Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Rev 00, ICN 02 MDL-NBS-GS-000003 January 20002 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to document the Mineralogic Model (MM), Version 3.0 (MM3.0) with regard to data input, modeling methods, assumptions, uncertainties, limitations and validation of the model results, qualification status of the model, and the differences between Version 3.0 and previous versions. A three-dimensional (3-D) Mineralogic Model was developed for Yucca Mountain to support the analyses of hydrologic properties, radionuclide transport, mineral health hazards, repository performance, and repository design. Version 3.0 of the MM was developed from mineralogic data obtained from borehole samples. It consists of matrix mineral abundances as a function of x (easting), y (northing), and z (elevation), referenced to the stratigraphic framework defined in Version 3.1 of the Geologic Framework Model (GFM). The MM was developed specifically for incorporation into the 3-D Integrated Site Model (ISM). The MM enables project personnel to obtain calculated mineral abundances at any position, within any region, or within any stratigraphic unit in the model area. The significance of the MM for key aspects of site characterization and performance assessment is explained in the following subsections. This work was conducted in accordance with the Development Plan for the MM (CRWMS M&O 2000). The planning document for this Rev. 00, ICN 02 of this AMR is Technical Work Plan, TWP-NBS-GS-000003, Technical Work Plan for the Integrated Site Model, Process Model Report, Revision 01 (CRWMS M&O 2000). The purpose of this ICN is to record changes in the classification of input status by the resolution of the use of TBV software and data in this report. Constraints and limitations of the MM are discussed in the appropriate sections that follow. The MM is one component of the ISM, which has been developed to provide a consistent volumetric portrayal of the rock layers, rock properties, and mineralogy of the Yucca Mountain site. The ISM consists of three components: . Geologic Framework Model (GFM) . Rock Properties Model (RPM) . Mineralogic Model (MM). The ISM merges the detailed stratigraphy (described in Table 1) and structural features of the site into a 3-D model that will be useful in primary downstream models and repository design. These downstream models include the hydrologic flow models and the radionuclide transport models. All the models and the repository design, in turn, will be incorporated into the Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) of the potential nuclear waste repository block and vicinity to determine the suitability of Yucca Mountain as a host for a repository. The interrelationship of the three components of the ISM and their interface with downstream uses are illustrated in Figure 1. The lateral boundaries of the ISM and its three component models are shown in Figure 2. 1.1 MINERALOGY AND HYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES The hydrologic properties and behavior of rock units are correlated with mineralogy. For example, nonwelded vitric tuffs and zeolitized tuffs can have very different hydraulic Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 12 of 80 Table 1. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy Stratigraphic Unita, d Abbreviationa RHHb Geologic Framework Model Unith Mineralogic Model Unit Group Formation Member Zone Subzone Alluvium and Colluvium Qal, Qc Alluvium (only) Timber Mountain Group Tm Rainier Mesa Tuff Tmr Paintbrush Group Tp Post-tuff unit "x" bedded tuff Tpbt6 Tuff unit "x"c Tpki (informal) Pre-tuff unit "x" bedded tuff Tpbt5 Tiva Canyon Tuff Tpc Crystal-Rich Member Tpcr Vitric zone Tpcrv Nonwelded subzone Tpcrv3 Moderately welded subzone Tpcrv2 Densely welded subzone Tpcrv1 Nonlithophysal subzone Tpcrn Subvitrophyre transition subzone Tpcrn4 Pumice-poor subzone Tpcrn3 Mixed pumice subzone Tpcrn2 Crystal transition subzone Tpcrn1 Lithophysal zone Tpcrl Crystal transition subzone Tpcrl1 Post-Tiva Crystal-Poor Member Tpcp Upper lithophysal zone Tpcpul Spherulite-rich subzone Tpcpul1 Middle nonlithophysal zone Tpcpmn Upper subzone Tpcpmn3 Lithophysal subzone Tpcpmn2 Lower subzone Tpcpmn1 Lower lithophysal zone Tpcpll Hackly-fractured subzone Tpcpllh Sequence 22 Lower nonlithophysal zone Tpcpln (Layer 26) Hackly subzone Tpcplnh Tpcp Alluvium– Columnar subzone Tpcplnc TpcLD Tpc_un Vitric zone Tpcpv Densely welded subzone Tpcpv3 Tpcpv3 Moderately welded subzone Tpcpv2 Tpcpv2 Sequence 21 (Layer 25) Tpcpv3–Tpcpv2 Nonwelded subzone Tpcpv1 Tpcpv1 Pre-Tiva Canyon bedded tuff Tpbt4 Tpbt4 Yucca Mountain Tuff Tpy Yucca Sequence 20 (Layer 24) Tpcpv1- Tptrv2 Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 13 of 80 Table 1. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) Stratigraphic Unita, d Abbreviationa RHHb Geologic Framework Model Unith Mineralogic Model Unit Group Formation Member Zone Subzone Pre-Yucca Mountain bedded tuff Tpbt3 Tpbt3_dc Pah Canyon Tuff Tpp Pah Pre-Pah Canyon bedded tuff Tpbt2 Tpbt2 Topopah Spring Tuff Tpt Crystal-Rich Member Tptr Vitric zone Tptrv Sequence 20 Nonwelded subzone Tptrv3 Tptrv3 (Layer 24) Moderately welded subzone Tptrv2 Tptrv2 Tpcpv1–Tptrv2 Densely welded subzone Tptrv1 Tptrv1 Sequence 19 (Layer 23) Tptrv1 Nonlithophysal zone Tptrn Dense subzone Tptrn3 Vapor-phase corroded subzone Tptrn2 Crystal transition subzone Tptrn1 Tptrn Lithophysal zone Tptrl Crystal transition subzone Tptrl1 Tptrl Sequence 18 Crystal-Poor Member Tptp (Layer 22) Lithic-rich zone Tptpf or Tptrf Tptf Tptrn–Tptf Upper lithophysal zone Tptpul Tptpul RHHtop Sequence 17 (Layer 21) Tptpul Middle nonlithophysal zone Tptpmn Nonlithophysal subzone Tptpmn3 Sequence 16 Lithophysal bearing subzone Tptpmn2 (Layer 20) Nonlithophysal subzone Tptpmn1 Tptpmn Tptpmn Lower lithophysal zone Tptpll Tptpll Sequence 15 (Layer 19) Tptpll Lower nonlithophysal zone Tptpln RHH Tptpln Sequence 14 (Layer 18) Tptpln Vitric zone Tptpv Densely welded subzone Tptpv3 Tptpv3 Moderately welded subzone Tptpv2 Tptpv2 Sequence 13e (Layers 16 & 17) Tptpv3–Tptpv2 Nonwelded subzone Tptpv1 Tptpv1 Pre-Topopah Spring bedded tuff Tpbt1 Tpbt1 Sequence 12 (Layer 15) Tptpv1 - Tpbt1 Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 14 of 80 Table 1. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) Stratigraphic Unita, d Abbreviationa RHHb Geologic Framework Model Unith Mineralogic Model Unit Group Formation Member Zone Subzone Calico Hills Formation Ta Calico Sequence 11f (Layers 11, 12, 13, 14) Tac Bedded tuff Tacbt Calicobt Sequence 10 (Layer 10) Tacbt Crater Flat Group Tc Prow Pass Tuff Tcp Prow Pass Tuff upper vitric nonwelded zone (Tcpuv)d Prowuv Sequence 9 (Layer 9) Tcpuv Prow Pass Tuff upper crystalline nonwelded zone (Tcpuc)d Prowuc Prow Pass Tuff moderately-densely welded zone (Tcpmd)d Prowmd Prow Pass Tuff lower crystalline nonwelded zone (Tcplc)d Prowlc Sequence 8 (Layer 8) Tcpuc–Tcplc Prow Pass Tuff lower vitric nonwelded zone (Tcplv)d Prowlv Pre-Prow Pass Tuff bedded tuff (Tcpbt)d Prowbt Bullfrog Tuff Tcb Bullfrog Tuff upper vitric nonwelded zone (Tcbuv)d Bullfroguv Sequence 7 (Layer 7) Tcplv–Tcbuv Bullfrog Tuff upper crystalline nonwelded zone (Tcbuc)d Bullfroguc Bullfrog Tuff welded zone (Tcbmd)d Bullfrogmd Bullfrog Tuff lower crystalline nonwelded zone (Tcblc)d Bullfroglc Sequence 6 (Layer 6) Tcbuc–Tcblc Bullfrog Tuff lower vitric nonwelded zone (Tcblv)d Bullfroglv Pre-Bullfrog Tuff bedded tuff (Tcbbt)d Bullfrogbt Tram Tuff Tct Tram Tuff upper vitric nonwelded zone (Tctuv)d Tramuv Sequence 5 (Layer 5) Tcblv–Tctuv Tram Tuff upper crystalline nonwelded zone (Tctuc)d Tramuc Tram Tuff moderately-densely welded zone (Tctmd)d Trammd Tram Tuff lower crystalline nonwelded zone (Tctlc)d Tramlc Sequence 4 (Layer 4) Tctuc–Tctlc Tram Tuff lower vitric nonwelded zone (Tctlv)d Tramlv Sequence 3 (Layer 3) Tctlv–Tctbt Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 15 of 80 Table 1. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) Stratigraphic Unita, d Abbreviationa RHHb Geologic Framework Model Unith Mineralogic Model Unit Group Formation Member Zone Subzone Pre-Tram Tuff bedded tuff (Tctbt)d Trambt Lava and flow breccia (informal) Tll Bedded tuff Tllbt Lithic Ridge Tuff Tr Bedded tuff Tlrbt Lava and flow breccia (informal) Tll2 Bedded tuff Tllbt Lava and flow breccia (informal) Tll3 Bedded tuff Tll3bt Older tuffs (informal) Tt Unit a (informal) Tta Unit b (informal) Ttb Unit c (informal) Ttc Sedimentary rocks and calcified tuff (informal) Tca Tuff of Yucca Flat (informal) Tyf Tund Sequence 2 (Layer 2) Tund Pre-Tertiary sedimentary rock Lone Mountain Dolomite Slm Roberts Mountain Formation Srm Paleozoic Sequence 1 (Layer 1) Paleozoicg aSource: DTN: MO9510RIB00002.004. bSource: CRWMS M&O 1997a, pp. 43–50. cCorrelated with the rhyolite of Comb Peak (Buesch et al. 1996, Table 2). dFor the purposes of GFM3.1, each formation in the Crater Flat Group was subdivided into six zones based on the requirements of the users of the GFM. The subdivisions are upper vitric (uv), upper crystalline (uc), moderately to densely welded (md), lower crystalline (lc), lower vitric (lv), and bedded tuff (bt) (Buesch and Spengler 1999, pp. 62–63). eSequence 13 (Tptpv3–Tptpv2) is subdivided into 2 layers of equal thickness. fSequence 11 (Tac) is subdivided into 4 layers of equal thickness. gSequence 1 (Paleozoic) represents a lower bounding surface. hSource: DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 NOTE: RHH = Repository Host Horizon Shaded rows indicate header lines for subdivided units. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 16 of 80 Figure 1. Interrelationships Between Component Models, Integrated Site Model, and Downstream Uses Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 17 of 80 Figure 2. Location Map of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Showing Location of Exploratory Studies Facility, Cross-Block Drift, and Area of Integrated Site Model with Boundaries of Component Models Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 18 of 80 conductivities (Loeven 1993, pp. 15–20). The use of the observed correlation between mineralogic and hydrologic data provides a means of improving the accuracy and confidence of both hydrologic and mineralogic models. For example, in some areas, high-confidence mineralogic data can improve estimates of hydrologic properties; and in other areas, high-confidence hydrologic data can improve estimates of mineral abundance. With the designation of the borehole data in DTN LADB831321AN98.002 as an assumption and corroborative, it is the responsibility of the prospective data users to determine the suitability, reliability, and appropriateness of the mineral abundance representations contained in the Mineralogical Model AMR at and near the vicinity of boreholes for their specific application. 1.2 MINERALOGY AND RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT Zeolitic horizons have long been an important factor in models of radionuclide transport at Yucca Mountain. Zeolites are capable of sorbing many cationic radionuclides (Johnstone and Wolfsberg 1980, pp. 112–117, Tables A1, A2, A3). The MM incorporates zeolite and other mineral weight percentages as the basic distributed property, allowing the volumes of minerals present, represented as weight percentages of rock mass, to be defined explicitly in a spatial manner for specific performance assessment studies. The data in MM3.0 provide the basis for geostatistical calculations and simulations of zeolite abundance should such calculations be required. 1.3 MINERAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND HEALTH HAZARDS The presence of crystalline silica polymorphs led to requirements for dust abatement measures for those working in the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) and has significantly affected operations (CRWMS M&O 1997b, pp. 3–17). The Topopah Spring Tuff has highly variable ratios of the crystalline silica polymorphs and knowing the distributions of these minerals in three dimensions may help in planning the mitigation of hazards due to dust inhalation. MM3.0 includes quartz, tridymite, and cristobalite + opal-CT, so that all of the silica polymorphs are now considered. The 3-D model also allows prediction of possible locations of the carcinogenic zeolite erionite. Such predictions can be used as a basis for planning work in suspect zones and eliminating the need to follow stringent safety requirements when working in safe areas. 1.4 MINERAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND REPOSITORY PERFORMANCE Hydrous minerals, such as zeolites and clays, and volcanic glass are particularly susceptible to reactions caused by repository-induced heating. These reactions can produce or absorb water; yield changes in porosity, permeability, and retardation characteristics; and moderate heat flux within the rock mass (Vaniman and Bish 1995, pp. 533–546). Other minerals, particularly silica polymorphs, may undergo phase transitions or may control the aqueous silica concentrations of fluids migrating under thermal loads, resulting in silica dissolution or precipitation, redistribution of silica, and modification of rock properties. All of these effects must be considered in three dimensions to adequately address the impact of various repository-loading strategies on the repository performance. The MM allows numerical modeling of reactions involving the Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 19 of 80 breakdown of glass to zeolites and smectite, the breakdown of clinoptilolite and mordenite to analcime, and the transformation and redistribution of silica polymorphs. 1.5 PREDICTION OF MINERAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND REPOSITORY DESIGN Guidelines for repository performance address concerns over mineral stability in systems exposed to repository conditions (see Section 4.2). Previous studies of thermal effects (Buscheck and Nitao 1993, pp. 847–867) relevant to assessment of mineral stability have not been able to assess solid phase transformations (e.g., transitions between silica polymorphs) or hydrous-mineral dehydration/rehydration because of a lack of 3-D mineralogic data. MM3.0 allows the formulation of thermal models to indicate much more precisely the maximum possible thermal loads that are consistent with maintaining relatively low temperatures for zeolite-rich zones, and it provides the abundances of silica polymorphs that are susceptible to phase transformations adjacent to the repository. Once models that couple the 3-D MM with mineralreaction and heat-flow data are developed, it will be possible to model thermal limits with fewer assumptions. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 20 of 80 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 21 of 80 2. QUALITY ASSURANCE The modeling activity documented in Rev. 00 of this AMR was evaluated in accordance with QAP-2-0, Conduct of Activities (CRWMS M&O 1999b, 1999c), and determined to be quality affecting and subject to the requirements of the QARD, Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (DOE 1998). Accordingly, efforts to conduct the analysis have been conducted in accordance with approved quality assurance (QA) procedures under the auspices of the QA program of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating Contrator (CRWMS M&O), using procedures identified in the MM Development Plan (CRWMS M&O 1999a). Modeling work for Rev. 00 of this analysis/model report (AMR) was performed in accordance with QA procedure LANL-YMP-QP-03.5, Scientific Notebooks, and AP-SIII.1Q, Scientific Notebooks. The Development Plan (CRWMS M&O 1999a) describes the scope, objectives, tasks, methodology, and implementing procedures for model construction. The planning document for Rev. 00 of this AMR; and the implementation procedure, and scientific notebook for the MM are provided in Table 2. The planning document for this Rev. 00, ICN 02 of this AMR is Technical Work Plan, TWP-NBS-GS-000003, Technical Work Plan for the Integrated Site Model, Process Model Report, Revision 01 (CRWMS M&O 2000). Table 2. Model-Development Documentation for Mineralogic Model Model Planning Document Scientific Notebook Procedure Scientific Notebook MM3.0 CRMWS M&O 1999a LANL-YMP-QP-03.5 AP-SIII.1Q LA-EES-1-NBK-99-001 (CRWMS M&O registry no. SN-LANL-SCI-190-V1) (Carey 1999) Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 22 of 80 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 23 of 80 3. COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND MODEL USAGE The MM was constructed using STRATAMODEL modeling software, Version 4.1.1 (an industry-standard software), produced by Landmark Graphics Corporation, Houston, Texas. The software has been determined to be appropriate for its intended use in 3-D mineralogic modeling, and is under Configuration Management control (Table 3). The qualification status of the software is provided in the DIRS database. Table 3. Quality Assurance Information for Model Software Computer Type Software Name Version Qualification Procedure Software Tracking Number (STN) Silicon Graphics Octane STRATAMODEL 4.1.1 AP-SI.1Q 10121-4.1.1-00 During the construction and use of the MM, it is stored on internal computer disks, backup tapes, and compact disks. The electronic files for MM3.0 were submitted to the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) in ASCII format. All files necessary to reconstruct the MM are available in the TDMS in DTN: LA9908JC831321.001, including data, interpretive data, parameter files, and instructions. Reconstruction of MM3.0 requires STRATAMODEL software Version 4.1.1 or higher. ASCII format files containing all model results are also provided in the TDMS for use in the other software used in downstream modeling. STRATAMODEL was used to maximize the potential for multiple uses of the MM. Transport codes such as FEHM, which incorporate thermal and geochemical effects, are compatible with STRATAMODEL. STRATAMODEL also embodies the preferred methods for interpolation of mineral abundances between drill holes and in stratigraphic coordinates. In addition, the data in STRATAMODEL can be directly analyzed using geostatistical software. Information from the Geologic Framework Model, versions 3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000) and 3.0 (DTN: MO9804MWDGFM03.001), was used in construction of MM3.0 (Section 4.1.2). The qualification status of these models is provided in the DIRS database. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 24 of 80 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 25 of 80 4. INPUTS Inputs for the MM 3.0 consist of stratigraphic surfaces from GFM3.1 and quantitative x-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses of mineral abundances. 4.1 DATA AND PARAMETERS A list of inputs is provided in Table 4 and their qualification status is provided in the DIRS database. Figure 3 shows the location of the boreholes from which derived mineralogic data was used in the construction of the MM. A brief discussion of the data is provided in the following subsections. 4.1.1 Mineralogic Data The MM depends directly on quantitative XRD analyses. XRD offers the most direct and accurate analytical method for determining mineral abundance because the data are fundamentally linked to crystal structure. Other methods based on down-hole logs or chemical or spectral properties from which mineral identities can be inferred are subject to much greater uncertainty. The development of quantitative XRD for application to core and cuttings analysis at Yucca Mountain (Bish and Chipera 1988, pp. 295–306; Chipera and Bish 1995, pp. 47–55) resulted in the development of an input data file of mineral abundances (in DTN: LA9908JC831321.001) as a function of map position and depth at Yucca Mountain. The primary mineralogic data listed in Table 4 are quantitative XRD data used for constructing the MM. All data are mineral abundances in weight percent and are used as reported in these files, with the following exceptions. Where a mineral was detected but in only trace abundance (i.e., much less than 1 percent) the result is reported in the tables as “Trc.” or “Tr.” In these cases, a uniform numeric value of 0.1 percent was assigned to each trace occurrence in order to have real (but appropriately small) numeric values in the MM. In some instances, depending on the mineralogic makeup of the sample, approximate or upper-limit values, such as “~1 percent” or “< 2 percent,” are reported in the data package. In these cases, the ~ or < symbol was dropped, and the numeric value was used in the MM. 4.1.2 Stratigraphic Surfaces The stratigraphic framework for MM3.0 was constructed from stratigraphic surfaces obtained as ASCII-format export files from GFM3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000). The water table surface was extracted from GFM3.0 (DTN: MO9804MWDGFM03.001), as this information is not included in the GFM3.1 output files. The creation of the stratigraphic framework required modification of the ASCII-format export files as described in Section 6.2.1. 4.2 CRITERIA This AMR complies with the DOE interim guidance (Dyer 1999). Subparts of the interim guidance that apply to this analysis or modeling activity are those pertaining to the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site (Subpart B, Section 15), the compilation of information regarding geology of the site in support of the License Application (Subpart B, Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 26 of 80 Table 4. Data Input Data Description Data Tracking Number (DTN) Mineralogy, borehole UE-25 a#1 Assumption 5.2 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole UE-25 b#1 Assumption 5.2 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole UE-25 p#1 Assumption 5.3 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole UE-25 UZ#16 LA000000000086.002 LAJC831321AQ98.005 Mineralogy, borehole USW G-1 Assumption 5.2 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole USW G-2 Assumption 5.2 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole USW G-3/GU-3 Assumption 5.2 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole USW G-4 Assumption 5.2 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole USW H-3 Assumption 5.3 (LADB831321AN98.002) LADV831321AQ97.001 Mineralogy, borehole USW H-4 Assumption 5.3 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole USW H-5 Assumption 5.3 (LADB831321AN98.002) LADV831321AQ97.007 Mineralogy, borehole USW H-6 Assumption 5.2 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole USW NRG-6 LADV831321AQ97.001 LASC831321AQ96.002 Mineralogy, borehole USW NRG-7a LADV831321AQ97.001 Mineralogy, borehole USW SD-6 LASC831321AQ98.003 LADV831321AQ99.001 Mineralogy, borehole USW SD-7 LADV831321AQ97.001 LAJC831321AQ98.005 Mineralogy, borehole USW SD-9 LADV831321AQ97.001 LAJC831321AQ98.005 Mineralogy, borehole USW SD-12 LADV831321AQ97.001 LAJC831321AQ98.005 Mineralogy, borehole USW UZ-14 LADV831321AQ97.001 LASC831321AQ96.002 Mineralogy, borehole USW UZN-31 LASL831322AQ97.001 Mineralogy, borehole USW UZN-32 LASL831322AQ97.001 Mineralogy, borehole USW WT-1 Assumption 5.3 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole USW WT-2 Assumption 5.3 (LADB831321AN98.002) Mineralogy, borehole USW WT-24 LASC831321AQ98.001 LADV831321AQ99.001 Stratigraphic surfaces, ASCII export files, GFM3.1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 Water table from GFM3.0 MO9804MWDGFM03.001 Supplementary mineralogic data for MM3.0 LA9910JC831321.001 (Used for Corroboration Only) NOTES: For simplification, a shortened version of the borehole identifier is used when referring to boreholes in the text, figures, and tables (e.g., “UE-25 a#1” is simplified to “a#1”). Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 27 of 80 Figure 3. Locations of Boreholes Used in MM3.0 Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 28 of 80 Section 21(c)(1)(ii)), and the definition of geologic parameters and conceptual models used in performance assessment (Subpart E, Section 114(a)). 4.3 CODES AND STANDARDS No codes and standards are applicable to the MM. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 29 of 80 5. ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions used to build the MM are methodological and geological; therefore, they are an inherent part of the discussion in Section 6. Three key assumptions for model development are presented below. 5.1 SPATIAL CORRELATION OF MINERALOGY It is assumed that mineral abundances at one location within a model stratigraphic unit have a value that is correlated with a spatially nearby value. The rationale for this assumption is that mineral assemblages are the products of geochemical processes that vary gradually in space. No additional confirmation of this assumption is required. This assumption is the basis for the following methodological approaches: . Modeling in stratigraphic coordinates (Section 6.2.3) . Calculation of mineral distributions using an inverse distance weighting method (Section 6.2.4) 5.2 USE OF MINERALOGIC DATA FROM CONTINUOUSLY CORED BOREHOLES The assumption is made that mineral abundance data reported in DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 for Boreholes UE-25 a#1, UE-25 b#1, USW G-1, USW G-2, USW G-3, USW G-4 and USW H-6 are adequate and appropriate for use in developing the mineralogical model as discussed in Section 6.3. The samples selected for mineralogical analysis were collected from core in the Sample Management Facility, and were analyzed using X-ray diffraction (XRD) techniques at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The justification for this assumption is that mineral abundance data from these boreholes are consistent with similar data fully qualified for YMP use from other boreholes as cited in Table 4. Additional justification for this assumption is provided by file documentation describing the borehole coring operations, sample management, selection and handling, and laboratory XRD analyses that have been reviewed separately and determined to provide ample evidence that the mineralogical data for the boreholes listed above are reliable and of sufficient quality for development of the Mineralogic Model (BSC 2001). The XRD analyses employed the software package POWD V10 (STN 10429-10-00), recently qualified for YMP use, in converting x-ray diffraction patterns to mineral abundance data. In cases where documentation of sample collection and handling is incomplete, the operating procedures in place when these analyses were made were reviewed and are considered adequate. The missing documentation is bracketed by sampling and analysis that are fully documented, so that the less completely supported analyses can be used with considerable confidence. Laboratory notebooks, Sample Management Facility records and (in some cases) physical core samples were examined to determine the validity of the data. Only the boreholes listed above were considered to be documented sufficiently for use in defining the regional distribution of mineral abundance. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 30 of 80 Use of the boreholes addressed by this assumption significantly increases the extent of mineralogical data surrounding the repository horizon particularly in the northern region of the repository. Also, use of borehole USW G-3 provides a data source at the most southwestern extent of the model area. Use of the XRD data from these boreholes significantly increases the confidence in the defensibility and adequacy of the model. With the designation of the borehole data in DTN LADB831321AN98.002 as an assumption and corroborative, it is the responsibility of the prospective data users to determine the suitability, reliability, and appropriateness of the mineral abundance representations contained in the Mineralogical Model AMR at and near the vicinity of boreholes for their specific application. No additional confirmation of this assumption is needed. 5.3 USE OF MINERALOGIC DATA FROM CUTTINGS The cuttings data contained in DTN LADB831321AN98.002 for boreholes UE-25 p#1, USW H-3, USW H-4, USW H-5, USW WT-1, and USW WT-2 used in the construction of the Mineralogical Model (Section 6.3) are assumed to be adequate for corroborating the overall patterns of mineralogical abundance can be represented by the core-derived DTNs listed in Table 4-1 in the vicinity of the proposed repository. This assumption is justified for the following reasons: the important findings from this model are not sensitive to data derived from boreholes that contain only cuttings samples, the cuttings data were analyzed in the laboratory according to established and approved procedures, and the data interpretation software used (POWD V.10, STN: 10429-10-00) is qualified. The reason that these data are not qualified for YMP use is the uncertainty in assigning precise vertical sources for the cuttings within the borehole. Cuttings are collected at the surface during drilling, and because of the possibility of mixing in the drilling process, it is impossible to know the precise point of derivation of individual cuttings samples. However, the approximate location (within a particular geostratigraphic unit) is adequate for the purposes of this AMR, since mineralogy is averaged over the entire formation thickness. For example, zeolite abundances within the Calico Hills Formation as displayed in Figures 14 through 19 displays a progressive development of zeolitization from the southwest to the northeast. The general pattern of zeolite abundance can be substantively constructed by utilizing only the core data sources identified in Table 4. While the use of the cuttings data contained in DTN LADB831321AN98.002 increases the resolution (i.e., the specific location) of the vitric to zeolitic transition, it does not affect the overall pattern of zeolite abundance. When the zeolite abundance for the other model layers are examined (Figure 9) it can also be seen that again the primary pattern of mineral abundances can be constructed without using the cuttings data. Similarly, the overall pattern of mineralogical abundances for smectite and illite (Section 6.3.3 and Figures 20 and 21), volcanic glass (Section 6.3.4, Figures 22 and 23), and silica polymorphs (Section 6.3.5 and Figures 24 through 29) can also be substantively be constructed based on the core-derived data in Table 4. No additional confirmation of this assumption is needed. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 31 of 80 6. MINERALOGIC MODEL 6.1 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS VERSIONS TO MM3.0 MM3.0 incorporates stratigraphy from GFM3.1 and is constructed on a 200-foot (61-meter) north-south and east-west grid. MM3.0 represents a complete revision of earlier versions and the resulting model supercedes all previous versions. MM3.0 provides values for the entire region of GFM3.1: 547,000 to 584,000 feet (166,726 to 178,003 meters) easting and 738,000 to 787,000 feet (224,942 to 239,878 meters) northing, Nevada State Plane coordinates. A synopsis of changes between versions of the MM is as follows: . Preliminary MM: The initial model was developed in a stratigraphic framework taken from ISM1.0. . MM1.0: The stratigraphic framework was upgraded to ISM2.0. New mineralogic data from boreholes H-3, NRG-6, NRG-7a, SD-7, SD-9, SD-12, UZ-14, and UZN-32 were incorporated. . MM1.1: New mineralogic data from borehole WT-24 were incorporated. . MM2.0: The stratigraphic framework was upgraded to GFM3.0. The grid resolution was refined from 800 to 200 feet (244 to 61 meters). Borehole H-6 was incorporated. New data from boreholes SD-6, SD-7, SD-12, UZ#16, and WT-24 were included. The modeled mineral classes were expanded from 6 to 10. Mineralogic modeling was conducted in stratigraphic coordinates (see Section 6.2.3 for further explanation). The stratigraphic framework used for the mineralogic framework was simplified from 31 to 22 sequences. . MM3.0: The stratigraphic framework was upgraded to GFM3.1. New data from boreholes SD-6 and WT-24 were included. Tptpv3–Tptpv2 sequence was subdivided into two layers. The area covered by the MM was expanded to include the entire area of GFM3.1. The procedure for mineralogic modeling in stratigraphic coordinates was significantly improved, resulting in a more internally consistent representation of mineralogy and stratigraphy. An additional layer was created in MM3.0 by subdividing the Tptpv3–Tptpv2 sequence (sequence 13) into two layers of equal thickness, partly to better represent the zone of intense smectite and zeolite alteration at the boundary between Tptpln (sequence 14) and Tptpv3. In some places, samples from this altered zone occur at the base of Tptpln as defined in GFM3.1, and these samples were adjusted in elevation to fall in the upper part of Tptpv3. The areal boundaries of MM3.0 were extended to cover the entire region covered by GFM3.1. Although this extension includes areas where borehole data are sparse, project personnel requested that the MM be available for the entire region. The region of better supported mineralogic values is identified within this larger region. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 32 of 80 The mineralogic data for MM3.0 and the previous versions were obtained from quantitative XRD analyses of cores and cuttings from boreholes at Yucca Mountain. Inclusion of the new data from boreholes SD-6 and WT-24 has resulted in a significant improvement of the model because these boreholes provide information from the northern and western parts of the site, where boreholes are scarce or the samples available are largely cuttings. 6.2 METHODOLOGY The basic components of the 3-D MM are a stratigraphic framework, mineralogic data from boreholes, and 3-D geologic modeling software. The stratigraphic framework was obtained from GFM3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000). The sources of mineralogic data (listed in Table 4) contain quantitative XRD data from boreholes. The 3-D geologic modeling was conducted with the software STRATAMODEL (STRATAMODEL V4.1.1, STN: 10121– 4.1.1-00). STRATAMODEL performs distance-weighted interpolations of borehole data within stratigraphic units specified by the framework to produce a volumetric distribution of the rock properties associated with each stratigraphic horizon. The modeling process consists of four sequential steps: 1. Modification of ASCII-format export files from GFM3.1: Missing values in the vicinity of faults were supplied by interpolation. 2. Creation of the stratigraphic framework: Stratigraphic surfaces from GFM3.1 were joined in three dimensions to create a stratigraphic framework. 3. Incorporation of mineralogic data from specific boreholes: Quantitative XRD analyses of mineral abundance as a function of geographic position (borehole location) and sample elevation were placed within the 3-D stratigraphic framework. 4. Calculation of mineralogic distribution data for the entire 3-D model with the use of a deterministic, inverse-distance-weighting function: Measured mineralogic data at each borehole were used to predict mineral abundances at all locations in the model. Each modeling step is documented in Scientific Notebook LA-EES-1-NBK-99-001 (Carey 1999) and is discussed in detail in the following subsections. 6.2.1 Modification of GFM3.1 Files The GFM3.1 ASCII-format export files used to create the stratigraphic framework for the MM lack elevation values at some grid nodes and along fault traces. These omissions occur only in the ASCII-format export files, not in GFM3.1. Therefore, before the creation of the stratigraphic framework, the GFM3.1 ASCII-format files were modified to fill in values in the vicinity of major faults. (To create the stratigraphic framework, STRATAMODEL requires values for all grid nodes.) In order to provide the missing values at these points in a controlled and reasonable manner, elevations for undefined grid nodes were interpolated from adjacent grid points by means of the Stratamap function in STRATAMODEL. For example, if the values adjacent to an undefined grid node were 600 and 700 meters, the interpolated value would be 650 meters. Each GFM3.1 surface included several thousand extrapolated values per grid with a total of Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 33 of 80 45,756 grid nodes (186 by 246 nodes). The operation of the Stratamap function was checked to ensure that the elevations of the original data points had not been adjusted and that the interpolated values accurately represented the faulted regions. The checks were done numerically, by visual comparison of the grids, and by checking to see that contacts of GFM3.1 within boreholes, as represented within STRATAMODEL, were correct. The interpolated data are available in DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 6.2.2 Creation of Stratigraphic Framework The stratigraphic framework for the MM was created from the GFM3.1 stratigraphy Table 4. The GFM3.1 results were obtained as exported ASCII-format files with data listed at the 200-foot (61-meter) grid spacings. The grid used in the MM has the same 200-foot (61-meter) grid spacing as GFM3.1 and consists of 186 by 246 grid nodes. The areal extent is 65.7 square miles (170 square kilometers). The stratigraphic framework for the MM was created with a subset of 22 of the 52 stratigraphic surfaces in GFM3.1. An example of a GFM3.1 surface, that of the Tiva Canyon Tuff vitric zone nonwelded subzone (Tpcpv1), is illustrated in Figure 4. The surface is notable for the fine resolution of topography, including faults such as the Solitario Canyon fault to the west. The 22 stratigraphic surfaces were linked via STRATAMODEL into a stratigraphic framework to define 22 volumetric sequences, as shown in Table 1 and illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. (Note Figures 5 and 6 can be used as a guide for locating the position of sequences in other figures.) Many of the sequences in MM3.0 incorporate several stratigraphic units as shown in Table 1 and Figure 7 in which each sequence is labeled with the units forming its upper and lower surfaces. The modeling in the MM was conducted in stratigraphic coordinates so that the mineralogic data were constrained to their proper stratigraphic units. As a result, mineralogic and stratigraphic data are consistent and all mineral data are located in the correct stratigraphic unit. A detailed comparison of GFM3.1 stratigraphic assignments versus mineralogy for each of the borehole samples was conducted for every observation used in the MM. In several places, this analysis resulted in reassignment of borehole samples to the mineralogically correct stratigraphic unit. As a result, this version of the MM is more consistent with the GFM than previous versions. The 22 sequences listed in Table 1 were defined to keep the MM as simple as possible and to accurately define zeolitic, vitric, and repository host units at Yucca Mountain. Sequence 22, the uppermost sequence, includes all stratigraphic units above Tpcpv because these units share a common devitrification mineralogy dominated by feldspar plus silica minerals. The next sequence (sequence 21) consists of a Tiva Canyon vitrophyre unit composed of two subzones (Tpcpv3 and Tpcpv2), combined in the MM because they share a similar abundance of welded glass. The hydrogeologic Paintbrush nonwelded unit (PTn) is represented by sequence 20, which extends from the nonwelded subzone of the lower vitric zone of the Tiva Canyon Tuff to the upper vitric zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff. It includes six stratigraphic units occurring between the top of Tpcpv1 and the base of Tptrv2. These six units are similar in having variable proportions of glass plus smectite that can not be captured within the larger scale of the MM; therefore these six units were combined into sequence 20. The remaining Topopah Spring Tuff below sequence 20 is represented as eight sequences in the MM, representing the upper Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 34 of 80 Figure 4. Shaded Relief View of Tpcpv1, Nonwelded Subzone of Vitric Zone of Tiva Canyon Tuff Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 35 of 80 Figure 5. North-South Cross Section Through Potential Repository, Illustrating Sequences Used in MM3.0, Excluding Paleozoic Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 36 of 80 Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 37 of 80 Figure 7. Schematic Stratigraphic Column Showing Approximate Thicknesses of Units Listed in Table 1 (excluding units between Qal or QC and Tpc, and Paleozoice units) Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 38 of 80 vitrophyre, the upper quartz-latite to rhyolite transition, the four lithophysal and nonlithophysal units, and units of welded and nonwelded glass at the base. The welded glass unit at the base, which includes Tptpv3 and Tptpv2, is represented as a single sequence in the MM (sequence 13). However, the sequence is subdivided into two equal-thickness layers. As described in Section 6.1, the uppermost layer was used, in part, to represent the “altered zone,” or region of intense smectite and zeolite alteration that occurs in many boreholes at the contact of Tptpln and Tptpv3. Stratigraphic units Tptpv1 and Tpbt1 were combined into a single sequence in the MM (sequence 12) because of their similar character in many boreholes and because Tpbt1 is generally thin and not well represented in the mineralogic data. The Calico Hills Formation and the underlying bedded tuff are represented by sequences 11 and 10, respectively. The Calico Hills Formation was further subdivided into four layers. The layers have distinct mineralogic abundances in the MM and were created to allow modeling of variable zeolitization with depth in the Calico Hills Formation. In GFM3.1, the Prow Pass Tuff, Bullfrog Tuff, and Tram Tuff are each represented by six stratigraphic units (a total of 18 units). In the MM, these 18 units were combined into a total of four zeolitic or vitric and three devitrified nonzeolitic sequences. These sequences reflect the characteristic alternation at this depth between units that can be readily zeolitized and those that have devitrified to feldspar plus silica minerals and in which zeolitization does not occur. The uppermost, first zeolitic sequence is defined by the upper vitric subunit of the Prow Pass Tuff (Tcpuv). (Note that the word “vitric” and the symbol “v” are used in GFM3.1 to describe originally vitric units, even when these units may now be zeolitic.) The upper vitric or zeolitic sequence in the Prow Pass Tuff is followed by a nonzeolitic sequence representing the devitrified center of the Prow Pass Tuff (Tcpuc–Tcplc). It includes the upper crystalline, middle densely welded, and lower crystalline subunits. The second zeolitic sequence includes the lower vitric portion of the Prow Pass Tuff (Tcplv), the bedded tuff of the Prow Pass Tuff (Tcpbt), and the upper vitric subunit of the Bullfrog Tuff (Tcbuv). This sequence is identified as Tcplv–Tcbuv. The second nonzeolitic sequence consists of the devitrified Bullfrog Tuff and combines three subunits (Tcbuc, Tcbmd, and Tcblc). The third zeolitic sequence, labeled Tcblv–Tctuv, includes the lower vitric and bedded tuff of the Bullfrog Tuff in addition to the upper vitric unit of the Tram Tuff. The final nonzeolitic sequence, Tctuc–Tctlc, includes the devitrified center of the Tram Tuff (Tctuc, Tctmd, and Tctlc). The final zeolitic sequence is the base of the Tram Tuff (Tctlv and Tctbt). Units older than the Tram Tuff are undifferentiated as Tund and have a variable zeolitic character. The lowermost sequence in the MM is the Paleozoic sequence, making a total of 22 sequences. However, there are 26 distinct layers in the MM, including the subdivision of Tptpv3–Tptpv2 into two layers and the Calico Hills Formation into four layers. The model contains 45,756 (186 by 246) grid nodes, which with 26 layers brings the total number of cells in the model to 1,189,656. Each cell contains 16 values, including percentage abundance for 10 mineral groups listed in Section 6.2.3, cell volume, cell location (x, y), elevation (z), sequence number, and layer number. Any cell in the model can be queried to obtain any of these values. Figure 5 illustrates a north-south cross section and Figure 6 illustrates an east-west cross section through Yucca Mountain, showing the distributions and thicknesses of the sequences used as the framework of the MM (Table 1). Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 39 of 80 The stratigraphic framework of MM3.0 was compared with that of GFM3.1 at all of the boreholes from which mineralogic data were obtained for the MM. Because the boreholes are not located precisely at grid nodes, some differences between the predicted and actual elevations of contacts were expected. Nonetheless, the elevations of the contacts between stratigraphic units were found to be within 3.3 feet (1 meter) to 49 feet (15 meters) of the GFM3.1 values (detailed in Scientific Notebook LA-EES-1-NBK-99-001 (Carey 1999, pp. 10–12, 199-221)). 6.2.3 Incorporation of Mineralogic Data from Boreholes Mineralogic data, including core samples and cuttings, are available for 24 boreholes in the form of data files providing the mineralogy as a function of sample depth or elevation. The cuttings were used in the MM based on the assumption presented in Section 5.2. Elevations assigned to cutting samples were the midpoints of the depth ranges from which the cuttings were collected. The borehole locations are shown on the map in Figure 8. Ten minerals groups or classes were incorporated in MM3.0: . Smectite + illite . Sorptive zeolites (the sum of clinoptilolite, heulandite, mordenite, chabazite, erionite, and stellerite) . Tridymite . Cristobalite + opal-CT . Quartz . Feldspars . Volcanic glass . Nonsorptive zeolite (analcime) . Mica . Calcite. The mineralogy (weight percent present for each of the 10 mineral groups), stratigraphy, and elevations of the samples collected from each of the 24 boreholes included in the MM is provided in a data input file in DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. Because boreholes UZN-31 and UZN-32 are separated by only 74 feet (23 meters), the mineralogical data from these boreholes were combined into a single borehole file (Scientific Notebook LA-EES-1-NBK-99-001 (Carey 1999, pp. 187–188)). Thus, a total of 23 boreholes was used in MM3.0. The borehole data files were imported into STRATAMODEL in a process that involved mapping the elevations of the mineralogic samples onto the stratigraphic elevations obtained from GFM3.1. The MM was constructed with the use of the numeric mean of all of the mineralogic data within a given sequence at each borehole. Inevitably, there were some discrepancies Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 40 of 80 between elevations in the mineralogic data and the elevations predicted by STRATAMODEL and GFM3.1. These discrepancies included mineralogic data from a given stratigraphic unit being assigned to the incorrect sequence in STRATAMODEL. There were three causes of these discrepancies: 1. The boreholes are not located at grid nodes. The elevations calculated by STRATAMODEL for the stratigraphic contacts at the boreholes are based on an average of the nearest four grid nodes. The calculated value was in error where the average value differed from the true value because of uneven topography in the vicinity of the borehole. These occurrences are identified in Attachment II as “too close to boundary.” 2. There are regions of some stratigraphic units where GFM3.1 does not precisely reproduce observed borehole contacts. In addition, three boreholes that were used in the MM were not used in the construction of GFM3.1 (a#1, UZN-31, and UZN-32) and one borehole in which only part of the stratigraphy was used (UZ-14). The GFM stratigraphy provides contact information only for units below Tptpv2 in UZ-14. These discrepancies are similar in character to discrepancies described in No. 1, and are also identified in Attachment II as “too close to boundary.” 3. There were a few places in which STRATAMODEL predicted the absence of a sequence at a particular borehole. This occurred where the surface defining the sequence was absent. For example, at borehole H-4, Tpcpv3 is absent; therefore, the entire sequence Tpcpv3–Tpcpv2 was not present in the MM at H-4. There was also one location (WT-1) in which faulting caused the apparent removal of sequences in the MM. These discrepancies are identified in Attachment II as “removed; unit X not present in MM,” in which case the mineralogic sample was removed from the model. In correcting for these discrepancies there are two possible approaches: (1) assume the correct elevations but possibly incorrect assignments of mineralogy to stratigraphy or (2) assume the correct mineralogy associated with a mineral-stratigraphic unit but possibly incorrect elevations for the mineralogic data. The latter approach is known as modeling in stratigraphic coordinates and is based on the concept presented in Section 5.1. This approach was used in the construction of MM3.0. The advantages of the stratigraphic coordinate system are that all mineralogic data are correctly associated with a sequence and that the stratigraphic relationship of data from differing boreholes is preserved. Therefore, mineralogic data were assigned to the correct sequence by small adjustments to apparent elevations, where needed. In addition, a detailed comparison of mineralogy and stratigraphy revealed some inconsistencies between stratigraphic and mineralogic assignments. For example, a sample near a contact, with mineralogy characteristic of a devitrified tuff, may have been placed in a vitric/zeolitic tuff when the data files were imported into STRATAMODEL. In this case, the sample elevation was adjusted to assign the mineralogy to the adjacent devitrified stratigraphic sequence. The details of the adjustments for each borehole are provided in Attachment II, Table II-1. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 41 of 80 6.2.4 Calculation of Mineral Distributions The final stage of the MM construction in STRATAMODEL is the distribution of the mineralogic data in three dimensions using the concept presented in Section 5.1. This estimation can be accomplished by a number of methods, including geometric, distance-weighting, and geostatistical methods. In MM3.0, a distance-weighting method was used to estimate mineral distributions. Geostatistical calculations were not conducted in this version of the model, but the data in MM3.0 could be used for such calculations to provide a statistical framework for transport calculations. The 3-D mineral distributions were calculated using an inverse-distance-weighting function that operates solely within sequences (i.e., mineral abundances in a given sequence were calculated solely from mineralogic data within that sequence): W(r,R) = (1-r/R)2(R/r)X (Eq. 1) Where: W = weighting function r = distance between the interpolated point and a known value R = search radius X = power factor. This weighting function is provided by the STRATAMODEL software and yields, essentially, a 1/rx weighting of the mineralogic data. At small values of r, the weighting function is approximately equal to (R/r)x, which is the same as a simple inverse weighting function, (1/r) x multiplied by a normalization factor, Rx. The advantage of the STRATAMODEL function is apparent at values of r that approach R: the STRATAMODEL weighting function goes to 0, while a simple inverse weighting function retains non-zero weighting at R. In other words, the STRATAMODEL weighting function provides a smooth transition in weighting between values of r less than R to values greater than R, but the simple inverse weighting function yields an abrupt transition from non-zero weights (rR). In calculating the mineral abundance at a specified location, the weights are normalized so that the sum of the weight is equal to 1. In MM3.0, a power factor of X=4 was used. The choice of X=4 was made based on an analysis of the mineralogic data as documented in Scientific Notebook (LA-EES-1-NBK-99-001 (Carey 1999, pp. 222-246)). Three possible choices were investigated in detail: X=2, X=4, and X=6. The advantage of X=4 was most apparent in the analysis of the predicted zeolite distribution in the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11; see Figures 14 through 18). A choice of X=2 allowed too much influence from distant boreholes such that substantial non-zero values of zeolite were predicted in the southwest region of the model. Such predictions differed from a basic mineralogic-data analysis, which indicated that there should be consistently low values of zeolite in the southwest. A choice of X=6 did yield low predicted values of zeolite in the southwest, but also predicted very localized control of mineralogy. For example, the transition zone between zeolitic and non-zeolitic Calico Hills Formation was very narrow. This high degree of local control was not consistent with the mineralogic analysis. The choice of X=4 Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 42 of 80 allowed for sufficient local control to yield low abundances of zeolite in the southwest, while avoiding severe localization of predicted values. The search radius, R, is also an important parameter and was set at 26,247 feet (8,000 meters) to allow the mineralogic data to fill all of the GFM3.1 model space. 6.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results for MM3.0 are illustrated in cross sections and in map views of individual surfaces. The location and extent of the north-south and east-west cross sections are shown in Figure 8 in relation to the potential repository. The mineralogic stratigraphy is labeled on cross sections provided in Figures 5 and 6. 6.3.1 Model Limits and Illustration of Results Figure 8 shows the distribution of boreholes on which the MM is based. Colors in the background to this figure are keyed to the abundance of volcanic glass in sequence 20 (PTn unit). The sources of the mineralogic data are confined to the central portion of the model area; the MM results are poorly constrained outside of the subregion indicated by the black box in Figure 8. Also shown in Figure 8 are regions in which sequence 20 is absent. These regions occur in linear zones in the vicinity of faults, where the MM resolution of fault geometry is poor. Accurate mineralogic results should not be expected adjacent to faults. Sequence 20 is also absent in broad areas where it has been removed by erosion. Figure 8 illustrates the relatively small, central area in which mineralogic data are abundant, relative to the broader extent of the GFM. This limitation should be kept in mind in considering the visualizations generated from the MM. 6.3.2 Sorptive Zeolite Distribution Zeolite abundance is shown in Figure 9 as a range of colors from dark blue (0 percent) to red (20 percent or greater). Sorptive zeolites at Yucca Mountain play an important role in models of radionuclide retardation and thermohydrology and in repository design. Sorptive zeolites occur in variable amounts below the potential Repository Host Horizon (RHH) in four distinct stratigraphic groups separated by nonzeolitic intervals. (The RHH, as shown in Table 1, includes part of sequence 17 and all of sequences 14, 15, and 16.) Zeolite distributions are displayed in Figures 10 and 11. Cross-sectional keys to sequence names and numbers are provided on Figures 5 and 6. The distribution of sorptive zeolites is closely related to the internal stratigraphy of the tuffs (see also Section 6.2.2). Sorptive zeolites occur within the upper vitric, basal vitric, and basal bedded tuff units of each formation of the Crater Flat Group (Tram Tuff, Bullfrog Tuff, and Prow Pass Tuff). The devitrified center of each formation in the Crater Flat Group lacks zeolites. The net result is a sequence of alternating zeolitic and nonzeolitic rocks. The highest stratigraphic level at which extensive zeolitization of vitric units occurs varies across the geographic extent of the MM. In the south and west, the first occurrence of abundant zeolites below the RHH is in the lower vitric unit of the Prow Pass Tuff (sequence 7). Toward the north and east, the first occurrence of abundant zeolites extends into the bedded tuff below the Calico Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 43 of 80 Figure 8. Map View of Volcanic Glass Distribution in “PTn” Unit, Tpcpv1–Tptrv2 (Sequence 20) for Entire MM3.0 Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 44 of 80 Hills Formation (sequence 10), into the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11), and ultimately to the lower vitric units of the Topopah Spring Tuff (Tptpv1, Tptpv2, and Tptpv3; sequences 12 and 13) (Figure 10). The position of the water table relative to zeolitized rocks is shown in Figures 12 and 13. These cross sections were truncated at the water table, which rises in elevation toward the north and the west. In the north-south cross section, zeolite-rich rocks separate the proposed RHH (sequences 14, 15, 16 and part of 17) from the water table at all locations (Figure 12). Note the common occurrence of moderate-abundance zeolite units at the tops of the zeolite-rich units. In the east-west cross section, zeolites also occur between the RHH and the water table, except in several down-dropped blocks to the east of the repository. These zeolite-free regions develop where faulting drops the Topopah Spring Tuff below the water table. The progressive development of zeolitization from northeast to southwest is illustrated in a series of map views through the Calico Hills Formation (Tac; Sequence 11) and into the upper vitric Prow Pass Tuff (Tcpuv; Sequence 9); see Figures 14 through 19. The transition zone between regions of high (greater than 5%) and low (0 to 5%) zeolite abundance is an important feature to model accurately because it may be a zone of enhanced radionuclide sorption below the potential repository. The presence of the zeolites clinoptilolite and mordenite is associated with increased radionuclide sorptive capacity (Vaniman and Bish 1995, pp. 537-538). However, the decreased permeability associated with zeolitization of moderately welded to nonwelded vitric tuff (Loeven 1993, Table 6) may inhibit interaction between fluid-borne radionuclides and zeolites in the rock matrix. Within the transition zone, zeolites are present but the rock should be more permeable than completely zeolitized rock would be. This higher permeability may therefore allow the radionuclides better access to sorptive minerals. The transition zone is not easily characterized. There is a striking reduction in zeolite abundance from east to west in the upper half of the Calico Hills Formation, across a north-south boundary that is well defined in the region of boreholes WT-2 and UZ#16 (Figures 14 and 15). The location and abruptness of this transition are very poorly constrained to the north and west of H-5 and moderately constrained to the south between WT-1 and G-3. In the lower half of the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11), extensive zeolitization occurs in borehole SD-7 and moderate zeolitization occurs in SD-12 and H-6 (Figures 16 and 17). This leads to a complex transition zone, in which a high-zeolite “peninsula” extends westward from SD-7. The detailed sampling of SD-7 and SD-12 suggests a transition zone that may be quite heterogeneous both vertically and horizontally. In SD-7, sills of more than 25 percent zeolite alternate with largely vitric samples in the lower half of the Calico Hills Formation, suggesting an interfingered transition zone. In contrast, SD-12 shows a rather uniform development of increasing zeolitization with depth. These data indicate that the general reduction in zeolitization to the southwest may be strongly overprinted by patchy intervals of highly zeolitized Calico Hills Formation. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 45 of 80 Figure 9. Zeolite Distribution in North-South and East-West Cross Sections Through Center of Potential Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 46 of 80 Figure 10. Zeolite Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through Potential Repository Block Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 47 of 80 Figure 11. Zeolite Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through Potential Repository Block Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 48 of 80 Figure 12. Zeolite Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through Potential Repository Block and Above the Water Table Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 49 of 80 Figure 13. Zeolite Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through Potential Repository Block and Above Water Table Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 50 of 80 The bedded tuff below the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 10, Tacbt) is zeolitized in boreholes SD-7, WT-2, SD-12, and H-5 (Figure 18). The transition zone to low zeolite abundance is confined to the southwest, around SD-6, H-3, and G-3. However, SD-6 contains about 15 percent smectite and perhaps should be viewed as a part of the zone of abundant sorptive mineralogy. There are no data for this unit at H-6. The upper vitric Prow Pass Tuff (sequence 9, Tcpuv) has a zeolite distribution similar to that of Tacbt, except that there are data at H-6 with abundant zeolites (Figure 19). In addition, SD-6 lacks both smectite and zeolites in sequence 9. Zeolitization is complete throughout the MM in sequence 7, which includes the lower vitric and bedded tuffs of the Prow Pass Tuff and the upper vitric unit of the Bullfrog Tuff. In general, the MM represents the transition zone as a rather sharp boundary modified by the local effects of particular boreholes. The southwest region as a whole is characterized by low zeolite abundances (less than 10 percent). Values near 0 percent in the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11) are restricted to regions adjacent to nonzeolite-bearing boreholes such as G-3, H-3, and H-5. There is little control on the extrapolation of zeolite data in the northeast, northwest, and southeast regions of the MM. The predicted values of extensive zeolitization in the north are strongly influenced by boreholes such as G-2 and G-1. It is possible that either of the regions distant from these boreholes may be characterized by more moderate values of zeolitization. The most abundant zeolites at Yucca Mountain are clinoptilolite and mordenite (Bish and Chipera 1989, Appendix A). Major, stratigraphically continuous intervals of clinoptilolite occur in all boreholes, from about 330 to 500 feet (100 to 150 meters) above the water table to about 1,600 feet (500 meters) below the water table. Heulandite is fairly common at Yucca Mountain but is combined with clinoptilolite in the XRD analyses because the two minerals have the same crystal structure. Mordenite often occurs along with clinoptilolite but is less abundant in boreholes to the south; for example, it is virtually absent in bulk-rock samples from borehole G-3. The nonsorptive zeolite analcime occurs as a higher temperature alteration product at greater depths, and its occurrence deepens stratigraphically from the Prow Pass Tuff in G-2 to the Tram Tuff in G-1 and older lavas in G-3. Except in the north, the depths of analcime occurrence are so great that little interaction with migrating radioactive waste is likely. Until core samples from borehole SD-7 were analyzed, chabazite was known only as a rare zeolite at Yucca Mountain. However, samples from the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11) in SD-7 contained significant amounts of chabazite (up to 9 percent) in an approximately 46-foot- (14-meter-) thick zeolitized interval consisting principally of clinoptilolite + chabazite, overlying a clinoptilolite + mordenite zone (DTN: LADV831321AQ97.001). This occurrence indicates that the sorptive zeolite assemblages may be more complex at the southern end of the exploratory block than previously predicted. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 51 of 80 Figure 14. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Upper Layer (Layer 14) of Calico Hills Formation (Tac, Sequence 11) Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 52 of 80 Figure 15. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Middle-Upper Layer (Layer 13) of Calico Hills Formation Tac, Sequence 11) Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 53 of 80 Figure 16. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Middle-Lower Layer (Layer 12) of Calico Hills Formation (Tac, Sequence 11) Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 54 of 80 Figure 17. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Lower Layer (Layer 11) of Calico Hills Formation (Tac, Sequence 11) Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 55 of 80 Figure 18. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Bedded Tuff of Calico Hills Formation (Tacbt, Sequence 10) Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 56 of 80 Figure 19. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Upper Vitric Zone of Prow Pass Tuff (Tcpuv, Sequence 9) Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 57 of 80 In addition to clinoptilolite, mordenite, analcime, and minor chabazite, localized occurrences of a few other zeolites were found at Yucca Mountain. Stellerite is common in fractures of the Topopah Spring Tuff and is particularly common in both the fractures and matrix of the Topopah Spring Tuff in borehole UZ#16. Stellerite extends into the lower devitrified portion of the Topopah Spring Tuff (sequences 14 and 15) in borehole UZ-14, spanning an interval in which perched water was observed during drilling. Phillipsite is a rare zeolite at Yucca Mountain that was found only in the altered zone above the water table at the top of the basal vitrophyre of the Topopah Spring Tuff (Carlos et al. 1995, pp. 39, 47). Laumontite occurs in very small amounts (less than 4 percent) in deep, altered tuffs in borehole p#1 and perhaps in G-1 (Bish and Chipera 1989). Phillipsite and laumontite are so rare that it was not necessary to consider them in the estimation of zeolite volume for the MM. Erionite is another rare zeolite at Yucca Mountain and was at first observed only in the altered zone at the top of the Topopah Spring Tuff basal vitrophyre. However, it has since been found in significant quantities (up to 34 percent) in drill core from a 10-foot- (3-meter-) thick sequence in the bulk rock underlying the Topopah Spring Tuff basal vitrophyre in borehole UZ-14 and in trace amounts (1 percent) in a breccia zone in the south ramp of the ESF. Although the occurrence of erionite is rather sporadic and, where found, its abundance is typically low, it is a significant health concern due to its known carcinogenicity. 6.3.3 Smectite + Illite Distribution Smectite is a swelling clay with a high cation-exchange capacity. Where present in significant amounts, it can act as a relatively impermeable barrier to fluid flow. It effectively sorbs many cationic species, such as Pu(V) in biocarbonate water, and is therefore an important factor in calculations of radionuclide retardation (Vaniman et al. 1996). Illites are clays with a higher layer charge than smectites, reducing their effective cation-exchange capacity and eliminating their impermeable character. At greater depths, illite develops as a prograde product of smectite alteration, particularly in the northern and central portions of the MM (Bish and Aronson 1993, pp. 151–155). Smectite + illite are present in low abundance throughout Yucca Mountain except in some thin horizons and at depth in the region of boreholes G-1 and G-2 (Figures 20 and 21). XRD analyses indicate smectite in virtually all analyzed samples, although typically in amounts less than 5 percent. Volumes of smectite + illite increase at depth, particularly in the fossil geothermal system. Above the water table, there are two zones of up to 75 percent smectite in the Paintbrush Group, one within the vitric nonwelded section above the Topopah Spring Tuff (PTn, sequence 20) and one at the top of the basal vitrophyre of the Topopah Spring Tuff (upper layer of sequence 13). These smectites typically have nonexpandable illite contents of 10 to 20 percent (Bish and Aronson 1993, pp. 151–152). Well beneath the water table (depths greater than 3,300 feet (1,000 meters) below ground surface), the ancient (approximately 10.7 million years ago) geothermal system generated abundant smectite + illite but with a much higher illite content (up to about 80 to 90 percent) (Bish and Aronson 1993, Figures 3 and 4, pp. 152–153). However, the illitic clays occur at such great depths that they are of little importance for transport modeling at Yucca Mountain. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 58 of 80 6.3.4 Volcanic Glass Distribution Volcanic glass is a highly reactive, metastable material that can react in the presence of water to form assemblages including zeolites and clays. The distribution of volcanic glass relative to the potential repository location is an important factor in evaluating possible repository-induced mineral reactions and assessing their impact on repository performance. Volcanic glass is almost entirely restricted to regions above the water table at Yucca Mountain (Figures 8, 22, and 23). The location of the water table is displayed in Figures 12 and 13. The most significant occurrences of volcanic glass are in the PTn unit (sequence 20), the lower vitrophyre of the Topopah Spring Tuff (top of sequence 13), and in vitric, zeolite-poor regions of the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11) in the southwestern and western regions of the MM. The distribution of volcanic glass in the Calico Hills Formation is inversely correlated with zeolite abundance. In the transition zone between high- and low-abundance zeolite, volcanic glass and zeolite occur together. 6.3.5 Silica Polymorph Distribution The common silica polymorphs at Yucca Mountain include quartz, cristobalite, opal-CT, and tridymite. These minerals could potentially affect repository performance because of their chemical reactivity, mechanical response to temperature, and potential impact on human health during mining operations. Repository-induced heating may accelerate the chemical reactions of cristobalite, opal-CT, and tridymite to quartz, which is the stable silica polymorph. In addition, all of the silica minerals are susceptible to dissolution/precipitation reactions. Therefore, the potential exists for substantial redistribution of silica with resulting changes in the permeability and porosity of the matrix and fractures in the repository environment. The results of the MM, showing ambient conditions, can be used to model in 3-D the effects of thermal and geochemical reactions of metastable silica polymorphs on repository performance. Tridymite and cristobalite also undergo phase transitions between 100 and 275şC (Thompson and Wennemer 1979, pp. 1018–1025), which may have an impact on the mechanical integrity of the repository. The . to . reaction in cristobalite is of particular concern in thermal-load designs because of effects on porosity, permeability, and mechanical strength. Finally, the crystalline silica polymorphs (quartz, cristobalite, and tridymite) are all regulated health hazards. Cristobalite and tridymite are abundant in the potential RHH. Opal-CT is usually found in association with sorptive zeolites. Tridymite occurs above the water table and primarily above the potential RHH, particularly in those parts of the Topopah Spring and Tiva Canyon Tuffs where vapor-phase crystallization is common (Figures 24 and 25). Pseudomorphs of quartz replacing tridymite in deep fractures and cavities are evidence of the instability of tridymite under low-temperature aqueous conditions. Tridymite occurrences have been interpreted as a possible limit on past maximum rises in the water table at Yucca Mountain (Levy 1991, pp. 483-484). Volumes of exceptionally high tridymite content are restricted to the upper strata within the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring Tuffs but rarely exceed 20 percent. Cristobalite is typically a devitrification product that is found in virtually every sample above the water table. Opal-CT, which is a typical byproduct of zeolitization, is found below the water table before disappearing at depths at or below the Tram Tuff. Cristobalite and opal-CT are Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 59 of 80 Figure 20. Smectite + Illite Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 60 of 80 Figure 21. Smectite + Illite Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 61 of 80 Figure 22. Volcanic Glass Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 62 of 80 Figure 23. Volcanic Glass Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 63 of 80 U combined in the MM, partly because the extra analytical procedures necessary to distinguish them were not commonly applied to the borehole data, but also because the two minerals dissolve to similar aqueous silica concentrations. As is evident in Figures 26 and 27, cristobalite and opal-CT are very abundant in the devitrified tuffs of the Paintbrush Group. Occurrences below the Paintbrush Group units are primarily opal-CT in tuffs containing abundant sorptive zeolites. Cristobalite and opal-CT disappear at depth and are replaced by quartz-bearing assemblages. Quartz is common in the lower Topopah Spring Tuff and is abundant at depth in the Crater Flat Group (Figures 28 and 39). 6.4 UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS IN MINERALOGIC MODEL Several uncertainties are associated with the MM in regions distant from the boreholes. In particular, there are striking geographic differences in mineral abundances that relate to past geologic processes. These are most obvious in the stratigraphic depth of zeolitization increasing to the southwest (from the Calico Hills Formation to the Prow Pass Tuff) across the MM (Figures 14 to 19). Currently, the borehole data are not adequate for determining the precise location of the transition from vitric to zeolitic Calico Hills Formation. There is considerable uncertainty associated with the trend of the transition to the north and west of borehole UZ-14 because of significant differences among UZ-14, G-2, and WT-24. There is also uncertainty related to the nature of the transition, that is, whether the depth to zeolitization decreases rapidly and smoothly along a well-defined front or whether zeolitized zones are interfingered with vitric zones along a highly irregular front. The use of mineralogical data from these boreholes, with the exception of UZ-16, is discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. 6.4.1 Model Limitations The most significant limitation of MM3.0 is the scarce mineralogic data in the region beyond the western border of the potential repository. For example, an examination of Figure 3 demonstrates the importance of SD-6 in providing the only substantial quantity of mineralogic data along the western edge of Yucca Mountain. The uncertainty in the boundary regions of the MM is also elevated because of the limited number of sampling locations (see Figures 3 and 8). Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 64 of 80 Figure 24. Tridymite Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 65 of 80 Figure 25. Tridymite Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 66 of 80 Figure 26. Cristobalite + Opal-CT Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 67 of 80 Figure 27. Cristobalite + Opal-CT Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 68 of 80 Figure 28. Quartz Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 69 of 80 Figure 29. Quartz Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through Potential Repository Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 70 of 80 A geostatistical MM could be developed with the use of available borehole data and potentially with geophysical well-log data. The geophysical data are available for boreholes for which there are no mineralogic data and, in some cases, they offer finer resolution or greater depth range in boreholes for which mineralogic data exist. The development and refinement of a method of correlating geophysical and mineralogic data would provide a means of constraining and improving the accuracy of the zeolite modeling throughout the exploratory block. Fault zones are represented as steeply dipping but continuous stratigraphic units. As a consequence, mineralogic predictions in the immediate vicinity of the major fault zones (Solitario Canyon and Ghost Dance) are less accurate. STRATAMODEL has the capability of incorporating faults; however the current level of effort has not permitted the development of this feature. Quantitative mineralogic data from several boreholes were obtained primarily from cuttings rather than cores (all of WT-1 and WT-2, most of H-4, and significant portions of H-3, H-5, and p#1) (see assumption in Section 5.3). Drill cuttings have a tendency to average mineral abundance over a finite depth range, and more consolidated rock fragments may be overrepresented with respect to the softer, more friable rock fragments. The practice of washing cuttings before collection can actually remove specific mineral fractions (especially clays). These limitations can result in inaccurate mineral analyses and in variations in mineral abundance, becoming less distinct and spread over a greater vertical range. Unfortunately, the possibility of nonrepresentative sampling increases the uncertainty in the data and the resultant model. It is difficult to predict the magnitude of the potential error without obtaining additional mineralogic data. However, the modeling process uses all of the available data, which tends to reduce the impact of any single data point. The use of numeric means for the sequence at each borehole (Section 6.2.3) is a limitation with regard to the representativeness of the vertical variability within sequences. Some sequences, such as the PTn (sequence 21), will have more variability than others, but this is not captured in the MM. Use of mineralogical data from these boreholes are discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, with the exception of UZ-16. With the designation of the borehole data in DTN LADB831321AN98.002 as an assumption and corroborative, it is the responsibility of the prospective data users to determine the suitability, reliability, and appropriateness of the mineral abundance representations contained in the Mineralogical Model AMR at and near the vicinity of boreholes for their specific application. 6.5 MODEL VALIDATION The model validation was based on two criteria. First, the model was required to reproduce the input data, including the adjustments described in Section 6.2.3. In this validation step, mineral abundance data (output) from the model were compared against the input values at borehole locations where these data were available (Scientific Notebook LA-EES-1-NBK-99-001 (Carey 1999, pp. 144–221)). Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 71 of 80 The second criterion checks that the model predictions are reasonable given the input mineralogy from the surrounding or adjacent borehole sources. In practice, this means that at a given location, the predicted mineral-abundance values for each of the ten mineral groups or classes in the model (as listed in Section 6.2.3) are similar to mineral-abundance values measured in the adjacent boreholes. To be acceptably similar, the predictions for the given test case should be within the range of the minimum and maximum measured values in adjacent boreholes; and should be within one standard deviation or within 1 weight percent of the average measured values for adjacent drill holes. The model was tested for the second criterion using two basic cases. In the first case, the mineralogic predictions for a unit having relatively uniform mineralogy were compared to the average values of all borehole data for that unit. In the second case, the predictions for a unit having distinctly varying mineralogy were compared to average values of adjacent holes. Case 1. The middle nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff: Tptpmn This unit is a devitrified tuff with a relatively constant feldspar content but highly variable ratios of tridymite:cristobalite:quartz. All of the borehole data were used to construct the average, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum of the input data. Values were predicted at a location near the center of the repository footprint, west of UZN-31 and UZN-32. As shown in Table 5, the predicted values are bounded by the minimum and maximum and are within one standard deviation of the average input values. The predicted value for feldspar is very similar to the average, consistent with the uniform feldspar content of the unit, but the values for the silica polymorphs are close to, but within, the one-standard-deviation limits, again consistent with the variability observed in the input values. Case 2. The upper part (25 percent) of the Calico Hills Formation: Tac This unit shows highly variable zeolite and volcanic glass content from the northeast to the southwest. Consequently, the model validation for this unit takes the geographic variation into account by testing at two locations within regions of different zeolite abundance. In this case, the criterion is that the predicted values at the test location should be similar to the input values for the set of nearest boreholes. As for Case 1, acceptable similarity is defined as a predicted value within one standard deviation of the average. Location 1 (zeolitic region) is within the repository footprint and lies within a triangle defined by G-1, SD-9, and NRG-7a. The predicted mineralogy of the test location should be similar to the values for the surrounding boreholes. As shown in Table 5, the predicted values meet the test criterion. Location 2 (non-zeolitic region) is within the repository footprint and lies within a region defined by H-3, SD-6, SD-12, SD-7, and WT-2. The predicted values should be similar to the average mineralogy of the surrounding confining boreholes, and this criterion is satisfied as shown in Table 5. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 72 of 80 Table 5. Mineralogy of the Topopah Spring Tuff and Upper Calico Hills Formation Case 1: Middle Nonlithophysal Topopah Spring Tuff (Tptpmn) Prediction Location Borehole SMEC ZEO TRID CR/CT QRTZ FELD GLAS ANAL MICA CALC a#1 1 0 0 12 21 66 0 0 0.1 0 Easting: 170657.9 meters a#1 3 0 2 13 18 60 0 0 0.1 0 a#1 2 0.1 0.1 16 13 67 0 0 0.1 0 Northing: 233202.1 meters G-1 2 0 0.1 22 3 72 0 0 0.1 0 G-1 1 0 6 27 4 67 0 0 0.1 0 Elevation: 1140.8674 meters G-3 1 0 0 17 6 70 0 0 1 0 G-3 1 0 6 22 1 65 0 0 1 0 G-4 3 0 4 23 4 66 0 0 0 0 G-4 3 0 17 13 4 62 0 0 0 0 G-4 1 0 0 28 3 68 0 0 0 0 H-3 1 0 0 26 4 68 0 0 1 0 H-3 2 0 0.1 27 2 69 0 0 1 0 H-4 3 0 12 14 1 68 0 0 1 0 H-4 1 0 0 20 11 67 0 0 0 0 H-4 1 0 0 21 7 71 0 0 0 0 H-5 3 0 3 28 1 59 0 0 0.1 0 H-5 0.1 0 0 40 2 55 0 0 1 0 NRG-6 2 0 4 31 4 54 0 0 0 0 NRG-6 3 0 1 29 10 54 0 0 0.1 0 NRG-6 2 0 5 17 17 55 0 0 0.1 0 NRG-6 3 0 2 33 3 57 0 0 0 0 NRG-6 3 0 3 27 10 55 0 0 0.1 0 NRG-6 2 0 3 32 4 54 0 0 0 0 NRG-7a 3 0 6 16 20 57 0 0 0.1 0 NRG-7a 3 0 3 21 16 55 0 0 0.1 0 NRG-7a 3 0 1 22 18 52 0 0 0.1 0 NRG-7a 4 0 2 26 13 57 0 0 0.1 0 NRG-7a 3 0 5 9 29 56 0 0 0.1 0 NRG-7a 3 0 0.1 24 17 53 0 0 0.1 0 p#1 2 0 0.1 3 30 67 0 0 0.1 0 SD-7 4 0 2 25 15 53 0 0 0.1 0 SD-7 3 0 2 35 4 53 0 0 0.1 0 SD-7 5 0 4 31 5 52 0 0 0.1 0 SD-7 3 0 4 35 2 52 0 0 0.1 0 SD-7 5 0 3 34 3 52 0 0 0.1 0 SD-7 3 0 2 35 3 54 0 0 0.1 0 SD-9 3 0 2 28 11 54 0 0 0.1 0 SD-9 3 0 3 28 8 55 0 0 0.1 0 SD-9 2 0 8 11 21 55 0 0 0.1 0 SD-9 3 0 4 26 9 53 0 0 0.1 0 SD-12 4 0 2 30 8 53 0 0 0.1 0 SD-12 5 0 4 26 11 52 0 0 0.1 0 SD-12 5 0 3 34 5 54 0 0 0.1 1 SD-12 4 0 4 28 9 54 0 0 0.1 0 SD-12 3 0 4 34 3 54 0 0 0.1 0 UZ-14 3 0 5 32 4 52 0 0 0 0 UZ-14 3 0 3 29 9 53 0 0 0.1 0 UZ-14 5 0 4 31 5 55 0 0 0.1 0 UZ-14 3 0 4 20 16 55 0 0 0 0 UZ-14 4 0 4 33 7 54 0 0 0.1 0 UZ-14 5 0 5 32 5 50 0 0 0.1 0 UZ-16 3 0 0.1 16 21 57 0 0 0.1 0 UZ-16 3 0 1 13 23 57 0 0 0.1 0 UZ-16 3 0 3 27 12 57 0 0 0.1 0 Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 73 of 80 Table 5. Mineralogy of the Topopah Spring Tuff and Upper Calico Hills Formation (Continued) Case 1: Middle Nonlithophysal Topopah Spring Tuff (Tptpmn) (Continued) Borehole SMEC ZEO TRID CR/CT QRTZ FELD GLAS ANAL MICA CALC UZ-16 3 0.1 1 26 10 56 0 0 0.1 0 UZ-16 4 1 4 27 6 54 0 0 0.1 0 WT-1 1 0 3 9 25 61 0 0 1 1 WT-1 1 0 6 16 20 56 0 0 1 0 WT-2 2 0 10 22 6 58 0 0 1 0 WT-2 1 0 10 19 8 61 0 0 1 0 average 2.7 0.0 3.3 24.2 9.8 58.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 stdev 1.2 0.1 3.2 8.0 7.4 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 max 5 1 17 40 30 72 0 0 1 1 min 0.1 0 0 3 1 50 0 0 0 0 prediction 1.8 0.0 2.2 31.8 3.0 57.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Case 2: Upper Calico Hills Formation (Tac) Zeolitic Region Prediction Location Borehole SMEC ZEO TRID CR/CT QRTZ FELD GLAS ANAL MICA CALC G-1 0.1 74.0 0.0 19.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Easting: 171206.6 meters NRG-7a 1.0 80.0 0.0 13.0 2.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NRG-7a 0.1 84.0 0.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Northing: 234543.2 meters SD-9 0.1 74.0 0.0 20.0 3.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 SD-9 4.0 70.0 0.0 14.0 6.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Elevation: 838.8435 meters SD-9 0.1 71.0 0.0 16.0 4.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 SD-9 8.0 71.0 0.0 19.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SD-9 0.1 73.0 0.0 18.0 5.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 average 1.7 74.6 0.0 15.8 3.6 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 stdev 2.9 4.9 0.0 4.3 1.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 max 8.0 84.0 0.0 20.0 6.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 min 0.1 70.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 prediction 0.7 75.4 0.0 16.1 3.2 6.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nonzeolitic Region Prediction Location Borehole SMEC ZEO TRID CR/CT QRTZ FELD GLAS ANAL MICA CALC H-3 0.4 0.8 0.0 6.0 7.8 29.2 58.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 Easting: 170901.8 meters SD-6 0.1 16.0 0.0 5.0 31.0 47.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SD-7 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 91.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Northing: 231921.9 meters SD-7 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SD-12 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 89.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Elevation: 933.9188 meters SD-12 1.0 4.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 8.0 78.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 SD-12 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 88.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 SD-12 0.1 6.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 85.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 SD-12 1.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 8.0 82.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 SD-12 1.0 6.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 81.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 SD-12 1.0 7.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 82.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 WT-2 1.0 1.0 0.0 8.0 11.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 average 0.6 4.0 0.0 3.7 5.7 14.4 72.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 stdev 0.5 4.5 0.0 2.3 8.5 15.2 27.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 max 1.0 16.0 0.0 8.0 31.0 47.0 91.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 min 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 prediction 0.8 2.9 0.0 5.8 7.3 25.3 58.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 NOTE: Values shown are mineral abundances in weight percent. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 74 of 80 7. CONCLUSIONS The MM is one component of the ISM, which also includes the GFM and the RPM. The MM provides the abundance and distribution of 10 minerals and mineral groups within 22 stratigraphic sequences in the Yucca Mountain area for use in geoscientific modeling and repository design. The input data from the GFM provide stratigraphic controls, and quantitative analyses of mineral abundances by XRD at 24 boreholes provide controls for mineralogy; however, most of the modeled volume is unsampled. The MM is, therefore, an interpretation and a prediction tool rather than an absolute representation of reality. The model possesses an inherent level of uncertainty that is a function of data distribution and geologic complexity, and predictions or alternative interpretations that fall within the range of uncertainty are considered acceptable. Uncertainty in the model is mitigated by the application of sound geologic principles. The MM shows the abundance and distribution of minerals that are of greatest interest to TSPArelated models and analyses, some of which are summarized here. There is a transition from high- to low-abundance zeolite in the Calico Hills Formation in the region directly underlying the potential repository. The MM of this region in combination with the RPM may identify regions of enhanced radionuclide sorption resulting from a combination of high permeability and moderate zeolite abundance. Smectite may also be important in transport, and moderate abundances of smectite are predicted throughout the MM. Reactive mineral phases in the MM include the silica polymorphs and volcanic glass. The 3-D distribution of these phases provided by the MM will allow thermohydrologic studies of the effects of dissolution and precipitation reactions on repository performance. Finally, the MM allows the prediction of the abundance and location of hazardous minerals (silica polymorphs and erionite) as a tool for repository design. Limitations that may be of importance to users of the MM are: (1) scarcity of mineralogic data in the western margin of the potential repository block, as well as in the boundary regions of the MM; (2) the use of cuttings from several boreholes, leading to potential inaccuracies in mineral analyses because cuttings are washed prior to analysis; the mineralogic data is averaged over vertical intervals, or minerals from the more friable rock layers are potentially under represented; and (3) the use of numeric means to represent the mineral abundance for each sequence (or layer) at a borehole location. The MM is an interactive 3-D database and volumetric representation of the mineralogy of Yucca Mountain. As such, it is a useful tool for geoscientific analyses of all types, including hydrologic modeling, thermohydrologic studies, reactive-transport modeling, confirmation test planning, site geotechnical analysis, uncertainty analysis, model integration, data analysis, and repository facilities design. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 75 of 80 With the designation of the borehole data in DTN LADB831321AN98.002 as an assumption and corroborative, it is the responsibility of the prospective data users to determine the suitability, reliability, and appropriateness of the mineral abundance representations contained in the Mineralogical Model AMR at and near the vicinity of boreholes for their specific application. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 76 of 80 8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED Bish, D.L. and Aronson, J.L. 1993. “Paleogeothermal and Paleohydrologic Conditions in Silicic Tuff from Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Clays and Clay Minerals, 41, (2) 148-161. Long Island City, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 224613. Bish, D.L. and Chipera, S.J. 1988. “Problems and Solutions in Quantitative Analysis of Complex Mixtures by X-Ray Powder Diffraction.” Advances in X-Ray Analysis, 31, 295-308. New York, New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation. TIC: 224378. Bish, D.L. and Chipera, S.J. 1989. Revised Mineralogic Summary of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-11497-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: NNA.19891019.0029. BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Mineralogy Data for Use on the Yucca Mountain Project. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20011217.0390. Buesch, D.C.; Spengler, R.W.; Moyer, T.C.; and Geslin, J.K. 1996. Proposed Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic Units of the Paintbrush Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open File Report 94-469. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970205.0061. Buesch, D.C. and Spengler, R.W. 1999. “Correlations of Lithostratigraphic Features with Hydrogeologic Properties, a Facies-Based Approach to Model Development in Volcanic Rocks at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Proceedings of Conference on Status of Geologic Research and Mapping in Death Valley National Park, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 9-11, 1999. Open File Report 99-153, 62-64. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 245245. Buscheck, T.A. and Nitao, J.J. 1993. “The Analysis of Repository-Heat-Driven Hydrothermal Flow at Yucca Mountain.” High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 26-30, 1993, 1, 847-867. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 208542. Carey, J.W. 1999. Three-Dimensional Mineralogic Model of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Scientific Notebook LA-EES-1-NBK-99-001. ACC: MOL.19991028.0013. Carlos, B.A.; Chipera, S.J.; and Bish, D.L. 1995. Distribution and Chemistry of Fracture-Lining Minerals at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-12977-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19960306.0564. Chipera, S.J. and Bish, D.L. 1995. “Multireflection RIR and Intensity Normalizations for Quantitative Analyses: Applications to Feldspars and Zeolites.” Powder Diffraction, 10 (1), 47-55. Newton Square, Pennsylvania: Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction Standards. TIC: 222001. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 77 of 80 CRWMS M&O 1997a. Determination of Available Volume for Repository Siting. BCA000000- 01717-0200-00007 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19971009.0699. CRWMS M&O 1997b. Abatement Plan: Respirable Silica Dust. October 1, 1997 Update. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19971120.0179. CRWMS M&O 1999a. Analysis and Modeling Report (AMR) Development Plan (DP): Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Version 3.0, REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990917.0185. CRWMS M&O 1999b. M&O Site Investigations. Activity Evaluation. January 23, 1999. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990317.0330. CRWMS M&O 1999c. M&O Site Investigations. Activity Evaluation. September 28, 1999. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990928.0224. CRWMS M&O 2000. Technical Work Plan for the Integrated Site Model Process Model Report, Revision 01. TWP-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001023.0193. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. DOE/RW-0333P, Rev. 8. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19980601.0022. Dyer, J.R. 1999. “Revised Interim Guidance Pending Issuance of New U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulations (Revisions 01, July 22, 1999), for Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Letter from J.R. Dyer (DOE) to Dr. D.R. Wilkins (CRWMS M&O), September 3, 1999, OL&RC:SB-1714, with enclosure, “Interim Guidance Pending Issuance of New NRC Regulations for Yucca Mountain (Revision 01).” ACC: MOL.19990910.0079. Johnstone, J.K. and Wolfsberg, K., eds. 1980. Evaluation of Tuff as a Medium for a Nuclear Waste Repository: Interim Status Report on the Properties of Tuff. SAND80-1464. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19870406.0065. Levy, S.S. 1984. Petrology of Samples from Drill Holes USW H-3, H-4, and H-5, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-9706-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970729.0322. Levy, S.S. 1991. “Mineralogic Alteration History and Paleohydrology at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceeding of the Second Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 28-May 3, 1991, 1, 477-485. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 204272. Loeven, C. 1993. A Summary and Discussion of Hydrologic Data from the Calico Hills Nonwelded Hydrogeologic Unit at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-12376-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: NNA.19921116.0001. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 78 of 80 Thompson, A.B. and Wennemer, M. 1979. “Heat Capacities and Inversions in Tridymite, Cristobalite, and Tridymite-Cristobalite Mixed Phases.” American Mineralogist, 64, 1018-1026. Washington, D.C.: Mineralogical Society of America. TIC: 239133. Vaniman D.T. and Bish, D.L. 1995. "The Importance of Zeolites in the Potential High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Natural Zeolites `93: Occurrence, Properties, Use, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Occurrence, Properties, and Utilization of Natural Zeolites, June 20-28, 1993, Boise, Idaho. Ming, D.W. and Mumpton, F.A., eds. Pages 533-546. Brockport, New York: International Committee on Natural Zeolites. TIC: 243086. Vaniman, D.; Furlano, A.; Chipera, S.; Thompson, J. and Triay, I. 1996. “Microautoradiography in Studies of Pu (V) Sorption by Trace and Fracture Minerals in Tuff.” Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XIX, Symposium held November 27- December 1, 1995, Boston, Massachusetts, Murphy, W.M. and Knecht, D.A., eds. 412. 639-646. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Materials Research Society. TIC: 233877. 8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES AP-3.10Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0. Analyses and Models. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19990702.0314. AP-SI.1Q, Rev. 2, ICN 1. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19991101.0212. AP-SIII.1Q, Rev 0, ICN 0. Scientific Notebooks. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19990702.0311. LANL-YMP-QP-03.5, Rev 8. Documenting Scientific Investigations. Notebook 99-01. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: 19990914.0135. QAP-2-0, Rev 5. Conduct of Activities. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980826.0209. 8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER LA000000000086.002. Mineralogic Variation in Drill Core UE-25 UZ#16 Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 03/28/1995. LADB831321AN98.002. Revised Mineralogic Summary of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 05/26/1998. LADV831321AQ97.001. Mineralogic Variation in Drill Holes. Submittal date: 05/28/1997. LAJC831321AQ98.005. Quantitative XRD Results for Drill Core USW SD-7, USW SD-9, USW SD-12 and UE-25 UZ#16. Submittal date: 10/27/1998. Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 79 of 80 LASC831321AQ96.002. QXRD Analyses of Drill Core USW NRG-6 and USW UZ-14 Samples. Submittal date: 08/02/1996. LASC831321AQ98.003. Results of Real Time Analysis for Erionite in Drill Hole USW SD-6, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 06/11/1998. LADV831321AQ99.001. Quantitative XRD Results for the USW SD-6 and USW WT-24 Drill Core Samples. Submittal date: 04/16/1999. LASL831322AQ97.001. Updated Mineralogic and Hydrologic Analysis of the PTN Hydrogeologic Unit, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a Barrier to Flow. Submittal date: 10/09/1997. LASC831321AQ98.001. Results of Real-Time Analysis for Erionite in Drill Hole USW WT-24, Yucca Mountain, NV. Submittal date: 02/10/1998. LADV831321AQ97.007. Geotechnical Data Report: Hazardous Minerals. Submittal date: 01/27/1998. MO9510RIB00002.004. RIB ITEM: Stratigraphic Characteristics: Geologic/Lithologic Stratigraphy. Submittal date: 06/26/1996. MO9901MWDGFM31.000. Geologic Framework Model Version GFM3.1. Submittal date: 01/06/1999. MO9804MWDGFM03.001. An Update to GFM 3.0; Corrected Horizon Grids for Four Fault Blocks. Submittal date: 04/14/1998. 8.4 SOFTWARE STRATAMODEL Version 4.1.1. STN: 10121-4.1.1-00. POWD Version 10. STN: 10429-10-00 8.5 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER LA9908JC831321.001. Mineralogic Model “MM3.0” Version 3.0. Submittal date: 08/16/99 Title: Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Document Identifier: MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02 Page: 80 of 80 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK