this manner, almost the entire length of the packer string is usable for testing every 0.3 m, and does not require the string to be moved. By changing the zones on the injection packer independently from those on the observation packers, four possible zone configurations are available during a given packer installation. All permutations of these injection and observation positions are used to ensure that all positions within each observation borehole are allowed a chance to respond to a given injection zone. Figure A-2 shows schematically how this process is implemented. The observation packer zones are usually changed in unison because the amount of perturbation caused (to the flow field) by the observation-zone locations is considered insignificant. Permutations between them would cause only second-order effects in the response system.                            Figure A-2. Schematic of the Permutation Scheme for Automatic Packers A2. AIR-INJECTION FLOW INSTRUMENTATION Pressure monitoring for each zone was accomplished using pressure transducers that were accurate to a resolution of 0.3 kilopascals (kPa). Mass flow controllers (MFCs) with voltage control and output were used to inject a constant mass-flow rate of air during each permeability test. The MFCs measure and control gas flow rates within a maximum error of 10 percent of full scale; four sizes of MFCs, ranging from 1 to 500 standard liters per minute (SLPM) full scale, were used, to span the anticipated flow-rate ranges. The pressure transducer and MFC outputs were continually monitored and digitally recorded throughout testing, using a 27-bit voltmeter and an computer. Time resolution for the data from all sources was set nominally at five seconds. A3. INITIAL SETUP IN TESTING REGIMEN Initially, by performing some manually operated tests for a given site, the operator determined under what conditions steady state was reached, and at what injection pressure packer leak-by could occur. (Leak-by is the condition of injected air forcing its way past the packer and breaking the packer-rock seal.) When leak-by occurs, a distinct and sudden pressure response occurs in the guard zone, as the packer seal with the borehole is broken. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 A-3 November 2004 The information from these initial tests was used to plan the design of the automatic controls. The operator determined packer leak-by pressure by observing the pressure response in the observation zones axially adjacent to the injection zone. The packer inflation pressure was set at roughly 240 kPa above the ambient pressure, to ensure adequate contact with the borehole without risk of damage to the rubber bladders. At this inflation, and depending on rock conditions, the leak-by pressure was usually approximately 138 kPa above the ambient pressure, and the limit for any injection pressure was typically set to 80 kPa above the ambient pressure. A4. AUTOMATION AND MULTI-RATE APPROACH Utilization of the automatic controls ensured that the tests would reach steady state, and be completed in minimal time. In addition, automation enabled testing to be continuous (24 hours per day). The automation scheme allotted a minimum time to every injection test. The allotted time was adequate to collect a sufficient number of data points to determine the slope of the injection pressure response. Steady state was defined in the automation routine as the condition that exists when the slope of pressure-change over time is less than a certain set point. If, after the minimum time, the criterion of steady state had not been met, the test was allowed to continue until it had been met. Pauses between tests provided time to monitor recovery pressure. Any excess pressure was bled off from all intervals for sufficient time, so that the residual pressure in the formation can reach ambient conditions before further testing is initiated. The automation routine allowed multiple flow rates at each test interval, and also ensured that injection pressure did not exceed the packer leak-by pressure. The test would be shut off if the injection pressure came within approximately 60 percent of the packer leak-by pressure, and the data would automatically be annotated (to chronicle that steady state had not been attained). To save time, injections at higher rates were not attempted in a zone that was under this condition. Conversely, if pressure in an injection zone did not rise above a certain threshold value after a short time, testing at that particular flow rate was stopped, and a higher-flow-rate test was attempted. The multirate strategy ensured that, by using higher flow rates, highly permeable injection intervals would more be more likely to have sufficient pressure to generate a measurable response in the observation intervals. It also ensured that, by using low flow rates, the very tight intervals could be measured without the possible interference of packer leak-by. Theoretically, for a given interval location, the same permeability value should result, regardless of the flow rate that is used. However, small differences in permeability might occur at different flow rates and between repeat tests, possibly as a result of movement of residual water within the fractures. In the case of water redistribution, as testing progresses, permeability will increase slightly for higher rates, as injection pressures overcome the capillary forces that hold the water in the formation. As the flow rate increases, a small decrease in apparent permeability can be observed in drier areas, because of turbulence at higher air injection rates. Any large discrepancy between permeabilities at different flow rates, and any large discrepancy between repeat tests for a given zone, can be attributed to compromised packer sealing. The maximum flow rate that did not cause the zone pressure to exceed the packer leak-by pressure during a test was chosen for single-hole permeability calculations, and was also used to detect crosshole responses. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 A-4 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 APPENDIX B COMPUTATION TABLES FOR NICHE STUDIES In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-1 November 2004 Table B-1 presents aspect ratios on flow paths observed during niche excavation (which is referred to in Section 6.2.1.2). Table B-2 presents borehole-to-niche-ceiling distances for seepage tests (referred to in Section 6.2.1.3). Table B-3a through Table B-4e present liquid-release fluxes on seepage threshold determinations (referred to in Section 6.2.2.1). Table B-5 (on alpha values) is the computation summarized in Table 6-9. Table B-4 and Table B-6 are referred to in Figure 6-48 (on seepage threshold). Table B-7 and Table B-8 are referred to in Figure 6-49 and Figure 6-50 (on water retention curves). Table B-1. Computation of Aspect Ratio (Depth to Lateral Distance) A B C D E F G Observed Dye Observed Injection Borehole Name Injection Interval (m) Mass Injected (g) (Input) Maximum Lateral Distance (m) (Input) Maximum Penetration Depth (m) (Output) Ratio of Depth to Lateral Distance Niche 1 (Niche 3566 in Tptpmn) FD&C Red No. 40 M 2.13 - 2.44 941.7 0.73 1.52 2.08 Acid Yellow 7 M 2.77 - 3.05 120.3 0.16 0.30 1.90 FD&C Blue No. 1 M 4.57 - 4.88 474.0 0.30 1.30 4.33 Niche 2 (Niche 3650 in Tptpmn) FD&C Red No. 40 UL 7.01 - 7.31 694.5 0.99 1.42 1.43 FD&C Blue No. 1 UM 4.27 - 4.57 675.8 0.58 1.68 2.90 FD&C Red No. 40 UM 4.88 - 5.18 937.4 0.28 0.86 3.07 FD&C Blue No. 1 UM 6.70 - 7.01 438.7 1.05 1.82 1.74 FD&C Red No. 40 UR 1.52 - 1.82 369.9 0.76 1.41 1.86 FD&C Blue No. 1 UR 2.13 - 2.43 999.8 0.32 2.57 8.03 Sulpho Rhodamine B ML 4.88 - 5.18 151.6 0.08 0.02 0.25 Sulpho Rhodamine B ML 6.70 - 7.01 170.9 0.25 1.02 4.06 Niche 3 (Niche 3107 in Tptpmn) Green B1.5 3.35 - 3.66 391.3 0.54 0.87 1.61 FD&C Blue No. 1 UM 4.88 - 5.18 111.7 0.27 1.19 4.41 Niche 4 (Niche 4788 in Tptpmn) FD&C Red No. 40 UM 4.27 - 4.57 151.1 0.31 0.96 3.08 Green UM 4.88 - 5.18 401.8 0.51 1.79 3.50 FD&C Blue No. 1 UM 6.40 - 6.70 1019.7 0.78 1.25 1.61 Avg. Tptpmn = 2.87 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-2 November 2004 Table B-1. Computation of Aspect Ratio (Depth to Lateral Distance) (Continued) A B C D E F G Observed Dye Observed Injection Borehole Name Injection Interval (m) Mass Injected (g) (Input) Maximum Lateral Distance (m) (Input) Maximum Penetration Depth (m) (Output) Ratio of Depth to Lateral Distance Niche 5 (Niche 1620 in Tptpll) Green #1 1.48 - 1.78 1184.7 0.76 1.25 1.64 Rhodamine #1 2.54 - 2.84 1342.8 0.22 1.37 6.23 Green #1 3.31 - 3.61 804.7 0.21 0.28 1.33 Rhodamine #1 4.54 - 4.84 826.9 0.15 0.19 1.27 FD&C Blue No. 1 #1 5.44 - 5.74 1001.8 0.33 0.18 0.55 Rhodamine #1 6.54 - 6.84 1041.3 0.16 0.07 0.44 FD&C Blue No. 1 #1 7.58 - 7.88 1555.9 0.17 0.18 1.06 Rhodamine #1 8.54 - 8.84 1142.2 0.26 0.15 0.58 Avg. Tptpll = 1.64 Source: Columns A through E from DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] for Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650). A through E from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] for Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788). A through E from DTN: LB0102NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 155681] for Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788). NOTES: D for Niche 5 (Niche 1620) are reported in kg and converted to g in table by multiplying by 1000 g/kg. G = F/E. Avg. Tptpmn and Avg. Tptpll computed using Microsoft Excel 2000 arithmetic average (AVERAGE) function. FD&C = Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; M = middle; ML = middle left; UL = upper left; UM = upper middle; UR = upper right. ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-3 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes Table B-2. Computation of Distance from Borehole to Niche Ceiling at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Based on Niche-Study Data A B C D E F G H I J K L M Niche Borehole Name and Depth (m) (Input) Vertical Distance From Horizontal Scanline To Borehole UM Collar (m) (Input) Elevation of Borehole UM at Collar (m) (Input) Elevation of Borehole Collar (m) (Output) Difference in Elevation between Columns D and E (m) (Output) Elevation of Borehole Collar above Horizontal Scanline (m) (Input) Borehole Inclination (minutes component) (Input) Borehole Inclination (seconds component) (Output) Borehole Inclination (radians) (Output) Sine of Borehole Inclination (Output) Cosine of Borehole Inclination (Input) Local Horizontal Coordinate for Borehole Collar (m) UL 7.62 – 7.93 1.505 1096.57 1096.58 0.01 1.515 -41 -13 -0.0120 -0.0120 0.9999 4.17 UM 6.10 – 6.40 1.505 1096.57 1096.57 0.00 1.505 -41 -23 -0.0120 -0.0120 0.9999 4.87 4 UR 5.18 – 5.48 1.505 1096.57 1096.57 0.00 1.505 -10 -26 -0.0030 -0.0030 1.0000 5.82 Source: Columns D and E from survey data DTN: MO0107GSC01069.000 [DIRS 156941]. Columns H and I from survey data DTN: MO0107GSC01069.000 [DIRS 156941]. Column M from survey data DTN: MO0107GSC01069.000 [DIRS 156941], local coordinate system see note for T and U. NOTES: Column C is a horizontal scanline or datum measured along the centerline of the niche was used to relate known survey stations to the boreholes and a local coordinate system setup inside the niche. Nodes on a regular 0.6 × 0.6 m grid were marked on the niche ceiling using the frame holding the seepage capture trays as the basis for the grid (see Trautz (2001 [DIRS 156903], p. 36) for details). F = E - D. G = C + F. K = sin(J). L = cos(J). J = (I/360 + H/60) × p/360. ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-4 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes Table B-2. Computation of Distance from Borehole to Niche Ceiling at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Based on Niche-Study Data (Continued) N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Niche (Input) Distance along Inclined Borehole from Collar to Start of Test Interval (m) (Input) Distance along Inclined Borehole from Collar to End of Test Interval (m) (Output) Distance along Inclined Borehole from Collar to Center of Test Interval (m) (Output) Vertical Distance from Borehole Collar to Center of Test Interval (m) (Output) Vertical Distance from Horizontal Scanline to Center of Test Interval (m) (Output) Local Horizontal Coordinate for Center of Test Interval (m) (Input) Local Horizontal Coordinate for Start of Capture Node (m) (Input) Local Horizontal Coordinate for End of Capture Node (m) (Input) Vertical Distance from Horizontal Scanline to Ceiling above Start Node (m) (Input) Vertical Distance from Horizontal Scanline to Ceiling above End Node (m) (Output) Interpolated Vertical Distance from Horizontal Scanline to the Ceiling below the Center of the Test Interval (m) (Output) Distance from Borehole Bottom to Ceiling (m) 7.62 7.93 7.775 -0.09 1.42 11.944 11.905 11.905 0.81 0.84 0.820 0.60 6.10 6.40 6.25 -0.08 1.43 11.12 10.955 11.26 0.84 0.855 0.848 0.58 4 5.18 5.48 5.33 -0.02 1.49 11.15 10.615 11.905 0.76 0.73 0.748 0.74 Source: Columns N and O from DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]. NOTES: P = N + (O - N)/2. Q = K × P. R = G + Q. S = M + (P × L). Columns T and U represent local coordinates. They are horizontal distances from the ESF centerline taken parallel to the niche axis to the starting node and ending node of the capture system, respectively, that bracket the center of the overlying test interval, S. Note that the center of the interval lies between two nodes at the same horizontal coordinate, 11.905 m, for UL 7.62 to 7.93. Values from Scientific Notebook by Trautz (2001 [DIRS 156903], p. 36). Columns V and W are the vertical distances from the horizontal scanline plane to the ceiling of the niche at the start and end node at the horizontal coordinate T and U, respectively. Values from Scientific Notebook by Trautz (2001 [DIRS 156903], pp. 36, 38, 40, 41). Column X is the interpolated distance to ceiling determined using V and W. X = V + (W - V) × (S - T)/(U - T) except for UL 7.62 to 7.93 where X = V + (W-V) × (0.3-0.2)/0.3 and 0.3 is the distance between nodes (2,12) and (3,12). Y = R - X. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-5 November 2004 Table B-3a. Computation of Liquid Release Flux for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) Based on Niche-Study Data A B C D E F G H Borehole Name Depth (m) Test Name (Input) Liquid- Release Rate Qs (kg/s) Seepage Percentage (y') (%) Computed Cross- Sectional Area A (m2) (Output) Liquid- Release Flux (qs) (m/s) (Output) Liquid- Release Flux (qs) (mm/yr) Test #1 3/4/99 1.4266E-05 0 0.053 2.67E-07 8420 Test #1 4/7/99 9.7304E-05 N/A 0.053 1.82E-06 57430 Test #1 4-27-99 3.9897E-05 5.465 0.053 7.47E-07 23548 Test #1 4-30-99 1.4113E-05 0 0.053 2.64E-07 8330 Test #1 5/6/99 9.0739E-05 47.271 0.053 1.70E-06 53555 Test #1 9-21-99 8.39647E-05 42.975 0.053 1.57E-06 49557 Test #1 9-23-99 8.7576E-05 46.08 0.053 1.64E-06 51689 Test #1 9-27-99 9.0044E-05 59.5915 0.053 1.69E-06 53145 UM 4.88 – 5.18 Test #1 10-11-99 9.03981E-05 70.0857 0.053 1.69E-06 53354 Source: Columns A through E from DTN: LB0010NICH3LIQ.001 [DIRS 153144]. NOTES: Columns F through H computed in Microsoft Excel 2000 spreadsheet using formulae below: F = wetted area of borehole up to return port of packers = [2p - (2Arccosine (d/r))] hr, where d = nominal vertical distance from center of borehole to return port on packer system = 2.54 cm. r = nominal radius of borehole = 3.81 cm = 0.0381 m. h = nominal test interval length = 1 foot = 0.3048 m. G = D × (1000 g/kg)/(1000000 g/m3 × F) = D/(1000 × F), where density of water is assumed to be equal to 1000000 g/m3. H = G × (1000 mm/m) × (86400 s/day) × (365 days/year). UM = upper middle. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-6 November 2004 Table B-3b. Computation of Liquid Release Flux for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 4 (Niche 4788) Based on Niche-Study Data A B C D E F G H Borehole Name Depth (m) Test Name (Input) Liquid-release Rate (Qs) (kg/s) Seepage Percentage (y') (%) Computed Cross-sectional Area A (m2) (Output) Liquid-release Flux (qs) (m/s) (Output) Liquid-release Flux (qs) (mm/yr) Test #1 11/3/99 8.8095E-05 24.159 0.053 1.65E-06 51995 Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 4.9246E-05 17.964 0.053 9.22E-07 29066 Test #1 01-24-00 7.81146E-06 0.0 0.053 1.46E-07 4610 UL 7.62 - 7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 1.91662E-05 14.4488 0.053 3.59E-07 11312 Test #1 Niche 4788 11/16/99 9.16384E-05 35.383 0.053 1.72E-06 54086 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 3.91451E-05 23.405 0.053 7.33E-07 23104 Test #1 02-09-2000 8.819E-06 0.0 0.053 1.65E-07 5205 Test #1 3-10-2000 9.681E-06 0.0 0.053 1.81E-07 5714 Test #1 3-14-2000 8.8479E-06 0.0 0.053 1.66E-07 5222 UM 6.10 - 6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 2.0489E-05 8.5381 0.053 3.83E-07 12093 Test #1 Niche 4788 12/7/99 9.00855E-05 68.6623 0.053 1.69E-06 53170 Test #1 1/5/2000 3.79689E-05 56.4895 0.053 7.11E-07 22410 UR 5.18 - 5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 8.80016E-06 11.092 0.053 1.65E-07 5194 Source: A through E from DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]. NOTES: F through H computed in Excel 2000 spreadsheet using formulae below: F = wetted area of borehole up to return port of packers = [2p - (2Arccosine (d/r))] hr where: d = nominal vertical distance from center of borehole to return port on packer system = 2.54 cm. r = nominal radius of borehole = 3.81 cm = 0.0381 m. h = nominal test interval length = 1 foot = 0.3048 m. G = D × (1000 g/kg)/(1000000 g/m3 × F) = D/(1000 × F), where density of water is assumed = 1000000 g/m3. H = G × (1000 mm/m) × (86400 s/day) × (365 days/year). UL = upper left; UM = upper middle; UR = upper right. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-8 November 2004 Table B-4a. Data Used in Linear Regression Analysis (y' vs. ln qs) A B C D E F G Niche Borehole Name Depth (m) Test Name (Input) Seepage Percentages (y') (%) (Input) Liquid-Release Flux (qs) (m/s) (Output) Natural Log of Liquid-Release Flux (ln(qs)) Test #1 3/4/99 0.0 2.67E-07 -15.136 Test #1 4-27-99 5.5 7.47E-07 -14.108 Test #1 4-30-99 0.0 2.64E-07 -15.147 Test #1 5/6/99 47.3 1.70E-06 -13.286 Test #1 9-21-99 43.0 1.57E-06 -13.364 Test #1 9-23-99 46.1 1.64E-06 -13.321 Test #1 9-27-99 59.6 1.69E-06 -13.294 3 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 10-11-99 70.1 1.69E-06 -13.290 Test #1 11/3/99 24.2 1.65E-06 -13.315 Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 18.0 9.22E-07 -13.897 Test #1 01-24-00 0.0 1.46E-07 -15.738 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 14.4 3.59E-07 -14.841 Test #1 Niche 4788 11/16/99 35.4 1.72E-06 -13.276 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 23.4 7.33E-07 -14.127 Test #1 3-14-2000 0.0 1.66E-07 -15.614 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 8.5 3.83E-07 -14.774 Test #1 Niche 4788 12/7/99 68.7 1.69E-06 -13.293 Test #1 1/5/2000 56.5 7.11E-07 -14.157 4 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 11.1 1.65E-07 -15.619 Source: Columns A through F from Table B-3a and Table B-3b. NOTE: G = ln(F). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-9 November 2004 Table B-4b. Linear Regression Summary (Output) for Niche 3 (Niche 3107) UM 4.88-5.18 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 4500.737 4500.737 27.411 0.002 Residual 6 985.173 164.195 Total 7 5485.910 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% y-intercept of linear regression equation 456.085 80.759 5.647 0.001 258.474 653.695 258.474 653.695 slope of linear regression equation 30.440 5.814 5.236 0.002 16.214 44.667 16.214 44.667 NOTES: All output shown in this table was obtained using Microsoft Excel 2000 built-in Tools/Data analysis/Regression package. Data used in regression analysis are from Table B-4a, where the “y” data are the input seepage percentiles, and the “x” data are the ln(qs). Regression Statistics: R Square = 0.820; Number of Observations = 8. Table B-4c. Linear Regression Summary (Output) for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) UL 7.62-7.93 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 292.815 292.815 26.353 0.036 Residual 2 22.223 11.111 Total 3 315.038 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% y-intercept of linear regression equation 148.119 26.152 5.664 0.030 35.597 260.640 35.597 260.640 Slope of linear regression equation 9.273 1.806 5.133 0.036 1.501 17.045 1.501 17.045 NOTES: All output shown in this table was obtained using Microsoft Excel 2000 built-in Tools/Data analysis/Regression package. Data used in regression analysis are from Table B-4a, where the “y” data are the input seepage percentiles, and the “x” are the ln(qs). Regression Statistics: R Square = 0.929; Number of Observations = 4. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-10 November 2004 Table B-4d. Linear Regression Summary (Output) for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) UM 6.10-6.40 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 724.849 724.849 99.295 0.010 Residual 2 14.600 7.300 Total 3 739.449 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% y-intercept of linear regression equation 243.611 22.798 10.685 0.009 145.517 341.704 145.517 341.704 Slope of linear regression equation 15.697 1.575 9.965 0.010 8.919 22.474 8.919 22.474 NOTES: All output shown in this table was obtained using Microsoft Excel 2000 built-in Tools/Data analysis/Regression package. Data used in regression analysis are from Table B-4a, where the “y” data are the input seepage percentiles, and the “x” data are the ln(qs). Regression Statistics: R Square = 0.980; Number of Observations = 4. Table B-4e. Linear Regression Summary (Output) for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) UR 5.18-5.48 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 1785.798 1785.798 32.263 0.111 Residual 1 55.352 55.352 Total 2 1841.150 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% y-intercept of linear regression equation 410.285 64.381 6.373 0.099 -407.747 1228.317 -407.747 1228.317 Slope of linear regression equation 25.415 4.474 5.680 0.111 -31.438 82.268 -31.438 82.268 NOTES: All output shown in this table was obtained using Microsoft Excel 2000 built-in Tools/Data analysis/Regression package. Data used in regression analysis are from Table B-4a, where the “y” data are the input seepage percentiles, and the “x” data are the ln(qs). Regression Statistics: R Square = 0.970; Number of Observations = 3. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-11 November 2004 Table B-5. Computation of a-Values Based on Niche-Study Data A B C D E F G H I Niche Borehole Name and Depth (m) (Input) Seepage Threshold Flux (Ko *) (m/s) (Input) Saturated Hydraulic conductivity (Kl) (m/s) (Intermediate Output) (Ko * / Kl) (dimensionless) (Intermediate Output) Inverse of Dimensionless Potentials ([.max (s)] –1) (Output) Sorptive Number (a) (m-1) (Output) Capillary Strength (a-1) (m) (Output) Error (%) UL 7.01-7.32 3.55E-06 8.98E-05 NC NC 11.7 0.0855 NC UL 7.62-7.92 9.80E-08 1.51E-04 NC NC 771.9 0.0013 NC UM 4.27-4.57 2.89E-07 2.62E-05 NC NC 44.4 0.0225 NC UM 4.88-5.18 1.03E-06 2.52E-03 NC NC 1225.5 0.0008 NC UM 5.49-5.79 3.50E-07 2.16E-05 NC NC 29.9 0.0334 NC UR 4.27-4.57 1.03E-06 4.08E-05 NC NC 18.8 0.0532 NC UR 4.88-5.18 9.92E-07 9.87E-05 NC NC 48.8 0.0205 NC UR 5.49-5.79 4.31E-06 1.71E-05 NC NC 1.4 0.71 NC UR 6.10-6.40 6.35E-09 3.01E-05 NC NC 2373.7 0.0004 NC 2 UR 6.71-7.01 1.63E-07 2.28E-04 NC NC 699.2 0.0014 NC UL 7.62-7.93 1.16E-07 2.46E-05 4.70E-03 4.70E-03 105.4 0.0095 -3.66E-04 UM 6.10-6.40 1.82E-07 2.45E-04 7.43E-04 7.43E-04 672.3 0.0015 -1.80E-04 4 UR 5.18-5.48 9.75E-08 3.92E-06 2.49E-02 2.49E-02 19.1 0.0523 -9.41E-05 Theoretical limit 521.7 0.0019 NA Source: G for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. NOTE(S): Intermediate computations not performed for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) because they were performed in other technical products using the same formulae shown below. Output shown in table for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) was obtained directly from TDMS except where noted. Source of Column C values: Column H of Table B-4. Source of Column D values: Column K of Table B-4. E = C/D. F = 1/(2 × G + 2 - (1/G)) = [ .max (s)] -1, where .max and s are defined by Equations (84) and (14) in Philip et al. 1989 [DIRS 105743]. In this case, s = 0.5 × a × r = 0.5 × a × 2 = a, since the nominal radius of the niche (r) is approximately 2 m. G = a, sorptive number, where a is selected such that absolute value of Error (i.e., column I) is < 1E-03%. (Theoretical limit) = a = maximum sorptive number = (2*. × g/.)1/2, where . = density of water assumed equal to 1000 kg/m3, g = acceleration of gravity 9.8 m/s2, and . = surface tension of water assumed equal to 0.072 kg/s2. Equation G (theoretical limit) can be derived by substituting the maximum aperture (ßmax) that can sustain a fluid meniscus because of capillary forces (ßmax = (2./.g)1/2) into the capillary height of rise equation 2a-1 = 2./(.gßmax). Expression for ßmax from Wang and Narasimhan 1993 [DIRS 106793]. Expression for capillary height of rise equation from Philip 1989 [DIRS 156974]. H = 1/G = a-1, capillary strength of the porous medium computed for all niches. I = 100 × (E-F)/E. Note that Ko * / Kl = [.max (s)] -1 as noted in Section 3.4 of Philip et al. 1989 [DIRS 105743]. NA = Not applicable NC = Intermediate computations not performed for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) because they were performed in earlier technical products using the same formulae and methods. Output shown in Table for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) was obtained directly from TDMS except where noted. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-12 November 2004 Table B-6. Computed Values of Seepage Threshold Values A B C D E F G H (Output) Kl (mm/yr) (Input) Kl (m/s) (Input) s (dimensionless) (Input) 2s (dimensionless) (Intermediate Output) .max (dimensionless) (Output) [.max] –1 (dimensionless) (Interme -diate Output) Ko * (m/s) (Output) Ko * (mm/yr) 3.154E+01 1.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-13 3.02E-02 4.730E+01 1.500E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-12 4.52E-02 6.307E+01 2.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-12 6.03E-02 9.461E+01 3.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-12 9.05E-02 1.261E+02 4.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-12 1.21E-01 1.577E+02 5.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-12 1.51E-01 1.892E+02 6.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-12 1.81E-01 2.208E+02 7.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-12 2.11E-01 2.523E+02 8.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-12 2.41E-01 2.838E+02 9.000E-09 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-12 2.71E-01 3.154E+02 1.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-12 3.02E-01 4.730E+02 1.500E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-11 4.52E-01 6.307E+02 2.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-11 6.03E-01 9.461E+02 3.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-11 9.05E-01 1.261E+03 4.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-11 1.21E+00 1.577E+03 5.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-11 1.51E+00 1.892E+03 6.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-11 1.81E+00 2.208E+03 7.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-11 2.11E+00 2.523E+03 8.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-11 2.41E+00 2.838E+03 9.000E-08 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-11 2.71E+00 3.154E+03 1.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-11 3.02E+00 4.730E+03 1.500E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-10 4.52E+00 6.307E+03 2.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-10 6.03E+00 9.461E+03 3.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-10 9.05E+00 1.261E+04 4.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-10 1.21E+01 1.577E+04 5.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-10 1.51E+01 1.892E+04 6.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-10 1.81E+01 2.208E+04 7.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-10 2.11E+01 2.523E+04 8.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-10 2.41E+01 2.838E+04 9.000E-07 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-10 2.71E+01 3.154E+04 1.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-10 3.02E+01 4.730E+04 1.500E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-09 4.52E+01 6.307E+04 2.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-09 6.03E+01 9.461E+04 3.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-09 9.05E+01 1.261E+05 4.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-09 1.21E+02 1.577E+05 5.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-09 1.51E+02 1.892E+05 6.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-09 1.81E+02 2.208E+05 7.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-09 2.11E+02 2.523E+05 8.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-09 2.41E+02 2.838E+05 9.000E-06 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-09 2.71E+02 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-13 November 2004 Table B-6. Computed Values of Seepage Threshold Values (Continued) (Output) Kl (mm/yr) (Input) Kl (m/s) (Input) s (dimensionless) (Input) 2s (dimensionless) (Intermediate Output) .max (dimensionless) (Output) [.max] –1 (dimensionless) (Interme -diate Output) Ko * (m/s) (Output) Ko * (mm/yr) 3.154E+05 1.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-09 3.02E+02 4.730E+05 1.500E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-08 4.52E+02 6.307E+05 2.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-08 6.03E+02 9.461E+05 3.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-08 9.05E+02 1.261E+06 4.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-08 1.21E+03 1.577E+06 5.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-08 1.51E+03 1.892E+06 6.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-08 1.81E+03 2.208E+06 7.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-08 2.11E+03 2.523E+06 8.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-08 2.41E+03 2.838E+06 9.000E-05 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-08 2.71E+03 3.154E+06 1.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-08 3.02E+03 4.730E+06 1.500E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-07 4.52E+03 6.307E+06 2.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-07 6.03E+03 9.461E+06 3.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-07 9.05E+03 1.261E+07 4.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-07 1.21E+04 1.577E+07 5.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-07 1.51E+04 1.892E+07 6.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-07 1.81E+04 2.208E+07 7.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-07 2.11E+04 2.523E+07 8.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-07 2.41E+04 2.838E+07 9.000E-04 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-07 2.71E+04 3.154E+07 1.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-07 3.02E+04 4.730E+07 1.500E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.43E-06 4.52E+04 6.307E+07 2.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 1.91E-06 6.03E+04 9.461E+07 3.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 2.87E-06 9.05E+04 1.261E+08 4.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 3.83E-06 1.21E+05 1.577E+08 5.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 4.78E-06 1.51E+05 1.892E+08 6.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 5.74E-06 1.81E+05 2.208E+08 7.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 6.70E-06 2.11E+05 2.523E+08 8.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 7.65E-06 2.41E+05 2.838E+08 9.000E-03 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 8.61E-06 2.71E+05 3.154E+08 1.000E-02 521.7 1043.5 1045.50 9.56E-04 9.56E-06 3.02E+05 NOTE(S): Refer to Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743]) for an explanation of nomenclature. A = B × 1000 mm/m × 86400 s/day × 365 days/year. B = saturated hydraulic conductivity whose values are arbitrarily set in this column to span the range of values measured during air k tests performed at Niche 2 (Niche 3650) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788). C = (Theoretical limit) from bottom of Table B-5, column G. D = 2 × C. E = 2s + 2 -1/s. F = 1/E. G = B × F. H = G × 1000 mm/m × 86400 s/day × 365 days/year. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-14 November 2004 Table B-7. Computation of Estimated Water Potentials Based on Niche-Study Data A B C D E F G Niche Borehole Name and Depth (m) Test Name (Input) Liquid- Release Flux (qs) (m/s) (Input) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Kl) (m/s) (Input) Alpha Value (a) (m-1) (Output) Absolute Value of the Water Potential (.) (m) UL 7.62-7.92 Test #2 1-6-98 9.49E-06 1.51E-04 771.9 3.59E-03 UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 2-12-98 1.89E-06 1.51E-04 771.9 5.68E-03 UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 3-4-98 2.33E-07 1.51E-04 771.9 8.39E-03 UM 4.27-4.57 Test 5 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.78E-05 2.62E-05 44.4 8.26E-03 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 12-3-97 9.42E-06 2.62E-05 44.4 2.30E-02 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 12-3-97 9.47E-06 2.62E-05 44.4 2.29E-02 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 1-7-98 8.82E-07 2.62E-05 44.4 7.64E-02 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 2-10-98 3.09E-07 2.62E-05 44.4 1.00E-01 UM 4.88-5.18 Test 1 Niche 3650 (11-12-97) 5.41E-05 2.52E-03 1225.5 3.13E-03 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 12-4-97 9.49E-06 2.52E-03 1225.5 4.56E-03 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #2 12-5-97 2.70E-06 2.52E-03 1225.5 5.58E-03 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 1-8-98 8.75E-07 2.52E-03 1225.5 6.50E-03 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 3-6-98 2.48E-07 2.52E-03 1225.5 7.53E-03 UM 5.49-5.79 Test 4 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.87E-05 2.16E-05 29.9 1.95E-02 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #2 12-4-97 9.43E-06 2.16E-05 29.9 2.77E-02 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 1-9-98 1.08E-06 2.16E-05 29.9 1.00E-01 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 2-11-98 2.55E-07 2.16E-05 29.9 1.48E-01 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 1-13-98 3.68E-06 2.28E-04 699.2 5.90E-03 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 2-3-98 1.91E-06 2.28E-04 699.2 6.84E-03 2 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 3-5-98 2.48E-07 2.28E-04 699.2 9.76E-03 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11/3/99 1.65E-06 2.46E-05 105.4 2.56E-02 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 9.22E-07 2.46E-05 105.4 3.12E-02 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 3.59E-07 2.46E-05 105.4 4.01E-02 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 01-24-00 1.46E-07 2.46E-05 105.4 4.86E-02 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 11/16/99 1.72E-06 2.45E-04 672.3 7.38E-03 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 7.33E-07 2.45E-04 672.3 8.65E-03 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 3.83E-07 2.45E-04 672.3 9.61E-03 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 3-14-2000 1.66E-07 2.45E-04 672.3 1.09E-02 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 Niche 4788 12/7/99 1.69E-06 3.92E-06 19.1 4.41E-02 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 1/5/2000 7.11E-07 3.92E-06 19.1 8.93E-02 4 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 1.65E-07 3.92E-06 19.1 1.66E-01 NOTES: D for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]; D for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) computed in Table B-3b (G), respectively. E from Table B-4 (K). F from Table B-5 (G). G = ln(D/E)/F; G for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] using same formula. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-15 November 2004 Table B-8. Computation of Estimated Water Content Change Based on Niche-Study Data A B C D E F G Niche Borehole Name and Depth (m) Test Name (Input) Liquid-Release Flux (qs) (m/s) (Input) Arrival Time of Wetting Front at Ceiling (t) (s) (Input) Distance to Ceiling (zp) (m) (Output) Average Water Content Change (.ave - .n) (m3/m3) UL 7.62-7.92 Test #2 1-6-98 9.49E-06 690 0.65 0.0101 UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 2-12-98 1.89E-06 570 0.65 0.0017 UL 7.62-7.92 Test #1 3-4-98 2.33E-07 2610 0.65 0.0009 UM 4.27-4.57 Test 5 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.78E-05 416 0.65 0.0242 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 12-3-97 9.42E-06 1008 0.65 0.0146 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 12-3-97 9.47E-06 514 0.65 0.0075 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #1 1-7-98 8.82E-07 8811 0.65 0.0120 UM 4.27-4.57 Test #2 2-10-98 3.09E-07 13375 0.65 0.0063 UM 4.88-5.18 Test 1 Niche 3650 (11-12-97) 5.41E-05 180 0.65 0.0150 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 12-4-97 9.49E-06 298 0.65 0.0043 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #2 12-5-97 2.70E-06 952 0.65 0.0040 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 1-8-98 8.75E-07 6060 0.65 0.0082 UM 4.88-5.18 Test #1 3-6-98 2.48E-07 21690 0.65 0.0083 UM 5.49-5.79 Test 4 Niche 3650 (11-13-97) 3.87E-05 208 0.65 0.0124 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #2 12-4-97 9.43E-06 420 0.65 0.0061 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 1-9-98 1.08E-06 2750 0.65 0.0046 UM 5.49-5.79 Test #1 2-11-98 2.55E-07 10130 0.65 0.0040 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 1-13-98 3.68E-06 416 0.65 0.0024 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 2-3-98 1.91E-06 626 0.65 0.0018 2 UR 6.71-7.01 Test #1 3-5-98 2.48E-07 4457 0.65 0.0017 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11/3/99 1.65E-06 7057 0.60 0.0193 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 11-30-99 Niche 4788 9.22E-07 3602 0.60 0.0055 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 6-26-2000 3.59E-07 16445 0.60 0.0098 UL 7.62-7.93 Test #1 01-24-00 1.46E-07 45697 0.60 0.0111 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 11/16/99 1.72E-06 16572 0.58 0.0489 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 Niche 4788 12-10-99 7.33E-07 39938 0.58 0.0503 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 06-08-2000 3.83E-07 50190 0.58 0.0331 UM 6.10-6.40 Test #1 3-14-2000 1.66E-07 124800 0.58 0.0355 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 Niche 4788 12/7/99 1.69E-06 4034 0.74 0.0092 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 1/5/2000 7.11E-07 5707 0.74 0.0055 4 UR 5.18-5.48 Test #1 02-14-2000 1.65E-07 24900 0.74 0.0055 Source: D for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. NOTES: D for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) computed in Table B-3b (G). E in hour:minute:second format for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) from DTN: LB0010NICH4LIQ.001 [DIRS 153145]. E conversion from hour:minute:second format to seconds = (hours × 3600) + (minutes × 60) + (seconds in table). E in seconds for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] using same conversion. F for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from Wang (1999 [DIRS 153449], p. 84). F for Niche 4 (Niche 4788) from Table B-2. G = D × E/F for Niche 4 (Niche 4788). G for Niche 2 (Niche 3650) from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] using same formula. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 B-16 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENTAL SOURCE OF DATA ON SEEPAGE TESTS AT NICHE 5 (NICHE 1620) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-1 November 2004 C1. SURVEY DATA Figure C-1 contains as-built slot profiles to supplement Figure 6-36. Source: DTN: MO0107GSC01061.000 [DIRS 155369]. Figure C-1. As-Built Profile Niche #5 Bat-Wing Excavation (Looking in from ECRB) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-2 November 2004 C2. TEST OPERATION AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT Appendix Section C2 contains details of test operation on control equipment. The test operation and control equipment can be categorized into three general functional groups, as follows: 1. Valves and pumps that allow the user to control the direction, speed, and duration of fluid (air and water) movement through the manifolds, transmission lines, and straddle packers. Two pumps were used to control the release rate into the test interval, and valves were used to fill the release reservoir with more water once it was depleted. High-capacity pumps were periodically used to empty the capture reservoirs and return reservoirs, where seepage and return waters, respectively, accumulated during an experiment. 2. Instruments and sensors (including electronic balances, pressure transducers, and water-level sensors) provide system feedback. The operator used feedback from these sensors to manipulate control variables by manually or programmatically changing corresponding process variables. Automated equipment-control software (described in Appendix Section C3) was also used to continually poll these sensors and automatically change process variables (e.g., to start and stop a pump) to effect a change to a corresponding control variable (e.g., the release rate). Once a test was started, it could run for long periods of time without an operator, through use of the automated control routines. 3. The FieldPoint (FP) modular distributed input/output system by National Instruments was used to monitor and control process variables. Several FP modules were used as controllers; such modules allowed the user to open and close valves, start and stop pumps, etc., by means of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) “front panel” controls of the software described in Appendix Section C3. Detailed process control diagrams associated with the test equipment are provided in Figure C-2 (for the injection and return manifolds) and in Figure C-3 (for the capture manifold). The primary components of the test operation and control equipment are Aro solenoid valves, Nupro pneumatic valves, Richway air pinch valves, straddle packers, pumps, Kavlico pressure transducers, Gems water level sensors, and Mettler Toledo balances. Solenoid valves are used to control the flow of compressed air to the pneumatic and pinch valves, and the straddle packers (see Figure C-2 and Figure C-3). An FP control module is used to send a voltage signal to the input terminal of a solenoid valve, which causes the pneumatic or pinch valve to open, and allows compressed air to pass through the pneumatic or pinch valve body. If the solenoid valve is opened while connected to a pneumatic or pinch valve, the air pressure will open or close these valves, depending upon their initial state (i.e., normally open or normally closed). Solenoid valves are also used to directly control the air pressure needed to inflate the rubber glands of the straddle packer (see Figure C-2). Pneumatic and pinch valves are used to control the movement of water through the injection manifold. Water is pumped from the release reservoir (that rests on a Model SG 16001 Mettler Toledo balance (capacity 16.1 kg)), through the release manifold and straddle packers (via In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-3 November 2004 tubing), to the test interval. A change in the pump speed results in a change in the rate at which water is released into the test zone. Two pumps having different pumping speeds (high and low) are used for this purpose: a MASTERFLEX® L/S® variable-speed digital peristaltic pump (0.1 to 340 g/min), and a Scilog piston pump (0.02 to 11 g/min). An FP control module is used to send a 3.5 to 20 mAmp electrical signal to one of the pumps. Depending upon the amperage, the pump speed changes (from 0 percent) to up to 100 percent of the pump’s full-scale output. The balance is used to monitor the rate at which water is pumped into the borehole. When, based on its mass, the release reservoir has been depleted a pneumatic valve is opened on the water supply line to replenish the release reservoir. The release reservoir can be replenished manually, or automatically using equipment-control software. A Gems float switch is used (as a high-water-level indicator in the release reservoir) to close the water supply valve, and to turn off the release pumps (in the event the release reservoir accidentally overfills). The return port and return line connect the test interval, through the straddle packer, to the return manifold and the return reservoir that rests upon another balance (Figure C-2 and Figure C-3). If the pumping rate exceeds the infiltration capacity of the rock, then water will pond in the borehole, and will eventually flow out, through the return line, to the return reservoir that rests upon a second Model SG16001 Mettler Toledo balance. Pneumatic and pinch valves are used to control the movement of liquid through the return manifold and transmission lines. The balance is used to monitor the rate at which water returns, by gravity, to the return reservoir. Once the return reservoir is full (as determined by its mass), a high capacity (0.12–17.0 kg/min.) MASTERFLEX® I/P® variable speed peristaltic pump is used to remove the water from the return reservoir. An FP control module is used to actuate the pump, either manually or automatically (through use of the software listed in Appendix Section C3). Water introduced into the test interval is expected to move from the borehole, through the rock, to the niche ceiling, where it drips into the niche (Figure C-2 and Figure C-3). A capture system (consisting of 0.30-m-wide, 1.20-m-long trays constructed of transparent Lexan® plastic hung from an aluminum frame) was used to collect the water that dripped from the niche ceiling (Figure 6-40). Each plastic tray was approximately 0.2 m deep, and had four separate 0.30-m-by-0.30-m compartments. Each compartment drained (from the bottom, through a pinch valve and associated tubing) to a capture reservoir that rested upon a Model SG16001 Mettler Toledo balance (a third balance, not one of the aforementioned ones). The pinch valve could be opened or closed by closing or opening, respectively, its corresponding solenoid valve. The spatial distribution of seepage was determined by sequentially opening and closing the various pinch valves, and using the capture balance to measure the cumulative water mass collected in a given compartment. Once the capture reservoir was full (as determined by its mass), a second MASTERFLEX® I/P® variable speed peristaltic pump was used to remove the water from the capture reservoir. An FP control module was then used to actuate the pump, either manually, or automatically (through use of the software described in Appendix Section C3). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-4 November 2004 Figure C-2. Process Diagram for the Release and Return Manifolds Used to Control Water Flow to and from the Test Interval Solenoid Valve Pinch Valve Fluid flow (solid) Sensor Feedback (dot) Control (dash) Legend OFF Straddle Packer Injection Pumps Return Reservoir Balance 2 Return Pump Injection Interval Air or Water Drain Compressed Air NI Fieldpoint Equipment Control OFF Release Reservoir Balance 1 Sensor Feedback - Mass - Water Level In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-5 November 2004 Figure C-3. Process Diagram for the Capture Manifold Used to Measure and Control Seepage Collected inside the Niche OFF Capture Reservoir Balance Capture Pump Drain Compressed Air Solenoid Valve Pinch Valve Fluid flow (solid) Sensor Feedback (dot) Control (dash) Legend NI Fieldpoint Equipment Control Seepage into capture trays Sensor Feedback - Mass - Water Level In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-6 November 2004 C3. EQUIPMENT CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION Appendix Section C3 describes software of measuring and testing equipment. The custom-designed test operation was developed for PCs through use of the National Instruments LabVIEW graphical development environment (to control the seepage test equipment), which permitted both manual and automated manipulation (and control) of the test equipment and parameters described in Section C2. LabVIEW V.6 provided a useful equipment and sensor interface. The control (e.g., valve icon of GUI) and indicator (e.g., graph) functions provided in LabVIEW V.6 permitted the user to build custom “virtual instruments” that could be viewed and operated from a PC. The operator interfaces with the equipment either by clicking on GUI icons (that represent the valves, buttons, knobs, etc., that control processes) to generate pop-up windows containing relevant information, or by viewing GUI indicators that display data (through use of such devices as graphs, gauges, and tanks) on the PC. Figure C-4 shows a portion of the front-panel display for “Combined system box.vi,” a virtual instrument used to control valves and monitor test equipment. Figure C-4. Front Panel Display for LabVIEW V.6 Virtual Instrument Showing Example of Equipment Control Parameters Unattended operation and remote access to the automated equipment (both possible because of software functionality) were critical to the success of the seepage tests, because the long duration of the experiments, and the limited access to the equipment during routine (e.g., weekend and holidays) and unexpected (e.g., power failures) closures of the ESF made less-automated methods unfeasible. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-7 November 2004 C4. NICHE 5 (NICHE CD 1620) DATA FILES AND SCIENTIFIC NOTEBOOKS Appendix Section C4 describes the test sequence and provides a list of scientific notebooks. Five sets of data were submitted to the Technical Database Management System (TDMS). Three of the data sets (DTNs: LB0207NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160408], LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160796], and LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]) contain data files (in comma-delimited ASCII format) and are summarized in Table C-1. The remaining data sets, DTN: LB0208NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 161210] and DTN: LB0210NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 161211]), contained preliminary data, and were subsequently superseded by LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160796] and LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792], respectively. Table C-1 also identifies the scientific notebook pages pertinent to each test; the pages provide test-specific details (including the serial number and location of instruments and sensors used during the experiment, test operating conditions, etc.). The names of the electronic files that contain the test data (that were generated through use of the data acquisition equipment and software) are listed in Table C-1. Test data files consist of four types. The three data-file types that include “(seep),” “(smass),” or “(srate)” in their filename contain the seepage-percentage, seep-mass, or seepage-rate data, respectively, from individual capture compartments that fed seepage water to the capture balance(s) during the test (Figure C-2 and Figure C-3). All other test files contain the cumulative mass and rate of water released (Balance 1) and returned (Balance 2), and the total seepage captured (Balance 3 and/or Balance 4), as these were measured by the Mettler Toledo balances that were used during the experiments. As noted in Appendix Section C3, after July 15, 2002, only one balance was used to measure seepage into the niche (i.e., Balance 3), and Balance 4 was used to measure evaporation. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-8 November 2004 Table C-1. Source of Data for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) Source of Data Borehole or Data Description Depth (m) Test Name Start Date End Date Scientific Notebook Filename #2 6.40 - 6.70 Test #1 5-6-02 5/6/2002 5/10/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#2_21-22_ft_5-6-02.csv pp. 154-160, 162-167, 169-171,178-190, 193-196, 199, 201-202, 220, 226-229, and 233) #2 6.10 - 6.40 Test #2 5-17-02 5/17/2002 5/17/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02.csv pp. 154-160, 162-167, 169-171, Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (seep)_#1.csv 178-190, 201-203, 205-208, 220 Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (smass)_#1.csv 226-229, and 233) Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (srate)_#1.csv #5 8.53 - 8.83 Test #1 5-3-02 5/3/2002 5/14/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_#1.csv pp. 154-160, 162-166, 168-178, Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_#2.csv 184-192, 195-202, 220, and 229-233) Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_#3.csv Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_#4.csv Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_(seep).csv Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_(smass).csv Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_5-3-02_(srate).csv #5 8.53 - 8.83 Test #2 5-16-02 5/16/2000 5/31/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02.csv pp. 154-160, 162-166, 168-178, Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(seep)_#1.csv 184-190, 201-222, and 226-234) Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(seep)_#2.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(seep)_#3.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(seep)_#4.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(smass)_#1.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(smass)_#2.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(smass)_#3.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(smass)_#4.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(srate)_#1.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(srate)_#2.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(srate)_#3.csv Test#2_b5_28-29_ft_5-16-02_(srate)_#4.csv Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02.csv Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (seep)_#1.csv Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (seep)_#2.csv In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-9 November 2004 Table C-1. Source of Data for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (Continued) Source of Data Borehole or Data Description Depth (m) Test Name Start Date End Date Scientific Notebook Filename #5 8.53 - 8.83 Test #2 5-16-02 5/16/2000 5/31/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (seep)_#3.csv pp. 154-160, 162-166, 168-178, Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (smass)_#1.csv 184-190, 201-222, and 226-234) Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (smass)_#2.csv Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (smass)_#3.csv Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (srate)_#1.csv Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (srate)_#2.csv Test#2_BH#2_20-21_ft_5-17-02 (srate)_#3.csv Evaporation pan data (Pre-tests.) 12/7/2000 12/12/2000 Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], Evap Niche CD1620 12-7-00.csv 2/7/2001 2/8/2001 pp. 90-91, 116-117, 120, 130-131, Evap Niche CD1620 start2-07-01.csv 2/21/2001 4/2/2001 156-157, 195, and 298-299) Evap Niche CD1620 start 2-21-01.csv 4/2/2001 4/3/2001 Evap Niche CD1620 start 4-02-01.csv 7/12/2001 8/25/2001 Evap Niche CD1620 start 7-12-01.csv Evaporation pan data (All tests.) 5/2/2002 5/3/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], N5 Evap inside start 5-2-02.csv 5/6/2002 5/10/2002 pp. 187, 192, 193, 198, 199, 203, N5 Evap inside start 5-6-02.csv 5/10/2002 6/13/2002 220, 223, 226-230, and 233) N5_Evap_inside_start_5-10-02.csv 5/2/2002 5/3/2002 N5 Evap out start 5-2-02.csv 5/6/2002 6/13/2002 N5_Evap_out_start 5-6-02.csv Relative humidity and (Pre-tests.) 12/7/2000 12/21/2000 Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 156903], N51-23.csv temperature inside niche 1/23/2001 2/26/2001 p. 47.) N52-26.csv 2/26/2001 3/21/2001 and N53-21.csv 3/21/2001 3/22/2001 Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], N54-3-01.csv 3/22/2001 4/3/2001 pp. 90-91, 116, 134-135, 143, 158, N54-3.csv 7/12/2001 7/24/2001 190-195, 219-221, and 298-299) N57-24.csv 7/24/2001 8/25/2001 N58-25.csv 8/25/2001 9/12/2001 N59-12.csv Relative humidity and (All tests.) 5/2/2002 5/6/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], N5_RH-T-P_5-6-02.csv temperature inside and outside 5/2/2002 5/9/2002 pp. 162-164, 170-171, 186, 188-190, N5_RH-T-p_5-9-02.csv niche, and liquid 5/2/2002 5/22/2002 192, 197, 210, 220-222, 226-230, N5_RH-T-p_5-22-02.csv pressure in release lines 5/2/2002 6/3/2002 and 233) N5_RH-T-p_6-3-02.csv #3 6.40-6.70 Test#1 7-16-02 7/16/2002 8/14/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1.csv pp. 154-159, 162-164, 170-183, 201, Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1 (seep).csv 239-258, 262-273, and 297-301) Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1 (smass).csv Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1 (srate).csv In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-10 November 2004 Table C-1. Source of Data for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (Continued) Source of Data Borehole or Data Description Depth (m) Test Name Start Date End Date Scientific Notebook Filename #3 6.40-6.70 Test #1 8-14-02 8/14/2002 8/26/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1.csv pp. 154-159, 162-164, 170-183, 201, Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1 (seep).csv 239-258, 273-285, and 297-301) Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1 (smass).csv Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1 (srate).csv Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2.csv Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2 (seep).csv Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2 (smass).csv Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2 (srate).csv #5 8.53-8.83 Test #1 7-15-02 7/15/2002 8/26/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1.csv pp.154-159, 162-164, 170-183, 201, Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1_(seep).csv 239-262, 267-273, 275-285. Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1_(smass).csv and 297-301) Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1_(srate).csv Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2.csv Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2 (seep).csv Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2 (smass).csv Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2 (srate).csv (Pre-tests.) 7/2/2002 7/3/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], N5_Evap_inside_start_7-2-02.csv 7/3/2002 7/15/2002 pp. 242, 244-246, 260, 263, N5_Evap_inside_start_7-3-02.csv 6/27/2002 7/3/2002 and 272-273) N5_Evap_out_start 6-27-02.csv Evaporation pan data inside and outside Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 7/3/2002 7/16/2002 N5_Evap_out_start_7-3-02.csv Evaporation pan (During tests.) 7/15/2002 7/15/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#1.csv data inside and outside 7/15/2002 8/26/2002 pp. 240-241, 247-250, 258, 260, 263, Test#1_b5_28-29_ft_7-15-02_#2.csv Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) 7/16/2002 8/12/2002 265, 272-274, 281-282, and 283-285) Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_7-16-02_#1.csv 8/13/2002 8/14/2002 Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-13-02_#1.csv 8/14/2002 8/22/2002 Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#1.csv 8/23/2002 8/26/2002 Test#1_BH#3_21-22_ft_8-14-02_#2.csv Relative humidity and (All tests.) 7/3/2002 8/19/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], N5_RH-T-p_8-19-02.csv temperature inside and pp. 162-164, 170-171, 186, 188-190, outside niche, and liquid 220-222, 224-226, 239-243, 245, pressure in release lines 278, 280-281, and 297-299) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-11 November 2004 Table C-1. Source of Data for Post-Excavation Seepage Tests at Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) (Continued) Source of Data Borehole or Data Description Depth (m) Test Name Start Date End Date Scientific Notebook Filename #4 6.40-6.70 Test#1 9-17-02 9/17/2002 10/1/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv pp.154-159, 162-163, 165, 170-183, Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1a_(seep).csv 243-245, 284, and 287) Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1a_(smass).csv and Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1a_(srate).csv Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#2_(seep).csv pp. 14-15, 18-41, 54-56, 61-62, and 65) Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#2_(smass).csv Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#2_(srate).csv #4 6.40-6.70 Test #1 10-1-02 10/1/2002 10/28/2002 Trautz 2003 [DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv pp.154-159, 162-163, 165, 170-183, 243-245, 284, and 287. Trautz 2001 [DIRS 161208], pp. 14-15, 18-40, 42-60, 63-66. #5 8.53-8.83 Test #2 9-17-02 9/17/2002 10/28/2002 Trautz 2003 [DIRS 166248], Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 (seep).csv pp.154-159, 162-163, 165, 170-183, Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 (smass).csv 243-245, 284, 286-287. Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#2 (srate).csv and Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1a (seep).csv pp. 14-17, 20-41, 43-47, 49-53, 55-62, Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1a (smass).csv 65, and 67) Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1a (srate).csv Evaporation pan (All tests.) 9/17/2002 10/28/2002 Trautz 2003 ([DIRS 166248], Test#1_BH#4_10-11_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv data inside and outside pp. 240-241, 247-250, 260, 263, 265, Test#2_b5_20-21_ft_9-17-02_#1.csv 272-274, 281-282, and 283-285) Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], Niche 5 (Niche CD 1620) pp. 14-19, 28, 41-42, 45-46, 55-56, and 59) Relative humidity and (All tests.) 8/20/2002 9/18/2002 Trautz 2003 [DIRS 166248], N5_RH-T-p_9-18-02.csv temperature inside and 9/18/2002 10/18/2002 pp. 162-164, 170-171, 186, 188-190, 221- N5_RH-T-p_10-18-02.csv outside niche, and liquid 10/18/2002 10/29/2002 222, 224-225, 239-243, 245, 280-281. N5_RH-T-p_10-29-02.csv pressure in release lines Trautz 2001 ([DIRS 161208], pp. 16, 18,20, 52, and 54-56) Source: DTN: LB0207NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160408], native data file Niche CD1620 data sources: rev 8-9-02.xls. DTN: LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160796], native data file Niche CD1620 data sources: rev 9-13-02 #2.xls. DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792], native data file Niche CD1620 data sources: rev 11-15-02.xls. NOTE: csv file extension = comma delimited ASCII formatted file. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 C-12 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 APPENDIX D SEEPAGE PARAMETER EVALUATION In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-1 November 2004 D1. APPROACH TO EVALUATION SEEPAGE PARAMETERS Appendix Section D1 describes the approach used to determine seepage parameters. In liquid-release tests for seepage quantification, the saturated conductivities are estimated from air permeability values, the fracture capillarities are estimated from the seepage threshold fluxes, and the water potentials are estimated for the flow paths from the liquid-release interval to the niche ceiling. The following paragraphs discuss the approach used to derive the seepage parameters. Permeability is an intrinsic parameter that characterizes the resistance (to flow) of the rock medium. Where laboratory test conditions include a well-defined unidirectional flow path through a core specimen, the permeability value is independent of the liquid used in the measurement. In the field conditions associated with localized injections, the flow path followed by the air is different from the flow path followed by the liquid. The following approximations, together with the detailed evaluation in Appendix Section D2, describe the relationship between air permeability and liquid permeability in the niche seepage tests: For locally saturated conditions (such as those found in the immediate vicinity of a liquid-filled borehole interval), the saturated permeability to liquid flow is approximately equal to the permeability measured in air-injection tests; the saturated liquid flux is estimated from the measured air-permeability value and the wetted area of the borehole, as described in Appendix Section D2. The estimations of saturated liquid permeability are evaluated in Appendix Section D2 through use of available data collected in the niche studies. The evaluation compares the estimated flux values with measured flux values from cases that included evidence that the tested borehole intervals were saturated (as determined by return flow during injection). Where liquid flow occurs primarily through fractures below the borehole interval (as a result of pressure-gradient-driven gravity drainage and air flow into fractures around the borehole interval), the liquid permeability and air permeability represent the effective values of different fracture flow paths. The evaluation of the difference between liquid permeability and air permeability is documented in Appendix Section D2, where it is shown that the saturated liquid permeability is within one order of magnitude of the air permeability. Gravity-driven flow is considered the primary flow mechanism in fractures with weak capillarity, and liquid fracture flow is described by Darcy's law. Under unsaturated conditions, capillary forces and gravity are the driving mechanisms for flow. Because fracture apertures are much larger than tuff matrix pores, capillarity has much less of an effect on liquid fracture flow than does the effect of gravity. This difference in effects justifies the neglect of fracture capillarity, and the use of gravity gradient, to estimate flux. The small fracture capillarity is evaluated in Section 6.2.2.2. Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743]) developed an analytical solution that describes the conditions under which water flows from an unsaturated porous medium into a buried cylindrical cavity. The solution is used in Section 6.2.2.2 to compute the sorptive number, a, a hydraulic parameter that is related to the strength of the capillary forces exerted by the porous medium. In the approach taken by Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], pp. 16–18), the approximation of steady downward flow of water through a homogeneous, isotropic, unsaturated porous medium is used. Far from the cavity, the flow velocity is spatially uniform. The flow region is considered infinite In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-2 November 2004 in extent. These conditions underlie the derivation of Philip's capillary barrier solution. Furthermore, Philip et al. (1989 [DIRS 105743], Section 1.5, p. 17) note that the requirement for homogeneity is relatively weak. Analytic solutions are generally derived, in most cases, with simplified descriptions and approximations regarding the flow domain in the surrounding medium. Results derived from an analytic solution represent effective values. The description, evaluation, and justification of Philip's capillary barrier solution are presented in Section 6.2.2.2. Braester (1973 [DIRS 106088]) derived a time-dependent solution for the average volumetric-water-content distribution in a porous medium, where water is released from a surface source of constant flux. This solution is described, and used to estimate the volumetric water content of the fractures, in Section 6.2.2.3. The following simplifications were used by Braester (1973 [DIRS 106088]) to derive the solution; a one-dimensional (1-D) formulation of Richards’ equation, which includes both gravity- and capillary-driven components of flow, is used to describe flow through an unsaturated porous medium: The 1-D flow approximation can be evaluated and justified by: 1. the weak fracture capillarity values described in Section 6.2.2.2, 2. the roughly 1-D flow paths observed during niche excavation described in Section 6.2.1.2, and 3. the limited spatial spread of seepage fluxes observed during post-excavation seepage tests described in Section 6.2.1.3.1. The downward translation of a wetted profile is at constant velocity. The average value of the water content at the infiltrating surface over time is considered by Braester (1973 [DIRS 106088], p. 688) to be equal to the average value of water content over the wetted depth. This approximation becomes valid if the solution of water content takes the form of a downward translation of the entire wetted profile at constant velocity. In general, this would occur after the capillary forces near the source have diminished, and the volumetric water content at the soil surface reaches its steady-state limit, with the gravity gradient driving the liquid flux. The times required to reach steady state, and the evaluations of this requirement( of downward translation of wetted profiles at constant velocity), are also discussed in Appendix Section D3. D2. COMPARISON OF LIQUID AND AIR-DERIVED SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES Appendix Section D2 discusses estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity using air-permeability (referred to in Section 6.2.2.1, in discussion of seepage thresholds). The liquid-release rate, Qs [kg/s] measured during each test (Section 6.2.1.3.1) was converted to a liquid-release flux, qs [m/s], using the following equation: w s s A Q q . = (Eq. D-1) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-3 November 2004 where A [m2] is the cross-sectional area of flow, and .w [kg/m3] is the density of water (set at 1000 kg/m3). The qs data are tabulated in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] for the seepage tests conducted at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). The cross-sectional area was derived from the water level that could rise to a maximum elevation of 0.0635 m in the borehole (an elevation equivalent to the maximum ponding depth within the borehole). The ponding depth is controlled by the elevation of the liquid-return line, which prevents the buildup of excess pressure in the test interval by allowing water to flow from the test interval to the surface. If water rises to the level of the return line, then wetted area A is less than the surface area of the entire test interval, and equal to that portion of the curved surface area of a right circular cylinder lying below the water line as follows (Selby 1975 [DIRS 106143], pp. 12, 16): ( ) ( ) [ ] r h r d A / Arccosine 2 2 - = p (Eq. D-2) where d = the vertical distance from the center of the cylinder to the water line (0.0254 m). r = the radius of the borehole (0.0381 m). h = the test interval length (0.3048 m). With these parameters, the cross-sectional area of flow A is equal to 5.343 × 10-2 m2. With the approach described in Appendix Section D1, estimates of the saturated hydraulic conductivity for liquid flow through the fractured porous medium were obtained by equating the air permeability (k) (derived from the air-injection tests) with the water permeability (kl) of the porous medium. In turn, kl is related to the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kl) of a porous medium through the functional relation defined by Darcy’s law (Freeze and Cherry 1979 [DIRS 101173], p. 27, Equation (2.28)): µ . g k K w l l = (Eq. D-3) where g [m/s2] is the acceleration of gravity and µ [Pa·s] is the viscosity of water. Air-permeability values reported in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583] were converted to the equivalent saturated hydraulic conductivity values (Kl ˜ Kair-sat) reported in DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] as shown in the Scientific Notebook by Wang (1999 [DIRS 153449], p. 38). This conversion permitted a comparison of the Kair-sat values to the qs values, which are also summarized in DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. The qs values were computed using Equation D-1 and: 1. the liquid-release rates (Qs) from the pre-excavation tests performed at Niche 1 (Niche 3566) and Niche 2 (Niche 3650) (DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]), In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-4 November 2004 2. the pre-excavation tests performed at Niche 3 (Niche 3107) and Niche 4 (Niche 4788) (DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]), and 3. the post-excavation seepage tests from Niche 2 (Niche 3650) (DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]).1 Under slightly ponded conditions in the borehole (i.e., saturated conditions), qs may initially exceed the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the test interval during the early stages of the test. During the later stages of the test, gravity-driven flow will dominate, a unit hydraulic gradient will be established near the borehole wall in the porous material, and qs will approach Kl for the interval. Based on the approach described in Appendix Section D1, gravity-driven flow is considered the primary flow mechanism in the fracture systems tested at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). Therefore, it is expected that capillary effects are short-lived and, for all practical purposes, the qs for a given interval can be considered equal to Kl. Theoretically, qs can exceed Kl if water ponds to a significant depth or is injected under high pressure, creating a steep hydraulic gradient within the porous material near the borehole wall. However, the packer system used in the seepage tests was designed so that water could not pond more than 0.0635 m, to prevent return flow to the surface from occurring. Return flow provided direct evidence that the liquid pumping rate exceeded the infiltration capacity of the test interval, implying that qs = Kl, which in turn should equal Kair-sat (using the approximation that Kair-sat is a reasonable estimate of Kl). The Kair-sat and qs values (from DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]) of those tests that exhibited return flow are plotted in Figure C-1, which also includes a solid line that represents the relation Kair-sat = Kl = qs. A data point located above the solid line indicates that Kair-sat can have a value that is greater than Kl, and a data point below the solid line indicates that Kair-sat can have a value that is less than Kl. The data values are expected to fall on the Kair-sat = qs line if air-permeability and liquid-release tests are directly correlated. Figure D-1 indicates that the data points are equally distributed above and below the Kair sat = qs line, and that the majority of points fall within a factor of 10 of Kair-sat = qs. Therefore, the equivalent saturated hydraulic conductivity derived from the air-injection tests appears to approximately characterize the saturated hydraulic conductivity represented by qs. The scattering of the individual data points around the line is a measure of estimations, approximations, and experimental uncertainties that have been simplified during the process of relating airflow processes to liquid-flow processes. 1 The entire cross-sectional area of the borehole was used to compute the air-permeability values reported in DTN: LB980001233124.002 [DIRS 136583] because gravitational effects on air are negligible and, thus, the entire cross-sectional area of the borehole is typically available for airflow. A smaller wetted area, as calculated by Equation D-2, was used to compute the liquid-release flux values. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-5 November 2004 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 Liquid Release Flux, qs (m/s) Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity, Kair-sat (m/s) Pre Niche 3566 Test Pre Niche 3650 Test Post Niche 3650 Tes Pre Niche 3107 Test Pre Niche 3650 Test Pre Niche 4788 Test 1:1 Liq. K = Air K Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. NOTE: The thin lines indicate one order of magnitude above and below the line indicating equivalence between liquid and air conductivity. Figure D-1. Comparison of Liquid and Air-Derived Saturated Hydraulic Conductivities D3. WATER-CONTENT PROFILE EVALUATION D3.1 EVALUATION OF APPROXIMATION OF ONE-DIMENSIONAL (1-D) FLOW Appendix Section D3 describes water-content-profile evaluation (referred to in Section 6.2.2.3, in discussion on use of water-content information to estimate water-retention curves in fractures). Large a-values calculated in Section 6.2.2.2 indicate that gravity-driven flow predominates in the fractures tested at Niche 2 (Niche 3650). Although the large a-values alone do not collectively imply that flow is strictly 1-D, they do imply limited lateral spreading of the wetting front in the fractures, because capillary forces will probably be negligible during the early stages of liquid release. Once the wetting front arrives at the niche ceiling, however, capillary forces become very important as water saturations begin to increase because of the capillary barrier, resulting in water being diverted laterally around the cavity. Therefore, flow will change from 1-D to 2-D or 3-D once the wetting front arrives at the ceiling. This implies that the .ave values calculated using Braester’s model are no longer valid after the wetting front arrives at the niche ceiling. Field observations made during the pre-excavation liquid release and post-excavation seepage tests provide evidence that flow is roughly 1-D. Figure 6-25 shows that the average aspect ratio (i.e., the ratio of depth to lateral distance traveled by the wetting front) is slightly less than 2 for the tests that represent fracture networks, and approximately 4.5 for the high-angle fracture data. This implies that, for a 0.65-m travel distance, lateral spreading is expected to be, on average, In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-6 November 2004 within 0.32 m of the borehole in the fractured network case, and within 0.15 m in the near-vertical fracture case. An average angle of wetting-front migration from the vertical can be defined as Arctan(0.32/0.65)=26°. This analysis is further supported by two field observations made during the post-excavation seepage tests as described in Section 6.2.1.3.1: 1. the majority of water was typically captured in only one or two 0.305-m-by-0.305-m cells located directly beneath the test interval, and 2. the wetting front typically arrived at the niche ceiling directly below the test zone. D3.2 EVALUATION OF APPROXIMATION OF DOWNWARD TRANSLATION OF THE WETTED PROFILE AT CONSTANT VELOCITY During infiltration tests, the liquid-release rate approaches an asymptotic value equal to the hydraulic conductivity as time progresses. Moreover, steady moisture conditions are established rather rapidly in the vicinity of the source, typically with a geometric mean of 1.7 hours when water is introduced at a water potential equal to or greater than zero (White and Sully 1987 [DIRS 106152], pp. 1514, 1521). In the liquid-release tests considered here, water was often introduced at a flux that was much lower than the saturated hydraulic conductivity, which led to conditions that were significantly different from those underlying the previous conclusion. Consequently, the solution for unsteady multidimensional infiltration developed by Philip (1986 [DIRS 106133], p. 1725) and summarized by White and Sully (1987 [DIRS 106152], p. 1521) is used to determine the time to steady moisture conditions (which checks the validity of the approach presented in Appendix Section D1, on downward translation of a wetting profile at constant velocity, and determines whether the volumetric water contents presented in Section 6.2.2.3 were derived through use of an appropriate model). Philip (1986 [DIRS 106133]) developed an analytical solution for unsteady 2-D unsaturated flow from a buried horizontal cylinder into an infinitely porous medium of uniform initial water content .n . This solution is also assumed to be valid for flow through unsaturated, fractured media. Richards’ equation was linearized through the introduction of a diffusivity constant, D (Philip 1986 [DIRS 106133], Equation (1)), and an exponential relation between hydraulic conductivity and water potential (see Equation 6-4 in Section 6.2.2.2). Philip (1986 [DIRS 106133], p. 1719) found that, regardless of the cavity shape and dimensionality of the flow field, the solution for dimensionless potential ( . ) is approximately reducible to the product of the steady solution ( .8) and G (the degree of approach to the steady moisture condition, .8). Initially, G is zero everywhere (Philip 1986 [DIRS 106133], Figure 1); it approaches a value of 1 rapidly near the source, and slowly far from the source and at very large dimensionless times. The unsteady solution approaches the steady solution as G approaches a value of 1 everywhere. Using the same approach that Philip used for a spherical source (Philip 1986 [DIRS 106133], Section 8, p. 1725), the time required (tD 95%) to obtain 95 percent of the steady-state moisture conditions (that is, G = 0.95) for flow from a buried horizontal cylinder was computed. This time was calculated for a point slightly outside the borehole (rD = 1.1), and for a point on the niche ceiling (rD = 17.1 = 0.65 m / 0.0381 m). The details of the analysis can be found in Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-JSW-6c (Wang 1999 [DIRS 153449], pp. 85–91) and the tD 95% In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-7 November 2004 values are tabulated in DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592] for each group of tests where seepage was observed. The dimensional time (t95%) at which the moisture profile reaches 95 percent of its steady value can be calculated using tD 95% (Philip 1986 [DIRS 106133], p. 1718, Equation (15)). The details of the analysis can be found in the Scientific Notebook by Wang (1999 [DIRS 153449], pp. 91-92) and the t95% values are tabulated in Table D-1 and DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592], along with the arrival time of the wetting front at the niche ceiling. Examination of the t95% values in Table D-1 indicates that, for all the tests, near-steady-state moisture conditions (i.e., constant .) are reached near the borehole wall within 6 minutes (344 s) of the start of the test, and before pumping ceased (pumping times are tabulated in DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]). In addition, for all tests of individual fractures or small groups of vertical fractures, the observed time to the arrival of the wetting front was similar to the calculated t95% for rD = 17.1; and, for all tests (except Test #2 in borehole UR), the observed time to the arrival of the wetting front was between 59 percent and 71 percent of the calculated t95% for rD = 17.1. This similarity between the observed and estimated wetting-front travel times supports the approximation (used in Section 6.2.2.3) that downward translation of the wetting profile is at constant velocity. That is, qs approached the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the fractured media, which resulted in the downward migration of the wetted profile at a constant velocity within the time limit of each test. In addition, in all cases, steady-state moisture conditions are obtained near the borehole prior to the arrival of the wetting front. After the wetting front has arrived at the ceiling, the moisture conditions again begin to change near the release borehole, as the water saturation increases because of the capillary barrier. Based on this analysis, the use of Equation 6-9 in Section 6.2.2.3 (to estimate the change of volumetric water contents) appears to be reasonable. Table D-1. Time to Steady-State Moisture Conditions Time to Steady State1 Borehole Test Name Test Date Test Interval (m) rD = 1.1 (hr) rD = 17.1 (hr) Wetting Front2 Arrival Time (hr) Fracture Networks Test #1 1-15-98 1/15/98 4.88 - 5.18 0.0129 0.691 0.497 UR Test #1 2-6-98 2/6/98 4.88 - 5.18 0.0317 1.696 1.221 Test #1 12-10-97 12/10/97 7.01 - 7.32 0.0012 0.127 0.067 UL Test #1 1-6-98 1/6/98 7.01 - 7.32 0.0160 1.740 0.914 Test #1 1-14-98 1/14/98 4.27 - 4.57 0.0200 1.580 0.936 UR Test #1 2-5-98 2/5/98 4.27 - 4.57 0.0590 4.650 2.753 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 D-8 November 2004 Table D-1. Time to Steady-State Moisture Conditions (Continued) Time to Steady State1 Borehole Test Name Test Date Test Interval (m) rD = 1.1 (hr) rD = 17.1 (hr) Wetting Front2 Arrival Time (hr) Fracture Networks (Continued) Test 5 Niche 3650 11/13/97 4.27 - 4.57 0.0030 0.163 0.116 Test 5 Niche 3650 12/3/97 4.27 - 4.57 0.0072 0.396 0.280 Test #2 12-3-97 12/3/97 4.27 - 4.57 0.0037 0.202 0.143 Test #1 1-7-98 1/7/98 4.27 - 4.57 0.0630 3.458 2.448 UM Test #2 2-10-98 2/10/98 4.27 - 4.57 0.0957 5.249 3.700 Test 4 Niche 3650 11/13/97 5.49 - 5.79 0.0014 0.088 0.058 Test #2 12-4-97 12/4/97 5.49 - 5.79 0.0028 0.178 0.117 Test #1 1-9-98 1/9/98 5.49 - 5.79 0.0186 1.164 0.764 UM Test #1 2-11-98 2/11/98 5.49 - 5.79 0.0684 4.289 2.800 Test #2 1-13-98 1/13/98 5.49 - 5.79 0.0005 0.527 0.150 UR Test #2 2-10-98 2/10/98 5.49 - 5.79 0.0002 0.224 0.064 Individual or Small Groups of Vertical Fractures Test 1 Niche 3650 11/12/97 4.88 - 5.18 0.0007 0.051 0.050 Test #1 12-4-97 12/4/97 4.88 - 5.18 0.0011 0.085 0.083 Test #2 12-5-97 12/5/97 4.88 - 5.18 0.0035 0.272 0.264 Test #1 1-8-98 1/8/98 4.88 - 5.18 0.0225 1.729 1.683 UM Test #1 3-6-98 3/6/98 4.88 - 5.18 0.0807 6.189 6.025 Test #1 1-13-98 1/13/98 6.71 - 7.01 0.0018 0.122 0.116 Test #1 2-3-98 2/3/98 6.71 - 7.01 0.0027 0.184 0.174 UR Test #1 3-5-98 3/5/98 6.71 - 7.01 0.0195 1.307 1.238 Test #2 1-6-98 1/6/98 7.62 - 7.92 0.0029 0.201 0.192 Test #1 2-12-98 2/12/98 7.62 - 7.92 0.0024 0.166 0.158 UL Test #1 3-4-98 3/4/98 7.62 - 7.92 0.0111 0.761 0.725 Test #2 1-14-98 1/14/98 6.10 - 6.40 0.0030 0.267 0.267 UR Test #1 2-4-98 2/4/98 6.10 - 6.40 0.0116 1.046 1.043 NOTES: 1 Source: DTN: LB980901233124.003 [DIRS 105592]. 2 Source: DTN: LB980001233124.004 [DIRS 136583]. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 APPENDIX E LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF RETARDATION AND FRONT SEPARATION In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-1 November 2004 E1. WATER IMBIBITION LABORATORY TESTS Laboratory analyses described in this appendix pertain to dyed samples collected from the niches, and core samples for tracer retardation and front separation measurements. Rock cores 5.08 cm in diameter and 2.0 cm in length were used for the imbibition experiments, to examine tracer penetration into the unsaturated rock matrix. Cores were cut and machined from a clean sample block that was taken from the same stratigraphic unit as the niche locations in which tracer release tests were conducted. Porosity, bulk-density, and particle-density measurements were based on the core dry weight (dried at 60°C). Partial saturation of cores was achieved by equilibrating cores within relative humidity chambers controlled by various saturated brines and/or water, until they reached constant weights. Cores with two different levels of initial water saturation (Sw) (approximately 15 percent and 80 percent) were used to investigate and compare tracer penetration behavior with respect to saturation levels. The core was hung inside a humidity-controlled chamber, with the core bottom submerged (to a depth of approximately 1 mm) in a water reservoir containing tracers. The core weight gain was continuously recorded by a data acquisition system. The water contained approximately 10 g/L LiBr, 1 g/L FD&C Blue No. 1, and 1 g/L Sulpho Rhodamine B. These tracers were selected to compare the behavior of nonreactive bromide to the behavior of the dyes used in the field tracer work. The study was designed to simulate the imbibition and penetration of tracers into the matrix from a continuously flowing fracture. After a predetermined period of time (approximately 16 to 20 hours), the core was lifted out of the reservoir, and the moisture front was examined. Rock sampling was immediately conducted as described In Section E2. E2. ROCK SAMPLING AND TRACER EXTRACTION The cuttings obtained by drilling into tracer-stained rock samples to a specified depth were collected and eluted, and the supernatant was analyzed to profile tracer location and concentration. A mill (Bridgeport Series II) (Hu 1999 [DIRS 156540], pp. 37–38) was used for drilling. The rock sample was immobilized on the working platform, and, except for the area to be drilled, the rock surface was covered with tape. A series of drill bits of different sizes (with flat-bottom, carbide-end mill cutters) were used to sample different depths of the same area of the sample. The largest drill bit was used for the rock-surface drilling, and the bit size gradually decreased with increased drilling depth, to minimize carry-over powder contamination from previous depths. A tube was placed around the carbide-end mill cutter to reduce powder loss and to maximize sample recovery. The drilling was carried out slowly and steadily, in 1-mm increments; a Mitutoyo digital caliper (precision 0.01 mm) was used to measure the increments. A stainless steel needle (attached to a stainless steel filter holder, connected to a vacuum source) was used to collect drill cuttings at each 1-mm increment. The vacuum intensity was tested and adjusted before samples were collected. Two pieces of cellulose nitrate membrane (with a membrane pore size of 0.45 µm) were used inside the filter holder, to trap the sample powder. (The powder was suctioned and trapped into the collection device by pointing the needle at the drilled hole, and applying the vacuum.) Collected cuttings were transferred to an amber-glass vial before tracer extraction occurred. Before drilling the next interval, the drilled hole was In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-2 November 2004 cleaned using an air stream just strong enough to remove any powder that might be left from the collection, and the cutter was cleaned with premoistened wipes and dried with a gentle air stream. Laboratory samples, and three dye-stained field-sample rocks that had a flat face, were selected for rock drilling (the flat surfaces with dye stains were approximated to be fracture surfaces of active flow paths induced by dye-water releases). No visible fracture coatings were observed on the three field samples. For the laboratory studies, samples of cylinder-shaped machined cores were taken from both the top and bottom of the core. Samples were taken first from the top, which was the cleaner side (i.e., it was the core side that was not in physical contact with liquid), to 16 mm. Samples were then taken from the bottom, to 10 mm. This sampling scheme allowed a comparison and evaluation of powder contamination of the drilling method. Drilling from the two sides was conducted so that the drill holes did not intersect each other. Dye tracers were extracted from the drill cuttings into the aqueous phase by mixing (nominally for 15 seconds) 5 mL Nanopure water with 0.1 g of powder sample, at the speed of 1,400 rpm. The mixture was then filtered, and the concentration of the tracer in the clear aqueous phase was measured. Either a Gelman Supor® hydrophilic polyethersulfone membrane filter or a Whatman cellulose nitrate membrane was used for the filtration. Testing showed negligible mass loss to both membranes for FD&C Blue No. 1 and Sulpho Rhodamine B. Extraction efficiency was evaluated by spiking a known amount of tracers into the rock powder (less than 104 µm fraction) for one day. The results showed an extraction efficiency of: • 98.0 ± 4.6 percent (average plus and minus standard deviation, 5 replicates) for bromide. • 94.1 ± 3.8 percent for FD&C Blue No. 1 (6 replicates). • 55.2 ± 0.7 percent for Sulpho Rhodamine B (7 replicates). The extraction procedure was not designed to be exhaustive for the maximum mass extraction. Relative comparisons with identical procedures were used in this study. E3. MEASUREMENT OF AQUEOUS TRACER CONCENTRATION The aqueous concentration of FD&C Blue No. 1 dye was measured using a UV/vis Spectrophotometer (Hitachi, Model U-2001) at the characteristic wavelength of 630 nm. Sulpho Rhodamine B concentration was measured using a Spectrofluorophotometer (Shimadzu, Model RF-1501) at the excitation wavelength of 565 nm and emission wavelength of 590 nm. Depending upon the tracer concentration present in the samples, samples were diluted appropriately until the final solution measurement fell into the linear range of the calibration curve. Bromide concentration was measured by Ion Specific Electrode (Orion, Ionplus design) with the addition of an ion strength adjuster that had a volume ratio of 50:1. Background levels for all tracers were measured through use of powder from clean tuff samples. The clean powder was obtained from a clean rock sample that was crushed for size reduction to pass through a 104 µm In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-3 November 2004 opening sieve, similar to the powder size of the drill cuttings. Refer to the associated scientific notebook pages (Hu 1999 ([DIRS 156540], pp. 20–22, 37–48, 54, 68–82, 86–99, and 103–126); Hu 1999 ([DIRS 156541], pp. 9, 27, 42, 77, 118, 123–140, and 149); and Hu 1999 ([DIRS 156542], pp. 13, 17–25, 39–41, 51–102, and 105–112)) for detailed entries about instrument calibration and tracer measurements. E4. EVALUATION OF DRILLING TECHNIQUE Tracer cross-contamination during drilling was evaluated by drilling for machined cores from both the top and bottom of the selected rock samples. For both drilling directions, measured tracer concentrations were compared over distance, as noted in Figure E-1 (for Core D with lower initial water saturation Sw) and Figure E-2 (for Core H with high initial Sw). Note that the core bottom was the core side in physical contact with the tracer solution. For the lower Sw case, the tracer concentration was comparable for both drilling directions, and showed no significant powder carryover (Panels a and b of Figure E-1). A slight difference at the 4-to-5-mm interval is observed in Panel b of Figure E-1 for Sulpho Rhodamine B. This difference could be real, because the fluorometer that was used for measurement had a low detection limit of approximately 0.021 mg/kg. Overall, the drilling technique yielded reliable concentration profile results. For the case with the higher initial Sw, the difference in concentration between the two drilling directions is measurable (Panel a of Figure E-2). After the tracer-rock contact and experiments were completed, the drilling was conducted from the core top (cleaner side) first, and was then conducted from the bottom after the core was inverted. Drilling and sample collection for 10 depth intervals was completed in approximately one hour. The difference in concentrations shown in Panel a of Figure E-2 for the two drilling directions may have resulted from any one or a combination of: • Gravitational flow during the second drilling phase, • Heterogeneity, • Flow resulting from exposure to the atmosphere, • Evaporation loss resulting from heating caused by drilling. The spreading of the tracer front at the high initial Sw made the flow redistribution effects more pronounced than was the case with the sharp tracer front at the low initial Sw. For Sulpho Rhodamine B, the difference was less evident (Panel b of Figure E-2). In the data evaluation, results from the core top were used if the necessary data were available. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-4 November 2004 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Depth from the Core Bottom (mm) Detection Ratio Drilling (top) Drilling (bottom) Background (a) Core-D (12.5%) Bromide 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Depth from the Core Bottom (mm) Detection Ratio Drilling (top, 5-20 mm) Drilling (bottom, 0-10 mm) Background (b) Core-D (12.5%) Sulpho Rhodamine B Source: DTN: LB990901233124.003 [DIRS 155690]. NOTES: The core ID and the initial core saturation (in parentheses) are presented in the panels of the figure. Panel a = Bromide. Panel b = Sulpho Rhodamine B. Figure E-1. Comparison of Measured Detection Ratio from the Opposite Drilling Directions for Core D with Lower Initial Sw In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-5 November 2004 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Depth from the Core Bottom (mm) Detection Ratio Drilling (top) Drilling (bottom) Background (a) Core-H (75.8%) Bromide 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Depth from the Core Bottom (mm) Detection Ratio Data (top, 4-20 mm) Data (bottom, 0-10 mm) Background (b) Core-H (75.8%) Sulpho Rhodamine B Source: DTN: LB990901233124.003 [DIRS 155690]. NOTES: The core ID and the initial core saturation (in parentheses) are presented in the panels of the figure. Panel a = Bromide. Panel b = Sulpho Rhodamine B. Figure E-2. Comparison of Measured Detection Ratio from the Opposite Drilling Directions for Core H with Higher Initial Sw In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 E-6 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 APPENDIX F FIELD EQUIPMENT FOR CONTROLLED WATER RELEASE, WETTING-FRONT DETECTION, AND SEEPAGE COLLECTION In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-1 November 2004 F1. FLUID INJECTION Appendix F1 describes equipment for controlled release of water into isolated zones. Five sets of data were submitted to the Technical Database Management System (TDMS). Three of the data sets (DTNs: LB0207NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160408], LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160796], and LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]) contained data files (in comma-delimited ASCII format). The remaining data sets (DTNs: LB0208NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 161210] and LB0210NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 161211]) contained preliminary data and were subsequently superseded by LB0209NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160796] and LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792], respectively. Test data files consist of four types. Three of these types include the “(seep),” “(smass),” and “(srate)” in their filename. These files contain the seepage percentage, seep mass, and seepage rate data, respectively, from individual capture compartments that drain seepage water to the capture balance(s). The fourth type of test data file does not have such suffixes in their filename (e.g., Test#1_BH#2_21-22_ft_5-6-02.csv); these files contain data on the cumulative mass and rate of water released (Balance 1), water returned (Balance 2), and the total seepage captured (Balance 3 and/or 4), as measured by the Mettler Toledo balances used during the experiments. As noted in Section 6.2.1.3.5.3, after July 15, 2002, only one balance was used to measure seepage into the niche (i.e., Balance 3), and Balance 4 was used to measure evaporation. The liquid-release experiments required water to be injected into the formation over a 0.3-m zone in the borehole, under constant-head or constant-rate conditions. The constant-head tests were conducted first to determine the maximum rates at which the zone could take in water. The subsequent set of tests required that water be released to the formation at predetermined rates that ranged from approximately 5 mL/min to approximately 100 mL/min. The fluid-release apparatus was capable of delivering either the constant-head method of injection or the constant-rate method of injection. The main components of the fluid-release apparatus included an inflatable packer system for isolating the injection zone, a pump for delivering water, and a reservoir for providing a continuous supply of water (Panel a of Figure F-1). The inflation packer system consisted of two rubber packers, each 0.60 m long, connected to an inflation line (Panel b of Figure F-1). Two stainless tubes (inside diameter: 0.95 cm and 0.31 cm) passed through one of the packers to provide fluid (air and water) access into the injection zone. The 0.95-cm tube was used to deliver fluid into the injection zone; the 0.31-cm tube was used, as a siphon, to remove excess water from the injection zone. Before liquid was released into the formation, the packer system was located to straddle the zone of interest (determined based on air-permeability measurements), and was then inflated to a pressure of approximately 200 kPa. The 0.95-cm-inside-diameter stainless steel tube was then connected to a water supply line from a constant-head or a constant-rate system. Pressure in the inflation packers was continuously monitored during the entire period of injection, to ensure that the injection zone remained isolated from adjacent zones of the borehole. To capture the temporal variability in vertical flux of water from the injection zone, an automated liquid-release system was developed. This system allowed for continuous measurement of local liquid-release rates. The unit included of a storage tank (approximately In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-2 November 2004 4.5 L) for water supply to a clear-acrylic, constant-head chamber. The chamber, which had a 0.15-m inside-diameter and was 0.30 m tall, served to maintain a constant head of water above the liquid-release surface within the injection zone (Panel c of Figure F-1). Constant head was maintained by a level switch that activated the pump when the water level dropped below the control level. The control level was nominally set at or slightly above the elevation of the horizontal injection borehole. Two pressure transducers continuously recorded the height of water in each tank. A pulse damper was installed between the pump and tank, to reduce any pump-generated pulsating effects (which could migrate to the storage tank and influence the pressure readings). The constant-rate injection system included all the components used in the constant-head system except the constant-head chamber. To allow for easy regulation of flow rates in the field, the pump was calibrated before field deployment to relate flow rates with displayed numbers on a 10-turn speed control. In the field, the speed control was set at the desired flow rate before the pump was activated. The actual flow rate was determined from the change in pressure measured by transducers located at the bottom of the water reservoir. A data acquisition system was used to record changes in head of water (water level) in the reservoir. Water reservoir Pump Constant head chamber Components of the fluid injection system Borehole Injection zone at constant head Borehole wall Fluid injection line Return flow line Packer stainless steel body Packer inflation rubber Inflation line Injection zone (0.3 m) Injection Borehole collar Details of injection packer system Inflation packers 0.1 m Pressure transducer Pressure transducer PVC Pipe (Sch. 40) 0.15 m ~ 0.3 m Level switch Inflow from tank Wiring to activate pump Details of constant head system Flow to injection zone Pressure transducer (b) (c) (a) NOTE: Figure is not to scale. Figure F-1. Schematic Illustration of Liquid Release System for Constant-Head and Constant-Rate Injections In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-3 November 2004 F2. BOREHOLE MONITORING Appendix F2 describes borehole monitoring performed to detect changes in saturation and water potential. In three monitoring boreholes (Boreholes B, C, and D in Figure 6-74), changes in saturation and water potential were measured continuously during the entire field investigation. Changes in saturation were measured with electrical resistivity probes (ERPs) located at 0.15-m intervals along the 6.0-m length of each borehole. These ERPs consisted of two electrical leads sandwiched between pieces of filter paper. Water-potential measurements were made with psychrometers. With the multiplexing capabilities of the data logger (model CR7, Campbell Scientific Inc.), hourly measurements of up to 80 psychrometers (model PST-55, Wescor Inc.) were automated. The chromel-constantan junction in the psychrometer was cooled with an electric current to a temperature below dew point to first induce condensation, followed by evaporation without electric current. Temperature depression resulting from evaporation was recorded and used to determine water potentials in the vicinity of the psychrometers. The psychrometers and ERP were housed in borehole sensor trays (BSTs), installed along the length of each monitoring borehole (Panel a of Figure F-2). The BSTs were fabricated from 0.10-m outside diameter (OD) PVC pipes; each section was 3.0 m long. Each pipe section was cut lengthwise to produce a 0.075-m-wide curved tray (Panel b of Figure F-2). On each tray, psychrometers were installed at 0.5-m intervals along the borehole, and ERPs were located at 0.25-m intervals (Panels b and c of Figure F-2). BST housing permitted immediate contact between ERPs and the borehole wall. The psychrometers were installed inside small cavities (0.005 m in diameter) perforated through the BST wall to measure water potentials of the rock. A 3.0-m-long steel spoon, with the same layout as the trays, was used to guide each BST to the assigned location along the borehole. Two BSTs were located along each section of borehole, one in contact with the top of the borehole and the other in contact with the bottom of the borehole. Each pair of BSTs was separated by a wedge that tightly pressed the BSTs against the borehole wall. The double BST configuration improved the contacts between ERPs and the borehole wall, and allowed two sensors (one on the upper BST and one on the lower BST) to detect wetting-front advances at each location along the borehole. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-4 November 2004 PVC tray Monitoring borehole cavity Spacers for trays ERP Psychrometers Borehole wall View of single BST with psychrometer and ERP located inside borehole ERP PVC Tray Psychrometer 6.0 m Two layered monitoring in Boreholes C and D BST #1 BST #4 BST #3 BST #2 3.0 m Single BST with sensors 0.25 m Legend (c) (b) (a) Figure F-2. Schematic Illustration of Borehole Monitoring System F3. SEEPAGE COLLECTION Appendix F3 describes the collection of seepage in an excavated slot. To measure water seeping into the slot after liquid release into the injection borehole, a water collection system was designed to capture seepage from the slot ceiling (Figure F-3). Design of this system was dictated by the slot geometry and the locations of ‘I’ beam supports. A row of stainless steel trays was fabricated for each of the four accessible compartments between the I-beams. Each tray consisted of a funnel-shaped water collector 0.46 m long and 0.40 m wide, tapered to a single point 0.20 m from the top. For each compartment, seven trays were assembled along a single steel frame, which facilitated installation inside the slot. Water captured in the stainless steel trays was transferred into clear PVC collection bottles (0.076-m inside diameter, 0.45 m tall). Water falling into the trays was drained to the collection bottles through Teflon® tubes (0.635-cm OD). An intermittent vacuum was applied to the collection bottles such that water stored on the trays or in Teflon tubes could be sucked into the collection bottles. The amounts of seepage water in the collection bottles were recorded at a frequency that was determined in the field, and which was based upon observed accumulation rates. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-5 November 2004 Test bed face Collection bottle Vacuum pump Slot Side view of tray array in single compartment Stainless steel trays installed in slot Figure F-3. Schematic Illustration of Water Collection System Installed in Slot In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 F-6 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 APPENDIX G MEASUREMENT OF WATER POTENTIAL USING PSYCHROMETERS In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 G-1 November 2004 Prior to field use, all psychrometers were calibrated in the laboratory, using potassium chloride solutions (0.1–1.0 molal or mole of solute per 1000 grams of solvent). If feasible and practical, a second calibration was done in the laboratory, after psychrometers had been used for field measurements. During the calibration procedure, psychrometers were isolated in an insulated box, to minimize temperature fluctuations. Automated measurements were then made using the multiplexing capabilities of the Campbell CR7 data logger. When the psychrometers were observed to have reached equilibrium, they were removed from the calibration solution, washed in distilled water, air-dried, and immersed in the next solution. After calibrations were completed, all psychrometers were washed and air-dried before installation in the field. During laboratory calibrations and preliminary field measurements, the shape of the psychrometer output curve was significantly influenced by the cooling voltage and cooling duration for a given water potential (Figure G-1). The shape of the output curve also changed dramatically when the psychrometers became contaminated with dust particles (Figure G-2). Given the high rate of failure of psychrometers in the field, optimizing both the cooling voltage and duration for a given water potential was important to help identify psychrometers that were contaminated or otherwise malfunctioning. Optimization was accomplished by increasing the cooling voltage and/or increasing the time over which the cooling voltage was applied until a well-defined plateau resulted for the psychrometer output. Data from contaminated or malfunctioning psychrometers were not suitable for interpretation use, and were labeled accordingly (Salve 1999 [DIRS 156552], pp. 103–152).                       Source: DTN: LB90406ESFNH2OP.001 [DIRS 171588]. Figure G-1. Effect of Cooling Current on Psychrometer Output Curve (PSY-732) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 G-2 November 2004                        Source: DTN: LB90406ESFNH2OP.001 [DIRS 171588]. Figure G-2. Effect of Dust Coating on Psychrometer Output Curve (PSY-731) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 APPENDIX H GEOLOGY, MINERALOGY, AND HYDROLOGY—BUSTED BUTTE APPLICABILITY In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-1 November 2004 H1. GEOLOGY OF THE BUSTED BUTTE TEST FACILITY The selection of southeastern Busted Butte, 8 km southeast of the repository area at Yucca Mountain, as a field test facility was based on a presumption that the test results could be appropriately used in numerical studies of flow and transport in the Calico Hills Formation at Yucca Mountain (Bussod et al. 1999 [DIRS 155695], p. 2). The presumption of applicability relies upon the hydrologic similarity of stratigraphic units at Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain. The Calico Hills section of southeastern Busted Butte, a thin distal residue of deposits, cannot completely represent the variability of the Calico Hills formation below the nuclear waste repository. Because the Busted Butte section is so thin, it was important to more precisely determine which portion of the Calico Hills section occurs at the Busted Butte test facility. Data are examined to document the extent of lithostratigraphic correspondence between the Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain sections; the examination focuses on the portion of the Busted Butte section in which tracer tests were conducted. Busted Butte is a small (2.5 km by 1 km) north-trending mountain block primarily made up of thick, ignimbrite deposits of the Paintbrush Group. This fault-block uplift is bound by northeast--and north-trending normal faults, and it is split by a north-trending down-to-the-west normal fault that gives Busted Butte its distinctive appearance. The test facility is located within a small (300 to 350 m wide) horst on the southeast side of Busted Butte. Geological units exposed in the vicinity of the test facility include, in ascending stratigraphic order: the Wahmonie Formation, the Calico Hills Formation, and the Topopah Spring Tuff (Figure H-1). The test facility is constructed in the Topopah Spring Tuff and the Calico Hills Formation. The Wahmonie Formation, which is not present below the repository, is also absent from the UZTT test block itself. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-2 November 2004 Source: CRWMS M&O 2001 [DIRS 154024], Figure 44. NOTES: No DTN is provided for this figure because it is not applicable; this figure is provided for illustration purposes only. The plot is a geologic map of the area around the underground test facility in the southeastern part of Busted Butte. The contour interval is 10 ft. The tunnel entrance is at the southern end of the facility. Figure H-1. Busted Butte Geologic Map In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-3 November 2004 H2. STRATIGRAPHIC SETTING OF BUSTED BUTTE The stratigraphic succession at Busted Butte was originally mapped in Lipman and McKay (1965 [DIRS 104158]), which recognized the widespread principal units of the Paintbrush Group and small local exposures of underlying nonwelded tuffs not attributed to specific formations (undivided tuffs (Tt) according to their nomenclature). Broxton et al. (1993 [DIRS 107386], pp. 6, 9) assigned the nonwelded tuffs to the Calico Hills Formation, the Wahmonie Formation, and the Prow Pass Tuff in order of increasing age and depth. This report follows the stratigraphic assignments of Broxton et al. (1993 [DIRS 107386]), but all of the stratigraphic nomenclature has been updated from the original sources to reflect the usage in Sawyer et al. (1994 [DIRS 100075], Table 1)]. The Calico Hills, Wahmonie, and Prow Pass tuffs were derived from different volcanic centers (Sawyer et al. 1994 [DIRS 100075], Table 1). The pattern of decreasing unit thickness from north to south along Yucca Mountain (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], Figure 3) is consistent with derivation of the Calico Hills pyroclastic material from an eruptive center north of the mountain (Sawyer et al. 1994 [DIRS 100075], p. 1307). Thickness of the Calico Hills tuff decreases over a distance of approximately 13 km, from more than 289 m at the northern end of Yucca Mountain (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], Figure 3) to approximately 6.4 m at the southeastern Busted Butte outcrop near the flow-and-transport test facility (Broxton et al. 1993 [DIRS 107386], p. 9). At Raven Canyon, approximately 15 km southwest of Busted Butte, the Calico Hills Formation is absent and the Paintbrush Tuff rests on the Wahmonie Formation (Peterman et al. 1993 [DIRS 106498], Figure 2). H3. LITHOLOGY OF THE CALICO HILLS FORMATION The predominant rock types of the Calico Hills Formation in the Yucca Mountain area are an upper section of ash-flow and air-fall tuffs and a lower section of bedded tuffs and sandstones (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 5). All of these rocks originally consisted predominantly of glassy pyroclasts (volcanic ash, shards, and pumice clasts that formed as the lava was erupted and fragmented). The rocks also contained smaller amounts of phenocrysts (crystals from the lava) and lithic inclusions (crystalline or glassy rock fragments). In the northeastern portion of the Yucca Mountain region, the glassy constituents of the Calico Hills tuffs have been altered to a mixture of zeolites (mostly clinoptilolite), smectite clay, and secondary silica. The Calico Hills Formation in the southeastern and southwestern Yucca Mountain region (including Busted Butte) remains mostly glassy, although some intervals contain appreciable amounts of smectite, clinoptilolite, and other secondary minerals. The areal distribution of zeolitic Calico Hills tuff is depicted in Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report (2004 [DIRS 170031], Figures 6-12 to 6-16). Areas of low zeolite content in the cited figures generally show where the tuff is vitric. H4. CRITERIA OF UNIT IDENTIFICATION Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], Figure 2) divides the Calico Hills formation (from bottom to top) into the basal sandstone unit, the bedded tuff unit, and five pyroclastic units, of which Unit 1 is the deepest. Positive recognition of the units depends heavily upon observing In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-4 November 2004 the entire stratigraphic sequence in drill core or outcrop, and identifying the distinctive contacts (boundaries) between adjacent units (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 50–51). Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 5–8) also defines typical values for color and for phenocryst content, lithic grains, and pumice clasts associated with each unit; and summaries of chemical and mineralogic/petrographic data show that the data for some of these parameters, taken alone, are sufficient only to distinguish the upper ash-flow/air-fall tuff section from the lower bedded tuff and sandstone. Within the ash-flow/air-fall section, however, the phenocryst data do not reliably make distinctions between units 3, 4, and 5 because of the large overlaps in parameter-value populations (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], Figures 4 and 5). Drill hole USW GU-3 is the fully cored hole closest to Busted Butte. It is also the source of the only drill core studied by Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269]) that showed that the Calico Hills section is vitric, like the section at Busted Butte. Unit identification in this hole was considered very ambiguous by Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 8–9), due to poor core recovery of the vitric Calico Hills interval. The main problem with making unit identifications in the Calico Hills section of drill core USW GU-3 is that contacts are missing because of incomplete core recovery. Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 8–9) tentatively recognizes Unit 3 and underlying bedded tuffs in this core, but does not rule out the presence of additional units. The absence of well-supported unit correlations in USW GU-3, along with a paucity of data from other drill sites in which the Calico Hills Formation is vitric, increases the difficulty of comparison between Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain based solely on existing data. The identification of lithostratigraphic units at southeastern Busted Butte is based on a combination of characteristics common to other locations in which the units are exposed. Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 8, 10) notes lithologic similarities between the Calico Hills section exposed at Busted Butte and the USW GU-3 section, especially the presence of black, perlitic-glass lithic clasts (glass chunks with distinctive rounded surfaces) described in Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8) as “black obsidian” or “obsidian lithic clasts”. The restricted occurrence of these clasts was considered a basis for identification and intersite correlation of Unit 3 in Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8), which did not have much data to support this interpretation because such data could only come from locations in which the perlite clasts escaped zeolitic alteration. At the time the report (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269]) was produced, the USW GU-3 and USW UZ-14 cores were the only sources of data for the vitric or partly vitric Calico Hills Formation. As a follow-up to the observations and interpretations of Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269]), new petrographic data on rock color, lithic-clast content, and black perlitic-clast content were collected for a vertical suite of samples from the Busted Butte test facility. Comparable data were collected for drill-hole samples from USW GU-3, USW H-5, and USW SD-12 (all holes with predominantly vitric Calico Hills sections). These data are used to document the comparison of Calico Hills sections between Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain. H5. EVALUATION OF PETROGRAPHIC PARAMETERS Because Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 8, 10) suggests that the Busted Butte section represents Unit 3, efforts reported in this appendix concentrate on collection and In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-5 November 2004 evaluation of data that are most useful to distinguishing Unit 3 from other units of the Calico Hills Formation, particularly the adjacent Units 2 and 4. Given that the Busted Butte section appears to contain only one pyroclastic-flow unit, the identification of that unit must be based on observable petrographic parameters without recourse to examination of the contacts of a multi-unit sequence. The parameters deemed to have the most characteristic values for Unit 3 are: • total lithic-clast content, and • presence of black perlitic lithic clasts. Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 6 to 7) found that the lithic-clast content of Unit 3 is in the range of 5 to 10 percent (excluding localized zones of higher concentration), which is higher than the ranges of 1 to 5 percent in Units 2 and 4. Data on lithic-clast content in vitric Calico Hills tuff is presented in Table H-2. In keeping with the presumed usage of Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8), the lithic-clast abundances determined for this study include both crystalline and vitric lithic clasts. Such usage differs from some published data (Broxton et al. 1993 [DIRS 107386], p. 43) that include only crystalline clasts in the lithic-abundance determination. Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8) believed that the black perlitic lithic clasts might be unique to Unit 3, but had few data to support that assumption. For this assumption to be used with confidence at Busted Butte, it must be supported by data from additional sites. Table H-2 summarizes new observations of black perlitic clast distribution in vitric Calico Hills tuff, taken from available samples. The table also contains matrix-color data (applicable to vitric samples only). Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 5, 6, 8, 51) considers color to be a useful characteristic for distinguishing units; most color observations included therein pertain to zeolitized tuffs that may differ in color from unaltered tuffs of equivalent stratigraphic position. The following criteria are used to identify Unit 3 within a vertical sequence of samples: • Lithic clast content: Lithic-clast content is perhaps the most consistently useful discriminant for the identification of Unit 3 within a vertical sequence of samples in which more than one unit is present. The data suite for USW SD-12 defines an interval in the middle of the Calico Hills Formation that has a lithic-clast content of 5 to 10 percent. • Black, perlitic clast content: The distribution of black perlitic clasts in USW SD-12 is reasonably, but not perfectly, congruent with the interval containing 5 to 10 percent total lithic clasts. Data for the smaller sample suites from drill holes USW GU-3 and USW H-5 also suggest a correspondence between black perlite occurrences and the total lithic-clast content that is characteristic of Unit 3. The existence of samples without black perlite clasts (bedded tuff below the perlite interval in USW GU-3 and USW SD-12, and the tuff section above the perlite interval in USW SD-12) confirms that black perlite content can be used to discriminate between units. • Color: The color data for predominantly vitric Calico Hills samples show some similarities to the colors of zeolitic tuff in Unit 3, although the zeolitic tuff is more likely to have yellow or orange tints (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 51). The data In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-6 November 2004 also indicate that color alone is not a useful interunit discriminant in every case. For example, the data for USW SD-12 show little difference between the Unit 3 samples and samples inferred to be from overlying Unit 4. In contrast, the USW GU-3 suite shows a reliable color difference between the orange pink of Unit 3 and the yellowish brown of the underlying bedded tuff. The 2-m section of uppermost Calico Hills tuff located in the Busted Butte test facility shares the two most characteristic lithologic attributes of Unit 3: lithic-clast content in the 5 to 10 percent range and the presence of black perlitic clasts. Note that the observations for drill-hole samples, intended to confirm the applicability of the Moyer and Geslin unit-discrimination criteria to vitric tuff (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269]), were derived from small suites of discrete samples. To achieve greater certainty of unit identification, a direct examination of the entire vitric Calico Hills section (complete with contacts) in drill core USW SD-12 should be made. H6. STRATIGRAPHY AND MINERALOGY OF THE BUSTED BUTTE TEST FACILITY Busted Butte is a small (2.5 km by 1 km) mountain block primarily made up of ignimbrite deposits of the Paintbrush Group. This fault-block uplift is bounded by northeast- and north-trending normal faults, and it is split by a north-trending down-to-the-west normal fault that gives Busted Butte its distinctive appearance. Tuff units generally have dips of less than 10 degrees, except where affected by drag near large faults. Small exposures of older volcanic units, including the Calico Hills Formation, Wahmonie Formation, and Prow Pass Tuff, occur near the base of the butte on the north and southeast sides (Broxton et al. 1993 [DIRS 107386], pp. 5–10). The test facility is located within a small horst on the southeast side of Busted Butte. The horst is 300 to 350 m wide and is bounded by a down-to-the-west Paintbrush Canyon fault on the west and by a down-to-the-east splay of the Busted Butte fault on the east (Scott and Bonk 1984 [DIRS 104181]). Geologic units exposed in the vicinity of the test facility include, in order of ascending position and decreasing age, the Wahmonie Formation, the Calico Hills Formation, and the Topopah Spring Tuff. The test facility is constructed in the Topopah Spring Tuff and the Calico Hills Formation. Brief descriptions of the formal and informal lithologic units in the underground test facility, with emphasis on the Phase 2 test block, are provided in this appendix. A representative stratigraphic and lithologic section is shown in Figure H-2. Characterization of the lithologic units was accomplished by examining and sampling the walls of the test block, by examination of drill core collected before and during the test, and by studying and sampling the mineback faces excavated into the test block after completion of the test. All color descriptions are based on the Munsell system, Rock Color Chart with Genuine Munsell® Color Chips (Geological Society of America 1995 [DIRS 105787]). The descriptions and nomenclature of subunits within the Calico Hills Formation that are found in this appendix are informal and can only be used as indirect input. This appendix follows the criteria of Buesch et al. (1996 [DIRS 100106]) for definition and recognition of lithologic zones within the Topopah Spring Tuff. Because lithologic zones were In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-7 November 2004 used to define numerical model units, replacement of the gradational transitions between the zones with no-thickness boundaries was necessary. The rationale and consequences of this substitution are discussed in this appendix. Source: DTN: LA0204SL831372.001 [DIRS 164749]. Figure H-2. Stratigraphy and Clay Content of the Phase 2 Test Block Calico Hills Formation A little more than 2 m of Calico Hills Formation (Tac) is exposed in the test area of the facility in the lower walls of both the main adit and the test alcove. The exposed unit consists predominantly of light brown (5YR 6/4), nonwelded vitric tuffs. Fine ash (particles less than one millimeter in diameter) is the principal constituent of the tuffs. Other constituents include varicolored crystalline lithic grains and glass chunks (5 to 25 percent by volume), feldspar, quartz, biotite phenocrysts (5 to 10 percent), and pumice lapilli of centimeter size or less (less than or equal to 5 percent). The tuff is uncemented, but variable cohesion is provided by the clay alteration described in this appendix. Interspersed with the light brown tuffs are two Beds of pumice-lapilli tuff, each approximately 20 cm thick. The upper layer is known informally as “Ash Bed 1,” “Ash Layer 1,” or “Ash 1,” and the lower layer is known as “Ash Bed 2,” “Ash Layer 2,” or “Ash 2.” Neither bed is composed principally of ash, but the names have gained sufficient currency within the field-test In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-8 November 2004 project that they are retained and used in this appendix. Ash Bed 1 is pinkish gray (5YR 8/1), nonwelded, and vitric. Amorphous opal cement comprises approximately 5 percent of the tuff, and contributes to its resistant, cohesive character. Topopah Spring Tuff Buesch et al. (1996 [DIRS 100106], pp. 43–44) defined the crystal-poor vitric zone (Tptpv) in the lowermost Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt), and subdivided it into three subzones distinguished by a progressively decreasing degree of welding (compaction through viscous flow of the glassy components as the tuff cooled). The two lower subzones are present in the Phase 2 test block. The moderately welded subzone (Tptpv2), as described by Buesch et al. (1996 [DIRS 100106], p. 44), has moderately to strongly deformed pumice clasts in a moderately welded matrix. Near-vertical fractures are present. The nonwelded subzone below (Tptpv1) is characterized by partially deformed to nondeformed pumice clasts in a partially welded to nonwelded matrix. At Busted Butte, no bedded tuff between the base of the Topopah Spring Tuff and the underlying Calico Hills Formation compares to the 2-m-thick unit observed in drill core by Scott and Castellanos (1984 [DIRS 101291], p. 101). The lowermost part of the Topopah Spring Tuff, included within Tptpv1, is a base surge deposit that is, at its maximum, approximately seven centimeters thick, and rests directly on the Tac. The base surge is finely laminated on a millimeter scale, and contains well-aligned pumice lapilli (less than or equal to 2 cm across, elongations less than or equal to 4:1) and black glass chunks in a matrix of vitric ash. The Tptpv1 contains many texturally distinctive layers, although none is so well defined as the beds in the underlying Tac. Layers may be defined by concentrations or sizes of pumice lapilli, by the presence of abundant vitric shards, or similar characteristics. A mixed pumice population, indicated by variations in color, size, flattening, and alteration, is present in the upper portion of the Tptpv1 and in the Tptpv2. Heterogeneity of layering is absent from the Tptpv2 in the test block. Defining the Tptpv1/Tptpv2 Boundary The boundary between the two subzones can be gradational across a 0.5-m-to-2-m-thick vertical interval (Buesch et al. 1996 [DIRS 100106], p. 44). Note that subzones are defined on the basis of a syngenetic property (the degree of welding) rather than on depositional criteria. Within the context of the Busted Butte flow and transport test, the Tptpv1/Tptpv2 boundary is important to distinguish between the lithologic subzones, as they serve as a marker separating two hydrogeologic units used in modeling. The boundary must therefore be defined as a discrete surface suitable for numerical modeling, rather than as a gradational transition. The challenge is to determine whether consistent and significant hydrogeologic differences exist between the two subzones, and to then correlate the location of the hydrogeologic change with well-defined, mappable lithologic changes. This iterative process was satisfactorily accomplished for test purposes, but it did not resolve the geological uncertainties. Lithologic criteria for distinguishing Tptpv2 and Tptpv1 subzones could not be applied uniformly throughout the test block. For example, one criterion was the presence of vertical cooling joints in the Tptpv2 that terminated at the boundary with Tptpv1. This was a useful In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-9 November 2004 criterion for mapping the boundary within the Phase 2 test alcove, but the first mineback faces were devoid of similar fractures in what was otherwise recognizable as Tptpv2. In the last two-mineback faces, joints were present, but the joint terminations had been extended downward due to tectonic modification. The chief recognition criterion for the Tptpv1/Tptpv2 boundary in the Phase 2 mineback was the uppermost occurrence of undeformed, subequant, vitric pumice lapilli up to approximately 10 cm across. For the first seven-mineback faces, the boundary defined on this basis was at essentially the same elevation as the boundary mapped on the test alcove injection face. Between Face 7 and Face 8, the boundary rises approximately 0.6 m in a westerly direction, whereas the boundary mapped on the injection face remains level. No attempt has been made to investigate the differences, and both sets of data have been accepted for modeling purposes. The ambiguities described in this appendix have led to minor inconsistencies in boundary definition for modeling purposes, and in sample selection for properties characterization. The modeled boundary surface is slightly more irregular because of the inconsistencies. Three samples designated as Tptpv1/Tptpv2 in Table H-1 span an approximately 40-cm vertical range of identified boundary locations, based on the various criteria for defining the boundary. This range may be taken as an estimate of the uncertainty in boundary location due to differing criteria at any particular location within the Phase 2 block. ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-10 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes Table H-1. Mineralogy of the Busted Butte Phase 2 Test Block (weight percent) LANL Number SPC Number Vertical Position Relative to Tpt/Tac Contact (m) Stratigraphic/ Lithologic Designation Smectite Kaolinite Quartz Cristobalite Feldspar Hematite Amorphous Mica Cryptomelane Total 3692,p1 575100 +3.86 Tptpv2 n.d. 1(1) n.d. n.d. 2(1) n.d. 97(1) n.d. n.d. 100(1) 3693,p1 575101 +3.64 Tptpv2 trace 1(1) 1(1) n.d. 1(1) n.d. 97(2) n.d. n.d. 100(2) 3693,p2 575101 +3.44 Tptpv2 trace 2(1) trace n.d. 2(1) n.d. 96(1) n.d. n.d. 100(1) 3594,p1 525159 +3.40 Tptpv2 3(1) 1(1) trace n.d. 1(1) n.d. 95(2) trace n.d. 100(2) 3695,p1 575103 +3.15 Tptpv1/Tptpv2 n.d. 1(1) n.d. trace? 1(1) n.d. 98(1) n.d. n.d. 100(1) 3593,p2 525158 +3.00 Tptpv1/Tptpv2 trace 2(1) trace n.d. 2(1) trace 96(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 3593,p1 525158 +2.80 Tptpv1/Tptpv2 trace 1(1) n.d. n.d. 2(1) n.d. 97(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 3698,p1 575106 +2.65 Tptpv1 11(3) 13(3) 1(1) n.d. 5(1) trace 70(4) n.d. n.d. 100(4) 3699,p1 575107 +2.44 Tptpv1 13(4) 8(2) trace n.d. 4(1) trace 75(5) n.d. n.d. 100(5) 3699,p2 575107 +2.36 Tptpv1 n.d. 1(1) n.d. n.d. 3(1) trace 96(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 3702,p1 575110 +1.92 Tptpv1 n.d. n.d. trace trace 1(1) trace 99(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 3591,p1 525156 +1.65 Tptpv1 2(1) 1(1) trace n.d. 2(1) trace 95(2) trace n.d. 100(2) 3589,p1 525154 +1.55 Tptpv1 3(1) 1(1) trace n.d. 2(1) n.d. 94(2) trace n.d. 100(2) 3707,p1 575115 +1.00 Tptpv1 trace n.d. trace trace 2(1) trace 98(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 3582,p1 525147 +0.45 Tptpv1 1(1) n.d. trace n.d. 1(1) trace 98(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 3583,p1 525148 +0.25 Tptpv1 trace n.d. trace trace 2(1) trace 98(1) trace n.d. 100(1) 3583,p2 525148 +0.10 Tptpv1 12(4) n.d. trace trace 3(1) trace 85(4) trace n.d. 100(4) 3583,p3 525148 +0.01 Tpt, base surge 16(5) n.d. 3(1) 1(1) 6(1) trace 74(5) trace n.d. 100(5) 3584,p1 525149 -0.01 Tac 7(2) n.d. 3(1) 1(1) 9(1) trace 80(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 3584,p2 525149 -0.15 Tac 11(3) n.d. 3(1) 1(1) 8(1) 1(1) 76(4) trace n.d. 100(4) 3587,p1 525152 -0.25 Tac 11(3) n.d. 4(1) 1(1) 8(1) trace 76(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 3585,p1 525150 -0.57 Tac, ash bed 1 1(1) n.d. 6(1) trace 11(2) trace 82(2) trace n.d. 100(2) 3585,p2 525150 -0.65 Tac, ash bed 1 1(1) n.d. 4(1) 1(1) 13(2) trace 81(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 3585,p3 525150 -0.72 Tac 7(2) n.d. 4(1) 1(1) 11(2) trace 77(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 3586,p1 525151 -0.83 Tac 7(2) n.d. 5(1) 1(1) 11(2) trace 76(3) trace n.d. 100(3) 3598,p1 527826 -1.20 Tac 5(2) n.d. 4(1) 1(1) 10(1) trace 80(3) trace n.d. 100(3) ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-11 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes Table H-1. Mineralogy of the Busted Butte Phase 2 Test Block (weight percent) (Continued) LANL Number SPC Number Vertical Position Relative to Tpt/Tac Contact (m) Stratigraphic/ Lithologic Designation Smectite Kaolinite Quartz Cristobalite Feldspar Hematite Amorphous Mica Cryptomelane Total 3598,p2 527826 -1.45 Tac 12(4) n.d. 5(1) 1(1) 11(2) trace 71(5) trace n.d. 100(5) 3596,p1 527827 -1.87 Tac, ash bed 2 1(1) n.d. 5(1) 1(1) 9(1) n.d. 84(2) trace 5 a 100(2) 3596,p2 527827 -2.07 Tac, ash bed 2 7(2) n.d. 6(1) 1(1) 10(1) n.d. 76(3) trace n.d. 100(3) Source: DTN: LA0204SL831372.001 [DIRS 164749]. NOTE(S): Estimated 2-sigma errors are in parentheses. Los Alamos National Laboratory number is an internal tracking number assigned to mineralogy-petrology samples. SPC number is the number used by the Sample Management Facility to identify and track samples. Tptpv1 = Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor vitric zone, nonwelded subzone. Tptpv2 = Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor vitric zone, moderately welded subzone. Tpt = Topopah Spring Tuff. Tac = Calico Hills Formation. Ash beds 1 and 2, also known as ash layers 1 and 2, are informally designated layers of pumice-lapilli tuff. Cristobalite diffraction peaks, where detected, are broad, indicating the presence of poorly crystalline cristobalite or opal-C. “Amorphous” principally denotes volcanic glass, but small amounts of opal-A also may be present. Opal-A is most abundant in Tac ash beds 1 and 2, where it is estimated to comprise a few weight percent. trace = less than 0.5 weight percent, queried (“?”) where presence of phase is uncertain. n.d. = not detected. a This sample also contains a possible trace amount of lithiophorite. No error is given for the cryptomelane abundance because no standard reference intensity was used, and the value is an estimate. Because the value is an estimate, it is not included in the total. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-12 November 2004 Faults Test objectives included investigating the influence of faults on fluid movement. However, the distribution of faults within the Phase 2 test block was largely unknown at the time the test facility was constructed. The location and orientation of the test block were driven by the need to penetrate as much of the Calico Hills Formation as possible; locating the test block to optimize fault-transport studies was a lower priority. The test block, as sited, contained two faults that were exposed on the collection face in the main adit. The injection face in the test alcove included no identifiable faults (DTN: GS990708314224.007 [DIRS 164604]). At the beginning of the test, nothing more was known about the presence of faults within the test block. The two unnamed normal faults exposed in the collection face are both near-vertical and dip away from each other, defining a narrow horst block oriented diagonally across the rectangular test block. One of the faults was projected to extend slightly into the rock volumes below the upper and lower injection arrays within the boundaries of the test block. The other fault was located a least several meters laterally beyond either injection array and was, therefore, less likely to encounter fluid injected during the test. The mineback through the Phase 2 test block revealed that the fault below the injection arrays extends approximately 6 m into the block, as far back as the fifth mineback face. The fault includes at least two branches, and the amount of offset decreases inward from the collection face. It does not intersect any of the injection boreholes. A fault (or faults) of similar orientation and “sense of offset” was (were) observed on mineback faces 2, 3, and 4, and intersect(s) injection holes UZTT-BB-INJ-9 (Borehole 26) and -10 (Borehole 27). Directly visible effects of faults on tracer movement are minor. No concentrations of fluorescent tracer were observed along fault traces exposed in the mineback, except within clay-rich pumice lapilli cut by the fault. The same effect was observed in lapilli away from the fault. The other fault effect was observed in damp zones above and below ash bed 1. The damp zones, visible in newly completed mineback faces, are parallel to bedding and have fairly uniform and flat upper and lower margins. Where the damp zones are crossed by faults, the upper margins of the zones extend upward along the fault trace or have a mounded appearance centered on the fault trace. This is particularly noticeable in the damp zone above ash bed 1. Mineralogic Variability of the Phase 2 Test Block Mineralogic data were collected to help verify stratigraphic-unit assignments and to identify potential effects of mineralogy on the flow-and-transport test results. The mineralogy of a composite vertical section through the southwestern portion of the test block is presented in Table H-1, with all abundances in weight percent. The analyzed aliquots were taken from block samples of intact rock, rather than from drill core, to provide better representation and vertical coverage of the lithologic subunits present in the test block. The use of block samples also avoided potential problems with disturbed core. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-13 November 2004 Primary-Phase Mineralogic Variation Volcanic glass (shards, ash, and pumice clasts), plus quartz and feldspar in phenocrysts and xenoliths, are the primary pyroclastic constituents of the • Tptpv1 (crystal-poor vitric nonwelded subzone of the Topopah Spring Tuff), • Tptpv2 (crystal-poor vitric moderately welded subzone of the Topopah Spring Tuff), and • Tac (Calico Hills Formation). All Tpt subzones contain 1 percent (or less) quartz and 2 percent (or less) feldspar, with the exception of two intervals that have higher abundances of crystalline pyroclasts. The pumice swarm is characterized by feldspar contents of 4 to 5 percent, although it contains no more quartz than the bulk of the Tptpv1 and Tptpv2. The base surge directly above the Tac contains 3 percent quartz and 6 percent feldspar. The Tac contains more crystalline pyroclasts than the overlying Tpt subzones, with 3 to 6 percent quartz and 8 to 13 percent feldspar. From ash layer 1 downward, the crystalline pyroclast content is slightly higher (13 to 19 percent quartz + feldspar) than it is in the uppermost Tac above ash layer 1 (11–13 percent). Secondary Alteration As noted in this appendix, volcanic glass is the most abundant constituent of the partially welded to nonwelded tuffs located in the Busted Butte test facility. Glass is relatively susceptible to alteration by groundwater and is rarely preserved wherever the tuffs have been below the water table. The glassy rocks of Busted Butte are mostly unaltered, typical of nonwelded tuffs in the unsaturated zone of the Yucca Mountain region. Smectite and kaolinite clays are the principal alteration products of volcanic glass in the test facility. Figure H-2 highlights the vertical variability of clay content, and associations of clay content with specific stratigraphic/lithologic features. Clay content of the Topopah Spring Tuff in the test block is 4 percent or less, except in two layers within the Tptpv1. One of the two layers is a primary depositional feature informally called the pumice swarm, pumice layer, or pumice zone. The pumice layer contains 30 to 50 percent (Levy 2001 [DIRS 165363], p. 31) large (approximately 10 cm long; Bussod 1999 [DIRS 146978], p. 85), elongate pumice clasts aligned with the flow fabric of the ash flow. This layer is present throughout the Busted Butte test facility, but the layer thickness and the abundance of pumice clasts within the layer are variable. Alteration of the pumice clasts (and perhaps the matrix, as well) has produced bulk smectite + kaolinite contents as high as 24 percent. A smectite clay content of 12 to 16 percent was documented within and just above the base surge deposit of the Topopah Spring Tuff. This is a higher-clay content than is present in either the overlying Tptpv1 tuff or the immediately underlying Calico Hills tuff. The localization of stronger alteration above the contact may have resulted from perching of downward-percolating water due to a permeability contrast at the contact. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-14 November 2004 Clay content is generally higher in the Tac than in the overlying Tpt subzones. Smectite is the only clay mineral present. Except in the ash layers, the total smectite content of Tac samples is between 5 and 12 percent. Smectite content of the ash layers is between 1 and 7 percent. The lower clay content of the ash layers (actually pumice-lapilli tuffs) may be a consequence of early opal-A (amorphous silica) deposition that filled pores and cemented the pumice clasts. The cementation restricted fluid access to the volcanic glass of which the pumice clasts are composed, and protected it from the alteration that affected adjacent uncemented tuff. Effects of Mineralogy on Test Results The influence of clay content on the movement of introduced moisture is expected to be the predominant observable mineralogic effect on test performance. All of the tuff in the test block contains at least some smectite clay, a mineral with a strong affinity for water that is held in a partially ordered condition between the clay tetrahedral lattice layers. The ambient water content of the tuff probably is less than the capacity of the smectite to hold water. Smectite-rich stratigraphic layers that are close to an injection array, such as the pumice swarm in the upper Tptpv1, may capture and concentrate the tracer fluid. Kaolinite is less effective than smectite in attracting water (Grim 1968 [DIRS 164642], pp. 251–254, 264–266)], but it also contributes to the overall effect in the pumice swarm in which it is abundant. The combined smectite+kaolinite content of the bulk rock within the pumice swarm is 21 to 24 percent, and the pumice swarm is within approximately 1 m below the Phase 2 upper injection array. This fluid-imbibition effect may be detectable in neutron logs of collection boreholes that traverse the pumice swarm, and in auger samples collected during the mineback. A thinner, relatively smectite-rich interval in and above the Tpt base surge may behave like the pumice swarm with respect to tracer fluid. This interval is approximately 0.1 m thick, and contains 12 to 16 percent smectite. The base surge is located approximately 70 cm above the Phase 2 lower injection array. In this position, a thin smectitic interval may have less of an effect on moisture retention than the pumice swarm does. Data from the collection borehole designated Borehole UZTT-BB-COL-2, centered on the base surge, may document any moisture effects of the clay-rich rock. H7. APPLICABILITY OF BUSTED BUTTE HYDROLOGIC DATA TO YUCCA MOUNTAIN The Busted Butte UZTT included both field tests of aqueous tracer transport and laboratory measurements of hydrologic, tracer-sorption, and matrix-diffusion properties of rock samples from the field-test facility (Bussod et al. 1999 DIRS 155695]). The selection of southeastern Busted Butte, 8 km southeast of the repository area at Yucca Mountain, to site a field test facility was based on a presumption that the test results could be appropriately used in numerical studies of flow and transport in the Calico Hills Formation (Tac) at Yucca Mountain (Bussod et al., 1999 [DIRS 155695], p. 2). Equivalence of stratigraphic units at Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain is the fundamental criterion for a presumption of applicability. Moreover, criteria for applicability are similarities of lithology and mineralogy, particularly mineralogic changes due to alteration. Additional criteria are similarities of measured hydrologic properties between the Calico Hills Formation at Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain Calico Hills sections of corresponding stratigraphy, lithology, and mineralogy. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-15 November 2004 The Calico Hills section at southeastern Busted Butte, a thin distal residue of deposits with an aggregate thickness of one hundred to several hundred feet at Yucca Mountain, cannot completely represent the variability of the Calico Hills Formation below the nuclear waste repository. Because the Busted Butte section is so thin, it is important to more precisely determine which portion of the Calico Hills section occurs at the Busted Butte test facility. Lithostratigraphic Correspondence An informal internal lithostratigraphy of the Calico Hills Formation devised by Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 5–9) provides a useful basis for comparing the Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain rock sections. The Calico Hills Formation is divided into five ash-flow/air-fall tuff units, plus a bedded tuff and volcaniclastic sandstone at the base of the formation. The majority of units (other than bedded tuff/sandstones) are laterally discontinuous, but pyroclastic Unit 3 is present in most, and perhaps all, of the drill cores examined in Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 6, 8–9). Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], pp. 8, 10) notes lithologic similarities between the Calico Hills section exposed at Busted Butte and the USW GU-3 drill core section, especially the presence of black, perlitic-glass lithic clasts (glass chunks with distinctive rounded surfaces, described in Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8) as “black obsidian” or “obsidian lithic clasts”). The restricted occurrence of these clasts, in addition to a lithic-inclusion content of five to ten volume percent (Moyer and Geslin 1995 [DIRS 101269], Table 3; also reproduced here as Table H-2), was considered a basis for identification and intersite correlation of Unit 3 by Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269], p. 8). The nominally 2-m-thick section of uppermost Calico Hills Formation in the Busted Butte Phase 2 test block shares the two most characteristic lithologic attributes of Unit 3: lithic-clast content in the 5 to 10 percent range, and the presence of black perlitic clasts (Table H2). Hydrologic-properties samples were collected from this section. Data from Yucca Mountain vitric Tac sections from Boreholes USW SD-7 and SD-12, used for comparison with the Busted Butte Tac data, have been identified as parts of Unit 3 (Rautman and Engstrom 1996 [DIRS 101008]; Rautman and Engstrom 1996 [DIRS 100642]). Table H-2. Calico Hills Formation Lithostratigraphy Unit 5 – Non- to partially welded, pumiceous pyroclastic-flow deposit Slightly elongated pumice clasts; bimodal distribution of pumice clast sizes; 20 to 30 percent pumice. Light-colored pumice clasts; moderate reddish-orange to grayish-pink matrix. Base marked by thinly bedded fall deposits. Unit 4 – Nonwelded, pumiceous pyroclastic-flow deposit Volcanic lithic clasts are large (20 to 70 mm), isolated or in swarms; prominent clasts of moderate reddish-orange tuff. Light-colored pumice clasts; very pale orange to grayish orange-pink matrix. Lithic-poor sections appear similar to Unit 2. Base marked by a heterolithologic sequence of fall deposits. Unit 3 – Nonwelded, lithic-rich pyroclastic flow deposit Lithic clasts comprise 5 to 10 percent, locally 10 to 30 percent (near the base and in several intervals within the unit); predominantly devitrified volcanic rocks with local obsidian. Grayish-orange to grayish-yellow or pinkish-gray matrix. The basal lithic-rich fallout is an excellent stratigraphic marker. Unit 2 – Nonwelded, pumiceous pyroclastic-flow deposit 20 to 40 percent light-colored pumice clasts; moderate pink or moderate orange-pink matrix. The fall deposit at the base of the unit contains porcelaneous ash layers. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-16 November 2004 Table H-2. Calico Hills Formation Lithostratigraphy (Continued) Unit 1 – Nonwelded, lithic-rich pyroclastic-flow deposit 15 to 20 percent devitrified volcanic lithic clasts near the base; lithic clasts decrease upward to 3 to 7 percent. Light-colored pumice clasts; grayish orange-pink to light greenish-gray matrix; 7 to 12 percent phenocrysts. Bedded tuff unit Interbedded coarse-grained fallout deposits, pyroclastic-flow deposits (many reworked or with paleosols), and thinly bedded porcelaneous ash-fall deposits. Pyroclastic-flow deposits have 13 to 25 percent phenocrysts. Basal sandstone unit Massive to laminated, immature volcaniclastic sandstone; very pale orange to moderate red; medium to coarse grained; accumulations of argillic pumice clasts and rare sedimentary structures including load casts, pinch-and-swell structures, and flame structures. Locally interbedded with reworked pyroclastic-flow deposits. Mineralogic Correspondence For hydrologic purposes, the Calico Hills Formation at Yucca Mountain is categorized as either vitric or zeolitic (containing clinoptilolite). The downward change from vitric to zeolitic Tac is defined (based on hydrologic criteria) as a five-percent reduction in the porosity (Flint 1998 [DIRS 100033], p. 29). Zeolitization reduces the saturated hydraulic conductivity by several orders of magnitude relative to the conductivity of less-altered vitric tuff (Flint 1998 [DIRS 100033], p. 35). The Busted Butte section of the Tac is predominantly vitric, and its hydrologic properties should therefore most resemble those of vitric Tac in the southern and western parts of Yucca Mountain. In Tac sections at Yucca Mountain that are mostly vitric, exemplified by the section in drill hole USW SD-12 (Chipera et al. 1996 [DIRS 101331], Table 3), smectite clay comprises as much as two-weight percent in tuffs that contain 1 to 10 percent clinoptilolite. The vitric Tac section in the Busted Butte test facility contains two lithologic varieties, both of which are nonwelded: pyroclastic-flow tuff and pumice-lapilli (air-fall) tuff. Neither lithology is zeolitic, but the pyroclastic-flow tuff contains 7 to 12 percent smectite clay and the pumice air-fall tuff contains 1 to 7 percent smectite (DTN: LA0204SL831372.001 [DIRS 164749]). Thus, the ranges of secondary hydrous-mineral contents in the predominantly vitric Tac of Busted Butte and USW SD-12 are very similar. It has not been investigated whether it is significant that the Busted Butte secondary mineralogy is smectite, whereas the Yucca Mountain secondary mineralogy is dominated by zeolite. Borehole USW SD-7 is the only other source of qualified vitric Tac core. Four samples (from the uppermost vitric portion of the Tac section of this core) each contain a maximum of one percent of smectite and a maximum of one percent of zeolite (Chipera et al. 1996 [DIRS 101331], Table 1). In this respect, they differ from the more-altered Busted Butte and USW SD-12 vitric Tac. Within-Site Variability of Hydrologic Properties Within the nominal 2-m thickness of the Tac in the Phase 2 test block, pyroclastic-flow tuff comprises approximately 80 percent of the section and pumice air-fall tuff accounts for In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-17 November 2004 approximately 20 percent in two beds. The data set of 37 Tac hydrologic-properties samples contained 16 samples of pyroclastic-flow tuff and 21 samples from a single bed of pumice air-fall tuff. The subset of samples for which saturated hydraulic conductivity has been measured includes five pyroclastic-flow tuff samples and 19 pumice air-fall samples. This means that the permeability data set is heavily skewed toward a less common lithology, with approximately 80 percent of the measurements representing approximately 20 percent of the Tac section in the test block. The potential effect of this uneven sample coverage may be assessed from the data in Table H-3. The mean porosities and standard deviations of the two lithologies are the same. Geometric mean saturated hydraulic conductivity of the pumice air-fall is a factor of two higher than the comparable value for the pyroclastic-flow tuff. This finding raises questions about whether this difference reflects consistent and characteristic attributes of the two lithologies at Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain, and whether a difference of this magnitude is meaningful for modeling purposes. If the representation error is a problem, this under-representation is even more strongly pronounced. Table H-3. Hydrologic Properties of Calico Hills Formation, Busted Butte Borehole (UZTT-BB-) Sampling Depth (ft) Stratigraphic Category RH Oven Porosity (cm3/cm3) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s) COL-1 10.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 N/A COL-1 16.8 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.33 N/A COL-2 6.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 7.2E-05 COL-2 7.6 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 4.6E-05 COL-10 6.7 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.31 N/A COL-10 10.6 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 N/A COL-10 21.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.49 N/A COL-10 25.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 N/A COL-11 20.9 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 N/A COL-11 30.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.36 N/A COL-12 7.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.34 1.9E-05 COL-12 9.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 3.7E-05 COL-12 11.0 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.31 N/A COL-12 22.2 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 N/A COL-12 23.5 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.33 N/A COL-12 25.8 Tac pyroclastic flow 0.32 1.5E-05 Arithmetic mean Tac pyroclastic flow porosity 0.34 Standard deviation Tac pyroclastic flow porosity 0.04 Geometric mean Tac pyroclastic flow saturated hydraulic conductivity 3.2E-05 INJ-7 11.9 Tac pumice air-fall 0.37 4.3E-05 INJ-7 14.7 Tac pumice 0.34 2.1E-05 INJ-7 18.7 Tac pumice 0.31 4.5E-05 INJ-7 20.3 Tac pumice 0.32 1.1E-05 INJ-8 8.6 Tac pumice 0.33 1.0E-05 INJ-8 11.6 Tac pumice 0.32 3.1E-05 INJ-8 14.1 Tac pumice 0.32 8.4E-06 INJ-8 19.4 Tac pumice 0.33 8.3E-06 INJ-8 25.0 Tac pumice 0.46 5.1E-07 INJ-9 6.0 Tac pumice 0.31 N/A INJ-9 10.5 Tac pumice 0.35 5.5E-05 INJ-9 12.3 Tac pumice 0.34 2.4E-05 INJ-9 18.6 Tac pumice 0.31 3.1E-06 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-18 November 2004 Table H-3. Hydrologic Properties of Calico Hills Formation, Busted Butte (Continued) Borehole (UZTT-BB-) Sampling Depth (ft) Stratigraphic Category RH Oven Porosity (cm3/cm3) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s) INJ-9 19.7 Tac pumice 0.27 2.0E-06 INJ-9 21.5 Tac pumice 0.35 8.8E-06 INJ-10 8.7 Tac pumice 0.36 8.8E-06 INJ-10 11.8 Tac pumice 0.33 N/A INJ-10 15.7 Tac pumice 0.31 4.2E-05 INJ-10 17.4 Tac pumice 0.36 4.2E-05 INJ-10 20.6 Tac pumice 0.33 4.2E-05 INJ-10 22.8 Tac pumice 0.33 4.3E-05 Arithmetic mean Tac pumice flow porosity 0.34 Standard deviation Tac pumice flow porosity 0.04 Geometric mean Tac pumice flow saturated hydraulic conductivity 1.4E-05 Source: DTNs: GS990708312242.008 [DIRS 109822] (hydrologic properties), LA0207SL831372.001 [DIRS 160824] (stratigraphic category). Comparison of Busted Butte and Yucca Mountain Hydrologic Properties Table H-4 contains porosity data for a portion of the Tac section in Borehole USW SD-12 at Yucca Mountain. This portion shares petrologic characteristics used to identify the Busted Butte Tac section as Unit 3 in the Moyer and Geslin classification (1995 [DIRS 101269]). The depth interval identified here as Unit 3 in USW SD-12 differs from the interval designated as Unit 3 in Rautman and Engstrom (1996 [DIRS 100642], p. 51), but the difference is not considered important for the purpose of this analysis. The comparison of hydrologic properties is limited to porosity data, because saturated hydraulic conductivity data are not available for the USW SD-12 Tac section. The mean porosity of the USW SD-12 section is slightly lower than that of the Busted Butte section, including both pyroclastic-flow and pumice air-fall lithologies. The standard deviations are the same for USW SD-12 and for both Busted Butte lithologies. This is an indication that the very restricted provenance of the Busted Butte samples may not have seriously biased the variability of that data set. Table H-4. Porosity Data for the Calico Hills Formation in USW SD-12 Borehole Sample Depth (ft) Stratigraphic Category RH Oven Porosity (cm3/cm3) USW SD-12 1500.6 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.295 USW SD-12 1504.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.361 USW SD-12 1507.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.336 USW SD-12 1509.8 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.333 USW SD-12 1513.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.335 USW SD-12 1515.7 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.324 USW SD-12 1519.1 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.304 USW SD-12 1522.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.308 USW SD-12 1524.5 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.260 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-19 November 2004 Table H-4. Porosity Data for the Calico Hills Formation in USW SD-12 (Continued) Borehole Sample Depth (ft) Stratigraphic Category RH Oven Porosity (cm3/cm3) USW SD-12 1528.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.308 USW SD-12 1531.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.340 USW SD-12 1534.4 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.309 USW SD-12 1537.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.333 USW SD-12 1539.8 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.318 USW SD-12 1542.5 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.312 USW SD-12 1546.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.327 USW SD-12 1549.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.280 USW SD-12 1557.1 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.321 USW SD-12 1558.1 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.304 USW SD-12 1560.4 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.310 USW SD-12 1563.5 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.272 USW SD-12 1567.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.257 USW SD-12 1570.0 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.260 USW SD-12 1573.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.313 USW SD-12 1575.2 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.307 USW SD-12 1578.8 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.330 USW SD-12 1581.6 Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.318 Arithmetic mean Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.31 Standard deviation Tac Unit 3, Busted Butte equivalent 0.04 Source: DTN: GS960808312231.004 [DIRS 108985]. The mineralogic differences between the relatively unaltered upper Tac section in USW SD-7 and the somewhat more altered Busted Butte and USW SD-12 vitric Tac sections have been noted elsewhere in this appendix. Hydrologic-properties data for four samples in Table H5 also are distinctive. All porosity values are below the mean porosity values for Busted Butte and USW SD-12. Similarly, the saturated hydraulic conductivity values are all below the mean value of 1.7 × 10-5 for all Busted Butte test facility Tac. The combination of lower porosity and hydraulic conductivity in a minimally altered tuff may reflect an increased degree of compaction relative to the two other sites. Alternatively, the differences may be a function of what is recoverable in the coring (a known problem). An additional potential difference might result if the Tac is non-uniform and has different transverse and longitudinal properties. The reported difference might then partially result from measurement of properties from vertically extracted core versus horizontally extracted core. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-20 November 2004 Table H-5. Porosity and Permeability Data for the Calico Hills Formation in USW SD-7 Borehole Sample Depth, (ft) a Stratigraphic Category b RH Oven Porosity (cm3/cm3) Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s) USW SD-7 1396.4/1396.0 Tac Unit 3 0.298 1.60E-05 USW SD-7 1410.3/1410.7 Tac Unit 3 0.272 3.30E-06 USW SD-7 1422.0/1422.2 Tac Unit 3 0.308 7.10E-06 USW SD-7 1428.0/1428.0 Tac Unit 3 0.221 2.80E-09 Source: DTNs: GS951108312231.009 [DIRS 108984] (porosity), GS960808312231.005 [DIRS 108995] (saturated hydraulic conductivity). a The first depth is the porosity sample; the second depth is the saturated hydraulic conductivity sample. b Based on Rautman and Engstrom (1996 [DIRS 101008], p. 12). The 1,396-ft samples are above the Tac, according to this reference. Samples of the Calico Hills Formation and Topopah Spring Tuff exposed in Busted Butte outcrops were used to determine the hydrologic properties of the formations in the test block. Table H-6 presents the mean and standard deviation for porosity, saturated conductivity, and van Genuchten parameters for samples taken from the three units at Busted Butte. Table H-6. Hydrogeologic Properties of Busted Butte Units Unit Number of Samples Porosity Mean Porosity Std. Dev. Ksat [m/s] Arith. Mean Ksat [m/s] Std. Dev. Ksat [m/s] Geom. Mean Tac 35 0.354 0.042 2.363E-05 1.720E-05 1.523E-05 Tptpv1 25 0.420 0.040 1.073E-05 1.853E-05 3.372E-06 Tptpv2 19 0.387 0.032 4.397E-06 4.387E-06 2.651E-06 Unit Number of Samples van Genuchten alpha [1/m] Mean van Genuchten alpha [1/m] Std. Dev. van Genuchten n Mean van Genuchten n Std. Dev. Tac 35 3.014 2.632 1.279 0.205 Tptpv1 25 0.685 0.365 1.385 0.278 Tptpv2 19 0.633 0.015 1.309 0.109 Source: Mean and standard deviation of values calculated from the following DTNs: GS990308312242.007 [DIRS 107185]; GS990708312242.008 [DIRS 109822]. Conclusions The amount of existing hydrologic-properties data for the vitric Tac at Yucca Mountain is insufficient to make a quantitative assessment of vitric Tac data from Busted Butte relative to Yucca Mountain data. The use of Busted Butte vitric Tac hydrologic properties to model hydrologic processes at Yucca Mountain is based on an assumption that no additional data from Yucca Mountain proper will be available. An examination of existing data suggests that property values at Busted Butte probably lie within the range of Yucca Mountain values, but the variation of Yucca Mountain values is almost certainly greater than that of Busted Butte, because the scale of the Busted Butte site is considerably smaller than that of the corresponding In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-21 November 2004 hydrogeologic units at Yucca Mountain. Values of Busted Butte hydrologic properties (such as porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity) may be near the high end of the range for these property values at Yucca Mountain. If this is correct, one possible explanation may be that the Tac tends to be slightly more compacted at Yucca Mountain than at Busted Butte, because it has a thinner overburden. Another possible explanation is that recovery in the Yucca Mountain cores was limited to rock that was more intact and thus had smaller values of hydrologic properties. The smectitic alteration at Busted Butte differs from zeolitic alteration at Yucca Mountain, but the data are insufficient to test for a relationship between alteration mineralogy and variations in hydrologic properties. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 H-22 November 2004 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 APPENDIX I CALCULATIONS PERFORMED USING EXCEL SPREADSHEETS AND FUNCTIONS In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 November 2004 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-1 November 2004 I1. MEAN: GEOMETRIC AND ARITHMETIC The difference between arithmetic and geometric means is in the underlying statistical distribution used in mean calculation. The arithmetic mean gives equal weight to all data and uses the normal (bell-shaped) distribution. Unless specifically called out in the text (as in Section 6.1.2) the average or mean values presented in this report are calculated using the arithmetic mean. In all cases, the DTN listed in the text of the section (or included as a note to a table or figure) contains the input values, and the output values are produced using the following functions: If the following function is typed into Excel: =AVERAGE(A1: A34) (Eq. I-1) then the arithmetic mean, or average value, of the data in cells A1 through A34 will be returned. If the following function is typed into Excel: =GEOMEAN(A1: A34) (Eq. I-2) then the geometric mean value of the data in cells A1 through A34 will be returned. The term log mean (as used in Section 6.14.4) is the same as the geometric mean. I2. MEDIAN, MODE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION Data in some of the sections (e.g., Section 6.1 and Section 6.14) have been used to calculate median, mode, and standard deviation summary statistics. The median is the middle point of the probability distribution, where 50 percent of the observations lie on one side of the median, and 50 percent lie on the other side of the median. The mode is the portion of the distribution with the greatest frequency of occurrence. In a normal distribution, the mean, median, and mode should be equivalent. The standard deviation (s), also referred to as error and variability in this report, is a measure of the spread of the probability distribution around the arithmetic mean. In Excel, these values were calculated for this report using the following functions: =MEDIAN(A1: A34), (Eq. I-3) which returns the median value for the data in cells A1 through A34, =MODE(A1: A34), (Eq. I-4) which returns the mode for the data in cells A1 through A34, =STDEV(A1: A34), (Eq. I-5) which returns the standard deviation of the data in cells A1 through A34, and =VAR(A1: A34), (Eq. I-6) which returns the variance of the data in cells A1 through A34. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-2 November 2004 I3. SPREADSHEET CALCULATIONS Using the preset functions in Excel, equations may be entered and calculated. Section 6.1 (which contains Equation 6-1), Section 6.2 (which contains Equation 6-3 to Equation 6-10), Section 6.4 (which contains Equation 6-11), and Section 6.10 (which contains Equations 6-12 and 6-13) contain equations that were calculated using data for analyses in the respective sections. For example, Equation I-7 (see also Equation 6-1) was used to calculate air-permeability from pressure differences during steady-state air injection using the following modified Hvorslev's formula (LeCain 1995 [DIRS 101700], p. 10, Equation 15): ( )sc f w sc sc T P P L T r L Q P k 2 1 2 2 ln - . .. . . .. . = p µ (Eq. I-7) where k = permeability, m2 Psc = standard pressure, Pa Qsc = flow-rate at standard conditions, m3/s µ = dynamic viscosity of air, Pa·s L = length of zone, m rw = radius of bore, m Tf = temperature of formation, K P2 = injection zone pressure at steady-state, Pa P1 = ambient pressure, Pa Tsc = standard temperature, K ln = natural log In Excel, the input data used in the calculations for this example (DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155]) (the first 9 entries shown) would appear as seen in Table I-1. The input DTN in this case contains P2 injection zone pressure at steady state, (in Pa), P1 ambient pressure (in Pa), and Qsc flow-rate at standard conditions (in m3/s). The remaining values in the calculations are standard constants obtained from reference books or site-specific values (e.g., borehole radius and length), all of which have been documented in the scientific notebooks referenced for the section. The output for this equation is the permeability values (k) in column J. Other calculations have been performed in a similar manner using equations presented in Section 6.1, Section 6.2, and Section 6.4. Details on the calculations in Section 6.2 are listed as notes to the tables in Appendix B. (See Appendix B for details: only the general practices related to calculations in Excel are discussed here.) In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-3 November 2004 Table I-1. Calculation Spreadsheet for Permeability (Output) from Input in DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 A B C D E F G H I J 1 P1 P2 L Qsc u rw Tf Tsc Psc k -permeability 2 89515.40 215482.27 0.3048 8.30E-04 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 8.46E-14 3 92174.57 146320.52 0.3048 1.69E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 5.12E-15 4 89023.91 124321.86 0.3048 1.69E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 8.78E-15 5 90593.25 129981.18 0.3048 1.69E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 7.61E-15 6 88695.51 165094.52 0.3048 8.37E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 1.69E-14 7 89190.80 118626.97 0.3048 1.69E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 1.08E-14 8 89843.76 107377.01 0.3048 8.36E-05 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 9.47E-14 9 89755.15 115576.75 0.3048 8.29E-04 1.78E-05 0.0381 288.1 288.1 101352.9 6.12E-13 Source: DTN: LB0011AIRKTEST.001 [DIRS 153155] In cell: Equation for permeability (Equation 6-1): J2 (I2*D2*E2*LN(C2/F2)*G2)/(3.14*C2*((B2^2)-(A2^2))*H2) J3 (I3*D3*E3*LN(C3/F3)*G3)/(3.14*C3*((B3^2)-(A3^2))*H3) J4 (I4*D4*E4*LN(C4/F4)*G4)/(3.14*C4*((B4^2)-(A4^2))*H4) J5 (I5*D5*E5*LN(C5/F5)*G5)/(3.14*C5*((B5^2)-(A5^2))*H5) J6 (I6*D6*E6*LN(C6/F6)*G6)/(3.14*C6*((B6^2)-(A6^2))*H6) J7 (I7*D7*E7*LN(C7/F7)*G7)/(3.14*C7*((B7^2)-(A7^2))*H7) J8 (I8*D8*E8*LN(C8/F8)*G8)/(3.14*C8*((B8^2)-(A8^2))*H8) J9 (I9*D9*E9*LN(C9/F9)*G9)/(3.14*C9*((B9^2)-(A9^2))*H9) Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. I4. PLOTTING AND TREND-LINES Microsoft Excel can also be used to plot data organized into columns and rows. This is performed by highlighting the data columns to be plotted (e.g., sample date column and seepage volume column) and then going to the INSERT pull-down menu and selecting the CHART option. The Excel Chart Wizard will then appear on screen and guide the user through the options to format the plot as desired. The following is provided as an example, with data from Section 6.10.2, and using input corroborating data from Fundamentals of Soil Physics (Hillel 1980 [DIRS 101134], p. 39). Once a chart exists and is selected (activated), a CHART file appears as a pull-down menu and can be used to adjust chart format. From the CHART pull-down menu, ADD TRENDLINE may be selected to have Excel add a line to the data, based upon a least-squares best-fit technique. This means that a line is added that minimizes the sum of the squared differences between the line and the actual data. This feature of Excel has been used in this report in Figures 6-19 through Figure 6-23, Figure 6-122, Figure 6-141, Figure 6-142, and Figure 6-145. It is a calculation (based upon data) similar to the others performed in Excel. Excel was also used to display box plots of data (Figure 6-217 and Figure 6-218), which are boxes on a graph with a line through the mean value and the upper and lower boundaries of the box at 2 times the standard deviation level. The outer lines (known as whiskers) of the box plot indicate the total range of data values, and individual points indicate outlier data. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-4 November 2004 Figure I-1. Example of Plotting and Trendline Addition in Excel Based on Figure 6-122 I4.1 EXCEL SMOOTHING FUNCTION Some of the plotted data figures displayed in this report are presented using smoothed lines to connect data points (see Figures 6-76, 6-79, 6-80, 6-191, 6-192, 6-193, and 6-194 for examples). Display of data in this manner may be appropriate for various reasons, including that the continuity of the processes under observation is better characterized. The following discussion summarizes the smoothing function calculation in Excel. In Excel, plots of data may be smoothed, which means that the lines between data points are made nonlinear to round the edges of sharp peaks in the data. The data itself remains unchanged, but the lines between the data are calculated using an exponential smoothing formula included in the Excel program as part of the Analysis ToolPak. This formula is designed to predict a value based on the forecast for the prior period (data point). The tool uses the smoothing constant a, the magnitude of which determines how strongly forecasts respond to errors in the prior forecast. The function estimates the plotted result F, from each time step Ft, for the following time step Ft+1. The function is: Ft+1 = Ft + a*(At - Ft) = Ft + (1 - dampFact)*(At - Ft) (Eq. I-8) where At are the actual data points used to constrain the function. The damping factor (dampFact) is a corrective factor that minimizes the instability of data collected across a population. Larger constants yield a faster response, but can produce erratic projections. Smaller constants can result in long lags for forecast values. The default damping factor is 0.3. I4.2 CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED 234U/238U AGES The following calculation is performed in an Excel spreadsheet as described elsewhere in this appendix, and is used in Section 6.14.3 to estimate the ages of opal mineral deposits from uranium isotope ratios. This ratiometric calculation is a standard approach in geochemical analyses. The activity of 234U at any time in a closed mineral system consists of the 234U activity Temperature (ºC) Vapor Density (kg/m3) 0 0.00485 5 0.0068 10 0.0094 15 0.01285 20 0.0173 25 0.02305 30 0.03038 35 0.03963 In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-5 November 2004 generated in place by decay of 238U in the sample, and the amount of excess 234U activity remaining from the 234U incorporated into the mineral at the time of formation. The mathematical expression for this relation is given by Faure (1986 [DIRS 105559], p. 369, Equation 21.22). Rearranging to solve for the age of the system, t: 234 238 234 238 234 1 1 ln . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .. . . .. . - . .. . . .. . = initial measured U U U U t (Eq. I-9) where .234 is the radioactive decay constant for 234U of 2.8262 × 10-6 /year (Cheng et al. 2000 [DIRS 153475]). Therefore, estimated 234U/238U ages are calculated from measured 234U/238U ratios, and an assumed initial 234U/238U, estimated, in the present case, using the average of initial 234U/238U activity ratios calculated using 238U-234U-230Th data for SHRIMP (the ion microprobe technique) spots younger than 200 ka. The resulting estimated 234U/238U ages are presented in Table 6-43 and Figures 6-206, 6-207, and 6-208. I5. OTHER STATISTICS Statistical analyses can be performed using functions in Microsoft Excel. These include Student t-tests, normality tests, correlations tests, coefficient of variation calculations, F-tests, and linear regression. These statistical functions can be calculated for arrays of data (in rows and columns) using the INSERT pull-down menu and FUNCTION command. In Section 6.14.1.2, a Fisher (F) test is performed to examine intersample variability. The analysis was performed as described by Youden, (1951 [DIRS 153339]) and Peterman and Cloke (2002 [DIRS 162576] p. 692): F = [S (xm-µ)2/(nm-1)]/[S (xa-xb)2/n] (Eq. I-10) where xm = means of duplicate analyses µ = overall mean of the analyses nm = number of samples (20) xa and xb are the duplicate analyses nm = number of duplicate analyses n = total number of analyses A critical F-value is defined by Youden (1951 [DIRS 153339]) for a given level of probability (in this case, 95 percent). In Section 6.14.3, a discussion on the slopes of a regression line is provided for input DTN: GS021208315215.009 [DIRS 164750]. In this regression, the isotope ratios for data 230Th/U are analyzed in a linear regression, using Excel. This is done by plotting the data (in this case, 230Th/U ratio (column F)) as a function of the distance from the surface of the sample. By then adding a TRENDLINE as discussed in Section I4, the slope of the regression may be obtained from the equation as displayed in Figure I-1. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-6 November 2004 Table I-2. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Table 6-44 and Figure 6-209 A B C D E F G H I Row Sample Designation Elapsed Time (min.) Uranium Abundance (ng) 230Thorium/ 232Thorium Radioactivity Ratio 230Thorium/ 238Uranium Isotopic Ratio 234Uranium/ 238Uranium Radioactivity Ratio Mineral Age (ka) Initial 234Uranium/ 238Uranium Radioactivity Ratio 1 HD2074-T1a 1–2 12.6 1,250 ±400 0.3436 ±0.0045 6.043 ±0.082 6.34 ±0.12 6.134 ±0.082 2 HD2074-T1b 3 0.744 134 ±32 0.901 ±0.069 6.421 ±0.058 16.2 ±1.3 6.674 ±0.061 3 HD2074-T1c 12 1.64 720 ±220 1.490 ±0.056 6.089 ±0.054 29.5 ±1.3 6.531 ±0.058 4 HD2074-T1d 12 1.22 1,400 ±4,200 2.393 ±0.076 5.213 ±0.049 61.4 ±2.5 6.011 ±0.059 5 HD2074-g2-L1 2 2.21 550 ±340 0.430 ±0.038 6.574 ±0.089 7.3 ±0.7 6.691 ±0.090 6 HD2074-g2-L2 2 3.13 580 ±180 0.671 ±0.074 6.561 ±0.058 11.6 ±1.3 6.747 ±0.062 7 HD2074-g2-L3 3 4.81 940 ±220 0.932 ±0.064 6.649 ±0.084 16.1 ±1.2 6.913 ±0.086 8 HD2074-g2-L4 3 4.5 3,300 ±1,900 1.350 ±0.077 6.435 ±0.041 24.9 ±1.6 6.831 ±0.048 9 HD2074-g2-L5 4 5.1 5,700 ±4,700 1.427 ±0.034 6.492 ±0.042 26.2 ±0.7 6.914 ±0.044 10 HD2074-g2-L6 5 6.89 2,770 ±720 1.620 ±0.023 6.375 ±0.036 30.7 ±0.5 6.862 ±0.037 Source: DTN: GS021208315215.009 [DIRS 164750]. NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. Source: DTN: GS021208315215.009 [DIRS 164750]. NOTE: The results are discussed in section 6.14.3 and are related to Table 6-44 and Figure 6-209. Figure I-2. Example of Linear Regression in Excel with the y = mx Equation, Where m is the Regression-Slope The resulting slope (0.30) in Figure I-2 is not the same as the 0.35 slope reported in Section 6.14.3, because only rows 5 through 10 were used for demonstration purposes in this appendix. In this appendix, the distance is indicated by the last digit in the sample designation. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-7 November 2004 I6. CALCULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC FIGURES The following subsections document specific calculations used to create figures that require more detail than provided in Appendix Section I4. I6.1 DESCRIPTORS FOR EVAPORATION-PAN DATA IN FIGURE 6-42 (DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001) Evaporation-pan data were measured using a single balance loaded with a container filled with water. A “Mettler Single Scale 8-31-01.vi V2.0” referred to as Balance 4, was used to record the evaporation rate after 7-15-02. Figure 6-42 shows the evaporation rate inside and outside the niche during Test #2 9-17-02. The plot indicates that the average evaporation flux outside of the niche is approximately a factor of 20 greater than the average evaporation flux inside the niche. The input evaporation data (DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]) collected during the study, and contained in the original data files, give the evaporation rates (g/s). These data rates were converted to output evaporation fluxes (g/s-m2) shown in Column I of Table I-3. These outputs were obtained by dividing the evaporation rate (measured water-mass loss over time, in Column G) by the surface area of the evaporation pan (i.e., pr2, where r is the radius of the pan, in Column H). The radius of the evaporation pan inside the niche was 0.075 m (Trautz 2003 [DIRS 166248], p. 187). Table I-3. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-42 A B C D E F G H I Date and Date Time Elapsed Time (s) Weight Units Status Mass Rate (g/s) Area, pr2 (m2) Evaporation (g/s-m2) 9/17/2002 2:01:01 PM 0 2163.3 g S D 0 0.01767146 0 9/17/2002 2:01:04 PM 3.695 2163.5 g S D 0.054127 0.01767146 3.062961637 9/17/2002 2:01:21 PM 20.029 2162.2 g S D -0.079589 0.01767146 -4.503816094 9/17/2002 2:01:37 PM 36.362 2163.3 g S D 0.067348 0.01767146 3.811117194 9/17/2002 2:01:54 PM 52.746 2162.9 g S D -0.024414 0.01767146 -1.381549789 9/17/2002 2:02:10 PM 69.079 2163.3 g S D 0.02449 0.01767146 1.385850509 9/17/2002 2:02:27 PM 86.134 2163.2 g S D -0.005863 0.01767146 -0.331777931 9/17/2002 2:02:43 PM 102.467 2163.5 g S D 0.018368 0.01767146 1.039416176 9/17/2002 2:03:00 PM 118.791 2163.4 g S D -0.006126 0.01767146 -0.346660687 9/17/2002 2:03:16 PM 135.124 2162.9 g S D -0.030613 0.01767146 -1.73234143 9/17/2002 2:03:32 PM 151.457 2163.5 g S D 0.036735 0.01767146 2.078775763 Source: DTN: LB0211NICH5LIQ.001 [DIRS 160792]. NOTE: Data are from Balance 4; they have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. I6.2 DESCRIPTOR FOR DATA IN FIGURE 6-131(B) (DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.002) In Table I-4 the rate data for plotting is computed as follows: cumulative volume from columns B and D, which are taken from LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879], and have already been divided by 1,000 (to convert milligrams to liters), and written to Columns C and E, respectively, of the plotting worksheet. Injection rate data are written to Column F in this In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-8 November 2004 worksheet by taking the difference of sequential-row data in Column C and dividing this difference by sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), and then multiplying by appropriate conversion factors. Similarly, seepage rate data are written to Column H by taking the difference of sequential-row data in Column E, and dividing this difference by sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), and then multiplying by appropriate conversion factors. The rate data are smoothed for plotting by taking a 20-point moving average (using the Excel “AVERAGE” function, see Equation I-1), and writing the result to the row corresponding to the time stamp of the first data point of the 20-point averaging series. The averaging results are performed in this fashion on the rate data from Columns F and H, and written to Output Columns G and I for plotting against Column A. Table I-4. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-131(b) A B C D E F G H I Date and Time Injection (g) Injection (L) Seepage (g) Seepage (L) Injection Rate (mL/min.) 20-point Movingaverage Injection Rate (mL/min.) Seepage Rate (mL/min.) 20-point Movingaverage Seepage Rate (mL/min.) 2/28/2001 13:59 376.4733 0.376473 8.269747 0.00827 9.50 9.54 0.00 -0.07 2/28/2001 14:19 566.9406 0.566941 8.269747 0.00827 12.83 9.64 0.00 -0.07 2/28/2001 14:39 823.9857 0.823986 8.269747 0.00827 11.57 9.57 -0.07 -0.07 2/28/2001 14:59 1055.978 1.055978 6.891456 0.006891 10.13 9.42 -0.07 -0.06 2/28/2001 15:19 1259.144 1.259144 5.513165 0.005513 10.31 9.51 0.00 -0.06 2/28/2001 15:39 1465.741 1.465741 5.513165 0.005513 9.94 9.55 -0.03 -0.06 2/28/2001 15:59 1665.131 1.665131 4.824019 0.004824 8.04 9.64 -0.10 -0.06 2/28/2001 16:19 1826.771 1.826771 2.756582 0.002757 1.52 9.86 -0.31 -0.05 2/28/2001 16:39 1857.314 1.857314 -3.44573 -0.00345 -4.18 10.45 -0.45 -0.03 2/28/2001 16:59 1773.577 1.773577 -12.4046 -0.0124 3.73 11.28 0.00 -0.01 2/28/2001 17:20 1848.391 1.848391 -12.4046 -0.0124 14.22 11.72 0.00 -0.01 2/28/2001 17:40 2133.234 2.133234 -12.4046 -0.0124 14.05 11.60 0.00 -0.01 2/28/2001 18:00 2414.989 2.414989 -12.4046 -0.0124 14.25 11.38 -0.03 -0.01 Source: DTN: LB0110ECRBLIQR.002 [DIRS 156879]. NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. I6.3 DESCRIPTOR FOR DATA IN FIGURES 6-141 THROUGH 6-143 (DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001) Columns B, C, and D of Table I-5 contain the injection, return, and seepage volume data, respectively, from LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462] for LA#3 Zone 1, and have already been divided by 1000 g/L to convert grams to liters. Rates in Columns E and G were calculated through use of Columns B and D, respectively, in combination with time data from Column A. Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, and dividing In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-9 November 2004 this difference by sequential-row data from column A (time stamp data), and multiplying this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. Columns F and H have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in Columns E and G, respectively. The output is written to the row corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Return data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there was no return). Table I-5. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-141 A B C D E F G H Date and Time Injection Volume (L) Return Volume (L) Seepage Volume (L) Injection Rate (mL/min.) 17-point Moving-average Injection Rate (mL/min.) Seepage Rate (mL/min.) 17-point Moving-average Seepage Rate (mL/min.) 5/17/2001 15:33 0.42967 -0.00892 -0.00276 34.5923 36.25259193 -0.06874 0.040454465 5/17/2001 15:53 1.12324 -0.0151 -0.00413 32.5041 36.41670827 -0.05156 0.040454465 5/17/2001 16:13 1.77495 -0.01922 -0.00517 35.13798 36.65835198 -0.05143 0.041465388 5/17/2001 16:33 2.48122 -0.02196 -0.0062 39.05319 36.76620501 -0.0342 0.040446921 5/17/2001 16:54 3.26815 -0.02951 -0.00689 35.45289 36.63771063 0.034343 0.040436887 5/17/2001 17:14 3.97957 -0.03775 -0.0062 36.69389 36.77217985 0.1376 0.036393193 5/17/2001 17:34 4.71467 -0.03432 -0.00345 36.56069 36.73816646 0.618684 0.02829909 5/17/2001 17:54 5.44771 -0.01853 0.00896 37.87866 36.84489242 0.274971 -0.008094107 5/17/2001 18:14 6.20718 -0.01441 0.01447 34.57519 36.79052259 -0.03437 -0.024268861 5/17/2001 18:34 6.90041 -0.01441 0.01378 33.18211 36.9455773 -0.0344 -0.022247016 5/17/2001 18:54 7.56516 -0.01682 0.01309 26.39353 37.19951427 0.017186 -0.020223488 Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. Columns J, K, and L of Table I-6 contain the injection, return and seepage volume data, respectively, from LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462] for LA#3 Zone 2, and have already been divided by 1000 g/L to convert from grams to liters. Rates in Columns M and O were calculated through use of Columns J and L, respectively, in combination with time data from Column I. Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, and dividing this difference by sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), and multiplying this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. Columns N and P have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in Columns M and O, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Return data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there was no return). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-10 November 2004 Table I-6. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-142 I J K L M N O P Date and Time Injection Volume (L) Return Volume (L) Seepage Volume (L) Injection Rate (mL/min.) 17-point Movingaverage Injection Rate (mL/min.) Seepage Rate (mL/min.) 17-point Movingaverage Seepage Rate (mL/min.) 5/17/2001 15:33 0.26597 -0.00069 -0.00069 73.03580223 70.10880015 -0.03437 0.034428271 5/17/2001 15:53 1.73034 -0.01167 -0.00138 66.30904562 70.10880014 -0.03437 0.032406423 5/17/2001 16:13 3.05983 -0.01922 -0.00207 69.11494788 70.49140268 -0.06857 0.028362738 5/17/2001 16:33 4.44904 -0.02471 -0.00345 57.02140797 70.69082885 -0.1368 0.030374522 5/17/2001 16:54 5.59802 -0.035 -0.0062 58.62638488 71.58049591 -0.06869 0.036399916 5/17/2001 17:14 6.77446 -0.03844 -0.00758 67.83744879 72.36819868 0.1032 0.040440248 5/17/2001 17:34 8.13347 -0.03569 -0.00551 70.02331071 72.60853901 0.171857 0.036391514 5/17/2001 17:54 9.53744 -0.03226 -0.00207 68.51706506 72.7384225 0.206228 0.026282293 5/17/2001 18:14 10.9112 -0.035 0.00207 72.45384363 72.9861073 0.481199 0.014151227 5/17/2001 18:34 12.3639 -0.03741 0.01172 73.88457489 73.51470289 0.0688 -0.014154591 Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. The linear curve fit for evaporation uses the Excel trendline (see Section I4) option for fitting a curve to an existing plot. The slope is from the equation generated by Excel for the fit. Columns R, S, and T of Table I-7 contain the injection, return and seepage volume data, respectively, from DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462] for LA#3 Zone 3, and have already been divided by 1000 g/L, to convert grams to liters. The rates in Columns U and W were calculated through use of Columns R and S (not T), respectively, in combination with time data from Column Q. Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, and dividing this difference by sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), and multiplying this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. Columns V and X have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in Columns U and W, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Rows in column Y equal V minus X. Seepage data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there was no seepage). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-11 November 2004 Table I-7. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-143 Q R S T U V W X Y Date and Time Injection Volume (L) Return Volume (L) Seepage Volume (L) Injection Rate (mL/min.) 17-point Movingaverage Injection Rate (mL/min.) Return Rate (mL/min.) 17-point Movingaverage Return Rate (mL/min.) Net Inflow (mL/min.) 5/17/2001 15:33 0.12492 -0.00275 1.40724 96.84475 102.1661207 7.223133 75.80776078 26.35835987 5/17/2001 15:53 2.06666 0.14208 1.42446 97.08438 102.7208943 28.03671 80.82287446 21.89801987 5/17/2001 16:13 4.0132 0.70421 1.43618 97.91853 103.0088531 33.77208 86.27193995 16.73691311 5/17/2001 16:34 5.98136 1.38303 1.44962 98.90518 103.342388 41.31827 90.16232341 13.18006459 5/17/2001 16:54 7.97595 2.21628 1.43825 99.00142 103.6813166 39.71012 93.70043656 9.980880038 5/17/2001 17:14 9.96093 3.01247 1.40103 98.75831 104.0469133 35.87162 97.41368893 6.633224337 5/17/2001 17:34 11.9394 3.7311 1.40276 93.72956 104.3823991 135.0315 101.2510492 3.131349904 5/17/2001 17:54 13.8187 6.43848 1.4224 103.6229 105.0438988 98.0429 99.35414615 5.689752607 5/17/2001 18:14 15.8963 8.40424 1.42929 104.2733 105.0831659 97.37536 99.56860494 5.514560925 5/17/2001 18:34 17.987 10.3566 1.42171 105.011 105.0539672 94.11589 99.85555683 5.198410416 Source: DTN: LB0203ECRBLIQR.001 [DIRS 158462]. NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. I6.4 DESCRIPTOR FOR DATA IN FIGURES 6-144 THROUGH 6-146 (DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001) Columns B, C, and D of Table I-8 contain the injection, return, and seepage (seepage is for Zone 2 as per the TDMS notes) volume data, respectively, from Zone 1 of Borehole LA#4, and have already been divided by 1000 g/L to convert grams to liters. The rates in Columns E and G were calculated through use of Columns B and C, respectively, in combination with time data from Column A. Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, and dividing this difference by the difference in sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), and multiplying this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. Columns F and H have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in Columns E and G, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Column I equals Column F minus Column H. Seepage data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there was no seepage for Zone 1). In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-12 November 2004 Table I-8. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-144 A B C D E F G H I Date and Time Zone 1 Injection Volume (L) Zone 1 Return Volume (L) Zone 2 Seepage Volume (L) Injection Rate (mL/min.) 20-point Movingaverage Injection Rate (mL/min.) Return Rate (mL/min. 20-point Movingaverage Return Rate (mL/min.) Net Inflow Rate (mL/min.) 2/6/2002 14:26 0.82193 0.01785 0.0062 35.12291 6.149953688 0.171164 1.539103191 4.610850497 2/6/2002 14:46 1.52614 0.02128 0.0062 35.99585 4.057721964 3.252121 1.527021005 2.530700959 2/6/2002 15:06 2.24786 0.08648 0.00551 30.71529 1.918149921 9.353345 1.329673623 0.588476297 2/6/2002 15:26 2.86319 0.27386 0.00345 19.78659 0.0267929 9.379803 0.77343575 -0.74664285 2/6/2002 15:46 3.25991 0.46193 0.00276 -0.822272 -1.0827092 4.316929 0.228736438 -1.311445637 2/6/2002 16:06 3.24344 0.54841 0.00207 -2.516115 -1.00713272 0.71889 -0.025200537 -0.981932188 2/6/2002 16:26 3.19299 0.56282 0.00276 -2.398294 -0.84100268 0.034261 -0.068495033 -0.772507647 2/6/2002 16:46 3.14494 0.56351 0.00276 -4.039477 -0.69488815 0 -0.070510406 -0.624377742 2/6/2002 17:06 3.06395 0.56351 0.00345 -0.907925 -0.48143621 -0.13705 -0.074537802 -0.406898408 2/6/2002 17:26 3.04576 0.56076 0.00345 -0.633308 -0.55902806 -0.13693 -0.078568549 -0.480459515 Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. Columns B, C, and M of Table I-9 contain the injection, return, and seepage volume data, respectively, from DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227] for LA#4 Zone 2, and have already been divided by 1000 g/L to convert grams to liters. Note that Column A has the traditional time stamp corresponding to Zone 2 injection and return (B, C), but that Column I has times corresponding to seepage data in Column M. This is because the injection and seepage data come from different files, with slightly different time stamps, as per the notes from the TDMS. The rates in Columns E and P were calculated through use of Columns B and M, respectively, in combination with time data from Columns A and I, respectively. Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, and dividing this difference by the difference in sequential-row data from Column A (time stamp data), or Column I in the case of seepage data in Column M, and multiplying this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. Columns F and Q have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in Columns E and P, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Column J equals F minus Q. Return data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there was no return). Zone 1 data (in columns D, K, J, N, O) are not plotted in this figure. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-13 November 2004 Table I-9. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-145 A B C D E F I Date and Time Zone 2 Injection Volume (L) Zone 2 Return Volume (L) Zone 1 Seepage Volume (L) Zone 2 Injection Rate (mL/min.) Zone 2 17-point Moving- Average Injection Rate (mL/min.) Date and Time 10/20/2002 09:02 435.465 -2.18094 -0.00138 46.2318 43.26999709 10/20/2002 09:04 10/20/2002 09:23 436.395 -2.18403 -0.00138 45.82622 43.09739301 10/20/2002 09:24 10/20/2002 09:43 437.316 -2.18403 -0.00207 45.87355 42.96269607 10/20/2002 09:45 10/20/2002 10:03 438.239 -2.18265 -0.00138 45.78825 42.84528516 10/20/2002 10:05 10/20/2002 10:23 439.16 -2.17236 -0.00138 45.97591 42.66257286 10/20/2002 10:25 10/20/2002 10:43 440.085 -2.15829 -0.00138 45.70295 42.48394771 10/20/2002 10:45 10/20/2002 11:03 441.004 -2.1449 -0.00138 46.56039 42.33743495 10/20/2002 11:05 10/20/2002 11:23 441.94 -2.13049 -0.00069 46.55594 42.16545265 10/20/2002 11:43 442.877 -2.12534 -0.00069 30.01583 41.98482048 J K L M N O P Q Net Loss Rate (mL/min) Zone 1 Injection Volume (L) Zone 1 Return Volume (L) Zone 2 Seepage Volume (L) Zone 1 Injection Rate (L) Zone 1 17-point Moving-average Injection Rate (mL/min.) Zone 2 Seepage Rate (mL/min.) 17-point Moving-average Zone 2 Seepage Rate (mL/min.) 40.79148803 -0.0048 0.00137 0.04893 -0.170597 -0.24282589 2.500793 2.478509058 40.62380401 -0.00824 0.00275 0.09924 -0.170597 -0.24082552 2.517922 2.473588999 40.49829032 -0.01167 0.00343 0.14989 -0.068239 -0.24081722 2.466536 2.464405749 40.38893998 -0.01304 0.00412 0.19951 -0.204886 -0.24683829 2.605725 2.456345175 40.22762295 -0.01716 0.0048 0.25188 -0.204716 -0.24080225 2.483665 2.434949909 40.06008109 -0.02128 0.00618 0.30185 -0.170597 -0.24080225 2.483665 2.423866617 39.91457591 -0.02471 0.00755 0.35181 -0.204716 -0.24080225 2.500793 2.422859045 Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. The linear curve fit for evaporation (Figure 6-145) uses the Excel trendline option for putting a curve fit onto an existing plot. Slope is from the equation generated by Excel for the fit. For example, rate calculations for Figure 6-146 are as follows: Columns S, T, and U of Table I-10 contain the injection, return, and seepage volume data, respectively, from DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227] for LA4 Zone 3, and have already been divided by 1,000 to convert milliliters to liters. The rates in Columns V and X were calculated through use of Columns S and T (not U), respectively, in combination with time data from Column R. Rate data are calculated by taking the difference of sequential-row data in a column, and dividing this by the difference of sequential-row data from Column R (time stamp data), and multiplying this by conversion factors [1000 (g/L) / 1440 (min/day)] to get mL/min. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-14 November 2004 Columns W and Y have a 17-point moving average (using Equation I-1), calculated from data in Columns U and W, respectively. The data from this calculation are written to the row corresponding to the first row of the series for each average. Data in Column Z are the difference between the average injection rate and the average return rate (that is, Zn = Wn – Yn), where n is the row number. Seepage data are not plotted (the measured values indicate that there was no seepage). Table I-10. Calculation Excel Spreadsheet for Output in Figure 6-146 R S T U V W X Y Z Date and Time Zone 3 Injection Volume (L) Zone 3 Return Volume (L) Zone 3 Seepage Volume (L) Zone 3 Injection Rate (mL/min.) Zone 3 20-point Movingaverage Injection Rate (mL/min.) Zone 3 Return Rate (mL/min.) Zone 3 20-point Movingaverage Return Rate (mL/min.) Zone 3 Net Inflow (mL/min.) 2/6/2002 14:27 0.32671 0.00549 -0.00034 3.237696 0.522815012 -0.29122 -0.128931088 0.6517461 2/6/2002 14:48 0.39157 -0.00034 -0.00207 2.276485 0.337400713 -0.59907 -0.112808103 0.450208816 2/6/2002 15:08 0.43722 -0.01235 -0.00551 0.788011 0.211551322 0.034261 -0.080591458 0.29214278 2/6/2002 15:28 0.453 -0.01167 -0.01447 0.222514 0.17123884 0 -0.084620527 0.255859367 2/6/2002 15:48 0.45746 -0.01167 -0.01792 0.25696 0.152103686 -0.17131 -0.076559036 0.228662722 2/6/2002 16:08 0.46261 -0.0151 -0.01999 0.205397 0.141015786 -0.13693 -0.06849587 0.209511657 2/6/2002 16:28 0.46673 -0.01785 -0.02067 0.017131 0.132964347 0.068523 -0.062456454 0.195420802 2/6/2002 16:48 0.46707 -0.01647 -0.02067 0.119815 0.131956662 0.034233 -0.066487201 0.198443863 Source: DTN: LB0301SYTSTLA4.001 [DIRS 165227]. NOTE: Data have been truncated, and are presented here as an example calculation only. I6.5 WETTING-FRONT VELOCITY CALCULATION IN FIGURE 6-155 OBSERVED IN BOREHOLES 1, 9, AND 10 IN NICHE 3 (NICHE 3107) The data used for this calculation are from DTNs: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001] and LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165461]. Each of these files includes the resistance measurements taken in the boreholes after the application of water along the fault. The decreasing resistance measured by ERPs located along the wall of each of these boreholes indicates increased wetting of the borehole walls. The arrival time of the wetting front was determined to be the time when the resistance in a sensor first began to decrease after the application of water in the fault in early March 2001. For each of the boreholes, the date of the first observed decrease in resistance is noted for each of the measurement locations in Boreholes 1, 9, and 10 in Niche 3 (Niche 3107) (Table I-11a to Table I-11c). The time to first response is calculated by subtracting the date 03/06/2001 from the date of first response, and formatting the result as a number. The values in Table I-11 are used as input. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-15 November 2004 Table I-11a. Date of First Response in Borehole 1 Borehole First Response Time (days) to First Response (from 03/06/01) BH#1-0.40 8/6/01 153 BH#1-0.65 2/17/01 N/A a BH#1-0.90 6/9/01 95 BH#1-1.15 7/8/01 124 BH#1-1.40 6/22/01 108 BH#1-1.65 5/25/01 80 BH#1-1.90 7/19/01 135 BH#1-2.15 7/8/01 124 BH#1-2.40 7/9/01 125 BH#1-2.65 9/25/01 203 BH#1-2.90 7/4/01 120 BH#1-3.15 7/6/01 122 BH#1-3.40 5/23/01 78 BH#1-3.65 8/11/01 158 BH#1-3.90 7/26/01 142 BH#1-4.15 4/10/01 35 BH#1-4.40 9/23/01 201 BH#1-4.65 7/18/01 134 BH#1-4.90 6/9/01 95 BH#1-5.15 8/22/01 169 BH#1-5.40 5/7/01 62 BH#1-5.65 3/23/01 17 BH#1-5.90 8/23/01 170 Source: DTN: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001]. a The decrease in electrical resistance observed at a date prior to liquid release is obviously not related to the wetting front arrival. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-16 November 2004 Table I-11b. Date of First Response in Borehole 9 Borehole First Response Time (days) to First Response (from 03/06/01) BH#9-0.15 5/30/01 85 BH#9-0.40 5/18/01 73 BH#9-0.65 5/18/01 73 BH#9-0.90 4/19/01 44 BH#9-1.15 4/13/01 38 BH#9-1.40 4/6/01 31 BH#9-1.65 4/6/01 31 BH#9-1.90 4/6/01 31 BH#9-2.15 4/9/01 34 BH#9-2.40 4/9/01 34 BH#9-2.65 4/12/01 37 BH#9-2.90 4/21/01 46 BH#9-3.15 4/22/01 47 BH#9-3.40 5/2/01 57 BH#9-3.65 4/22/01 47 BH#9-3.90 5/13/01 68 BH#9-4.15 6/15/01 101 BH#9-4.40 6/19/01 105 BH#9-4.65 5/23/01 78 BH#9-4.90 6/26/01 112 BH#9-5.15 6/23/01 109 BH#9-5.40 5/13/01 68 BH#9-5.65 5/30/01 85 BH#9-5.90 6/24/01 110 BH#9-6.15 Not Known N/A BH#9-6.40 Not Known N/A BH#9-6.65 Not Known N/A BH#9-6.90 Not Known N/A BH#9-7.15 Not Known N/A BH#9-7.40 Not Known N/A BH#9-7.65 Not Known N/A BH#9-7.90 Not Known N/A BH#9-8.15 Not Known N/A BH#9-8.40 Not Known N/A BH#9-8.65 Not Known N/A BH#9-8.90 Not Known N/A Source: DTN: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001]. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-17 November 2004 Table I-11c. Date of First Response in Borehole 10 Borehole First Response Time (days) to First Response (from 03/06/01) BH#10-0.15 7/3/01 119 BH#10-0.40 7/8/01 124 BH#10-0.65 5/25/01 80 BH#10-0.90 5/24/01 79 BH#10-1.15 5/7/01 62 BH#10-1.40 4/21/01 46 BH#10-1.65 4/9/01 34 BH#10-1.90 4/9/01 34 BH#10-2.15 4/9/01 34 BH#10-2.40 4/9/01 34 BH#10-2.65 4/10/01 35 BH#10-2.90 4/18/01 43 BH#10-3.15 4/19/01 44 BH#10-3.40 4/18/01 43 BH#10-3.65 5/1/01 56 BH#10-3.90 5/2/01 57 BH#10-4.15 6/7/01 93 BH#10-4.40 5/13/01 68 BH#10-4.65 5/2/01 57 BH#10-4.90 6/23/01 109 BH#10-5.15 7/2/01 118 BH#10-5.40 6/23/01 109 BH#10-5.65 5/29/01 84 BH#10-5.90 6/30/01 116 BH#10-6.15 5/29/01 84 BH#10-6.40 6/25/01 111 BH#10-6.65 7/6/01 122 BH#10-6.90 6/22/01 108 BH#10-7.15 8/12/01 159 BH#10-7.40 No wetting N/A BH#10-7.65 No wetting N/A BH#10-7.90 No wetting N/A BH#10-8.15 No wetting N/A BH#10-8.40 No wetting N/A BH#10-8.65 No wetting N/A BH#10-8.90 No wetting N/A Source: DTN: LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165461]. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-18 November 2004 The horizontal plane along which Borehole 1 lies is approximately 21 m below the water release zone in Alcove 8, and the horizontal plane along which Boreholes 9 and 10 lie is approximately 19 m below the injection zone in Alcove 8. The wetting-front velocities (m/day) in Table I-12 are calculated by dividing these travel distances by the transport times (days) for the wetting front to reach the sensor location along the borehole. Using Table I-12, Figure I-3 is a plot of the velocity data determined from Boreholes 1, 9 and 10 (Figure I-3). This is similar to Figure 6-155, presented in Section 6.12. Table I-12. Wetting-Front Velocity Calculated for Locations along Boreholes 1, 9, and 10 Travel time in days since start of liquid release on 03/06/01 Velocity of Wetting Front (meters/day) Distance from collar Borehole 1 Borehole 9 Borehole 10 Distance from collar Borehole 1 Borehole 9 Borehole 10 0.15 85 119 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.40 153 73 124 0.40 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.65 -17 73 80 0.65 0.3 0.2 0.90 95 44 79 0.90 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.15 124 38 62 1.15 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.40 108 31 46 1.40 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.65 80 31 34 1.65 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.90 135 31 34 1.90 0.2 0.6 0.6 2.15 124 34 34 2.15 0.2 0.6 0.6 2.40 125 34 34 2.40 0.2 0.6 0.6 2.65 203 37 35 2.65 0.1 0.5 0.5 2.90 120 46 43 2.90 0.2 0.4 0.4 3.15 122 47 44 3.15 0.2 0.4 0.4 3.40 78 57 43 3.40 0.3 0.3 0.4 3.65 158 47 56 3.65 0.1 0.4 0.3 3.90 142 68 57 3.90 0.1 0.3 0.3 4.15 35 101 93 4.15 0.6 0.2 0.2 4.40 201 105 68 4.40 0.1 0.2 0.3 4.65 134 78 57 4.65 0.2 0.2 0.3 4.90 95 112 109 4.90 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.15 169 109 118 5.15 0.1 0.2 0.2 5.40 62 68 109 5.40 0.3 0.3 0.2 5.65 17 85 84 5.65 1.2 0.2 0.2 5.90 170 110 116 5.90 0.1 0.2 0.2 6.15 84 6.15 0.2 6.40 111 6.40 0.2 6.65 122 6.65 0.2 6.90 108 6.90 0.2 7.15 159 7.15 0.1 7.40 7.40 7.65 7.65 7.90 7.90 8.15 8.15 8.40 8.40 8.65 8.65 8.90 8.90 Source: DTNs: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001], LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165461]. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-19 November 2004 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Distance from borehole collar (m) Wetting front velocity (m/day) Borehole 1 Borehole 9 Borehole 10 Source: DTNs: LB0110A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 157001], LB0209A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 165461], LB0303A8N3LIQR.001 [DIRS 162570]. Figure I-3. Wetting-Front Velocities for Boreholes 1, 9, and 10 as Presented in Figure 6-155 I6.6 ROCK COMPOSITION CALCULATION IN TABLE 6-38 OF TOPOPAH SPRING TUFF IN THE CROSS DRIFT Duplicate rock samples were collected along the ECRB Cross Drift at 20 locations, from Station 10+00 to Station 25+00. The measured rock compositions of all 40 samples are documented in DTN: GS000308313211.001 [DIRS 162015]. The mean values and standard deviation (s) were calculated by treating all 40 samples in the same manner. In the analyses presented in Table 6-38, the mean of each pair was calculated before statistical calculations of s and the standard deviation of the mean (SDOM). SDOM was calculated by dividing s by v20. Then the ranges were represented by calculating the mean value plus or minus 2 times SDOM. Table I-13 compares the s calculated by these two different analyses from the same data set. The data of the most abundant oxide, SiO2, are shown, as an example, in the first two data columns. A second example in the table pertains to converting trace element measurements expressed in ppm to weight percent of the oxide form (Zirconium Zr to ZrO2, with molecular weights 91.2 and 123.2, respectively, and a ratio equal to 123.2/91.2, which is equal to 1.351). The third example pertains to the treatment of the carbonate group, with low measured values that were sometimes below the detection limit. These three examples cover the range of analyses needed to present the results in Table 6-38. In Situ Field Testing of Processes ANL-NBS-HS-000005 REV 03 I-20 November 2004 Table I-13. Rock Composition Analyses of Duplicated Measurements and Trace Element Conversion Sample Unit SiO2 Measured Weight (%) SiO2 Means of Duplicates Zr Trace Element (ppm) ZrO2 Calculated Weight (%) CO2 Measured Weight (%) CO2 Means of Duplicates Sample Number CS1000a Tptpul 76.2 113 0.015 0.01 1 CS1000b Tptpul 76.5 76.35 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 2 CS1050a Tptpmn 76.5 111 0.015 0.01 3 CS1050b Tptpmn 76.2 76.35 N/A N/A <0.01 0.01 4 CS1150a Tptpmn 76.5 116 0.016 <0.01 5 CS1150b Tptpmn 76.6 76.55 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 6 CS1200a Tptpmn 76.7 113 0.015 <0.01 7 CS1200b Tptpmn 76.7 76.70 N/A N/A <0.01 N/A 8 CS1300a Tptpmn 76.3 119 0.016 0.01 9 CS1300b Tptpmn 76.4 76.35 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 10 CS1350a Tptpmn 76.2 112 0.015 0.02 11 CS1350b Tptpmn 76.1 76.15 N/A N/A <0.01 0.02 12 CS1400a Tptpmn 76.0 117 0.016 0.01 13 CS1400b Tptpmn 76.5 76.25 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 14 CS1450a Tptpll 76.3 120 0.016 0.01 15 CS1450b Tptpll 75.9 76.10 N/A N/A <0.01 0.01 16 CS1500a Tptpll 76.5 110 0.015 0.01 17 CS1500b Tptpll 76.6 76.55 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 18 CS1750a Tptpll 76.4 116 0.016 0.01 19 CS1750b Tptpll 76.7 76.55 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 20 CS1800a Tptpll 75.8 120 0.016 0.01 21 CS1800b Tptpll 75.8 75.80 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 22 CS1950a Tptpll 76.3 115 0.016 <0.01 23 CS1950b Tptpll 76.5 76.40 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 24 CS2000a Tptpll 76.4 119 0.016 0.02 25 CS2000b Tptpll 77.1 76.75 N/A N/A 0.02 0.02 26 CS2100a Tptpll 75.4 116 0.016 <0.01 27 CS2100b Tptpll 75.5 75.45 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 28 CS2150a Tptpll 76.1 116 0.016 0.01 29 CS2150b Tptpll 76.4 76.25 N/A N/A <0.01 0.01 30 CS2250a Tptpll 75.7 118 0.016 <0.01 31 CS2250b Tptpll 76.3 76.00 N/A N/A <0.01 N/A 32 CS2350a Tptpln 75.9 118 0.016 <0.01 33 CS2350b Tptpln 76.6 76.25 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 34 CS2400a Tptpln 76.5 121 0.016 <0.01 35 CS2400b Tptpln 76.0 76.25 N/A N/A <0.01 N/A 36 CS2450a Tptpln 75.8 126 0.017 <0.01 37 CS2450b Tptpln 76.3 76.05 N/A N/A 0.01 0.01 38 CS2500a Tptpln 76.6 114 0.015 <0.01 39 CS2500b Tptpln 76.8 76.70 N/A N/A <0.01 N/A 40 Mean 76.29 76.29 116 0.016 0.01 0.011 Sigma 0.37 0.32 3.8 0.001 0.003 0.003 SDOM 0.07 0.000 0.001 Min 76.15 0.015 0.010 Max 76.43 0.016 0.013 NOTE(S): SiO2 means were calculated by averaging of two samples (a and b) from the same location. ZrO2 values were calculated by the Zr trace element values in ppm to weight% by multiplying the ppm data by 1.351/10,000, where the molecular weight ratio = 132.2/91.2 = 1.351. CO2 mean values were calculated by averaging or by setting to the measured value if the duplicate value is below the detection limit.