QA: QA 
(text) DOC.20060829.0002

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 
August 2006 

Chlorine-36 Validation Study at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Energy 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 
Office of Repository Development 

P.O. Box 364629 
North Las Vegas, Nevada 89036 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Yucca Mountain Project Branch 

P.O. Box 25046, MS 963 
Denver Federal Center 
Denver, Colorado 80225 

Under Interagency Agreement 
DE-AI28-02RW12167 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Chlorine-36 (36Cl) data were collected by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) during the 
late 1990s using leachates of rock samples collected from the walls of the Exploratory Studies 
Facility (ESF) in the unsaturated zone (UZ) at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to test whether the 
Paintbrush Tuff nonwelded hydrogeologic unit (PTn) represents an effective barrier to vertical 
flow, whether water in the matrix of the Topopah Spring welded hydrogeologic unit (TSw) is 
essentially stagnant, and whether fast pathways transporting water to the proposed repository 
horizon occur at discrete locations associated with fault structures. Thirteen percent of the 36Cl 
measurements (37 of 288 samples) showed elevated values for ratios of 36Cl to total chloride 
(36Cl/Cl) at the level of the proposed repository, indicating that small amounts of water carrying 
bomb-pulse 36Cl (i.e., 36Cl/Cl ratios greater than 1250  10-15 resulting from 36Cl produced by 
atmospheric testing of nuclear devices during the 1950s and early 1960s) had percolated through 
welded and nonwelded tuffs to depths of 200 to 300 meters (m) beneath the land surface over the 
past 50 years. Because of the implications of short travel times to the performance of the 
proposed repository, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management (OCRWM), Office of Repository Development (ORD) decided to verify the 
36Cl/Cl data with an independent validation study. 

DOE asked the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to design and implement a validation study that 
would include 36Cl and tritium (3H) analyses. Study participants included the USGS, Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), and 
LANL. Core samples were taken from 50 new boreholes drilled across two zones in the ESF 
where a substantial number of samples with elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios had been identified 
previously. Also, core intervals from the Sample Management Facility (SMF) were acquired for 
water extraction and 3H analyses. 

The 36Cl validation study was conducted in three phases. Results from Phase I of the work 
conducted at LLNL indicated that active leaching pulverized the rock samples and extracted too 
much rock chloride relative to meteoric chloride (36Cl/Cl ratios range from 47  10-15 to 
248  10-15; all values but one are less than 156  10-15). Results from Phase I of the work 
conducted at LANL on validation core samples from the Sundance fault zone yielded 36Cl/Cl 
values consistent with analyses from previous LANL studies. Following a detailed series of 
leaching experiments in Phase II of the validation study, a 1-hour passive leaching protocol was 
established for processing samples in Phase III of the study. The passive leaching process 
extracted less rock chloride relative to meteoric chloride. 

USGS-LLNL 36Cl/Cl values for leachates of 34 samples of core from validation study boreholes 
across an area that includes the Sundance fault zone range from 137  10-15 to 615  10-15, with a 
mean value of 326  10-15 . These are lower than bomb-pulse values previously reported for 
feature-based tunnel-wall samples in the same area. 36Cl/Cl ratios for passive leachates of 
validation study core samples prepared at the USGS and processed separately at LLNL and 
LANL agree within analytical error. The reproducibility of results also was tested at 
USGS-LLNL and LANL using available core from Niche #1, a short drift that was driven from 
the ESF to access the Sundance fault by drilling. LLNL analyses of six Niche #1 core samples 
prepared at the USGS are statistically indistinguishable from validation study borehole data. 
(36Cl/Cl ratios range from 226  10-15 to 717  10-15). LANL 36Cl/Cl validation results for seven 


Niche #1 core samples yielded bomb-pulse values that are comparable to previous LANL 36Cl 
data (1,016  10-15 to 8,558  10-15). One LANL validation study analysis and several previous 
analyses of samples from the Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) Cross 
Drift also show large 36Cl/Cl values. 

Tritium concentrations in pore water extracted from validation study core samples across the 
Drill Hole Wash fault zone and the Sundance fault zone range from less than 0.1 to 2.6 tritium 
units (TU). Tritium concentrations in pore water extracted from samples from areas of known 
faulting in the ESF indicate the presence of modern water (i.e., water that entered the Yucca 
Mountain UZ after 1952, thus indicating fast pathways). Tritium concentrations in pore water 
extracted from core samples from the ECRB Cross Drift range from less than 0.1 to 10.3 TU. 
The USGS and LANL established different thresholds for interpreting 3H values as indicators of 
modern water (2.0 TU and 1.4 TU, respectively). The lower LANL threshold allows for the 
presence of modern water in a larger number of locations in the ESF and ECRB Cross Drift. 

The validation study work conducted by USGS-LLNL did not confirm previously reported 
bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl ratios in the Sundance fault zone, but new analyses at LANL of Niche #1 
core samples and ECRB Cross Drift tunnel-wall samples were consistent with results from 
previous studies. Consequently, a number of issues were identified that need to be addressed. 
Recommendations include a detailed evaluation of potential field contamination and sample 
handling and processing, including a rigorous evaluation of crushing blanks; additional 36Cl/Cl 
analyses of validation study core samples; confirmation of young water in high-3H samples by 
analyzing the same core samples for 36Cl; and an independent validation study using new 
samples. 


CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ v 
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................................. xvii 
STRATIGRAPHIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC NAMES.......................................................... xix 
CONVERSION FACTORS ......................................................................................................... xx 

REPORTING OF UNCERTAINTIES AND PARAMETER VARIABILITIES ........................ xx 

NOTATION OF CHLORINE-36/CHLORIDE RATIOS IN TEXT, TABLES, AND 
FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... xx 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... xxi 

1. 
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1 
PURPOSE.....................................................................................................................1
1.2 
QUALITY ASSURANCE............................................................................................ 2 
1.3 
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT......................................................................... 2 
2. 
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 3 
2.1 
STUDIES OF CHLORINE-36 AND FRACTURE MINERALS IN THE 
EXPLORATORY STUDIES FACILITY..................................................................... 4 
2.1.1 
Results from Previous Chlorine-36 Studies...................................................... 4 
2.1.2 
Fracture Mineral Studies................................................................................... 7 
2.2 
PREVIOUS STUDIES OF OTHER BOMB-PULSE ISOTOPES ............................... 7 
2.3 
PEER REVIEW OF CHLORINE-36 STUDIES .......................................................... 8 
3. 
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VALIDATION STUDY ............................ 11 
3.1 
DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROTOCOL .................................................................... 11 
3.2 
DESCRIPTION AND ALLOCATION OF VALIDATION STUDY CORE ............ 13 
4. 
CHLORINE-36 MEASUREMENTS ..................................................................................... 17 
4.1 
PHASE I: MEASUREMENTS MADE AT LLNL .................................................... 17 
4.1.1 
Methods........................................................................................................... 17 
4.1.2 
Results............................................................................................................. 17 
4.2 
PHASE I: MEASUREMENTS MADE AT LANL.................................................... 18 
4.2.1 
Methods........................................................................................................... 18 
4.2.2 
Results............................................................................................................. 18 
4.3 
PHASE II: LEACHING EXPERIMENTS ................................................................. 19 
4.3.1 
Preparation of the Reference Sample.............................................................. 19 
4.3.2 
Leaching Experiments Conducted at LANL................................................... 20 
4.3.2.1 
Methods ............................................................................................. 20 
4.3.2.2 
Results ............................................................................................... 21 
4.3.2.3 
Discussion of Results ........................................................................ 22 
4.3.3 
Leaching Experiments Conducted at AECL................................................... 23 
4.3.3.1 
Methods ............................................................................................. 23 
4.3.3.2 
Results ............................................................................................... 24 
4.3.3.3 
Discussion of Results ........................................................................ 26 

4.3.4 
Conclusions from the Phase II Leaching Experiments................................... 27 
4.4 
PHASE III: MEASUREMENTS MADE AT USGS-LLNL ...................................... 27 
4.4.1 
Methods........................................................................................................... 28 
4.4.1.1 
Sample Processing............................................................................. 28 
4.4.1.2 
Crushing Experiments ....................................................................... 29 
4.4.1.3 
Procedural Blanks.............................................................................. 30 
4.4.2 
Results............................................................................................................. 31 
4.4.2.1 
Anions in Leachates of Validation Study Core ................................. 31 
4.4.2.2 
Chlorine-36 in Leachates of Validation Study Core ......................... 32 
4.4.2.3 
Re-Analysis of Niche #1 Core for Chlorine-36................................. 33 
4.5 
PHASE III: MEASUREMENTS MADE AT LANL ................................................. 34 
4.5.1 
Methods........................................................................................................... 34 
4.5.1.1 
Sample Processing............................................................................. 34 
4.5.1.2 
Procedural Blanks.............................................................................. 35 
4.5.2 
Results............................................................................................................. 35 
4.5.2.1 
Chlorine-36 in Leachates of Validation Study Core ......................... 35 
4.5.2.2 
Chlorine-36 in ECRB Cross Drift Tunnel-Wall Samples ................. 36 
4.5.2.3 
Re-Analysis of Niche #1 Core for Chlorine-36................................. 36 
4.6 
DISCUSSION OF THE CHLORINE-36 MEASUREMENTS.................................. 37 
4.6.1 
Active Leaching.............................................................................................. 37 
4.6.2 
Chloride Sources and Leaching Experiments................................................. 37 
4.6.3 
Procedural Blanks and Detection Limits for the Total Chloride and 
Chlorine-36 Analyses...................................................................................... 38 
4.6.4 
Analysis of Duplicate Samples ....................................................................... 39 
4.6.5 
LANL Data from the ECRB Cross Drift ........................................................ 40 
4.6.6 
Comparison of Validation Study Data with Previous Chlorine-36 Data........ 40 
4.6.6.1 
Sundance Fault Zone......................................................................... 40 
4.6.6.2 
Southern Exploratory Studies Facility .............................................. 41 
4.6.7 
Comparison of USGS-LLNL Niche #1 Data and LANL-LLNL 
Niche #1 Data ................................................................................................. 41 
5. 
TRITIUM MEASUREMENTS .............................................................................................. 43 
5.1 
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF TRITIUM IN CORE SAMPLES FROM THE 
YUCCA MOUNTAIN UNSATURATED ZONE...................................................... 43 
5.2 
METHODS ................................................................................................................. 44 
5.3 
RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 45 
5.3.1 
Tritium in Validation Study Core Samples..................................................... 45 
5.3.2 
Tritium in Other Core Samples from the Exploratory Studies Facility.......... 45 
5.3.3 
Tritium in Core Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift.................................... 46 
5.4 
THRESHOLD VALUES FOR DETECTING MODERN WATER .......................... 47 
5.4.1 
USGS Establishment of a Threshold for Identifying Modern Water ............. 47 
5.4.2 
LANL Establishment of a Threshold for Identifying Modern Water............. 48 
5.5 
INTERPRETATION OF THE TRITIUM MEASUREMENTS ................................ 51 
5.5.1 
USGS Interpretation of the Tritium Measurements........................................ 51 
5.5.2 
LANL Interpretation of the Tritium Measurements ....................................... 51 
6. 
SUMMARY OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, REMAINING ISSUES, AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................ 53 

6.1 
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ....................................................................................... 53 
6.2 
CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 54 
6.3 
REMAINING ISSUES ............................................................................................... 54 
6.3.1 
Absence of Elevated Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in USGS-LLNL 
Measurements ................................................................................................. 54 
6.3.2 
Results for Niche #1 Core............................................................................... 55 
6.3.3 
Spatial Distribution of Elevated Chlorine-36 Values and Tritium 
Values ............................................................................................................. 55 
6.3.3.1 
USGS Interpretation of the Spatial Distribution of Elevated 
Values................................................................................................ 56 
6.3.3.2 
LANL Interpretation of the Spatial Distribution of Elevated 
Values................................................................................................ 56 
6.3.4 
Potential Contamination from Field and Laboratory Environments............... 57 
6.3.4.1 
USGS Interpretation of the Potential for Contamination from
Field and Laboratory Environments.................................................. 57 
6.3.4.2 
LANL Interpretation of the Potential for Contamination from
Field and Laboratory Environments.................................................. 58 
6.4 
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................ 59 
6.4.1 
Evaluation of Field Contamination................................................................. 60 
6.4.2 
Evaluation of Laboratory Blanks.................................................................... 60 
6.4.3 
Additional 36Cl/Cl Analyses of Validation Study Core and ECRB 
Cross Drift Core.............................................................................................. 60 
6.4.4 
Independent Validation Study Using New Samples....................................... 60 
7. 
REFERENCES CITED........................................................................................................... 61 
7.1 
DOCUMENTS CITED............................................................................................... 61 
7.2 
CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES.......................... 68 
7.3 
SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER .............................. 68 
APPENDIX A CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS AND CHLORINE-36/CHLORIDE 

RATIOS IN SALTS LEACHED FROM ESF ROCK SAMPLES AT LOS ALAMOS 

NATIONAL LABORATORY AS OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 ............................................. A1 

APPENDIX B VIDEO-LOG OBSERVATIONS FROM VALIDATION STUDY 
BOREHOLES........................................................................................................................B1 

APPENDIX C ACCELERATOR MASS SPECTROMETRY METHODS ..............................C1 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


FIGURES 

1-1. Generalized Map of Central Yucca Mountain (A) and Schematic Geologic 
Section along the ESF Showing the Sundance Fault Zone Validation Study 
Area (B) 

2-1. Distribution of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in the ESF, 
as Reported by LANL in 1996, 1997, and 1998 

2-2. Relations between Fault/Shear Intensity as Mapped in the ESF and 36Cl/Cl 
Ratios for Samples Described as Localities Associated with Faults or Shears 

3-1. Distribution of 36Cl along the Drill Hole Wash Fault Zone in the ESF, between 
1,500 and 2.500 meters (A) and between 1,880 and 1,980 meters (B), as 
Reported by LANL in 1996 

3-2. Distribution of 36Cl in and adjacent to the Sundance Fault in the ESF, as 
Reported by LANL in 1996 and 1998 

3-3. Distribution of Fracture Densities in the ESF 

3-4. Histograms Showing the Linear Spacing (A) and Log Spacing (B) between 
Fractures and Cooling Joints Longer than 1 Meter, Measured from Detailed 
Line Surveys between ESF Stations 16+00 and 21+00 

3-5. Histograms Showing the Linear Spacing (A) and Log Spacing (B) between 
Fractures and Cooling Joints Longer than 1 Meter, Measured from Detailed 
Line Surveys between ESF Stations 34+00 and 36+00 

3-6. Schematic Map Showing General Relations of Niche #1 to the ESF Main Drift 
and Sundance Fault, and the Orientations of Boreholes Used for the 
Validation Study 

3-7. Distribution of Niche #1 Core Intervals Used for the Validation Study 

4-1. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Active Leachates of Validation 
Study Samples Processed and Analyzed at LLNL during Phase I 

4-2. Distribution of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in Active 
Leachates of Validation Study Samples Processed and Analyzed at LLNL 
during Phase I 

4-3. Relations between Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in 
Active Leachates of Validation Study Samples Processed and Analyzed at 
LLNL during Phase I (A), and for Passive Leachates of ESF Samples 
Reported Previously by LANL (B) 

4-4. Relations between Chloride Concentrations (A) and Cumulative Chloride 
Concentrations (B) Plotted against Leach Duration for Sequential Leachates 
of Reference Sample EVAL001 Leached at LANL by Passive and Active 
Methods during Phase II 

4-5. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios (A) and Cumulative 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) 
Plotted against Leach Duration for Sequential Leachates of Reference Sample 
EVAL001 Leached at LANL by Passive and Active Methods during Phase II 


4-6. Relations between Chloride Concentrations (A, showing all data) and 
Cumulative Chloride Concentrations (B, showing a subset of the data at a 
larger scale) Plotted against Leach Duration for Sequential Passive Leachates 
of the 6.3- to 12.5-mm Fraction of Six Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift 
Analyzed at LANL during Phase II 

4-7. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios (A) and Cumulative 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) 
Plotted against Leach Duration for Sequential Passive Leachates of the 6.3- to 
12.5-mm Fraction of Six Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift Analyzed at 
LANL during Phase II 

4-8. Relations between Chloride Concentrations (A) and Cumulative Chloride 
Concentrations (B) Plotted against Leach Duration for Passive Leachates of 
Different Size Fractions of ECRB Cross Drift Sample EXD-069 Analyzed at 
LANL during Phase II 

4-9. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios (A) and Cumulative 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) 
Plotted against Leach Duration for Passive Leachates of Different Size 
Fractions of ECRB Cross Drift Sample EXD-069 Analyzed at LANL during 
Phase II 

4-10. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios and Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations in 
Sequential Leachates of Reference Sample EVAL001 and ECRB Cross Drift 
Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase II 

4-11. Effect of Particle Size on Leach Duration and Chloride Concentration for Two 
Size Fractions of Tuff from Unfractured (CT and FT series, #2) and Relatively 
Unfractured (2CT series, #14) Core Samples Analyzed at AECL during 
Phase II 

4-12. Detail from Figure 4-11 Showing the Changes in Chloride Concentrations in 
the First Few Hours of Two Leaching Tests on the Coarse Tuff 

4-13. Effect of Particle Size on Chloride Concentrations in Phase II Leachates of 
Intact Core from Borehole ESF-SD-ClV#2 (GS series in Table 4-6) and 
Broken Core from Borehole ESF-SD-ClV#14 (2A2 series in Table 4-6) 

4-14. Effect of Particle Size and Leach Duration on Rubblized Core Fragments from 
Borehole ESF-SD-ClV#9 (BT series in Table 4-6) 

4-15. Comparison of Chloride Concentrations in Phase II Leachates of Core 
Samples from ESF-SD-ClV and Niche #1 Boreholes in the Sundance Fault 
Zone 

4-16. Relations between Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Phase III 
Leachates of Core Samples from Borehole ESF-SAD-GTB#1 

4-17. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios and Chloride Concentrations (A) and 
Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations (B) in Phase III Leachates of Validation 
Study Samples Leached at the USGS and Analyzed at LLNL 

4-18. Box Plots of Chloride Concentration Data Comparing Phase III Leachates of 
Core Samples from the Drill Hole Wash and Sundance Fault Zones (A), and 
from Different Samples within the Sundance Fault Zone (B) 

4-19. Concentrations of Chloride Determined by Ion Chromatography in Phase III 
Leachates of Validation Study Core Samples and Niche #1 Core Samples 
from the Sundance Fault Zone (A) and Drill Hole Wash Fault Zone (B) 


4-20. Comparison of Chloride Concentrations in Phase III Leachates of Validation 
Study Core Leached at the USGS, with NO3 Concentrations (A) and SO4 
Concentrations (B) 

4-21. Comparison of Chloride Concentrations in Phase III Leachates of Validation 
Study Samples Analyzed by Ion Chromatography at the USGS and by Isotope 
Dilution at LLNL 

4-22. Histograms Showing Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in 
Phase III Leachates of Validation Study Samples Leached at the USGS and 
Analyzed at LLNL 

4-23. Relations between Sample Locations in the ESF and Chloride Concentrations 

(A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in Phase III Leachates of Validation Study Samples 
Leached at the USGS and Analyzed at LLNL 

4-24. Relations between Borehole Completion Dates and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Phase III 
Leachates of Validation Study Samples Leached at the USGS and Analyzed at 
LLNL 

4-25. Histogram Showing 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Phase III Leachates of ESF-SD-ClV and 
Niche #1 Core Samples Prepared at the USGS and Analyzed at LLNL 
4-26. Relations between Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in 

Phase III Leachates of Niche #1 Core Samples as Linear (A) and Semi-Log 

(B) Plots 

4-27. Comparison of Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in 
Phase III Leachates of Samples from ESF Tunnel Walls (Sundance Fault Zone 
between Stations 34+28 and 37+00) and Niche #1 Core 

4-28. Relations between Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in 
Phase III Leachates of Validation Study Samples from the Sundance Fault 
Zone within the ESF 

4-29. Conceptual Model of the Isotopic Evolution of 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Passively 
Leached Solutions with Time 

4-30. Comparison of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in 
Aliquots of Validation Study Samples Passively Leached for 1 Hour at the 
USGS and Sent to LLNL and LANL for AgCl Target Preparation 

4-31. Frequency Distribution (A) and Box Plot (B) of 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of 
Validation Study Core Leached at the USGS and Sent to LLNL and LANL for 
AgCl Precipitation and Analysis 

4-32. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios Determined at LANL and Distance in the 
ECRB Cross Drift 

4-33. Distribution of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in 
Leachates of Samples from the Sundance Fault Zone within the ESF 

4-34. Relations between Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in 
Leachates of Samples from the Sundance Fault Zone 

4-35. Distribution of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in 
Leachates of USGSLLNL Samples from the Sundance Fault Zone and 
LANL Samples from the Southern ESF 


5-1. Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Samples of Pore Water Extracted 
from Validation Study Core along the Drill Hole Wash Fault Zone (A) and 
Sundance Fault Zone (B) 

5-2. Frequency Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water from 
Validation Study Core Samples 

5-3. Distribution of Tritium Concentrations Plotted at Full Scale (A) and at a 
Reduced Scale (B) in Samples of Pore Water Extracted from Drill Core 
throughout the ESF 

5-4. Frequency Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water from 
Boreholes along the ESF South Ramp 

5-5. Geologic Section of the ESF South Ramp Showing Locations of Samples 
Analyzed for Tritium 

5-6. Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Samples of Pore Water Extracted 
from Drill Core along the ECRB Cross Drift 

5-7. Frequency Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water from ECRB 
Cross Drift Drill Core 

5-8. Application of Chauvenets Criterion to Establish a Cutoff Tritium 
Concentration for Identifying the Presence of Bomb-Pulse Tritium in Samples 
from the ESF and ECRB Cross Drift (USGS) 

5-9. Application of Chauvenets Criterion to Establish a Cutoff Tritium 
Concentration for Identifying the Presence of Bomb-Pulse Tritium in 
Validation Study Boreholes and ECRB Cross Drift Samples (LANL) 

6-1. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Validation Study Samples from the 
Sundance Fault Zone and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Samples from the Same Area 
Reported by LANL in 1996, 1997, and 1998 


TABLES 

3-1. 
Chronology of Locations and Personnel Directly Involved in the Preparation 
and Analysis of LANL 36Cl Samples 
3-2. 
Validation Study Boreholes 
3-3. 
Core Samples from Niche #1 Boreholes 
4-1. 
Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Active Leachates Prepared and 
Analyzed at LLNL during Phase I 
4-2. 
Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Concentrations, and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in
Leachates of Validation Study Core Samples Analyzed at LANL during
Phase I 
4-3. 
Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Sequential Leachates of 
Reference Sample EVAL001 and Six Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift 
Analyzed at LANL during Phase II 
4-4. 
Possible Sources for 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Tuff Samples from Yucca Mountain 
4-5. 
Dry-Drilled Core Samples Used in Chloride Leaching Experiments Conducted 
at AECL during Phase II 
4-6. 
Summary of Data for Core Samples Analyzed at AECL during Phase II 
4-7. 
Processing History of Validation Study Core Samples Leached at the USGS 
during Phase III 
4-8. 
Validation Study Core Intervals Chosen for Passive Leaching at the USGS 
during Phase III 
4-9. 
Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Core Samples Leached and
Analyzed at USGSLLNL during Phase III 
4-10. 
Concentrations and Chloride Isotopic Compositions of Procedural Blanks 
Obtained for Passive Leaching at the USGS and Chloride Precipitation and
Analysis at LLNL during Phase III 
USGS-LLNL in Silicon Crushing Blanks, System Process Blanks, and a 
4-11. 
Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios Measured during Phase III at 
Composite Sample of Niche #1 Core Crushed and Sieved at LANL 
4-12. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of Validation Study 
Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase III 
4-13. 
Concentrations of Anions in Leachates of Validation Study Samples Analyzed
by Ion Chromatography at the USGS during Phase III 
4-14. 
Summary of Anion Concentrations in Leachates of Validation Study Samples 
Analyzed by Ion Chromatography at the USGS during Phase III 
4-15. 
Summary of Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Core Samples 
Leached and Analyzed at USGSLLNL during Phase III 
4-16. 
Mass of Total Chloride, 36Cl/Cl Ratios, and Mass of 36Cl Present in Validation
Study Blanks Processed at LANL during Phase III 
4-17. 
Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Concentrations, and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in
Leachates of ECRB Cross Drift Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase III 
4-18. 
Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Duplicate Analyses Used to 
Calculate External Error in 36Cl/Cl Ratios during Phase III 

5-1. Tritium Concentrations in Water Standards with Known Values 

5-2. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from Validation Study Core 
Samples 

5-3. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from ESF Core Samples 

5-4. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from ECRB Cross Drift Core 
Samples 


ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS 

40Ca calcium-40 
137Cs cesium-137 
35Cl chlorine-35 
36Cl chlorine-36 
37Cl chlorine-37 
2H deuterium 
3H tritium 
6Li lithium-6 
18O oxygen-1887Sr/86Sr strontium-87/strontium-86 
99Tc technetium-99 

s sigma 
1s 1 standard deviation 
2s 2 standard deviations 

A ampere 
AECL Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 
AgCl silver chloride 
AMS accelerator mass spectrometry 

Br bromine 
BSC Bechtel SAIC Company 

CAMS Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
CHn Calico Hills nonwelded hydrogeologic unit 
Ci curie 
Cl chlorine 
cm centimeter 
CRWMS Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System 

DIRS Document Input Reference System 
DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

ECRB Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block 
ESF Exploratory Studies Facility 

F fluorine 

g gram 

IBM International Business Machines Corporation 


ka thousand years ago 
kg kilogram 
km kilometer 

L liter 
LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 
LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
LRL laboratory reporting level 
LT-MDL long-term method detection limit 

m micrometer 
m meter 
M&O management and operating (contractor) 
MDL method detection limit 
mg milligram 
mm millimeter 
ML minimum level of quantitation 

NO3 nitrate 
NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey 
NWTRB Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 

OCRWM Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 
ORD Office of Repository Development 

pCi picocurie 
PRIME Lab Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement Laboratory 
psi pounds per square inch 
PTn Paintbrush Tuff nonwelded hydrogeologic unit 

SE standard error 
SMF Sample Management Facility 
SO4 sulfate 

TCw Tiva Canyon welded hydrogeologic unit 
TDMS Technical Data Management System 
TIMS thermal ionization mass spectrometry 
TIP technical implementation procedure 
TSw Topopah Spring welded hydrogeologic unit 
TU tritium unit 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
UZ unsaturated zone 

YMPB Yucca Mountain Project Branch, U.S. Geological Survey 


STRATIGRAPHIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC NAMES 

Yucca Mountain consists of north-trending fault-block ridges composed of gently dipping 
Miocene ash-flow tuffs (Scott and Bonk 1984). Differences in the hydrologic character of the 
welded and nonwelded tuffs led Montazer and Wilson (1984) and Ortiz et al. (1985) to develop a 
hydrogeologic classification of the volcanic rocks. Because these units are based on hydrologic 
properties, they do not correspond exactly with the stratigraphic units described by Sawyer et al. 
(1994). For example, as shown below, the Paintbrush Tuff nonwelded hydrogeologic unit (PTn) 
consists of the nonwelded basal part of the Tiva Canyon Tuff, the entire Yucca Mountain and 
Pah Canyon Tuffs and associated but unnamed bedded tuffs, and the nonwelded upper part of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff. Both nomenclatures are used in this report. 

Stratigraphic Unit Hydrogeologic Unit 
Alluvium Alluvium 
Tiva Canyon Tuff 
Tiva Canyon welded 
(TCw) 
Paintbrush Group 
Paintbrush Tuff 
nonwelded (PTn) 
Yucca Mountain Tuff 
bedded tuff 
Pah Canyon Tuff 
bedded tuff 
Topopah Spring Tuff 
Topopah Spring 
welded (TSw) 
Calico Hills nonwelded 
(CHn) 
Calico Hills Formation 
Crater FlatGroup 
Prow Pass Tuff 
Bullfrog Tuff Crater Flat 
undifferentiated (CFu) 

Modified from Montazer and Wilson (1984) 


CONVERSION FACTORS 

 Multiply by To obtain 
centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.) 
millimeter (mm) 
micrometer (m) 
0.03937 
3.937  10-5inch (in.) 
inch (in.) 
meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 
kilometer 0.6214 mile (mi) 
liter (L) 33.82 ounce (oz) 
liter (L) 1.0567 quart (qt) 
kilogram (kg) 
milligram (mg) 
milligram (mg) 
2.205 
2.205  10-6 
3.527  10-5 
pound (lb) 
pound (lb) 
ounce (oz) 

REPORTING OF UNCERTAINTIES AND PARAMETER VARIABILITIES 

Throughout this report uncertainties are cited for individual measurements and means of multiple 
measurements. For individual measurements, the uncertainty is expressed as 2 standard 
deviations (2s), unless otherwise specified. One standard deviation (1s) is used to express 
natural variability of measured parameters, such as concentrations and isotope ratios, within a 
group of samples. 

For averages of multiple measurements, uncertainty is expressed as standard error (SE), which is 
1s divided by the square root of the number of measurements. Weighted averages were 
calculated for multiple measurements with highly variable errors (for example, process blanks), 
using reciprocals of squared individual 1s uncertainties as weighting factors. 

NOTATION OF CHLORINE-36/CHLORIDE RATIOS IN TEXT, TABLES, AND 
FIGURES 

In the text of this report, 36Cl/Cl ratios are given as a value multiplied by 10-15 . For example, a 
ratio of 0.000000000000666 is cited as 666  10-15. To simplify the tabulation of the data and 
the labels for the graphs, these ratios have been multiplied by 1015. Thus, the example 36Cl/Cl 
ratio will be given as 666 in a table where the column heading indicates 36Cl/Cl  1015. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

L.A. Neymark (USGS), Z.E. Peterman (USGS), B.D. Marshall (USGS), G.J. Nimz (LLNL), M. 
Gascoyne (AECL and Gascoyne GeoProjects, Inc., Pinawa, Manitoba), and G.L. Patterson 
(USGS) contributed to this report. 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


1. INTRODUCTION 

The amount, spatial distribution, and velocity of water percolating through the unsaturated zone 
(UZ) at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, are important issues for assessing the performance of the 
proposed deep geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. To 
help characterize the nature and history of UZ flow, isotopic studies were initiated in 1995, using 
rock samples collected from the Miocene ash-flow tuffs in the Exploratory Studies Facility 
(ESF), an 8-km-long tunnel constructed along the north-south extent of the repository block, and 
the Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) Cross Drift, a 2.5-km-long 
tunnel constructed across the repository block (Figure 1-1, Sources: Modified from DOE 2002 
[Figure 1-14] and USBR 1996). Scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) 
analyzed for chlorine-36 (36Cl) in salts leached from whole-rock samples collected from tunnel 
walls and subsurface boreholes, and scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
analyzed for isotopes of oxygen, carbon, uranium, lead, thorium, and strontium in secondary 
minerals collected from subsurface fractures and lithophysal cavities. Elevated values for ratios 
of 36Cl to total chloride (36Cl/Cl) at the level of the proposed repository indicated that small 
amounts of water carrying bomb-pulse 36Cl (i.e., 36Cl/Cl ratios greater than 1250  10-15 resulting 
from 36Cl produced by atmospheric testing of nuclear devices during the 1950s and early 1960s) 
had percolated through welded and nonwelded tuffs to depths of 200 to 300 meters (m) beneath 
the land surface over the past 50 years. Because of the implications of short travel times to the 
performance of the proposed repository, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), Office of Repository Development (ORD), 
decided to verify the 36Cl/Cl data with an independent validation study. 

DOE asked the USGS to design and implement a validation study that would include 36Cl and 
tritium (3H) analyses. Core samples were taken from 50 new boreholes drilled across two zones 
in the ESF where a substantial number of samples with elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios had been 
identified previously. Also, core intervals from the Sample Management Facility (SMF) were 
acquired for water extraction and 3H analyses. 

1.1 PURPOSE 

This report documents the background and history of the validation study and presents the results 
of the 36Cl to total chloride (36Cl/Cl) and 3H analyses. The study was funded by the 
DOE/OCRWM ORD to attempt to validate elevated 36Cl/Cl values reported by LANL, and to 
apply other isotopic methods to identify evidence of rapid flow in the UZ at Yucca Mountain. 
This report was prepared as part of activities being conducted under Technical Work Plan 
for: Performance Assessment Unsaturated Zone (BSC 2002) and Test Plan for: Chlorine-36 
Validation (USGS 2002). Study participants included the USGS, Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory (LLNL), Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), and LANL. LANL was funded 
to analyze 36Cl in some of the validation study samples. The Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement 
Laboratory (PRIME Lab) and Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Laboratory 
at the University of Miami performed 36Cl and 3H analyses, respectively, and Phillips 
Enterprises, L.L.C. in Golden, Colorado prepared the reference sample that was used to 
standardize the leaching procedure. 


1.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE 

The Yucca Mountain Project activities and data summarized in this report were subject to the 
revision of the Quality Assurance Requirements and Description that was in place at the time the 
work was completed (current Revision 16: DOE 2004). The quality assurance status (qualified 
[Q] or unqualified [UQ]) of the data presented in this report is determined by the activities 
under which they were generated. Although this is a Q document, not all data presented are 
Q data. The qualification status of the data is indicated in Section 7.3 of this report and in the 
electronic Document Input Reference System (DIRS) database. 

This report has been prepared in accordance with PA-PRO-0313, Technical Reports. It is a 
summary report, with no technical outputs that could be used as input to another Yucca 
Mountain Project technical report. 

Commercial, off-the-shelf software (i.e., Microsoft Excel 2000 running under the Microsoft 
Windows XP operating system on an International Business Machines Corporation 
[IBM]-compatible personal computer) was used for data compilation, reduction, computation, 
and graphical representation of output in the figures and tables contained in this report. 

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 

The background for initiating the 36Cl validation study is given in Section 2 of this report, along 
with a summary of previous 36Cl studies. Section 3 describes the design and implementation of 
the validation study. Chlorine-36 results from the validation study are presented in Section 4. 
Section 5 describes 3H measurements, which also may be used to identify rapid percolation. 
Section 6 summarizes the results of the validation study, presents the main conclusions, and 
describes the important analytical issues that remain unresolved. Section 6 also gives 
recommendations for a path forward that will help resolve these issues. Publications and data 
cited in the report are listed in Section 7. Supporting information is contained in the appendixes, 
including a compilation of previous 36Cl results (Appendix A), video logs for the validation 
study boreholes (Appendix B), and a description of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) 
analytical methods (Appendix C). 


2. BACKGROUND 

Chlorine-36 is the only naturally occurring radioactive isotope of chlorine. It is produced by 
cosmic ray-induced reactions in the atmosphere and in minerals at and near the earths surface. 
Chlorine-36 also is produced in the subsurface by reactions with neutrons from the natural decay 
of uranium- and thorium-series elements. Large amounts of 36Cl, relative to natural abundances, 
were produced during atmospheric thermonuclear tests in the western Pacific Ocean during the 
1950s and early 1960s (Phillips 2000, p. 318). 

Chlorine-36 in rocks and water at Yucca Mountain derives from multiple sources. Meteoric 36Cl 
produced by cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere is rapidly transferred to the land surface 
by dry-fall or by incorporation into precipitation. At Yucca Mountain, meteoric 36Cl/Cl ratios 
have been about 500  10-15 throughout the Holocene (CRWMS M&O 2000, Table 25, 
Section 6.6.3.1), but 36Cl/Cl ratios have varied in the past due to several factors. Production rates 
of 36Cl vary inversely with the intensity of the geomagnetic field (CRWMS M&O 2000, 
Figure 31, Section 6.6.3.1). Theoretical reconstructions and measurements of fossil urine from 
pack-rat middens indicate that meteoric 36Cl/Cl ratios prior to about 10 thousand years ago (ka) 
were appreciably larger (Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. 1996, Figure 2-2; Plummer et al. 
1997, Figure 2), with average late Pleistocene 36Cl/Cl ratios of about 900  10-15 and peak values 
as high as about 1,100  10-15 (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, p. 3-3). 

High concentrations of atmospheric 36Cl produced during atmospheric thermonuclear tests 
resulted in 36Cl/Cl ratios of meteoric water and soil water ranging from 10-12 to 10-10 (Fabryka-
Martin et al. 1997, p. 3-5). Atmospheric concentrations of 36Cl have since returned to pre-bombpulse 
values (Phillips 2000, Figure 10.8). Infiltration has carried this bomb-pulse 36Cl into the 
subsurface. In alluvium in arid regions where infiltration is low, most of the bomb-pulse 36Cl has 
remained within a few meters of the land surface (Tyler et al. 1996, p. 1489; Norris et al. 1987, 

p. 377). 

In situ production of 36Cl from natural neutron fluxes in the tuffs at Yucca Mountain results in 
low 36Cl/Cl values. An equilibrium 36Cl/Cl value of about 40  10-15 was calculated by Fabryka-
Martin et al. (1997, Section 3.4.1). Large chloride concentrations of 7.6 to 17.6 milligrams per 
kilogram (mg/kg) and small 36Cl/Cl values of 43  10-15 to 57  10-15 were measured in leachates 
of powdered rock samples after most of the meteoric chloride components had been removed 
(Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg, et al. 1996, Table 5-4). 

Cosmogenic production of 36Cl also takes place in rocks within the upper few meters of the land 
surface, dominantly through spallation of 40Ca in calcium-rich soils (Stone et al. 1996, 
Section 4.1). Spallation-derived 36Cl may contribute elevated 36Cl/Cl values to infiltration under 
wetter climate conditions when old soil carbonate may dissolve and re-crystallize, releasing the 
accumulated 36Cl to soil water. Also, radioactive decay will result in lowering the 36Cl values, 
regardless of original sources. The 301,000-year half-life of 36Cl (Phillips 2000, p. 299) is 
sufficiently long so that decay will not considerably affect processes less than about 50,000 years 
old, but must be taken into account when considering older geologic and hydrologic processes. 


2.1 STUDIES OF CHLORINE-36 AND FRACTURE MINERALS IN THE 
EXPLORATORY STUDIES FACILITY 

The ESF was constructed between September 1994 and April 1997, through Miocene ash-flow 
tuffs, using a tunnel boring machine (DOE 2001, p. 1-16). A 36Cl study was initiated by LANL 
in 1995 to test whether the Paintbrush Tuff nonwelded hydrogeologic unit (PTn) is an effective 
barrier to vertical flow, whether water in the matrix of the Topopah Spring welded 
hydrogeologic unit (TSw) is essentially stagnant, and whether fast paths transporting water to the 
proposed repository horizon occur at discrete locations associated primarily with fault structures 
(Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. 1996, p. 1). During this time, the USGS began isotopic and 
geochronologic studies of low-temperature minerals in fractures and lithophysal cavities to 
evaluate the history of fracture flow over the past 500,000 years (Paces et al. 2001, p. 3). Early 
sampling for both 36Cl and fracture mineral studies followed advances of the tunnel boring 
machine through the ESF. One of the objectives of the early work was to evaluate the 
effectiveness of lateral diversion of percolating water in the PTn (Montazer and Wilson 1984, 

p. 14). Several nonwelded and mostly vitric pyroclastic units lie between the lower, densely 
welded part of the overlying Tiva Canyon welded hydrogeologic unit (TCw) and the top of the 
underlying, crystal-rich vitrophyre of the TSw (Moyer et al. 1996, p. 1). The moderate-to-high 
porosity and permeability of the PTn and the relatively sharp upper and lower contacts may 
influence downward percolation into the TSw (Montazer and Wilson 1984, p. 47; Kwicklis et al. 
1994, p. 2341; Moyer et al. 1996, p. 2). 

2.1.1 Results from Previous Chlorine-36 Studies 

Analyses of 36Cl/Cl ratios in salts leached from ESF samples were presented in a series of 
milestone reports (Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. 1996; Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997; CRWMS 
M&O 1998). Data collected through September 1998 are tabulated in Appendix A. Because 
sampling followed tunnel advances, analytical results were obtained progressively in time and 
space (Figure 2-1). 36Cl/Cl ratios obtained for samples from the northern ESF, reported in 1996 
(Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. 1996, Table 5-3), differ from values for samples from the 
southern ESF, reported in 1997 (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Appendix B). Most 36Cl/Cl ratios 
from the northern ESF are greater than 500  10-15, the value generally accepted for Holocene 
meteoric input (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1993, Section IV.A; Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. 
1996, p. 3; Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Section 3.1.1). About one fifth of the data from the 
northern ESF (up to station 45+001, obtained through the Summer of 1996) are either sporadic or 
clustered 36Cl/Cl values greater than 1,250  10-15 (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, p. 4-15, 
Figure 4-6), the cutoff value established by statistical methods as an upper limit of the normal 
distribution of background samples. Samples with 36Cl/Cl ratios above this cutoff were 
interpreted to contain a component of bomb-pulse 36Cl. Samples from the southern ESF (beyond 
station 45+00) have 36Cl/Cl ratios less than 1,250  10-15 and some are less than the 500  10-15 
Holocene meteoric value. 

Later efforts focused on samples from near the Sundance fault zone in Niche #1 (equivalent to 
Niche 3566 in other publications) and the Ghost Dance fault zone in Alcoves #6 and #7. Five 

 ESF station numbers are equivalent to distances, in hundreds of meters from a point outside the north portal of the 
ESF, defined as station 00+00. Thus, ESF station 45+00 is 4,500 m from the north portal. 

1


samples from the walls of Niche #1, including a damp breccia, showed 36Cl/Cl ratios between 
540  10-15 and 635  10-15 (CRWMS M&O 1998, Table 3-2). Core samples from Niche #1 
produced 36Cl/Cl values from 997  1015 to 2,038  1015 (CRWMS M&O 1998, Table 3-4). 
36Cl/Cl ratios in eight of 20 samples from the walls of the northern Ghost Dance fault zone 
(Alcove #6) were greater than 1,000 10-15, although most samples directly from the Ghost 
Dance fault exposed in alcove walls were within analytical uncertainty of the Holocene meteoric 
input value of 500  10-15 (CRWMS M&O 1998, Table 3-2). 36Cl/Cl ratios for samples from the 
southern Ghost Dance fault zone (Alcove #7) did not exceed 644  10-15 . 

The elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios in samples from the northern ESF were of immediate interest because 
of the implications of fast pathways in the UZ. Elevated levels of both 36Cl and 3H identified in 
soils elsewhere in the semi-arid southwestern United States were attributed to global fallout from 
aboveground testing of thermonuclear devices in the 1950s and early 1960s (Phillips et al. 1988; 
Scanlon 1992; Tyler et al. 1996, p. 1489; Norris et al. 1987, p. 377). The bomb-pulse 36Cl 
bulge observed during these studies was restricted to the upper 1 to 2 m of the soil profiles. 
Similar profiles of 36Cl/Cl ratios are present in thick alluvium at Yucca Mountain 
(CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 6.6.3.2). Where alluvial cover is thin or absent, bomb-pulse 36Cl 
has entered fractures in the bedrock and rapidly penetrated to depths as great as 24 m in surface-
based borehole USW UZ-N11, 56 m in USW UZ-N53, and 77 m in USW UZ-N55 (Fabryka-
Martin et al. 1993, Table 2). 

Identification of bomb-pulse 36Cl in cuttings from these boreholes was complicated by the 
presence of 36Cl/Cl ratios in cuttings from borehole USW UZ-N55 that were considerably 
higher than can be explained by global fallout (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1993, p. 66) (i.e., 36Cl/Cl 
values up to 27,040  10-15, Fabryka-Martin et al. 1993, Table 2). This observation led the 
authors to conclude that the possibility that elevated levels in any of these holes may also be 
attributable to contamination cannot as yet be ruled out and that until the source of these 
elevated 36Cl signals can be identified, the 36Cl/Cl results in the other N-holes2 are also suspect 
(Fabryka-Martin et al. 1993, p. 66). Subsequent interpretation of the data, however, indicated 
that the high 36Cl/Cl ratios measured in the cuttings were possible (Fabryka-Martin, Turin et al. 
1996, Table 4-3, and Sections 4.3.3 and 5.3.1). 

Further tests of core samples from borehole USW UZ-N55, in the same zones where cuttings 
gave very high 36Cl/Cl values, yielded much lower 36Cl/Cl values (1,152  10-15 to 7,937  10-15 , 
Fabryka-Martin and Liu 1995, Table 3-3), leading the authors to conclude that the difference 
supportsbut does not provethe hypothesis that the cuttings may have been contaminated 
during the drilling or collection process (Fabryka-Martin and Liu 1995, Section 3.1.3). Soils 
and equipment contaminated with very high levels of 36Cl from the Rover Nuclear Rocket 
Program in Test Cell C of the Nevada Test Site were discovered in subsequent work (Fabryka-
Martin, Turin et al. 1996, Table 4-3, Sections 4.3.3 and 5.3.1). Ratios of 36Cl/Cl as high as 
227,102  10-15 were obtained from soil pits within 60 m of the rocket tests (Fabryka-Martin, 
Turin et al. 1996, Table 4-3), and drilling equipment that was used in these areas was later used 
to drill borehole USW UZ-N55 (Fabryka-Martin, Turin et al. 1996, Section 5.3.1). However, the 
authors later concluded . . . it is likely that this issue will never be resolved but may be a moot 
point because the same conclusion is reached with either set of data. Regardless of the origin of 

2 N-holes are holes drilled for neutron logging. 


the 36Cl in the cuttings, elevated ratios for the drillcore samples clearly indicate bomb-pulse 36Cl 
at this location (Fabryka-Martin, Turin et al. 1996, Section 5.3.1). 

The subset of elevated 36Cl/Cl values in the northern ESF was interpreted to indicate that at least 
some meteoric water has percolated rapidly through the fractured TCw and the PTn into the TSw 
to depths of 300 m below the surface in the last 50 years (Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. 1996, 
Section 9; Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Section 9; CRWMS M&O 1998, Section 10; Wolfsberg et 
al. 2000, p. 349; Campbell et al. 2003, p. 43). Alternative explanations for the elevated 36Cl/Cl 
ratios were discussed, including deep, subsurface production in rocks and cosmogenic 
production in surface rocks and calcrete (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Section 3.4). Although 
calcrete samples were shown to have substantial cosmogenically produced 36Cl (36Cl/Cl values of 
5,067  10-15 and 9,772  10-15 for two of three soil calcites analyzed, Fabryka-Martin et al. 
1997, Table 3-3), 36Cl from this source was estimated to be at least an order of magnitude less 
than that from the atmosphere (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, p. 3-10). 

To simulate the differences in 36Cl signatures observed in the ESF, a UZ flow and transport 
model was developed that incorporated a large number of geological and hydrological elements 
(Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Section 9.2; Wolfsberg et al. 2000, Section 4; Flint et al. 2001, 
Section 4.5; Campbell et al. 2003, Section 2). The model requires faults cutting through the PTn 
for rapid transport of bomb-pulse 36Cl to depth within the TSw. Unless a structural discontinuity 
existed, percolation into the PTn would transition to matrix-dominated flow, where travel times 
would greatly exceed the approximately 50-year existence of bomb-pulse tracer isotopes 
(Wolfsberg et al. 2000, Section 4; Campbell et al. 2003, p. 46). A formal statistical approach 
based on log-linear models produced a very strong association between ESF samples with 
elevated 36Cl and faults that cut the PTn (Campbell et al. 2003, p. 59). This analysis evaluated 
the relation between sites where elevated 36Cl was identified and the locations of known PTncutting 
structures. Within the TSw, the relation between elevated 36Cl occurrences and faults and 
shears is not evident (Figure 2-2). Because structural features were targeted for 36Cl studies, 
approximately one-third of the LANL samples listed in Appendix A were collected from sites 
associated with faults and shears (DTN: LAJF831222AQ98.004 [Q]). 

Differences in the amount of infiltration between the northern ESF and southern ESF also were 
considered important in explaining the presence or absence of elevated 36Cl (CRWMS M&O 
1998, p. 10-1; Campbell et al. 2003, p. 59). As precipitation is not likely to vary greatly across 
the area overlying the ESF, other factors, such as the slope and orientation of the land surface 
and soil thickness, were considered important in controlling differences in infiltration. Fabryka-
Martin et al. (1997, Figure 6-4) and CRWMS M&O (1998, Figure 4-2c) show differences in 
simulated soil thicknesses between the northern ESF and southern ESF, with more occurrences 
of thicker soils over the southern ESF. However, simulated infiltration rates based on the 
numerical model of Flint et al. (1996) are similar in both areas (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, 
Figure 6-3; CRWMS M&O 1998, Figure 4-2b; Campbell et al. 2003, Figure 1c). To explain this 
difference between the infiltration and 36Cl models, Fabryka-Martin et al. (CRWMS M&O 1998, 

p. 10-1) cited elevated chloride concentrations in pore waters from the ESF south ramp to 
suggest that the numerical infiltration model should be modified to allow for lower infiltration 
rates above the southern ESF. 


Bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl ratios were reported in shallow surface deposits (less than 0.5 m depth) 
between surface-based boreholes USW UZ-N53 and USW UZ-N55, approximately 800 m east 
of ESF station 51+00; at the UE-25 NRG #5 drill pad, near ESF station 17+00; and in soil pits 
near the ESF north portal (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Table 4-6). In addition, elevated 36Cl/Cl 
ratios were common in shallow surface deposits above the southern ESF between ESF stations 
67+00 and 78+00 (CRWMS M&O 1998, Table 3-5). These data confirm that bomb-pulse 36Cl 
has not been completely removed from soil profiles and that infiltration throughout the site is 
likely to carry bomb-pulse 36Cl into the bedrock (CRWMS M&O 1998, p. 3-5). 

Just as there are differences in the distribution of elevated 36Cl in the ESF, there is a distinct 
spatial trend in the non-bomb-pulse 36Cl data (Campbell et al. 2003, p. 57). Most samples from 
the northern ESF and main drift (up to about ESF station 60+00, Figure 2-1) have 36Cl/Cl ratios 
between 500  10-15 to 1,250  10-15 . These intermediate 36Cl/Cl values may be the result of a 
more dilute bomb-pulse signal or mixtures of the modern meteoric chloride with late Pleistocene 
meteoric water having higher baseline 36Cl/Cl values (Plummer et al. 1997, Figure 2). Campbell 
et al. (2003, Section 7) used statistical tests to conclude that intermediate 36Cl/Cl ratios are not 
associated with the same structural features as the elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios. Therefore, they 
deduced that the thicker PTn in the northern ESF provides greater average residence time for 
percolating water, resulting in a larger component of Pleistocene meteoric 36Cl (Campbell et al. 
2003, p. 59). 

2.1.2 Fracture Mineral Studies 

Secondary calcite and silica deposits in the ESF have been interpreted as having formed from 
fracture flow through the welded tuffs (Paces et al. 1996; Paces et al. 1997; Paces et al. 1998; 
Whelan et al. 1998; Paces et al. 2001; Whelan et al. 2002; Marshall and Futa 2003; Marshall et 
al. 2003). Geochemical, isotopic, and geochronological data indicate evolution of fracture flow 
from a meteoric source that was modified by water-rock interactions in the overlying PTn prior 
to percolation through a small number of fractures in the welded tuffs. Seepage of water films 
into cavities permitted evaporation with the resulting slow growth of secondary minerals 
(millimeters per million years) (Paces et al. 2004; Paces et al. 2001, p. 59; Neymark and Paces 
2000, p. 158; Neymark et al. 2000, Section 5.3; Neymark et al. 2002, Section 6.7). The slow 
growth rates preclude identification of minerals deposited since the generation of bomb-pulse 
isotopes, and carbon-14 (14C) and 230Th/U ages and 234U/238U ratios of fracture minerals from 
zones with elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios in the northern ESF are indistinguishable from those of 
secondary minerals outside these zones (Paces et al. 2001, p. 20, Figures 11, 14, and 16). 

2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF OTHER BOMB-PULSE ISOTOPES 

Following the identification of elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios in the ESF, studies using other isotopes 
related to thermonuclear weapons testing were initiated to substantiate the bomb-pulse 
interpretation. Both 14C and 3H were produced during atmospheric testing of nuclear devices and 
have been analyzed in a variety of gas and water samples at Yucca Mountain (Yang et al. 1996, 

p. 25; 1998, p. 16). The sporadic distribution of elevated concentrations of 14C and 3H in pore 
water samples from surface-based boreholes was interpreted as evidence of rapid transport of 
young waters to deeper parts of the UZ (Yang et al. 1996, p. 31; 1998, p. 16). More recent 
evaluations of the earlier pore water data have identified sampling and analytical problems with 


the 14C and 3H data sets. In a paper describing pore water travel times based on UZ gas data, 
Yang (2002, Section 4.1.2) concluded that 14C concentrations reported in earlier studies were 
not representative of the pore water residence time because of contamination by atmospheric14CO2 during drilling, resulting in apparently younger residence times. Yang (2002, 
Section 4.1.2) proposed using the depth-dependent variation of radiocarbon in the gas phase, 
which indicates that the average age of water at the repository level is several thousand years. 

A re-evaluation of the analytical precision for analyses of 3H in pore water produced in the 
USGS Yucca Mountain Project Branch (YMPB) laboratory in Denver (DTN: 
GS030508312272.004 [UQ]) resulted in a 22 to 31 tritium unit (TU) detection limit for 
reliability of significance above background levels. A similar cutoff for bomb-pulse values of 
25 TU was obtained by statistical analysis of previous 3H results (CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 60 
and Figure 30). This larger value reduces the number of analyses that may be interpreted to 
indicate the presence of modern water. 

Bomb-pulse technetium-99 (99Tc) was detected in soil and rock samples from the shallow UZ, 
including samples of Bow Ridge fault gouge exposed in the ESF and cuttings from borehole 
USW UZ-N55. High 36Cl/Cl ratios also were detected in cuttings from USW UZ-N55; however, 
the elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios in USW UZ-N55 cuttings were suspected to have resulted from 36Cl 
contamination from equipment used elsewhere on the Nevada Test Site (Fabryka-Martin and Liu 
1995, Section 3.1.3; Fabryka-Martin, Turin et al. 1996, Sections 4.3.3 and 5.3.1; Fabryka-Martin 
et al. 1997, Section 6.2.2). 

In addition, measurable levels of cesium-137 (137Cs) were detected in three soil samples 
(0-5 centimeters [cm]) from the Midway Valley soil pits, located east of Yucca Mountain, but 
137Cs was not detected in a soil sample (0-40 cm) from the USW NRG-5 drill pad, located north 
of the ESF north ramp. Plutonium was detected in two soil samples (one from Midway Valley 
and the other from the USW NRG-5 drill pad), but plutonium was not detected in the fault gouge 
sample and was not analyzed for in the cuttings. These results were interpreted to indicate the 
immobility of cesium and plutonium in surface sediments at Yucca Mountain, limiting their use 
as ground-water tracers (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, p. 6-13, and Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et 
al. 1996, Table 6-1). 

2.3 PEER REVIEW OF CHLORINE-36 STUDIES 

In January 1998, DOE convened a formal peer review of the 36Cl and related investigations at 
Yucca Mountain. The Peer Review Team was tasked with reviewing the existing 36Cl reports in 
the context of the UZ flow and transport models; evaluating the sampling approach and 
locations; evaluating the adequacy of the analytical approach, including the precision and 
accuracy of the data; and evaluating the adequacy of interpretations of 36Cl and other isotope 
data in the context of conceptual UZ flow models. The Peer Review Team identified five major 
issues (YMP 1998, Section 3.2): 

 
Whether the bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl values are real [presumably the Peer Review Team was 
concerned about the large 36Cl/Cl values], 


 
Whether 36Cl/Cl distributions can be explained by variations in source strength with time 
or by mixing of waters with different 36Cl/Cl ratios, 
 
Whether 36Cl anomalies are an artifact of sampling and analysis, 
 
Whether there is adequate integration of 36Cl and other environmental tracer programs to 
achieve a consistent conceptual model of the UZ flow system, and 
 
Whether results of 36Cl and other environmental tracers are effectively integrated with 
conceptual and numerical flow models. 

The Peer Review Team concluded that bomb-pulse sources were currently the only plausible 
explanation for the elevated 36Cl/Cl values observed in the ESF (YMP 1998, Section 4.1). 
Contributions from other sources, primarily spallation of 40Ca in surficial calcrete, were 
considered and dismissed. The Team also evaluated the possibility that 36Cl anomalies might be 
artifacts of sampling and analytical practices (YMP 1998, Section 3.5) and included discussions 
on sample collection, extraction of chloride, and corrections to chloride and 36Cl measurements. 
The Team accepted the conclusion that bomb-pulse 36Cl entered the ground-water system 
through infiltration (YMP 1998, Section 3.3.2). Field and/or laboratory contamination as a 
source for the elevated 36Cl/Cl values was considered in a general sense and the Team did not see 
obvious evidence or red flags to indicate that contamination was an issue. However, the Team 
did acknowledge that contamination was not a primary focus of their review and it was not 
examined in detail (Coleman 2005). 

The Peer Review Team recognized the limitations of using a single isotopic tracer to identify 
paths of rapid flow in the UZ and recommended coordination of 36Cl/Cl studies with studies of 
other isotopes and environmental tracers, including 3H, deuterium (2H), oxygen-18 (18O), 14C, 
strontium-87/strontium-86 (87Sr/86Sr), and 99Tc (YMP 1998, Section 3.6). The Team emphasized 
the importance of evaluating 3H data relative to 36Cl/Cl ratios, but also recognized the difficulties 
in interpreting the 3H results (YMP 1998, Section 3.6.2). In particular, the Team discussed the 
potential for obtaining false positive values (elevated 3H values not related to fast-path fracture 
flow) through contamination with air from tunnel or drilling activities. Finally, the Peer Review 
Team recommended continuation of the 36Cl studies, with suggestions on sampling strategies and 
integration with other isotopic and environmental tracer methods (YMP 1998, Section 4.2). 

In response to the recommendations of the Peer Review Team, the USGS conducted 3H analyses 
of pore water, Sr isotope analyses of pore water and pore-water salts, and uranium isotopic 
(234U/238U) analyses of bulk rock samples within and outside of fracture zones. Results of 3H 
study are given elsewhere in this report (Section 5). The strontium and uranium isotopic 
analyses yielded equivocal results with regard to the identification of potential fast flow 
pathways, and the analytical data are not included in this report. All of the bulk rock samples 
exhibited a small depletion of approximately 5 percent in 234U relative to the secular equilibrium 
value of unity for 234U/238U, with no significant differences between samples collected in areas of 
elevated 36Cl/Cl and those collected elsewhere in the ESF (Gascoyne et al. 2002, p. 788). 
Similarly, strontium-isotope ratios of pore water and pore-water salts from different locations 
were in the same range regardless of associated differences in 36Cl/Cl values (Marshall and Futa 
2003, p. 375). 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


3. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VALIDATION STUDY 

Because of the potential impact of 36Cl data on conceptual models of UZ flow and transport, 
DOE asked the USGS to design and implement an independent validation study. With support 
from the Yucca Mountain Project Management and Test Coordination Office, scientists from the 
USGS, LLNL, and AECL drafted a proposal that was submitted to DOE in January 1999. 
Collection of new data was part of the validation study, and members of the validation study 
team were granted wide latitude in the design of the field work and laboratory experiments. The 
Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (CAMS) at LLNL was charged with processing and 
analyzing the new samples for 36Cl/Cl ratios. 

Following recommendations of the 36Cl Peer Review Team, the use of other isotopic tracers was 
viewed as an essential part of the validation study. Finding elevated concentrations of 3H would 
support the interpretation of fast-paths based on elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios. However, substantial 
improvements in analytical sensitivity were required in the 3H measurements for this method to 
be useful. Laboratory capabilities for water extraction by vacuum distillation were well 
established (Yang et al. 1998, p. 25). Samples of extracted pore water were sent to the 
University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Tritium Laboratory 
for 3H analysis following enrichment by electrolysis. Tritium sampling and analysis are 
described in Section 5 of this report. 

LANLs participation in the validation study included measuring 36Cl/Cl ratios in a few of the 
validation study samples. Leachates of core samples from seven validation study boreholes were 
analyzed prior to 2000 under the same conditions as the previous LANL 36Cl studies. However, 
by the Fall of 2000, substantial changes had occurred in the LANL 36Cl program (Table 3-1). 
Damage caused by the Cerro Grande fire in the Spring of 2000 necessitated lengthy shutdowns 
and relocation of laboratory facilities. In February 2001, the 36Cl laboratory was moved from its 
previous location in Technical Area 48 (Radiochemistry Site) to a laboratory in Technical Area 3 
(Geochemistry and Geomaterials Research Laboratories, SM494, Room 107). The new 
laboratory was located in a general geosciences facility designated as a non-radiological facility. 
Sample processing in the new laboratory began in March 2001, and all subsequent analyses of 
validation study samples were conducted there. In this report, LANL 36Cl/Cl data collected prior 
to 2000 are generally considered to be from the previous 36Cl/Cl studies, and data collected 
during and after 2000 are considered to be part of the 36Cl validation study. 

Initially, LANLs participation in the validation study was not fully integrated with other parts of 
the study. However, from 2000 on, LANL scientists coordinated more closely with the other 
validation study participants, to include analyses of the same leachates and crushed materials. 
This coordination was ultimately critical for producing a better understanding of the conflicting 
results obtained by the different investigators. 

3.1 DESIGN OF SAMPLING PROTOCOL 

Difficulties in replicating elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios in ESF samples led to the hypothesis that the 
elevated 36Cl is inhomogeneously distributed in fractured rock (CRWMS M&O 1998, p. 3-3). 
Therefore, for the validation study, attempts to replicate the previous analyses were based on the 
likelihood of finding elevated values along reaches of the ESF where numerous occurrences 


were identified by the previous analyses. Thus, the fundamental assumption of the validation 
study was that a sufficiently detailed re-sampling of the same areas should yield a similar 
proportion of elevated 36Cl/Cl values. 

Elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios were reported in multiple samples from two intervals in the northern ESF. 
These are associated with the Drill Hole Wash fault (Figure 3-1), between ESF stations 18+96 
and 19+42, and the Sundance fault (Figure 3-2), between ESF stations 34+28 and 35+93. Both 
intervals include northwest-trending strike-slip faults exposed in tunnel walls and in surface 
exposures on the east slope of Yucca Mountain. Of the seven analyses from five samples 
collected previously from the 100-m interval including the Drill Hole Wash fault, five of the 
analyses yielded 36Cl/Cl values greater than the bomb-pulse threshold of 1,250  10-15, with a 
sixth analysis very near the bomb-pulse threshold (1,144  10-15) (1,880 to 1,980 m; Figure 3-1). 
From the nine samples collected at and north of the Sundance fault (3,428 to 3,593 m; Figure 32), 
11 of 16 analyses had 36Cl/Cl values greater than 1,250  10-15 . In addition, eight of 15 
analyses of samples associated with Niche #1, which was constructed to access the Sundance 
fault, had 36Cl/Cl values greater than 1,250  10-15 . Five analyses from four samples of the walls 
of Niche #1 had values between 540  10-15 and 659  10-15; whereas, eight of 10 samples 
obtained from boreholes drilled along the axis of the niche prior to excavation, or from the end of 
Niche #1 toward the Sundance fault, yielded 36Cl/Cl values greater than 1,250  10-15 . A ninth 
sample had a 36Cl/Cl value of 1,235  10-15 (CRWMS M&O 1998, p. 3-4, Table 3-4). Because 
of these elevated values, the Drill Hole Wash fault zone and Sundance fault zone were targeted 
for validation study sample collection. 

Most of the previous samples had been collected from tunnel walls shortly after excavation, 
between 1995 and 1997. Re-sampling of tunnel walls for the validation study was not desirable 
because chloride may have been lost when tunnel walls were washed and (or) if the tunnel walls 
were contaminated with 36Cl-enriched dust brought into the ESF by the ventilation system. 
Instead, core was sampled from 4- and 10-m-long dry-drilled boreholes spaced along the right 
rib (side) of the ESF at approximately 5-m intervals. Fifty new boreholes were sited across the 
two zones (10 boreholes from the Drill Hole Wash fault zone and 40 from the Sundance fault 
zone; Table 3-2 and Figures 3-1 and 3-2). One advantage of using a borehole sampling approach 
is the probability that the deeper core intervals extend beyond the zone of penetration of 
construction water and ventilation-induced dry-out. Therefore, the deeper intervals could be 
used for water extraction and 3H analyses as an independent indicator of a bomb-pulse 
component. 

Selection of sampling sites for the validation study differed from that of the previous studies, 
which had been based on two sampling approaches (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1996, p. 1-3). The 
first, referred to as feature-based sampling, targeted specific features such as faults, fractures, 
and cooling joints. These samples were collected to maximize the surface area of the targeted 
feature. Of the 234 feature-based samples, 35 (15 percent) had bomb-pulse 36Cl values. The 
second sampling approach, referred to as systematic sampling, consisted of sampling sites at 
200-m intervals between stations 5+00 and 59+00. The spacing was later reduced to 100-m 
intervals from stations 59+00 to 69+00 and stations 69+50 to 76+50 (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, 

p. 55). According to Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997, p. 55), The systematic sampling was 
designed to acquire isotopic data unbiased by any other selection criteria. These samples 


represent the rock matrix and whatever fracture fabric typifies the collection site. Of the 54 
systematic samples, two (4 percent) had bomb-pulse 36Cl values. 

The validation study boreholes also were spaced systematically, but the spacing was on 5-m 
centers over the areas of interest rather than 100 m, and at least 4 m of rock were penetrated. 
Sampling for previous work typically penetrated only a few tens of centimeters into the tunnel 
walls. Prior to drilling for the validation study, the original tunnel-wall sample sites were 
examined and the conclusion was reached that, given the number of boreholes that were to be 
drilled, the fracture density, and the amount of rock sampled by the boreholes, the validation 
study would have a high probability of accessing potential zones of fast flow. To evaluate the 
validation study sampling plan, fracture density data for the ESF were examined (Figure 3-3). 
These data were obtained by documenting individual fractures and cooling joints with traces on 
the tunnel wall greater than 1 m. The two validation study target zones are characterized by 
distinctly different fracture densities. Fracture density data can be converted to fracture spacing 
along the detailed line surveys by measuring distances between successive fractures intersecting 
the survey line. Distributions of fracture spacing are given in Figure 3-4A for the tunnel around 
the Drill Hole Wash fault (ESF stations 16+00 to 21+00) and Figure 3-5A for the Sundance fault 
(ESF station 34+00 to 36+00). For both zones, fracture spacing is strongly skewed, with the 
largest frequencies having the shortest spacings. The median values for fracture spacings are 

0.78 m for the Drill Hole Wash fault zone and 0.15 m for the Sundance fault zone. Because of 
the skewed distributions, arithmetic means are inappropriate. However, values for the log10 of 
the fracture spacings are more normally distributed and give geometric means closer to the 
medians (Figures 3-4B and 3-5B). These data, along with the variable fracture orientations, 
indicate that the 4-m-long validation study boreholes should have intersected multiple (between 
about 5 and 27) fractures with trace lengths greater than 1 m. In addition to these fractures, 
short-trace-length fractures with trace lengths less than 1 m are locally important geologic and 
hydrologic features (Sweetkind et al. 1998, p. S231). Because short-trace-length fractures were 
excluded from detailed line surveys, true fracture densities throughout the ESF are 
underestimated by the evaluation shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5, with the greatest disparities 
observed in lithophysal units (Sweetkind et al. 1998, p. S231). Thus, abundant fractures were 
expected in the validation study boreholes in the Sundance fault zone. 

The validation study sampling approach was further supported by earlier results obtained from 
leachates of core samples collected from the Sundance fault zone. Elevated 36Cl/Cl values 
between 1,235  10-15 and 2,038  10-15 were obtained for eight of 10 samples from different 
intervals from three boreholes associated with Niche #1 (boreholes ESF-MD-NICHE3566#1, #2, 
#LT in Appendix A). Therefore, although the previously analyzed sites would not be re-sampled 
for the validation study, it was expected that a statistically significant percentage of the 
validation study analyses would contain bomb-pulse 36Cl. 

3.2 DESCRIPTION AND ALLOCATION OF VALIDATION STUDY CORE 

Fifty validation study boreholes were drilled between mid-March 1999 and early-October 1999. 
Drilling activities were conducted by the Yucca Mountain Project Management and Test 
Coordination Office and core documentation, preservation, and handling were performed by the 
Sample Management Facility (SMF) in accordance with NWI-DS-001Q, Field Logging, 
Handling, & Documenting Borehole Samples. Core intervals deeper than 2 m in each borehole 


were preserved for pore water extraction by packaging in Lexan sleeves sealed inside 
ProtecCore after video logging each core run. 

The video logs were examined and the core was classified on the basis of core recovery and 
fracturing. This classification was intended to identify zones with the greatest amounts of 
fracturing, which were then selected for further analysis. Assignment of mechanical classes of 
core was intended as a qualitative measure of the degree of fracturing and included descriptors 
such as intact, broken, rubbly, and shattered, in order of increasing fracture intensity 
(Paces 2003). Results of video logging are included in Appendix B. Most core is classified as 
broken to rubbly, indicating core fragments are generally less than about 7 cm (broken) to 2 cm 
(rubble or rubbly). These observations are consistent with the fracture densities determined from 
the detailed line surveys and measurements of short-trace-length fractures (Section 3.1). 

The video logs formed the basis for distribution of core intervals to LLNL, USGS, and AECL. 
Core intervals were selected from the deeper half of the borehole to avoid both dry-out and 
contamination with construction water. To provide sufficient chloride for 36Cl analyses, and 
water for 3H analyses, core intervals of approximately 60 cm were selected. LLNL received the 
core with the greatest fracture densities, providing the greatest probability of including a flow 
path containing bomb-pulse 36Cl. Although samples for 3H analyses may have contained fewer 
fractures, core intervals from the deepest parts of the boreholes were selected to minimize the 
effects of dry-out. Core intervals from intermediate depths (1.2 to 2.0 m) in boreholes in the 
Sundance fault zone were selected for 36Cl/Cl analysis at LANL. All core intervals were 
distributed from the SMF shortly after the boreholes were completed. 

In addition to the 50 new validation study boreholes (Figures 3-1 and 3-2; Table 3-2), samples of 
existing core were obtained from the same three Niche #1 boreholes that had been analyzed 
previously (ESF-MD-NICHE3566#1, ESF-MD-NICHE3566#2, and 
ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#1). These intervals were originally requested from the SMF for 
36Cl/Cl analyses shortly after the boreholes were completed in 1997. Core selected for validation 
study analyses had remained unopened in the original SMF packaging. The 41 intervals 
available for the validation study were distributed between the USGS and LANL. The 
approximate locations of these three boreholes relative to the ESF main drift and Sundance fault 
are shown in Figure 3-6 (Source: USGS 1996). Because individual intervals were generally too 
small to supply sufficient chloride for reliable 36Cl measurements, multiple intervals were 
combined into six samples leached at the USGS and five samples leached at LANL. Two of the 
LANL samples were further subdivided into coarser (6.3 to 12.5 millimeters [mm]) and finer 
(less than 6.3 mm) fractions, resulting in a total of seven leachate analyses. These combined 
samples were selected to provide at least some overlap of core intervals from each borehole to 
facilitate a more-or-less direct comparison between USGS and LANL validation study analyses 
(Table 3-3 and Figure 3-7), as well as comparison between validation study results and results 
reported previously by LANL (CRWMS M&O 1998, Table 3-4). 

To determine whether the method of crushing affected the release of chloride during leaching, 
samples from borehole ESF-SAD-GTB#1 (southern Ghost Dance fault, Alcove #7) were crushed 
by hand with a hammer and steel plate, and by jaw crusher. Three samples were screened to the 
same particle size and leached for the same length of time. Core from ESF-SAD-GTB#1 was 
selected for the crushing experiments because it was similar to the validation study core (i.e., 


both the validation study boreholes and ESF-SAD-GTB#1 were drilled in the crystal-poor, 
middle nonlithophysal unit of the Topopah Spring Tuff), and because a large amount was 
available to the USGS in Denver. Experimental methods and results of the crushing experiments 
are described in Section 4.4.1.2. 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


4. CHLORINE-36 MEASUREMENTS 

The validation study proceeded in three phases, beginning in late-1999 and continuing through 
late-2002. In Phase I, 36Cl experiments were conducted at LLNL, including crushing, leaching, 
silver chloride (AgCl) target preparation, and isotope analysis. Concurrent with the work at 
LLNL, several samples of the validation study core were analyzed at LANL in accordance with 
the standard analytical procedures used previously by LANL. Results from the two sets of 
experiments differed significantly. The active-leach protocol used by LLNL during this phase of 
the investigation resulted in anomalously large chloride concentrations and low 36Cl/Cl ratios 
compared to the LANL results for the validation study core and previous LANL results for 
tunnel-wall samples. This prompted a halt in 36Cl data-collection activities and initiation of 
Phase II of the study to evaluate leaching protocols that would maximize the probability of 
identifying a meteoric chloride component. Leaching experiments were conducted on systematic 
and feature-based samples collected previously by LANL from the ECRB Cross Drift. Results 
of these experiments indicated that the release of rock chloride was minimized by passive-leach 
methods and that most of the meteoric chloride components were liberated after short leaching 
times. A final 1-hour passive-leach protocol was then adopted by all the study participants for 
Phase III of the validation study. In Phase III, responsibility for crushing and leaching validation 
study samples shifted to the USGS and LANL, although LLNL-CAMS and PRIME Lab 
continued to analyze the new samples. Details of the procedures used and results obtained are 
given in the following sections. 

4.1 PHASE I: MEASUREMENTS MADE AT LLNL 

4.1.1 Methods 

An active-leach approach was used by LLNL during Phase I of the validation study to provide a 
repeatable process for extracting chloride from Yucca Mountain tuffs. The procedure involved 
mechanical crushing and sieving of samples to a 1- to 2-cm size fraction. Between 1.4 and 

3.0 kg of rock were combined with 1.3 to 1.7 times that weight of de-ionized water. The mixture 
was placed in a stainless-steel tumbler and allowed to rotate slowly for 7 hours. 

The resulting slurry was decanted from the tumbler into a stack of 150- to 38-m stainless steel 
sieves. This solution was filtered using vacuum flasks fitted with a series of filters of decreasing 
pore size (25, 8, 0.8, 0.45, and 0.22 m). Chloride was precipitated from this final, clear solution 
following the chemical procedures described in Appendix C. The resulting AgCl target was 
analyzed for 36Cl/Cl ratios by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at the LLNL-CAMS facility. 
No procedural blanks were reported for this phase of the validation study. 

4.1.2 Results 

The active-leach method was used for 25 validation study core samples from the Sundance fault 
zone between ESF stations 33+89 and 36+75. Chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios are 
given in Table 4-1 and plotted against borehole locations in the ESF in Figure 4-1. Chloride 
concentrations varied between 1.25 and 3.54 mg/kg, with a median value of 2.13 mg/kg rock and 
a mean of 2.07 1.24 mg/kg rock (Figure 4-2A). 36Cl/Cl ratios range between 48  10-15 and 


248  10-15, although all values but one are less than 156  10-15 . The median value for all 25 
samples is 88  10-15, and the mean is 97 86  10-15 (Figure 4-2B). 

Isotope ratios are commonly plotted against the reciprocal of the concentration values so that 
binary mixing relations are linear (Faure 1986, p. 142). On such a plot the data form a diffuse 
cluster with a positive slope (R2 value of 0.2 if sample ESF-SD-ClV#32, with a ratio of 
248  10-15, is excluded), showing that leachates with higher chloride concentrations tend to have 
lower 36Cl/Cl ratios (Figure 4-3A). Results of the active-leach experiments performed at LLNL 
differ from the results of passive-leach experiments conducted previously at LANL 
(Figure 4-3B). Chloride concentrations in the 25 active leachates reported in Table 4-1 are 
within the range of values obtained earlier by LANL, although the median of 2.1 mg/kg for 
active leachates is higher than the median of 1.0 mg/kg rock calculated for the 293 passive 
leachates reported by LANL (Appendix A). (Note: Ten of the samples listed in Appendix A 
were not analyzed for chloride concentrations). The 36Cl/Cl values of the two data sets plot in 
distinct fields, with very little overlap. The median 36Cl/Cl value for the active leachates is 
85  10-15, whereas the median value for the passive leachates is 569  10-15 . The median value 
for the passive leachates, excluding the 47 samples with 36Cl/Cl at or over the 1,250  10-15 
bomb-pulse threshold, is only slightly lower (531  10-15). 

Roback et al. (2002, p. 235) demonstrated that active leaching methods released a greater 
proportion of rock chloride relative to meteoric chloride, thus yielding smaller 36Cl/Cl ratios than 
obtained by passive leaching methods. Similarly, measurements of chloride concentrations and 
36Cl/Cl ratios in leachates of powdered rock samples after most of the meteoric chloride 
components had been removed resulted in large chloride concentrations (7.6 to 17.6 mg/L) and 
small 36Cl/Cl values (43  10-15 to 57  10-15) (Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. 1996, 
Table 5-4). These 36Cl/Cl values were interpreted to reflect 36Cl produced in situ through 
neutron capture by stable chlorine-35 (35Cl) (Fabryka-Martin, Turin et al. 1996, Section 4.4.3). 
The relation of measured rock chloride values along a projection of the regression line for the 
active-leach data (Figure 4-3A) provides a strong indication that the active-leach method is too 
aggressive and extracts too much rock chloride, which masks the meteoric chloride component. 

4.2 PHASE I: MEASUREMENTS MADE AT LANL 

4.2.1 Methods 

Methods used by LANL for the 36Cl validation study involved crushing, leaching, and chemical 
processing procedures similar to those used in previous LANL 36Cl studies (Fabryka-Martin, 
Turin, et al. 1996, Section 3; Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Section 4; CRWMS M&O 1998, 
Section 2.3). No procedural blanks were reported for this phase of the validation study. 

4.2.2 Results 

Core samples from the Sundance fault zone were selected by LANL for analysis as oversight to 
the active-leach experiments performed at LLNL. Chloride concentrations in these leachates are 
uniform, ranging from 0.23 to 0.35 mg/kg rock (Table 4-2). Measured 36Cl/Cl ratios range from 
508  10-15 to 942  10-15, with no values exceeding the 1,250  10-15 bomb-pulse threshold. 


These values are similar to other northern ESF samples analyzed at LANL prior to 2000 
(Appendix A). 

4.3 PHASE II: LEACHING EXPERIMENTS 

Phase I results from active leaching at LLNL and passive leaching at LANL were presented at 
the May 1, 2000, meeting of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) in Pahrump, 
Nevada. The large discrepancies in 36Cl/Cl values between the two data sets were debated and 
led to a letter from the NWTRB to the Director of the DOE OCRWM (Cohon 2000), urging that 
high priority be given to resolution of the disagreements. In response, the validation study 
participants agreed that additional work was necessary to identify a standardized leaching 
procedure for extracting labile meteoric chloride and minimizing releases of rock chloride. 

To accommodate this work, a large sample of tuff with homogenous chloride was required for a 
reference sample so that comparable splits could be distributed to LANL and LLNL for leaching 
experiments. The 36Cl/Cl composition of this reference sample was not critical and could be a 
mixture of chloride from meteoric, bomb-pulse, or construction-water sources, as long as the 
mixture was uniformly distributed throughout the material. The reference sample would then be 
used to test the effects of leaching methods, leaching times, and particle sizes. Due to changes in 
personnel at LLNL during this period, no leaching experiments were conducted at LLNL. 

In addition to the leaching experiments conducted at LANL, leaching experiments were also 
conducted at AECL to determine the distribution of chloride in validation study core samples 
associated with the Sundance fault zone. The goal of this work was to understand the sources 
and locations of chloride (and, by extension, 36Cl) in the tuff and to determine whether the 
difficulties in reproducing 36Cl/Cl ratios could be explained in terms of the sample treatment 
processes used. These analyses produced chloride concentrations but did not determine 36Cl/Cl 
ratios in the leachates. 

4.3.1 Preparation of the Reference Sample 

The USGS worked with the Yucca Mountain Project Management and Test Coordination Office 
to identify and collect a large rock sample that could be used as the reference sample (referred to 
as EVAL001 by LANL). The sample (SPC00557088) consisted of two 55-gallon drums of 
coarse muck collected from the discharge end of the Alpine miner during construction of 
Niche #5 in the ECRB Cross Drift (Figure 1-1). Niche #5 is located within the lower part of the 
TSw. 

The muck was shipped to Phillips Enterprises, LLC, of Golden, Colorado, where it was removed 
from the shipping containers, spread out on clean plastic tarps, and allowed to air-dry over a 
3-day period prior to processing. The muck was then stage-crushed using a jaw crusher and 
screened to recover the maximum quantity from the 6.3- to 12.5-mm size fraction. 
Approximately 136.1 kg of crushed and sized rock was produced in this manner, after which it 
was homogenized by hand mixing. The sized material was then split into ten 13.61-kg sub-
samples, and each was given a final blow-down with compressed dry nitrogen to remove dust 
adhering to rock surfaces. Blow-down was conducted on a vibrating screen to promote 


maximum dust removal. Each sub-sample was placed in a polyethylene bag, sealed, and stored 
in a plastic-lined 55-gallon drum. 

4.3.2 Leaching Experiments Conducted at LANL 

During Phase II of the validation study, LANL performed a series of experiments using 
EVAL001 and several samples from the ECRB Cross Drift to determine the effects of leaching 
time, leaching method, and particle size on the release of chloride and the resulting differences in36Cl/Cl ratios. The goals of these experiments were to identify the processing method that would 
be most effective in identifying a bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl component if one is present, and to provide 
information to evaluate previous 36Cl/Cl data from the Yucca Mountain UZ. 

Substantial changes occurred in the LANL 36Cl program between Phases I and II of the 
validation study. In the Fall of 2000, a new principal investigator assumed the lead role for the 
Yucca Mountain 36Cl studies. Personnel responsible for sample processing also changed by 
October 2001, after a 2-month overlap. In February 2001, the LANL 36Cl laboratory was moved 
from its previous location in Technical Area 48 (Radiochemistry Site) to a laboratory in 
Technical Area 3 (Geochemistry Analytical Facility, SM494, Room 107). The new laboratory is 
located in a general geosciences laboratory facility designated as a non-radioactive facility. The 
laboratory was cleaned prior to relocating the 36Cl laboratory equipment. Sample processing in 
the new laboratory began in March 2001 and all subsequent analyses for Phases II and III of the 
validation study were conducted in this laboratory. Although many of the methods used in 
Phases II and III were the same as those used previously by LANL, some changes were made to 
accommodate changing objectives of the project. Methods related to establishing a standard 
leaching protocol during Phase II are described below. Methods related to sample processing 
during Phases II and III are described in Section 4.5.1. 

4.3.2.1 Methods 

LANL patterned the leaching experiments after work that was done at LANL between July and 
December 2000. EVAL001 was split into aliquots using a geotechnical sample splitter. Some of 
these aliquots were crushed further to investigate the effects of particle size on leaching. 
Crushed aliquots were sized using an Endecotts EFL2 mk3 Test Sieve Shaker to obtain sub-
samples of uniform particle-size range. Portions of some samples were pulverized to a fine 
powder in a pre-cleaned Bico shatter box to determine the chloride and bromide content of the 
rock. 

Two aliquots of EVAL001 (-7 and -11) were passively leached by leaving the rock and leachate 
undisturbed during leaching. To determine whether vigorous agitation during leaching liberates 
additional chloride from the rock, 3 splits from EVAL001 (-8, -9, -11) were actively leached by 
placing the rock fragments into a 2-L polyethylene bottle with a sub-equal weight of de-ionized 
water. The bottle was shaken in a horizontal position using a Glas-Col Apparatus Company 
Shaker-in-the-Round Model S500 shaker. The shaker rotated the bottle laterally 32 in 

0.45 seconds, before returning it to its original position. The shaker was allowed to oscillate in 
this manner continuously for up to 7 days. Both active- and passive-leach splits were leached for 
0.5, 2.0, 7.0 and 76 to 165 hours. One active-leach sample was leached for 0.05-0.12 hours. The 
mass of rock leached (after combining the actively leached samples) ranged from 2.961 to 


5.044 kg. These rock masses yielded a minimum of 0.44 mg of chloride (not including chloride 
in the tracer or procedural blank) for analysis. Chloride isotopic analyses were performed at 
PRIME Lab. 

LANL also performed sequential leaching experiments on six samples that were collected from 
the ECRB Cross Drift for the pre-2000 LANL 36Cl studies (Table 4-3, samples with the prefix 
EXD). For these experiments, only the passive-leach method was used, with leaching times of 
0.5, 2, 7 and 48 hours. After each leaching period, the water was removed and replaced with 
new de-ionized water. One sample (EXD-069) was separated into three size fractions prior to 
leaching. The 6.3- to 12.5-mm size fraction was used for all other samples. Rock mass typically 
varied between 3 and 6 kg. In all cases, this amount of material yielded a minimum of 0.3 mg of 
rock chloride (not including chloride in the tracer or blank), and in most cases considerably more 
rock chloride (mean of 1.2 mg, maximum of 6.8 mg chloride). Analyses of 36Cl/Cl ratios were 
performed at LLNL-CAMS. 

4.3.2.2 Results 

Chloride concentrations for aliquots of the two passive-leach samples (EVAL001-7 and 
EVAL001-11) range from 0.11 mg/kg rock to 0.25 mg/kg rock, with a mean of 0.16 mg/kg rock 
for all aliquots (Table 4-3). Chloride concentrations for the active-leach splits (EVAL001-8, -9, 
-10) are larger, ranging from 0.15 mg/kg rock to 0.31 mg/kg rock, with a mean of 0.21 mg/kg 
rock. 36Cl/Cl ratios for the two passive-leach splits range from 492  10-15 to 889  10-15, with 
analytically indistinguishable means of 619  10-15 for EVAL001-7 leachates and 585  10-15 for 
EVAL001-11 leachates. In contrast, the 36Cl/Cl ratios for the active-leach splits are smaller than 
the passive-leach splits, with a range of 234  10-15 to 501  10-15 and a mean of 397  10-15 . 

Relations between chloride concentration, 36Cl/Cl ratios, and time are plotted in Figures 4-4 and 
4-5. These plots show the evolution of compositions with increasing leach duration and the 
differences in results obtained from passive and active leaching. Most passive-leach samples 
have smaller chloride concentrations, and all have larger 36Cl/Cl ratios for equivalent leaching 
times when compared to the active-leach samples. In all samples, the chloride concentration 
increases rapidly through the first 7 hours. Chloride concentrations remain constant or decrease 
in the longer leaches for passive-leach samples, whereas the active-leach sample shows 
continued increases in the release of chloride with increases in leaching time. Passive-leach 
samples have larger 36Cl/Cl ratios for equivalent leaching times compared to the active-leach 
sample. The largest 36Cl/Cl ratios were obtained in the shortest leaching time for both passive-
leach samples. Passive leachates from EVAL001-7 show a consistent decrease in the 36Cl/Cl 
ratios over time, from a value of 889  10-15 for the 0.5-hour leach to a value of 493  10-15 for 
the longest leach (Table 4-3). Data from both passive-leach EVAL001 samples converge to 
identical 36Cl/Cl ratios of approximately 575  10-15 for cumulative values. Active leachates 
from EVAL001-8, -9, and -10 have 36Cl/Cl ratios between 423  10-15 and 501  10-15 for the 
first 7 hours and a substantially smaller value of 234  10-15 for the longest leaching time. 

Chloride concentrations in sequential leachates of the 6.3- to 12.5-mm size fraction of ECRB 
Cross Drift samples varied considerably, with values ranging from 0.07 mg/kg rock to 

0.66 mg/kg rock (Table 4-3). Chloride concentrations in leachates remained relatively constant 
for successive leaches of increasing durations in four of six samples (Figure 4-6A). As a result, 


chloride extraction rates are much greater for the initial leaches and decrease dramatically as 
leaching times exceed 7 hours. This is reflected in the flattening of cumulative chloride 
concentration curves with increased leaching time (Figure 4-6B). 

Like chloride concentrations, 36Cl/Cl ratios show wide variations among samples, but much 
smaller variations for different leach durations of the same sample (Figure 4-7). 36Cl/Cl ratios 
range from 234  10-15 to 924  10-15 for the 6.3- to 12.5-mm size fraction (Table 4-3). Most 
samples have relatively constant 36Cl/Cl ratios regardless of leach duration. Leachates of sample 
EXD-072 show a statistically significant change in 36Cl/Cl ratios as leaching progressed, with 
values decreasing from 924  10-15 for the 0.5-hour leach to more-or-less constant values 
between 676  10-15 and 753  10-15 in subsequent leaches. The opposite trend of small 36Cl/Cl 
ratios progressively increasing to larger values in subsequent samples was observed for 
EXD-049; however, these samples have large and overlapping analytical uncertainties. The 
other four samples show remarkably consistent 36Cl/Cl ratios throughout the entire 48-hour leach 
duration. 

In an additional leaching experiment, one sample was used to evaluate the effects of different 
particle sizes on chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios (sample EXD-069 in Table 4-3). A 
consistent pattern of leachable chloride concentrations was not observed for the size fractions 
used (Figure 4-8A). For the shortest leach duration (0.5 hour), the finest fraction (less than 
2 mm) had the smallest chloride concentration (0.40 mg/kg rock), and the intermediate size 
fractions (2 to 6.3 mm) had the largest chloride concentration (0.99 mg/kg rock). However, the 
relatively constant chloride extracted from the coarsest fraction (6.3 to 12.5 mm) over time 
resulted in the largest cumulative chloride concentration after 48 hours (Figure 4-8B). 

Values of 36Cl/Cl in successive leaches of each size fraction also are nearly constant with leach 
duration (Figure 4-9). The finest size fraction has both the smallest chloride concentration and 
the largest 36Cl/Cl ratio in all sequential leachates, ranging from 317  10-15 to 432  10-15 (all 
values are within 2s error or very nearly so). The intermediate and coarse size fractions have 
smaller 36Cl/Cl ratios (261  10-15 to 297  10-15), which are distinguishable (within 2s error) 
from values for the fine fraction. Cumulative 36Cl/Cl ratios obtained over time for these samples 
are constant, indicating that 36Cl and total chloride are extracted in the same proportions 
throughout the experiments. 

4.3.2.3 Discussion of Results 

Leaching experiments performed at LANL were designed to test the effects of leaching methods, 
leaching times, and particle size on the measured 36Cl/Cl ratios. Most 36Cl/Cl values for samples 
leached by the passive-leach method are consistent with derivation from the conceptualized 
sources listed in Table 4-4, involving salts precipitated from meteoric water less than 10 ka or a 
mixture of salts less than 10 ka and greater than 10 ka. Three samples show a decrease in 36Cl/Cl 
ratios over time, with the largest ratios corresponding to the shortest leaching time. This trend is 
interpreted to indicate that these samples may contain a small component of bomb-pulse or 
surface contaminant 36Cl, which is mixed with pre-bomb-pulse meteoric salts. Dilution of this 
elevated 36Cl signal increases throughout the leaching process. Only one sample shows a 
substantial decrease in the 36Cl/Cl ratio in the final leaching step, indicating increasing input of 
rock chloride. Different aliquots of the reference sample, EVAL001 (which was homogenized), 


displayed a large range of 36Cl/Cl values in the first 0.5 hour (Table 4-3). This suggests that splits 
of EVAL001 have different 36Cl/Cl values in the most labile chloride component. 

The constancy of the 36Cl/Cl ratios in individual samples with increasing leaching time, and the 
fact that they remained uniform despite the variability of measured ratios among the samples, 
indicate that there is only a single source of chloride in the rock or that a uniform mixture of 
different sources of chloride was leached. On a plot of 36Cl/Cl ratio versus reciprocal of chloride 
concentration (Figure 4-10), most samples do not show a correlation between 36Cl/Cl ratios and 
chloride concentrations, with the exception of EVAL001-8, -9, -10, obtained by active leaching. 
The small 36Cl/Cl ratios and the observed correlation between 36Cl/Cl ratios and chloride 
concentrations is a result of the active-leach process. Active leaching liberates more rock 
chloride, which dilutes the meteoric chloride and results in smaller 36Cl/Cl ratios. 

Leachates of all aliquots of sample EXD-069 have a wide range of chloride concentrations and 
small 36Cl/Cl ratios (Figure 4-10A), and they show uniform 36Cl/Cl ratios in each fraction for 
different leach durations. The small 36Cl/Cl ratios in the coarser fractions of this sample are 
similar to many of the USGS-LLNL leachates (Section 4.4). These results imply that some 
samples, and perhaps rock masses in the subsurface, may be characterized by uniformly small 
36Cl/Cl ratios. However, leachates of the finer fraction (less than 2 mm) have substantially larger 
36Cl/Cl ratios than the coarser fractions. A similar negative correlation of 36Cl/Cl ratios with 
particle size is observed in samples of Niche #1 core analyzed at LANL. These relations 
contradict the conceptual model of chloride distribution described by Lu et al. (2003), as 
discussed in Section 4.6.2. 

4.3.3 Leaching Experiments Conducted at AECL 

As indicated in Section 4.3.2, the location and distribution of primary chloride in tuffs at Yucca 
Mountain is not well understood. Noble et al. (1967, p. 222) have shown that, on average, 
80 percent of the chloride originally present in silicic volcanic glass is lost during formation of 
densely welded tuffs. Chloride liberated during devitrification may have been deposited locally 
during cooling of the tuffs, forming soluble minerals that would be dissolved readily by 
percolating water. Twenty rock samples of the crystal-poor part of the devitrified TSw from the 
ECRB Cross Drift have a mean value and 1s for chloride of 17040 g/g (Peterman and Cloke, 
2002, p. 695). The chloride concentrations in the volcanic glass contained in the tuff before 
devitrification were probably much larger. In an attempt to characterize the primary rock 
chloride, Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. (1996, Table 5-4) leached finely ground tuff for 
chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios. The resultant concentrations are more than a factor of 
10 less than the mean rock value of 170 g/g, indicating that a substantial amount of the rock 
chloride is tightly bound and unavailable to leaching. More recently, work done at AECL has 
further investigated the chloride content of samples of the TSw from the validation study 
boreholes. This work is described below. 

4.3.3.1 Methods 

The crush-leach method was used to determine the chloride distribution in validation study 
samples and the effects of leaching time and grain size on the leachable chloride content. By 


varying the particle size and leaching time, it was thought possible to gain an understanding of 
the location of chloride in the rock and, hence, what might happen to infiltrated 36Cl on leaching. 

Samples used for the leaching experiments (Table 4-5) were from three of the dry-drilled 
validation study boreholes in the vicinity of the Sundance fault (fault trace at about ESF 
station 35+93). The proximity of the boreholes to the fault varied: ESF-SD-ClV#2 was the 
farthest (about 82 m south of the fault trace at ESF station 36+75), ESF-SD-ClV#14 was at an 
intermediate distance (about 48 m north of the fault trace at ESF station 35+45), and 
ESF-SD-ClV#9 was within 10 m of the fault trace on the ESF tunnel wall. The intensity of 
fracturing also varied within the boreholes. Core was largely intact in the 30-cm interval from 
ESF-SD-ClV#2, broken with two to three fractures in the 55-cm interval from ESF-SD-ClV#14, 
and largely rubble in the 49-cm interval from ESF-SD-ClV#9. The latter sample was selected to 
determine the leaching characteristics of very coarse fractions of rubblized rock. 

Test parameters for the leaching experiments are listed in Table 4-5. The leaching experiments 
were designed to test differences in the amount of chloride extracted from different particle sizes 
for rock crushed by both laboratory and natural processes over different leaching times. Samples 
were crushed in the laboratory using a rock breaker, jaw crusher, and shatter box, if needed. No 
attempt was made to trim the core sample or wash its surface to remove external contaminants. 
In addition, experiments designed to evaluate the effects of both leaching time and particle size 
on naturally broken rock were performed using fragments that were hand-picked and sieved from 
the rubblized interval of borehole ESF-SD-ClV#9 near the Sundance fault. Six fractions of this 
sample, including coarse fractions up to 60 mm, were obtained by hand-picking and sieving 
without laboratory crushing. 

All size fractions were leached with de-ionized water for durations ranging from 10 minutes to 
72 hours, depending on the experiment. De-ionized water used for leaching had blank chloride 
concentrations below the detection limit of 0.15 mg/L, whereas most rock leachates had 
concentrations at this level or higher. Also, chloride concentrations varied systematically down 
to the lowest values, implying that the true detection limit is probably lower than 0.15 mg/L. 
Leaching bottles containing measured amounts of sample and water were gently shaken 
occasionally and just prior to sampling to ensure the homogeneity of the leachate. Small 
volumes of leachate were drawn off by syringe, filtered through a 0.45-m filter, and analyzed 
by ion chromatography. The leaching method used by AECL was similar to that used by LANL 
for chloride extraction in previous 36Cl studies; however, it was different from the leaching 
experiments conducted at LANL during the this study, where the leachate was completely 
removed and replaced with new de-ionized water after each leach period was complete. All 
chloride concentrations in leachates are expressed as milligrams per kilogram rock after 
correction for the water-rock ratio used in the leaching process and removal of small amounts of 
leachate for analysis during the leaching experiments. 

4.3.3.2 Results 

Three time-series experiments, lasting a total of 70 to 72 hours (Table 4-6), were conducted on 
two of the core samples. Leachates of the coarser fraction (4 to 10 mm) of core from 
ESF-SD-ClV#2 and ESF-SD-ClV#14 attained maximum chloride concentrations of about 1 and 

0.68 mg/kg rock (tests CT and 2CT in Table 4-6), and leaching of chloride was essentially 


complete (constant chloride concentrations) after 24 hours. A similar time-series experiment 
performed on a finer fraction (less than 0.125 mm) of core from ESF-SD-ClV#2 (FT series in 
Table 4-6) yielded substantially larger chloride concentrations of approximately 5 mg/kg rock 
(Figure 4-11). The decrease in chloride concentration in the fine fraction with time (filled 
diamonds in Figure 4-11) may be accounted for by analytical error (approximately 5 percent). 

In addition, the larger chloride concentrations in the fine-fraction leachates were obtained in 
much less time than those for the coarse-fraction leachates. Maximum chloride concentrations 
were observed in the first leachate sampled after only 10 minutes. Differences in chloride 
concentrations of the two coarse-fraction leachates also are apparent. Leachates from the first 
10 hours show that chloride concentrations in both the CT and 2CT time-series experiments 
increase progressively (Figure 4-12). However, leachates from broken core at an intermediate 
distance from the Sundance fault (ESF-SD-ClV#14, 2CT series) are systematically lower in 
chloride concentration than the intact core at a greater distance from the Sundance fault 
(ESF-SD-ClV#2, CT). Concentrations of chloride in the 2CT time-series leachates are typically 
50 to 70 percent of those in the CT leachates extrapolated to an equivalent time. 

The particle size of the material being leached has a large but variable effect on the concentration 
of chloride in the leachates (Figure 4-13). In these experiments, sized fractions of core from 
intervals in ESF-SD-ClV#2 (GS series) and ESF-SD-ClV#14 (2A2 series), ranging from less 
than 0.063 to 12 mm, were each leached for 24 hours. Except for the coarsest GS series fraction, 
resulting chloride concentrations increased progressively with decreasing particle size. Chloride 
concentrations continued to increase as particle size became smaller in both experiments with no 
indications of leveling out, implying that additional chloride would have been leached if the rock 
was ground to particle sizes less than 0.063 mm. 

In addition to the differences in size fractions from each core sample, differences in chloride 
concentrations were observed for leachates of the same size fractions between the two core 
samples. For the three coarser size fractions with particles between 0.25 and 4 mm, chloride 
concentrations are 2.1 to 1.2 times larger in leachates of the intact core from ESF-SD-ClV#2 
than leachates of the broken core from ESF-SD-ClV#14 (Figure 4-13). The opposite trend is 
present in finer size fractions, where chloride concentrations become up to 3.8 times larger in 
leachates of ESF-SD-ClV#14 core relative to leachates of ESF-SD-ClV#2. The differences in 
chloride concentrations in leachates of these two core intervals change progressively as particle 
size changes. Causes for the differences in leaching behavior of these two samples are not 
known. 

A third set of leaching experiments was conducted on naturally rubblized core from borehole 
ESF-SD-ClV#9, adjacent to the Sundance fault. Both leach duration and fragment size varied in 
this series of experiments (BT series in Table 4-6). Small increases in the soluble chloride 
concentrations corresponding to increasing leach durations are observed for the coarse fractions 
(Figure 4-14). However, reversals in these trends occur in the finer size fractions. A steady 
decrease in leachable chloride from the finest to coarsest particle sizes, and a lack of a step in 
the data, indicates that there is no preferential accumulation of chloride on rock surfaces in the 
fractures, as this would likely be more available to leaching solutions than chloride in the matrix. 
As a result, these results suggest that leaching of matrix pore fluid salts is the dominant source of 
chloride in both the finer and coarser size fractions. 


4.3.3.3 Discussion of Results 

Time-series leaching experiments conducted at AECL on the coarser fractions of rock (4 to 
10 mm) indicated that extraction of leachable chloride was essentially complete after 24 hours. 
Crushing the rock to finer fractions shortens this leaching time to as little as 10 minutes. These 
results indicate that minor differences in leaching times or particle sizes would cause only minor 
differences in the amounts of chloride leached from rock samples. However, chloride 
concentrations observed in different leachates of relatively coarse tuff samples are not greatly 
affected by sample preparation and processing, and probably cannot explain the large differences 
in 36Cl/Cl ratios obtained by LLNL and LANL during Phase I of the validation study. 

Experiments designed to determine the effects of particle size (between 6.3 to 12.5 mm and less 
than 0.063 mm) on the leaching of chloride showed that more chloride was leached from the 
finer size fractions. Results also suggest that more leachable chloride would have been obtained 
if the rock had been ground to sizes less than 0.063 mm. In general, particle size appears to have 
greater influence on chloride concentrations than does leaching time. This effect is likely a 
function of the increased surface area as particle size decreases. Values for the surface area per 
mass unit have been calculated assuming that particles in each size fraction have a spherical 
shape, a mean size between upper and lower sieve openings, and a mean bulk density of 

2.25 g/cm3 (Flint 2003, value for the middle nonlithophysal unit of the Topopah Spring Tuff, 
Table 3). Results for both the BT (natural rubble) and 2A2 (mechanically crushed) leaching 
series show a relatively smooth trend of increasing chloride concentrations with increasing 
particle surface area per mass unit (Figure 4-15). Results for the GS series leachates (core ESFSD-
ClV#2, sample names GS1-GS7, in Table 4-6) show similar increases, but with a lower 
slope. 

The contributions from meteoric and rock chloride sources cannot be determined directly from 
these data; however, estimates from end-member compositions can be calculated. The 
concentration of chloride in pore fluids in a kilogram of rock can be calculated from the mean 
concentration in pore fluids (34.5 mg/L; Peterman and Marshall 2002, p. 308) corrected for the 
mean porosity (0.110), saturation (0.848), and bulk density (2.25 g/cm3) of the crystal-poor, 
middle nonlithophysal unit of the Topopah Spring Tuff (mean values from Flint 2003, Table 3). 
This calculation reveals that a chloride concentration of 1.4 mg/kg rock is potentially available to 
leaching solutions. Therefore, a meteoric chloride source may provide all the chloride in 
leachates of rock crushed to sizes greater than about 0.5 mm. However, rock chloride is required 
to provide a substantial amount of the chloride leached from rock fractions finer than 0.5 mm. A 
maximum chloride concentration of about 16 mg/kg rock for the finest fraction of the 2A2 series 
represents only about 10 percent of the total chloride present in the rock mass (mean value of 
170 mg/kg rock; Peterman and Cloke 2002, Table 6). Therefore, a substantial fraction of the 
chloride remains tightly bound in solid phases in the rock and is unavailable for leaching from 
even the most finely ground samples. 

A possible trend of decreasing chloride concentrations toward the Sundance fault also was noted 
during these leaching experiments. Concentrations of chloride in 21- to 24-hour leachates of the 
4- to 10-mm size fraction were largest for the intact core at approximately 82 m from the fault 
trace (1.00 mg/kg for ESF-SD-ClV#2-CT9 in Table 4-6), intermediate for the broken core at 
approximately 48 m from the fault trace (0.53 mg/kg for ESF-SD-ClV#14-2CT-6 in Table 4-6), 


and smallest for the naturally rubblized core from within 2 m of the fault trace (0.34 mg/kg for 
ESF-SD-ClV#9-2BT-4 in Table 4-6). Although these differences may be caused by random 
variations in the chloride content of pore fluids in the tuff, it is possible they may be caused by 
differential flow of fracture water and pore water across this zone. Increased percolation fluxes 
focused in the Sundance fault zone could cause lower chloride concentrations in the rubblized 
rocks due to previous natural leaching processes. 

4.3.4 Conclusions from the Phase II Leaching Experiments 

Results from the leaching experiments performed at LANL and AECL indicate that variations in 
particle size and leaching times can affect chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl compositions of 
leachates, but probably not in substantial ways. Experiments conducted at LANL using the 
reference sample, EVAL001, demonstrated that most passive-leach aliquots have smaller 
chloride concentrations and all have larger 36Cl/Cl ratios compared to active-leach aliquots taken 
at equivalent leaching times. These results confirm that active leaching is likely to extract more 
rock chloride compared to passive leaching, and they explain the differences between initial 
LLNL active-leach results and those obtained previously by LANL (Figure 4-3). Results also 
support the intuitive view that passive leaching and shorter leaching times favor extraction of 
more labile, meteoric chloride components that may contain bomb-pulse 36Cl. Based on these 
results, the active-leach method was abandoned. 

Leaching experiments performed at LANL with multiple samples from the ECRB Cross Drift 
demonstrate the presence of a wide range of chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios at 
different sites. However, results of the sequential leaching experiments show only minor 
variability in a single set of leachates. These results indicate that 36Cl/Cl ratios for individual 
samples have a tendency to remain relatively constant (typically within the range of analytical 
error) regardless of leach durations between 0.5 and 48 hours. Only one sample shows a 
statistically significant change in 36Cl/Cl ratios between the first leaching time (taken at 0.5 hr) 
and those for subsequent leaching times (Figure 4-5, EVAL001-7). These experiments imply 
either that there is only a single source of leachable chloride in the rock or that a uniform mixture 
of different sources of chloride was maintained in spite of variable leaching times. 

Although leaching experiments conducted at AECL did not include analyses of 36Cl/Cl ratios, 
they provide information on the nature of extractable chloride in tuff samples. Rates of 
extraction of soluble chloride from coarser fractions of rock were greatest in the first several 
hours of leaching and extraction was largely complete after 24 hours. Crushing the rock to finer 
fractions shortened this leaching time to as little as 10 minutes. The effects of particle size were 
larger than the effects of leach duration. However, these experiments demonstrated that for 
coarser particle sizes (greater than 0.5 mm), much of the chloride in leachates most likely has a 
meteoric source, and that large amounts of rock chloride are not likely unless the sample is more 
finely ground. Similar results were obtained from 36Cl leaching experiments conducted at 
LANL. 

4.4 PHASE III: MEASUREMENTS MADE AT USGS-LLNL 

Results from the Phase II leaching experiments (Section 4.3) led to substantial modifications in 
the method used to leach additional validation study samples. The active-leach method used by 


LLNL in Phase I was abandoned in favor of the passive-leach method developed in Phase II to 
minimize contributions of rock chloride to the leachate. Also, because the leaching experiments 
indicated that much of the readily leachable chloride was extracted in the first several hours of 
passive leaching, the study participants agreed that passive leaching for short time periods was 
the most reliable means of obtaining labile, meteoric chloride. The study participants also agreed 
that adopting an approach that minimized variables in analytical procedures was an important 
aspect of Phase III. By minimizing the variables, each step could be evaluated separately. The 
first step in this process involved crushing at either the SMF or USGS, followed by leaching at 
the USGS, and distribution of leachates to LANL and LLNL for AgCl precipitation and target 
preparation. Targets made in each laboratory were analyzed at a single AMS facility 
(LLNL-CAMS). This strategy was applied to samples sent for analysis as Batch #1. A similar 
strategy was applied to Batch #2 samples, except that targets prepared at LANL were analyzed at 
PRIME Lab and targets prepared at LLNL were analyzed at LLNL-CAMS. Targets for Batches 
#3, #4, and #5 were prepared and analyzed at LLNL. Table 4-7 gives the unique identification 
numbers assigned to leachates of samples that were crushed at the SMF or USGS, and leached at 
the USGS. 

4.4.1 Methods 

Processing of validation study core resumed in the Summer of 2001 on new core intervals 
requested from the SMF (identified as 36Cl (USGS) in Appendix B). The heavily fractured 
intervals from the deepest 2 m of the core had been sent previously to LLNL for 36Cl analysis, 
leaving core intervals that ranged from rubblized to intact intervals. General descriptions of the 
intervals prepared during core logging indicate that 11 of the 39 core intervals were relatively 
intact, with only about one to three fractures per foot (Table 4-8). The other 28 core intervals 
had fracture densities similar to the intervals selected for the original allocations. 

4.4.1.1 Sample Processing 

Samples of validation study core were crushed and sieved at the SMF using a jaw crusher, which 
was previously used only for crushing samples of TSw, and new 6.3- to 19-mm stainless-steel 
sieves. Crushed samples were shipped to the USGS YMPB laboratory in Denver, where they 
were re-sieved and the fines were removed using compressed nitrogen before leaching. For each 
leachate, between 0.989 and 2.399 kg (median of 1.788 kg) of crushed rock was placed in a 
stainless-steel wire basket and immersed in a stainless-steel stockpot containing an 
approximately equal weight of de-ionized water. The basket was initially raised and lowered 
five times to wet all rock surfaces and then allowed to soak for 1 hour. This process 
approximated the passive-leach methods used in previous LANL studies, except for a substantial 
reduction in the 24- to 72-hour leaching times used previously. After the 1-hour leach, the 
basket was raised and lowered five times to rinse the rock surfaces, then removed from the pot. 
The leachate was filtered through a pre-rinsed 0.45-m barrel filter into two 1-L polyethylene 
bottles, which were sent to LLNL (Batches #1 to #5) and LANL (Batches #3 to #5) for AgCl 
precipitation and target preparation. An additional 30-mL aliquot of the leachate was filtered 
through a 0.2-m filter for anion analysis (Cl-1, NO3-1, SO4-2, F-1, Br-1) at the USGS. 


4.4.1.2 Crushing Experiments 

The USGS modified the sample processing procedures slightly near the end of the validation 
study in response to concerns about differences in crushing methods and their possible impact on 
the 36Cl results. Validation study core were being crushed using a jaw crusher, whereas samples 
analyzed previously at LANL were generally crushed by hand using a hammer and steel plate. 
To evaluate the differences between mechanical crushing and hand crushing on the release of 
rock chloride, the USGS conducted a crushing experiment on approximately 8 kg of core from 
six intervals in borehole ESF-SAD-GTB#1 (southern Ghost Dance fault zone, Alcove #7) that 
were combined, homogenized, and split into two aliquots. One aliquot was crushed using a 
hammer and steel plate and the other was passed through a mechanical jaw crusher to replicate 
the process used on the validation study core. In both cases, coarse fragments were crushed to 
pass a 19-mm (-inch) sieve. In addition to leachates from the 6.3- to 19-mm (-inch to 
-inch) size fraction for both aliquots, a third sample was used to test the effects of increasing 
the size range to 2 to 19 mm (10 mesh to  inch). 

The different crushing methods did not result in significant differences in 36Cl/Cl ratios 
(Table 4-9). For the two leachates of the 6.3- to 19-mm (-inch to -inch) size fraction from 
ESF-SAD-GTB#1, the mechanically crushed sample yielded a slightly larger chloride 
concentration (0.517 mg/kg rock) and a smaller 36Cl/Cl ratio (344 104  10-15) compared to the 
hand-crushed sample (0.474 mg/kg rock and 457 107  10-15, respectively). However, the 
differences are within analytical error (Figure 4-16). The leachate from the finer fraction of 
hand-crushed material (2 to 19 mm, [10 mesh to  inch]) had a larger chloride concentration 

(0.697 mg/kg rock) than those obtained from the coarser fractions; however, the 36Cl/Cl ratio of 
510 108  10-15 was within analytical error of the other leachates. 

Although core samples from outside the areas investigated for the 36Cl validation study were 
used for these experiments, the 36Cl/Cl values are within the range observed for core from the 
Sundance fault zone (red diamonds [ESF-SD-ClV drill core] on Figure 4-17). Chloride 
concentrations in leachates of the ESF-SAD-GTB#1 core from the southern part of the ESF are 
larger than the leachates of validation study samples located to the north. This trend is consistent 
with results reported previously by LANL. The median chloride concentration for 155 samples 
from the northern half of the ESF (stations 0+00 to 39+00) is 0.7 mg/kg rock, whereas the value 
for 138 samples from the southern half of the ESF (stations 39+39 to 78+50) is 1.7 mg/kg rock 
(Appendix A). In addition, 36Cl/Cl ratios for ESF-SAD-GTB#1 core from Alcove #7 (mean and 
1s of 437 85  10-15) are similar to the LANL values obtained for six samples of Alcove #7 
rocks listed in Appendix A (mean and 1s of 551 55  10-15). 

Results of the crushing experiments on ESF-SAD-GTB#1 core indicate that differences in 
crushing and particle size are unlikely the cause of major differences in chloride concentrations 
and 36Cl/Cl ratios obtained using the validation study protocols and earlier LANL protocols. 
Therefore, the large differences in 36Cl/Cl ratios between LANL leachates with bomb-pulse 
values and USGS-LLNL validation study leachates (36Cl/Cl ratios less than 619  10-15) must be 
attributed to other causes. To evaluate the large differences in 36Cl/Cl ratios between LANL 
leachates with bomb-pulse values and USGS-LLNL leachates without bomb-pulse values, the 
study participants conducted additional comparative studies using intervals of the same Niche #1 
core samples that had been analyzed previously at LANL (Section 4.4.2.3). 


4.4.1.3 Procedural Blanks 

Measured chloride consists of a mixture of natural chloride present in the rock sample plus 
chloride that is added to the rock sample and leachate during sample collection, crushing, 
leaching, and AgCl target preparation. To determine the mass of 35Cl, 36Cl, and chlorine-37 
(37Cl) in a sample, the mass of chloride added during the analytical processing (process blank) 
must be subtracted from the measured results. At different times during the 36Cl validation 
study, the mass of chloride and its isotopic composition were measured in de-ionized water that 
was processed using the leaching and target preparation procedures and run as unknown samples. 
In addition, the chloride isotopic composition of a blank was determined for water from the deionization 
system without further processing. Results of blank analyses for samples leached at 
the USGS and AgCl precipitated at LLNL are given in Table 4-10. 

Concentrations of total chloride in the blank samples prepared at the USGS and analyzed at 
LLNL (USGS-LLNL) varied between 0.004 and 0.017 mg/kg water, with a mean of 
0.0104 0.0047 (1s). Precise measurements of 36Cl/Cl ratios could not be made on the small 
chloride concentrations of the blank samples. Individual 36Cl/Cl ratios ranged from 
47 211 (1s)  10-15 to 1,839 555 (1s)  10-15. Chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios in 
the process blanks and the water blank were similar. The mean 36Cl/Cl ratio of five blank 
measurements was 555 337 (1 standard error [SE])  10-15. These data are more meaningful if 
they are converted to concentrations of 36Cl added during sample processing. The five 
USGS-LLNL blanks represent between 0.47  10-15 and 7.6  10-15 mg 36Cl added per kilogram 
of water used, with a mean of 3.5 3.0  10-15 (1s) mg 36Cl/kg water. Thus, although the 36Cl/Cl 
ratios in the blanks ranged widely, the amounts of 36Cl that would be added during processing of 
the samples is very small. 

In addition to chloride added during leaching and target preparation, both crushing and handling 
operations could add chloride to a sample. This contribution was not measured in previous 
studies because of the lack of a chloride-free material with physical properties similar to the 
densely welded tuffs. Methods of investigating this source of contamination were initiated at the 
USGS. Electronics-grade silicon was chosen because of its extremely high purity (typical metal 
contamination levels are less than 1  10-11 g/g silicon). A 3.8-kg cylindrical (approximately 
15-cm diameter by 15-cm height), monocrystalline silicon ingot was obtained from the DOEs 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. The ingot and all crushing 
equipment were cleaned with de-ionized water to remove surface contamination, then the ingot 
was broken into fragments using a rock hammer. Approximately half of the material was 
crushed using a hammer and steel plate, and the other half was crushed using a steel mortar and 
pestle. Both sets of material were sieved to obtain a 2- to 19-mm size fraction and leached using 
the same passive-leach process used by USGS for the Niche #1 samples (Section 4.4.2.3). 

The samples were analyzed by ion chromatography using low-level detection methods 

(0.01 mg/L detection limit) at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) and by 
isotope dilution at LLNL (Table 4-11). Chloride concentrations in the two crushing blanks were 
only slightly larger (0.019 and 0.014 mg/L) than the value obtained for the system leaching blank 
processed at the same time (less than 0.010 mg/L). The 36Cl/Cl ratios in the two crushing blanks 
were 957 174  10-15 and 1,033 249  10-15 . These values are within analytical uncertainty of 
the mean value obtained from the USGS-LLNL leaching blanks analyzed earlier in the validation 


study and consistent with meteoric values expected for Colorado (Phillips 2000, Figure 10.3). 
Although small amounts of chloride may be added during crushing and sieving, the added 
chloride does not have small 36Cl/Cl values that would explain the differences between small 
36Cl/Cl ratios obtained for the USGS-LLNL validation study samples and the large 36Cl/Cl ratios 
measured previously at LANL. These results indicate that crushing at the USGS did not add 
substantial amounts of chloride and that added chloride has a 36Cl/Cl composition similar to 
meteoric chloride. 

A similar evaluation of crushing blanks was not performed at LANL. However, two samples of 
Niche #1 core that had been crushed and sieved at LANL were sent to the USGS for leaching. 
The samples, Niche 1-RCR-1A (approximately 1.3 kg) and Niche LT-RCR-1A (approximately 

0.7 kg), were remnants of the 6.3- to 12.5-mm size fraction that had been analyzed at LANL 
(Table 4-12) and had 36Cl/Cl ratios of 1,163 94  10-15 and 1,016 87  10-15, respectively. The 
two samples were combined into a single 2.0-kg sample (NICHE3566#1+NICHE3566#LT1) at 
the USGS to ensure sufficient chloride for analysis, and the sample was leached without 
additional handling. The resulting USGS-LLNL chloride concentration of 0.188 mg/kg water 
and 36Cl/Cl ratio of 1,185 121  10-15 (Table 4-11), are similar to values obtained by LANL, but 
distinctly higher than values obtained for other USGS-LLNL leachates. 

4.4.2 Results 

4.4.2.1 Anions in Leachates of Validation Study Core 

The USGS used ion chromatography to measure concentrations of the soluble anions Cl-1, Br-1, 
NO3-1, and SO4-2 in leachates of validation study core, Niche #1 core, and Alcove #7 core, as 
well as leachates of the EVAL001 reference sample (Table 4-13). These data do not reflect true 
concentrations of pore water and are generally much more dilute than values obtained directly 
from water extracted from the core (Peterman and Marshall 2002, p. 308), due in part to the 
relatively large volumes of water used for leaching. However, all leachates of validation study 
core were obtained from similar amounts of the same size fractions leached for the same time 
periods. Therefore, measured differences in concentration should reflect natural variability 
rather than artifacts of laboratory processing. 

Concentrations of chloride in leachates of samples from the Sundance fault zone (including 
Niche #1) vary from 0.050 to 0.31 mg/kg rock, with a median value of 0.120 mg/kg rock and a 
mean value of 0.145 0.074 (1s, 51 analyses) mg/kg rock (Table 4-14). Values for leachates 
from the Drill Hole Wash fault zone are slightly higher, with a median chloride concentration of 

0.205 mg/kg rock and a mean of 0.223 0.053 (1s, 10 analyses) mg/kg rock. Differences in 
mean values between the two groups of data are significant at the 95 percent confidence level 
(Figure 4-18). In contrast to leachate chloride concentrations, pore water chloride concentrations 
obtained by ultra-centrifugation of high-silica rhyolite units of the Topopah Spring Tuff are 
generally much larger (mean and 1s of 34.5 16.7 mg/L; Peterman and Marshall 2002, p. 308). 
A mean chloride concentration of 1.4 mg/kg rock is calculated for the middle nonlithophysal unit 
of the Topopah Spring Tuff using the mean pore water chloride concentration and the mean pore 
water content of 0.093 (Flint 2003, Table 3). Chloride concentrations in leachates indicate that 
less than 10 percent of the total pore water chloride available in the rock is extracted during the 
1-hour leaching process. 


Chloride concentrations in leachates show variations with distance across the Sundance fault 
zone (Figure 4-19A). Values tend to be smallest in leachates of ESF-SD-ClV core between ESF 
stations 35+40 and 36+00 adjacent to and north of the trace of the Sundance fault. The mean 
chloride concentration in leachates from this zone is 0.066 0.018 mg/kg rock (1s, 10 analyses). 
Leachates of ESF-SD-ClV samples from either side of this zone have a combined mean chloride 
concentration of 0.151 0.066 mg/kg rock (1s, 35 analyses), which is significantly different at 
the 95 percent confidence level. Similar variations across the Drill Hole Wash fault zone are not 
apparent (Figure 4-19B). 

Relations between chloride concentration and proximity to the Sundance fault observed from 
ESF-SD-ClV core are complicated by results for leachates of Niche #1 core. Although the 
Niche #1 boreholes were not drilled normal to the walls of the ESF main drift, the resulting core 
lies within the interval between ESF stations 35+40 and 36+00. Leachates of core from all three 
Niche #1 boreholes have substantially higher chloride concentrations than the ESF-SD-ClV core, 
with a mean of 0.231 0.044 mg/kg rock (1s, 6 analyses) (Figure 4-19A). 

Concentrations of other anions in leachates of validation study core are poorly to moderately 
correlated with chloride. Concentrations of NO3-1 in leachates of core from the Sundance fault 
zone (including Niche #1) range from less than 0.04 to 0.44 mg/kg rock (Table 4-14) and are 
poorly correlated with chloride concentrations (Figure 4-20A). Large concentrations of NO3-1 
are not present in leachates with small chloride concentrations; however, NO3-1 concentrations 
commonly remain small as chloride concentrations increase. In contrast, SO4-2 concentrations 
ranging from less than 0.03 to 0.51 mg/kg rock show a positive correlation with chloride 
concentrations (Table 4-14 and Figure 4-20B). Concentrations of Br-1 are below detection limits 

(0.02 mg/kg water) for all leachates of dry-drilled validation study core. Because the 
construction water that was used during excavation of the ESF and ECRB was tagged with LiBr, 
this result indicates the absence of substantial amounts of construction water in all samples, some 
of which are from depths as shallow as 0.40 to 0.60 m from the tunnel wall. Concentrations of 
Br-1 are above detection limits in analyses of two leachates of the reference sample EVAL001 

(0.18 and 0.14 mg/kg rock, Table 4-14), which was collected with mining equipment that used 
construction water for dust suppression. Because there is no detectable Br-1 in any of the 
leachates of validation study core, corrections for construction water are not necessary. 

4.4.2.2 Chlorine-36 in Leachates of Validation Study Core 

USGS-LLNL used AMS to analyze 34 1-hour passive leachates of core samples from 
29 validation study boreholes (ESF-SD-ClV) located across the Sundance fault zone 
(Table 4-15). Chloride concentrations range from 0.037 to 0.372 mg/kg rock, with an arithmetic 
mean of 0.130 mg/kg rock and a median value of 0.120 mg/kg rock. Chloride concentrations 
determined by isotope dilution at LLNL typically agree within error with chloride concentrations 
determined by ion chromatography at the USGS (Figure 4-21). All but three analyses fall in a 
narrower range between 0.037 and 0.197 mg/kg rock (Figure 4-22A). The three elevated values 
are from core locations scattered across the Sundance fault zone (Figure 4-23A). The isotope 
dilution data confirm the pattern of chloride distribution that was determined on the larger ion 
chromatography data set (compare Figure 4-23A with Figure 4-19A). 


Leachates of validation study core have 36Cl/Cl ratios ranging between 137  10-15 and 
615  10-15 (ESF-SD-ClV core, excluding Niche #1, Table 4-15). Values for the median and 
mean 36Cl/Cl are 316  10-15 and 326  10-15, respectively. The frequency distribution of these 34 
values of 36Cl/Cl does not show any indication of being skewed toward high ratios 
(Figure 4-22B). Use of the Anderson-Darling normality test (Stephens 1974) results in a 
probability value of 0.141, which indicates that the sample population cannot be distinguished 
from a normal distribution at the 95 percent confidence level. Unlike chloride concentrations 
that appear to be correlated with respect to location of the Sundance fault trace (Figure 4-19A 
and Figure 4-23A), 36Cl/Cl ratios vary randomly between ESF stations 34+95 and 36+75. 
However, 36Cl/Cl ratios show a general trend of decreasing values from about 540  10-15 to 
580  10-15 at around ESF station 34+00, to about 140  10-15 to 190  10-15 around ESF 
station 34+70 (Figure 4-23B). To evaluate this trend, 36Cl/Cl ratios were plotted against 
borehole completion dates with analyses discriminated by batch number (Figure 4-24). 
Although most of the boreholes constituting this trend were completed in sequence during the 
first round of drilling between March and April, 1999, borehole ESF-SD-ClV#26 at ESF 
station 34+73, containing the lowest 36Cl/Cl values, was completed at the end of the second 
round of drilling in June 1999. Most other samples from the second round of drilling have 
substantially higher 36Cl/Cl ratios. Progressive contamination (or decontamination) from drilling 
equipment is not suspected because the Yucca Mountain Project Management and Test 
Coordination Office advised that new drill bits and rods were used for drilling, and because 
36Cl/Cl ratios in core samples from the second and third rounds of drilling (September 1999) 
span most of the range observed in core obtained from the first round. Also, 36Cl/Cl ratios in 
different batches of leachates analyzed in different AMS runs overlap. Therefore, natural 
chloride compositional variations are the likely cause for the trend of monotonically decreasing 
36Cl/Cl ratios observed between ESF stations 33+98 and 34+73. 

The 36Cl/Cl ratios in leachates of validation study core do not correlate with chloride 
concentrations (Figure 4-17). If the relatively small 36Cl/Cl ratios measured in validation study 
core were the result of mixing chloride from meteoric and rock sources, data would plot on a 
mixing line between a meteoric end-member with large 36Cl/Clhigh reciprocal chloride 
concentration values (small chloride concentrations) and a rock end-member with small36Cl/Cl-low reciprocal chloride concentration values (large chloride concentrations). Instead, 
36Cl/Cl ratios remain uniform across the range of reciprocal chloride concentration values, 
indicating that small 36Cl/Cl ratios are as likely in the samples with the smallest concentrations as 
they are in the samples with the largest concentrations. 

4.4.2.3 Re-Analysis of Niche #1 Core for Chlorine-36 

As part of the in situ testing for the UZ flow and transport model, 10-m-long boreholes were 
drilled before and after construction of Niche #1 at ESF station 35+66 (Figure 3-6). Nine of the 
10 core samples from three boreholes (ESF-MD-NICHE3566#1, ESF-MD-NICHE3566#2, and 
ESF-MD-NICHE3566LT#1) analyzed at LANL had 36Cl/Cl values between 1,235  10-15 and 
2,038  10-15 (CRWMS M&O 1998, Table 3-4). Core intervals remaining at LANL (sealed in 
the original SMF packaging) were inventoried and split between LANL and USGS to span the 
intervals analyzed previously at LANL and to ensure that comparable samples were analyzed by 
the separate laboratories. 


Multiple, overlapping intervals were combined into single samples so that sufficient rock was 
available for leaching (Figure 3-7). After the outer surfaces of the sealed ProtecCore packages 
were rinsed with de-ionized water, intervals within individual composite samples were crushed, 
homogenized, sieved (2 to 19 mm at the USGS and either 6.3 to 12.5 mm or 2 to 12.5 mm at 
LANL), and leached at the USGS and LANL. Composited sample sizes ranged from 1.2 to 

1.8 kg. All samples were leached for 1 hour. The AgCl precipitates were prepared at LLNL and 
analyzed at LLNL-CAMS. 

Chloride concentrations in leachates of the coarse material prepared at the USGS range from 

0.17 to 0.27 mg/kg rock (Table 4-9). The 36Cl/Cl ratios from the six Niche #1 leachates range 
from 226  10-15 to 717  10-15 and have median and mean values of 387  10-15 and 401  10-15 
(Table 4-15). These 36Cl/Cl ratios are in the same range as those obtained from leachates of 
ESF-SD-ClV core (Figure 4-25). The means of the two sample groups (34 samples of 
ESF-SD-ClV core and six samples of Niche #1 core) are indistinguishable at the 95 percent 
confidence level. Therefore, all leachate data for samples from the Sundance fault zone prepared 
at the USGS were pooled to give median and mean values for 36Cl/Cl of 316  10-15 and 
337  10-15 (Table 4-15). 

4.5 PHASE III: MEASUREMENTS MADE AT LANL 

4.5.1 Methods 

4.5.1.1 Sample Processing 

Most rock samples were composed of a wide range of particle sizes, from pieces as large as 
20 cm to dust. Therefore, samples required crushing and sieving to obtain the desired size 
fractions. Prior to use, all crushing and sieving equipment was thoroughly cleaned. Hammers 
and steel plates were cleaned by scrubbing with a wire brush, blowing with compressed air, and 
rinsing with de-ionized water. These steps were repeated so that no visible evidence of the prior 
samples remained. Sieves were cleaned by manually removing any pieces lodged in openings, 
scrubbing with a soft brush, blowing off with compressed air, and rinsing in de-ionized water. 
The table on which crushing and sieving was performed also was wiped clean with de-ionized 
water. Crushing and sieving were performed inside a new cardboard file box, with one side cut 
and folded down for access, into which a clean plastic garbage bag was placed. The crushed 
sample was then poured into a stack of sieves and gently shaken. Fragments of the desired size 
fraction were placed into a clean zip-lock bag, and the process was repeated until enough 
material of each size fraction was obtained. If necessary, large pieces were crushed with a 
hammer and steel plate in the file box. In some instances, as noted below, the dust was blown 
from the final fraction with dry compressed nitrogen prior to leaching. 

Leaching was performed in stainless steel buckets with tight-fitting lids. These were washed 
thoroughly in soapy water, rinsed three times with de-ionized water, and placed upside-down on 
towels to dry prior to use. Samples were poured into pre-weighed buckets and re-weighed to 
determine sample mass by difference. A sub-equal mass of de-ionized water was added to the 
sample. Typically, water and sample mass differed by less than 10 percent. The de-ionized 
water and sample were left covered and undisturbed for the desired length of time. For this 


study, the leaching time was intentionally varied for a number of samples to determine the 
effects of leaching time on chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios. 

4.5.1.2 Procedural Blanks 

Twelve procedural blanks were collected by LANL during the course of the investigation. 
Procedural blanks consisted of de-ionized water that was processed in the same manner as, and 
along side, the samples. As a result, these procedural blanks capture all the same processing 
steps as the rock samples, with the exception of crushing. Procedural blanks processed at LANL 
(Table 4-16) have low total chloride concentrations, with a mean of 0.008 0.006 (1s) mg/kg 
water, similar to the mean value of 0.010 0.005 (1s) mg/kg water for the USGS procedural 
blanks (Table 4-10). One blank consisting of LANL water was processed simultaneously with 
three blanks that consisted of USGS water that was representative of the water used to leach 
validation core samples. Results for the USGS water are comparable with those of the LANL 
water blanks. The 36Cl/Cl ratios have a mean of 1,994 400  10-15 (1 standard error [SE]) 
(median value of 1,441  10-15, n = 12). Although these values are larger than the values for the 
USGS blanks, the overall total mass of 36Cl in the LANL blanks is small, with a range from 

2.99  10-15 to 25.54  10-15 mg/kg water used (Table 4-16). These values represent a maximum 
of 15 percent of the total 36Cl in the samples for the smallest samples analyzed, but in most cases 
the blank accounts for between 0.2 and 5 percent of the total mass of 36Cl in the samples. The 
consistently small values for procedural blanks relative to the samples indicate that they do not 
significantly affect the results. All reported ratios are corrected for the mean of the blank values 
analyzed with a sample set. The corrections are generally within the uncertainty of the 
measurement and do not affect the interpretation. 

Crushing blanks were not measured at LANL for this study; however, crushing blanks are not 
expected to contribute significantly to the samples because the crushing equipment was 
thoroughly cleaned by scrubbing with a wire brush, blowing with compressed air, and rinsing 
with de-ionized water prior to use. This procedure ensured that any contamination from prior 
samples or dust particles that accumulated during storage of the equipment was removed. 
Crushing typically exposed the samples to the atmosphere for up to a few hours, limiting the 
likelihood of 36Cl contamination from this source. In contrast, sample leachates and 
accompanying blanks are left open to the atmosphere (to allow evaporation of the sample) for up 
to a week. In all instances the leaching blanks still showed very small levels of 36Cl. 
Contamination from the steel itself is not expected because the steel is not likely to contain 
significant 36Cl, distilled water-leachable components of the steel will be insignificant, and the 
amount of steel contamination in a sample is also very small. Thus, it is expected that the 
crushing process did not contribute an anomalously large amount of contamination to any of the 
samples. Additional arguments to support the lack of laboratory contamination in samples 
processed at LANL are presented in Section 6.3.4.2. 

4.5.2 Results 

4.5.2.1 Chlorine-36 in Leachates of Validation Study Core 

During Phase III, samples of validation study core were crushed at the SMF and leached at the 
USGS. Two sub-equal volumes of leachate were split and sent to LLNL and LANL for AgCl 


target preparation and analysis. Results for the LANL splits analyzed at PRIME Lab (ESF 
samples from the Sundance fault zone) are shown in Table 4-12. Chloride concentrations range 
from 0.07 mg/kg rock to 0.32 mg/kg rock. 36Cl/Cl ratios range from 163 30  10-15 to 
640 162  10-15 . 

4.5.2.2 Chlorine-36 in ECRB Cross Drift Tunnel-Wall Samples 

Previously unreported 36Cl data for 58 samples from the ECRB Cross Drift are included in this 
report (Table 4-17). These samples were processed prior to the relocation of the LANL 
laboratory and changes in LANL personnel in 2000. These data are reported for comparison 
with other ECRB samples processed as part of the validation study. Leachates for most of these 
samples were made using the 2- to 20-mm size fraction. However, three samples (EXD-064, 
EXD-071, and EXD-085) were collected as highly fragmented samples and processed without 
sieving or additional crushing. All samples were leached for 19 hours and all were greater than 

4.4 kg. Chloride concentrations range from 0.20 mg/kg rock to 3.59 mg/kg rock. 36Cl/Cl ratios 
range from 161 22  10-15 to 4,890 349  10-15 . Eight of the 58 samples (14 percent) contain 
36Cl/Cl values greater than 1,250  10-15 . 

4.5.2.3 Re-Analysis of Niche #1 Core for Chlorine-36 

Multiple, nearly adjacent intervals of Niche #1 core were combined into single samples so that 
sufficient rock was available for leaching (Figure 3-7). After the outer surfaces of the sealed 
ProtecCore packages were rinsed with de-ionized water, intervals within individual composite 
samples were crushed, homogenized, sieved (either 6.3 to 12.5 mm or 2 to 12.5 mm), and 
leached at LANL. Composited sample sizes ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 kg. All samples were 
leached for 1 hour. All crushing, leaching, and AgCl precipitation for LANL leachates was 
performed at LANL. Silver chloride precipitates were analyzed at LLNL-CAMS. In addition, 
fines (less than 6.3 mm) from two of the samples crushed at LANL (Niche 1-RCR-1B and 
Niche LT-RCR-1B, Table 4-12) were leached at LANL and analyzed at LLNL. Chloride 
concentrations for leachates of the coarser material are 0.13 and 0.28 mg/kg rock 
(Niche LT-RCR-1A and Niche 1-RCR-3, Table 4-12). Leachates of the two finer fractions 
(Niche 1-RCR-1B and Niche LT-RCR-1B) have substantially larger chloride concentrations 

(0.69 and 0.67 mg/kg rock). 

The 36Cl/Cl ratios obtained by LANL for composite samples of Niche #1 core are larger than the 
USGS-LLNL results for overlapping composite samples of the same core (Table 4-9 and Figure 
4-26). The new LANL analyses are similar to previous LANL analyses of Niche #1 core 
(CRWMS M&O 1998, Table 3-4) in that some of the 36Cl/Cl values exceed the 1,250  10-15 
bomb-pulse threshold (four of seven analyses). New LANL 36Cl/Cl values range from 
1,016  10-15 to 8,558  10-15 . The new analyses show a positive correlation between 36Cl/Cl 
ratios and chloride concentration (largest 36Cl/Cl ratios in leachates with the largest chloride 
concentrations). The observation of the largest 36Cl/Cl ratios in leachates of Niche #1 core, 
which consist entirely of fine fractions (less than 6.3 mm), is the opposite of the relation 
observed in leachates of tunnel-wall samples reported previously (Figure 4-27). Larger chloride 
concentrations in leachates of finer material previously have been attributed to addition of 
progressively more rock chloride liberated from particle surfaces as the total surface area per unit 


mass of sample increases (Fabryka Martin, Wolfsberg et al. 1996, p. 24; and this report, 
Section 4.3). 

4.6 DISCUSSION OF THE CHLORINE-36 MEASUREMENTS 

Analytical protocols evolved during the course of the validation study in response to preliminary 
results and discussions among the participants. The final passive-leach procedure was designed 
to maximize contributions from meteoric chloride and minimize contributions from rock chloride 
unrelated to UZ percolation. 36Cl/Cl ratios in the validation study samples from both 
USGS-LLNL and USGS-LANL generally agree within analytical error despite the analytical 
challenges of dealing with the low chloride concentrations in the 1-hour leachates. However, 
large differences in 36Cl/Cl ratios exist between results for Niche #1 samples processed at the 
USGS and LANL, and between results obtained from USGS-LLNL leachates and those obtained 
previously by LANL from samples in the Sundance fault zone. 

4.6.1 Active Leaching 

The analytical procedure used by LLNL during Phase I of the validation study, which involved 
leaching crushed rock in a slowly rotating tumbler for 7 hours (active-leach process), resulted in 
leachates with relatively large chloride concentrations and small 36Cl/Cl ratios. Results obtained 
from active leaching are distinct from those obtained from passive leaching (previous LANL 
studies and work conducted at LANL and USGS-LLNL during Phase III) for both longer and 
shorter leaching times (Figures 4-3B and 4-28). The data obtained from active leaching are 
interpreted to be the result of adding large amounts of rock chloride during the extraction 
process. Consequently, the 36Cl/Cl ratios in the leachates cannot be used to detect the bomb-
pulse meteoric component along the Sundance fault zone. 

4.6.2 Chloride Sources and Leaching Experiments 

Rock samples from the Yucca Mountain UZ contain chloride and 36Cl from multiple sources, 
including 36Cl potentially added to sample sites during tunnel construction and operation, and to 
samples during processing (Table 4-4). Lu et al. (2003, p. 3-5) discuss these sources and 
categorize them into (1) leach-accessible salts or fluids (present in the inter-granular connected 
pores and fractures) and (2) leach-limited salts or fluids present in fluid inclusions, disconnected 
pores, and grain boundaries (called isolated and boundary salts). Figure 4-29 presents a 
conceptual model of the effects of leaching on 36Cl/Cl ratios in rocks. Bomb-pulse and 
contaminant 36Cl in a sample should be readily leachable from the rock, and chloride from these 
sources will be mixed during leaching. It is likely that longer leaching times will dilute a bomb-
pulse signal. Eventually, any bomb-pulse meteoric salts, if present, will be thoroughly dissolved 
and the 36Cl/Cl ratio will reflect a mixture of salts precipitated from younger (i.e., less than 
10 ka) and older (i.e., greater than 10 ka) meteoric water. Prolonged or aggressive leaching 
could potentially liberate older meteoric salts or rock chloride, resulting in a decrease in the36Cl/Cl ratio. It is clear from this conceptual model that shorter (and less vigorous) leaching 
should favor extraction of the most recently deposited meteoric salts, including a bomb-pulse 
component, if present. However, sufficient chloride must be leached from the rock for a reliable 
analysis. 


4.6.3 Procedural Blanks and Detection Limits for the Total Chloride and Chlorine-36 
Analyses 

Because several results are based on leachates with low chloride concentrations, the contribution 
of blanks and the limits of detection of chloride and 36Cl become very important in determining 
the validity of these data. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has a procedure 
for determining the method detection limit (MDL), which . . . is defined as the minimum 
concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that 
the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a 
given matrix containing the analyte. (40 CFR 136, 2004, Appendix B, p. 317). The procedure is 
based on the analysis of detection limits presented by Glaser et al. (1981). The calculation 
involves determining the standard deviation of seven samples with analyte concentrations that 
are one to five times the assumed detection limit, and using the Students t multiplier (R. 
Universit di Roma 1925, pp. 105-108) for the 99 percent confidence level to calculate the MDL. 

Analyses of leaching blanks processed at the USGS (Table 4-10) and LANL (Table 4-16) can be 
used to evaluate the MDL for both laboratories because blank levels define minimum measurable 
concentrations in real samples. Mean concentrations of total chloride in the USGS and LANL 
blank samples are 0.0104 0.0047 mg/kg water (1s) and 0.00870.0067 mg/kg water (1s), 
respectively. For both laboratories, multiplying obtained standard deviations by the Students t 
factors for the 99 percent confidence level gives values of 0.020 mg chloride/kg water for the 
MDL of total chloride. 

Five isotopic analyses of USGS blanks and nine analyses of LANL blanks yielded mean values 
of 3.53.0 10-15 (1s) and 12.98.710-15 (1s) mg 36Cl/kg water, respectively (Tables 4-10 and 
4-16). Multiplying obtained standard deviations by the Students t factors for the 99 percent 
confidence level gives values of 11 10-15 mg 36Cl/kg water for the MDL at USGS and 
24 10-15 mg 36Cl/kg water for the MDL at LANL. Although these MDLs are lower than most of 
the measured total chloride and 36Cl concentrations in the validation study samples, some of the 
1-hour passive-leach analyses with low 36Cl concentrations obtained during Phase III of the 
validation study are very close to these detection limits and should be interpreted with caution. 
However, three USGS system blanks processed at LANL, where AgCl targets were precipitated, 
yielded results that are similar to USGS blanks spiked and precipitated at LLNL. These analyses 
yielded a mean value of 4.71.1 10-15 (1s) mg 36Cl/kg water, which is in good agreement with 
the mean value of 3.53.0 10-15 (1s) mg 36Cl/kg water for blanks processed by USGS. The 
close agreement of mean values for blanks analyzed at two independent laboratories indicates 
that chloride isotopic results are generally reproducible even at the smallest chloride 
concentrations. 

LANL analyses with elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios measured during Phase II and Phase III of the 
validation study contain 36Cl concentrations that are significantly higher than the MDL. Similar 
assessment of the MDL for earlier LANL results cannot be made because 36Cl concentrations in 
blanks were not reported. 


4.6.4 Analysis of Duplicate Samples 

Validation study samples were analyzed in several stages as work progressed. The USGS 
prepared the first batch of samples using the modified 1-hour passive-leach process. Sixteen 
leachates were each split into aliquots and sent to LANL and LLNL for independent spiking, 
AgCl precipitation, and target preparation. All AgCl targets were then analyzed at LLNL. All 
samples had small chloride concentrations, ranging from 0.069 mg/kg rock to 0.372 mg/kg rock 
(Table 4-18). The duplicates of the 14 analyses that were run successfully had similar chloride 
concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios, with no indications of inter-laboratory biases (Figure 4-30). 

The duplicate analyses were used to evaluate the analytical reproducibility of 36Cl/Cl 
measurements. In addition to in-run statistics, analytical uncertainties include estimates of 
external precision obtained by duplicate analyses of the same material. Therefore, the external 
error to be added to the total analytical uncertainties is estimated from the 14 duplicate analyses 
given in Table 4-18. The standard deviation was determined from the duplicate pairs following 
the equation given by Youden (1951, p. 16): 

S(RLLNL - RLANL )2 

Standard deviation =

 (Eq. 1) 

2n 

where RLLNL and RLANL are the 36Cl/Cl ratios obtained from the LLNL and LANL preparations, 
respectively, and n is the number of duplicate pairs (as well as the number of degrees of 
freedom). The resulting value of 48  10-15 is an appropriate estimate for the absolute 1s 
external error of a typical 36Cl/Cl measurement. This external error was propagated with the 
error from other sources to obtain the final estimate of 2s analytical uncertainty for each 
measurement of the USGS-LLNL 36Cl/Cl data (Table 4-9). 

A similar comparison of results was made on splits of six Batch #2 leachates prepared at the 
USGS and analyzed at LLNL-CAMS and LANL-PRIME Lab (Tables 4-9 and 4-12). Chloride 
concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios determined for the duplicate splits are in general agreement, 
although they exhibit larger deviations than the Batch 1 results obtained from a single AMS 
facility. Chloride concentrations in Batch 2 samples ranged from 0.071 to 0.265 mg/kg rock for 
the LANL-PRIME Lab analyses (mean 0.140 0.078 mg/kg rock, 1s) and 0.087 to 0.333 mg/kg 
rock for LLNL-CAMS analyses (mean 0.171 0.089 mg/kg rock). Measured 36Cl/Cl ratios range 
from 180  10-15 to 640  10-15 for LANL-PRIME Lab analyses (mean 361 177  10-15, 1s) and 
from 294  10-15 to 615  10-15 for LLNL analyses (mean 442 132  10-15, 1s). Standard 
deviation (1s external error) for 36Cl/Cl ratios in this set of six duplicate pairs obtained by two 
different laboratories is 125  10-15, or about 2.5 times larger than the comparison of duplicate 
pairs made for analyses conducted at LLNL-CAMS. This estimate for external error was not 
incorporated into individual analyses because of the smaller number of analyses used for the 
comparison and because direct comparisons of USGS-LLNL and LANL-PRIME Lab validation 
study data were made only on leachates from Niche #1, which were all analyzed at the 
LLNL-CAMS facility. 


Chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl analyses of passive 1-hour leachates prepared at the USGS 
and sent to LLNL and LANL for AgCl precipitation and analysis commonly agree within 
analytical uncertainty (squares and circles in Figure 4-28). The two groups of analyses show no 
systematic differences in 36Cl/Cl ratios ranging from 163  10-15 to 721  10-15 (Figure 4-31). 
The difference between the mean 36Cl/Cl ratio for the 20 leachates sent to LANL for processing 
(307  10-15) and the mean ratio for 40 leachates sent to LLNL (360  10-15) is not statistically 
significant at the 95 percent confidence level. The LANL results also include 36Cl/Cl 
measurements made at both LLNL-CAMS and PRIME Lab. The agreement between36Cl/Cl 
values obtained by both laboratories on separate aliquots of the same leachates indicates that the 
process of AgCl target preparation and AMS isotope analysis does not cause significant 
differences in 36Cl results. 

4.6.5 LANL Data from the ECRB Cross Drift 

A considerable body of 36Cl data has been collected for previous studies of the ECRB Cross Drift 
(Table 4-17). Leaching time for the previously analyzed samples was typically 48 hours, and 
particle size was between 2 and 20 mm. Results from these previous studies are compared in 
Figure 4-32 with results from the validation study. Both data sets agree for samples between 
stations 0+77 and 20+00 and most values range between 500  10-15 and 1,000  10-15 . This 
range includes samples that were processed using different leaching times. Each data set 
contains at least one sample with a 36Cl/Cl ratio greater than 1,250  10-15 (beyond ECRB Cross 
Drift station 21+00), which is interpreted to represent a bomb-pulse signal. In all cases, for both 
data sets, samples with bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl ratios were collected from faults. These data are 
interpreted by LANL to support previous hypotheses (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Section 9.3; 
Campbell et al. 2003, Section 9) that faults are conduits for rapid flow (less than 50 years to 
depths of about 300 m) of meteoric water from the surface to the depths of the ECRB Cross 
Drift. 

Sample EXD-059 (Table 4-12) yielded a 36Cl/Cl value of 1,309 114  10-15 . This value is 
slightly larger than the lower cutoff value (1,250  10-15) used to detect bomb-pulse 36Cl 
(Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Section 4.2.4) and is therefore used to indicate the presence of 
bomb-pulse 36Cl in this sample. Values between 412  10-15 and 671  10-15 are interpreted to 
indicate that the chloride was derived predominantly from meteoric salts deposited in the past 
10 ka (but not in the past approximately 60 years). One sample (EXD-066), has an anomalously 
small 36Cl/Cl value of 161 22  10-15 and an anomalously large chloride concentration of 

3.59 
mg/kg; larger than any other leachates analyzed at LANL for this study by more than a 
factor of two. It is likely that this small 36Cl/Cl ratio is due to dilution of a meteoric signal by 
rock chloride. 
4.6.6 
Comparison of Validation Study Data with Previous Chlorine-36 Data 

4.6.6.1 Sundance Fault Zone 

Thirty-four analyses of samples of Niche #1 core and samples from the Sundance fault zone 
between ESF stations 34+28 and 37+00 were reported as part of the previous studies 
(Appendix A). Chloride concentrations in these 48-hour leachates are larger, on average (mean 
of 0.55 mg/kg rock), than those obtained for the 1-hour leachates obtained during the validation 


study (mean of 0.141 mg/kg rock) (Figure 4-33A). This result is consistent with the general 
relations between leach duration and chloride concentration. The larger chloride concentrations 
from earlier LANL results show a wide range of 36Cl/Cl values from 388  10-15 to 4,105  10-15 
(Figure 4-33B). LANL results obtained during Phase I for seven validation study core samples 
(Table 4-2) are within this range, but show no bomb-pulse values. These 36Cl/Cl ratios have only 
a limited overlap at their lower end, with the much smaller values obtained from the 36Cl 
validation study samples analyzed by USGS-LLNL during Phase III (Figure 4-33B). The 
differences in 36Cl/Cl ratios between these two data sets are inconsistent with an interpretation 
that smaller ratios are caused by greater contributions from rock chloride. It would have been 
expected that the longer leaching times used for LANL samples would have diluted a bomb-
pulse signal with chloride from older meteoric salts and/or rock chloride with small 36Cl/Cl 
ratios. This type of mixing relation is shown by the LANL Sundance fault zone data set 
(Figure 4-34) as a negative correlation between 36Cl/Cl ratios and chloride concentrations (that 
is, larger 36Cl/Cl ratios are present in leachates with the smallest chloride concentrations, 
resulting in a positive correlation with reciprocal chloride values). In contrast, USGS-LLNL 
leachates have a wide range of chloride concentrations, but show no correlation between 36Cl/Cl 
ratios and reciprocal chloride concentrations, resulting in the horizontal trend in Figure 4-34. 
Low chloride concentrations in 1-hour leachates should be particularly susceptible to 
contributions of rock chloride or other sources of potential low 36Cl contamination. However, 
the 36Cl/Cl ratios in these leachates remain more-or-less uniformly small despite the 
order-of-magnitude variation in chloride concentrations. 

4.6.6.2 Southern Exploratory Studies Facility 

Additional evidence that contamination from a low-36Cl/Cl source is not the cause for the smaller 
36Cl/Cl ratios observed in USGS-LLNL leachates is their similarity with data obtained for 
samples from the southern ESF. LANLs analysis of 125 leachates from ESF stations 45+78 to 
78+50 (Appendix A) show large chloride concentrations, ranging from 0.3 to 11.5 mg/kg rock 
(Figure 4-35A). The variability of chloride concentrations increases with distance (Figure 2-1A) 
along the southern ESF, including the south ramp. These data define a triangular field, with the 
maximum chloride concentrations increasing toward the south portal (Figure 2-1A). 36Cl/Cl 
ratios in these samples range from 140  10-15 to 1,117  10-15 (Figure 4-35B). These data have 
a median 36Cl/Cl value of 467  10-15 and a mean value of 480  10-15 . Chloride concentrations 
in USGS-LLNL leachates are systematically lower than, and only partly overlap, the smallest 
values for LANL leachates from southern ESF samples (Figure 4-35A). Chlorine isotope data 
from USGS-LLNL leachates overlap most of the range observed for southern ESF samples 
(Figure 4-35B). However, the distribution of USGS-LLNL 36Cl/Cl values is shifted toward the 
lower side of the LANL southern ESF data set. The 40 analyses constituting the USGS-LLNL 
data set have a mean 36Cl/Cl value of 337  10-15, which is statistically different from the LANL 
mean value of 480  10-15 at greater than 99 percent confidence level. 

4.6.7 Comparison of USGS-LLNL Niche #1 Data and LANL-LLNL Niche #1 Data 

36Cl/Cl ratios are significantly different for samples of Niche #1 core separately prepared and 
leached at the USGS and LANL. Although samples were not homogenized prior to splitting 
between the two facilities, alternating intervals were selected to minimize sampling differences 
(Figure 3-7). Six samples of the 2- to 19-mm size fraction crushed and leached at the USGS and 


analyzed at LLNL have a mean 36Cl/Cl value of 412  10-15 (open circles in Figure 4-28). LANL 
crushed and leached two size fractions of Niche #1 core which were analyzed at LLNL. Five 
samples of coarser material (6.3 to 12.5 mm) have a mean value of 1,616  10-15 
(Niche 1-RCR-1A, Niche 1-RCR-2, Niche 1-RCR-3, Niche 2-RCR-1, Niche LT-RCR-1A in 
Table 4-12, and red triangles in Figure 4-28). Leachates of the finer fractions (less than 6.3 mm) 
have significantly larger chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios than leachates of the coarser 
fractions of the same material, including the largest 36Cl/Cl ratio (8,558  10-15) yet reported for 
ESF samples (Niche 1-RCR-1B and Niche LT-RCR-1B in Table 4-12). The large 36Cl/Cl ratios 
in the new LANL analyses are consistent with previous LANL results (CRWMS M&O 1998, 
Table 3-4), but the relation between the largest 36Cl/Cl ratios and the largest chloride 
concentrations differs from previous LANL results for tunnel-wall samples. Finally, one sample 
crushed and homogenized at LANL and sent to the USGS for leaching yielded comparable36Cl/Cl ratios between the two laboratories (1,016  10-15 and 1,163  10-15 for the two LANL 
analyses and 1,181  10-15 for the single USGS-LLNL composite sample). This elevated 36Cl/Cl 
ratio represents the largest value obtained in the USGS-LLNL data set and indicates that the 
USGS leaching process captured elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios present in the sample. 

Comparisons of the new Niche #1 results are important because they are independent of other 
factors that complicate direct comparisons of validation study results with previous results. The 
Niche #1 data are exclusively from core samples, eliminating the possibility that bomb-pulse 
measurements are unique to features observed on tunnel walls. Also, the new Niche #1 samples 
processed by USGS-LLNL and LANL-LLNL are more-or-less evenly distributed among the 
same three boreholes to achieve the goal of having equivalent material analyzed by both 
laboratories. Processing and analysis of the new Niche #1 samples was also nearly identical at 
both laboratories. 


5. TRITIUM MEASUREMENTS 

Tritium (3H) has a half-life of 12.33 years and is produced mainly through the bombardment of 
nitrogen atoms with neutrons in the upper atmosphere (Solomon and Cook 2000, p. 397). This 
cosmogenic 3H combines with oxygen to form water that enters the hydrologic system as 
precipitation. Levels of cosmogenic 3H vary with latitude due to the shielding effects of the 
geomagnetic field from 3 to 6 TU for Europe and North America to approximately 15 TU for 
coastal Antarctic snow (Solomon and Cook 2000, p. 398). Beginning in 1952, concentrations of3H in the atmosphere began to increase due to nuclear weapons testing and reached peak values 
in 1962 and 1963 (Plummer et al., 1993, p. 258). Atmospheric 3H concentrations have declined 
steadily since above-ground nuclear weapons testing ended in 1963, although small amounts of 
anthropogenic 3H continue to be produced at nuclear power plants and processing facilities. 
Present-day 3H values of precipitation at Yucca Mountain are not well constrained. Water from 
a perched spring near Yucca Mountain contains 6.30.4 TU, and this value is assumed to be 
close to that of present-day precipitation (Striegl et al. 1998, Table 3, p. 12-13). 

5.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF TRITIUM IN CORE SAMPLES FROM THE YUCCA 
MOUNTAIN UNSATURATED ZONE 

Pore water in the UZ at Yucca Mountain could be composed of mixtures of pre-bomb-pulse 
water and modern water. Modern water is defined by Clark and Fritz (1997, p. 172) as water 
that was recharged since the inception of nuclear testing (i.e., since 1952). Modern water may 
include bomb-pulse water and recent recharge. Water that entered the UZ immediately before 
1952 (containing about 6 TU, similar to present-day precipitation), and remained isolated from 
the atmosphere would, at present, contain approximately 0.4 TU. In contrast, water with 
thousands of TU recharged to the UZ between 1962 and 1963 would presently contain hundreds 
of TU. A threshold value must be established to distinguish between modern water and pre-
bomb-pulse water whose 3H values may have been modified by sampling, extraction, and/or 
analytical errors. This threshold should not result in false positive values, which were a concern 
of the 36Cl Peer Review Team in suggesting 3H as a corroborating bomb-pulse isotope (YMP, 
1998, Section 3.6.2). Threshold values used in interpreting the 3H data are described in 
Section 5.4. 

Low-level concentrations of 3H in small-volume pore water samples are not easy to interpret. As 
Lehmann et al. (1993, p. 2034) state in their discussion of atmospheric and subsurface sources of 
radionuclides in ground water, One of the most vexing problems related to 3H is the apparent 
evidence of small amounts of young water at great depths in water which should have been 
isolated from the atmosphere for thousands of years. They note four possible explanations for 
the presence of 3H in otherwise old water: (1) sample contamination by younger water during 
collection; (2) movement of young water to depth along fast pathways; (3) subsurface 
production; and (4) contamination during analysis, such as from exposure to tritiated exit signs 
or illuminated watches. In addition, circulation of water-saturated air through the UZ at Yucca 
Mountain is a possible mechanism for introducing young water to large depths in the mountain. 
Such vapor-phase transport of 3H in alluvium at relatively shallow depths has been well 
documented at a low-level waste disposal site near Yucca Mountain (Striegl et al. 1998, p. 1). 


The possibility of contamination during sample collection is difficult to evaluate but must be 
considered, at least at a low level. During and following excavation, tunnel walls in the ESF and 
ECRB Cross Drift were repeatedly washed with construction water that was obtained from well 
UE-25 J-13. Water from this well has a 3H concentration of less than 0.3 TU 
(DTN: GS040108312232.001 [Q]). This construction water was tagged with lithium bromide 
(LiBr) at concentrations typically between 18 and 22 mg/L, but not exceeding 30 mg/L. 
Evaporation of the construction water on the surface of the tunnel walls and from within the rock 
next to the walls would leave LiBr as a salt. The absence of measurable Br-1 in leachates of 
validation study core samples (Table 4-13), some from depths as shallow as 0.4 to 0.6 m, 
indicates that construction water is not an important contaminant of pore water samples, and 
therefore not of concern in determining their 3H content. 

Core from which water for 3H measurements was extracted was obtained by a dry drilling 
technique in which compressed air was used to remove cuttings and to cool the drill bit. No 
measurements of the moisture content of the dried air are available, nor is it known what 
volume of air was used per meter of drill advance. Contamination of pore water extracted from 
core with atmospheric 14CO2 has been documented by Yang (2002, Section 4.1.2). Some level 
of 3H contamination is therefore possible, but this level is not known. The maximum effect of 
drilling contamination or natural deep atmospheric circulation of saturated air would be the 
complete replacement of the native pore water with modern water that has a 3H concentration of 
approximately 6.3 TU. This is not the case for most of the samples. 

In situ production of 3H within the rock mass occurs primarily through a neutron-induced 
reaction with 6Li (Andrews and Kay, 1982, p. 361). Calculations using average crustal rock 
compositions indicate that 3H generated from subsurface production should contribute less than 

0.2 TU to ground water (Lehmann et al., 1993, p. 2034). 

5.2 METHODS 

Water for 3H analyses was extracted from the 50 validation study core samples and core samples 
from other boreholes in the ESF and ECRB Cross Drift (Figure 1-1; Appendix B). Samples from 
the north ramp included 11 samples of TCw and rocks younger than the TCw from boreholes in 
Alcove #2 that intersect the Bow Ridge fault, three samples of PTn from the north ramp moisture 
study boreholes, and 10 samples of TSw from the validation study boreholes in the Drill Hole 
Wash fault zone. From the ESF main drift, 42 samples from the 40 validation study boreholes 
associated with the Sundance fault, 10 samples from the northern Ghost Dance fault zone 
(Alcove #6), and five samples from the southern Ghost Dance fault zone (Alcove #7) were used 
for water extraction. Twenty-three samples of TCw, PTn, and TSw were collected from the 
south ramp moisture study boreholes between stations 59+65 and 75+10. In addition, 22 pore 
water samples from 19 boreholes between stations 6+00 and 25+00 in the TSw in the ECRB 
were analyzed. 

All boreholes were dry drilled, using compressed air. Core was video-logged and wrapped in 
plastic film, inserted into Lexan tubing with caps taped onto each end, and sealed in 
ProtecCore packages. Where possible, core for 3H analysis was selected from the deepest 
parts of the borehole to minimize the effects of dry-out and construction water contamination. 


Core was shipped and stored under refrigerated conditions until samples were ready for 
processing. 

Pore water was extracted from the core samples by vacuum distillation (Yang et al. 1998, 
pp. 25-27). Water volumes ranged from 39 to 169 mL per sample. Samples from Alcove #2 
were processed and analyzed at the USGS YMPB laboratory in Denver using a low-energy beta-
counting technique with a detection limit of about 25 TU. Other samples were sent to the 
University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Tritium Laboratory 
for low-level analysis. Details of the analytical procedure are given by Ostlund (1987, pp. 810). 
Pore water samples with low-level 3H concentrations were processed using an electrolytic 
enrichment step in which 3H concentrations are increased about 60-fold through volume 
reduction. Tritium activities were measured by internal gas proportional counting of hydrogen 
(H2) gas made from the water samples. Accuracy of the low-level measurement with enrichment 
for a 1-liter sample is 0.10 TU (0.3 pCi L-1 of H2O), or 3.5 percent, whichever is greater 
(http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/tritium/). For smaller samples, accuracy is estimated to be 

1.0 
TU, or 10 percent for 50 mL samples, and 0.4 TU, or 10 percent for 100 mL samples 
(Happell 2005). The 2s uncertainties given for the 3H values include only counting uncertainties 
assigned by the laboratory and do not include a 1s external error of 0.36 TU determined from 
replicate analyses of standards. 
Multiple aliquots of five water standards with known 3H concentrations ranging between 0 and 

2.15 
TU were analyzed (Table 5-1). In general, the mean 3H concentrations obtained for each 
standard are in good agreement with the accepted values. Standard deviations obtained for these 
replicate measurements are similar to or slightly larger than the reported analytical errors, based 
on counting statistics alone. 

5.3 RESULTS 

5.3.1 Tritium in Validation Study Core Samples 

Pore water extracted from validation study core across the Drill Hole Wash fault zone and 
Sundance fault zone had 3H concentrations ranging from less than 0.1 to 2.61.0 TU (Figure 5-1 
and Table 5-2). Most analyses have large uncertainties due to the small sample volumes. 
Collectively, 3H concentrations define a skewed distribution (Figure 5-2), with a median value of 

0.40 TU and a geometric mean of 0.41 TU. One sample from the Sundance fault zone (ESF-SD-
ClV#18, 12.3 to 13.3 ft [3.75 to 4.05 m]) had a 3H concentration of 2.6 1.0 TU, but a sample 
from an adjacent interval in the same borehole (10.9 to 11.8 ft [3.32 to 3.6 m]) had a smaller 3H 
value of 1.4 1.6 TU. 

5.3.2 Tritium in Other Core Samples from the Exploratory Studies Facility 

Pore water extracted from core sampled elsewhere in the ESF shows a wider range of 3H 
concentrations than pore water extracted from the validation study core (Table 5-3). Eight of 11 
core samples from Alcove #2 (30 m below the surface), which intersects the highly fractured 
Bow Ridge fault zone, have 3H concentrations ranging from 28.8 8.4 TU to 155 11 TU. These 
3H concentrations, which are larger than the detection limit of about 25 TU for this data set, are 
compelling evidence for the presence of bomb-pulse 3H in the shallow subsurface. Elevated 3H 


concentrations in these samples correlate with elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios observed in samples 
associated with the Bow Ridge fault zone, exposed nearby in the ESF tunnel walls 
(Appendix A). 

Pore water in 7 core samples of PTn from the north ramp moisture study boreholes between 
stations 7+70 and 10+69 has 3H concentrations ranging from less than 0.1 TU to about 0.8 TU 
(Table 5-3). Eighteen analyses of pore water from core samples from the northern Ghost Dance 
fault zone (Alcove #6) have 3H concentrations between 0.3 0.8 TU and 2.2 1.2 TU 
(Figure 5-3). Samples with elevated 3H concentrations are common in the southern part of the 
ESF. Pore water from five core samples of TSw from borehole ESF-SAD-GTB#1 drilled in 
Alcove #7 has 3H concentrations between 1.1 0.6 TU and 3.7 1.4 TU (Table 5-3). Samples 
from the south ramp of the ESF between stations 59+65 and 75+10 typically have elevated 3H. 
Concentrations of 3H in 28 samples, primarily from several exposures of faulted PTn, have a 
distribution that is skewed toward large values (Figure 5-4). Elevated 3H concentrations also are 
present in the welded tuffs above and below the PTn (Figure 5-5, Source: Modified from 
USBR 1997). Four of the south ramp samples have 3H concentrations (8.2 1.0, 12.5 1.2, 

14.3 2.0, and 28.6 3.6 TU) that are above the 6 TU value for present-day precipitation (Striegl 
et al. 1998, Table 3, p. 12-13). 

5.3.3 Tritium in Core Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift 

Tritium concentrations in pore water samples from welded TSw in the ECRB Cross Drift 
(Table 5-4 and Figure 5-6) are larger than in those from the ESF (Table 5-3 and Figure 5-3). The 
frequency distribution of 3H values is skewed toward values as large as 10.3 1.8 TU, well above 
the modern atmospheric value of 6.3 TU (Figure 5-7). No samples were obtained from the 
immediate vicinity of the Sundance fault, located approximately at ECRB Cross Drift 
station 11+35; however, samples closest to the fault (stations 10+00, 12+00, and 13+00) had low3H values. The samples closest to the Solitario Canyon fault, collected at ECRB Cross Drift 
station 25+00, also had small 3H concentrations. Samples with elevated 3H concentrations are 
scattered throughout the ECRB Cross Drift and are not known to be associated with major faults. 

The USGS made several attempts to replicate elevated 3H concentrations observed in initial pore 
water extractions from boreholes ECRB-SYS-CS1500 and ECRB-SYS-CS2150. The work 
yielded mixed results (Table 5-4). The sample containing the largest 3H concentration 
determined in the first set of analyses from 5.5 to 6.7 ft (1.67 to 2.04 m) in borehole 
ECRB-SYS-CS2150 had a 3H value of 9.8 1.0 TU. A 3H measurement from core between 3.4 
and 4.1 ft (1.04 and 1.25 m) in the same borehole yielded a value of less than 0.1 TU. The 
second largest 3H concentration measured in the first set of analyses was from 14.4 to 17.4 ft 

(4.39 to 5.30 m) in borehole ECRB-SYS-CS1500, with a 3H concentration of 2.5 0.8 TU. 
Subsequent analyses of pore water from different intervals of core (4.3 to 7.1 ft [1.31 to 2.16 m] 
and 9.5 to 12.1 ft [2.90 to 3.69 m]) from the same borehole yielded 3H concentrations of 

10.3 1.8 TU and 1.5 0.8 TU, respectively. The difficulty in replicating these large values is 
not understood. 


5.4 THRESHOLD VALUES FOR DETECTING MODERN WATER 

As noted in Section 5.1, a major challenge in using 3H to detect modern water in the UZ is the 
establishment of a realistic threshold value that will minimize false positive values. This 
problem is not unique to the use of 3H in hydrology and applies to a number of geochemical 
problems where the analyte of interest occurs at low concentrations, close to the method 
detection limits. In the following paragraphs, two alternative approaches are given for 
establishing the threshold value for 3H. 

5.4.1 USGS Establishment of a Threshold for Identifying Modern Water 

To establish a realistic threshold value for interpreting measured 3H values as indicators of 
modern water, the USGS first evaluated the limitations of the analytical method. The USEPA 
has a procedure for determining the method detection limit (MDL). A brief description of the 
procedure and its application to the 36Cl data was discussed in Section 4.6.3. Assuming the 
detection limit for low-level analysis of 3H in small (about 100 mL) water samples is about 

0.4 
TU (Happell 2005), replicate analyses of standards with 3H concentrations of 1.31, 1.75, and 
1.81 
TU (Table 5-1) are suitable for evaluating the variability of the results at low levels. For 
this calculation, the USGS pooled the replicate analyses of the standards (Table 5-1) and 
calculated a standard deviation following Youden (1951, p. 16). The pooled standard deviation 
for these three sets of analyses (n=16, degrees of freedom=13) is 0.36 and the calculated MDL is 

1.0 TU. The F-test (Youden 1951, p. 29-32) shows that the standard deviations for the data from 
three sets of standards are equal at the 95 percent confidence level. This pooling also is valid 
because the standard deviation is not a function of the concentration in the range of 0 to 2.0 TU, 
as is evident from the counting errors reported for real samples with 3H values that are within 
this range of concentrations (i.e., the errors are not systematically larger for larger values). 
Values below 1.0 TU should be considered statistically indistinguishable from zero at the 
99 percent confidence level and should not be interpreted as real 3H concentrations. 

The USEPA states that, It is essential that all sample-processing steps of the analytical method 
be included in the determination of the method detection limit (40 CFR 136, 2004, Appendix B, 

p. 317). Because the effects of drilling and water extraction methods were not evaluated for the 
validation study, this value of MDL=1.0 TU may be an overly optimistic estimate. The USGS 
(Childress et al. 1999, p. 6) proposed a long-term method detection level (LT-MDL) that would 
incorporate additional measurement variability derived from multiple instruments, operators, 
calibrations, and sample preparation events. A larger number of duplicates, at least 24 per year, 
is required for calculation of the LT-MDL. Neither the MDL nor the LT-MDL addresses the 
issue of reporting levels, as pointed out by Childress et al. (1999, p. 7), and both limits lead to a 
50 percent probability of false negative values. Childress et al. (1999, p. 7) further discuss 
various reporting levels that have been used, which are 5 to 10 times the MDL, and they cite 
USEPAs use of minimum level of quantitation (ML), which is 3.18 times the MDL for n=7 
replicates. 

Childress et al. (1999, p. 8) devised the laboratory reporting level (LRL) to limit the rate of false 
negative values to 1 percent or less. The LRL is defined as twice the LT-MDL. Using the 
USGS-calculated MDL of 1.0 TU as an approximate representation of the USGS LT-MDL, the 
LRL for the 3H data set is 2.0 TU. Analyses with concentrations between 1.0 and 2.0 TU should 


be reported as estimates because detection in this region should have a =1 percent probability of 
being a false positive value. The USGS considers the LRL of 2.0 TU to be a reliable threshold 
value for the 3H measurements. The statistical approach discussed below further supports the 
use of this 2.0 TU threshold value. 

The statistical approach that was used to estimate a threshold for bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl values 
(Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, Section 4.2.4) also was used to establish an independent threshold 
for 3H in pore water extracted from ESF and ECRB Cross Drift core samples. The USGS 
applied this approach to the 3H analyses contained in Tables 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4. These analyses 
were ranked by increasing 3H concentration, and cumulative averages and standard deviations 
were calculated at each added value. The 11 samples with 3H concentrations reported as less 
than 0.1 TU were arbitrarily assigned concentrations between 0 and 0.1 in 0.01 increments to 
avoid standard deviations of zero. This artificial approach could cause the excursion of data 
above the curve on a plot (Figure 5-8) showing the number of standard deviations for each value 
from the cumulative mean. However, similar results are obtained if these 11 samples are 
excluded from the statistical analysis. The plot shows a relatively smooth curve for the first 108 
samples in the data set (Figure 5-8). Tritium concentrations for these samples are less than 

2.0 TU. After this ranking, the deviation of individual data points increases markedly, such that 
the probability of these values being that far from the cumulative mean of the ranked data set is 
less than 0.5 percent. The limit of 0.5 percent probability, known as Chauvenets criterion, 
establishes a boundary for values that are likely to lie outside a sample population that is 
normally distributed (Taylor 1982, Chapter 6.2). The threshold value of 2.0 TU established using 
Chauvenets criterion agrees with the threshold value using the USEPA MDL and USGS LRL 
methods. The 2.0 TU threshold minimizes the potential for obtaining false positive or false 
negative values. 

5.4.2 LANL Establishment of a Threshold for Identifying Modern Water 

As pointed out in Section 5.1, interpretation of low-level 3H concentrations in small-volume pore 
water samples is not straightforward. Complications may arise due to the fact that most 
environmental samples will be exposed to the atmosphere at some time(s) during their collection. 
Thus, it is difficult or impossible to completely rule out some contamination of samples. The 
statistical analyses of MDL and Chauvenets criterion presented in Section 5.4.1 are used to 
determine a threshold value that will minimize false positives. These analyses result in a 
threshold value of 2 TU, a value that is considerably larger (by a factor of about 10) than would 
be expected if only in situ-produced 3H were present, and a factor of 2 to 5 greater than the 
quoted analytical detection limit. The applicability of the statistical methods applied above in 
determining this threshold value is discussed below. 

Although methods to determine MDLs may vary, it is agreed that determination of an MDL 
requires rigorous analyses of many standards of appropriate concentrations. Tritium data 
reported herein were analyzed by the University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and 
Atmospheric Science Tritium Laboratory for low-level analysis, one of two laboratories used for 
3H analyses by the NWQL. They report a detection limit of 0.1 TU and a reportable accuracy 
and precision of 0.1 TU or 3.5 percent, whichever is larger, for 1-L samples. Most of the 
samples analyzed for this study are smaller, however, and therefore larger detection limits of 

0.4 TU for 100-mL samples and 1.0 TU for 50-mL samples are reported. 


The method to determine MDL, as applied in Section 5.4.1, has several requirements and 
assumptions, many of which are not satisfied in the analysis above, as follows. 

 
The data are assumed to have a normal distribution about a mean value. Although the 
available data do not show a normal distribution, their numbers are likely insufficient to 
prove or disprove such a distribution. 
 
The USEPA method calls for a minimum of seven analyses of the same standard; the 
method used by the NWQL requires at least 24 analyses per year. The maximum number 
of replicates of a single standard is seven (Table 5-1). Values from three standards were 
pooled to derive the MDL above (Section 5.4.1); however, the total number of analyses 
pooled is still below the minimum requirements of the NWQL. 
 
Choice of the appropriate standard concentrations to use for determination of MDLs is 
based on the assumption that at small concentrations, the standard deviation of the sample 
set will become constant at a small value because small differences in small instrument 
signals cannot be measured accurately. This is an important assumption for 
determination of the MDL. Standard deviations of the three sample sets used in Section 
5.4.1 are not constant, nor do they show a trend with sample size. As a result, they are 
overly large and result in an over-estimation of the MDL. 

 
Finally, the USEPA method recommends an iterative process by analyzing standards with 
increasingly smaller concentrations to ensure robustness of the method. This was not 
conducted in this study. 

The analysis to determine MDL, as described in Section 5.4.1, violates most of the basic 
requirements and assumptions of the method. The MDL of 1.0 TU determined by this analysis is 
not statistically robust and should be considered a qualitative assessment. 

Analysis using the NWQL, which is based on the USEPA method, is then used to arrive at a 
reliable threshold value for the 3H measurement of 2.0 TU. It should be reiterated, however, that 
values between the MDL and the LRL have a =1 percent probability of being a false positive 
value. Thus, values between 1.0 and 2.0 should be reported as detections. 

Chauvenets criterion is a simple test that can be used to identify data that may be considered as 
outliers of a normally distributed data set (Taylor 1982, Chapter 6.2). The use of Chauvenets 
criterion, however, is controversial and some scientists believe that data should never be 
rejected without external evidence that the measurement in question is incorrect (Taylor, 1982, 

p. 169). The use of Chauvenets criterion to evaluate potential outliers in the 3H data set and the 
implications of the interpretations based on this approach may not be appropriate. Potential 
problems with this approach fall into two categories: (1) whether or not use of this statistical 
approach is appropriate for such a data set, and (2) the interpretation of the results of the 
statistical analysis presented above is not unique. 

Chauvenets criterion for rejection is typically used on data sets for which the range in values is 
expected to be normally distributed around a single mean value. In this case, the method is 
applied to a set of unknowns, for which the individual data points are not likely to have a 


common mean value. Application of the method implicitly assumes that variability in the data 
due to hydrogeologic heterogeneity is small compared to other sources of spread in the data. 
This is an invalid assumption for these geologic samples. Infiltration at Yucca Mountain is 
predicted to be heterogeneous due to the fractured nature of the rocks. Tritium concentrations 
will reflect these heterogeneities, unless a sampling scheme is carefully designed and the number 
of samples is sufficient to reflect a true average value. The 3H data clearly reflect these 
heterogeneities. Many of these samples targeted features such as fault zones (e.g., the Bow 
Ridge fault zone, Ghost Dance fault zone), stratigraphic and/or hydrogeologic units (e.g., the 
Topopah Spring Tuff, PTn), or regions (e.g., the ESF south ramp). As expected, the data show a 
range in values from very small (equivalent to zero) to the largest values reported in this study 
(155 TU). 

Of the 3H data collected for this study, the data sets most likely to average natural hydrogeologic 
heterogeneities are the samples from the ECRB (Table 5-4) and the validation study core 
(Table 5-2). These data were obtained from cores that were drilled on regularly spaced intervals. 
Although the validation study boreholes were located near fault zones, it is reasonable to suggest 
that the random spacing of the boreholes could average geologic heterogeneities, and that this 
data set approximates a random sampling. On the basis of fracture density data it was expected 
that the validation study boreholes would intersect multiple fractures in the tuff (Section 3.1). 
Application of Chauvenets criterion to this subset of the data (Figure 5-9) presents a potentially 
different picture than that presented for the entire data set (Figure 5-8). Figure 5-9 shows two 
distinct jumps in the data that rise beyond Chauvenets criterion for outliers. The first of these 
jumps lies between 1.1 and 1.4 TU, values that differ from the 1.8 to 2.2 TU cutoff obtained 
when the entire data set is used (Figure 5-8). This analysis illustrates the point that a different 
result may be obtained when a different subset of the data is selected for statistical analysis. 

An alternate interpretation that unifies the 3H data with analytical and geologic information 
follows. As shown in Figures 5-2 and 5-7, the 3H data do not form a normal distribution. In all 
cases the data form distributions with maxima skewed to small values and long tails of larger 
values. However, data should form a normal distribution about a true composite detection limit. 
Reduced chi-squared tests performed on all of the data, and data from only the ECRB Cross Drift 
and validation study core samples, show best fits to normal distributions for data below 
approximately 1.2 TU. The mean for all data below 1.2 TU is 0.5 TU, with a standard deviation 
of 0.3. The mean and standard deviation for the ECRB Cross Drift and validation study core 
data are 0.4 and 0.3, respectively. These values also can be deduced by examination of 
histograms, which show maxima at these median values. These values are interpreted to indicate 
a composite 3H background that represents the sum of all small sources of 3H that may have 
entered the sample, either through natural processes or through sampling, processing, and 
analysis. This background value thus includes natural in situ 3H, possibly 3H derived from 
construction water and the natural circulation of modern water vapor, and all other sources of 3H 
contamination. These values lead to MDLs of 1.3 to 1.4 TU at the 99 percent confidence level. 
These values are larger than those assigned by the analytical facility, consistent with the fact that 
these samples have undergone more extensive processing than have the standards. This value is 
also in reasonable agreement with the MDL of 1.0 TU discussed above, but suggests a high 
probability that values above 1.4 TU are true quantifiable detections. As pointed out above, 
analyses with concentrations between 1.0 and 2.0 TU will have a greater than 99 percent 
probability of being a true positive value. 


5.5 INTERPRETATION OF THE TRITIUM MEASUREMENTS 

Any discussion of the significance of the 3H results is dependent on the estimation of the 
threshold value for the unambiguous detection of modern water described in Sections 5.4.1 and 

5.4.2. The following paragraphs reflect differences in the two interpretations of the data. 

5.5.1 USGS Interpretation of the Tritium Measurements 

Tritium values in Alcove #2 that are above the 25 TU detection limit (Section 2.2) indicate the 
presence of modern water associated with the Bow Ridge fault zone. Other locations of modern 
water include numerous sample sites along the south ramp of the ESF, the southern Ghost Dance 
fault zone (Alcove #7), and several locations along the ECRB Cross Drift. Slightly elevated 3H 
values are noted near the Sundance fault in the main ESF drift and near the northern Ghost 
Dance fault zone (Alcove #6). These values are marginally above the 2.0 TU threshold. 

Eight pore water samples from the ECRB Cross Drift have 3H values in excess of 2.0 TU. None 
of these locations is associated with known, through-going faults. This contrasts with 
observations in the ESF, where modern water occurrences are associated with faults or highly 
faulted zones, such as the south ramp. The lack of association of elevated 3H values with faults 
led to a concern by the USGS about the possibility of analytical problems that may have caused 
the larger 3H values. The attempt to replicate analyses by extracting water from adjacent 
intervals of core produced ambiguous results. At the present time, the USGS views the 3H 
values in this area as suggestive but not conclusive proof of the presence of modern water. 

5.5.2 LANL Interpretation of the Tritium Measurements 

Interpretation of 3H data obtained from low-level, small-volume samples is not straightforward. 
The problem is likely compounded for small-volume pore water samples as are presented here 
because of the more involved collection and processing schemes (e.g., drilling and water 
extraction) compared to saturated zone ground-water collection. Ideally, a composite 
background that incorporates the potential for higher than predicted analytical errors, as well as 
sample contamination, would have been rigorously determined. This campaign would involve 
analysis of a statistically sufficient number of standards of the appropriate composition that were 
subjected to all the same processing steps of the samples in all the same places. Such a 
campaign, which would be very difficult, time consuming, and costly, was not conducted. The 
robustness of the data was monitored through analysis of standards. Standards submitted along 
with the samples were of comparable volume and 3H concentration as a large number of samples. 
Data from 18 standards agree well with the accepted value, indicating that these small-volume, 
low-concentration standards can be analyzed accurately. Two samples of dead water (zero 3H) 
also were analyzed accurately. These data demonstrate that the standards were handled without 
introducing contamination. They also demonstrate the robustness of the analytical techniques for 
small volume samples with small 3H concentrations. 

Although the data from the standards do not indicate analytical or contamination problems, they 
did not undergo the same sampling and extraction procedures as the samples. The actual 
samples will likely reflect increased analytical errors and are more susceptible to contamination 
when compared to the standards. The large number and skewed distribution of analyses below 


the detection limit of 0.4 for samples less than 100-mL and 1.0 for samples less than 50 mL 
indicate that many of the samples were processed without substantial contamination. 

On the basis of arguments presented above, the following guidelines for interpretation of the 3H 
data are suggested. These guidelines are designed to not over-interpret potential false positives, 
while at the same time to not eliminate possibly important and accurate 3H detections. Samples 
with 3H concentrations greater than 1.4 TU should be considered as having a greater than 
99 percent probability of being a detection above a composite background value of 
approximately 0.5 TU, and thus indicate the presence of a component of modern water. The 
presence of modern water in samples with 3H values between 0.5 and 1.4 TU is equivocal, but 
should be considered a possibility, especially for samples greater than 1.1 TU, which have a 

97.7 percent probability of being a true detection. The presence of bomb-pulse water is indicated 
by 3H concentrations above 6 TU, the value assumed for modern precipitation (see Sections 5.0 
and 5.1). 

Given these guidelines, it is likely that modern water (Clark and Fritz 1997, p. 172) is present in 
the validation study core and ECRB tunnel samples in a number of locations. One sample with a 
value of 2.61.0 TU from the validation study core near the Sundance fault zone shows the 
presence of modern water. The presence of modern water is suggested in four additional 
samples: two from the Sundance fault zone and two from the Drill Hole Wash fault zone. Most 
samples from Alcove #2, near the Bow Ridge fault, show the presence of bomb-pulse water. 
Five samples from the northern Ghost Dance fault zone (Alcove #6), with values between 
1.40.08 and 2.21.2 TU, show the presence of modern water. Two samples from borehole 
ESF-SAD-GTB#1, drilled in Alcove #7, with values of 1.81.4 and 2.30.6 TU, indicate the 
presence of modern water. The presence of modern water is widespread in the south ramp, with 
17 of 28 samples containing 3H concentrations greater than 1.5 TU; five of these are greater than 
6 TU. Modern water is also widely distributed in the ECRB. Eleven of 22 samples have 3H 
concentrations greater than 1.5 TU; five of these have concentrations greater than 6 TU, 
indicating the presence of bomb-pulse water. 


6. SUMMARY OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, REMAINING ISSUES, AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

6.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

The 36Cl validation study was conducted in three phases and involved the collection of new 
samples by drilling into the ESF tunnel walls so that 36Cl/Cl and 3H measurements could be 
made in areas where previous studies identified elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios. The results of the 
validation study are summarized as follows: 

 
Results from Phase I work conducted at LLNL indicated that active leaching abraded the 
rock samples and extracted too much rock chloride relative to meteoric chloride (36Cl/Cl 
ratios range from 47  10-15 to 248  10-15; all but one value are less than 156  10-15). 
 
Results from Phase I work conducted at LANL on validation core samples from the 
Sundance fault zone yielded 36Cl/Cl values consistent with analyses from previous LANL 
studies. 
 
Following a detailed series of leaching experiments in Phase II of the validation study, a 
1-hour passive leaching protocol was established for processing samples in Phase III of 
the study. The passive leaching process extracted less rock chloride relative to meteoric 
chloride. 
 
USGS-LLNL 36Cl/Cl values for Phase III leachates of 34 samples of core from validation 
study boreholes across an area that includes the Sundance fault zone range from 
137  10-15 to 615  10-15 . These contrast with values greater than 1250  10-15 reported 
previously for feature-based tunnel-wall samples in the same area (Figure 6-1). 
 
36Cl/Cl ratios for Phase III leachates of validation study core prepared at the USGS and 
processed separately at LLNL and LANL agree within analytical error (Figure 6-1). 
 
LLNL analyses of six Niche #1 core samples prepared at the USGS are statistically 
indistinguishable from validation study borehole data (36Cl/Cl ratios range from 
226  10-15 to 717  10-15). 
 
LLNL analyses of seven Niche #1 core samples prepared at LANL yielded bomb-pulse 
values that are comparable to previous LANL data (36Cl/Cl ratios range from 
1,016  10-15 to 8,558  10-15). 
 
One LANL validation study analysis and several previous LANL analyses of samples 
from the ECRB Cross Drift also have 36Cl/Cl ratios above the 1,250 10-15 bomb-pulse 
threshold. 
 
Tritium concentrations in pore water extracted from validation study core across the Drill 
Hole Wash fault zone and the Sundance fault zone range from less than 0.1 to 
2.61.0 TU. 


 
Tritium concentrations in pore water extracted from samples from areas of known 
faulting in the north ramp, south ramp, and Alcove #7 indicate the presence of modern 
water (i.e., water that entered the Yucca Mountain UZ after 1952). 
 
Tritium concentrations in pore water extracted from core samples from the ECRB Cross 
Drift range from less than 0.1 to 10.31.8 TU. 
 
The USGS and LANL established different 3H thresholds for identifying modern water. 
The USGS value is 2.0 TU and the LANL value is 1.4 TU. 

6.2 CONCLUSIONS 

The main conclusions of the validation study are as follows: 

 
USGS-LLNL did not find 36Cl/Cl ratios greater than 1,250 10-15 in samples from the 
Sundance fault zone comparable to values reported previously by LANL. 
 
New analyses by LANL-LLNL on Niche #1 core and ECRB Cross Drift tunnel-wall 
samples were consistent with results from previous LANL studies showing the presence 
of bomb-pulse 36Cl in the ESF and ECRB Cross Drift. Analyses of these core samples by 
USGS-LLNL did not produce comparable results. 
 
With one exception, 3H values in pore water from validation study core samples from the 
ESF do not exceed the USGS or LANL threshold values beyond the 2s error limits. 
Tritium values in pore water from two validation study core samples from the Drillhole 
Wash fault zone exceed the LANL threshold value of 1.4 TU. 
 
Regardless of whether the USGS or LANL threshold value is used, 3H analyses of 
samples from areas of known faulting in the ESF north ramp, south ramp, and Alcove #7 
indicate the presence of modern water. Several locations in the ECRB Cross Drift that 
are not associated with major faults may also contain modern water; however, several 
attempts to replicate elevated 3H values yielded ambiguous results. The difficulty in 
replicating these large values is not understood. 

6.3 REMAINING ISSUES 

6.3.1 Absence of Elevated Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in USGS-LLNL Measurements 

Small concentrations of chloride in USGS-LLNL leachates resulted in relatively large 
uncertainties in 36Cl/Cl ratios. Use of the passive-leach protocol with short (1 hour) leaching 
times resulted in small chloride concentrations. Despite the large uncertainties of 36Cl/Cl ratios 
in AMS measurements of leachates with small concentrations of chloride, the replicate analyses 
of leachates from rocks (as well as blanks) are consistent and are considered to be reliable. 
However, bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl ratios were not found using this technique. 

Thirty-four leachates from the validation study boreholes, plus leachates of core from existing 
Niche #1 boreholes, yielded a mean 36Cl/Cl ratio of 337 141 (1s)  10-15 and a maximum 36Cl 


ratio of 717 139  10-15 . This mean value contrasts with 19 of 34 LANL analyses (24 
tunnel-wall samples and 10 Niche #1 core samples), which have 36Cl/Cl ratios in excess of 1,250 
 10-15 and one value of 4,108  10-15 . The limited range of 36Cl/Cl ratios in the USGS-LLNL 
data over a wide range of chloride concentrations indicates that these data are not the result of 
mixing between distinct components with high and low 36Cl/Cl ratios. 

In addition to a lack of bomb-pulse 36Cl values, the 36Cl/Cl ratios determined by USGS-LLNL 
for samples from the Sundance fault zone are, on average, smaller than the Holocene value of 
about 500  10-15 . The USGS-LLNL results differ from the background LANL 36Cl/Cl values, 
which are higher than the Holocene value for northern ESF samples, but are closer to, although 
still statistically different from, the LANL values for southern ESF samples. 

Whether the differences between 36Cl/Cl ratios determined for the validation study and those 
determined for the previous studies can be ascribed to differences in sampling protocol is 
currently a matter of professional opinion. The justification for using a borehole strategy across 
a broad 36Cl anomaly was discussed in Section 3.1. As noted previously in this report, feature-
based samples obtained from the tunnel walls allow selection of sub-samples with a greater 
fracture surface area per mass unit of rock than do the core samples. However, the different 
results obtained by USGS-LLNL and LANL-LLNL for representative core samples from the 
Niche #1 boreholes demonstrate that other factors, such as laboratory contamination, also should 
be considered. 

6.3.2 Results for Niche #1 Core 

Leaching experiments showed that leachates of more finely crushed material contain larger 
chloride concentrations than those from the more coarsely crushed material and that particle size 
is more important than leach duration. The increase in surface area as particle size decreases 
allows a greater amount of rock chloride to be extracted, resulting in a negative correlation 
between chloride concentration and 36Cl/Cl ratio. This negative correlation is observed in data 
for leachates from the active-leach process. In contrast, validation study leachates of Niche #1 
core crushed and processed at LANL show the opposite trend. For the five samples of the 
coarsest material, 36Cl/Cl ratios are smallest in the two samples with the smallest chloride 
concentration. Leachates of the fines from both of these samples also were analyzed and yielded 
not only larger chloride concentrations, as expected, but also much larger 36Cl/Cl ratios, 
including the largest value reported for an ESF sample (8,558  10-15). These results are 
opposite of the conclusions of Lu et al. (2003), who stated that larger 36Cl/Cl ratios should be 
observed in leachates with smaller chloride concentrations from larger particle sizes. These 
contradictions show that the present understanding of chloride sources and mixing during 
leaching is inadequate. 

6.3.3 Spatial Distribution of Elevated Chlorine-36 Values and Tritium Values 

The USGS and LANL differ in their interpretations of the spatial distribution of elevated 36Cl/Cl 
ratios and 3H results, as described below. 


6.3.3.1 USGS Interpretation of the Spatial Distribution of Elevated Values 

The 36Cl Peer Review Team recommended that future studies include analyses of other bomb-
pulse indicators, in particular 3H. All of the 52 analyses of validation study core from the Drill 
Hole Wash fault zone and Sundance fault zone yielded 3H concentrations that were either less 
than the 2.0 TU background cutoff value or were indistinguishable within 2s analytical error. In 
contrast, the presence of modern water is indicated by elevated 3H concentrations in the south 
ramp. Some water samples have 3H concentrations that were substantially larger than modern 
atmospheric levels, indicating a bomb-pulse origin. The distribution of 3H in south ramp 
samples contrasts with the distribution of previously reported 36Cl/Cl analyses from the same 
area. A large number of tunnel-wall samples from the ESF south ramp did not contain 36Cl/Cl 
ratios with bomb-pulse values. In addition, samples from the northern ESF show bomb-pulse 
36Cl/Cl ratios, but 3H values below the threshold value of 2.0 TU. 

Similar differences between the location of elevated 3H and 36Cl/Cl values occur in the ECRB 
Cross Drift. Samples with elevated 36Cl/Cl ratios were obtained only from areas associated with 
the Solitario Canyon fault and an unnamed fault near ECRB Cross Drift station 22+37. Samples 
with elevated 3H concentrations, including two values indicative of a bomb-pulse origin, were 
scattered throughout the ECRB Cross Drift. In one case, samples within 4 m of each other 
contained a 3H concentration of 9.8 TU (sampled at ECRB Cross Drift station 21+49; Table 5-4), 
and a 36Cl/Cl ratio of 4,890  10-15 (sampled at ECRB Cross Drift station 21+54.5; Table 4-17). 
However, attempts to reproduce the 3H measurement from core in the same borehole resulted in 
a value of 0.1 TU. Analyses of adjacent tunnel-wall samples at stations 21+54 and 21+55 
(Table 4-17) had 36Cl/Cl values of 915  10-15 and 553  10-15, respectively. Additional samples 
at stations 22+50 and 25+00 (Table 5-4) had 3H concentrations below 1 TU. 3H measurements 
were not made for samples beyond station 25+00 in the area where multiple bomb-pulse 36Cl/Cl 
values were observed, because core was not available. 

6.3.3.2 LANL Interpretation of the Spatial Distribution of Elevated Values 

Interpretation of 3H data collected for this study relies heavily on interpretations of a threshold 
value, below which an analysis is not considered indicative of modern water (Section 5). If, as 
discussed in Section 5.4.2, a value of 1.4 TU is taken as a lower limit for quantifiable 3H values 
and some smaller values are accepted as possible indicators of modern water, then the 
comparison of the spatial differences between 3H and 36Cl changes substantially. Given these 
lower limits for 3H detections, modern water was detected in at least one (value of 2.61.0) and 
up to four (three 3H values between 1.4 and 1.6) of 52 samples of the validation study core. 
These core samples were collected at 5-m spaced intervals, a collection scheme similar to that 
used to collect systematic samples for previous LANL 36Cl studies. In these samples the 
occurrence of bomb-pulse 36Cl is two of the 54 samples. The occurrences of modern water based 
on 3H and 36Cl for systematically collected samples are therefore in reasonable agreement. 

Contrasting distributions of 3H and 36Cl ratios in the south ramp are readily attributable to the 
elevated chloride concentrations in pore water in this region. Elevated pore water chloride 
concentrations mask potential bomb-pulse signals through dilution (Lu et al. 2003), but do not 
affect 3H concentrations. 


Apparent differences between 3H and 36Cl distribution in the ECRB Cross Drift are difficult to 
evaluate because none of the samples were precisely collocated. Nonetheless, most 3H and 36Cl 
data from samples collocated within a few meters agree (i.e., 3H is below detection and 36Cl is 
less than 1200  10-15, both values indicating pre-bomb-pulse water). As stated above, the 
sample pair most closely collocated (4 m apart) shows the second largest 3H value (9.8 TU) and 
the largest 36Cl value (4890  10-15) measured in the ECRB Cross Drift. Of other samples with 
either a (but not both) 3H or 36Cl bomb-pulse signature, none is collocated closer than 12 m. 
Unfortunately, these two studies were conducted independently and thus did not emphasize 
collocation of samples. As a result, comparison of the spatial distribution of modern water 
deduced from 3H and 36Cl data is inconclusive. The data, however, are not contradictory, but 
rather suggest a rough correlation. 

6.3.4 Potential Contamination from Field and Laboratory Environments 

The USGS and LANL differ in their interpretations of the potential for contamination from field 
and laboratory environments, as described below. 

6.3.4.1 USGS Interpretation of the Potential for Contamination from Field and 
Laboratory Environments 

Contamination of USGS-LLNL leachates by sources with low 36Cl/Cl ratios or contamination of 
LANL leachates by sources with high 36Cl/Cl ratios could explain the differences in 36Cl/Cl 
ratios determined by USGS-LLNL and LANL. Analysis of laboratory blanks testing the amount 
and composition of chloride added during crushing, leaching, and target preparation by 
USGS-LLNL has not identified a source with consistently low 36Cl/Cl ratios (Sections 4.4.1 and 
4.6). Samples analyzed by USGS-LLNL included rock crushed and sieved at the SMF, the 
USGS, and Phillips Enterprises LLC of Golden, Colorado, by machine and by hand. Resulting36Cl/Cl ratios are similar regardless of where the sample was crushed. Therefore, contributions 
from a contaminant introduced during crushing would have to be similar at all three facilities and 
the same for both hand and machine crushing. Furthermore, the absence of a correlation 
between chloride concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios in the USGS-LLNL data seems to be 
inconsistent with mixing of multiple components with distinct compositions. 

Possible contamination of samples with large 36Cl/Cl ratios in field and laboratory environments 
has been evaluated. The very high 36Cl/Cl ratios measured in cuttings from a surface-based 
borehole (USW UZ-N55), with eight of 14 leachates having 36Cl/Cl ratios between 
10,480  10-15 and 27,040  10-15 (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1993, Table 2), were likely caused by 
drilling or sample collection using 36Cl-contaminated equipment (Fabryka-Martin and Liu 1995, 
Section 3.1.3; Fabryka-Martin, Turin et al. 1996, Sections 4.3.3 and 5.3.1). The presence of 
laboratory equipment contaminated with 36Cl also was mentioned in later LANL reports that 
presented results from ESF samples: Although this nuclide has been found to be present at 
unacceptably high levels in some laboratory equipment and rooms, these items and work 
environments are simply avoided for routine processing (Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. 
1996, p. 15). A particular piece of equipment is not used to prepare samples if an excessively 
high 36Cl level is measured in a blank prepared using it; for example, such was the case for a 
shatterbox that was being used to characterize the in situ halide and SO4 concentrations of 
Paintbrush Tuffs (Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997, p. 4-2). Details of the nature and extent of the 


36Cl contamination have not been presented. In each case, the authors indicate that 36Cl/Cl levels 
were monitored and that contamination was not at a level to cause concern (Fabryka-Martin, 
Wolfsberg et al. 1996, p. 15). 

Studies of 36Cl performed at other sites hosting nuclear activities have reported high blank 36Cl 
from laboratory processing. Background values for 36Cl/Cl as high as 1,000,000  10-15 were 
observed at the AECLs Chalk River Laboratories and were attributed to reactor and waste-
management operations (Andrews et al. 1994, Section 3.2). Although special care taken during 
handling and processing of samples allowed background 36Cl/Cl limits of 10-15 to be achieved for 
most types of samples, rock samples remained an exception, having about 10 times higher 
background levels (Andrews et al. 1994, Section 3.2). Determinations of 36Cl/Cl ratios at the 
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organizations Lucas Heights reactor facility also 
have identified 36Cl/Cl contamination up to 10,000  10-15 that was traced to neutron irradiation 
of 35Cl in the air circulated around the High Flux Australian Reactor (Bird et al. 1990, 
Section 2.2). High values of 36Cl/Cl (up to 24,000  10-15) also were observed in blanks stored in 
a desiccator for a 6-month period as well as in chloride extracted from the silica gel desiccant 
(Bird et al. 1990, Section 2.4). The authors attributed this contamination to vapor phase 
exchange of chloride. They further cite that samples with 36Cl/Cl ratios on the order of 10-11 
[tens of thousands  10-15] have also been observed in radiochemistry laboratories (citation 
credited to J. Fabryka-Martin, private communication, 1989 in Bird et al. 1990, Section 2.4 
and reference [10]). 

Potential sources of field contamination of tunnel walls have not been fully evaluated. 
Contaminated soils in Jackass Flats, within a few kilometers of the north portal, contain 36Cl/Cl 
ratios two orders of magnitude larger than bomb-pulse values in the ESF (Section 2.1.1). The 
ESF ventilation system continually intakes unfiltered outside air, which is distributed throughout 
the tunnel. The amount and source of exogenous dust brought into the tunnel is currently under 
investigation. Another source of chlorine contamination was recently discovered. The conveyor 
belt covers (CRWMS M&O 1995) contain approximately 10 percent chlorinated paraffin wax, 
which is 71.5 percent chlorine by weight (Skeggs 2005). 

6.3.4.2 LANL Interpretation of the Potential for Contamination from Field and 
Laboratory Environments 

Procedural blanks taken throughout the course of this study indicate that blank levels are small 
and do not affect the 36Cl/Cl ratios substantially, even for smallest sample sizes. In addition to 
the analytical data collected during this and previous studies by LANL, there are a number of 
additional reasons why it is unlikely that blanks are a cause of large 36Cl/Cl ratios in LANL 
samples including: 

 
Niche #1 core with the largest 36Cl/Cl ratios also has the largest chloride concentrations. 
Therefore it would take an extremely high 36Cl blank to account for these values. 
Furthermore, the largest measured 36Cl/Cl blank for samples analyzed at LANL during 
this study was 4,257  10-15, with most being considerably less (Table 4-16). This largest 
blank ratio is still considerably smaller than the maximum value of 8,558  10-15 for 
Niche #1 core (Table 4-12). Available data preclude blank 36Cl from being the reason for 
this large value. 


 
The data from Niche #1 follow a consistent pattern with the largest chloride 
concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios in the finest samples, smallest values in the coarsest 
fractions, and intermediate values for intermediate size fractions. This pattern is 
consistent for five separate samples, three of which did not undergo the same sieving 
sequence. It is difficult to imagine a mechanism by which the large blanks required by 
the sample size might manifest themselves in such a consistent fashion. 
 
Samples from the ESF and ECRB Cross Drift with bomb-pulse values are typically large; 
generally rock samples between 3 and 5 kg were processed. Leachate chloride 
concentrations are typically between 0.4 and 1.0 mg/kg (DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 
[UQ], LAJF831222AQ98.004 [Q]). A 4-kg sample with 0.5 mg/kg chloride 
concentration and a 36Cl/Cl ratio of 2000 will contain approximately 4  10-12 mg 36Cl. 
The mean 36Cl mass for 12 blanks reported by LANL is 1.6  10-14 mg (Table 4-16). 
Thus, a typical sample with a bomb-pulse signal contains 250 times more 36Cl than the 
mean blank. In order for a bomb-pulse measurement in a sample to be due solely to 
blank contamination, that blank value would have to be enormously high relative to 
measured values. Blanks in this study vary by a maximum of a factor of seven. 
 
Most samples with bomb-pulse values were found near structures; systematic samples 
rarely show bomb-pulse values, as discussed above (DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 [UQ], 
LAJF831222AQ98.004 [Q]). It is highly unlikely that anomalously elevated blanks 
would correlate with structures. 
 
The data for samples processed from the ECRB Cross Drift as part of this study 
(Table 4-17) compare well to those from previous studies (Appendix A), with both data 
sets containing bomb-pulse signals; values between 500  10-15 and 1,250  10-15 and 
values less than 500  10-15 . These data sets were generated by different personnel, 
working in different laboratories with different laboratory equipment, and processing 
samples by slightly different methods. Analyses were also performed by a different 
analytical facility. Thus, the two studies meet qualifications of an independent validation 
study. 
 
Bomb-pulse 36Cl values for samples collected at Yucca Mountain, including some from 
the deep subsurface, have been obtained by facilities other than LANL in investigations 
that have spanned 20 years. Table 3-1 outlines the sample processing history of Yucca 
Mountain Project 36Cl samples. The table corroborates arguments above that 36Cl 
contamination from laboratory processing is not responsible for bomb-pulse values 
observed in Yucca Mountain samples. 

6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 

The differences between 36Cl/Cl measurements obtained from previous 36Cl studies and the 36Cl 
validation study cannot be explained by presently available data. However, these data do point 
to areas where continued investigations may resolve many of the remaining issues outlined in 
Section 6.3. The following recommendations for further investigations include additional 
evaluations of existing work, additional analyses of blank materials and existing samples, and an 
independent validation study that incorporates the lessons learned, to date. 


6.4.1 Evaluation of Field Contamination 

The USGS and Bechtel SAIC Company (BSC) are collecting dust samples from various 
environments at Yucca Mountain, including dust in the ESF and ECRB Cross Drift. The 36Cl/Cl 
ratios in this dust should be determined. Further, the isotopic composition of chlorine in 
neoprene and other potential chlorine-bearing materials used in construction should be measured. 
If further samples for 3H measurements are collected by dry-drilling methods, sampling blanks 
should be designed, implemented, and monitored. For example, the 3H content of moisture in the 
compressed air should be determined and its effect on sampling evaluated. 

6.4.2 Evaluation of Laboratory Blanks 

All stages of sample processing should be fully controlled by adequate blank measurements. 
Long-term environmental exposure blanks could capture sporadic 36Cl contamination, if present. 
Also, crushing blanks remain a potential source of uncertainty in identifying possible 
contamination problems. Although it is difficult to evaluate crushing blanks, approaches such as 
those outlined in Section 4.4.1.2 would help document important aspects of sample processing 
that may have been unconstrained in the past. Better data on crushing blanks need to be 
collected using protocols that replicate previous handling and processing steps. Additional 3H 
measurements should be made to evaluate potential contamination during all stages of pore water 
extraction. One approach would involve imbibing 3H-free water under controlled conditions into 
the rock sample from which water was previously extracted. Re-extraction of water for 3H 
analyses would yield a laboratory process blank. 

6.4.3 Additional 36Cl/Cl Analyses of Validation Study Core and ECRB Cross Drift Core 

Validation study core used for pore water distillation and 3H analysis is archived at the USGS. 
Although the core was dried out during vacuum distillation, the process did not remove chloride. 
Therefore, this core is suitable for chloride extraction. Validation study core from the Sundance 
fault zone, Drill Hole Wash fault zone, and ECRB Cross Drift remaining after vacuum 
distillation should be split and leached using previous methods, with the exception of increasing 
sample sizes or leaching times to increase the total amount of chloride available for 36Cl/Cl 
analysis. This test should include handling and crushing processes to detect possible differences 
in 36Cl/Cl values from USGS-LLNL and LANL. In addition, splits of these samples should be 
sent to an independent laboratory with no history of 36Cl contamination. Also, 36Cl/Cl ratios 
should be re-analyzed in the ECRB Cross Drift samples where elevated 3H values were 
observed. 

6.4.4 Independent Validation Study Using New Samples 

Using existing samples, the experiments outlined above may provide sufficient insight to resolve 
the issue of whether or not bomb-pulse 36Cl is present at depth in the Yucca Mountain UZ. 
However, in the event these experiments do not provide conclusive evidence, it is recommended 
that a third party, without previous ties to either the USGS or LANL, should be assigned the task 
of designing an independent validation study that includes new sample collection. This effort 
would have the distinct advantage of evaluating the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the 
work completed to date. 


7. REFERENCES CITED 

7.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 

Andrews, H.R.; Koslowsky, V.T.; Cornett, R.J.J.; Davies, W.G.; Greiner, B.F.; Imahori, Y.; 
McKay, J.W.; Milton, G.M.; and Milton, J.C.D. 1994. "AMS Measurements of 36Cl at Chalk 
River." Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions 
with Materials and Atoms, 92, ([1-4]), 74-78. New York, New York: North-Holland. 
TIC: 254091. 

Andrews, J.N.; and Kay. R.L.F. 1982. Natural Production of Tritium in Permeable Rocks. 
Nature, 298, (22). New York, New York: Macmillan Journals Ltd. TIC: 257453. 

Bird, J.R.; Shahgholi, N.; Jenkinson, A.; Smith, A.; Fifield, L.K.; Ophel, T.; and Allan, G. 1990. 
"Problems of Contamination in 36Cl Studies." Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics 
Research B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 52, ([3-4]), 348-350. Amsterdam, The 
Netherlands: North-Holland. TIC: 254141. 

BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Technical Work Plan for: Performance Assessment 
Unsaturated Zone. TWP-NBS-HS-000003, Rev. 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20030102.0108. 

Campbell, K.; Wolfsberg, A.; Fabryka-Martin, J.; and Sweetkind, D. 2003. "Chlorine-36 Data at 
Yucca Mountain: Statistical Tests of Conceptual Models for Unsaturated-Zone Flow." Journal of 
Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 43-61. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254205. 

Childress, C.J. Oblinger; Foreman, W.T.; Connor, B.F.; and Maloney, T.J. 1999. New Reporting 
Procedures Based on Long-Term Method Detection Levels and Some Considerations for 
Interpretations of Water-Quality Data Provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 
Quality Laboratory. Open-File Report 99-193. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20050712.0406. 

Clark, I.D. and Fritz, P. 1997. Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology. Boca Raton, Florida: 
Lewis Publishers. TIC: 233503. 

Cohon, J.L. 2000. Appreciation for Presentations Made at the May Meeting of the Nuclear 
Waste Technical Review Board. Letter from J.L. Cohon (NWTRB) to I. Itkin (DOE/OCRWM), 
June 16, 2000. ACC: HQO.20010227.0090. 

Coleman, D. 2005. Cl-36 Comments. E-mail from D. Coleman to R. Jones and C. Madore, 
June 15, 2005. ACC: MOL.20050629.0278. 

CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and Operating 
Contractor) 1995. Transmittal of Shop Drawings, Equipment Data, Material Samples, or 
Manufacturers Certificates of Compliance (SDT) for Subsurface Conveyor Belt. Transmittal 
No. 2A-14-CLD490. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: DRC.19961218.0002. 


CRWMS M&O 1998. Evaluation of Flow and Transport Models of Yucca Mountain, Based on 
Chlorine-36 and Chloride Studies for FY98. BA0000000-01717-5700-00007, Rev. 00. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981208.0119. 

CRWMS M&O 2000. Analysis of Geochemical Data for the Unsaturated Zone. ANL-NBS-HS000017, 
Rev. 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000725.0453. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2001. Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report. 
DOE/RW-0539. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20010524.0272. 

DOE 2004. Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. DOE/RW-0333P, Rev. 16. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: MOL.20020819.0387. 

DOE 2002. Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report. DOE/RW-0539, Rev. 1. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: MOL.20020404.0042. 

Fabryka-Martin, J.T. and Liu, B. 1995. Distribution of Chlorine-36 in UZ-14, UZ-16, Perched 
Water, and the ESF North Ramp, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-CST-TIP-95-011, R2. Draft. Los 
Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19960415.0209. 

Fabryka-Martin, J.; Wightman, S.; Murphy, W.; Wickham, M.; Caffee, M.; Nimz, G.; Southon, 
J.; and Sharma, P. 1993. "Distribution of Chlorine-36 in the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca 
Mountain: An Indicator of Fast Transport Paths." Proceedings of the Topical Meeting on Site 
Characterization and Model Validation, FOCUS '93, September 26-29, 1993, Las Vegas, 
Nevada. Pages 58-68. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 102245. 

Fabryka-Martin, J.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Dixon, P.R.; Levy, S.; Musgrave, J.; and Turin, H.J. 1996. 

Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies: Sampling, Analysis and Simulation of Chlorine-36 in 
the Exploratory Studies Facility. Milestone 3783M. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos 
National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970103.0047. 

Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; Flint, A.L.; Sweetkind, D.S.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Levy, S.S.; Roemer, G.J.C.; 
Roach, J.L.; Wolfsberg, L.E.; and Duff, M.C. 1997. Evaluation of Flow and Transport Models of 
Yucca Mountain, Based on Chlorine-36 Studies for FY97. LA-CST-TIP-97-010. Los Alamos, 
New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19980204.0916. 

Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; Turin, H.J.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Brenner, D.; Dixon, P.R.; and Musgrave, 

J.A. 1996. Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies. LA-CST-TIP-96-003. Draft. Los Alamos, 
New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970103.0037. 

Faure, G. 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology. 2nd Edition. New York, New York: John Wiley 
& Sons. TIC: 237212. 


Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E.; Bodvarsson, G.S.; Kwicklis, E.M.; and Fabryka-Martin, J. 2001. 
"Evolution of the Conceptual Model of Unsaturated Zone Hydrology at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada." Journal of Hydrology, 247, ([1-2]), 1-30. New York, New York: Elsevier. 
TIC: 250932. 

Flint, A.L.; Hevesi, J.A.; and Flint, L.E. 1996. Conceptual and Numerical Model of Infiltration 
for the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada. Milestone 3GUI623M. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970409.0087. 

Flint, L.E. 2003. "Physical and Hydraulic Properties of Volcanic Rocks from Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada." Water Resources Research, 39, (5), 1-1 through 1-13. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 254297. 

Gascoyne, M.; Miller, N.H.; and Neymark, L.A. 2002. Uranium-Series Disequilibrium in Tuffs 
from Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as Evidence of Pore-fluid Flow Over the last Million Years. 
Applied Geochemistry, 17, ([6]), 781-792. [New York, New York]: Elsevier. TIC: 251901. 

Glaser, J.A.; Foerst, D.L.; McKee, G.D.; Quave, S.A.; Budde, W.L. 1981. Trace Analyses for 
Wastewaters. Environmental Science & Technology, 15, (12), 1428-1435. Washington, D.C.: 
American Chemical Society. TIC: 257279. 

Happell, J. 2005. Detection Limit for Low Volume Samples. E-mail from J. Happell to 

Z. Peterman, May 12, 2005. ACC: MOL.20050629.0277. 

Kwicklis, E.M.; Flint, A.L.; and Healy, R.W. 1994. "Simulation of Flow in the Unsaturated 
Zone Beneath Pagany Wash, Yucca Mountain." High Level Radioactive Waste Management, 
Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 22-26, 
1994, 4, 2341-2351. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 210984. 

Lehmann, B.E.; Davis, S.N.; and Fabryka-Martin, J.T. 1993. Atmospheric and Subsurface 
Sources of Stable and Radioactive Nuclides Used for Groundwater Dating. Water Resources 
Research 29, (7), 2027-2040. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 252317. 

Lu, G.; Sonnenthal, E.L.; and Bodvarsson, G.S. 2003. Implications of Halide Leaching on 36Cl 
Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water Resources Research, 39, (12), 3-1 through 3-15. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 255498. 

Marshall, B.D. and Futa, K. 2003. "Strontium in Pore Water from the Topopah Spring Tuff, 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Proceedings of the 10th International High-Level Radioactive Waste 
Management Conference (IHLRWM), March 30-April 2, 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 
373-376. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 254559. 

Marshall, B.D.; Neymark, L.A.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2003. "Estimation of Past Seepage Volumes 
from Calcite Distribution in the Topopah Spring Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Bodvarsson, 
G.S.; Ho, C.K.; and Robinson, B.A.; guest eds. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 
237-247. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254205. 


Montazer, P. and Wilson, W.E. 1984. Conceptual Hydrologic Model of Flow in the Unsaturated 
Zone, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4345. Lakewood, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19890327.0051 (corrected by 
MOL.20030927.0200). 

Moyer, T.C.; Geslin, J.K.; and Flint, L.E. 1996. Stratigraphic Relations and Hydrologic 
Properties of the Paintbrush Tuff Nonwelded (PTn) Hydrologic Unit, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 

Open-File Report 95-397. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19970204.0216. 

Neymark, L.A. and Paces, J.B. 2000. "Consequences of Slow Growth for 230Th/U Dating of 
Quaternary Opals, Yucca Mountain, NV, USA." Chemical Geology, 164, ([1-2]), 143-160. 
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 246316. 

Neymark, L.A.; Amelin, Y.; Paces, J.B.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2002. "U-Pb Ages of Secondary 
Silica at Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Implications for the Paleohydrology of the Unsaturated 
Zone." Gascoyne, M. and Peterman, Z.E., eds. Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 709-734. New 
York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254046. 

Neymark, L.A.; Amelin, Y.V.; and Paces, J.B. 2000. 206Pb230Th234U238U and 207Pb235U 
Geochronology of Quaternary Opal, Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Geochimica et Cosmochimica 
Acta, 64, (17), 2913-2928. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 253360. 

Noble, D.C.; Smith, V.C.; and Peck, L.C. 1967. "Loss of Halogens from Crystallized and Glassy 
Silicic Volcanic Rocks." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 31, (2), 215-223. New York, New 
York: Pergamon. TIC: 224707. 

Norris, A.E.; Wolfsberg, K.; Gifford, S.K.; Bentley, H.W.; and Elmore, D. 1987. "Infiltration at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Traced by 36Cl." Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics 
Research [Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms], 29, ([1-2]), 376-379. 
[Amsterdam, The Netherlands]: North-Holland. TIC: 224708. 

Ortiz, T.S.; Williams, R.L.; Nimick, F.B.; Whittet, B.C.; and South, D.L. 1985. A Three-
Dimensional Model of Reference Thermal/Mechanical and Hydrological Stratigraphy at Yucca 
Mountain, Southern Nevada. SAND84-1076. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. ACC: MOL.19980602.0331. 

Ostlund, H.G. 1987. "Tritium." Volume 7 of GEOSECS Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean 
Expeditions. Shorebased Data and Graphics. Pages 7-10. Washington, D.C.: National Science 
Foundation. TIC: 254317. 

Paces, J.B. 2003. "Copies of Notes taken from SMF Videotapes." Letter from J.B. Paces 
(USGS) to The Record, June 19, 2003, with attachment. ACC: MOL.20030624.0226. 


Paces, J.B.; Marshall, B.D.; Whelan, J.F.; and Neymark, L.A. 1997. "Submission of Milestone: 
SPC23FM4, Due March 14, 1997." Memorandum from J.B. Paces, B.D. Marshall, J.F. Whelan, 
and L.A. Neymark (USGS) to R.W. Craig (USGS), March 14, 1997, with attachment, "Progress 
Report on Unsaturated Zone Stable and Radiogenic Isotope Studies." 
ACC: MOL.19980224.0119. 

Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Marshall, B.D.; Whelan, J.F.; and Peterman, Z.E. 1996. Letter 
Report: Ages and Origins of Subsurface Secondary Minerals in the Exploratory Studies Facility 
(ESF). Milestone 3GQH450M, Results of Sampling and Age Determination. Las Vegas, Nevada: 

U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970324.0052. 

Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Marshall, B.D.; Whelan, J.F.; and Peterman, Z.E. 1998. "Inferences 
for Yucca Mountain Unsaturated-Zone Hydrology from Secondary Minerals." High-Level 
Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference, Las 
Vegas, Nevada, May 11-14, 1998. Pages 36-39. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear 
Society. TIC: 238482. 

Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Marshall, B.D.; Whelan, J.F.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2001. Ages and 
Origins of Calcite and Opal in the Exploratory Studies Facility Tunnel, Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4049. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. TIC: 251284 and ACC: MOL20020115.0207. 

Paces, J.B.; Neymark, L.A.; Wooden, J.L.; and Persing, H.M. 2004. Improved Spatial 
Resolution for U-Series Dating of Opal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA, Using Ion-
Microprobe and Microdigestion Methods. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 68, (7), 
1591-1601. [New York, New York]: Elsevier. TIC: 257287. 

Peterman, Z.E. and Cloke, P.L. 2002. "Geochemistry of Rock Units at the Potential Repository 
Level, Yucca Mountain, Nevada (includes erratum)." Applied Geochemistry, 17, ([6,7]), 
683-698, 955-958. [New York, New York]: Pergamon. TIC: 254046. 

Peterman, Z.E. and Marshall, B.D. 2002. "Geochemistry of Pore Water from Densely Welded 
Topopah Spring Tuff at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." GSA Abstracts with Programs, 34, (6), 308. 
Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 254868. 

Phillips, F.M. 2000. Chlorine-36." Chapter 10 of Environmental Tracers in Subsurface 
Hydrology. Cook, P.G. and Herczeg, A.L., eds. Pages 299-348. Boston, Massachusetts: Kluwer 
Academic Publishers. TIC: 247021. 

Phillips, F.M.; Mattick, J.L.; Duval, T.A.; Elmore, D.; and Kubik, P.W. 1988. "Chlorine 36 and 
Tritium from Nuclear Weapons Fallout as Tracers for Long-Term Liquid and Vapor Movement 
in Desert Soils." Water Resources Research, 24, (11), 1877-1891. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 224125. 

Plummer, L.N.; Michel, R.L.; Thurman, E.M.; and Glynn, P.D. 1993. Environmental Tracers 
for Age Dating Young Ground Water. Chapter 11 of Regional Ground-Water Quality. Alley, 
W.M., ed. New York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. TIC: 257278. 


Plummer, M.A.; Phillips, F.M.; Fabryka-Martin, J.; Turin, H.J.; Wigand, P.E.; and Sharma, P. 
1997. "Chlorine-36 in Fossil Rat Urine: An Archive of Cosmogenic Nuclide Deposition During 
the Past 40,000 Years." Science, 277, 538-541. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the 
Advancement of Science. TIC: 237425. 

R. Universit di Roma 1925. New Tables for Testing the Significance of Observations. 
Metron International Journal of Statistics, V, (3), 105-108. Rome, Italy: Universit di Roma 
Instituto di Statistica, e Politica Economica. TIC: 257776. 

Roback, R.C.; Jones, C.L.; Fabryka-Martin, J.; Roseborrough, K.; Wolfsberg, L.E.; and 
Dixon, P. 2002. "Effects of Sample Processing on Chlorine-36 Chlorine Ratios in Unsaturated 
Crystalline Rocks at Yucca Mountain Implications for Unsaturated Zone Flow." GSA Abstracts 
with Programs, 34, (6), Page 235. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 254868. 

Sawyer, D.A.; Fleck, R.J., Lanphere, M.A., Warren, R.G., and Broxton, D.E. 1994. Episodic 
Caldera Volcanism in the Miocene Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field: Revised Stratigraphic 
Framework, 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology, and Implications for Magmatism and Extension. Geol. 
Soc. Amer. Bull., 106 (10), Pages 1304-1318. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 222523. 

Scanlon, B.R. 1992. "Evaluation of Liquid and Vapor Water Flow in Desert Soils Based on 
Chlorine 36 and Tritium Tracers and Nonisothermal Flow Simulations." Water Resources 
Research, 28, (1), 285-297. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 224127. 

Scott, R.B. and Bonk, J. 1984. Preliminary Geologic Map of Yucca Mountain, Nye County, 
Nevada, with Geologic Sections. Open-File Report 84-494, Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: HQS19880517.1443. 

Skeggs, M. 2005. MSHA Formulations: Facsimile Memorandum from Fenner Dunlop, 
November 10, 2005. ACC: MOL.20060213.0039. 

Solomon, D.K. and Cook, P.G. 2000. 3H and 3He." Environmental Tracers in Subsurface 
Hydrology. Cook, P.G. and Herczeg, A.L., eds. Pages 397-424. Boston, Massachusetts: Kluwer 
Academic Publishers. TIC: 254319. 

Stephens, M.A. 1974. "EDF Statistics for Goodness of Fit and Some Comparisons." Journal of 
the American Statistical Association, 69, (347), 730-737. Alexandria, Virginia: American 
Statistical Association. TIC: 254457. 

Stone, J.O.; Allan, G.L.; Fifield, L.K.; and Cresswell, R.G. 1996. "Cosmogenic Chlorine-36 from 
Calcium Spallation." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60, (4), 679-692. New York, New 
York: Pergamon. TIC: 254135. 

Striegl, R.G.; Healy, R.W.; Michel, R.L.; and Prudic, D.E. 1998. Tritium in Unsaturated Zone 
Gases and Air at the Amargosa Desert Research Site, and in Spring and River Water, near 
Beatty, Nevada, May 1997. Open-File Report 97-778. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological 
Survey. TIC: 254318. 


Sweetkind, D.S.; Rautman, C.A.; and Singleton, W.L. 1998. "Evaluation of Short-Trace-Length 
Fractures at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Eos, Transactions (Supplement), 79, S231. Washington, 
D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 240662. 

Taylor, J.R. 1982. An Introduction to Error Analysis, The Study of Uncertainties in Physical 
Measurements. Mill Valley, California: University Science Books. TIC: 210357. 

Tyler, S.W.; Chapman, J.B.; Conrad, S.H.; Hammermeister, D.P.; Blout, D.O.; Miller, J.J.; Sully, 
M.J.; and Ginanni, J.M. 1996. "Soil-Water Flux in the Southern Great Basin, United States: 
Temporal and Spatial Variations Over the Last 120,000 Years." Hornberger, G.M., ed. Water 
Resources Research, 32, (6), 1481-1499. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 252291. 

USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) 1996. ESFMain Drift, Comparative Geology Cross 
Section Along Main Drift Sta. 28+94.76 to Sta. 59+36.89. OA-46-291. Mercury, Nevada: U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation. ACC: MOL.19970625.0097. 

USBR 1997. ESFSouth Ramp, Comparative Geology Cross Section Along the South Ramp 
Sta. 59+36.89 to Sta. 78+77. OA-46-301. Mercury, Nevada: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 
ACC: MOL.19980127.0397. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 1996. ESFMain Drift, Station 35+00.00 to Station 36+00.00 
As Built Geology and Geotechnical Data. OA-46-234. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: MOL.19970106.0303. 

USGS 2002. Test Plan for: Chlorine-36 Validation. SITP-02-UZ-005, Rev. 00. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020213.0179. 

Whelan, J.F.; Moscati, R.J.; Allerton, S.B.M.; and Marshall, B.D. 1998. Applications of Isotope 
Geochemistry to the Reconstruction of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, PaleohydrologyStatus of 
Investigations: June 1996. Open-File Report 98-83. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19981012.0740. 

Whelan, J.F.; Paces, J.B.; and Peterman, Z.E. 2002. "Physical and Stable-Isotope Evidence for 
Formation of Secondary Calcite and Silica in the Unsaturated Zone, Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada." Gascoyne, M. and Peterman, Z.E., eds., Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 735-750. New 
York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254046. 

Wolfsberg, A.; Campbell, K.; and Fabryka-Martin, J. 2000. "Use of Chlorine-36 Data to 
Evaluate Fracture Flow and Transport Models at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Dynamics of Fluids 
in Fractured Rock, Papers Selected from a Symposium held at Ernest Orlando Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory on February 10-12, 1999. Faybishenko, B.; Witherspoon, A.; and 
Benson, S.M.; eds. Geophysical Monograph 122. Pages 349-362. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 255306. 

Yang, I.C. 2002. "Percolation Flux and Transport Velocity in the Unsaturated Zone, Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada." Gascoyne, M. and Peterman, Z.E., eds. Applied Geochemistry, 17, (6), 807

817. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 254046. 


Yang, I.C.; Rattray, G.W.; and Yu, P. 1996. Interpretation of Chemical and Isotopic Data from 
Boreholes in the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations 
Report 96-4058. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980528.0216. 

Yang, I.C.; Yu, P.; Rattray, G.W.; Ferarese, J.S.; and Ryan, J.N. 1998. Hydrochemical 
Investigations in Characterizing the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 98 4132. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19981012.0790. 

YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1998. Peer Review Report on Chlorine-36 
Studies at Yucca Mountain. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. 
ACC: MOL.19981124.0240. 

Youden, W.J. 1951. Statistical Methods for Chemists. New York, New York: John Wiley & 
Sons. TIC: 248814. 

7.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 

NWI-DS-001Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Field Logging, Handling, and Documenting Borehole Samples. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19960314.0007. 

PA-PRO-0313, Rev. 1. Technical Reports. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20060807.004. 

TIP-CL-95, Rev. 0. Preparation of Samples for Chlorine-36 Analysis. Livermore, California: 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.20000412.0094. 

TIP-CL-110, Rev. 0. Use of Ion Chromatography to Determine Anion Concentrations. 
Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.20000301.0188. 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 136Guidelines 
Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants, Appendix BDefinition and 
Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection LimitRevision 1.11. 
Readily available. ACC: MOL.20050411.0381. 

7.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 

GS000608314224.004. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 35+00 to Station 
40+00, Main Drift of the ESF. (Q) 

GS030508312272.003. Distribution of Chloride Ion in Yucca Mountain Tuff; Summary of 
Leaching Data for ESF Cores (April 2002May 2003). (UQ) 

GS030508312272.004. Statistical Parameters of the Tritium Analysis in the Denver Laboratory. 
(UQ) 

GS030608312272.005. Anion Data from leach samples collected for the Chlorine-36 Validation 
Study. (Q) 


GS030608312272.006. Anion Data from Leach Samples Collected in September 2002 for the 
Chlorine-36 Validation Study. (UQ) 

GS040108312232.001. Shut-in Pressure Monitoring Data from the Radial Boreholes in Alcove 1 
of the ESF, 4/95; and Tritium Data from Borehole ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 in Alcove 2. (Q) 

GS060308312272.001. Tritium Abundance Data from Pore Water in Core Samples from Yucca 
Mountain ESF Boreholes for the Period of April 30, 1998 through March 21, 2001. (Q) 

GS060308312272.002. Tritium Abundance Data from Pore Water in Core Samples from Yucca 
Mountain ESF ECRB. (Q) 

GS060383122410.001. Tritium Data from Pore Water from ESF Borehole Cores, 1998 Analyses 
by University of Miami. (UQ) 

GS960708314224.008. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 30+00 to Station 
35+00, Main Drift of the ESF. (Q) 

GS960708314224.010. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 40+00 to Station 
45+00, Main Drift of the ESF. (Q) 

GS960908314224.014. Provisional ResultsESF Main Drift, Station 50+00 to Station 55+00. 

(Q) 

GS961108312261.006. Gas Chemistry, ESF Alcoves #2 and #3, 11/95-4/96; Water Chemistry, 
Alcove #2 (Tritium), Alcove #3, and ESF Tunnel; and Pneumatic Pressure Response from 
Boreholes in Exploratory Studies Facility Alcoves #2 and #3, 10/955/96. (Q) 

GS970208314224.003. Geotechnical Data for Station 60+00 to Station 65+00, South Ramp of 
the ESF. (Q) 

GS970808314224.008. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 65+00 to Station 
70+00, South Ramp of the ESF. (Q) 

GS970808314224.010. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 70+00 to Station 
75+00, South Ramp of the ESF. (Q) 

GS970808314224.012. Provisional Results: Geotechnical Data for Station 75+00 to Station 
78+77, South Ramp of the ESF. (Q) 

GS971108314224.020. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 0+60 to Station 4+00, 
North Ramp Starter Tunnel, Exploratory Studies Facility. (Q) 

GS971108314224.021. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 4+00 to Station 8+00, 
North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. (Q) 

GS971108314224.022. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 8+00 to Station 10+00, 
North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. (Q) 


GS971108314224.023. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 10+00 to 
Station 18+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. (Q) 

GS971108314224.024. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 18+00 to Station 
26+00, North Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. (Q) 

GS971108314224.025. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 26+00 to 
Station 30+00, North Ramp and Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. (Q) 

GS971108314224.026. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 45+00 to Station 
50+00, Main Drift, Exploratory Studies Facility. (Q) 

GS971108314224.028. Revision 1 of Detailed Line Survey Data, Station 55+00 to 
Station 60+00, Main Drift and South Ramp, Exploratory Studies Facility. (Q) 

LA0305RR831222.001. Chlorine-36 and Cl in Salts Leached from Rock Samples for the 
Chlorine-36 Validation Study. (UQ) 

LA0307RR831222.001. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached 
from Cross Drift Rock Samples in FY99 and FY00. (UQ) 

LA0307RR831222.002. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached 
from ESF Chlorine-36 Validation Drillcore Samples in FY99. (UQ) 

LA0509JF831222.001. Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached from ESF Niche #3566 
(Niche #1) Drillcore. (Q) 

LAJF831222AQ98.004. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached 
from ESF Rock Samples. (Q) 

LL030408023121.027. Cl Abundance and Cl Ratios of Leachates from ESF Core Samples. (Q) 

LL031200223121.036. Cl Abundance and Cl Ratio of Leachates from ESF Core Samples. (Q) 


APPENDIX A 

CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS AND CHLORINE-36/CHLORIDE RATIOS IN 
SALTS LEACHED FROM EXPLORATORY STUDIES FACILITY ROCK SAMPLES 
AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY AS OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1998 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E001-1 SPC00507923 01+98 Bow Ridge fault zone Wall rock 1996 2 YM401 518 20 
E008-2 SPC00509016 01+99.8 Bow Ridge fault zone Breccia 1996 2.6 YM336 2138 137 
E009-2 SPC00509017 01+99.8 Bow Ridge fault zone Breccia 1996 2 YM337 2444 169 
E010-2 SPC00509018 01+99.8 Bow Ridge fault zone Rubble 1996 2.3 YM338 720 49 
E011-2 SPC00509019 01+99.8 Bow Ridge fault zone Rubble 1996 2 YM339 2378 153 
E012-2 SPC00509020 01+99.8 Bow Ridge fault zone Breccia 1996 2.1 YM340 2398 154 
E243-1 SPC00509751 01+99.8 Bow Ridge fault zone Breccia 1996 4.4 YM596 381 16 
E163-3 SPC00512551 04+94 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 2.4 YM529 485 12 
E073-1 SPC00504280 05+04 Fracture Breccia 1996 5.6 YM438 468 19 
E074-1 SPC00503866 05+05.5 Fracture Breccia 1996 11.8 YM424 493 17 
E164-3 SPC00512550 07+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM530 571 35 
E165-3 SPC00512549 07+70 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 2.9 YM531 496 14 
E166-3 SPC00512548 07+70 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 12.2 YM527 484 15 
E167-3 SPC00512547 07+70 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 24.1 YM528 427 13 
E168-3 SPC00512546 08+59 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.8 YM552 802 29 
E169-3 SPC00512545 08+59 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM553 1096 40 
E170-3 SPC00512544 08+59 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 1.1 YM554 635 23 
E191-2 SPC00515104 08+75 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.9 YM572 904 28 
E192-2 SPC00515105 08+75 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.8 YM573 698 20 
E193-2 SPC00515106 08+75 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 1.5 YM574 748 21 
E171-1 SPC00512554 08+90 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.7 YM555 1335 56 
E172-3 SPC00512553 08+90 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM557 637 26 
E174-3 SPC00512543 09+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM559 660 29 
E194-2 SPC00512586 10+56 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.7 YM575 1354 45 
E195-2 SPC00512587 10+56 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.8 YM576 1292 37 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A3


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E195-2 SPC00512587 10+56 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.8 YM576 1292 37 
E197-2 SPC00512585 10+62.5 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 0.1 YM578 1452 72 
E086-1 SPC00510583 11+43 Bedrock Representative bulk material 1996 0.7 YM439 640 29 
E213-1 SPC00510792 12+36.5 Fracture Breccia 1996 0.3 YM598 719 68 
E028-1 SPC00503934 12+44 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1996 0.2 YM452 2629 105 
E214-1 SPC00510790 12+44 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1996 0.5 YM599 751 27 
E215-1 SPC00510791 12+49 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM600 668 54 
E029-1 SPC00503932 13+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM426 640 28 
E030-2 SPC00503931 13+67 Cooling joints Breccia < 0.5 cm 1996 0.5 YM563 1634 85 
E031-3 SPC00503930 14+00 Shear zone Breccia < 1 cm 1996 0.7 YM564 2399 191 
E032-2 SPC00503929 14+14 Shear zone Representative bulk material 1996 0.8 YM454 680 45 
E033-1 SPC00503928 14+41 Fault Gouge 1996 0.3 YM427 876 42 
E034-1 SPC00503926 15+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.3 YM428 954 51 
E035-1 SPC00503925 15+05 Fracture Breccia 1996 1 YM429 628 61 
E036-1 SPC00509242 16+12 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1996 1.4 YM455 382 57 
E037-2 SPC00509241 16+19 Fracture Representative bulk material 1996 0.5 YM430 982 42 
E038-1 SPC00503924 17+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM450 714 38 
E040-1 SPC00503922 18+96 Broken rock Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM456 1642 59 
E041-1 SPC00503921 19+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM431 746 27 
E042-2 SPC00503920 19+31 Fault zone Breccia > ~0.5 cm 1996 0.6 YM457 3023 94 
E042-3 SPC00503920 19+31 Fault zone Breccia < ~0.5 cm 1996 0.6 YM458 1838 65 
E043-2 SPC00503919 19+37 Fault zone Representative bulk material 1996 0.8 YM459 1144 36 
E044-2 SPC00503918 19+42 Breccia zone Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM460 2290 74 
E045-1 SPC00503917 21+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM432 799 29 
E046-1 SPC00503916 22+71 Fracture zone Representative bulk material 1996 1 YM461 864 44 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A4


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E047-1 SPC00509247 23+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.8 YM451 663 37 
E050-2 SPC00509240 24+40 Fault zone Breccia 1996 0.4 YM462 2579 94 
E020-1 SPC00509220 24+68 Fracture Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM448 814 56 
E051-1 SPC00509259 25+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.5 YM433 1003 49 
E217-1 SPC00510716 26+19 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1996 0.7 YM602 522 21 
E218-1 SPC00510714 26+36 Fracture Representative bulk material 1996 1.2 YM603 603 20 
E219-1 SPC00510713 26+46 Fracture Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM604 578 38 
E052-1 SPC00509244 26+79 Shear zone Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM463 2036 68 
E220-1 SPC00510719 26+79 Fracture Representative bulk material 1996 1.3 YM605 564 25 
E054-1 SPC00509257 27+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM434 973 29 
E056-1 SPC00509243 27+18 Fault Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM565 1709 53 
E057-2 SPC00509238 27+50 Fracture Breccia 1996 1.3 YM435 779 23 
E058-2 SPC00509237 27+66 Fault Breccia 1996 1.4 YM436 458 19 
E059-2 SPC00509236 28+40 Fault Breccia 1996 2.1 YM437 512 21 
E141-1 SPC00503947 29+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM464 922 36 
E142-1 SPC00503983 29+21 Fracture Representative bulk material 1996 0.5 YM493 583 28 
E143-1 SPC00503948 29+65 Fault Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM494 1077 162 
E144-1 SPC00503949 29+73 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1996 0.2 YM495 815 34 
E147-1 SPC00503976 30+27 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1996 1.7 YM496 490 15 
E149-1 SPC00503973 31+64 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1996 0.7 YM465 631 29 
E150-1 SPC00503939 33+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.2 YM473 1341 56 
E152-1 SPC00503993 34+28 Fractures Representative bulk material 1996 0.3 YM478 4105 310 
E153-3 SPC00503938 34+32 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1996 0.2 YM479 3261 160 
E154-1 SPC00503937 34+71 Cooling joints Breccia 1996 0.3 YM474 803 41 
E154-3 SPC00503937 34+71 Cooling joints Wall rock 1996 0.2 YM480 3794 120 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A5


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E156-1 SPC00503969 35+00 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1996 1 YM467 626 29 
E155-1 SPC00503980 35+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.5 YM466 1013 60 
E157-3 SPC00503994 35+03 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1996 0.5 YM566 1339 76 
E158-1 SPC00503995 35+08 Cooling joints Breccia < ~0.5 cm 1996 0.7 YM475 1113 58 
E158-3 SPC00503995 35+08 Cooling joints Breccia > ~0.5 cm 1996 0.5 YM492 2671 158 
E160-1 SPC00503979 35+45 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1996 0.3 YM481 3529 205 
E161-3 SPC00503999 35+58 Cooling joint Breccia > ~0.5 cm 1996 0.5 YM501 2169 80 
E175-1 SPC00512511 35+93 Fault Breccia > ~0.5 cm 1996 0.3 YM514 2840 231 
E175-3 SPC00512511 35+93 Fault Breccia < ~0.5 cm 1996 0.3 YM515 1674 141 
E176-1 SPC00512506 36+55 Fault Breccia > ~0.5 cm 1996 0.9 YM516 888 27 
E176-3 SPC00512506 36+55 Fault Breccia < ~0.5 cm 1996 1 YM517 604 25 
E177-1 SPC00512510 37+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.9 YM518 484 15 
E178-1 SPC00512504 37+60 Cooling joint Gouge 1996 1.8 YM503 471 26 
E179-1 SPC00512509 37+68 Cooling joint Breccia 1996 1.5 YM504 363 22 
E179-3 SPC00512509 37+68 Cooling joint Wall rock 1996 1.5 YM519 397 13 
E182-1 SPC00512502 38+79 Fracture Breccia 1996 0.4 YM505 379 38 
E183-1 SPC00512517 38+95 Cooling joint Breccia 1996 0.4 YM506 745 39 
E184-1 SPC00512508 39+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.2 YM520 536 29 
E185-1 SPC00503944 39+39 Frac/lith cavity Representative bulk material 1996 0.3 YM521 897 46 
E186-1 SPC00503943 39+47 Cooling joint Breccia/gouge 1996 0.5 YM507 561 34 
E187-1 SPC00503946 39+61 Cooling joint Breccia/gouge 1996 0.9 YM508 540 33 
E221-1 SPC00510710 41+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM606 773 24 
E198-2 SPC00510700 41+65 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1996 1.9 YM584 291 12 
E199-2 SPC00512590 43+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.3 YM585 1042 53 
E200-2 SPC00512589 43+39 Fault Gouge 1996 0.3 YM586 967 66 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A6


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E201-2 SPC00512591 43+63 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM587 1974 65 
E202-2 SPC00512592 44+20 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM588 3463 97 
E203-2 SPC00512593 44+21 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1996 0.4 YM589 849 34 
E204-2 SPC00512594 44+22 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1996 0.6 YM590 772 31 
E205-2 SPC00512595 45+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1996 0.3 YM591 1514 69 
E207-2 SPC00512597 45+79 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1996 1.6 YM592 593 15 
E211-2 SPC00515107 Alc 4/0+51.58 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 2.1 YM594 810 24 
E210-2 SPC00515109 Alc 4/0+51.58 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 4.3 YM593 712 31 
E212-2 SPC00515108 Alc 4/0+51.58 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1996 2.9 YM597 815 18 
E007-2 SPC00507924 02+03 Fault zone Wall rock 1997 3.4 YM402 519 13 
E188-2 SPC00515100 08+26.5 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 2.2 YM569 766 24 
E189-2 SPC00515101 08+26.5 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 4.3 YM570 625 17 
E190-2 SPC00515102 08+26.5 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 6.3 YM571 647 14 
E244-1 SPC00515135 08+38 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1.5 YM654 488 17 
E245-1 SPC00515136 08+44 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 1.7 YM655 530 21 
E246-1 SPC00515137 08+66 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 0.8 YM656 475 17 
E247-1 SPC00515138 09+32 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 0.6 YM657 509 22 
E126-1 SPC00509155 10+34 Fault zone Representative bulk material 1997 0.8 YM671 633 41 
E128-1 SPC00509147 10+40 Fault zone Representative bulk material 1997 1.5 YM672 662 27 
E130-1 SPC00509150 10+41 Fault zone Representative bulk material 1997 0.7 YM673 773 40 
E196-2 SPC00512588 10+56 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 0.4 YM577 1202 27 
E134-1 SPC00510506 10+66 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1.8 YM728 747 41 
E136-1 SPC00510505 10+66.8 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 2.5 YM729 801 33 
E139-1 SPC00510510 10+74.2 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1.4 YM730 738 52 
E248-1 SPC00515139 10+75 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 0.5 YM658 570 37 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A7


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E249-1 SPC00515142 11+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.5 YM659 657 37 
E027-3 SPC00503935 11+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.3 YM749 1076 52 
E249-3 SPC00515142 11+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.4 YM733 672 46 
E249-4 SPC00515142 11+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 1 YM734 912 58 
E250-1 SPC00515140 11+43 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 0.4 YM660 532 35 
E251-1 SPC00515141 11+77 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 0.5 YM661 633 38 
E030-1 SPC00503931 13+67 Cooling joints Breccia < 0.5 cm 1997 1 YM449 698 35 
E031-1 SPC00503930 14+00 Shear zone Breccia > 1 cm 1997 0.6 YM453 1039 35 
E216-1 SPC00510788 20+71 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 1.2 YM601 840 38 
E046-4 SPC00503916 22+71 Fracture zone Representative bulk material 1997 1.1 PRIME 458 24 
E146-4 SPC00503987 30+18 Lith cavity Representative bulk material 1997 1.8 PRIME 496 24 
E151-4 SPC00503990 33+16 Lith cavity Representative bulk material 1997 2.3 PRIME 529 24 
E160-4 SPC00503979 35+45 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1997 1.8 PRIME 388 17 
E161-1 SPC00503999 35+58 Cooling joint Breccia < ~0.5 cm 1997 0.8 YM476 1951 103 
E222-1 SPC00510724 42+55 Shear sets Gouge 1997 3.8 YM608 605 18 
E222-2 SPC00510724 42+55 Shear sets Wall rock 1997 2.9 YM609 531 16 
E206-1 SPC00512596 45+78 Fracture zone Representative bulk material 1997 1.6 YM731 525 29 
E208-1 SPC00515103 46+18 Fault Breccia 1997 1.9 YM732 497 26 
E223-1 SPC00510728 47+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.3 YM610 734 37 
E225-1 SPC00510731 48+56 Cooling joints Breccia 1997 1.2 YM612 350 14 
E224-1 SPC00510734 49+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 1.7 YM611 499 16 
E226-1 SPC00510737 49+56 Cooling joint Breccia 1997 1.1 YM613 450 20 
E226-2 SPC00510737 49+56 Cooling joint Wall rock 1997 1 YM614 456 20 
E227-1 SPC00510705 49+89 Cooling joints Breccia 1997 0.5 YM615 497 33 
E230-1 SPC00510739 51+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.5 YM625 555 23 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A8


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E231-1 SPC00510740 51+07 Cooling joints Wall rock 1997 0.5 YM626 709 30 
E231-2 SPC00510740 51+07 Cooling joints Breccia 1997 0.5 YM627 530 26 
E232-1 SPC00510741 51+33 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1997 0.4 YM628 942 42 
E233-1 SPC00510742 51+73 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 0.3 YM629 647 30 
E234-1 SPC00510743 52+43 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1997 0.5 YM630 291 26 
E235-1 SPC00510744 52+46 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1997 0.3 YM631 596 43 
E236-1 SPC00510745 53+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.7 YM632 417 17 
E237-1 SPC00510746 53+61 Cooling joint Representative bulk material 1997 0.4 YM633 539 27 
E238-1 SPC00510747 54+20 Cooling joint Breccia 1997 1.3 YM634 727 37 
E239-1 SPC00510748 55+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.3 YM635 464 23 
E240-1 SPC00510756 56+63 Cooling joint Breccia 1997 0.3 YM636 673 42 
E241-1 SPC00510754 56+85 Cooling joint Breccia 1997 0.7 YM637 777 38 
E242-1 SPC00510750 56+93 Cooling joint Breccia >2 mm 1997 0.7 YM638 664 30 
E242-2 SPC00510750 56+93 Cooling joint Breccia <2 mm 1997 0.9 YM639 1117 49 
E252-1 SPC00515143 57+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.7 YM641 388 23 
E253-1 SPC00515144 57+27 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1.7 YM642 483 14 
E254-1 SPC00515145 58+66 Fault Breccia 1997 0.5 YM643 588 58 
E255-1 SPC00515146 58+77 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 3 YM644 140 9 
E256-1 SPC00515147 59+00 Systematic Breccia 1997 0.5 YM645 347 41 
E256-3 SPC00515147 59+00 Systematic Wall rock 1997 1.7 YM675 359 23 
E290-1 SPC00521128 59+98 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.6 YM711 205 14 
E257-1 SPC00515148 61+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 1.2 YM646 428 26 
E258-1 SPC00515149 61+92 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 0.8 YM647 276 21 
E259-1 SPC00515150 62+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 0.5 YM648 409 28 
E260-1 SPC00515151 62+05 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1.2 YM649 261 13 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A9


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E261-1 SPC00515152 62+18 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 0.5 YM650 749 39 
E262-1 SPC00515153 62+71 Shear Representative bulk material 1997 0.4 YM651 420 28 
E263-1 SPC00515154 63+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 3 YM662 465 14 
E264-1 SPC00515155 63+06 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 1.7 YM663 458 13 
E265-1 SPC00515156 63+21 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 3.3 YM664 452 12 
E266-1 SPC00515157 63+26 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 3.7 YM676 486 16 
E267-1 SPC00515158 63+30 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 3.7 YM677 427 14 
E269-1 SPC00515188 63+73 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 2.5 YM698 551 14 
E270-1 SPC00515187 63+81 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 3.6 YM678 439 14 
E271-1 SPC00515186 64+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 3.2 YM699 467 20 
E271-1D SPC00515186 64+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 3.2 YM707 438 18 
E272-1 SPC00515185 64+34 Broken rock Representative bulk material 1997 1.4 YM679 467 22 
E273-1 SPC00515184 64+50 Broken rock Representative bulk material 1997 1.4 YM700 610 22 
E274-1 SPC00515182 64+93 Fracture Representative bulk material 1997 2.9 YM701 491 25 
E275-1 SPC00515181 65+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 1.8 YM684 443 19 
E268-1 SPC00515180 65+20 Fracture zone Breccia 1997 1.7 YM683 468 18 
E276-1 SPC00515179 65+56 Fracture zone Breccia 1997 1.6 YM702 480 14 
E277-1 SPC00515178 65+80 Fracture zone Representative bulk material 1997 2 YM685 424 33 
E278-1 SPC00515177 66+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 1.5 YM703 520 61 
E279-1 SPC00515176 66+15 Fault Breccia 1997 1.3 YM686 402 40 
E280-1 SPC00515175 66+40 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 0.3 YM687 238 30 
E281-1 SPC00515174 67+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 2.3 YM688 453 18 
E283-1 SPC00515172 67+27 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 3 YM689 470 21 
E284-3 SPC00515173 67+35 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 1.3 YM710 509 20 
E284-1 SPC00515173 67+35 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 1.8 YM709 502 19 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A10 


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E289-1 SPC00515170 67+61 Fault Gouge 1997 4.4 YM692 589 23 
E285-1 SPC00515171 67+73 Damp zone Representative bulk material 1997 4.8 YM680 468 23 
E286-4 SPC00515133 67+87 Fault zone Wall rock 1997 0.7 YM704 645 29 
E286-1 SPC00515133 67+87 Fault zone Clay fracture filling 1997 2.2 YM690 475 22 
E287-1 SPC00515134 67+87 Fault Breccia 1997 2.3 YM691 517 19 
E288-1 SPC00515132 67+90 Fault footwall Wall rock 1997 1.1 YM681 557 31 
E298-1 SPC00521127 68+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 1.4 YM718 606 17 
E292-1 SPC00521123 69+00 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 3.1 YM712 414 17 
E293-1 SPC00521122 69+14.5 Fault zone Breccia 1997 2.7 YM713 454 35 
E294-1 SPC00521121 69+32.5 Fracture Breccia 1997 1.7 YM714 474 22 
E295-1 SPC00521120 69+41.7 Fracture zone Representative bulk material 1997 1.9 YM715 476 21 
E299-1 SPC00522221 69+47 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 2.1 YM750 441 20 
E300-1 SPC00522220 69+68 Fault (?) Representative bulk material 1997 2.5 YM763 354 13 
E300-3 SPC00522220 69+68 Fault (?) Representative bulk material 1997 2.3 YM764 376 16 
E302-1 SPC00522218 70+19 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 5.8 YM736 327 13 
E303-1 SPC00522217 70+36 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 2.3 YM751 439 17 
E304-1 SPC00522216 70+50 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 5.1 YM765 491 21 
E305-1 SPC00522215 70+55.5 Fault Breccia 1997 4.4 YM752 386 12 
E306-1 SPC00522214 70+66 Fault Breccia 1997 3.3 YM766 499 19 
E307-1 SPC00522212 71+34 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 0.7 YM737 557 29 
E308-1 SPC00522213 71+39 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1.1 YM753 492 13 
E309-1 SPC00522211 71+41 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1 YM767 445 21 
E310-1 SPC00522210 71+50 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 1 YM768 441 21 
E311-1 SPC00522209 72+50 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 2.4 YM754 459 11 
E312-1 SPC00522208 72+69 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1.6 YM769 463 18 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A11 


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E313-1 SPC00522207 73+48 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 3.8 YM770 367 14 
E315-1A SPC00522205 74+49 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 11.5 YM738 435 16 
E316-1 SPC00522202 74+89 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 5.9 YM755 459 11 
E317-1 SPC00522201 75+09 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 1.8 YM740 402 30 
E318-1 SPC00522203 75+09.5 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 2.3 YM756 395 16 
E319-1 SPC00522204 75+10 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1997 3.6 YM741 414 16 
E321-1 SPC00521287 75+34 Fault Breccia 1997 6.1 YM757 476 12 
E323-1 SPC00521289 75+53.5 Cooling joints Breccia 1997 3.4 YM742 465 17 
E323-3 SPC00521289 75+53.5 Cooling joints Wall rock 1997 4.4 YM743 413 19 
E324-1 SPC00521290 75+78 Fault Breccia 1997 5.4 YM744 418 31 
E324-3 SPC00521290 75+78 Fault Wall rock 1997 4.5 YM745 322 13 
E325-1 SPC00521291 76+30 Fault Breccia 1997 2.3 YM771 380 20 
E326-1 SPC00521292 76+31 Fault Wall rock 1997 4.7 YM758 423 9 
E326-3 SPC00521292 76+31 Fault Wall rock 1997 3.4 YM759 419 11 
E327-1 SPC00521295 76+50 Systematic Representative bulk material 1997 2.4 YM772 281 12 
E328-1 SPC00521294 76+76 Fault Breccia < ~1 cm 1997 1.3 YM746 334 15 
E328-3 SPC00521294 76+76 Fault Breccia > ~1 cm 1997 0.6 YM747 445 20 
E329-1 SPC00521293 77+10 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 0.5 YM773 394 19 
E228-1 SPC00510795 Alc 2/0+25 Drill & blast Representative bulk material 1997 0.7 YM674 362 41 
E229-1 SPC00510702 Alc 3/014 Intact bedrock Representative bulk material 1997 3.4 YM616 558 19 
E296-1 SPC00521129 Alc 6/0+95 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1.6 YM716 533 52 
E297-1 SPC00521130 Alc 6/0+98 Fault Representative bulk material 1997 1.8 YM717 499 27 
E044-4 SPC00503918 19+42 Breccia zone Representative bulk material 1998 0.7 YM775 4270 159 
E160-7 SPC00503979 35+45 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1998 0.2 YM776 1704 76 
E301-1 SPC00522219 69+95.8 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 0.6 YM777 224 11 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A12 


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E306-3 SPC00522214 70+66 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 3.3 YM778 496 20 
E314-1 SPC00522206 74+43 Fracture Representative bulk material 1998 2.1 YM779 341 18 
E352-1 SPC00524963 74+55.5 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 3.2 YM883 484 21 
E320-1 SPC00522200 75+20 Subunit contact Representative bulk material 1998 3.7 YM780 457 20 
E322-1 SPC00521288 75+47.5 Systematic Representative bulk material 1998 2.9 YM781 318 81 
E353-1 SPC00524964 76+01 Fracture Representative bulk material 1998 2.9 YM884 515 19 
E354-1 SPC00524965 76+08 Fracture Breccia 1998 1.9 YM885 616 21 
E355-1 SPC00524971 76+11.5 Fault Wall rock 1998 3.7 YM886 473 18 
E356-1 SPC00524966 76+11.5 Fault Gouge 1998 1.8 YM887 570 24 
E335-1 SPC00524901 77+19 Fracture Representative bulk material 1998 1.9 YM812 186 9 
E357-1 SPC00524967 77+29.5 Broken rock Representative bulk material 1998 0.6 YM888 621 26 
E358-1 SPC00524968 77+31 Broken rock Representative bulk material 1998 0.7 YM889 341 14 
E359-1 SPC00524969 77+49.5 Systematic Representative bulk material 1998 4.2 YM890 511 23 
E360-1 SPC00524970 78+50 Systematic Representative bulk material 1998 1.6 YM891 973 27 
E337-1 SPC00525144 Alc 6/0+30 Systematic Representative bulk material 1998 0.9 YM858 666 24 
E338-1 SPC00525145 Alc 6/0+60 Systematic Representative bulk material 1998 0.8 YM859 689 22 
E339-1 SPC00525130 Alc 6/0+82 Breccia zone Representative bulk material 1998 0.6 YM860 703 36 
E340-1 SPC00525131 Alc 6/0+93 Breccia zone Representative bulk material 1998 0.6 YM861 1511 48 
E341-1 SPC00525132 Alc 6/0+97 Fault Gouge 1998 0.5 YM840 513 23 
E342-1 SPC00525135 Alc 6/1+00 Breccia zone Representative bulk material 1998 0.7 YM841 927 35 
E343-1 SPC00525136 Alc 6/1+05 Fracture zone Representative bulk material 1998 0.9 YM842 1080 33 
E344-1 SPC00525137 Alc 6/1+10 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 1.5 YM843 884 32 
E345-1 SPC00525138 Alc 6/1+17 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 0.9 YM844 1081 37 
E346-1 SPC00525139 Alc 6/1+24 Fracture Representative bulk material 1998 1.1 YM845 1130 38 
E347-1 SPC00525140 Alc 6/1+40 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 1.3 YM862 455 23 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A13 


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
E348-1 SPC00530000 Alc 6/1+52 Fault Breccia 1998 0.5 YM846 1250 65 
E349-1 SPC00525141 Alc 6/1+52 Fault Wall rock 1998 0.5 YM847 3357 132 
E333-1 SPC00524960 Alc 6/1+53 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 0.5 YM809 521 32 
E333-2 SPC00524960 Alc 6/1+53 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 0.5 YM810 497 23 
E350-1 SPC00525142 Alc 6/1+60 Cooling joints Representative bulk material 1998 0.5 YM848 1699 70 
E351-1 SPC00525143 Alc 6/1+68 Broken rock Representative bulk material 1998 0.3 YM849 1792 77 
E351-2 SPC00525143 Alc 6/1+68 Broken rock Representative bulk material 1998 0.3 YM850 499 20 
E334-1 SPC00524959 Alc 7/1+30 Fracture Representative bulk material 1998 1.2 YM811 474 16 
E361-1 SPC00524975 Alc 7/1+54.5 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 0.9 YM911 539 24 
E362-1 SPC00524973 Alc 7/1+67 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 2.1 YM912 541 25 
E363-1 SPC00524974 Alc 7/1+67.5 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 1.9 YM913 643 29 
E364-1 SPC00524976 Alc 7/1+84 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 1.1 YM914 569 27 
E365-1 SPC00524972 Alc 7/2+00 Fault Representative bulk material 1998 1.9 YM915 538 26 
DCN0862 
SPC01003078 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 (22.223.0) 
NA NA 1998 NA YM903 1372 69 
DCN0072/
008-1 
SPC01003096 
SPC01003097 
SPC01003098 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 (32.133.1) 
NA NA 1998 NA YM894 2008 90 
DCN0241/
025-2 
SPC01003131 
SPC01003132 
SPC01003133 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 (15.717.1) 
NA NA 1998 NA YM896 2038 99 
DCN0152 
SPC01003111 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 (6.77.5) 
NA NA 1998 NA YM895 1235 62 
DCN0381/
039-2 
SPC01004399 
SPC01004400 
SPC01004401 
SPC01004402 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 (1.75.0) 
NA NA 1998 NA YM897 997 49 
DCN0481/
049-2 
SPC01004420 
SPC01004421 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 NA NA 1998 NA YM898 1476 75 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A14 


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Sample 
Number SMF Barcode Number Location 
(approximate) Sample Type Material Year 
Reported 
Leachate 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg) 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Corrected 
36Cl/Cl (x1015) 
SPC01004422 (14.3-16.3) 
DCN0501/
051-2 
SPC01004424 
SPC01004425 
SPC01004426 
SPC01004427 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 
(16.6-19.3) 
NA NA 1998 NA YM899 1252 68 
DCN0592/
060-1 
SPC01004445 
SPC01004446 
SPC01004447 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 
(29.0-30.7) 
NA NA 1998 NA YM900 1627 73 
DCN0621 
SPC01004453 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 
(32.1-33.1) 
NA NA 1998 NA YM901 1705 87 
DCN0642 
SPC01004457 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 
(34.4-35.5) 
NA NA 1998 NA YM902 1335 67 
E331-1 SPC00524998 Niche 1/0+13.5 Breccia zone Representative bulk material 1998 0.2 YM806 540 31 
E332-1 SPC00524999 Niche 1/0+13.5 Breccia zone Representative bulk material 1998 0.4 YM807 588 37 
E332-2 SPC00524999 Niche 1/0+13.5 Breccia zone Representative bulk material 1998 0.3 YM808 618 45 
E330-1 SPC00524900 Niche 1/0+10 Breccia zone Representative bulk material 1998 0.9 YM805 553 29 
E336-1 SPC00008073 Niche 1/7+05 Fracture Representative bulk material 1998 0.3 YM817 659 177 

DTNs: LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q), LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
NOTES: 
SMF = Sample Management Facility, Alc = Alcove, NA = Not Available. 

Locations (i.e., ESF stations, borehole intervals) are approximate. 
The Sundance fault zone is located between ESF stations 33+89 and 36+89 (approx.). 
Samples E331-1, E332-1, E332-2, E330-1, and E336-1 are tunnel wall samples. 
Samples from ESF-MD-NICHE3566#1, #2, and LT1 are borehole samples.

Errors are 1s. One-sigma analytical errors given for construction-water corrected 36Cl/Cl ratios are based on in-run counting statistics.
Leachate chloride concentrations are given as salts leached per kilogram of rock. 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A15 


Chloride Concentrations and Chlorine-36/Chloride Ratios in Salts Leached From 
Exploratory Studies Facility Rock Samples at Los Alamos National Laboratory as of September 8, 1998 

Measured 36Cl/Cl ratios have been corrected for the addition of a 35Cl tracer and for the addition of Cl from construction water using the approach described in 
Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997, p. B-1, Section 4.2.2). 

The concentration of salts extracted from each sample is only a qualitative indicator of the pore-water composition: no attempt was made to maximize the yield of 
the leaching process, which is probably highly variable. 

The data were originally reported in Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg, et al. (1996), Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997), CRWMS M&O (1998). Small differences were noted for 
some values contained in the cited reports and the final data reported in DTNs LAJF831222AQ98.004 and LA0509JF831222.001. These reflect final adjustments 
and corrections to analytical data and do not affect any of the conclusions based on these data. 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 A16 


REFERENCES CITED 

A.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 

CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and 
Operating Contractor) 1998. Evaluation of Flow and Transport Models of Yucca 
Mountain, Based on Chlorine-36 and Chloride Studies for FY98. BA0000000-017175700-
00007, Rev. 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981208.0119. 

Fabryka-Martin, J.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Dixon, P.R.; Levy, S.; Musgrave, J.; and Turin, 

H.J. 1996. Summary Report of Chlorine-36 Studies: Sampling, Analysis and Simulation 
of Chlorine-36 in the Exploratory Studies Facility. Milestone 3783M. Los Alamos, New 
Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970103.0047. 

Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; Flint, A.L.; Sweetkind, D.S.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Levy, S.S.; Roemer, 
G.J.C.; Roach, J.L.; Wolfsberg, L.E.; and Duff, M.C. 1997. Evaluation of Flow and 
Transport Models of Yucca Mountain, Based on Chlorine-36 Studies for FY97. LA-CSTTIP-
97-010. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.19980204.0196. 

A.2 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 

LA0509JF831222.001. Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts Leached from ESF Niche #3566 
(Niche #1) Drillcore. (Q) 

LAJF831222AQ98.004. Chloride, Bromide, Sulfate, and Chlorine-36 Analyses of Salts 
Leached from ESF Rock Samples. (Q) 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


APPENDIX B 
VIDEO-LOG OBSERVATIONS FROM VALIDATION STUDY BOREHOLES 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 879 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#1 ESF Station 19+65 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
9/30/1999 
13.4 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 2.9 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
1.7 rubble 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 
1.7 - 1.9 

2 2.9 - 5.2 2.1 rubble 5.0 - 5.2 
3 5.2 - 7.9 1.8 rubble 7.0 - 7.9 
4 7.9 - 10.9 2.3 rubble 10.2 - 10.9 
2 3.2 - 5.6 1.6 rubble 4.8 - 5.6 
3 5.6 - 8.2 2.6 5.6 - 7.2 = rubble; 7.2 - 8.2 = fairly intact w/ 3 fractures none 
4 8.2 - 10.7 1.7 rubble 9.9 - 10.7 
2 3.1 - 5.0 1.5 rubble 4.6 - 5.0 
3 5.0 - 6.9 1.9 rubble none 
4 6.9 - 8.1 1.1 rubble 8.0 - 8.1 
5 8.1 - 10.1 1.6 rubble 9.7 - 10.1 
6 10.1 - 10.6 0.5 10.1 - 10.4 = rubble; 10.4 - 10.6 = intact none 
7 10.6 - 12.0 0.6 rubble 11.2 - 12.0 
2.0 
- 3.7 0.6 rubble 2.6 - 3.7 
3.7 
- 5.8 0.5 rubble 4.2 - 5.8 

5 10.9 - 13.4 2.3 rubble 13.2 - 13.4 
SMF Name: 880 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#2 ESF Station 19+55 
Completion date: 9/29/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.5 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
1 0.0 - 3.2 1.8 rubble 1.8 - 3.2 

5 10.7 - 13.5 0.9 rubble 11.6 - 13.5 
SMF Name: 881 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#3 ESF Station 19+50 
Completion date: 9/29/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.6 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
1 0.0 - 3.1 1.5 rubble 1.5 - 3.1 

8 12.0 - 13.6 1.3 rubble 13.3 - 13.6 
SMF Name: 906 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#4 ESF Station 19+45 
Completion date: 9/28/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.8 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
0.0 - 2.0 0.9 rubble 0.9 - 2.0 

5.8 - 7.6 0.3 rubble 6.1 - 7.6 

7.6 - 9.6 2 7.6 - 8.5 = rubble; 8.5 - 8.7 = fractured, rubbly; 9.2 - 9.6 = intact none 
9.6 - 10.5 0.9 9.6 - 9.9 = rubble; 9.9 - 10.5 = intact w/ 2 fractures none 
10.5 - 13.8 3.2 10.5 - 11.1= fairly intact w/2 fractures; 11.1 - 11.5 = rubble; 11.5 - 13.7 = 13.7 - 13.8 
fairly intact w/ 6 fractures 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 907 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#5 ESF Station 19+40 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
9/27/1999 
33.3 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 3.5 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
0.7 rubble 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 
0.7 - 3.5 

2 3.5 - 5.7 1.6 3.5 - 3.9 = rubble; 3.9 - 4.4 = fairly intact w/ 2 fractures; 4.4 - 4.6 = 5.1 - 5.7 
rubble; 4.6 - 5.1 = fairly intact w/ 1 fracture 
3 5.7 - 9.4 2.5 5.7 - 6.5 = rubble; 6.5 - 6.8 = fairly intact w/ 1 fracture; 6.8 - 7.3 = rubble; 8.2 - 9.4 
7.3 - 7.7 = fractured; 7.7 - 8.2 = fairly intact w/ 2 fractures 

6 14.3 - 16.3 1.1 rubble 15.4 - 16.3 
7 16.3 - 19.1 1.4 16.3 - 16.9 = rubble; 16.9 - 17.4 = fairly intact w/ 1 fracture; 17.4 - 17.7 = 17.7 - 19.1 
rubble 
8 19.1 - 21.2 1.6 19.1 - 19.7= fairly intact w/2 fractures; 19.7 - 20.1 = rubble; 20.1 - 20.5 = 20.7 - 21.2 
fairly intact w/ 1 fracture; 20.5 - 20.7 = rubble 
9 21.2 - 23.4 1.8 21.2 - 22.2 = rubble; 22.2 - 22.6 = fairly intact w/ 2 fractures; 22.6 - 23.0 23.0 - 23.4 
= rubble 

4 9.4 -11.5 1.5 9.4 - 9.8 = rubble; 9.8 - 10.2 = intact; 10.2 - 10.9 = rubbly, fractured 10.9 - 11.5 
5 11.5 - 14.3 1.2 11.5 - 11.8 = rubble; 11.8 - 12.3 = intact w/ 1 fracture; 12.3 - 12.7 = 12.7 - 14.3 
rubble 

10 23.4 - 25.4 2 rubble none 

11 25.4 - 29.4 3.3 25.4 - 26.8 = rubble; 26.8 - 27.3 = fairly intact w/ 2 fractures; 27.3 - 27.5 28.7 - 29.4 
= rubble; 27.5 - 28.7 = fairly intact w/ 5 fractures 

12 29.4 - 33.3 3.3 rubble 32.7 - 33.3 

SMF Name: 908 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#6 ESF Station 19+35 
Completion date: 9/30/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.9 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.2 1.6 0.0 - 0.5 = rubble; 0.5 - 0.8 = fairly intact w/ 1 fracture; 0.8 - 1.2 = 1.6 - 2.2 
rubble; 1.2 - 1.6 = fairly intact 
2 2.2 - 4.8 2.1 2.2 - 2.6 = fairly intact w/ 1 fracture; 2.6 - 3.3 = fractured; 3.3 - 3.6 = 4.3 - 4.8 
rubble; 3.6 - 4.1 = intact; 4.1 - 4.3 = fractured 
3 4.8 - 7.2 2.4 4.8 - 5.0 = rubble; 5.0 - 5.4 = fractured; 5.4 - 5.7 = rubble; 5.7 - 6.6 = none 
fairly intact w/ 3 fractures; 6.6 - 6.9 = fractured; 6.9 - 7.2 = intact 
4 7.2 - 10.7 2.9 7.2 - 8.0 = fractured; 8.0 - 8.7 = intact w/ 1 fracture; 8.7 - 8.9 = rubble; 10.1 - 10.7 
8.9 - 9.3 = intact; 9.3 - 9.4 = rubble; 9.4 - 10.1 = intact w/ 1 fracture 

5 10.7 - 13.9 3.4 (3.2 + 10.7 - 10.9 = fractured; 10.9 - 12.2 = intact w/ 1 fracture; 12.2 - 13.7 = none 
0.2) intact w/ 3 fractures; 13.7 - 13.9 = rubble 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 909 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#7 ESF Station 19+30 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
10/5/1999 
13.6 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 2.2 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
1.2 rubble 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 
1.2 - 2.2 

2 2.2 - 5.4 2.2 2.2 - 2.5 = rubble; 2.5 - 2.7 = intact; 2.7 - 3.9 = rubble; 3.9 - 4.4 = intact 4.4 - 5.4 
3 5.4 - 7.3 1.9 rubble none 
4 7.3 - 9.6 1.7 7.3 - 7.6 = rubble; 7.6 - 8.0 = intact; 8.0 - 8.8 = rubble; 8.8 - 9.0 9.0 - 9.6 
=fractured 
5 9.6 - 13.6 3 9.6 - 10.0 = rubble; 10.0 - 12.1 = fairly intact w/ 6 fractures; 12.1 - 12.6 = 12.6 - 13.6 
fractured, rubbly 

SMF Name: 910 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#8 ESF Station 19+25 
Completion date: 10/5/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 1.4 0.8 fractured, broken 0.8 - 1.4 
2 1.4 - 3.8 1.2 1.4 - 1.5 = rubble; 1.5 - 2.2 = fairly intact w/ 2 fractures and crystal-lined 2.6 - 3.8 
cavities in this section; 2.2 - 2.6 = rubble 
3 3.8 - 7.4 3.2 3.8 - 4.2 = fractured rubbly; 4.2 - 5.0 = fairly intact w/ 3 fractures; 5.0 - 7.0 - 7.4 
6.8 = intact w/ 2 frac. & 2 cavities; 6.8 - 7.0 = rubble 

4 7.4 - 10.3 1.8 7.4 - 7.5 = rubble; 7.5 - 7.7 = intact; 7.7 - 8.1 = rubble; 8.1 - 8.7 = intact; 9.2 - 10.3 
8.7 - 9.2 = fractured, rubbly 

5 10.3 - 13.4 2.8 10.3 - 10.7 = rubble; 10.7 - 11.5 = fairly intact w/ 3 fractures; 11.5 - 11.8 13.1 - 13.4 
= rubble; 11.8 - 12.5 = fairly intact w/ 1 fracture; 12.5 - 12.9 = fractured, 
broken; 12.9 - 13.1 = intact 

SMF Name: 911 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#9 ESF Station 19+20 
Completion date: 10/6/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.3 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.4 0.9 rubble 0.9 - 2.4 
2 2.4 - 5.2 2.5 2.4 - 2.8 = rubble; 2.8 - 3.3 = fairly intact w/ 1 fracture; 3.3 - 3.8 = rubble; 4.9 - 5.2 
3.8 - 4.5 = intact w/ 1 fracture; 4.5 - 4.9 = fractured, rubbly 

3 5.2 - 7.3 1.7 5.2 - 5.7 = fractured, broken; 5.7 - 6.1 = fairly intact w/ 2 fractures; 6.1 - 6.9 - 7.3 
6.9 = rubble 

4 7.3 - 10.3 2.2 7.3 - 8.2 = rubble; 8.2 - 8.7 = intact w/ 1 fracture; 8.7 - 9.5 = fractured, 9.5 - 10.3 
rubbly 
5 10.3 - 12.3 2.2 10.3 - 10.8 = intact w/1 frac. & lg. cavity; 10.8 - 11.5 = rubble; 11.5 - 12.2 12.5 - 13.3 
= fairly intact w/ 4 fractures; 12.2 - 12.5 = rubble 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 912 
Borehole name: ESF-DHW-ClV#10 ESF Station 19+10 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
10/6/1999 
13.4 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 2.4 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
0.5 rubble 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 
.05 - 2.4 

2 2.4 - 5.3 2.3 2.4 - 2.7 = rubble; 2.7 - 3.7 = fractured, broken; 3.7 - 4.7 = rubble 4.7 - 5.3 
3 5.3 - 7.6 0.6 rubble 5.9 - 7.6 
4 7.6 - 10.4 1.6 7.6 - 8.2 = rubble; 8.2 - 8.6 = fairly intact w/ 2 fractures; 8.6 - 9.0 = 9.2 - 10.4 
rubble; 9.0 - 9.2 = intact 
2 2.1 - 4.3 2.8 Intact, ~2 Fractures, Broken (3.7 - 3.8) 4.2 - 4.3 
3 4.3 - 6.3 2 Broken 6.2 - 6.3 
4 6.3 - 8.1 1.8 Intact, 2-3 Fractures 8.0 - 8.1 
5 8.1 - 9.1 0.9 Broken 9.0 - 9.1 
6 9.1 - 11.0 1.4 ~2 Fractures, Broken 10.5 - 11.0 
7 11.0 - 12.8 2.1 Broken -
8 12.8 - 13.5 0.9 Broken -

5 10.4 - 13.4 2 10.4 - 11.2 = fractured, rubbly; 11.2 - 12.0 = fairly intact w/ 2 fractures; 12.4 - 13.4 
12.0 - 12.4 = fractured, rubbly 
SMF Name: 913 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#1 ESF Station 36+90 
Completion date: 6/17/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.5 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Description Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
1 0.0 - 2.1 1.4 Broken, ~1 Fracture 1.4 - 2.1 

SMF Name: 914 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#2 ESF Station 36+75 
Completion date: 6/16/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.6 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.0 1.8 Broken(0.0 - 1.8) 1.8 - 2.0 
9 12.5 - 13.6 0.9 Intact, 1 Fracture(12.5 - 13.4) 13.4 - 13.6 

2 2.0 - 3.9 1.4 Rubbly(2.0 - 2.3); Intact(2.3 - 2.7); Intact with ~4 Fractures(2.7 - 3.9) -
3 3.9 - 4.7 0.9 Broken(3.9 - 4.1); Intact(4.1 - 4.7) -
4 4.7 - 5.9 1.2 Rubbly(4.7 - 4.8); Intact, ~1 Fracture(4.8 - 5.9) -
5 5.9 - 8.0 2.1 Intact(5.9 - 6.4); Broken(6.4 - 7.0); Intact(7.0 - 7.6); Broken(7.6 - 8.0) -
6 8.0 - 9.9 1.9 Intact, ~3 Fractures(8.0 - 9.9) -
7 9.9 - 12.0 1.9 Intact(9.9 - 10.7); Intact(10.7 - 11.5); Broken(11.5 - 11.8) 11.8 - 12.0 
8 12.0 - 12.5 0.5 Broken -


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 915 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#3 ESF Station 36+60 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
6/15/1999 
13.6 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 0.6 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
0.6 Rubbly(0.0 - 0.6) 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 
-

2 0.6 -2.5 1.7 Broken(0.6 - 2.3) 2.3 - 2.5 
3 2.5 - 4.2 1.8 Broken, ~3 Fractures -
4 4.2 - 6.3 2 Broken, ~7 Fractures(4.2 - 6.2) 6.2 - 6.3 
5 6.3 - 7.4 1.1 Intact(6.3 - 7.2); Broken(7.2 - 7.4) -
6 7.4 - 9.4 1.9 Broken, ~6 Fractures(7.4 - 9.3) 9.3 - 9.4 
7 9.4 - 11.4 2 Broken(9.4 - 10.8); Broken - Rubbly(10.8 - 11.4) -
8 11.4 - 12.8 1.2 Rubbly(11.4 - 11.8); Intact(11.8 - 12.3); Rubbly(12.3 - 12.6); Broken(12.6 -
- 12.8) 

9 12.8 - 13.6 0.7 Broken(12.8 - 12.5) 13.5 - 13.6 
SMF Name: 916 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#4 ESF Station 36+35 
Completion date: 6/14/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
1 0.0 - 2.1 1.8 Broken, >8 Fractures(0.0 - 1.8) 1.8 - 2.1 

2 2.1 - 4.4 1.7 Rubbly(2.1 - 2.8); Broken(2.8 - 3.1); Rubbly - Broken(3.1 - 3.8) 3.8 - 4.4 
3 4.4 - 5.7 1.2 Rubbly(4.4 - 4.7); Rubbly - Broken(4.7 - 5.3); Rubbly(5.3 - 5.6) 5.6 - 5.7 
4 5.7 - 6.3 0.6 Broken(5.7 - 5.9); Rubbly(5.9 - 6.3) -
5 6.3 - 8.3 2 Intact(6.3 - 6.7); Broken(6.7 - 7.2); Rubbly(7.2 - 7.8); Broken(7.8 - 8.3) -
6 8.3 - 10.3 1.6 Rubbly(8.3 - 9.4); Broken(9.4 - 9.9) 9.9 - 10.3 
7 10.3 - 12.3 2 Broken - Rubbly(10.3 - 11.1); Broken, >6 Fractures(11.1 - 12.3) -
8 12.3 - 13.4 1.1 Broken, ~6 Fractures(12.3 - 13.4) -
SMF Name: 917 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#5 ESF Station 36+20 
Completion date: 6/10/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.5 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
1 0.0 - 2.1 0.9 Rubbly - Shattered(0.0 - 0.9) 0.9 - 2.1 

2 2.1 - 4.1 2.3 Shattered - Rubbly(2.1 - 2.5); Broken(2.5 - 4.1) -
3 4.1 - 5.8 1 Rubbly(4.1 - 5.1) 5.1 - 5.8 
4 5.8 - 7.9 0.9 Rubbly(5.8 - 6.7) 6.7 - 7.9 
5 7.9 - 10.1 1.8 Rubbly - Shattered(7.9 - 9.7) 9.7 - 10.1 
6 10.1 - 12.1 0.7 Block(10.1 - 10.4); Rubbly(10.4 - 10.8) 10.8 - 12.1 
7 12.1 - 13.5 0.9 Rubbly(12.1 - 13.0) 13.0 - 13.5 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 918 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#6 ESF Station 36+10 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
6/10/1999 
13.4 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 2.0 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
0.4 Broken - Rubbly(0.0 - 0.4) 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 
0.4 - 2.0 

2 2.0 - 4.0 1.9 Rubbly(2.0 - 3.9) 3.9 - 4.0 
3 4.0 - 5.7 1.3 Rubbly(4.0 - 5.0); Intact, few hairline fractures(5.0 - 5.3) 5.3 - 5.7 
4 5.7 - 7.8 1.2 Rubbly(5.7 - 6.9) 6.9 - 7.8 
5 7.8 - 10.8 2.7 Rubbly - Shattered(7.8 - 9.3); Broken(9.4 - 10.2); Rubbly(10.2 - 10.5) 10.5 - 10.8 
6 10.8 - 12.3 1.2 Rubbly(10.8 - 11.4); Broken(11.4 - 12.0) 12.0 - 12.3 
7 12.3 - 12.4 0 No Core 12.3 - 12.4 

SMF Name: 919 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#7 ESF Station 36+05 
Completion date: 6/8/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.5 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.0 1.1 Rubbly(0.0 - 1.1) 1.1 - 2.0 

2 2.0 - 3.9 0.1 Rubbly(2.0 - 2.1) 2.1 - 3.9 
3 3.9 - 6.0 0.5 2 blocks(3.9 - 4.4) 4.4 - 6.0 
4 6.0 - 8.1 2 Broken, >12 Fractures(6.0 - 8.0) 8.0 - 8.1 
5 8.1 - 10.7 1.6 Broken, ~3 Fractures(8.1 - 8.8); Rubbly(8.8 - 9.4); Broken(9.4 - 9.6); 9.7 - 10.7 
Rubbly(9.6 - 9.7) 

6 10.7 - 11.7 1 Rubbly -
7 11.7 - 13.5 0.6 Rubbly(11.7 - 12.3) 12.3 - 13.5 
SMF Name: 920 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#8 ESF Station 36+00 
Completion date: 6/8/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.5 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
1 0.0 - 2.0 1.7 Rubbly(0.0 - 1.0); Broken(1.0 - 1.7) 1.7 - 2.0 

2 2.0 - 4.0 1.4 Broken - Rubbly(2.0 - 2.8); Rubbly(2.8 - 3.4) 3.4 - 4.0 
3 4.0 - 6.0 1.5 Rubbly(4.0 - 4.3); Block(4.3 - 4.7); Rubbly(4.7 - 5.5) 5.5 - 6.0 
4 6.0 - 7.9 0.2 Block(6.0 - 6.2) 6.2 - 7.9 
5 7.9 - 9.9 2 Rubbly(7.9 - 9.9) -
6 9.9 - 11.9 1.9 Rubbly(9.9 - 11.8) 11.8 - 11.9 
7 11.9 - 13.5 1.1 Rubbly(11.9 - 12.3); Broken(12.3 - 13.0) 13.0 - 13.5 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 921 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#9 ESF Station 35+95 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
6/7/1999 
13.6 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 4.5 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
0.3 Rubbly(0.0 - 0.3) 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 
0.3 - 4.5 

2 4.5 - 6.5 0.8 Rubbly(4.5 - 5.3) 5.3 - 6.5 
3 6.5 - 8.6 1.6 Rubbly(6.5 - 8.1) 8.1 - 8.6 
4 8.6 - 10.1 1.5 Rubbly(8.6 - 9.5); Block(9.5 - 9.7); Rubbly(9.7 - 10.1) -
5 10.1 - 11.5 1.4 Broken, ~6 Fractures(10.1 - 11.2); Rubbly(11.2 - 11.5) -
6 11.5 - 12.9 1.2 Block(11.5 - 11.7); Rubbly(11.7 - 12.7) 12.7 - 12.9 
7 12.9 - 13.6 0.7 Rubbly(12.9 - 13.6) -

SMF Name: 922 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#10 ESF Station 35+90 
Completion date: 6/3/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.0 1.9 Rubbly(0.0 - 0.6); Broken, ~ 2-4 Fractures(0.6 - 1.9) 1.9 - 2.0 
2 2.0 - 7.0 1.9 Block(2.0 - 2.2); Rubbly - Shattered(2.2 - 3.65); Block(3.7 - 3.9) 3.9 - 7.0 
3 7.0 - 9.9 1 Rubbly(7.0 - 8.0) 8.0 - 9.9 
4 9.9 - 13.4 3.1 Block(9.9 - 10.2); Rubbly(10.2 - 10.8); Block(10.8 - 11.1); Rubbly(11.05 - 13.0 - 13.4 
11.7); Broken, ~4-6 Fractures(11.7 - 12.8); Rubbly(12.8 - 13.0) 

SMF Name: 923 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#11 ESF Station 35+85 
Completion date: 6/3/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.6 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 4.1 3.4 ~2 Fractures(0.0 - 1.7); Broken, ~5 Fractures(1.7 - 3.0); Broken - 3.4 - 4.1 
Rubbly(3.0 - 3.4) 
2 2.0 - 7.1 5.1 Intact, few hairline fractures(2.0 - 3.3); Broken(3.3 - 3.65); Intact(3.65 - -
4.3); Broken(4.3 - 5.6); Rubbly(5.6 - 7.1) 
3 7.1 - 11.5 3.3 Rubbly(7.1 - 7.5); Broken(7.5 - 8.9); Rubbly(8.9 - 9.4); Broken(9.4 - 9.8); 10.4 - 11.5 
Rubbly(9.8 - 10.4) 
4 11.5 - 13.6 1.9 Rubbly(11.5 - 11.85); Broken(11.85 - 12.2); Intact, few hairline 13.4 - 13.6 
fractures(12.2 - 12.9); Rubbly - Broken(12.9 - 13.4) 

2 4.1 - 5.7 1.1 Rubbly(4.1 - 5.1) 5.1 - 5.7 
3 5.7 - 9.0 2.2 Rubbly(5.7 - 6.7); Broken(6.7 - 7.9) 7.9 - 9.0 
4 9.0 - 13.6 3.5 Broken(9.0 - 9.6); Rubbly - Shattered(9.6 -10.6); Broken(10.6 - 12.5) 12.5 - 13.6 
SMF Name: 924 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#12 ESF Station 35+80 
Completion date: 6/2/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.6 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
1 0.0 - 2.0 1.7 Broken - Rubbly(0.0 - 1.2); Broken(1.2 - 1.7) 1.7 - 2.0 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 925 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#13 ESF Station 35+75 
Completion date: 6/2/1999 
Total depth (ft) 32.6 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
1 0.0 - 1.7 1.7 Rubbly - Broken -
2 1.7 - 2.9 1.2 Broken - Rubbly -

3 2.9 - 7.0 3.8 Broken, >12 Fractures(2.9 - 6.3); Rubbly(6.3 - 6.7) 6.7 - 7.0 
4 7.0 - 9.7 1.6 Rubbly - Broken(7.0 - 8.6) 8.6 - 9.7 
5 9.7 - 13.9 3 Rubbly(9.7 - 11.4); Intact(11.4 - 11.85); Broken(11.85 - 12.7) 12.7 - 13.9 
6 13.9 - 17.0 2.2 Broken(13.9 - 14.4); Rubbly(14.4 - 14.7); Broken(14.7 - 15.0); Intact(15.0 16.1 - 17.0 
- 15.8); Broken(15.8 - 16.1) 

7 17.0 - 18.8 1.3 Intact(17.0 - 17.5); Broken(17.5 - 17.9); Rubbly(17.9 - 18.3) 18.3 - 18.8 
8 18.8 - 21.7 2.9 Rubbly(18.8 - 19.6); Broken(19.6 - 20.5); Broken - Rubbly(20.5 - 21.7) -
9 21.7 - 23.2 1.5 Rubbly(21.7 - 23.2) -

10 23.2 - 24.8 1.2 Broken - Rubbly(23.2 - 24.4) 24.4 - 24.8 

11 24.8 - 25.3 0.5 Broken(24.8 - 25.3) -

12 25.3 - 30.0 2 Rubbly(25.3 - 27.3) 27.3 - 30.0 

13 30.0 - 32.6 2.3 Rubbly(30.0 - 30.6); Broken - Rubbly(30.6 - 32.3) 32.3 - 32.6 

SMF Name: 926 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#14 ESF Station 35+45 
Completion date: 9/22/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.8 2.1 Mostly Broken, Rubbly 2.1 - 2.8 

2 2.8 - 5.4 2.6 Mostly Rubble, Broken -
3 5.4 - 6.9 1.5 Broken -
4 6.9 - 8.0 1 Broken, ~1 Fracture 7.9 - 8.0 
5 8.0 - 11.9 3.5 Rubbly (8.2 - 8.9), Broken, 2-3 Fractures 11.5 - 11.9 
6 11.9 - 13.4 1.8 Broken, 1 Fracture -
SMF Name: 927 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#15 ESF Station 35+40 
Completion date: 9/21/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.5 
Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 
1 0.0 - 1.9 1.7 Broken 1.7 - 1.9 

2 1.9 - 4.7 2.7 Mostly intact, Broken (4.3 - 4.6) 4.6 - 4.7 
3 4.7 - 7.8 2.4 Broken, ~2 Fractures 7.1 - 7.8 
4 7.8 - 12.1 4.1 Broken, ~3 Fractures 11.9 - 12.1 
5 12.1 - 13.5 1.6 Broken, ~2 Fractures -


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 928 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#16 ESF Station 35+35 
Completion date: 9/20/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.5 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.5 0.2 1 Block 0.2 - 0.5 
2 0.5 - 1.7 1.2 1 Fracture, Broken -
3 1.7 - 2.5 0.9 Intact, ~1 Fracture -
4 2.5 - 2.8 0.1 1 Block 2.6 - 2.8 
5 2.8 - 5.0 2.2 Broken -
6 5.0 - 6.7 1.7 Broken, ~1 Fracture -
7 6.7 - 7.4 0.6 Broken 7.3 - 7.4 
8 7.4 - 9.3 1.8 Broken 9.2 - 9.3 
9 9.3 - 13.5 3.9 Broken 13.2 - 13.5 

SMF Name: 929 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#17 ESF Station 35+30 
Completion date: 9/17/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.3 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.5 0.5 Broken -
2 0.5 - 2.6 2.1 Broken, ~3 Fractures -
3 2.6 - 4.7 2.1 Broken -
4 4.7 - 5.5 0.8 Broken, Blocky -
5 5.5 - 6.9 1.4 Broken, Some Fractures? (Video black out) -
6 6.9 - 8.5 1.6 Broken, ~2 Fractures -
7 8.5 - 9.8 0.8 Broken 9.3 - 9.8 
8 9.8 - 10.5 0.9 Broken, Blocky -
9 10.5 - 13.3 2.7 Broken, 2-3 Fractures 13.2 - 13.3 

SMF Name: 930 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#18 ESF Station 35+25 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
9/16/1999 
13.5 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 2.1 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
1.9 Broken, ~2 Fractures 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 
1.9 - 2.1 

2 2.1 - 3.6 1.5 Broken, ~3 Fractures -
3 3.6 - 5.7 2.1 Broken 5.6 - 5.7 
4 5.7 - 7.5 1.5 Broken 7.2 - 7.5 
5 7.5 - 8.8 1.2 Broken, ~2 Fractures? 8.7 - 8.8 
6 8.8 - 10.2 1.4 Broken -
7 10.2 - 10.9 0.7 Broken -
8 10.9 - 12.6 0.9 Broken 11.8 - 12.6 
9 12.6 - 13.5 1.2 Rubbly - Broken -


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 931 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#19 ESF Station 35+20 
Completion date: 9/15/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 3.4 2.9 Intact, 2 Fractures, Broken (1.0 - 1.3) 2.9 - 3.4 
5 9.4 - 10.2 0.6 Broken, Blocky 10.0 - 10.2 
6 10.2 - 11.7 1.5 Broken -
7 11.7 - 13.4 1.4 Broken, 1 Fracture 13.1 - 13.4 

2 3.4 - 5.7 2.3 Intact - Broken -
3 5.7 - 8.3 2.4 Broken - Rubbly 8.1 - 8.3 
4 8.3 - 9.4 1 1 Fracture, Broken 9.3 - 9.4 

SMF Name: 932 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#20 ESF Station 35+15 
Completion date: 9/14/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.2 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 1.3 1 Rubbly 1.0 - 1.3 
5 8.6 - 9.1 0.5 Broken, Blocky -
6 9.1 - 10.5 1.3 Intact, 1 Fracture, Broken 10.4 - 10.5 
7 10.5 - 11.4 0.9 2-3 Fractures, Broken -
8 11.4 - 13.2 1.6 Broken, Blocky 13.0 - 13.2 

2 1.3 - 3.5 1.5 Broken - Rubble 2.8 - 3.5 
3 3.5 - 6.1 2.6 Broken - Rubble -
4 6.1 - 8.6 2.6 Broken -

SMF Name: 933 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#21 ESF Station 35+10 
Completion date: 9/13/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 1.7 1.4 Very Broken 1.4 - 1.7 

2 1.7 - 4.7 2.9 Broken - Rubbly 4.6 - 4.7 
3 4.7 - 7.1 2.4 Broken -
4 7.1 - 11.3 4 Intact, ~3 Fractures, Broken in some areas 11.1 - 11.3 
5 11.3 - 13.4 2.1 Intact, 1 Fracture, Broken (13.0 - 13.4) -


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 934 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#22 ESF Station 35+05 
Completion date: 9/13/1999 
Total depth (ft) 14.0 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.3 1.9 Broken, Blocky, 1.9 - 2.3 
2 2.3 - 3.4 1.1 Broken, Blocky, -
3 3.4 - 6.5 2.9 Very Broken 6.3 - 6.5 
4 6.5 - 11.3 4.7 Broken 11.2 - 11.3 
5 11.3 - 14.8 2.3 Broken - Rubbly 13.6 - 14.8 

SMF Name: 935 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#23 ESF Station 35+00 
Completion date: 9/10/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.7 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.9 0.9 Broken -
2 0.9 - 1.3 0.3 1 Block 1.2 - 1.3 
3 1.3 - 2.0 0.7 Broken, Blocky -
4 2.0 - 2.3 0.3 1 Block -
5 2.3 - 4.9 2.5 Broken, 2-3 Fractures? 4.8 - 4.9 
6 4.9 - 6.7 1.9 Broken -
7 6.7 - 11.4 4.7 Intact, 4 Fractures, Broken (9.4 - 10.1) -
8 11.4 - 11.6 0.1 Rubble 11.5 - 11.6 
9 11.6 - 13.7 2.1 Broken, ~3 Fractures -

SMF Name: 936 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#24 ESF Station 34+95 
Completion date: 9/9/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.1 2 Rubble (0.0 - 0.8), Broken (0.8 - 2.0) 2.0 - 2.1 

2 2.1 - 7.0 4.9 Large intact pieces, broken in 6 areas -
3 7.0 - 8.8 1.8 Broken -
4 8.8 - 10.1 1.2 Broken, 1 Fracture? 10.0 - 10.1 
5 10.1 - 11.3 0.9 Broken 11.0 - 11.3 
6 11.3 - 13.4 2.1 Broken -


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 937 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#25 ESF Station 34+90 
Completion date: 9/23/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.2 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.4 0.2 1 Block, Rubbly 0.2 - 0.4 
2 0.4 - 1.9 1.4 Blocky - Rubbly 1.8 - 1.9 
3 1.9 - 3.9 1.3 Rubble (1.9 - 2.2), Intact, 1 Fracture (2.2 - 3.0), Rubble (3.0 - 3.2) 3.2 - 3.9 
4 3.9 - 5.3 1.4 Broken -
5 5.3 - 5.6 0.4 Broken -
6 5.6 - 7.8 2.2 Broken, 3 Fractures, Very broken (7.3 - 7.8) -
7 7.8 - 9.9 2.1 Rubble ( 7.8 - 8.7), Broken (8.7 - 9.9) -
8 9.9 - 11.2 1.3 Broken - Rubbly 11.0 - 11.2 
9 11.2 - 13.2 1.3 Broken - Rubbly 12.5 - 13.2 

SMF Name: 938 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#26 ESF Station 34+73 
Completion date: 9/22/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.2 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.1 1.8 Intact ~ 2 Fractures 1.8 - 2.1 
2 2.1 - 2.6 0.6 Broken fragment, 1 Block 2.4 - 2.6 
3 2.6 - 3.2 0.6 Broken 3.1 - 3.2 
4 3.2 - 4.0 1 Broken, -
5 4.0 - 4.8 0.8 Intact, 1 Fracture -
6 4.8 - 5.1 0.2 1 Block 5.0 - 5.1 
7 5.1 - 6.9 1.8 Intact, ~2 Fractures -
8 6.9 - 9.0 2 Intact, ~3 Fractures 8.9 - 9.0 
9 9.0 - 11.0 1.9 Broken, 2-3 Fractures 10.9 - 11.0 

10 11.0 - 13.2 2.2 Intact, 2 Fractures -

SMF Name: 939 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#27 ESF Station 34+70 
Completion date: 4/9/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 3.6 3.5 0'-0.6' rubbly; 0.6'-3.6' Intact w/ several discrete fracs 

2 3.6 - 7.3 3.6 Intact w/ several discrete fracs 
3 7.3 - 12 4.7 7.3'-9.2' sparsely broken; 9.2-10.0 intact; 10.0-12.0 intact w/ 2-3 fracs 
4 12.0 - 13.4 1.4 Intact w/ ~4 fracs particularly between 13.0' and 13.4' 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 940 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#28 ESF Station 34+65 
Completion date: 4/8/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.3 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.2 1.9 Rubbly to broken; Good calcite @ 0.2 
2 2.2 - 4.0 1.8 Intact w/ 2-3 discrete fracs 
3 4.0 - 5.2 1.1 Increasingly broken towards the bottom of the run 
4 5.2 - 6.2 1 Broken between 5.6'-6.2' 
5 6.2 - 8.6 2.4 Intact w/ 4-5 fracs to 8.0'; 8.0'-8.6' is broken 
6 8.6 - 9.5 0.3 Rubble 
7 9.5 - 11.3 1.8 Intact to 10.5'; 10.5'-11.3' is broken 
8 11.3 - 12.7 1.4 Broken 
9 12.7 - 13.3 0.6 Rubble 

SMF Name: 941 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#29 ESF Station 34+60 
Completion date: 4/6/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.2 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 2.9 2.6 Broken by 6-10 discrete fracs 
2 2.9 - 5.8 2.9 Intact w/ 4-5 discrete fracs 
3 5.8 - 7.5 1.7 Broken 
4 7.5 - 8.9 1.2 Broken to rubble 
5 8.9 - 10.7 1.3 Intact to ~10.0' 
6 10.7 - 13.2 1.6 Broken 

SMF Name: 942 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#30 ESF Station 34+55 
Completion date: 4/5/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.6 0.3 3 small chunks 

2 0.6 - 3.3 2.7 Broken 
3 3.5 - 5.9 1.7 Broken to rubble 
4 5.9 - 8.5 2.5 Broken 
5 8.5 - 10.5 2 Rubble to broken 
6 10.5 - 11.8 0.9 Rubble 
7 11.8 - 13.4 1.8 Broken 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 943 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#31 ESF Station 34+50 
Completion date: 4/2/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.0 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.9 0.7 Broken 
2 0.9 - 1.1 0.2 1 chunk 
3 1.1 - 2.2 1 Broken w/ 4-5 transverse fracs 
4 2.2 - 2.8 0.6 Broken 
5 2.8 - 3.8 1 Broken 
6 3.8 - 4.7 0.7 Broken 
7 4.7 - 7.8 2.6 Rubble - 4.7'-6.2' in Lexan 
8 7.8 - 11.0 0.7 Rubble 
9 11.0 - 13.0 1.6 Rubble 

SMF Name: 944 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#32 ESF Station 34+45 
Completion date: 4/1/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.2 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.7 0.6 Broken 
2 0.7 - 3.3 2.6 0.7'-2.5' broken 
3 3.3 - 7.6 4.1 Broken w/ longitudinal fracs 
4 7.6 - 9.6 2.0 Intact 
5 9.6 - 10.4 0.2 1 chunk 
6 10.4 - 13.2 3.5 10.8'-11.7' fracture zone 

SMF Name: 945 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#33 ESF Station 34+40 
Completion date: 3/31/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.4 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.8 0.6 Broken 

2 0.8 - 3.0 2.1 2.0'-3.0' broken 
3 3.0 - 6.2 3 4.0'-6.2' broken 
4 6.2 - 9.5 2.7 6.8'-7.0' frac zone; 7.5'-9.5' longitudinal frac 
5 9.5 - 11.4 2.5 Intact w/ ~ 3 fracs 
6 11.4 - 13.9 1.4 Partially broken 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 946 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#34 ESF Station 34+35 
Completion date: 3/30/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.3 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 1.4 0.9 Broken 
6 3.0 - 3.8 0.5 Rubbly 
7 3.8 - 4.8 1 Intact w/ ~ 3 fracs 
8 4.8 - 7.7 2.8 4.8'-6.6' rubbly; 6.6'-7.7' intact w/ ~2-3 fracs 
9 7.7 - 8.3 0.5 Rubbly 
10 8.3 - 13.3 4.7 8.3'-10.0' rubbly; 10.4'-10.5' frac zone; 11.2'-13.0' longitudinal frac 
2 2.2 - 4.0 1.8 Broken to rubbly 
3 4.0 - 6.3 1.9 Intact w/ ~ 2 fracs 
4 6.3 - 6.4 0.1 1 chunk 
5 6.4 - 8.5 2.1 6.3'-8.5' broken 
6 8.5 - 9.2 0.5 Several chunks 
7 9.2 - 11.4 2.4 10.5'-10.7' broken zone; 11.2'-11.4' broken 
8 11.4 - 11.6 0.2 1 chunk 
9 11.6 - 12.8 1.2 Intact w/ 2-3 fracs 
10 12.8 - 13.3 0.5 

2 1.4 - 1.8 0.4 Broken 
3 1.8 -2.1 0.3 Broken 
4 2.1 - 2.5 0.3 Broken 
5 2.5 - 3.0 0.6 Broken 

SMF Name: 947 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#35 ESF Station 34+30 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
3/26/1999 
13.3 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 2.2 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
1.9 Broken 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 

SMF Name: 948 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#36 ESF Station 34+25 
Completion date: 3/25/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.3 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 1.0 0.7 Rubbly 
2 1.0 - 2.7 1.4 1.4'-2.4' broken 
3 2.7 - 3.4 0.8 ~4 fracs - broken 
4 3.4 - 3.9 0.5 Rubbly 
5 3.9 - 6.7 2.8 Broken 

6 6.7 -9.1 2.4 6.7'-7.0' rubbly; 7.0'-9.1' intact w/ ~4 fracs 
7 9.1 - 9.4 0.3 1 chunk 
8 9.4 - 10.6 1.2 Intact w/ ~ 5 fracs 
9 10.6 - 10.8 0.2 2 chunks 
10 10.8 - 13.3 1.3 10.8'-12.1' rubbly 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 949 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#37 ESF Station 34+20 
Completion date: 3/24/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.3 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.3 0.3 2 blocks 
2 0.3 - 0.9 0.4 4 blocks 
3 0.9 - 1.3 0.6 1 block 
4 1.3 - 5.9 4 1.3'-3.0' broken; 3.0'-5.9 intact w/ 2-3 discrete fracs 
5 5.9 - 8.9 3.8 Intact w/ ~7 discrete fracs 
6 8.9 - 9.7 ? ? 
7 9.7 - 13.3 3.3 9.7'-11.2' intact w/ ~3 fracs; 11.4'-13.0' broken 

SMF Name: 950 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#38 ESF Station 34+10 
Completion date: 3/23/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.2 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 0.6 0.4 Broken @ top 
2 0.6 - 1.4 0.8 4 fracs over 0.8' ~"broken" 
3 1.4 - 6.1 4.4 1.4'-2.6' intact; 2.6'-5.0' broken to rubbly; 5.0'-6.1' intact 
4 6.1 - 9.1 2.9 Intact w/ 4-5 discrete fracs 
5 9.1 - 11.0 1.7 9.1'-9.8' rubbly; 10.5'-10.8' broken 
6 11.0 - 12.7 1.7 11.0'-11.5' imbricate slices; 11.5'-12.7' intact 

7 12.7 - 13.2 0.4 ? 
SMF Name: 951 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#39 ESF Station 33+98 
Completion date: 
Total depth (ft) 
3/19/1999 
13.4 
Run # 
1 
Interval (ft) 
0.0 - 2.1 
Recovery 
(ft) 
Fractures/Comments 
1.9 Intact - 3 total (1@0.2 & 2@2.1) 
Unrecovered 
Core Interval 
(ft) 

2 2.1 - 5.7 3.6 Intact to ~5.0'; broken btwn 5.0-5.3'; rubbly btwn 5.4-5.7' 
3 5.7 - 7.8 2.1 Rubbly btwn ~6.6'-6.9'; 2-3 fracs @~7.3' 
4 7.8 - 8.0 0 Unrecovered 
5 8.0 - 9.3 Broken btwn 8.6'-9.3' 
6 9.3 - 10.1 0.8 Rubbly 
7 10.1 - 11.0 0.7 Broken 
8 11.0 - 13.4 2.4 Broken btwn 11.0'-12.1'; broken btwn 12.6'-13.4' 


Video Log Observations from Validation Study Boreholes 

SMF Name: 952 
Borehole name: ESF-SD-ClV#40 ESF Station 33+89 
Completion date: 3/17/1999 
Total depth (ft) 13.3 

Run # Interval (ft) Recovery Fractures/Comments Unrecovered 
(ft) Core Interval 
(ft) 

1 0.0 - 1.2 Intact - Complex frac. w/ cc filling 
2 1.2 - 5.2 3.8 Intact - 4-5 discrete fracs 
3 5.2 - 6.0 0.7 Intact - 2 discrete fracs 
4 6.0 - 8.1 2.1 Intact - 2 discrete fracs 
5 8.1 - 8.9 0.8 Intact - 2 discrete fracs 
6 8.9 - 11.6 2.7 5-6 fracs mostly btwn 10.5'-11.6' 
7 11.6 - 12.3 0.6 Rubbly 
8 12.3 - 13.3 1 1-2 @ ~12.9' 

Source: Paces (2003) 

NOTE: The information contained in this Appendix is not considered to be data, and it has not been 
collected under any formal QA procedure. 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


APPENDIX C 
ACCELERATOR MASS SPECTROMETRY METHODS 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


C1. OVERVIEW OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT CHLORINE-36 WORK 
AT LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) supporting the chlorine-36 
(36Cl) validation study was carried out in two phases, each involving somewhat different 
techniques, approaches, and personnel. The first phase occurred primarily in 2000, with 
the work consisting of active leaching of rock core samples, chlorine extraction from the 
leachate, chlorine concentration determination of the leachate by ion chromatography, 
and measurement of the 36Cl/Cl ratio of the chlorine by accelerator mass spectrometry 
(AMS). The second phase occurred during the latter part of 2001 and continued through 
2002, with the work consisting of chlorine extraction from leachates that were prepared 
by passive leaching at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Denver, chlorine 
concentration determination by measurement of the 35Cl/37Cl ratio by AMS in 
isotopically spiked samples, and measurement of the 36Cl/Cl ratio of the chlorine by 
AMS. The AMS measurements were made at the Center for Accelerator Mass 
Spectrometry (CAMS) at LLNL. 

The primary differences between the work in 2000 and that in 2001 and 2002 were that 

(1) the leachates were derived from active (about 7 hours) leaching at LLNL in 2000, 
whereas they were derived from passive leaching (about 1 hour) at the USGS in 20012002, 
and (2) chlorine concentration determination was by ion chromatography in 2000, 
but was by isotope dilution AMS in 2001-2002. The difference in method of chlorine 
concentration measurement had no effect on the outcome of the project, and precisions 
are regarded as similar between the ion chromatography and the AMS methods. Both 
methods produced agreement between aliquots measured at the USGS and with 
independent samples measured at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The 
difference in leaching techniques (active versus passive), however, did affect the outcome 
of the project. Active leaching produced a far higher concentration of chlorine than 
passive leaching, resulting in more chlorine being available for AMS analysis. This 
produced lower and more unstable AMS ion beam currents, which ultimately produced 
lower statistical analytical precision, as well as lower confidence in the replicability of 
the analysis. The latter concern, however, is lessened by the generally good replication 
of the two split aliquots prepared by LANL and LLNL, respectively, measured in the 
November 2001 AMS run. 

In 2001-2002, silver chloride (AgCl) samples were prepared at LANL and sent to LLNL 
for measurement of 36Cl/Cl and 35Cl/37Cl by AMS. The samples were treated for AMS 
analysis in every respect like the AgCl samples prepared at LLNL. Therefore, the 
discussion below concerning the procedures for AMS analysis of LLNL AgCl samples 
also applies to the LANL AgCl samples. 

Active and passive leaching procedures are discussed in the body of this report. This 
appendix discusses the details of the LLNL procedures for chlorine extraction, chlorine 
concentration measurement, and 36Cl/Cl and 35Cl/37Cl determination by AMS. 


C2. PROCEDURES FOR CHLORINE EXTRACTION FROM LEACHATE 

C2.1 Year 2000 Procedures 

Leachate solutions produced in 2000 ranged in size from about 2100 to about 3800 g. Of 
this liquid, one or two small (about 50 mL) aliquots were removed for ion 
chromatography chlorine concentration analysis. The remainder was then weighed and a 
pre-weighed amount of chlorine carrier (36Cl-free chloride salt) was added to the solution. 
The main purpose of this carrier was to increase the mass of chloride in the solution to 
facilitate chlorine extraction. The carrier chlorine itself was measured for its 36Cl content 
during every AMS run to ensure that no additional 36Cl was being added to the sample 
during carrier addition. Because of the very large amount of liquid involved, extraction 
of chloride relied on pumping the sample through an ion-exchange column containing 
AG-4X anion resin, using a peristaltic pump. The column was initially conditioned using 
three applications of 40 mL of high-purity nitric acid (HNO3 in two 1N applications and 
one 2.5N application). After all the leachate had passed through the column, chloride 
was eluted by applying three elution rinses of 40 mL 1N high-purity ammonium 
hydroxide (NH4OH) solution. Chlorine was then extracted from this solution using the 
chlorine extraction procedure described below, which also was used in 2001-2002. 

C2.2 Years 2001-2002 Procedures 

There were three main differences in procedures used between 2000 and 2001-2002. 
First, in 2001-2002, the leachate solution was created at the USGS and smaller sample 
sizes than those of 2000 were available (less than 2 L). It was felt that the smaller sample 
sizes did not require the anion column extraction method, and so this was not used. 
Second, no leachate aliquot was removed at LLNL for chlorine concentration analysis, 
although aliquots were removed and analyzed in Denver by the USGS. Third, for 20012002, 
the chlorine isotope tracer with a known 35Cl/37Cl ratio (TIP-CL-95, Preparation of 
Samples for Chlorine-36 Analysis) was added to the sample, and this was used in the 
AMS analysis for isotope dilution chlorine concentration determination. Other than these 
differences, the chlorine extraction procedures for both project phases were similar, as 
described in the following paragraphs. 

C2.3 Chloride Extraction Procedures 

The leachate solution was placed in an appropriately sized pre-cleaned glass beaker 
(typically 250 mL in 2000, and 1 L in 2001-2002). In 2001-2002, the sample was 
weighed prior to being placed in the beaker (in 2000, the sample was weighed prior to 
being passed through the anion column). In 2001-2002, the tracer solution was then 
added to the leachate (the carrier was added prior to the columns in 2000). The sample 
was then acidified by addition of concentrated high-purity nitric acid (HNO3). Silver was 
added to the solution in the form of a 5 percent solution of silver nitrate (AgNO3). Under 
acidic conditions, AgNO3 is dissociated while AgCl becomes insoluble, leading to the 
precipitation of AgCl. The sample was then left to sit overnight, covered with parafilm 
and enclosed in a Plexiglass hood for contamination protection, during which time the 


AgCl flocculated to the bottom of the beaker. The leachate solution (now chlorine-free) 
was then carefully removed from the beaker, leaving behind the AgCl precipitate. The 
precipitate was dissolved in less than 40 mL of a 1:1 solution of ultra-clean Milli-Q 
deionized water (resistivity greater than 17.5 megaohm-cm) and concentrated high-purity 
ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH), and this solution was transferred to capped centrifuge 
tubes for further processing. The sample was then reprecipitated using HNO3 and 
centrifuged before the supernate was poured off. The precipitate was washed twice with 
ultra-clean Milli-Q water, each time vortexing to break up the precipitate in the 
centrifuge tube and centrifuging to re-assemble the AgCl in the bottom of the tube. After 
each of the washings, the supernate water was poured off and after the first washing 
replaced with about 6 mL of clean Milli-Q water. After the second washing, the sample 
was redissolved in a less than 10 mL solution of 1:1 NH4OH (as above), filtered through 
a pre-cleaned 0.45-m cellulose nitrate membrane syringe filter attached to the tip of a 
10-mL capacity medical-grade syringe. HNO3 was added to the sample until AgCl again 
precipitated. The precipitate was then washed three times in Milli-Q water, using the 
vortexing/centrifuging alternation used for the first water washings. After the final 
washing, the sample was dried overnight in its centrifuge tube in a small laboratory 
convection oven at about 70C. The dried AgCl sample was then ready for mounting into 
an AMS target for 36Cl analysis. Although chlorine extraction procedures were 
somewhat different at LANL, the final productthe AgCl samplewas the same, and it 
was this sample that was sent to LLNL for AMS analysis. Therefore, from this stage 
onward, the sample handing and analysis was the same for samples originating at LANL 
and samples processed at LLNL. 

Typically, between four and seven samples were prepared simultaneously. With each 
preparation episode, one to three chemical extraction blanks were prepared. These 
samples were treated exactly like the actual samples, except that ultra-clean Milli-Q 
water was used instead of a leachate solution. The same amount of reagents, AgNO3, and 
carrier or tracer solutions were added to the chemical extraction blanks as were added to 
the samples. These blanks were then analyzed by AMS during the sample runs to 
determine the amount of 36Cl being added to the sample by the reagents, AgNO3, and 
carrier/tracer. The amount of 36Cl added, as determined by this measurement, was 
subtracted from the measured values of each actual sample during data reduction. The 
36Cl/Cl ratios reported by LLNL (DTNs: LL030408023121.027 [Q] and 
LL031200223121.036 [Q]) reflect this subtraction. In all cases, the amount subtracted 
was extremely minor, because very little 36Cl was ever detected in the blanks. 

C3. PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION OF LEACHATE CHLORINE 
CONCENTRATIONS 

C3.1 Year 2000 Procedures 

Chlorine concentrations were measured by ion chromatography at LLNL in 2000. 
Details of the analytical procedure are described in TIP-CL-110, Use of Ion 
Chromatography to Determine Anion Concentrations, and will not be discussed here. 
However, a few of the most pertinent points will be mentioned. 


The instrument used was a commercially available Dionex AI-450 Ion Chromatograph, 
using the imbedded Dionex PeakNet software for instrument control and data reduction. 
The eluent used was a solution of NaHCO3 + Na2CO3, in about 1:1 molar amounts. The 
microbore piston option was used, allowing a liquid flow of 0.3 mL/min at a pressure of 
about 1,400 psi. This produced an anion column retention time for chlorine of about 

3.8 min. Total collection time for the ion chromatography spectrum was 14 min. 

Sample concentrations were derived by reference to standard solutions with nominal 
values of 0.3, 0.5, 2.0, and 3.0 g/g chlorine. The standards were prepared from a 
commercially available NIST-traceable (confirmation vs. SRM 3182) 1,000 g/g stock 
standard solution. Preparation of standard solutions used for the ion chromatography 
calibration curve was done using a 100-g capacity, 0.1 percent sensitivity (quantities 
greater than 0.4 g) analytical balance. Because the analyses were done over a short time 
period, the same calibration curve could be used for all of the analyses. The calibration 
was by peak area (as opposed to height), with a linear fit curve forced through the origin. 
The r2 value of the fit of the calibration standards to the curve was 0.9796. 

Due to time pressures, all samples were analyzed only once, which was allowed by the 
controlling technical implementation procedure (TIP-CL-110). Analytical precision can 
be assessed only by replication of standard solutions run as unknowns, including some 
standards not used to derive the calibration curve. Replication ranges from about 
6 percent at the 0.5 g/g chlorine level, to about 2 percent at the 3.0 g/g level. Most 
samples analyzed by ion chromatography in this project had concentrations greater than 
1 g/g, and an analytical error of 5 percent (2s) has been assigned to all of the analyses. 
This appears to be sufficiently conservative. 

C3.2 Years 2001-2002 Procedures 

The procedure used for chlorine concentration determination in 2001-2002 was isotope 
dilution mass spectrometry using the LLNL AMS. The method employs the variation 
between the measured 35Cl/37Cl ratio in the sample and the measured 35Cl/37Cl ratio in the 
tracer that has been added to the sample (as discussed above). The measured deviation 
from the tracer 35Cl/37Cl value (~0.9 in this project) is due to the addition of the natural 
chlorine in the leachate (with the terrestrial natural 35Cl/37Cl ratio of 3.127). The 
magnitude of the deviation is directly related to the concentration of chloride in the 
leachate sample. Therefore, the leachate sample concentration can be calculated from the 
magnitude of the deviation. This method is the same as the standard isotope dilution 
method commonly used in mass spectrometry, and the calculations used to derive the 
sample chlorine concentration from the measured values also are commonly 
recognizable. 

For this project, the tracer 35Cl/37Cl ratio was measured in one or more tracer-only 
(blank) samples during the course of each run. To account for instrumental mass bias, 
the value was normalized to the 35Cl/37Cl ratio measured in the AMS standards 
(LLNL111) used during the run. It was this in-run value for the tracer that was used 
during data reduction. 


The conditions of the AMS analysis pertinent to the isotope dilution 35Cl/37Cl 
measurement are discussed in the following section. 

C4. PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION OF CHLORINE-36/CHLORINE 

AND CHLORINE-35/CHLORINE-37 BY ACCELERATOR MASS 

SPECTROMETRY 

Samples were analyzed for chlorine isotopes using the FN tandem accelerator mass 
spectrometer housed within the CAMS at LLNL. Samples are ionized to negative 
chlorine ions by bombardment with a cesium ion beam in the instrument source. The 
negative ions are then extracted, using a positive electrical potential, into the beamline of 
the instrument where the ion particles are accelerated to 8.3MV within the tandem 
accelerator. In the center of the tandem, the ion beam is passed through a thin carbon 
foil, which breaks up molecular species that can be mass/energy interferences and also 
strips electrons from the chlorine anions, creating positively charged chlorine cations. 
The cations are then further accelerated by a negative electrical potential to the end of the 
tandem unit, where they pass into a long instrument beamline with extensive beam 
focusing, steering, and deflecting capabilities, including two 90 curvature mass-
separation magnets that separate the three chlorine isotopes into separate streams. The 
stream (beam) that finally makes it to the detector is composed almost entirely of 36Cl 
ions, although an unwanted amount of interfering 36S can still be present. The ions are 
detected through 5-fold coincident detection of electrons given off during collisional 
interaction between the ions and gas within the detector (i.e., five coincident detections 
equals one 36Cl count). This provides the mechanism for discriminating between 36Cl 
ions and 36S ions within the detector, because the very small difference in mass between 
the two species produces different energy loss during gas interaction and therefore 
different coincident detection patterns. Two Faraday cups located between the two 90 
magnets measure the currents of 35Cl and 37Cl. The ratio of the currents normalized to 
those of the standards is the 35Cl/37Cl ratio. 

Procedures specific to the 36Cl analyses for the two phases of this project are given in the 
following sections. 

C4.1 Year 2000 Procedures 

The AMS procedures used in 2000 are identical to those used in 2001-2002, except that 
the 35Cl/37Cl ratio was not measured because the isotope dilution technique for chlorine 
concentration determination was not used. A substantial difference between the two 
phases of the project exists, however, due to the larger AgCl sample sizes obtained in 
2000. The larger AgCl sizes were due both to the higher chlorine concentrations of the 
leachates and to the larger leachate volumes available for analysis. Larger amounts of 
AgCl result in larger and more stable AMS beam currents, resulting in greater analytical 
precision and probably greater replicability of results. This is discussed more fully below 
with respect to the procedures for 2001-2002. 


C4.2 Years 2001-2002 Procedures 

In order to place AgCl samples within the AMS instrument for analysis, the AgCl must 
be placed in stainless steel holders, commonly called targets. The targets are small, 
hollow cylinders about 1 inch long, with an inner diameter opening of about 0.25 inches. 
They are closed at one end, giving them the appearance of a small bullet casing (shell). 
The center of the target is filled with silver bromide (AgBr), which eliminates 36Cl and 
36S contamination derived from the stainless steel and acts as a thermal and electrical 
buffer to the AgCl during analysis. A small hole is drilled into the center of the AgBr 
into which the AgCl of the sample is packed. 

It has been standard practice through the years to use at least about 3 mg AgCl for an 
analysis. This amount was available in 2000, but not in 2001-2002. During this second 
phase, samples as small as 0.3 mg AgCl were used, for which a smaller diameter hole 
was drilled in the target AgBr. The purpose of drilling smaller diameter holes is to slow 
ionization and prolong the analysis as much as possible, so that several determinations of 
a single sample can be made during the course of the analytical day. This produces better 
between-determination statistics and more confidence in the individual determinations. 
However, this method has at least three important negative effects. First, the smaller 
diameter of the sample hole produces a smaller ion cloud in the source, resulting in 
smaller beam currents for the same extraction potential. A typical 37Cl beam current 
(measured in the Faraday cup) for a 3 mg AgCl sample is about 20 A, whereas beam 
currents for 2001-2002 samples (small holes) were often in the 1 to 5 A range. Because 
extraction potential cannot be substantially increased without causing electrical instability 
within the source, beam currents cannot be artificially increased for small samples. For 
the same duration of analysis, smaller beam currents produce fewer 36Cl detector counts 
than normal beam currents, and this of course produces poorer within-determination 
statistical precision (most simplistically, 1/vn). Second, the smaller samples were 
expended during the course of analysis, so that more 36Cl counts (better statistics) could 
not be achieved simply by running the sample for a longer period. This also produced 
fewer individual determinations during the course of the run (the larger samples analyzed 
in 2000 typically had three to five determinations during the course of the run, while 
2001-2002 samples often had only one or two determinations). Third, the cesium beam 
that causes the initial ionization rasters over the small region of the AgCl in the target 
and this cannot be made smaller to accommodate the smaller diameter holes. Inevitably, 
the cesium beam rasters outside of the AgCl area into the AgBr area. When this 
happens, chlorine ionization decreases. The fluctuation in ionization causes a fluctuation 
in beam current. The efficiency of the various mass and energy filters in the AMS 
beamline depends on the strength of the beam current, such that beam instability 
translates into greater within-determination variability in the various isotope beam 
currents. That is, the measured variability in the 36Cl/Cl or the 35Cl/37Cl ratios increases 
with increased variability in beam current. Due to the intrinsic differences in beam sizes 
for the chlorine isotopes, this effect is more pronounced for the 36Cl/Cl ratio than for the 
35Cl/37Cl ratio. Therefore, the precision of the 35Cl/37Cl ratio is not substantially 
worsened. 


These three effects can be summarized by saying that smaller sample sizes lead to 
increased analytical uncertainty for 36Cl/Cl. This problem is compounded by the fact that 
the LLNL AMS facility has had little experience with replication of small (less than 1 mg 
AgCl) samples or standards over time. Replication of samples or standards over the 
course of months or years produces an understanding of the instrumental variability that 
can occur, which would take the form of a time integrated assessment of true analytical 
precision. The facility experience gathered over more than a decade of analyzing 36Cl 
from samples greater in size than 3 mg AgCl indicates that the true analytical uncertainty 
is better than 5 percent for 36Cl/Cl ratios. This is believed to apply to the samples for 
the 2000 phase of this project, but for samples for 2001-2002, the true analytical 
uncertainty may not bethat low. However, the reasonably good sample replication 
achieved during the November 2001 AMS run between the samples chemically processed 
at LANL and their aliquot splits chemically processed at LLNL demonstrated that the 
uncertainty is not exceedingly large. In all cases, the analytical precisions reported 
(DTNs: LL030408023121.027 [Q] and LL031200223121.036 [Q]) are the within-run 
analytical precisions as derived through the statistical treatment of the data reduction 
code used for all years of this project (FUDGER3.1), and reflect what are commonly 
referred to as counting statistics. 

The AMS 36Cl/Cl standard used for the project (LLNL111) is a NIST-traceable 36Cl 
standard, which has been gravimetrically adjusted with 36Cl-free chloride salt to produce 
a 36Cl/Cl ratio of 111 x10-15 . This was done using a 100-g capacity, 0.1 percent 
sensitivity (quantities greater than 0.4 g) analytical balance. The final 36Cl/Cl ratio was 
confirmed against the original standard material as well as several in-house standards that 
have been in use for many years. 

Data reduction for both phases of this project was accomplished in two basic steps. The 
first used the computer program FUDGER3.1, which was developed at LLNL. The 
program reads the original data file from the AMS instrument and allows the analyst to 
assess the quality of each individual determination through examination of variables, 
such as sulfur count rates, total 36Cl counts registered, and individual determination 
deviations relative to other determinations for that sample on that day. Individual 
determinations, including LLNL111 determinations, can be deleted from the data set on 
this basis. The program then normalizes each sample determination relative to 
determinations for the LLNL111 standard, using a weighted average (based on the 
precision of the standard determination) of the four LLNL111 determinations made 
closest in time to that of the sample. The values for each determination are then 
averaged, weighting them relative to the precision of the determination. These values are 
then output as a tab-delimited text file. The second step in data reduction involves 
derivation of final 36Cl/Cl ratios, 35Cl/37Cl ratios, and chlorine concentrations by Excel 
spreadsheet calculations incorporating the required external data (e.g., leachate sample 
size, amount of added carrier/tracer, and blank subtraction). All steps in the calculations 
are included in the spreadsheets submitted to the Yucca Mountain Project Technical Data 
Management System (TDMS) database (DTNs: LL030408023121.027 [Q] and 
LL031200223121.036 [Q]). 


C.5 REFERENCES CITED 

C.5.1 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES 

TIP-CL-95, Rev. 0. Preparation of Samples for Chlorine-36 Analysis. Livermore, 
California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.20000412.0094. 

TIP-CL-110, Rev. 0. Use of Ion Chromatography to Determine Anion Concentrations. 
Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.20000301.0188. 

C.5.2 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 

LL030408023121.027. Cl Abundance and Cl Ratios of Leachates from ESF Core 
Samples. Submittal date: 04/17/2003. (Q) 

LL031200223121.036. Cl Abundance and Cl Ratio of Leachates from ESF Core 
Samples. Submittal date: 12/03/2003. (Q) 


Sources: Modified from DOE (2002, Figure 1-14) and USBR (1996) 

Figure 1-1. Generalized Map of Central Yucca Mountain (A) and Schematic Geologic Section 
along the ESF Showing the Sundance Fault Zone Validation Study Area (B) 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 F1 


DTNs: LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q), LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. Error bars are 2s. The 1996 report is Fabryka-Martin, 
Wolfsberg et al. (1996). The 1997 report is Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997). The 1998 report is 
CRWMS M&O (1998). 

Figure 2-1. Distribution of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in the ESF, as 
Reported by LANL in 1996, 1997, and 1998 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 F2 


0 
5 
10 
15 
20 
25 
30 
Number of faults and shears per33.3 m interval 
0 
500 
1,000 
1,500 
2,000 
2,500 
3,000 
3,500 
4,000 
36 Cl/Cl 10 15 
Fault/Shear intensity 
6Cl/Cl sample 
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 

Distance from the ESF north portal (m) 

DTNs: GS960708314224.008 (Q), GS960708314224.010 (Q), GS000608314224.004 (Q), GS960908314224.014 (Q), 
GS970208314224.003 (Q), GS970808314224.008 (Q), GS970808314224.010 (Q), GS970808314224.012 (Q), 
GS971108314224.020 (Q), GS971108314224.021 (Q), GS971108314224.022 (Q), GS971108314224.023 (Q), 
GS971108314224.024 (Q), GS971108314224.025 (Q), GS971108314224.026 (Q), GS971108314224.028 (Q) 

See also Appendix A, which contains information regarding sample numbers, locations, and types. 

NOTE: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 

Figure 2-2. Relations between Fault/Shear Intensity as Mapped in the ESF and 36Cl/Cl Ratios 
for Samples Described as Localities Associated with Faults or Shears 


A. 4,500 

1996 LANL report 

4,000 

ESF-DHW-ClV 

Borehole 

3,500 

36Cl/Cl x10 15

3,000 
2,500 
2,000 
1,500 

Bomb-pulse threshold for 36Cl 

1,000 
500 

Holocene meteoric value for 36Cl 

0 
1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100 2,300 2,500 

Distance from ESF North Portal (m) 

Drill Hole Wash fault 

1,000 

Holocene meteoric value for 36Cl 

500 

0 

1,880 1,890 1,900 1,910 1,920 1,930 1,940 1,950 1,960 1,970 1,980 

Distance from ESF North Portal (m) 

DTN: LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory. The 1996 LANL report is 
Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg, et al. (1996). 

Figure 3-1. Distribution of 36Cl along the Drill Hole Wash Fault Zone in the ESF, between 
1,500 and 2,500 meters (A) and between 1,880 and 1,980 meters (B), as Reported 
by LANL in 1996 

B. 4,500 

1996 LANL report 
4,000 

ESF-DHW-ClV 
Borehole 

3,500 

36Cl/Cl x10 15

3,000 
2,500 
2,000 
1,500 

Bomb-pulse threshold for 36Cl 


Bomb-pulse threshold for 36Cl 
Holocene meteoric value for 36Cl 
DTNs: LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q), LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory. The 1996 LANL report is 
Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. (1996), and the 1998 LANL report is CRWMS M&O (1998). 

Figure 3-2. Distribution of 36Cl in and adjacent to the Sundance Fault in the ESF, as 
Reported by LANL in 1996 and 1998 


Fracture density
(fracures per m averaged to 10 m intervals)

14 
12 
10 
8 
6 
4 
2 
0 

0

5001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,0005,5006,0006,5007,0007,500 

Distance from ESF north portal (m) 

DTNs: GS960708314224.008 (Q), GS960708314224.010 (Q), GS000608314224.004 (Q), 
GS960908314224.014 (Q), GS970208314224.003 (Q), GS970808314224.008 (Q), GS970808314224.010 (Q), 
GS970808314224.012 (Q), GS971108314224.020 (Q), GS971108314224.021 (Q), GS971108314224.022 (Q), 
GS971108314224.023 (Q), GS971108314224.024 (Q), GS971108314224.025 (Q), GS971108314224.026 (Q), 
GS971108314224.028 (Q) 

NOTE: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 

Figure 3-3. Distribution of Fracture Densities in the ESF 


A.. 
B.. 
DTNs: GS971108314224.023 (Q), GS971108314224.024 (Q) 

NOTE: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 

Figure 3-4. Histograms Showing Linear Spacing (A) and Log Spacing (B) between Fractures 
and Cooling Joints Longer than 1 Meter, Measured from Detailed Line Surveys 
between ESF Stations 16+00 and 21+00 


A. 
B. 
DTNs: GS000608314224.004 (Q), GS960708314224.008 (Q) 

NOTE: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 

Figure 3-5. Histograms Showing the Linear Spacing (A) and Log Spacing (B) between 
Fractures and Cooling Joints Longer than 1 Meter, Measured from Detailed Line 
Surveys between ESF Stations 34+00 and 36+00 


Source: USGS (1996) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. Station values represent hundreds of meters from the north portal 
of the ESF. Projection of the Sundance fault is estimated from tunnel-wall intersections shown on full-
periphery map (USGS 1996). Coordinates are Nevada State Plane (NAD27) in meters. 

Figure 3-6. Schematic Map Showing General Relations of Niche #1 to the ESF Main Drift and 
Sundance Fault, and the Orientations of Niche Boreholes Used for the Validation 
Study 


DTNs: LA0509JF831222.001 (Q); LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ); 
LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. Bold alphanumeric symbols to the right of individual core intervals are 
reference codes identifying multiple core intervals composited into single samples, keyed to sample 
details given in Table 3-3. 

Figure 3-7. Distribution of Niche #1 Core Intervals Used for the Validation Study 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 F10 


0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
36 Cl / Cl x1015 
-1.0 
-0.5 
0.0 
0.5 
1.0 
1.5 
2.0 
2.5 
3.0 
3.5 
4.0 
Leachate Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 
6 Cl/Cl ratio 
Cl concentration 
3,300 3,400 3,500 3,600 3,700 

Distance from the ESF north portal (m) 

DTN: LL030408023121.027 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2000.xls 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. Error bars represent 2s analytical uncertainties. Borehole locations 
are listed in Table 3-2. 

Figure 4-1. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Active Leachates of Validation 
Study Samples Processed and Analyzed at LLNL during Phase I 


A.

0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
0 - 1.0 1.0 1.4 
1.8 
2.2 
2.6 
3.0 
3.4 
3.8 
Frequency 
N = 25 
Maximum = 3.54 mg/kg 
Minimum = 1.25 mg/kg 
Median = 2.13 mg/kg 
Mean = 2.07 mg/kg 
Std. Deviation = 0.62 mg/kg 
1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 

Leachate Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 

0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
Frequency 
N = 25 
Maximum = 248 10-15 
Minimum = 48 10-15 
Median = 88 10-15 
Mean = 97 10-15 
Std. Deviation = 43 10-15 
B. 
0 -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 -150 -175 -200 -225 -250 25 
50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 

36Cl / Cl 1015 

DTN: LL030408023121.027 (Q) 

Figure 4-2. Distribution of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in Active 
Leachates of Validation Study Samples Processed and Analyzed at LLNL during 
Phase I 


A.

y = 94.3x + 41.1 
R2 = 0.2 
0 
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
36 Cl/Cl 10 15 
LLNL active-leach results 
LANL powdered-rock leachate 
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 

1 / [leachate Cl concentration] (kg rock / mg Cl) 

B. 

10 
100 
1,000 
10,000 
36 Cl/Cl 10 15 
LANL passive-leach results 
LLNL active-leach results 
N = 293 
Median [Cl] = 1.0 mg/kg 
Median 36Cl/Cl = 569 10-15 
N = 25 
Median [Cl] = 2.1 mg/kg 
Median 36Cl/Cl = 85 10-15 
0.01 0.1 1 10 

1 / [leachate Cl concentration] (kg rock / mg Cl) 

DTNs: LL030408023121.027 (Q), LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q) 

NOTES: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The open 
diamond in (A) is a statistical outlier that was not included in the regression. LANL data in (A) are from 
Table 5-4 of Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et al. (1996). LANL data in (B) are listed in Appendix A. LLNL 
data in (B) are listed in Table 4-1. Error bars are 2s. 

Figure 4-3. Relations between Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in 
Active Leachates of Validation Study Samples Processed and Analyzed at LLNL 
during Phase I (A), and for Passive Leachates of ESF Samples Reported 
Previously by LANL (B) 


DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: The figures plot measured and cumulative chloride concentrations or 36Cl/Cl values against leach 
duration. Cumulative values are derived by sequentially summing respective values from previous 
leach increments. 

Figure 4-4. Relations between Chloride Concentrations (A) and Cumulative Chloride 
Concentrations (B) Plotted against Leach Duration for Sequential Leachates of 
Reference Sample EVAL001 Leached at LANL by Passive and Active Methods 
during Phase II 


DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: The figures plot measured and cumulative chloride concentrations or 36Cl/Cl values against leach 
duration. Cumulative values are derived by sequentially summing respective values from previous 
leach increments. 

Figure 4-5. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios (A) and Cumulative 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) Plotted 
against Leach Duration for Sequential Leachates of Reference Sample EVAL001 
Leached at LANL by Passive and Active Methods during Phase II 


A. 0.8 

EXD-049 

EXD-050 

EXD-069 

EXD-070 

EXD-072 EXD-080 

0.7 

Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Leach duration (hr) 

EXD-049 

EXD-050 

EXD-069 

B. 3.0 

EXD-070 

EXD-072 EXD-080 

Cumulative Cl (mg/kg rock) 

2.0 
2.5 
1.0 
1.5 
0.0 
0.5 
0 10 20 30 
Leach duration (hr) 
DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 
40 50 

NOTES: The figures plot measured and cumulative chloride concentrations or 36Cl/Cl values against leach 
duration. Cumulative values are derived by sequentially summing respective values from previous 
leach increments. 

Figure 4-6. Relations between Chloride Concentrations (A, showing all data) and Cumulative 
Chloride Concentrations (B, showing a subset of the data at a larger scale) 
Plotted against Leach Duration for Sequential Passive Leachates of the 6.3- to 
12.5-mm Fraction of Six Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift Analyzed at LANL 
during Phase II 


A. 1100 EXD-049 EXD-050 EXD-069 
EXD-070 

EXD-072 EXD-080 

1000
900

36Cl/Cl 10 15

800 
600 
700 
500 
400 
300 
200 
0 10 20 30 
Leach duration (hr) 
40 50 

B. 1000 

EXD-049 

EXD-050 

EXD-069 

EXD-070 

EXD-072 EXD-080 

900 

Cumulative 36Cl/Cl 10 15 

800 
700 

600 

500 
300 
400 
200 
0 10 
DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 
20 30 40 50 
Leach duration (hr) 

NOTES: The figures plot measured and cumulative chloride concentrations or 36Cl/Cl values against leach 
duration. Cumulative values are derived by sequentially summing respective values from previous 
leach increments. 

Figure 4-7. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios (A) and Cumulative 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) Plotted 
against Leach Duration for Sequential Passive Leachates of the 6.3- to 12.5-mm 
Fraction of Six Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift Analyzed at LANL during 
Phase II 


A. 1.2 

<2 mm 2to 6.3 mm 

6.3 to 12.5 mm 

Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 
0 10 20 30 
Leach duration (hr) 
40 50 
3.0 B. <2 mm 2 to 6.3 mm 6.3 to 12.5 mm 

Cumulative Cl (mg/kg rock) 

2.0 
2.5 
1.0 
1.5 
0.0 
0.5 
0 10 20 30 40 50 
Leach duration (hr) 
DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: The figures plot measured and cumulative chloride concentrations or 36Cl/Cl values against leach 
duration. Cumulative values are derived by sequentially summing respective values from previous 
leach increments. 

Figure 4-8. Relations between Chloride Concentrations (A) and Cumulative Chloride 
Concentrations (B) Plotted against Leach Duration for Passive Leachates of 
Different Size Fractions of ECRB Cross Drift Sample EXD-069 Analyzed at LANL 
during Phase II 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 F18 


A. 500 

450

36Cl/Cl 10 15

400 
350 
300 
250 
200 

0 10 20 30 40 50 
Leach duration (hr) 
<2 m m 2 to 6.3 m m 6.3 to 12.5 m m 
B. 400 

<2 mm 2 to 6.3 mm 

6.3 to 12.5 mm 

380 

Cumulative 36Cl/Cl 10 15

360 
340 
320 
300 
280 
260 
240 
220 
200 

0 10 20 30 40 50 

Leach duration (hr) 

DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: The figures plot measured and cumulative chloride concentrations or 36Cl/Cl values against leach 
duration. Cumulative values are derived by sequentially summing respective values from previous 
leach increments. 

Figure 4-9. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios (A) and Cumulative 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) Plotted 
against Leach Duration for Passive Leachates of Different Size Fractions of 
ECRB Cross Drift Sample EXD-069 Analyzed at LANL during Phase II 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 F19 


A.1,000 
900 
800 
700 

36Cl/Cl 1015 

600 
500 
400 
300 
200 
100 
0 

y = 74.95x + 8.28 
R2 = 0.93 
Other ECRB Cross Drift samples (see below ) 
EXD-069 (<2mm) 
EXD-069 (2-6.3 mm) 
EXD-069 (6.3-12.5 mm) 
EVAL001-8,9,10 (active leach) 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 

1 / [Cl concentration] (kg rock/mg Cl) 

B. 1,000 

36Cl/Cl 1015 

900 
800 
700 
600 
500 
400 

EVAL001-7 EVAL001-11 
EXD-049 EXD-050 
EXD-070 EXD-072 
EXD-080 

0 2 4 6 810 12 14 16 

1 / [Cl concentration] (kg rock/mg Cl) 

DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block. All samples are shown in (A), and a 
selected subset of samples is shown in (B). 

Figure 4-10. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios and Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations in 
Sequential Leachates of Reference Sample EVAL001 and ECRB Cross Drift 
Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase II 


0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
Coarse ESF-SD-ClV#2 (CT leach) 
Coarse ESF-SD-ClV#14 (2CT leach) 
Fine ESF-SD-ClV#2 (FT leach) 
Cl concentration (mg/k rock) 
0 20 40 60 80 

Leach duration (hr) 

DTN: GS030508312272.003 (UQ) 

Figure 4-11. Effect of Particle Size on Leach Duration and Chloride Concentration for Two 
Size Fractions of Tuff from Unfractured (CT and FT series, #2) and Relatively 
Unfractured (2CT series, #14) Core Samples Analyzed at AECL during Phase II 


0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3

Coarse ESF-SD-ClV#2 (CT leach) 

2 

Coarse ESF-SD-ClV#14 (2CT leach) 

1 

0.0 
02 46 810 

Leach duration (hr) 

DTN: GS030508312272.003 (UQ) 

Figure 4-12. Detail from Figure 4-11 Showing the Changes in Chloride Concentrations in the 
First Few Hours of Two Leaching Tests on the Coarse Tuff 

Cl concentration (mg/k rock) 


0 
2 
4 
6 
8 
10 
12 
14 
16 
18 
Cl concentration (mg/kg rock)
ESF-SD-ClV#2 (GS series) leachates 
ESF-SD-ClV#14 (2A2 series) leachates 
6-12 2-4 0.5-2 0.25-0.5 0.125-0.063-<0.063 

0.25 0.125 

Size fraction (mm) 

DTN: GS030508312272.003 (UQ) 

Figure 4-13. Effect of Particle Size on Chloride Concentrations in Phase II Leachates of Intact 
Core from Borehole ESF-SD-ClV#2 (GS series in Table 4-6) and Broken Core 
from Borehole ESF-SD-ClV#14 (2A2 series in Table 4-6) 


0.00 
0.05 
0.10 
0.15 
0.20 
0.25 
0.30 
0.35 
0.40 
0.45 
0.50 
Cl concentration (mg/kg rock)
24-hr duration 
48-hr duration 
70-hr duration 
30-60 20-30 10-20 5-10 >4 4-1

Size fraction (mm) 

DTN: GS030508312272.003 (UQ) 

Figure 4-14. Effect of Particle Size and Leach Duration on Rubblized Core Fragments from 
Borehole ESF-SD-ClV#9 (BT series in Table 4-6) 


100 

10 

1 

0.1 

0.01 

y = 0.6738Ln(x) - 0.1242 
R2 = 0.9774 
y = 0.1319x0.738 
R2 = 0.9719 
y = 0.1087Ln(x) + 0.1831 
R2 = 0.9813 
GS series (24 hr) mechanical 
GS series 6-12 mm fraction 
2A2 series (24 hr) mechanical 
BT series (24 hr) natural 
SD-ClV core (1 hr) mechanical 
Niche #1 (1 hr) hand 
0.1 1 10 100 1000 

Calculated particle surface area per gram rock (cm/g) 

DTNs: GS030508312272.003 (UQ); LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: Particle surface area per gram rock is calculated assuming spherical particles with radius equal to half 
the difference between upper and lower sieve opening dimensions and a density of 2.25 g/cm3 to 
calculate particle mass, number of spheres per gram, and, finally, total surface area per gram. The 
open diamond is a statistical outlier that was not included in the regression. 

Figure 4-15. Comparison of Chloride Concentrations in Phase II Leachates of Core Samples 
from ESF-SD-ClV and Niche #1 Boreholes in the Sundance Fault Zone 

Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 


200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
450 
500 
550 
600 
650 
36 Cl/Cl 10 15Hand crush 
(2-19 mm) 
Hand crush 
(6-19 mm) 
Mechanical 
crush 
(6-19 mm) 
Mean 36Cl/Cl (2SE) = 437 (98) 10-15 
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 

1 / [leachate Cl concentration] 
(kg rock/mg Cl) 

DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 
NOTES: SE = standard error. Error bars are 2s. 

Figure 4-16. Relations between Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Phase III 
Leachates of Core Samples from Borehole ESF-SAD-GTB#1 


EVAL001 

A. 1000 

ESF-SD-ClV core 

900 Niche #1 core 
ESFSAD-GTB#1 core 

800 

36Cl/Cl 1015

700 
600 
500 
400 A 300 
200 
100 
0 
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 
Leachate Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 

EVAL001 
ESF-SD-ClV core 

B. 1000 

900 

Niche #1 core 
ESFSAD-GTB#1 core 

800 

36Cl/Cl 1015

700 
600 
500 
400 
300 
200 
100 
0 

0 5 101520 25 

1 / [leachate Cl Concentration] (kg rock/mg Cl) 

DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls; GS030608312272.005 (Q) 

NOTE: Error bars are 2s. 

Figure 4-17. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios and Chloride Concentrations (A) and 
Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations (B) in Phase III Leachates of Validation 
Study Samples Leached at the USGS and Analyzed at LLNL 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 F27 


DTN: GS030608312272.005 (Q) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. The median value is given by the dark red line; mean value is given 
by the red-filled circle. The middle 50% of the data are within the gray-filled boxes and the upper- and 
lower-most quartiles are represented by the lines on either side of the boxes. Statistical outliers are 
shown as asterisks. Data from the DTN were converted from mg/L to mg/kg (see Table 4-13). 

Figure 4-18. Box Plots of Chloride Concentration Data Comparing Phase III Leachates of Core 
Samples from the Drill Hole Wash and Sundance Fault Zones (A), and from 
Different Samples within the Sundance Fault Zone (B) 


A. 0.40 

ESF-SD-ClV core 
Niche #1 core 

0.00 
0.05 
0.10 
0.15 
0.20 
0.25 
0.30 
0.35 
Cl concentration (mg/kg rock)
Drill Hole Wash fault 
0.40 
Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 

0.35 

0.30 

0.25 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

Sundance fault 

3,350 3,400 3,450 3,500 3,550 3,600 3,650 3,700 

Distance from ESF north portal (m) 

B. 

1,900 1,910 1,920 1,930 1,940 1,950 1,960 1,970 

Distance from ESF north portal (m) 

DTN: GS030608312272.005 (Q) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. Error bars are 2s. Data from the DTN were converted from mg/L to 
mg/kg (see Table 4-13). Borehole locations are listed in Table 3-2. 

Figure 4-19. Concentrations of Chloride Determined by Ion Chromatography in Phase III 
Leachates of Validation Study Core Samples and Niche #1 Core Samples from 
the Sundance Fault Zone (A) and Drill Hole Wash Fault Zone (B) 


0.00 
0.05 
0.10 
0.15 
0.20 
0.25 
0.30 
0.35 
0.40 
0.45 
0.50 
NO3 concentration (mg/kg rock) 
A. 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 

Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 

y = 1.14x -0.003 
R2 = 0.67 
0.00 
0.10 
0.20 
0.30 
0.40 
0.50 
0.60 
SO4 concentration (mg/kg rock) 
B. 
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 

Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 

DTN: GS030608312272.005 (Q) 
NOTES: Linear-regression curve is shown in (B) with straight-line equations and R2 values. Data from the DTN 

were converted from mg/L to mg/kg (see Table 4-13). 

Figure 4-20. Comparison Chloride Concentrations in Phase III Leachates of Validation Study 
Core Leached at the USGS, with NO3 Concentrations (A) and SO4 Concentrations 

(B) 


DTNs: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls; GS030608312272.005 (Q) 

NOTES: Error bars are 2s. Data from the DTN were converted from mg/L to mg/kg (see Table 4-13). 

Figure 4-21. Comparison of Chloride Concentrations in Phase III Leachates of Validation 
Study Samples Analyzed by Ion Chromatography at the USGS and by Isotope 
Dilution at LLNL 


DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTE: SE = standard error. 

Figure 4-22. Histograms Showing Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in 
Phase III Leachates of Validation Study Samples Leached at the USGS and 
Analyzed at LLNL 


A.

0.00 
0.05 
0.10 
0.15 
0.20 
0.25 
0.30 
0.35 
0.40 
0.45 
Leachate Cl concentration (mg/kg rock)
Sundance fault 
3350 3400 3450 3500 3550 3600 3650 3700

Distance from ESF north portal (m) 

0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
600 
700 
800 
900 
1000 
36 Cl/Cl 1015 
Sundance fault 
B. 
3350 3400 3450 3500 3550 3600 3650 3700

Distance from ESF north portal (m) 

DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. Error bars are 2s. Borehole locations are listed in Table 3-2. 

Figure 4-23. Relations between Sample Locations in the ESF and Chloride Concentrations (A) 
and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in Phase III Leachates of Validation Study Samples 
Leached at the USGS and Analyzed at LLNL 


0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
600 
700 
800 
900 
36 Cl/Cl 10 15 
Batch #1 - 10/26/2001 
Batch #2 - 11/29/2001 
Batch #3 - 3/8/2002 
Batch #3 - 5/24/2002 
03/01/99 03/31/99 05/01/99 05/31/99 07/01/99 07/31/99 08/31/99 09/30/99 

Date of borehole completion 

DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: Data are grouped by leaching batch number and analysis date. Borehole completion dates are listed in 
Table 3-2. Error bars are 2s. 

Figure 4-24. Relations between Borehole Completion Dates and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Phase III 
Leachates of Validation Study Samples Leached at the USGS and Analyzed at 
LLNL 


DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: SE = standard error. 

Error bars are 2s. 

Data are shown (from left to right) in order presented in Table 4-9. 

Figure 4-25. Histogram Showing 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Phase III Leachates of ESF-SD-ClV and 
Niche #1 Core Samples Prepared at the USGS and Analyzed at LLNL 


A. NICHE3566#1 (USGS-LLNL ) 

NICHE3566#1 (LANL ) 

36Cl/Cl 1015 

10,000 
9,000 
8,000 
7,000 
6,000 
5,000 
4,000 
3,000 
2,000 
1,000 
0 

Fine 
fractions 
-
Bomb-pulse threNICHE3566#2 (USGS-LLNL ) 
NICHE3566LT#1 (USGS-LLNL ) 
Coarse 
fractions 
shold for 36Cl 
NICHE3566#2 (LANL ) 
NICHE3566LT#1 (LANL ) 

0123456789 

1 / [leachate Cl concentration] (kg rock/mg Cl) 

B. 10,000 

36Cl/Cl 1015 

1,000 

100 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 
1 / [leachate Cl concentration] (kg rock/mg Cl) 
NICHE3566#1 (USGS-LLNL ) NICHE3566#1 (LANL ) 
NICHE3566#2 (USGS-LLNL ) NICHE3566#2 (LANL ) 
NICHE3566LT#1 (USGS-LLNL ) NICHE3566LT#1 (LANL ) 
-Bomb-pulse threshold for 36Cl 
DTNs: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls; LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USGS = 

U.S. Geological Survey. The dash-dot lines in (A) and (B) are drawn between different size fractions of 
the same samples. Error bars are 2s. 

Figure 4-26. Relations between Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in 
Phase III Leachates of Niche #1 Core Samples as Linear (A) and Semi-Log (B) 
Plots 


100 
1,000 
10,000 
36 Cl/Cl 1015 
LANL Sundance fault zone tunnel-wall samples 
LANL Niche #1 core samples 
0.1 1 10 

1 / [leachate Cl concentration] (kg rock/mg Cl) 

DTNs: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ), LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q) 
NOTE: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Figure 4-27. Comparison of Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Phase III 
Leachates of Samples from ESF Tunnel Walls (Sundance Fault Zone between 
Stations 34+28 and 37+00) and Niche #1 Core 


DTNs: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls); 

LL030408023121.027 (Q); LA0305RR831222.001(UQ) 

NOTES: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, SMF = 
Sample Management Facility, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

Figure 4-28. Relations between Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in 
Phase III Leachates of Validation Study Samples from the Sundance Fault Zone 
within the ESF 


Source: Conceptualization based on chloride sources described in Fabryka-Martin et al. 
(1997, Section 9); for illustration purposes only 

NOTES: YM = Yucca Mountain. 

The red line shows a possible evolution pathway as leaching progresses; however, results of 
leaching experiments typically show sub-horizontal trends with only minor changes in 36Cl/Cl ratios 
(Section 4.3). 

Figure 4-29. Conceptual Model of the Isotopic Evolution of 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Passively 
Leached Solutions with Time 


A.

0.05 
0.10 
0.15 
0.20 
0.25 
0.30 
0.35 
0.40 
LANL Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 
1:1 line 
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 

LLNL Cl concentration (mg/kg rock) 

0 
100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
600 
LANL 36 Cl/Cl ratio 1015 
B. 
1:1 line 
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 

LLNL 36Cl/Cl ratio 1015 

DTNs: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ); LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. All 
targets were analyzed at the LLNL Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (CAMS) facility. 
Sources of error (shown as 2s error bars) include in-run counting statistics, background and spike 
corrections, and corrections from blank. 

Figure 4-30. Comparison of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in Aliquots of 
Validation Study Samples Passively Leached for 1 Hour at the USGS and Sent to 
LLNL and LANL for AgCl Target Preparation 


DTNs: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls); LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. Box plot shows range of data (vertical lines), middle two quartiles 
(boxes), median values (horizontal lines), and mean values (filled circles). 

Figure 4-31. Frequency Distribution (A) and Box Plot (B) of 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of 
Validation Study Core Leached at the USGS and Sent to LLNL and LANL for AgCl 
Precipitation and Analysis 


0 
1,000 
2,000 
3,000 
4,000 
5,000 
6,000 
36 Cl/Cl 1015 
LANL validation study analyses 
pre-2000 LANL analyses 
Solitario Canyon fault 
Samples along 
minor, through-
going faults 
Sundance faultun-named fault 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 

Distance from Cross-Drift portal (m) 

DTN: LA0305RR831222.001(UQ) 

NOTES: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory. Results of all sequential leachates processed between 

0.5 and 2 hours are included. 

Figure 4-32. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios Determined at LANL and Distance in the ECRB 
Cross Drift 


DTNs: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls; LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q); 
LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

Figure 4-33. Distribution of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in Leachates of 
Samples from the Sundance Fault Zone within the ESF 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 F43 


36Cl/Cl 1015

5,000 

USGS-LLNL Sundance fault zone
4,500

LANL Sundance fault zone (pre-phase III) 
4,000 
3,500 
3,000 
2,500 
2,000 
1,500 
1,000 
500 
0 
0 5 10152025 

1 / [leachate Cl concentration] (kg rock/mg Cl) 

DTNs: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls); LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q) 

NOTES: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

Figure 4-34. Relations between Reciprocal Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in 
Leachates of Samples from the Sundance Fault Zone 


DTNs: LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q); LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

Figure 4-35. Distribution of Chloride Concentrations (A) and 36Cl/Cl Ratios (B) in Leachates of 
USGS-LLNL Samples from the Sundance Fault Zone and LANL Samples from the 
Southern ESF 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 F45 


A.

0.0 
0.5 
1.0 
1.5 
2.0 
2.5 
3.0 
3.5 
3 H concentration (TU) 
ESF-DHW-ClV core (Drill Hole Wash fault zone) 
Cutoff based on Chauvenet's criterion approach 
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 

Distance from the ESF north portal (m) 

B. 4.0 

3.5 

3H concentration (TU) 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

ESF-SD-ClV core (Sundance fault zone) 
Cutoff based on Chauvenet's 
criterion approach 
3360 3400 3440 3480 3520 3560 3600 3640 3680 3720 

Distance from the ESF north portal (m) 

DTN: GS060308312272.001 (Q) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, TU = tritium unit. Dashed horizontal line represents 1 TU 
background cutoff proposed initially. Solid horizontal line represents 2 TU background cutoff based on 
statistical criterion from 135 3H measurements. Error bars are 2s. Borehole locations are listed in 
Table 3-2. 

Figure 5-1. Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Samples of Pore Water Extracted from 
Validation Study Core along the Drill Hole Wash Fault Zone (A) and Sundance 
Fault Zone (B) 


DTN: GS060308312272.001 (Q) 
NOTE: TU = tritium unit. 

Figure 5-2. Frequency Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water from Validation 
Study Core Samples 


DTNs: GS040108312232.001 (Q), GS060308312272.001 (Q), 
GS060383122410.001 (Q), GS961108312261.006 (Q) 

NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block, ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, TU = 
tritium unit. The same data are plotted at both full scale (A) to show large 3H concentrations in samples 
from the Bow Ridge fault zone and one sample from the South Ramp Moisture Study area, and at a 
reduced scale (B) to show variations in low-3H concentration samples. Error bars are 2s. Dashed 
horizontal line represents 1 TU background cutoff proposed initially. Solid horizontal line represents 
2 TU background cutoff based on statistical criterion from 135 3H measurements. Borehole locations 
are listed in Table 3-2. 

Figure 5-3. Distribution of Tritium Concentrations Plotted at Full Scale (A) and at a Reduced 
Scale (B) in Samples of Pore Water Extracted from Drill Core throughout the ESF 


DTNs: GS060308312272.001 (Q), GS060383122410.001 (UQ) 
NOTE: TU = tritium unit. 

Figure 5-4. Frequency Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water from Boreholes 
along the ESF South Ramp 


Source: Modified from USBR (1997) 
DTNs: GS060308312272.001 (Q), GS060383122410.001 (UQ) 
NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, TU = tritium unit. Sample locations are from Table 5-3. 

Figure 5-5. Geologic Section of the ESF South Ramp Showing Locations of Samples 
Analyzed for Tritium 


DTN: GS060308312272.002 (Q) 

NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block, TU = tritium unit. Major faults are shown 
as vertical red lines. Error bars are 2s. Dashed horizontal line represents 1 TU background cutoff 
proposed initially. Solid horizontal line represents 2 TU background cutoff based on statistical criterion 
from 135 tritium measurements. 

Figure 5-6. Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Samples of Pore Water Extracted from 
Drill Core along the ECRB Cross Drift 


DTN: GS060308312272.002 (Q) 

NOTE: TU = tritium unit. 

Figure 5-7. Frequency Distribution of Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water from ECRB 
Cross Drift Drill Core 


DTNs: GS060308312272.001 (Q), GS060383122410.001 (UQ), GS060308312272.002 (Q); 
Chauvenets criterion plotted as in Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997, Figure 4-6)

NOTE: TU = tritium unit. 

Figure 5-8. Application of Chauvenets Criterion to Establish a Cutoff Tritium Concentration 
for Identifying the Presence of Bomb-Pulse Tritium in Samples from the ESF and 
ECRB Cross Drift (USGS) 


0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 
Rank 
Number of standard deviations fromcumulative average 3H concentrationsTritium concentration data 
Chauvenet's criterion for outliers 
Cutoff value for indicating 
presence of bomb-pulse 3H 
between 1.1 and 1.4 TU 
DTNs: GS060308312272.001 (Q), GS060308312272.002 (Q); 
Chauvenets criterion plotted as in Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997, Figure 4-6) 

NOTE: TU = tritium unit. 

Figure 5-9. Application of Chauvenets Criterion to Establish a Cutoff Tritium Concentration 
for Identifying the Presence of Bomb-Pulse Tritium in Validation Study Boreholes 
and ECRB Cross Drift Samples (LANL) 


DTNs: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ); LA0307RR831222,002 (UQ); LA0509JF831222.001 (Q); LAJF831222AQ98.004 (Q); 

LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 

Error bars are 2s. 

USGS-LLNL = Samples leached at USGS, processed (i.e., target preparation) at LLNL, and analyzed at 
LLNL. 

USGS-LANL = Samples leached at USGS, processed (i.e., target preparation and spiking) at LANL, 
and analyzed at LLNL. Errors for these data are similar to USGS-LLNL data (error bars are not shown 
for these data because they overlap with error bars shown for the USGS-LLNL data). 

Figure 6-1. Relations between 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Validation Study Samples from the Sundance 
Fault Zone and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Samples from the Same Area Reported by LANL 
in 1996, 1997, and 1998. 


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 


Table 3-1. Chronology of Locations and Personnel Directly Involved in the Preparation and 
Analysis of LANL 36Cl Samples 

Principal Investigator 
of 36Cl Activity 
Location of 
Sample 
Preparation 
Laboratory 
Supervisor of 
Sample 
Preparation 
Analytical 
Facility Examples of 36Cl/Cl Results 
Kurt Wolfsberg 
(until 1984) 
Hydro Geo 
Chem (Tucson) 
Harold Bentley University of 
Rochester 
Background ratios and bomb-
pulse in soil profiles; bomb-
pulse in UZ-1 cuttings; bomb-
pulse in G Tunnel samples; 
in situ ratios in Yucca Mountain 
tuff. 
Ted Norris 
(1984-1990) 
Hydro Geo 
Chem (Tucson) 
Seth Gifford 
(1984-1988) 
Songlin Cheng 
(1988-1990) 
Susan Maida 
(1990-1992) 
June Fabryka-Martin 
(1990-2000) 
Hydro Geo 
Chem (Tucson, 
until 1994) 
Susan Maida 
(1990-1992) 
Scott Wightman 
(1992-1995) 
University of 
Rochester (until 
1992); LLNL 
(1992-1994); 
PRIME Lab 
(1993-2000) 
Inter-laboratory comparisons of 
blanks, standards, samples; 
background ratio and bomb-
pulse in soil profiles; bomb-
pulse in neutron hole cuttings. 
LANL (May 1994 
until May 2000, 
TA-48, Bldg. 45) 
Scott Wightman 
Beiling Liu 
Paul Dixon 
Jeff Roach 
Robert Roback 
PRIME Lab Bomb-pulse in the ESF; bomb-
pulse in runoff; and bomb-
pulse in the ECRB Cross Drift. 
PRIME Lab Stephen Vogt PRIME Lab Rock 36Cl/Cl (no bomb-pulse). 
New Mexico 
Tech (Socorro) 
Mitch Plummer PRIME Lab Pack rat samples; background 
and bomb-pulse ratios. 
Robert Roback 
(2000- present) 
LANL (TA-03, 
Bldg. 215) 
Robert Roback 
Catherine Jones 
PRIME Lab 
LLNL 
ECRB Cross Drift, one sample 
with bomb-pulse; ESF 
Niche #1; validation study 
core; sequential leaching 
experiments. 

Compiled by R.C. Roback 
May 26, 2005 


Table 3-2. Validation Study Boreholes 

Fault Zone Borehole Identifier ESF Station Date 
Completed 
Total Depth 
(m) 
Sundance ESF-SD-ClV#1 36+89 06/17/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#2 36+74 06/16/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 36+59 06/15/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#4 36+35 06/14/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#5 36+20 06/10/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#6 36+10 06/10/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#7 36+05 06/08/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#8 36+00 06/08/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#9 35+95 06/07/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#10 35+90 06/03/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#11 35+85 06/03/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#12 35+80 06/02/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#13 35+75 06/02/99 10 
ESF-SD-ClV#14 35+45 09/22/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#15 35+40 09/21/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#16 35+35 09/20/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#17 35+31 09/17/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#18 35+25 09/16/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#19 35+20 09/15/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#20 35+15 09/14/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#21 35+10 09/13/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#22 35+05 09/13/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#23 35+00 09/10/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#24 34+95 09/09/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#25 34+90 09/23/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#26 34+73 09/22/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#27 34+70 04/09/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#28 34+65 04/08/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#29 34+60 04/06/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#30 34+55 04/05/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 34+50 04/02/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 34+45 04/01/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV# 3 34+40 03/31/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 34+35 03/30/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 34+30 03/26/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 34+25 03/25/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 34+20 03/24/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 34+10 03/23/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 33+99 03/19/99 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#40 33+89 03/17/99 4 


Table 3-2. Validation Study Boreholes (continued) 

Fault Zone Borehole Identifier ESF Station Date 
Completed 
Total Depth 
(m) 
Drill Hole Wash ESF-DHW-ClV#1 19+65 09/30/99 4 
ESF-DHW-ClV#2 19+55 09/29/99 4 
ESF-DHW-ClV#3 19+50 09/29/99 4 
ESF-DHW-ClV#4 19+45 09/28/99 4 
ESF-DHW-ClV#5 19+40 09/27/99 10 
ESF-DHW-ClV#6 19+35 09/30/99 4 
ESF-DHW-ClV#7 19+30 10/05/99 4 
ESF-DHW-ClV#8 19+25 10/05/99 4 
ESF-DHW-ClV#9 19+20 10/06/99 4 
ESF-DHW-ClV#10 19+10 10/06/99 4 

Source: Paces (2003); surveyed borehole locations (i.e., ESF station numbers) 
from DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q) 

Note: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility. 


Table 3-3. Core Samples from Niche #1 Boreholes 

Figure 3-7 
Reference 
Number 
Sample 
Identifier 
Borehole 
Identifier 
Interval 
(ft) 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier Laboratory Data Source 
A1 DCN086-2 ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 22.223.0 SPC01003078 LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
A2 DCN007-2/0081 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 32.133.1 
SPC01003096 
SPC01003097 
SPC01003098 
LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
A3 DCN015-2 ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 6.77.5 SPC01003111 LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
A4 DCN024-1/0252 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 15.717.1 
SPC01003131 
SPC01003132 
SPC01003133 
LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
A5 DCN038-1/0392 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 1.75.0 
SPC01004399 
SPC01004400 
SPC01004401 
SPC01004402 
LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
A6 DCN048-1/0492 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 14.316.3 
SPC01004420 
SPC01004421 
SPC01004422 
LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
A7 DCN050-1/0512 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 16.619.3 
SPC01004424 
SPC01004425 
SPC01004426 
SPC01004427 
LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
A8 DCN059-2/0601 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 29.030.7 
SPC01004445 
SPC01004446 
SPC01004447 
LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
A9 DCN062-1 ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 32.1-33.1 SPC01004453 LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
A10 DCN064-2 ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 34.435.5 SPC01004457 LANL LA0509JF831222.001 (Q) 
B1 
Niche 1-RCR1A 
Niche 1-RCR1B 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 
3.24.2 
4.65.7 
5.96.8 
7.48.2 
8.49.0 
9.310.4 
SPC01003045 
SPC01003048 
SPC01003050 
SPC01003053 
SPC01003055 
SPC01003057 
LANL LA0305RR831222.001 
(UQ) 
B2 Niche 1-RCR-2 ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 
17.217.9 
18.118.7 
18.920.0 
SPC01003068 
SPC01003070 
SPC01003072 
LANL LA0305RR831222.001 
(UQ) 
B3 Niche 1- RCR-3 ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 
24.225.0 
27.127.9 
29.230.1 
SPC01003082 
SPC01003087 
SPC01003091 
LANL LA0305RR831222.001 
(UQ) 
B4 Niche 2-RCR-1 ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 
10.611.2 
12.212.9 
13.914.7 
17.418.5 
SPC01003119 
SPC01003123 
SPC01003127 
SPC01003135 
LANL LA0305RR831222.001 
(UQ) 
12.113.2 SPC01004416 
B5 
Niche LT-RCR1A 
Niche LT-RCR1B 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 
20.521.1 
21.422.2 
23.824.8 
26.827.9 
36.237.0 
SPC01004431 
SPC01004433 
SPC01004437 
SPC01004441 
SPC01004460 
LANL LA0305RR831222.001 
(UQ) 
38.338.9 SPC01004464 


Table 3-3. Core Samples from Niche #1 Boreholes (continued) 

Figure 3-7 
Reference 
Number 
Sample 
Identifier 
Borehole 
Identifier 
Interval 
(ft) 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier Laboratory Data Source 
C1 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 
(14.7'-20.9') 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 
14.715.8 
20.320.9 
SPC01003066 
SPC01003074 
USGSLLNL 
LL031200223121.036 
(Q) 
C2 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 
(25.3'-31.7') 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 
25.326.0 
28.128.9 
30.831.7 
SPC01003084 
SPC01003089 
SPC01003094 
USGSLLNL 
LL031200223121.036 
(Q) 
C3 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 
(11.5'-15.4') 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 
11.511.9 
13.213.7 
15.015.4 
SPC01003121 
SPC01003125 
SPC01003129 
USGSLLNL 
LL031200223121.036 
(Q) 
C4 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 
(20.2'-32.5') 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 
20.220.7 
29.830.4 
32.032.5 
SPC01003140 
SPC01003155 
SPC01003156 
USGSLLNL 
LL031200223121.036 
(Q) 
C5 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
LT1 
(10.9'-23.5') 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 
10.911.9 
13.414.1 
22.823.5 
SPC01004414 
SPC01004418 
SPC01004435 
USGSLLNL 
LL031200223121.036 
(Q) 
C6 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
LT1 
(25.0'-38.1') 
ESF-MDNICHE3566LT#
1 
25.025.9 
28.228.8 
31.531.9 
37.138.1 
SPC01004439 
SPC01004443 
SPC01004451 
SPC01004462 
USGSLLNL 
LL031200223121.036 
(Q) 

NOTES: LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
SMF = Sample Management Facility, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

SMF barcode identifiers and intervals are contained in the data record package for the associated DTN. 


Table 4-1. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Active Leachates Prepared and Analyzed at LLNL during Phase I 

Sample Name SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Interval 
Leached 
(ft) 
CAMS 
Number 
Date AMS 
Analyzed 
Rock Mass 
(g) 
Leachate 
Mass (g) 
Leachate 
[Cl] 
(mg/kg) 
Cl Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 2s 1015 
ESF-SD-ClV#27 SPC02016025 7.39.2 CL7684 1/14/00 3,000.0 4,002.4 1.04 1.39 151 15 
ESF-SD-ClV#32 SPC02016116 3.35.6 CL7685 1/14/00 3,000.6 4,001.2 2.12 2.83 248 34 
ESF-SD-ClV#33 SPC02016117 3.0-5.4 CL7686 1/14/00 3,000.1 3,999.7 2.36 3.15 72 7 
ESF-SD-ClV#34 SPC02015957 8.310.5 CL7687 1/14/00 3,000.0 4,001.1 1.14 1.52 130 10 
ESF-SD-ClV#28 SPC02016022 
SPC02016023 
11.312.7 
12.713.3 CL7775 2/17/00 2,000.1 3,001.6 1.83 2.75 112 33 
ESF-SD-ClV#29 SPC02015993 
SPC02015994 
6.57.5 
7.58.7 CL7776 2/17/00 2,506.1 3,500.1 1.59 2.22 103 28 
ESF-SD-ClV#37 SPC02016031 11.213.0 CL7777 2/17/00 2,000.7 2,996.3 1.71 2.56 83 36 
ESF-SD-ClV#30 SPC02015999 8.510.5 CL7779 2/17/00 2,504.1 3,511.6 1.85 2.59 48 18 
ESF-SD-ClV#35 SPC02016119 2.24.0 CL7780 2/17/00 2,302.6 3,306.2 1.22 1.75 57 21 
ESF-SD-ClV#40 SPC02015925 
SPC02015926 
10.511.6 
11.612.2 CL7781 2/17/00 2,064.1 3,039.3 1.47 2.16 71 23 
ESF-SD-ClV#2 SPC02016280 6.68.0 CL7918 4/21/00 2,000.7 3,002.8 1.28 1.92 139 6 
ESF-SD-ClV#3 
SPC02016290 
SPC02016291 
SPC02016292 
11.412.3 
12.312.8 
12.813.5 
CL7919 4/21/00 1,999.6 3,002.1 1.69 2.54 125 6 
ESF-SD-ClV#4 SPC02016293 
SPC02016294 
6.37.3 
7.38.3 CL7920 4/21/00 1,999.4 3,001.1 1.50 2.25 101 6 
ESF-SD-ClV#5 SPC03017201 
SPC03017202 
4.15.1 
5.86.7 CL7921 4/21/00 1,500.8 2,506.8 1.48 2.47 93 9 
ESF-SD-ClV#6 SPC03017203 
SPC02016303 
5.76.9 
7.89.3 CL7922 4/21/00 1,999.4 2,999.9 1.42 2.13 75 5 

-T6

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T7 

Table 4-1. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Active Leachates Prepared and Analyzed at LLNL during Phase I (continued) 

Sample Name SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Interval 
Leached 
(ft) 
CAMS 
Number 
Date AMS 
Analyzed 
Rock Mass 
(g) 
Leachate 
Mass (g) 
Leachate 
[Cl] 
(mg/kg) 
Cl Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 2s 1015 
ESF-SD-ClV#7 SPC02016267 6.58.0 CL7923 4/21/00 1,999.0 3,004.7 1.46 2.19 73 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#8 SPC02016273 9.911.8 CL7924 4/21/00 1,999.5 3,008.6 0.96 1.44 106 7 
ESF-SD-ClV#9 SPC02016276 8.610.1 CL7925 4/21/00 1,800.4 2,812.2 0.91 1.42 93 7 
ESF-SD-ClV#10 SPC02016255 9.911.2 CL7926 4/21/00 1,579.0 2,506.3 1.06 1.68 88 6 
ESF-SD-ClV#11 SPC02016259 9.010.2 CL7927 4/21/00 1,670.1 2,631.1 0.97 1.53 65 16 
ESF-SD-ClV#12 SPC02016264 
SPC02016265 
8.49.4 
9.410.4 CL7928 4/21/00 2,046.6 3,015.4 1.27 1.87 53 6 
ESF-SD-ClV#31 SPC02016115 4.76.2 CL7929 4/21/00 1,859.8 2,862.2 0.94 1.45 80 20 
ESF-SD-ClV#36 SPC02015947 
SPC02015948 
10.610.8 
10.812.1 CL7930 4/21/00 1,780.2 2,772.1 0.80 1.25 99 7 
ESF-SD-ClV#38 SPC02015940 9.110.8 CL7931 4/21/00 2,005.0 3,074.1 2.31 3.54 58 4 
ESF-SD-ClV#39 SPC02015930 9.310.1 CL7932 4/21/00 1,358.2 2,328.3 1.58 2.71 71 5 

DTN: LL030408023121.027 (Q), GS030608312272.005 (Q) 
NOTES: AMS = accelerator mass spectrometer, CAMS = Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, SMF = Sample Management Facility. 
Chloride concentrations have a uniform 2s uncertainty of 5% of the stated value. 


Table 4-2. Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Concentrations, and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of 
Validation Study Core Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase I 

Sample 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Borehole 
Identifier 
Interval 
Used 
(ft) 
ESF 
Station 
AgCl 
Target 
Identifier 
Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) SO4/ 
Cl 
Measured 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s)Cl-1 Br-1 SO4 
-1 
VAL01-1 SPC02016192 ESF-SD-ClV#27 4.25.9 34+70 YM1000 0.25 ND 0.32 1.28 717 74 
VAL02-1 SPC02016193 ESF-SD-ClV#30 3.85.0 34+55 YM1001 0.23 ND 0.26 1.13 942 104 
VAL03-1 SPC02016194 ESF-SD-ClV#34 5.76.6 34+35 YM1002 0.30 ND 0.38 1.27 665 100 
VAL03-2 SPC02016194 ESF-SD-ClV#34 4.85.7 34+35 YM1003 0.35 ND 0.34 0.97 508 108 
VAL04-1 SPC02016195 ESF-SD-ClV#36 3.95.4 34+25 YM1004 0.30 ND 0.33 1.10 806 78 
VAL05-1 SPC02016196 ESF-SD-ClV#38 4.5-5.8 34+10 YM1005 0.25 ND 0.44 1.76 758 88 
VAL06-1 SPC02016197 ESF-SD-ClV#39 3.5-5.7 33+99 YM1006 0.31 ND 0.52 1.68 538 70 

DTN: LA0307RR831222.002 (UQ) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, ND = not detected, SMF = Sample Management Facility. 

Concentration of salts extracted from each sample is only a qualitative indicator of the sample's salt 
content. Because the focus of this activity is on determining anion ratios, no attempt has been made to 
maximize the yield of the leaching process, which is probably highly variable. 

Measured 36Cl/Cl ratios have been corrected for the addition of 35Cl tracer. 

Interval used for chloride, bromide, sulfate, and 36Cl/Cl analysis is smaller than the interval traceable to 
the SMF barcode number; a portion of each core sample was removed in the laboratory and set aside for 
other analyses. 


Table 4-3. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios for Sequential Leachates of Reference 
Sample EVAL001 and Six Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift Analyzed at LANL 
during Phase II 

Sample or 
Aliquot 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Leach 
Duration 
(hr) 
Leach 
Type 
Size 
Fraction 
(mm) 
LANL 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
AMS 
Identifier 
Date 
Analyzed 
Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
Sample 
+ Blank 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Sample36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
EVAL001-7 
(30) SPC00536900 0.5 Passive 6.312.5 YM2000 PRIME T010604,5A 
5/21/2001 0.11 838 889 141 
EVAL001-7 
(120) SPC00536900 2 Passive 6.312.5 YM2001 PRIME T010605,5A 
5/21/2001 0.12 557 570 110 
EVAL001-7 
(420) SPC00536900 7 Passive 6.312.5 YM2002 PRIME T010606,5A 
5/21/2001 0.19 519 526 57 
EVAL001-7 
(9900) SPC00536900 165 Passive 6.312.5 YM2003 PRIME T010607,5A 
5/21/2001 0.22 488 493 126 
EVAL001-11 
(30) SPC00536900 0.5 Passive 6.312.5 YM2008 PRIME T010612,5A 
5/21/2001 0.12 609 633 78 
EVAL001-11 
(120) SPC00536900 2 Passive 6.312.5 YM2009 PRIME T010613,5A 
5/21/2001 0.12 505 516 69 
EVAL001-11 
(420) SPC00536900 7 Passive 6.312.5 YM2010 PRIME T010614,5A 
5/21/2001 0.25 488 492 40 
EVAL001-11 
(4560) SPC00536900 76 Passive 6.312.5 YM2011 PRIME T010615,5A 
5/21/2001 0.17 680 698 137 
EVAL0018,9,10 
(30) 
SPC00536900 0.5 Active 6.312.5 YM2004 PRIME T010608,5A 
5/21/2001 0.18 420 423 79 
EVAL0018,9,10 
(120) 
SPC00536900 2 Active 6.312.5 YM2005 PRIME T010609,5A 
5/21/2001 0.15 490 501 126 
EVAL0018,9,10 
(420) 
SPC00536900 7 Active 6.312.5 YM2006 PRIME T010610,5A 
5/21/2001 0.20 427 430 88 
EVAL0018,9,10 
(3-7) 
SPC00536900 0.05-
0.12 Active 6.312.5 YM2007 PRIME T010611,5A 
5/21/2001 0.31 243 234 40 
EXD-049 (0.5 
hr) SPC00521148 0.5 Passive 6.312.5 YM2051 CAMS CL9724 11/29/2001 0.08 638 603 208 
EXD-049 (2 hr) SPC00521148 2 Passive 6.312.5 YM2052 CAMS CL9725 11/29/2001 0.07 735 704 164 
EXD-049 (7 hr) SPC00521148 7 Passive 6.312.5 YM2053 CAMS CL9726 11/29/2001 0.09 752 726 64 
EXD-049 
(48 hr) SPC00521148 48 Passive 6.312.5 YM2054 CAMS CL9727 11/29/2001 0.07 683 650 93 
EXD-050 
0.25-0.5" 
(0.5 hr) 
SPC00521147 0.5 Passive 6.312.5 YM2095 CAMS CL10134 5/23/2002 0.11 842 777 102 
EXD-050 
0.25-0.5" (2 hr) SPC00521147 2 Passive 6.312.5 YM2096 CAMS CL10135 5/23/2002 0.13 793 742 95 
EXD-050 
0.25-0.5" (7 hr) SPC00521147 7 Passive 6.312.5 YM2097 CAMS CL10136 5/23/2002 0.12 758 701 87 
EXD-050 
0.25-0.5" 
(48 hr) 
SPC00521147 48 Passive 6.312.5 YM2098 CAMS CL10137 5/23/2002 0.11 796 735 92 
EXD-069 
<2 mm 
(0.5 hr) 
SPC00541213 0.5 Passive <2.0 YM2084A CAMS CL10123 5/23/2002 0.40 382 351 40 
EXD-069 
<2 mm (2 hr) SPC00541213 2 Passive <2.0 YM2085 CAMS CL10124 5/23/2002 0.29 394 356 44 


Table 4-3. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Sequential Leachates of Reference 
Sample EVAL001 and Six Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift Analyzed at LANL 
during Phase II (continued) 

Sample or 
Aliquot 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Leach 
Duration 
(hr) 
Leach 
Type 
Size 
Fraction 
(mm) 
LANL 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
AMS 
Identifier 
Date 
Analyzed 
Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
Sample 
+ Blank 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Sample36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
EXD-069 
<2 mm (7 hr) SPC00541213 7 Passive <2.0 YM2086 CAMS CL10125 5/23/2002 0.17 370 317 52 
EXD-069 
<2 mm (48 hr) SPC00541213 48 Passive <2.0 YM2087 CAMS CL10126 5/23/2002 0.17 477 432 55 
EXD-069 
2 mm-0.25" 
(0.5/2 hr) 
SPC00541213 0.5/2 Passive 2.06.3 YM2088 CAMS CL10127 5/23/2002 0.99 282 277 22 
EXD-069 
2 mm-0.25" 
(7 hr) 
SPC00541213 7 Passive 2.06.3 YM2089 CAMS CL10128 5/23/2002 0.41 283 261 29 
EXD-069 
2 mm-0.25" 
(48 hr) 
SPC00541213 48 Passive 2.06.3 YM2090 CAMS CL10129 5/23/2002 0.21 313 273 40 
EXD-069 
0.25-0.5" 
(0.5 hr) 
SPC00541213 0.5 Passive 6.312.5 YM2091 CAMS CL10130 5/23/2002 0.57 300 284 28 
EXD-069 
0.25-0.5" 
(2 hr) 
SPC00541213 2 Passive 6.312.5 YM2092 CAMS CL10131 5/23/2002 0.66 297 282 27 
EXD-069 
0.25-0.5" 
(7 hr) 
SPC00541213 7 Passive 6.312.5 YM2093 CAMS CL10132 5/23/2002 0.61 305 290 27 
EXD-069 
0.25-0.5" 
(48 hr) 
SPC00541213 48 Passive 6.312.5 YM2094 CAMS CL10133 5/23/2002 0.62 312 297 27 
EXD-070 
(0.5 hr) SPC00541215 0.5 Passive 6.312.5 YM2055 CAMS CL9728 11/29/2001 0.43 543 536 39 
EXD-070 (2 hr) SPC00541215 2 Passive 6.312.5 YM2056 CAMS CL9729 11/29/2001 0.30 544 536 40 
EXD-070 (7 hr) SPC00541215 7 Passive 6.312.5 YM2057 CAMS CL9730 11/29/2001 0.31 553 545 40 
EXD-070 
(48 hr) SPC00541215 48 Passive 6.312.5 YM2058 CAMS CL9731 11/29/2001 0.30 526 518 40 
EXD-072 
(0.5 hr) SPC00521171 0.5 Passive 6.312.5 YM2059 CAMS CL9732 11/29/2001 0.22 936 924 64 
EXD-072 (2 hr) SPC00521171 2 Passive 6.312.5 YM2060 CAMS CL9733 11/29/2001 0.21 697 685 58 
EXD-072 (7 hr) SPC00521171 7 Passive 6.312.5 YM2061 CAMS CL9734 11/29/2001 0.23 687 676 47 
EXD-072 
(48 hr) SPC00521171 48 Passive 6.312.5 YM2062 CAMS CL9735 11/29/2001 0.18 766 753 53 
EXD-080 (0.5 
hr) SPC00533393 0.5 Passive 6.312.5 YM2063 CAMS CL9736 11/29/2001 0.17 586 568 45 
EXD-080 (2 hr) SPC00533393 2 Passive 6.312.5 YM2064 CAMS CL9737 11/29/2001 0.16 559 543 44 


Table 4-3. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Sequential Leachates of Reference 
Sample EVAL001 and Six Samples from the ECRB Cross Drift Analyzed at LANL 
during Phase II (continued) 

Sample or 
Aliquot 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Leach 
Duration 
(hr) 
Leach 
Type 
Size 
Fraction 
(mm) 
LANL 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
AMS 
Identifier 
Date 
Analyzed 
Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
Sample 
+ Blank 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Sample36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
EXD-080 (7 hr) SPC00533393 7 Passive 6.312.5 YM2065 CAMS CL9738 11/29/2001 0.19 560 546 41 
EXD-080 
(48 hr) SPC00533393 48 Passive 6.312.5 YM2066 CAMS CL9739 11/29/2001 0.11 569 546 60 

DTN: GS030608312272.005 (Q), LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: AMS = accelerator mass spectrometer, CAMS = Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, LANL = Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, PRIME = Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement Laboratory, SMF = Sample 
Management Facility. 

Chloride concentrations have a uniform 2s uncertainty of 5% of the stated value. 

For LANL Identifier YM2088, the 0.5-hour and 2-hour leachates were combined. 

The sample or aliquot identifier is from the LANL DTN, which reports the size fraction in inches. The text 
refers to the size fraction column of the table, which reports the size fraction in millimeters. The numbers 
in parentheses for the EVAL001 samples are the leach duration, in minutes. 


Table 4-4. Possible Sources for 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Tuff Samples from Yucca Mountain 

36Cl/Cl Source 36Cl/Cl Ratio Likely Location 
in Rock References 
Bomb-pulse More than 1,200 10-15 
Active, throughgoing 
fractures and 
connected pores 
Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997, 
Section 4.2.4) 
Meteoric water 
younger than 10 ka About 500 10-15 
Active fractures, 
connected pores, but 
potentially less so than 
above 
Fabryka-Martin et al. (1993, 
Section IV.A) 
Meteoric water older 
than 10 ka 
About 700 to 
about 1,100 10-15 
Less active fractures 
and pores than above 
Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997, 
Section 3.1.2) 
Rock chloride Less than about 50 10-15 As mineral component 
and fluid inclusions 
Fabryka-Martin, Wolfsberg et 
al. (1996, Table 5-4) and 
Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997, 
Section 3.4.1) 
Old meteoric salts 
0 to 1,100 10-15 
(depending on age and the 
301,000-year 
half-life of 36Cl) 
Least accessible pores, 
clogged pores, 
insoluble salts 
Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997, 
Section 9) 
Contamination 
introduced during 
sampling and 
processing 
Wide range, depending on 
the source of contamination 
Surfaces of rock 
fragments 
Fabryka-Martin et al. (1997, 
Section 3.3) 


Table 4-5. Dry-Drilled Core Samples Used in Chloride Leaching Experiments Conducted at AECL 
during Phase II 

Core Number SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Location 
(ESF 
station) 
Core 
Interval 
(ft) 
Experiment 
Designation 
Parameter 
Tested 
Size 
Fraction 
(mm) 
Leach 
Duration 
ESF-SD-ClV #2 SPC02016282 36+74 9.910.9 CT Duration 410 10 min 
72 hr 
FT Duration <0.125 10 min 
72 hr 
GS Particle size <0.06312 24 hr 
ESF-SD-ClV 
#14 SPC03017135 35+45 9.711.5 2A2 Particle size <0.0634 24 hr 
2CT Duration 410 10 min 
70 hr 
ESF-SD-ClV #9 SPC02016275 35+95 6.58.1 2BT Particle size 160 24 hr 
3BT Particle size 160 48 hr 
4BT Particle size 160 72 hr 

DTN: GS030508312272.003 (UQ) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, SMF = Sample Management Facility. 
Only a portion of the SPC02016282 interval was used in the chloride leaching experiments. 


Table 4-6. Summary Data for Core Samples Analyzed at AECL during Phase II 

Core Used Sample Name Leach Duration 
(hr) 
Particle Size 
(mm) 
Cl-1 Concentration 
(mg/kg) 
ESF-SD-ClV#2 CT 1 0.17 410 0.14 
CT2 0.33 410 0.22 
CT3 0.5 410 0.25 
CT4 1.0 410 0.4 
CT5 2.0 410 0.57 
CT6 4.0 410 0.72 
CT7 8.0 410 0.88 
CT8 12.0 410 0.91 
CT9 23.5 410 1.0 
CT10 39.0 410 0.96 
CT11 60.0 410 0.97 
CT12 72.0 410 0.9 
ESF-SD-ClV#14 2CT-1 0.17 410 0.1 
2CT-2 0.34 410 0.2 
2CT-3 0.75 410 0.19 
2CT-4 2.5 410 0.39 
2CT-5 7.0 410 0.46 
2CT-6 21.0 410 0.53 
2CT-7 34.0 410 0.68 
2CT-8 49.0 410 0.58 
2CT-9 70.0 410 0.6 
ESF-SD-ClV#2 FT 0.17 <0.125 6.34 
FT 0.33 <0.125 4.56 
FT 0.67 <0.125 4.74 
FT 1.0 <0.125 5.17 
FT 2.25 <0.125 3.79 
FT 4.33 <0.125 5.46 
FT 8.0 <0.125 5.2 
FT 12.0 <0.125 5.08 
FT 24.0 <0.125 4.92 
FT 38.5 <0.125 4.61 
FT 60.0 <0.125 4.72 
FT 72.0 <0.125 4.42 


Table 4-6. Summary Data for Core Samples Analyzed at AECL during Phase II (continued) 

Core Used Sample Name Leach Duration 
(hr) 
Particle Size 
(mm) 
Cl-1 Concentration 
(mg/kg) 
ESF-SD-ClV#2 GS1 24.0 6-12 2.2 
GS2 24.0 2-4 1.5 
GS3 24.0 0.5-2 1.64 
GS4 24.0 0.25-0.5 2.93 
GS5 24.0 0.125-0.25 3.18 
GS6 24.0 0.063-0.125 3.7 
GS7 24.0 <0.063 4.39 
ESF-SD-ClV#14 2A2-1 24.0 24 0.72 
2A2-2 24.0 0.52 1.15 
2A2-3 24.0 0.250.5 2.4 
2A2-4 24.0 0.1250.25 5.83 
2A2-5 24.0 0.0630.125 11.56 
2A2-6 24.0 <0.063 15.73 
ESF-SD-ClV#9 2BT-1 24.0 3060 0.12 
2BT-2 24.0 2030 0.2 
2BT-3 24.0 1020 0.24 
2BT-4 24.0 510 0.34 
2BT-5 24.0 >4 0.35 
2BT-6 24.0 14 0.45 
ESF-SD-ClV#9 3BT-1 48.0 3060 0.16 
3BT-2 48.0 2030 0.21 
3BT-3 48.0 1020 0.29 
3BT-4 48.0 510 0.33 
3BT-5 48.0 >4 0.37 
3BT-6 48.0 14 0.44 
ESF-SD-ClV#9 4BT-1 72.0 3060 0.17 
4BT-2 72.0 2030 0.28 
4BT-3 72.0 1020 0.29 
4BT-4 72.0 510 0.37 
4BT-5 72.0 >4 0.38 
4BT-6 72.0 14 0.44 

DTN: GS030508312272.003 (UQ) 

NOTE: Sample name includes experiment designation (Table 4-5) and number. 


Table 4-7. Processing History of Validation Study Core Samples Leached at the USGS during 
Phase III 

Batch 
No. 
Sample Identifier Interval 
(ft) 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Rock 
Mass 
(g) 
Water 
Mass 
(g) 
USGS-IC 
Barcode 
Identifier 
Cl 
Precip. 
and 
Target 
Prep. 
36Cl Barcode 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
1 LLNL SPC00536901 
EVAL001 NA SPC00557088 1,871 2,098 SPC00536900 LLNL 
LANL SPC00536902 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#33 9.911.4 SPC02016014 1,787 2,057 SPC00536903 
LLNL SPC00536904 
LLNL 
LANL SPC00536905 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#28 6.28.0 SPC02016017 1,893 2,130 SPC00536906 
LLNL SPC00536907 
LLNL 
LANL SPC00536908 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#36 
5.46.7 
8.19.1 
SPC01014834 
SPC02015944 2,002 2,038 SPC00536909 
LLNL SPC00536910 
LLNL 
9.19.4 SPC02015945 LANL SPC00536911 
1 
NA NA NA 2,034 SPC00536912 
LLNL SPC00536913 
LLNL DI blank (8/22/01) 
LANL SPC00536914 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#31 2.83.8 SPC01014835 1,786 2,014 SPC00536915 
LLNL SPC00536916 
LLNL 3.84.5 SPC01014829 LANL SPC00536917 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#21 11.313.0 SPC03017095 1,935 2,115 SPC00536918 
LLNL SPC00536919 
LLNL 
LANL SPC00536920 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#30 6.48.4 SPC02015998 1,965 2,092 SPC00536921 
LLNL SPC00536922 
LLNL 
LANL SPC00536923 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#32 7.69.5 SPC02016007 2,310 2,089 SPC00536924 
LLNL SPC00536925 
LLNL 
LANL SPC00536926 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#28 4.05.1 SPC01014826 2,333 2,134 SPC00536927 
LLNL SPC00536928 
LLNL 5.26.2 SPC01014827 LANL SPC00536929 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#34 
2.12.4 
2.43.0 
3.03.5 
3.84.8 
SPC01014830 
SPC01014831 
SPC01014832 
SPC01014833 
2,399 2,103 SPC00536930 
LLNL SPC00536931 
LLNL 
LANL SPC00536932 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T16 


Table 4-7. Processing History of Validation Study Core Samples Leached at the USGS during 
Phase III (continued) 

Batch 
No. 
Sample Identifier Interval 
(ft) 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Rock 
Mass 
(g) 
Water 
Mass 
(g) 
USGS-IC 
Barcode 
Identifier 
Cl 
Precip. 
and 
Target 
Prep. 
36Cl Barcode 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#22 4.56.3 SPC01014821 1,840 2,096 SPC00536933 LLNL SPC00536934 LLNL 
LANL SPC00536935 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#21 2.84.6 SPC01014819 1,736 2,049 SPC00536936 
LLNL SPC00536937 
LLNL 
LANL SPC00536938 
1 
NA NA NA 2,061 SPC00536939 
LLNL SPC00536940 
LLNL DI blank (8/24/01) 
LANL SPC00536941 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#35 6.48.5 SPC02015949 2,366 2,135 SPC00536942 
LLNL SPC00536943 
LLNL 
LANL SPC00536944 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#27 10.012.0 SPC02016027 2,211 SPC00536945 
LLNL SPC00536946 
LLNL 
LANL SPC00536947 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#26 
3.04.0 
4.04.8 
SPC01014822 
SPC01014823 1,688 2,040 SPC00536948 
LLNL SPC00536949 
LLNL 4.85.0 
5.16.3 
SPC01014824 
SPC01014825 LANL SPC00536950 
1 
ESF-SD-ClV#26 
3.04.0 
4.04.8 
SPC01014822 
SPC01014823 1,700 2,044 SPC00536951 
LLNL SPC00536952 
LLNL 4.85.0 
5.16.3 
SPC01014824 
SPC01014825 LANL SPC00536953 
1 DI system water NA NA NA NA NA 
LLNL SPC00516600 
LLNL sample (8/28/01) LANL SPC00516601 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#24 4.06.6 SPC01015063 1,863 2,054 SPC00536954 LLNL SPC00536955 LLNL 
LANL SPC00536956 PRIME 
2 
ESF-SD-ClV#38 1.43.3 SPC01015068 1,959 2,076 SPC00536957 
LLNL SPC00536958 LLNL 
3.33.9 SPC01015069 LANL SPC00536959 PRIME 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#37 3.65.3 SPC01015066 1,726 2,055 SPC00536960 LLNL SPC00536961 LLNL 
LANL SPC00536962 PRIME 
2 USGS system 
blank (9/5/01) NA NA NA 2,057 SPC00536963 LLNL SPC00516602 LLNL 
LANL SPC00516603 PRIME 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T17 


Table 4-7. Processing History of Validation Study Core Samples Leached at the USGS during 
Phase III (continued) 

Batch 
No. 
Sample Identifier Interval 
(ft) 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Rock 
Mass 
(g) 
Water 
Mass 
(g) 
USGS-IC 
Barcode 
Identifier 
Cl 
Precip. 
and 
Target 
Prep. 
36Cl Barcode 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#39 2.13.5 SPC01015071 1,665 2,045 SPC00516604 LLNL SPC00516605 LLNL 
LANL SPC00516606 PRIME 
2 
ESF-SD-ClV#24 2.14.0 SPC01015062 1,907 2,050 SPC00516607 
LLNL SPC00516608 LLNL 
LANL SPC00516609 PRIME 
2 
ESF-SD-ClV#23 4.85.9 SPC01015060 1,788 2,048 SPC00516610 
LLNL SPC00516611 LLNL 
5.96.7 SPC01015061 LANL SPC00516612 failed 
2 
ESF-SD-ClV#20 3.85.1 SPC01015057 1,909 2,054 SPC00516613 
LLNL SPC00516614 LLNL 
5.16.1 SPC01015058 LANL SPC00516615 PRIME 
2 
ESF-SD-ClV#19 4.45.7 SPC01015054 2,193 2,072 SPC00516616 
LLNL SPC00516617 LLNL 
5.76.4 SPC01015055 LANL SPC00516618 PRIME 
2 
ESF-SD-ClV#18 3.65.6 SPC01015051 1,799 2,057 SPC00516619 
LLNL SPC00516620 LLNL 
LANL SPC00516621 PRIME 
2 
ESF-SD-ClV#17 
3.94.7 
4.75.5 
SPC01015047 
SPC01015048 2,276 2,061 SPC00516622 
LLNL SPC00516623 LLNL 
5.56.4 SPC01015049 LANL SPC00516624 PRIME 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#2 4.75.9 
5.96.6 
SPC01015393 
SPC01015394 2,322 2,051 SPC00516640 LLNL SPC00516641 
SPC00516642 LLNL 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#4 4.45.6 
5.76.3 
SPC01015399 
SPC01015400 1,562 1,890 SPC00516691 LLNL SPC00516692 
SPC00516693 LLNL 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#7 3.94.4 
6.06.5 
SPC01015406 
SPC01015407 989 1,107 SPC00516643 LLNL SPC00516644 
SPC00516645 LLNL 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#11 2.43.4 
4.15.2 
SPC01015475 
SPC01015476 1,513 1,955 SPC00516670 LLNL SPC00516671 
SPC00516672 LLNL 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#8 2.03.4 SPC01015408 1,198 1,448 SPC00516625 LLNL SPC00516626 
SPC00516627 LLNL 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#8 4.05.5 
6.06.2 
SPC01015409 
SPC01015410 1,360 1,700 SPC01015124 LLNL SPC01015125 
SPC01015126 LLNL 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T18 


Table 4-7. Processing History of Validation Study Core Samples Leached at the USGS during 
Phase III (continued) 

Batch 
No. 
Sample Identifier Interval 
(ft) 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Rock 
Mass 
(g) 
Water 
Mass 
(g) 
USGS-IC 
Barcode 
Identifier 
Cl 
Precip. 
and 
Target 
Prep. 
36Cl Barcode 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#10 2.03.9 SPC01015473 1,046 1,489 SPC00516697 LLNL SPC01015119 
SPC01015120 LLNL 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#12 2.04.4 SPC01015478 2,202 2,039 SPC00516667 LLNL SPC00516668 
SPC00516669 LLNL 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#13 2.94.5 SPC01015483 1,858 2,018 SPC00516682 LLNL SPC00516683 
SPC00516684 LLNL 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#15 4.76.0 
6.06.6 
SPC01015494 
SPC01015495 2,073 2,052 SPC00516652 LLNL SPC00516653 
SPC00516654 LLNL 
4 
ESF-SAD-GTB#1 
hand crush 
(10 mesh3/4") 
178.5179.1 
179.3180.1 
180.8181.8 
182.0183.2 
183.9184.8 
185.0186.3 
SPC01002899 
SPC01002901 
SPC01002903 
SPC01002905 
SPC01002907 
SPC01002909 
1,605 1,853 SPC01015160 LLNL SPC01015161 
SPC01015162 LLNL 
4 
ESF-SAD-GTB#1 
hand crush 
(1/43/4") 
178.5179.1 
179.3180.1 
180.8181.8 
182.0183.2 
183.9184.8 
185.0186.3 
SPC01002899 
SPC01002901 
SPC01002903 
SPC01002905 
SPC01002907 
SPC01002909 
1,477 1,534 SPC01015163 LLNL SPC01015164 
SPC01015165 LLNL 
4 
ESF-SAD-GTB#1 
mechanical crush 
(1/43/4") 
178.5179.1 
179.3180.1 
180.8181.8 
182.0183.2 
183.9184.8 
185.0186.3 
SPC01002899 
SPC01002901 
SPC01002903 
SPC01002905 
SPC01002907 
SPC01002909 
1,706 1,802 SPC01015169 LLNL SPC01015170 
SPC01015171 LLNL 
5 ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 
25.326.0 
28.128.9 
30.831.7 
SPC01003084 
SPC01003089 
SPC01003094 
1,358 1,456 SPC01015172 LLNL SPC01015173 
SPC01015174 LLNL 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T19 


Table 4-7. Processing History of Validation Study Core Samples Leached at the USGS during 
Phase III (continued) 

Batch 
No. 
Sample Identifier Interval 
(ft) 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Rock 
Mass 
(g) 
Water 
Mass 
(g) 
USGS-IC 
Barcode 
Identifier 
Cl 
Precip. 
and 
Target 
Prep. 
36Cl Barcode 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
5 ESF-MD-
NICHE3566#2 
20.220.7 
29.830.4 
32.032.5 
SPC01003140 
SPC01003155 
SPC01003156 
1,312 1,446 SPC01015175 LLNL SPC01015176 
SPC01015177 LLNL 
5 ESF-MD-
NICHE3566#2 
11.511.9 
13.213.7 
15.015.4 
SPC01003121 
SPC01003125 
SPC01003129 
1,153 1,419 SPC01015181 LLNL SPC01015182 
SPC01015183 LLNL 
5 ESF-MD-
NICHE3566#1 
14.715.8 
20.320.9 
SPC01003066 
SPC01003074 1,435 1,511 SPC01015184 LLNL SPC01015185 
SPC01015186 LLNL 
5 ESF-MD-
NICHE3566#LT1 
10.911.9 
13.414.1 
22.823.5 
SPC01004414 
SPC01004418 
SPC01004435 
1,339 1,454 SPC01015187 LLNL SPC01015188 
SPC01015189 LLNL 
25.025.9 SPC01004439 
5 ESF-MD-
NICHE3566#LT1 
28.228.8 
31.531.9 
SPC01004443 
SPC01004451 1,665 1,737 SPC01015190 LLNL SPC01015191 
SPC01015192 LLNL 
37.138.1 SPC01004462 
5 USGS system 
blank (6/24/02) NA NA NA 1,615 SPC01015193 LLNL SPC01015194 
SPC01015195 LLNL 

DTNs: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls; GS030608312272.005 (Q);LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: AMS = accelerator mass spectrometer, DI = deionized water; IC = ion chromatography, LANL = Los Alamos 
National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NA = not applicable, PRIME = 
Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement Laboratory, SMF = Sample Management Facility, USGS = U.S. 
Geological Survey. 

Samples were crushed at either the SMF or USGS, and leached at the USGS. The leachates were 
distributed to LANL and LLNL for AgCl precipitation and target preparation. 

For Batch #1 samples, targets prepared at LANL and LLNL were analyzed at LLNL-CAMS. For Batch #2, 
the targets prepared at LANL were analyzed at PRIME Lab and targets prepared at LLNL were analyzed at 
LLNL-CAMS. Targets for Batches #3, #4, and #5 were prepared and analyzed at LLNL. 

The weight of water was not recorded for ESF-SD-ClV#27. The concentration was calculated assuming a 

1:1 water to rock mass ratio (MOL.20030626.0093, p. 2). 

DI blank (8/28/01) was an unfiltered 1-L sample from the DI water system. 

Due to high 36S, which interferes with 36Cl measurements, LLNL did not report data for ClV#18 (see file 
YMP_Cl35-36-37C.Nov_29_01.xls in LL031200223121.036). The USGS data for ClV#18 are located in 
GS030608312272.005. 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T20 


Table 4-8. Validation Study Core Intervals Chosen for Passive Leaching at the USGS during 
Phase III 

Sample Identifier Interval 
(ft) Comments 
ESF-SD-ClV#2 4.75.9 
5.96.6 
Rubbly (4.74.8); intact, about 1 fracture (4.85.9), intact (5.9 
6.4); broken (6.47.0) 
ESF-SD-ClV#4 4.45.6 
5.76.3 
Rubbly (4.44.7); rubbly-broken (4.75.3); rubbly (5.35.6); 
broken (5.75.9); rubbly (5.96.3) 
ESF-SD-ClV#7 3.94.4 
6.06.5 2 blocks (3.94.4); broken, more than 12 fractures (6.08.0) 
ESF-SD-ClV#8 2.03.4 Broken-rubbly (2.02.8); rubbly (2.83.4) 
ESF-SD-ClV#8 4.05.5 
6.06.2 
Rubbly (4.04.3); block (4.34.7); rubbly (4.75.5); block (6.0 
6.2) 
ESF-SD-ClV#10 2.03.9 Block (2.02.2); rubbly-shattered (2.23.65); block (3.73.9) 
ESF-SD-ClV#11 2.43.4 
4.15.2 
Broken, about 5 fractures (1.73.0); broken-rubbly (3.03.4); 
rubbly (4.15.1) 
ESF-SD-ClV#12 2.04.4 Intact, few hairline fractures (2.03.3); broken (3.33.65); intact 
(3.654.3); broken (4.34.4) 
ESF-SD-ClV#13 2.94.5 Broken, more than 12 fractures (2.96.3) 
ESF-SD-ClV#15 4.76.0 
6.06.6 Broken, about 2 fractures 
ESF-SD-ClV#17 3.96.4 Broken, blocky 
ESF-SD-ClV#18 3.6-5.6 Broken 
ESF-SD-ClV#19 4.46.4 Intact-broken-rubbly 
ESF-SD-ClV#20 3.86.1 Broken-rubble 
ESF-SD-ClV#21 11.313.0 Intact, 1 fracture 
ESF-SD-ClV#21 2.84.6 Broken-rubbly 
ESF-SD-ClV#22 4.56.3 Very broken 
ESF-SD-ClV#23 4.86.7 Broken 
ESF-SD-ClV#24 2.14.0 Large intact pieces, broken in 6 areas 
ESF-SD-ClV#24 4.06.6 Large intact pieces, broken in 6 areas 
ESF-SD-ClV#26 3.06.3 Broken 
ESF-SD-ClV#27 10.012.0 10.012.0 intact with 2 to 3 fractures 
ESF-SD-ClV#28 4.06.2 Increasingly broken toward the bottom of the run; broken from 
5.66.2 
ESF-SD-ClV#28 6.28.0 Intact with 4 to 5 fractures to 8.0 
ESF-SD-ClV#30 6.48.4 Broken 
ESF-SD-ClV#31 2.84.5 Broken 
ESF-SD-ClV#32 7.69.5 Intact 
ESF-SD-ClV#33 9.911.4 Intact with about 3 fractures 
ESF-SD-ClV#34 2.14.8 Broken (2.13.0); rubbly (3.03.8); intact with about 3 fractures 
(3.84.8) 
ESF-SD-ClV#35 6.48.5 Broken 
ESF-SD-ClV#36 5.49.4 Broken (5.46.7); rubbly (6.77.0); intact with about 4 fractures 
(7.09.1), 9.1-9.4, one chunk 
ESF-SD-ClV#37 3.65.3 3.05.9 intact with 2 to 3 discrete fractures 
ESF-SD-ClV#38 1.43.9 1.42.6 intact; 2.63.9 broken to rubbly 
ESF-SD-ClV#39 2.13.5 Intact 

DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 
NOTE: Comments are from the video log observations described in Appendix B. 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T21 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T22 

Table 4-9. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Core Samples Leached and Analyzed at USGS-LLNL during Phase III 

Batch 
No. 
Sample 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier for 
LLNL Sample 
Water 
Mass 
Used for 
Analysis 
(kg) 
Date 
Submitted 
to LLNL 
AMS Results Final Results 
CAMS ID 
Sulfur 
Figure 
of 
Merit 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg water) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
water) 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
1 EVAL001 SPC00536901 0.900 08/28/01 CL9634 0.99 0.140 0.007 462 40 0.130 0.008 0.146 0.009 454 145 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#21 
(2.8-4.6) SPC00536919 0.900 08/28/01 CL9640 0.98 0.145 0.007 381 21 0.135 0.008 0.1470.009 368 122 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#21 
(11.3-13.0) SPC00536937 0.900 08/28/01 CL9646 0.97 0.325 0.016 305 25 0.315 0.016 0.372 0.019 297 114 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#22 
(4.5-6.3) SPC00536934 0.900 08/28/01 CL9645 0.99 0.154 0.008 333 22 0.144 0.009 0.165 0.010 317 121 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#26-1 
(3.0-6.3) 
SPC00536949 0.900 08/28/01 CL9650 0.83 0.097 0.005 200 23 0.087 0.006 0.105 0.008 159 137 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#26-2 
(3.0-6.3) 
SPC00536952 0.900 08/28/01 CL9651 0.87 0.105 0.005 177 27 0.095 0.006 0.114 0.008 137 136 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#27 
(10.0-12.0) SPC00536946 0.900 08/28/01 CL9649 0.97 0.149 0.007 211 21 0.139 0.008 0.125 0.007 186 118 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#28 
(4.0-6.2) SPC00536928 0.900 08/28/01 CL9643 0.85 0.089 0.004 204 32 0.079 0.006 0.073 0.005 160 150 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#28 
(6.2-8.0) SPC00536907 0.900 08/28/01 CL9636 0.92 0.146 0.007 189 55 0.136 0.008 0.153 0.009 163 161 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#30 
(6.4-8.4) SPC00536922 0.900 08/28/01 CL9641 0.98 0.138 0.007 185 19 0.128 0.008 0.136 0.009 156 119 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#31 
(2.8-4.5) SPC00536916 0.900 08/28/01 CL9639 0.98 0.065 0.003 301 27 0.055 0.005 0.062 0.006 255 176 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#32 
(7.6-9.5) SPC00536925 0.900 08/28/01 CL9642 0.98 0.180 0.009 222 22 0.170 0.010 0.1540.009 203 115 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#33 
(9.9-11.4) SPC00536904 0.900 08/28/01 CL9635 0.99 0.090 0.005 363 34 0.080 0.006 0.092 0.007 339 156 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#34 
(2.1-4.8) SPC00536931 0.900 08/28/01 CL9644 0.97 0.100 0.005 267 26 0.090 0.006 0.079 0.006 236 139 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#35 
(6.4-8.5) SPC00536943 0.900 08/28/01 CL9648 0.95 0.111 0.006 235 43 0.101 0.007 0.091 0.007 203 154 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#36 
(5.4-6.7/8.1-9.4) SPC00536910 0.900 08/28/01 CL9637 0.96 0.078 0.004 416 31 0.068 0.006 0.0690.006 395 164 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T23 

Table 4-9. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Core Samples Leached and Analyzed at USGS-LLNL during Phase III 
(continued) 

Batch 
No. Sample 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier for 
LLNL Sample 
Water 
Mass 
Used for 
Analysis 
(kg) 
Date 
Submitted 
to LLNL 
AMS Results Final Results 
CAMS ID 
Sulfur 
Figure 
of 
Merit 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg water) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
water) 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#17 
(3.9-6.4) SPC00516623 0.900 09/10/01 CL9722 0.99 0.186 0.009 308 15 0.176 0.010 0.160 0.009 294 111 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#19 
(4.4-6.4) SPC00516617 0.900 09/10/01 CL9720 0.88 0.166 0.008 333 68 0.156 0.009 0.148 0.008 319 182 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#20 
(3.8-6.1) SPC00516614 0.900 09/10/01 CL9719 0.96 0.090 0.005 444 61 0.080 0.006 0.087 0.007 430 194 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#23 
(4.8-6.7) SPC00516611 0.900 09/10/01 CL9718 0.95 0.158 0.008 327 33 0.148 0.009 0.170 0.010 311 131 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#24 
(2.1-4.0) SPC00516608 0.900 09/10/01 CL9717 0.98 0.133 0.007 333 21 0.123 0.008 0.133 0.009 315 124 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#24 
(4.6-6.6) SPC00536955 0.900 09/10/01 CL9712 0.98 0.189 0.009 611 90 0.179 0.010 0.1970.011 615 221 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#37 
(3.6-5.3) SPC00936961 0.900 09/10/01 CL9714 0.95 0.093 0.005 428 48 0.089 0.011 0.099 0.008 413 173 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#38 
(1.4-3.9) SPC00536958 0.900 09/10/01 CL9713 0.99 0.324 0.016 582 31 0.314 0.016 0.333 0.017 583 125 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#39 
(2.1-3.5) SPC00516605 0.900 09/10/01 CL9716 0.92 0.114 0.006 540 93 0.104 0.007 0.128 0.009 538 241 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#2 
(4.7-6.6) SPC00516641 0.900 01/25/02 CL10023 1 0.421 0.021 320 30 0.411 0.021 0.363 0.019 314 117 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#4 
(4.4-6.3) SPC00516692 0.877 01/25/02 CL10024 1 0.136 0.007 535 63 0.126 0.008 0.153 0.010 533 182 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#7 
(3.9-4.4) SPC00516644 0.900 01/25/02 CL10025 1 0.077 0.004 211 175 0.067 0.006 0.075 0.006 159 428 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#8 
(2.0-3.4) SPC00516627 0.411 01/25/02 CL10117 0.8 0.121 0.006 341 116 0.111 0.007 0.134 0.009 322 279 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#8 
(4.0-6.2) SPC01015126 0.513 01/25/02 CL10118 0.98 0.055 0.003 286 71 0.045 0.005 0.056 0.006 226 255 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#10 
(2.0-3.9) SPC01015120 0.470 01/25/02 CL10119 0.97 0.043 0.002 553 112 0.033 0.004 0.046 0.006 552 386 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#11 
(2.4-5.2) SPC00516671 0.900 01/25/02 CL10026 1 0.039 0.002 465 367 0.029 0.004 0.037 0.006 434 
1,026 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#12 
(2.0-4.4) 
SPC00516668 
SPC00516669 0.936 01/25/02 CL10120 0.95 0.058 0.003 362 64 0.048 0.005 0.044 0.005 321 238 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T24 

Table 4-9. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Core Samples Leached and Analyzed at USGS-LLNL during Phase III 
(continued) 

Batch 
No. Sample 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier for 
LLNL Sample 
Water 
Mass 
Used for 
Analysis 
(kg) 
Date 
Submitted 
to LLNL 
AMS Results Final Results 
CAMS ID 
Sulfur 
Figure 
of Merit 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg water) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
water) 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#13 
(2.9-4.5) 
SPC00516683 
SPC00516684 0.938 01/25/02 CL10121 0.95 0.051 0.003 433 75 0.041 0.005 0.044 0.005 403 278 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#15 
(4.7-6.6) 
SPC00516653 
SPC00516654 0.977 01/25/02 CL10122 0.97 0.073 0.004 437 49 0.063 0.006 0.062 0.006 418 193 
4 
ESF-SAD-GTB#1 
hand crush 
(10 mesh-3/4") 
SPC01015161 0.900 06/12/02 CL10322 0.99 0.61 0.031 511 15 0.604 0.031 0.697 0.036 510 108 
4 
ESF-SAD-GTB#1 
hand crush 
(1/4"-3/4") 
SPC01015164 0.900 06/12/02 CL10323 0.99 0.47 0.023 460 14 0.456 0.023 0.474 0.024 457 107 
4 
ESF-SAD-GTB#1 
mech. crush 
(1/4"-3/4") 
SPC01015170 0.900 06/12/02 CL10324 0.98 0.50 0.025 348 13 0.489 0.025 0.517 0.027 344 104 
5 
ESF-MD-
NICHE3566#1 
(14.7-20.9) 
SPC01015185 0.900 06/26/02 CL10329 0.92 0.202 0.010 709 36 0.192 0.011 0.202 0.011 717 139 
5 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
1 
(25.3-31.7) 
SPC01015173 0.900 06/26/02 CL10326 0.98 0.172 0.009 450 20 0.162 0.010 0.173 0.011 443 119 
5 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 
(11.5-15.4) 
SPC01015182 0.900 06/26/02 CL10328 0.76 0.181 0.009 408 26 0.171 0.006 0.210 0.007 399 120 
5 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
2 
(20.232.5) 
SPC01015176 0.900 06/26/02 CL10327 0.91 0.255 0.013 257 14 0.245 0.014 0.270 0.015 245 106 


Table 4-9. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Core Samples Leached and Analyzed at USGS-LLNL during Phase III 
(continued) 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T25 

Water 
AMS Results Final Results 
Leachate Cl Leachate Cl 
Batch 
No. 
Sample 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier for 
LLNL Sample 
Mass 
Used for 
Analysis 
(kg) 
Date 
Submitted 
to LLNL 
CAMS ID 
Sulfur 
Figure 
of Merit 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg water) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
water) 
Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
5 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
LT1 
(10.9-23.5) 
SPC01015188 0.900 06/26/02 CL10330 0.98 0.195 0.010 384 17 0.185 0.011 0.201 0.012 374 113 
5 
ESF-MDNICHE3566#
LT1 
(25.0-38.1) 
SPC01015191 0.900 06/26/02 CL10331 0.78 0.180 0.009 244 25 0.170 0.010 0.178 0.010 226 119 

DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: AMS = accelerator mass spectrometer, CAMS = Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, ID = identifier, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory, SMF = Sample Management Facility, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Sample Identifier includes core interval (in parentheses). 

Measured isotope ratios were normalized to a NIST-traceable standard (LLNL111) with a 36Cl/Cl ratio of 1.11 10-13 and a 35Cl/37Cl ratio of 3.127. 

Measured 36Cl/37Cl ratios were not corrected for spurious counts at mass-36 attributed to 36S present in the sample because of the small amounts of 
sulfur present (sulfur figure of merit values greater than 0.75 correspond to sulfur corrections less than 25%). AMS isotope ratios were corrected for 
background values measured in chemical processing blanks included in the same AMS runs and for the addition of spike. Analytical errors for AMS 

results are 2s for leachate chloride concentrations relative to water and 1s for 36Cl/Cl. Final results given in the last three columns are also corrected for 
leach-process blanks. Because equal volumes of water were used for blank determinations and for sample leaching, the process blank correction was 

-1559.010 (mg/kg water); 
S 
i 1= 

done by subtracting concentrations of total chloride and 36Cl in blank (the weighted average values for the five blank analyses are given in Table 4-10) 
from measured AMS concentrations of total Cl and 36Cl in the sample. For example, for EVAL001: 

Final Cl conc. (mg/kg water) = AMS Cl conc. 0.140 (mg/kg water)  Blank Cl conc. 0.010 (mg/kg water) = 0.130 (mg/kg water); 

Final 36Cl conc. (mg/kg water) = [AMS Cl conc. 0.140 (mg/kg water)  AMS 36Cl/Cl 462 10-15]  [Blank Cl conc. 0.010 (mg/kg water)  55510-15] = 

Final 36Cl/Cl = Final 36Cl conc. 59.010-15 (mg/kg water)  Final Cl conc. 0.130 (mg/kg water) = 45410-15 . 

Errors for blank-corrected values were propagated assuming statistical independence of errors for blanks and samples using the general equation: 

f

22

sfxi 

.

s

.

....

2 

n 

(x1,..., xn ) 

=

.

....

xi

.


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T26 

Table 4-9. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Core Samples Leached and Analyzed at USGS-LLNL during Phase III 
(continued) 

The final uncertainty for isotope ratios (total 2s error) includes an external error derived from duplicate analyses of 14 leachates given in Table 4-10. 
Analytical errors for final results are 2s for leachate chloride concentrations relative to both water and rock. 

Samples were crushed at either the SMF or USGS, and leached at the USGS. The leachates were distributed to LANL and LLNL for AgCl precipitation 
and target preparation. For Batch #1 samples, targets prepared at LANL and LLNL were analyzed at LLNL-CAMS. For Batch #2, the targets prepared at 
LANL were analyzed at PRIME Lab and targets prepared at LLNL were analyzed at LLNL-CAMS. Targets for Batches #3, #4, and #5 were prepared and 
analyzed at LLNL. 


Table 4-10. Concentrations and Chloride Isotopic Compositions of Procedural Blanks Obtained 
for Passive Leaching at the USGS and Chloride Precipitation and Analysis at LLNL 
during Phase III 

Sample Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier for 
LLNL Sample 
Water 
Mass 
Analyzed 
(kg) 
AMS Results 
(corrected for 
background and spike) 
Mass of 
36Cl 
in Blank 
(mg) 
1015 
Conc. of 36Cl in 
Blank (mg/kg 
water) 
1015 
Cl Conc. in 
Blank 
(mg/kg 
water) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
DI blank SPC00536913 0.900 0.004 1,839 555 6.9 7.6 2.3 
DI blank SPC00536940 0.900 0.010 47 211 0.42 0.47 2.1 
DI system water 
sample SPC00516600 0.900 0.017 110 118 1.7 1.8 2.0 
USGS 
system blank SPC00516602 0.900 0.009 626 126 5.1 5.7 1.2 
USGS 
system blank SPC01015194 0.900 0.01 152 148 1.6 1.8 1.8 
Arithmetic mean 0.010 555 3.1 3.5 
Standard deviation 0.005 754 2.7 3.0 
Standard error 0.002 337 1.2 1.3 

DTN: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTES: AMS = accelerator mass spectrometer, DI = deionized water, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory, SMF = Sample Management Facility, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 
Analytical errors are 1s for 36Cl/Cl (corrected for background and spike) and concentration of 36Cl 
in blank. 

Cl conc. in blank (mg/kg water) = Mass Cl in blank (mg)  Water mass analyzed (kg). 

Mass of 36Cl in blank (mg) = Water mass analyzed (kg) x Cl conc. in blank (mg/kg water) x
36Cl/Cl x10-15 . 
Conc. of 36Cl in blank (mg/kg water) = Mass of 36Cl in blank (mg)  Water mass analyzed (kg). 


Table 4-11. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios Measured during Phase III at USGS-LLNL 
in Silicon Crushing Blanks, System Process Blanks, and a Composite Sample of 
Niche #1 Core Crushed and Sieved at LANL 

Sample Identifier SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Mass of 
Rock 
(kg) 
Mass of 
Water 
(kg) 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg 
water) by 
Ion 
Chromatography 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg 
rock) by 
Ion 
Chromatography 
Corrected for Cl and 36Cl 
Measured in Chemistry 
Process Blank CL10348 
Cl Conc. 
(mg/kg 
water) by 
Isotope 
Dilution 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(1s) 
Silicon blank (plate) SPC01015196 
SPC01015197 1.571 1.824 0.019 0.022 0.028 957 174 
Silicon blank (mortar) SPC01015202 
SPC01015203 1.792 1.952 0.014 0.015 0.047 1,033 249 
Leaching blank (9/4/02) SPC01015199 
SPC01015200 NA 1.907 <0.010 NA 0.02 1,077 252 
Mix of NICHE3566#1 
and NICHE3566#LT1 SPC01015205 2.000 2.005 0.114 0.114 0.188 1,185 121 

DTNs: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls; GS030608312272.006 (UQ) 

NOTES: 

LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NA = not applicable, 
SMF = Sample Management Facility, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

Cl concentrations and 36Cl/Cl ratios corrected for values measured in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
Chemistry Process Blank CL10348 run in the same batch having 0.006 0.002 mg Cl/kg water and a 36Cl/Cl ratio of 
2,388 634 (1s) 10-15 . 

Cl conc. (mg/kg rock) = [Cl conc. (mg/kg water)] x [Mass of water (kg)  Mass of rock (kg)]. 


Table 4-12. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of Validation Study Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase III 

Sample or Aliquot 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier Sample Location LANL 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility AMS Identifier Date 
Analyzed 
Cl Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
Sample + 
Blank 36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Sample 36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
EVAL001 SPC00536902 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2033 CAMS CL9659 10/26/2001 0.15 380 361 42 
ESF-SD-ClV#34 
(2.1-4.8) SPC00536932 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2030 CAMS CL9656 10/26/2001 0.08 347 315 59 
ESF-SD-ClV#22 
(4.5-6.3) SPC00536935 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2032 CAMS CL9658 10/26/2001 0.15 426 408 43 
ESF-SD-ClV#28 
(6.2-8.0) SPC00536908 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2034 CAMS CL9660 10/26/2001 0.16 225 203 28 
ESF-SD-ClV#32 
(7.6-9.5) SPC00536926 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2035 CAMS CL9661 10/26/2001 0.16 254 235 29 
ESF-SD-ClV#21 
(2.8-4.6) SPC00536938 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2036 CAMS CL9662 10/26/2001 0.18 362 344 38 
ESF-SD-ClV#35 
(6.4-8.5) SPC00536944 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2037 CAMS CL9663 10/26/2001 0.09 292 264 45 
ESF-SD-ClV#21 
(11.3-13.0) SPC00536920 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2038 CAMS CL9664 10/26/2001 0.32 320 310 29 
ESF-SD-ClV#30 
(6.4-8.4) SPC00536923 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2039 CAMS CL9665 10/26/2001 0.16 186 163 30 
ESF-SD-ClV#27 
(10.0-12.0) SPC00536947 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2040 CAMS CL9666 10/26/2001 0.15 230 208 29 
ESF-SD-ClV#33 
(9.9-11.4) SPC00536905 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2041 CAMS CL9667 10/26/2001 0.11 282 249 44 
ESF-SD-ClV#26-1 
(3.0-6.3) SPC00536950 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2047 CAMS CL9673 10/26/2001 0.10 307 270 72 
ESF-SD-ClV#26-2 
(3.0-6.3) SPC00536953 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2048 CAMS CL9674 10/26/2001 0.11 260 225 44 
ESF-SD-ClV#36 
(5.4-9.4) SPC00536911 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2049 CAMS CL9675 10/26/2001 0.07 360 322 66 
ESF-SD-ClV#24 
(4.6-6.6) SPC00536956 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2071 PRIME R02-0200,5A 8/21/2002 0.20 471 410 151 
ESF-SD-ClV#38 
(1.4-3.9) SPC00536959 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2072 PRIME R02-0201,5A 8/21/2002 0.26 666 640 162 
ESF-SD-ClV#37 
(3.6-5.3) SPC00536962 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2073 PRIME R02-0202,5A 8/21/2002 0.07 409 180 204 
ESF-SD-ClV#20 
(3.8-6.1) SPC00516615 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2078 PRIME R02-0207,5A 8/21/2002 0.08 371 180 208 

TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T29 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T30 

Table 4-12. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of Validation Study Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase III 
(continued) 

Sample or Aliquot 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier Sample Location LANL 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility AMS Identifier Date 
Analyzed 
Cl Concentration 
(mg/kg 
rock) 
Sample + 
Blank 36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Sample 36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
ESF-SD-ClV#19 
(4.4-6.4) SPC00516618 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2079 PRIME R02-0208,5A 8/21/2002 0.09 432 308 194 
ESF-SD-ClV#18 
(3.6-5.6) SPC00516621 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2080 PRIME R02-0209,5A 8/21/2002 0.10 557 456 283 
ESF-SD-ClV#17 
(3.9-6.4) SPC00516624 ESF Sundance fault zone YM2081 PRIME R02-0210,5A 8/21/2002 0.14 519 450 210 
Niche 1-RCR-1A 
SPC01003045, 
SPC01003048, 
SPC01003050, 
SPC01003053, 
SPC01003055, 
SPC01003057 
ESF Niche #1 YM2103 CAMS CL10291 7/30/2002 0.14 1,194 1,163 94 
Niche 1-RCR-1B 
SPC01003045, 
SPC01003048, 
SPC01003050, 
SPC01003053, 
SPC01003055, 
SPC01003057 
ESF Niche #1 YM2104 CAMS CL10292 7/30/2002 0.67 8,530 8,558 485 
Niche 1-RCR-2 
SPC01003068, 
SPC01003070, 
SPC01003072 
ESF Niche #1 YM2105 CAMS CL10293 7/30/2002 0.27 1,636 1,624 120 
Niche 1- RCR-3 
SPC01003082, 
SPC01003087, 
SPC01003091 
ESF Niche #1 YM2106 CAMS CL10294 7/30/2002 0.28 3,164 3,166 199 
Niche 2-RCR-1 
SPC01003119, 
SPC01003123, 
SPC01003127, 
SPC01003135 
ESF Niche #1 YM2107 CAMS CL10295 7/30/2002 0.21 1,130 1,109 78 
Niche LT-RCR-1A 
SPC01004416, 
SPC01004431, 
SPC01004433, 
SPC01004437, 
SPC01004441, 
SPC01004460, 
SPC01004464 
ESF Niche #1 YM2108 CAMS CL10296 7/30/2002 0.13 1,050 1,016 87 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T31 

Table 4-12. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of Validation Study Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase III 
(continued) 

Sample or Aliquot 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier Sample Location LANL 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
AMS 
Identifier 
Date 
Analyzed 
Cl Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) 
Sample + 
Blank 36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Sample36Cl/Cl 1015 
(2s) 
Niche LT-RCR-1B 
SPC01004416, 
SPC01004431, 
SPC01004433, 
SPC01004437, 
SPC01004441, 
SPC01004460, 
SPC01004464 
ESF Niche #1 YM2109 CAMS CL10297 7/30/2002 0.69 3,388 3,390 196 
EXD046-1 SPC00521151 ECRB Cross Drift YM2012 PRIME T01-0852,5A 12/7/2001 0.53 603 607 51 
EXD052-1 SPC00521144 ECRB Cross Drift YM2013 PRIME T01-0853,5A 12/7/2001 0.38 568 574 56 
EXD059-1 SPC00521138 ECRB Cross Drift YM2014 PRIME T01-0854,5A 12/7/2001 0.30 1,274 1,309 114 
EXD066-1 SPC00541211 ECRB Cross Drift YM2015 PRIME T01-0855,5A 12/7/2001 3.59 162 161 22 
EXD071-1 SPC00541216 ECRB Cross Drift YM2016 PRIME T01-0856,5A 12/7/2001 0.59 472 474 46 
EXD076-1 SPC00533396 ECRB Cross Drift YM2017 PRIME T01-0857,5A 12/7/2001 0.37 663 671 75 
EXD084-1 SPC00521175 ECRB Cross Drift YM2018 PRIME T01-0858,5A 12/7/2001 0.74 511 513 57 
EXD085-1 SPC00521174 ECRB Cross Drift YM2019 PRIME T01-0859,5A 12/7/2001 1.12 412 412 35 
EXD086-1 SPC00521176 ECRB Cross Drift YM2020 PRIME T01-0860,5A 12/7/2001 0.92 548 550 179 
T200-1 
(EXD085-1 split) SPC00521174 ECRB Cross Drift YM2022 PRIME T01-0874,5A 12/7/2001 1.59 434 434 43 

DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: AMS = accelerator mass spectrometer, CAMS = Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block, ESF = 
Exploratory Studies Facility, LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, PRIME = Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement Laboratory, SMF = Sample Management Facility. 
Chloride concentrations have a uniform 2s uncertainty of 5% of the stated value. 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T32 

Table 4-13. Concentrations of Anions in Leachates of Validation Study Samples Analyzed by Ion Chromatography at the USGS 
during Phase III 

Batch 
No. Sample Identifier SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Mass of 
Rock 
(kg) 
Mass of 
Water 
(kg) 
F-1 
(mg/kg) 
Cl-1 
(mg/kg) 
Br-1 
(mg/kg) 
NO3 
-1 
(mg/kg) 
SO4 
-2 
(mg/kg) 
1 EVAL001 (bulk rock material) SPC00536900 1.871 2.098 ND 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.22 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#33 (9.911.4) SPC00536903 1.787 2.057 ND 0.11 <0.02 0.24 0.10 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#28 (6.28.0) SPC00536906 1.893 2.130 ND 0.18 <0.02 0.21 0.21 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#36 
(5.46.7/ 8.19.4) 
SPC00536909 2.002 2.038 ND 0.098 <0.02 0.19 0.092 
1 SYSTEM BLANK (8/22/01) SPC00536912 2.034 2.034 ND <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
1 SYSTEM BLANK (8/22/01) 
rerun 
SPC00536912 2.034 2.034 ND <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#31 (2.84.5) SPC00536915 1.786 2.014 ND 0.070 <0.02 0.16 0.067 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#21 (11.313.0) SPC00536918 1.935 2.115 ND 0.31 <0.02 0.26 0.42 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#30 (6.48.4) SPC00536921 1.965 2.092 ND 0.15 <0.02 0.26 0.13 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#30 (6.48.4) 
rerun 
SPC00536921 1.965 2.092 ND 0.17 <0.02 0.22 0.14 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#32 (7.69.5) SPC00536924 2.310 2.089 ND 0.16 <0.02 0.29 0.16 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#28 (4.06.2) SPC00536927 2.333 2.134 ND 0.091 <0.02 0.13 0.065 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#34 (2.14.8) SPC00536930 2.399 2.103 ND 0.082 <0.02 0.18 0.087 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#22 (4.56.3) SPC00536933 1.840 2.096 ND 0.15 <0.02 0.21 0.24 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#21 (2.84.6) SPC00536936 1.736 2.049 ND 0.18 <0.02 0.18 0.27 
1 SYSTEM BLANK (8/24/01) SPC00536939 2.061 2.061 ND <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#35 (6.48.5) SPC00536942 2.366 2.135 ND 0.090 <0.02 0.20 0.14 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#27 (10.012.0) SPC00536945 2.211 ND 0.14 <0.02 0.086 0.19 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#26-1 (3.06.3) SPC00536948 1.688 2.040 ND 0.095 <0.02 0.13 0.10 
1 ESF-SD-ClV#26-2 (3.06.3) SPC00536951 1.700 2.044 ND 0.11 <0.02 0.11 0.10 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#24 (4.66.6) SPC00536954 1.863 2.054 ND 0.22 <0.02 0.44 0.44 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#38 (1.43.9) SPC00536957 1.959 2.076 ND 0.30 <0.02 1.6 0.28 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#38 (1.43.9) 
rerun 
SPC00536957 1.959 2.076 ND 0.30 <0.02 1.6 0.31 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#37 (3.65.3) SPC00536960 1.726 2.055 ND 0.092 <0.02 0.21 0.063 
2 SYSTEM BLANK (9/5/01) SPC00536963 2.057 2.057 ND <0.04 <0.02 0.092 <0.03 
2 SYSTEM BLANK (9/5/01) 
rerun 
SPC00536963 NA 2.057 ND <0.04 <0.02 0.041 <0.03 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#39 (2.13.5) SPC00516604 1.665 2.045 ND 0.091 <0.02 0.20 <0.04 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T33 

Table 4-13. Concentrations of Anions in Leachates of Validation Study Samples Analyzed by Ion Chromatography at the USGS 
during Phase III (continued) 

Batch 
No. Sample Identifier SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Mass of Rock 
(kg) 
Mass of 
Water 
(kg) 
F-1 
(mg/kg) 
Cl-1 
(mg/kg) 
Br-1 
(mg/kg) 
NO3 
-1 
(mg/kg) 
SO4 
-2 
(mg/kg) 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#24 (2.14.0) SPC00516607 1.907 2.050 ND 0.12 <0.02 0.15 0.064 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#23 (4.86.7) SPC00516610 1.788 2.048 ND 0.15 <0.02 0.33 0.13 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#20 (3.86.1) SPC00516613 1.909 2.054 ND 0.10 <0.02 0.16 0.075 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#19 (4.46.4) SPC00516616 2.193 2.072 ND 0.088 <0.02 0.19 0.15 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#18 (3.65.6) SPC00516619 1.799 2.057 ND 0.13 <0.02 0.23 0.15 
2 ESF-SD-ClV#17 (3.96.4) SPC00516622 2.276 2.061 ND 0.14 <0.02 0.27 0.14 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#8 (2.03.4) SPC00516625 1.198 1.448 ND 0.091 <0.02 <0.04 0.16 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#6 (2.05.2) SPC00516628 2.087 2.013 ND 0.11 <0.02 0.15 0.18 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#1 (4.26.2) SPC00516631 2.364 2.051 ND 0.18 <0.02 0.095 0.13 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#1 (4.26.2) rerun SPC00516631 2.364 2.051 ND 0.16 <0.02 0.10 0.12 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#1 (1.43.7) SPC00516634 2.312 2.093 ND 0.26 <0.02 0.13 0.21 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (10/31/01) SPC00516637 2.050 2.050 ND <0.04 <0.02 0.032 <0.03 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (10/31/01) 
rerun 
SPC00516637 2.050 2.050 ND <0.04 <0.02 0.039 <0.03 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (10/31/01) 
rerun 
SPC00516637 2.050 2.050 ND 0.049 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#2 (4.76.6) SPC00516640 2.322 2.051 ND 0.30 <0.02 0.097 0.25 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#7 (3.96.5) SPC00516643 0.989 1.107 ND 0.11 <0.02 0.11 0.067 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#4 (2.13.8) SPC00516646 1.530 1.495 ND 0.23 <0.02 0.18 0.21 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#14 (4.66.4) SPC00516649 1.907 2.057 ND 0.078 <0.02 0.094 0.14 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#15 (4.76.6) SPC00516652 2.073 2.052 ND 0.099 <0.02 0.13 0.081 
3 EVAL001 (bulk rock material) SPC00516655 2.315 2.041 ND 0.17 0.15 0.19 0.20 
3 EVAL001 (bulk rock material) 
rerun 
SPC00516655 2.315 2.041 ND 0.17 0.12 0.19 0.17 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#5 (3.56.5) SPC00516658 1.362 1.966 ND 0.19 <0.03 0.29 0.22 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (1/4/02) SPC00516661 2.103 2.103 ND <0.04 <0.02 0.036 <0.03 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (1/4/02) 
rerun 
SPC00516661 2.103 2.103 ND <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#16 (4.35.0) SPC00516664 1.804 1.948 ND 0.093 <0.02 0.14 0.13 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#12 (2.04.4) SPC00516667 2.202 2.039 ND 0.060 <0.02 0.035 0.041 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#11 (2.45.2) SPC00516670 1.513 1.955 ND 0.056 <0.03 0.089 <0.04 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#8 (3.86.4) SPC00516673 1.758 2.004 ND 0.18 <0.02 0.35 0.25 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T34 

Table 4-13. Concentrations of Anions in Leachates of Validation Study Samples Analyzed by Ion Chromatography at the USGS 
during Phase III (continued) 

Batch 
No. Sample Identifier SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Mass of Rock 
(kg) 
Mass of 
Water 
(kg) 
F-1 
(mg/kg) 
Cl-1 
(mg/kg) 
Br-1 
(mg/kg) 
NO3 
-1 
(mg/kg) 
SO4 
-2 
(mg/kg) 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#8 (3.86.4) 
rerun 
SPC00516673 1.758 2.004 ND 0.17 <0.02 0.40 0.23 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#9 (2.44.9) SPC00516676 1.468 1.903 ND 0.17 <0.03 0.34 0.25 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#3 (3.16.9) SPC00516679 1.605 2.037 ND 0.32 <0.03 0.38 0.33 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#13 (2.94.5) SPC00516682 1.858 2.018 ND 0.058 <0.02 0.038 0.056 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#1 (2.95.0) SPC00516685 1.092 1.514 ND 0.29 <0.03 0.44 0.25 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#7 (2.26.5) SPC00516688 1.659 2.028 ND 0.22 <0.02 0.43 0.27 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#4 (4.46.3) SPC00516691 1.562 1.890 ND 0.16 <0.02 0.12 0.15 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (1/7/02) SPC00516694 2.045 2.045 ND <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (1/7/02) 
rerun 
SPC00516694 2.045 2.045 ND <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#10 (2.03.9) SPC00516697 1.046 1.489 ND 0.060 <0.03 0.097 0.63 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#10 (2.44.7) SPC01015121 1.156 1.497 ND 0.18 <0.03 0.47 0.27 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#8 (4.06.2) SPC01015124 1.360 1.700 ND 0.050 <0.03 0.12 0.056 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#25 (5.66.7) SPC01015127 1.264 1.500 ND 0.11 <0.02 0.12 0.087 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (1/8/02) SPC01015130 2.042 2.042 ND <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#15 (2.34.2) SPC01015135 2.109 2.446 ND 0.055 <0.02 0.13 0.095 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#2 (3.26.5) SPC01015138 1.434 1.962 ND 0.18 <0.03 0.33 0.29 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#12 (4.46.5) SPC01015141 2.137 2.306 ND 0.051 <0.02 0.076 0.067 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (1/9/02) SPC01015144 2.094 2.094 ND <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#5 (1.84.1) SPC01015147 1.433 2.039 ND 0.20 <0.03 0.26 0.23 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#6 (2.26.6) SPC01015150 2.483 2.552 ND 0.23 <0.02 0.43 0.30 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#6 (2.26.6) 
rerun 
SPC01015150 2.483 2.552 ND 0.25 <0.02 0.45 0.32 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (1/10/02) SPC01015153 2.108 2.108 ND <0.04 <0.02 0.038 0.035 
3 SYSTEM BLANK (1/10/02) 
rerun 
SPC01015153 2.108 2.108 ND 0.043 <0.02 0.037 <0.03 
3 ESF-SD-ClV#3 (4.26.2) SPC01015156 2.177 2.389 ND 0.21 <0.02 0.11 0.20 
3 ESF-DHW-ClV#4 (2.06.1) SPC01015159 0.663 1.144 ND 0.26 <0.03 0.38 0.29 
4 ESF-SAD-GTB#1 hand crush 
(10 mesh3/4") SPC01015160 1.605 1.853 
0.060 0.62 <0.02 0.11 0.50 
4 ESF-SAD-GTB#1 hand crush 
(1/4"3/4") 
SPC01015163 1.477 1.534 
0.047 0.44 <0.02 <0.03 0.48 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T35 

Table 4-13. Concentrations of Anions in Leachates of Validation Study Samples Analyzed by Ion Chromatography at the USGS 
during Phase III (continued) 

Batch 
No. Sample Identifier SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Mass of 
Rock 
(kg) 
Mass of 
Water 
(kg) 
F-1 
(mg/kg) 
Cl-1 
(mg/kg) 
Br-1 
(mg/kg) 
NO3 
-1 
(mg/kg) 
SO4 
-2 
(mg/kg) 
4 SYSTEM BLANK (6/10/02) SPC01015166 1.571 1.571 
0.033 <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
4 ESF-SAD-GTB#1 mech. crush 
(1/4"3/4") 
SPC01015169 1.706 1.802 
0.055 0.48 <0.02 <0.03 0.41 
5 ESF-MD-NICHE3566#1 
(25.331.7) 
SPC01015172 1.358 1.456 
0.086 0.23 <0.02 <0.03 0.28 
5 ESF-MD-NICHE3566#2 
(20.232.5) 
SPC01015175 1.312 1.446 
0.064 0.29 <0.02 <0.03 0.51 
5 SYSTEM BLANK (6/24/02) SPC01015178 1.539 1.539 0.038 <0.04 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 
5 ESF-MD-NICHE3566#2 
(11.515.4) 
SPC01015181 1.153 1.419 
0.11 0.21 <0.02 0.14 0.16 
5 ESF-MD-NICHE3566#1 
(14.720.9) 
SPC01015184 1.435 1.511 
0.075 0.21 <0.02 0.16 <0.03 
5 ESF-MD-NICHE3566#LT1 
(10.923.5) 
SPC01015187 1.339 1.454 
0.073 0.28 <0.02 0.16 0.22 
5 ESF-MD-NICHE3566#LT1 
(25.038.1) 
SPC01015190 1.665 1.737 
0.095 0.19 <0.02 0.10 0.15 
5 SYSTEM BLANK (6/24/02) SPC01015193 1.615 1.615 0.042 0.076 <0.02 <0.03 <0.03 

DTN: GS030608312272.005 (Q) 
NOTES: 

NA = not applicable, ND = not determined, SMF = Sample Management Facility, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

Samples were crushed at either the SMF or USGS, and leached at the USGS. The leachates were distributed to LANL and LLNL for AgCl 
precipitation and target preparation. For Batch #1 samples, targets prepared at LANL and LLNL were analyzed at LLNL-CAMS. For Batch #2, the 
targets prepared at LANL were analyzed at PRIME Lab and targets prepared at LLNL were analyzed at LLNL-CAMS. Targets for Batches #3, #4, 
and #5 were prepared and analyzed at LLNL. 

Data are ordered by leaching sequence. Concentrations are given with respect to the amount of rock used after passive-leaching for 1 hour. Less-
than symbols indicate concentrations that are less than the ion-chromatography method detection limits after correction for water/rock ratio. 
Analytical errors (2s) for Cl are 0.03 mg/kg for concentrations <0.2 mg/kg and 0.08 mg/kg for concentrations >0.2 mg/kg. Fluorine analyses were 
not determined prior to June 2002 because of insufficient peak separations. 

Data reported in mg/L in the DTN have been converted to mg/kg in this table to normalize the concentration data to mass of rock:ion concentration 
in mg/kg = (ion concentration in mg/L) * (mass of water in kg)  (mass of rock in kg). Assumes 1 kg water = 1 L of water. 

For ESF-SD-ClV#27, the mass of water was assumed to be 2000 g. 


Table 4-14. Summary of Anion Concentrations in Leachates of Validation Study Samples 
Analyzed by Ion Chromatography at the USGS during Phase III 

Sample Identifier Sample Grouping F-1 
(mg/kg) 
Cl-1 
(mg/kg) 
Br-1 
(mg/kg) 
NO3 
-1 
(mg/kg) 
SO4 
-2 
(mg/kg) 
Drill Hole Wash fault zone n = 0 10 10 10 10 
(ESF-DHW-ClV series) Maximum = ND 0.32 <0.02 0.47 0.33 
Minimum = ND 0.17 <0.02 0.29 0.22 
Median = NA 0.205 <0.02 0.380 0.270 
Average = NA 0.223 <0.02 0.388 0.272 
Standard Deviation = NA 0.053 <0.02 0.057 0.034 
Sundance fault zone, n = 6 51 51 50 49 
Incl. Niche #1 Maximum = 0.11 0.31 <0.02 0.44 0.51 
(ESF-SD-ClV series) Minimum = 0.064 0.050 <0.02 <0.04 <0.03 
Median = 0.081 0.120 <0.02 0.145 0.140 
Average = 0.084 0.145 <0.02 0.156 0.157 
Standard Deviation = 0.017 0.074 <0.02 0.082 0.104 
Southern Ghost Dance fault 
zone (Alcove #7) n = 3 3 3 3 3 
(ESF-SAD-GTB#1) Maximum = 0.06 0.62 <0.02 0.11 0.50 
Minimum = 0.05 0.44 <0.02 <0.04 0.41 
Median = NA NA NA NA NA 
Average = 0.054 0.513 <0.02 0.050 0.463 
Standard Deviation = 0.007 0.95 <0.02 0.052 0.047 
EVAL001 n = 0 2 2 2 2 
Maximum = ND 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.22 
Minimum = ND 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.19 
Median = NA NA NA NA NA 
Average = NA NA NA NA NA 
Standard Deviation = NA NA NA NA NA 

DTN: GS030608312272.005 (Q) 

NOTES: NA = not applicable, ND = not determined, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

Statistics are compiled from data given in Table 4-13 with samples grouped by area (i.e., Drill Hole Wash
fault zone, Sundance fault zone, southern Ghost Dance fault zone, and EVAL001). 
Re-runs of ion chromatography determinations have been averaged to yield a single value for each sample. 
Concentrations reported as less than the method detection limit (MDL) have been assigned a value of 

0.5  MDL for statistical analysis. 


Table 4-15. Summary of Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Core Samples Leached and 
Analyzed at USGS-LLNL during Phase III 

Sample Identifier Sample Grouping 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) 
36Cl/Cl  1015 
ESF-SD-ClV core n = 34 34 
(excludes Niche #1) Minimum = 0.037 137 
Maximum = 0.372 615 
Anderson-Darling P-Value = 
(Distribution) = 
0.000 
(non-normal) 
0.108 
(normal) 
Median = 0.120 316 
Arithmetic Mean = 0.130 326 
Standard Deviation = 0.083 134 
2  Standard Error = 0.029 46 
Niche #1 n = 6 6 
Minimum = 0.173 226 
Maximum = 0.270 717 
Anderson-Darling P-Value = 
(Distribution) = 
0.133 
(normal) 
0.287 
(normal) 
Median = 0.201 387 
Arithmetic Mean = 0.206 401 
Standard Deviation = 0.035 177 
2  Standard Error = 0.028 145 
All Sundance fault zone n = 40 40 
(pooled data) Minimum = 0.037 137 
Maximum = 0.372 717 
Anderson-Darling P-Value = 
(Distribution) = 
0.003 
(non-normal) 
0.125 
(normal) 
Median = 0.120 316 
Arithmetic Mean = 0.141 337 
Standard Deviation = 0.082 141 
2  Standard Error = 0.026 45 

DTN: Calculated from data in LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls 

NOTE: Statistics are compiled from data given in Table 4-9, with samples grouped by area (i.e., ESF-SD-ClV, 
Niche #1, and Sundance fault zone). 


Table 4-16. Mass of Total Chloride, 36Cl/Cl Ratios, and Mass of 36Cl Present in Validation Study Blanks 
Processed at LANL during Phase III 

Sample or 
Aliquot 
Identifier 
SMF 
Barcode 
Identifier 
LANL 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
AMS 
Identifier 
Date 
Analyzed 
Water 
Mass 
Analyzed 
(kg) 
Mass Cl 
in Blank 
(mg) 
Cl Conc. 
in Blank 
(mg/kg 
water) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Mass 
36Cl in 
Blank 
(mg) 
1015 
Conc. 36Cl 
in Blank 
(mg/kg 
water) 
1015 
Procedural 
blank 
(USGS 
water) 
SPC 
00536914 YM2042 CAMS CL9668 10/26/2001 0.899 0.0048 0.0053 1,022 4.91 5.46 
Procedural 
blank 
(USGS 
water) 
SPC 
00536941 YM2043 CAMS CL9669 10/26/2001 0.950 0.0048 0.0051 630 3.02 3.18 
Procedural 
blank 
(USGS 
water) 
SPC 
00516601 YM2046 CAMS CL9672 10/26/2001 0.923 0.0046 0.0050 1,095 5.04 5.46 
Procedural 
blank 
(PB 301) 
NA YM2021 PRIME W01-0861, 
5A 12/7/2001 3.934 0.052 0.013 396 20.59 5.23 
Procedural 
blank 
(PB 303) 
NA YM2031 CAMS CL9657 10/26/2001 0.930 0.0024 0.0027 1,158 2.78 2.99 
Procedural 
blank 
(PB 305) 
NA YM2068 CAMS CL9741 11/29/2001 0.500 0.0034 0.0068 3,756 12.77 25.54 
Procedural 
blank 
(PB 306) 
NA YM2082 PRIME R020211,5A 
8/21/2002 1.000 0.022 0.022 920 20.24 20.24 
Procedural 
blank 
(PB 307) 
NA YM2099 CAMS CL10138 5/23/2002 1.804 0.0254 0.014 1,724 43.79 24.27 
Procedural 
blank 
(PB 308) 
NA YM2100 CAMS CL10139 5/23/2002 1.567 0.0097 0.0062 3,722 36.10 23.04 
Procedural 
blank 
(PB 309) 
NA YM2110 CAMS CL10298 7/30/2002 0.967 0.0041 0.0042 3,349 13.73 14.2 


Table 4-16. Mass of Total Chloride, 36Cl/Cl Ratios, and Mass of 36Cl Present in Validation Study Blanks 
Processed at LANL during Phase III (continued) 

Sample or 
Aliquot 
Identifier 
SMF 
Barcode 
Identifier 
LANL 
Identifier 
AMS 
Facility 
AMS 
Identifier 
Date 
Analyzed 
Water 
Mass 
Analyzed 
(kg) 
Mass Cl 
in Blank 
(mg) 
Cl Conc. 
in Blank 
(mg/kg 
water) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
Mass 
36Cl in 
Blank 
(mg) 
1015 
Conc. 36Cl 
in Blank 
(mg/kg 
water) 
1015 
Procedural 
blank 
(PB 310) 
NA YM2111 CAMS CL10299 7/30/2002 0.951 0.0035 0.0037 4,257 14.90 15.67 
Procedural 
blank 
(PB 311) 
NA YM2112 CAMS CL10300 7/30/2002 0.999 0.0053 0.0053 1,897 10.05 10.05 
Arithmetic mean 0.008 1,994 15.7 12.9 
Standard deviation 0.006 1,387 13.0 8.7 
Standard error 0.002 400 3.7 2.5 

DTN: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: AMS = accelerator mass spectrometer, CAMS = Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, LANL = Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, NA = not applicable, PRIME = Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement 
Laboratory, SMF = Sample Management Facility, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

Analytical errors are 1s for 36Cl/Cl (corrected for background and spike) and concentration of 36Cl 

in blank. 

Cl conc. in blank (mg/kg water) = Mass Cl in blank (mg)  Water mass analyzed (kg). 

Mass of 36Cl in Blank (mg) = Water mass analyzed (kg) x Cl Conc. in blank (mg/kg water) x
36Cl/Cl x10-15 . 
Conc. 36Cl in blank (mg/kg water) = Mass 36Cl in blank (mg)  Water mass analyzed (kg).


Table 4-17. Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Concentrations, and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of 
ECRB Cross Drift Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase III 

Sample 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Distance 
from 
Start of 
ECRB 
Cross 
Drift (m) 
Sample 
Type 
Description 
of Sampled 
Feature 
AgCl 
Target ID 
Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) 
Br/ 
Cl 
SO4/ 
Cl 
Measured 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
Cl-1 Br-1 SO4 
-2 
EXD001-1 SPC00504392 2,545 Opportunistic 
Highly fractured 
bedrock, 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
zone 
YM960 0.65 0.362 0.90 0.558 1.4 789 66 
EXD002-1 SPC00504390 2,550 Opportunistic 
Fractured rock 
and gouge, 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
zone 
YM961 2.12 0.674 2.51 0.318 1.2 342 42 
EXD003-1 SPC00524980 1,135.5 Fault 
transect 
Breccia from 
Sundance fault 
zone 
YM962 0.72 0.005 0.59 0.006 0.8 347 32 
EXD004-1 SPC00524981 1,137 Fault 
transect 
Fractured wall 
rock adjacent to 
Sundance fault 
zone 
YM963 0.25 0.089 0.39 0.358 1.6 1,124 171 
EXD005-1 SPC00524977 1,317 Fault 
transect Breccia YM964 0.40 0.080 0.97 0.199 2.4 582 79 
EXD006-1 SPC00524978 1,318 Fault 
transect 
Breccia in fault 
zone YM965 0.57 0.018 0.46 0.031 0.8 343 57 
EXD007-1 SPC00533390 1,320 Fault 
transect 
Fractured wall 
rock near fault YM1008 0.27 0.102 0.54 0.377 2.0 624 62 
EXD008-1 SPC00533387 2,154 Fault 
transect 
Breccia in fault 
zone YM968 0.49 0.015 0.70 0.031 1.4 915 97 
EXD009-1 SPC00538284 2,154.5 Fault 
transect 
Breccia in fault 
zone YM969 0.59 0.011 0.61 0.018 1.0 4,890 349 
EXD010-1 SPC00533388 2,155 Fault 
transect 
Fractured rock 
in fault hanging 
wall 
YM1043 0.41 0.050 0.85 0.123 2.1 553 34 
EXD011-1 SPC00533389 2,162 Other fault Breccia from 
minor fault YM1032 0.50 NA 1.16 NA 2.3 550 59 
EXD012-1 SPC00538283 2,238 Other fault Breccia in fault 
zone YM970 0.51 0.014 0.45 0.027 0.9 2,349 210 
EXD012-3 SPC00538283 2,238 Other fault Breccia in fault 
zone YM1009 0.92 NA 0.97 NA 1.1 3,549 500 
EXD013-1 SPC00538282 2,348 Other fault Fault with 3 m 
offset YM971,B 0.71 0.063 0.75 0.088 1.1 1,043 74 
EXD014-1 SPC00538281 2,445 Other fault Fault with 2.5 m 
offset YM1044 0.34 0.150 0.56 0.442 1.6 550 51 
EXD015-1 SPC00538279 2,500 Systematic 
feature 
Fault with 0.4 m 
offset YM1045 0.23 0.117 0.56 0.510 2.4 812 72 
EXD016-1 SPC00538280 2,530.5 Fault 
transect 
Fractured rock 
between 2 
faults 
YM972 0.65 NA 1.15 NA 1.8 1,122 89 
EXD017-1 SPC00538275 2,570 Fault 
transect 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
zone 
YM973 0.52 NA 0.87 NA 1.7 2,158 175 
EXD017-3 SPC00538275 2,570 Fault 
transect 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
zone 
YM1010 0.80 NA 1.12 NA 1.4 3,068 258 


Table 4-17. Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Concentrations, and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of 
ECRB Cross Drift Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase III (continued) 

Distance Concentration 
Sample 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
from 
Start of 
ECRB 
Cross 
Drift (m) 
Sample 
Type 
Description 
of Sampled 
Feature 
AgCl 
Target ID 
(mg/kg rock) 
Br/ 
Cl 
SO4/ 
Cl 
Measuredc 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
Cl-1 Br-1 SO4 
-2 
EXD018-1 SPC00538273 2,580 Fault 
transect 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
zone 
YM974 0.69 0.020 0.95 0.029 1.4 890 109 
Brecciated 
EXD019-1 SPC00538270 2,585 Other fault footwall of 
Solitario YM975 0.87 0.029 0.92 0.034 1.1 2,447 205 
Canyon fault 
EXD020-1 SPC00538280 2,530.5 Other fault 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
plane 
YM1046 0.79 0.094 2.06 0.119 2.6 720 43 
EXD020-3 SPC00538271 2,586 Other fault 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
plane 
YM1033 0.52 0.055 0.92 0.105 1.8 641 67 
EXD021-1 SPC00538272 2,586.5 Other fault 
Brecciated 
hanging wall 
of Solitario 
Canyon fault 
YM976 1.83 0.134 1.76 0.073 1.0 1,227 82 
EXD022-1 SPC00538269 2,590 Fault 
transect 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
zone 
YM977 0.83 0.110 1.16 0.133 1.4 1,360 113 
EXD023-1 SPC00524985 2,600 Fault 
transect 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
zone 
YM1047 0.69 0.084 0.69 0.121 1.0 554 34 
EXD024-1 SPC00538276 2,610 Fault 
transect 
Solitario 
Canyon fault 
zone 
YM1048 0.74 0.205 0.68 0.277 0.9 618 41 
Solitario 
EXD025-1 SPC00538277 2,621 Other fault Canyon fault YM978 0.65 0.032 0.82 0.050 1.3 954 96 
zone 
Solitario 
EXD026-1 SPC00538278 2,658 Other fault Canyon fault YM1034 0.45 0.090 0.59 0.200 1.3 680 63 
zone 
Junction of 
EXD028-1 SPC00521169 892.5 Other fault normal and YM1035 1.04 0.089 1.59 0.086 1.5 517 46 
reverse faults 
EXD029-1 SPC00521168 901 QA/QC No structures YM1049 1.52 0.060 2.48 0.039 1.6 505 40 
EXD030-1 SPC00521167 904 Systematic 
feature Fault YM1050 0.82 0.062 1.51 0.076 1.8 566 38 
EXD031-1 SPC00521166 1,004 Systematic 
feature 
Set of 
parallel 
fractures 
YM1011 0.67 0.178 0.70 0.265 1.0 873 128 
EXD032-1 SPC00521165 1,102 Systematic 
feature 
High-angle 
fracture YM1051 0.26 0.037 0.47 0.143 1.8 440 57 
EXD033-1 SPC00521164 1,130.5 Fault 
transect 
Cooling joint 
network YM1036 0.31 NA 0.57 NA 1.8 707 50 
EXD034-1 SPC00521163 1,133 Fault 
transect 
Cooling joint 
that trends 
toward 
Sundance 
fault zone 
YM1052 0.50 0.142 1.02 0.284 2.1 643 46 
Footwall of 
EXD035-1 SPC00521162 1,135 Other fault Sundance YM1037 0.35 0.034 0.58 0.096 1.7 661 68 
fault 


Table 4-17. Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of 
ECRB Cross Drift Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase III (continued) 

Sample 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Distance from 
Start of ECRB 
Cross Drift (m) Sample 
Type 
Description 
of Sampled 
Feature 
AgCl 
Target ID 
Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) 
Br/ 
Cl 
SO4/ 
Cl 
Measured 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
Cl-1 Br-1 SO4 
-2 
Broken rock 
EXD037-1 SPC00521160 1,201.5 Systematic 
feature 
from hanging 
wall of 
Sundance 
YM1038 0.70 NA 0.81 NA 1.2 490 43 
fault zone 
EXD037-3 SPC00521160 1,201.5 Systematic 
feature 
Broken rock 
from hanging 
wall of 
Sundance 
fault zone 
YM1039 0.53 0.093 0.83 0.176 1.6 497 34 
EXD038-1 SPC00521159 1,205 Other feature Fracture set YM1040 0.48 NA 0.70 NA 1.5 385 33 
EXD039-1 SPC00521158 1,301 Systematic 
feature 
Fracture set 
with no offset YM1041 0.20 NA 0.63 NA 3.2 569 38 
EXD040-1 SPC00521157 1,316 Fault 
transect 
Cooling joint 
and fracture 
set: fault 
footwall 
YM1042 0.59 0.111 0.73 0.188 1.2 658 60 
EXD046-1 SPC00521151 1,500 YM2012 0.53 607 51 
EXD047-1 SPC00521150 1,542.5 Systematic 
feature 
Fault (shear) 
with unknown 
offset 
YM1012 1.16 0.222 1.61 0.191 1.4 589 52 
EXD051-1 SPC00521146 2,000 Systematic 
feature 
Highly 
fractured rock 
next to 
throughgoing 
fracture 
YM1013 0.63 0.106 0.94 0.169 1.5 878 74 
EXD052-1 SPC00521144 2,100 YM2013 0.38 574 56 
EXD059-1 SPC00521138 2,387 YM2014 0.30 1,309 114 
EXD063-1 SPC00521132 2,612 Other fault Shear zone YM1014 0.86 0.037 1.08 0.043 1.3 570 44 
EXD064-1 SPC00521131 2,630.5 Other fault 
Hanging wall 
of Solitario 
Canyon fault 
zone 
YM1015 0.45 0.030 0.72 0.066 1.6 612 59 
EXD066-1 SPC00541211 2,560 YM2015 3.59 161 22 
EXD071-1 SPC00541216 2,585 YM2016 0.59 474 46 
EXD075-1 SPC00533397 206 Systematic 
feature Fracture YM1016 1.26 0.128 2.12 0.102 1.7 629 52 
EXD076-1 SPC00533396 300 YM2017 0.37 671 75 
Possible 
north end of 
EXD078-1 SPC00533395 499 Other fault Ghost Dance YM1017 3.12 0.020 3.56 0.006 1.1 481 42 
fault; gouge 
zone 
EXD084-1 SPC00521175 Alcove #8 YM2018 0.74 513 57 
EXD085-1 SPC00521174 Alcove #8 Other fault YM2019 1.12 412 35 


Table 4-17. Chloride, Bromide, and Sulfate Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Leachates of 
ECRB Cross Drift Samples Analyzed at LANL during Phase III (continued) 

Sample 
Identifier 
SMF Barcode 
Identifier 
Distance from 
Start of ECRB 
Cross Drift (m) Sample 
Type 
Description 
of Sampled 
Feature 
AgCl 
Target ID 
Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) 
Br/ 
Cl 
SO4/ 
Cl 
Measured 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
Cl-1 Br-1 SO4 
-2 
T200-1 
(EXD085-1 
split) 
SPC00521174 Alcove #8 Other fault YM2022 1.59 434 43 
EXD086-1 SPC00521176 Alcove #8 Fracture 
feature YM2020 0.92 550 179 

DTNs: LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ), LA0307RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: 

ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block, ID = identifier, LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
SMF = Sample Management Facility. 

Concentration of salts extracted from each sample is only a qualitative indicator of the sample's salt content. 
Because the focus of this activity is on determining anion ratios, no attempt has been made to maximize the yield of 
the leaching process, which is probably highly variable. 

Measured 36Cl/Cl ratios have been corrected for the addition of 35Cl tracer. 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T44 

Table 4-18. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Duplicate Analyses Used to Calculate External Error in 36Cl/Cl Ratios during 
Phase III 

Sample Identifier 
USGS-LLNL-LLNL USGS-LANL-LLNL 
Barcode Identifier 
for LLNL Sample 
CAMS 
Identifier 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
Barcode Identifier 
for LANL Sample 
CAMS 
Identifier 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
EVAL001 SPC00536901 CL9634 0.146 454 109 SPC00536902 CL9659 0.15 361 42 
ESF-SD-ClV#21 
(2.84.6) SPC00536919 CL9640 0.147 368 76 SPC00536938 CL9662 0.18 344 38 
ESF-SD-ClV#21 
(11.313.0) SPC00536937 CL9646 0.372 297 61 SPC00536920 CL9664 0.32 310 29 
ESF-SD-ClV#22 
(4.56.3) SPC00536934 CL9645 0.165 317 73 SPC00536935 CL9658 0.15 408 43 
ESF-SD-ClV#26-1 
(3.06.3) SPC00536949 CL9650 0.105 159 98 SPC00536950 CL9673 0.10 270 72 
ESF-SD-ClV#26-2 
(3.06.3) SPC00536952 CL9651 0.114 137 96 SPC00536953 CL9674 0.11 225 44 
ESF-SD-ClV#27 
(10.012.0) SPC00536946 CL9649 0.125 186 69 SPC00536947 CL9666 0.15 208 29 
ESF-SD-ClV#28 
(6.28.0) SPC00536907 CL9636 0.153 163 129 SPC00536908 CL9660 0.16 203 28 
ESF-SD-ClV#30 
(6.48.4) SPC00536922 CL9641 0.136 156 70 SPC00536923 CL9665 0.16 163 30 
ESF-SD-ClV#32 
(7.69.5) SPC00536925 CL9642 0.154 203 64 SPC00536926 CL9661 0.16 235 29 
ESF-SD-ClV#33 
(9.911.4) SPC00536904 CL9635 0.092 339 123 SPC00536905 CL9667 0.11 249 44 
ESF-SD-ClV#34 
(2.14.8) SPC00536931 CL9644 0.079 236 101 SPC00536932 CL9656 0.08 315 59 


TDR-NBS-HS-000017 REV00 T45 

Table 4-18. Chloride Concentrations and 36Cl/Cl Ratios in Duplicate Analyses Used to Calculate External Error in 36Cl/Cl Ratios during 
Phase III (continued) 

Sample Identifier 
USGS-LLNL-LLNL USGS-LANL-LLNL 
Barcode Identifier for 
LLNL Sample 
CAMS 
Identifier 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
Barcode 
Identifier for 
LLNL Sample 
CAMS 
Identifier 
Leachate Cl 
Concentration 
(mg/kg rock) 
36Cl/Cl 
1015 
(2s) 
ESF-SD-ClV#36 
(5.4-6.7/8.1-9.4) 
SPC00536910 CL9637 0.069 395133 SPC00536911 CL9675 0.07 32266 

DTNs: LL031200223121.036 (Q), Filename: Total_AMS_Summary_2001-02c.xls; LA0305RR831222.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: AMS = accelerator mass spectrometer, CAMS = Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, LANL = Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USGS = U.S. Geological Survey. 

All data were generated for aliquots of leachates obtained at the USGS and analyzed at LLNL-CAMS. Silver chloride (AgCl) targets were prepared 
either at LLNL (first set of columns) or LANL (second set of columns). 

Errors listed for the USGS-LLNL-LLNL 36Cl/Cl data do not include external errors (see Section 4.6.4). 


Table 5-1. Tritium Concentrations in Water Standards with Known Values 

Standard Name Date Sample Submitted 
for Analysis 
Volume 
Used (mL) 
Accepted 3H 
Concentration (TU) 
Measured 3H 
Concentration (TU) 
1s Analytical 
Error (TU) 
D 3/6/2000 100 2.15 1.7 0.4 
H 10/29/1999 110 1.81 2.09 0.26 
10/29/1999 118 1.81 2.24 0.24 
4/26/2000 114 1.81 1.4 0.3 
4/26/2000 115 1.81 1.91 0.24 
5/10/2002 112 1.81 1.45 0.26 
8/2/2002 115 1.81 1.7 0.3 
8/2/2002 115 1.81 1.8 0.3 
Average 1.80 
Standard Deviation 0.31 
E 3/30/2000 104 1.75 1.84 0.25 
6/28/2000 107 1.75 2.2 0.3 
7/19/2000 107 1.75 1.59 0.24 
9/7/2000 111 1.75 1.7 0.8 
Average 1.83 
Standard Deviation 0.27 
L 4/17/2001 125 1.31 1.73 0.25 
4/10/2002 112 1.31 1.24 0.2 
10/29/1999 110 1.31 1.04 0.17 
10/29/1999 108 1.31 1.18 0.16 
2/7/2000 87 1.31 0.85 0.29 
2/7/2000 89 1.31 2.1 0.4 
Average 1.36 
Standard Deviation 0.47 
Dead Water 8/2/2002 110 0 0.2 0.2 
8/2/2002 119 0 -0.1 0.3 
Average 0.05 

DTNs: GS060308312272.001 (Q) (MOL.20020926.0121), GS060308312272.002 (Q) (MOL.20030331.0364) 


Table 5-2. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from Validation Study Core Samples 

SMF Barcode Identifier Borehole Name ESF 
Station Feature Interval Used 
(ft) 
3H 
Concentration 
(TU) (2s) 
SPC03017174 
SPC03017175 ESF-DHW-ClV#1 19+65 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 10.913.2a 1.00 0.80 
SPC03017162 
SPC03017163 ESF-DHW-ClV#2 19+55 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 6.58.2a 0.50 1.40 
SPC03017171 ESF-DHW-ClV#3 19+50 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 12.013.3 1.60 0.80 
SPC03017159 
SPC03017160 ESF-DHW-ClV#4 19+45 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 12.313.7b 0.90 0.60 
SPC03017150 
SPC03017151 ESF-DHW-ClV#5 19+40 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 26.728.7a 0.70 0.60 
SPC03017180 ESF-DHW-ClV#6 19+35 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 12.213.9 0.48 0.56 
SPC03017184 ESF-DHW-ClV#7 19+30 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 9.611.0 1.60 0.80 
SPC03017190 ESF-DHW-ClV#8 19+25 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 11.713.1 0.20 1.00 
SPC03017198 ESF-DHW-ClV#9 19+20 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 11.512.5 0.60 1.20 
SPC03017194 ESF-DHW-ClV#10 19+10 Drill Hole 
Wash fault 11.212.4 0.94 0.48 
SPC02016331 ESF-SD-ClV#1 36+89 Sundance 
fault 11.512.6 0.50 0.80 
SPC02016281 ESF-SD-ClV#2 36+74 Sundance 
fault 8.09.9 0.10 0.60 
SPC02016289 ESF-SD-ClV#3 36+59 Sundance 
Fault 10.711.4 0.60 0.60 
SPC02016297 
SPC02016298 ESF-SD-ClV#4 36+35 Sundance 
fault 11.813.4b 0.30 0.80 
SPC02016299 
SPC02016300 
ESF-SD-ClV#5 36+20 
Sundance 
fault 7.99.7a 0.71 0.46 
SPC02016304 ESF-SD-ClV#6 36+10 Sundance 
fault 9.310.5 1.10 1.00 
SPC02016268 ESF-SD-ClV#7 36+05 Sundance 
fault 8.19.7 0.30 0.80 
SPC02016271 
SPC02016272 ESF-SD-ClV#8 36+00 Sundance 
fault 7.99.9a 0.60 0.60 
SPC02016277 ESF-SD-ClV#9 35+95 Sundance 
fault 10.111.5 0.20 0.60 
SPC02016257 ESF-SD-ClV#10 35+90 Sundance 
fault 11.813.0 0.37 0.58 
SPC02016260 
SPC02016261 ESF-SD-ClV# 1 35+85 Sundance 
fault 11.012.5 a,b 0.15 0.56 
SPC02016266 ESF-SD-ClV#1 35+80 Sundance 
fault 11.813.4b 0.20 0.54 
SPC02016252 
SPC02016253 ESF-SD-ClV#1 35+75 Sundance 
fault 30.532.3 a,b 0.60 0.80 
SPC03017136 ESF-SD-ClV#1 35+45 Sundance 
fault 11.613.4 <0.1 0.30 
SPC03017132 ESF-SD-ClV#1 35+40 Sundance 
fault 12.013.5 b 0.60 1.00 
SPC03017124 
SPC03017125 ESF-SD-ClV#1 35+35 Sundance 
fault 12.013.2 a,b 0.20 0.60 


Table 5-2. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from Validation Study Core Samples 
(continued) 

SMF Barcode Identifier Borehole Name ESF 
Station Feature Interval Used 
(ft) 
3H 
concentration 
(TU) (2s) 
SPC03017107 ESF-SD-ClV#17 35+31 Sundance 
fault 10.512.0 0.95 0.52 
SPC03017108 ESF-SD-ClV#17 35+31 Sundance 
fault 12.013.2 0.70 0.80 
SPC03017113 ESF-SD-ClV#18 35+25 Sundance 
fault 10.911.8 1.40 1.60 
SPC03017114 ESF-SD-ClV#18 35+25 Sundance 
fault 12.313.5 2.60 1.00 
SPC03017119 ESF-SD-ClV#19 35+20 Sundance 
fault 11.713.1 0.60 0.80 
SPC03017101 
SPC03017102 ESF-SD-ClV#20 35+15 Sundance 
fault 10.513.0a <0.1 0.48 
SPC03017094 ESF-SD-ClV#21 35+10 Sundance 
fault 9.811.1 0.40 0.56 
SPC03017088 ESF-SD-ClV#22 35+05 Sundance 
fault 10.411.2b 0.15 0.54 
SPC03017085 ESF-SD-ClV#23 35+00 Sundance 
fault 12.613.7 0.22 0.58 
SPC03017080 ESF-SD-ClV#24 34+95 Sundance 
fault 12.113.4 0.40 0.60 
SPC02016342 ESF-SD-ClV#25 34+90 Sundance 
fault 8.79.9 0.20 0.80 
SPC02016339 ESF-SD-ClV#26 34+73 Sundance 
fault 12.213.2 0.10 0.80 
SPC02016028 ESF-SD-ClV#27 34+70 Sundance 
fault 12.013.4 0.22 0.34 
SPC02016018 
SPC02016019 
SPC02016021 
ESF-SD-ClV#28 34+65 
Sundance 
fault 8.011.3c 1.14 0.52 
SPC02015996 ESF-SD-ClV#29 34+60 Sundance 
fault 10.712.2b 0.28 0.34 
SPC02016001 ESF-SD-ClV#30 34+55 Sundance 
fault 12.213.4b 0.20 0.60 
SPC02016004 
SPC02016005 ESF-SD-ClV#31 34+50 Sundance 
fault 11.012.6a 0.30 0.80 
SPC02016010 ESF-SD-ClV#32 34+45 Sundance 
fault 11.613.2b 0.31 0.46 
SPC02016036 ESF-SD-ClV#33 34+40 Sundance 
fault 7.78.9 0.90 0.60 
SPC02016034 ESF-SD-ClV#34 34+35 Sundance 
fault 10.512.0b 0.46 0.42 
SPC02015951 ESF-SD-ClV#35 34+30 Sundance 
fault 10.011.4b 0.29 0.44 
SPC02015943 ESF-SD-ClV#36 34+25 Sundance 
fault 6.78.1 <0.1 0.36 
SPC02015936 ESF-SD-ClV#37 34+20 Sundance 
fault 9.711.2 0.28 0.26 
SPC02015941 ESF-SD-ClV#38 34+10 Sundance 
fault 11.012.5b 1.40 1.60 


Table 5-2. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from Validation Study Core Samples 
(continued) 

SMF Barcode Identifier Borehole Name ESF 
Station Feature Interval Used 
(ft) 
3H 
concentration 
(TU) (2s) 
SPC02015932 ESF-SD-ClV#39 33+99 Sundance 
fault 11.212.7b 0.23 0.28 
SPC02015927 ESF-SD-ClV#40 33+89 Sundance 
fault 12.313.3 0.30 0.32 

DTN: GS060308312272.001 (Q) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, SMF = Sample Management Facility, TU = tritium unit. 
a 

Adjacent intervals combined to obtain sufficient sample volume. 
b

Interval used for tritium analysis is smaller than the interval traceable to the SMF barcode identifier; a 
portion of the core sample was removed in the laboratory and set aside for other analyses. 

c 

Non-adjacent intervals combined to obtain sufficient sample volume. 


Table 5-3. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from ESF Core Samples 

SMF Barcode 
Number Borehole Name ESF 
Station Feature 
Interval 
Used 
(ft) 
3H 
Concentration 
(TU) (2s) 
SPC00046007 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 16.416.7b <0.1 
SPC00046009 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 23.223.5b 2.0 7.8 
SPC00046012 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 27.828.0b 5.1 7.8 
SPC00046014 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 34.334.6b 28.8 8.4 
SPC00046017 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 47.247.6b 30.9 8.4 
SPC00046018 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 50.550.7 118 19 
SPC00046019 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 55.455.7 128 10 
SPC00046022 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 58.959.0b 78.6 9.4 
SPC00046025 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 61.261.3b 65.3 9.2 
SPC00046030 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 68.668.9b 155 11 
SPC00046032 ESF-AL#2-HPF#1 01+68 Bow Ridge 
fault 83.683.8b 32.9 8.6 
SPC01004381 ESF-LPCAMOISTSTDY#
2 10+28 North Ramp 6.47.0 <0.1 
SPC01004190 ESF-NRMOISTSTDY#
3 07+68 North Ramp 4.45.0 0.20 0.80 
SPC01004175 
SPC01004179 
ESF-NRMOISTSTDY#
4 07+73 North Ramp 4.2-6.9c 0.76 0.24 
SPC01004175 
SPC01004179 
ESF-NRMOISTSTDY#
4 07+73 North Ramp 4.2-6.9c 0.66 0.20 
SPC01004240 
SPC01004244 
ESF-NRMOISTSTDY#
10 08+80 North Ramp 4.06.5b,c 0.22 0.30 
SPC01004301 ESF-NRMOISTSTDY#
13 10+07 North Ramp 4.35.1 0.55 0.30 
SPC01004340 ESF-NRMOISTSTDY#
16 10+70 North Ramp 5.8-6.6 0.44 0.30 
SPC01001947 ESF/NAD/GTB#1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
114.0115.0 0.50 0.60 
SPC01001960 
SPC01001962 ESF/NAD/GTB#1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
120.3 
121.6b,c 1.0 0.8 
SPC01001975 
SPC01001976 
ESF/NAD/GTB#1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
127.0 
129.0c 1.6 1.2 
SPC01002037 
SPC01002038 ESF/NAD/GTB#1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
165.8 
166.7a 0.8 1.0 
SPC01003300 
SPC01003302 ESF-AL6-NDR-MF#1 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
53.955.6c 1.3 1.0 
SPC01003455 
SPC01003457 ESF-AL6-NDR-MF#2 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
42.343.9c 1.6 1.4 


Table 5-3. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from ESF Core Samples (continued) 

SMF Barcode 
Identifier Borehole Name ESF 
Station Feature 
Interval 
Used 
(ft) 
3H 
Concentration 
(TU) (2s) 
SPC01003458 
SPC01003460 
ESF-AL6-NDRMF#
02 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
47.349.0b,c 1.2 0.4 
SPC01003462 
SPC01003464 
ESF-AL6-NDRMF#
02 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
49.351.3c 1.1 1.0 
SPC01003468 
SPC01003470 
ESF-AL6-NDRMF#
02 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
55.357.0c 1.0 1.2 
SPC01003478 
SPC01003480 
ESF-AL6-NDRMF#
02 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
61.162.9c 0.9 1.4 
SPC01001916 
SPC01001918 
SPC01001920 
ESF-NADGTB#
1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
98.4-101.0c 1.4 0.8 
SPC01001964 
SPC01001966 
ESF-NADGTB#
1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
122.1-123.8c 1.2 0.8 
SPC01001968 
SPC01001970 
SPC01001971 
ESF-NADGTB#
1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
124.4-126.0c 1.2 0.8 
SPC01001980 
SPC01001982 
ESF-NADGTB#
1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
130.2-131.9c 0.8 1.4 
SPC01001991 
SPC01001993 
SPC01001995 
SPC01001998 
ESF-NADGTB#
1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 137.0-142.0c 0.3 0.8 
SPC01002042 
SPC01002045 
ESF-NADGTB#
1A 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
168.0-169.8c 0.8 1.0 
SPC01003284 
SPC01003286 ESF-NDR-MF#1 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
44.2-46.0b,c 1.6 1.0 
SPC01003292 
SPC01003294 
SPC01003296 
ESF-NDR-MF#1 37+37 
Northern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
48.9-50.9b,c 2.2 1.2 
SPC01002776 ESF/SAD/GTB#1 50+64 
Southern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
103.4104.1 3.7 1.4 
SPC01002800 
SPC01002802 ESF/SAD/GTB#1 50+64 
Southern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
124.3 
125.9c 1.1 0.6 
SPC01002879 
SPC01002897 ESF/SAD/GTB#1 50+64 
Southern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
175.4 
177.0c 1.8 1.4 
SPC01002956 
SPC01002958 ESF/SAD/GTB#1 50+64 
Southern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
214.5 
216.9c 2.3 0.6 
SPC01002754 ESF/SAD/GTB#1 50+64 
Southern 
Ghost Dance 
fault 
85.186.0 1.2 1.0 
SPC01004630 
SPC01004634 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
3 59+65 South Ramp 2.95.7c 1.7 0.8 


Table 5-3. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from ESF Core Samples (continued) 

SMF Barcode 
Identifier Borehole Name ESF 
Station Feature 
Interval 
Used 
(ft) 
3H 
Concentration 
(TU) (2s) 
SPC01004661 
SPC01004665 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
5 63+00 South Ramp 3.6-6.5b,c 0.42 0.3 
SPC01004672 
SPC01004676 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
6 63+89 South Ramp 2.6-7.0c 0.81 0.28 
SPC01004686 
SPC01004690 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
7 64+80 South Ramp 3.8-7.0c 3.2 0.4 
SPC01004726 
SPC01004728 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
10 66+48 South Ramp 2.46.4c 28.6 3.6 
SPC01004759 
SPC01004763 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
11 66+58 South Ramp 3.26.9c 4.8 0.8 
SPC01004805 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
13 66+80 South Ramp 6.06.8 3.1 0.5 
SPC01004786 
SPC01004790 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
16 67+21 South Ramp 4.66.8b,c 8.2 1.0 
SPC01002407 
SPC01002409 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
1 67+22 South Ramp 2.1-3.6c 0.3 0.3 
SPC01002421 
SPC01002423 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
2 67+20 South Ramp 2.2-3.9c 0.03 0.2 
SPC01004821 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
17 67+30 South Ramp 5.86.7 3.8 0.6 
SPC01004821 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
17 67+30 South Ramp 5.86.7 3.5 1.0 
SPC01004831 
SPC01004835 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
18 67+48 South Ramp 
4.66.7c 1.1 0.8 
SPC01004844 
SPC01004848 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
19 68+26 South Ramp 
4.56.9c 14.3 2.0 
SPC01004858 
SPC01004862 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
20 69+37 South Ramp 
4.26.8c 7.4 0.8 
SPC01005233 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
23 70+59 South Ramp 16.217.0 0.45 0.30 
SPC01005233 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
23 70+59 South Ramp 16.217.0 0.25 0.32 
SPC01004967 
SPC01004970 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
25 74+35 South Ramp 
5.06.9 c 4.4 0.8 
SPC01005175 
SPC01005179 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
26 74+41 South Ramp 
7.49.6 c 4.9 0.5 
SPC01004921 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
27 74+44 South Ramp 5.96.8 1.5 0.8 
SPC01004930 
SPC01004936 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
28 74+47 South Ramp 
2.56.8c 3.2 0.8 
SPC01004949 
SPC01004953 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
29 74+54 South Ramp 
4.56.8c 0.77 0.46 
SPC01005033 
SPC01005037 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
30 74+60 South Ramp 
3.86.7c 12.5 1.2 
SPC01004981 
SPC01004985 
ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
31 74+66 South Ramp 
4.77.0c 5.4 0.6 
SPC01005054 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
33 74+77 South Ramp 5.96.9 2.7 0.6 
SPC01005012 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
34 74+82 South Ramp 5.96.8 1.2 0.5 


Table 5-3. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from ESF Core Samples (continued) 

SMF Barcode 
Identifier Borehole Name ESF 
Station Feature 
Interval 
Used 
(ft) 
3H 
Concentration 
(TU) (2s) 
SPC01005099 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
38 75+03 South Ramp 5.96.8 1.7 0.6 
SPC01005113 ESF-SRMOISTSTDY#
40 75+10 South Ramp 5.96.9 0.58 0.32 

DTNs: GS060308312272.001 (Q), GS040108312232.001 (Q), GS961108312261.006 (Q), GS060383122410.001 (UQ) 

NOTES: ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility, SMF = Sample Management Facility; TU = tritium unit. 
a 

Adjacent intervals combined to obtain sufficient sample volume. 
b

Interval used for tritium analysis is smaller than the interval traceable to the SMF barcode identifier; a 
portion of the core sample was removed in the laboratory and set aside for other analyses. 

c 

Non-adjacent intervals combined to obtain sufficient sample volume. 


Table 5-4. Tritium Concentrations in Pore Water Extracted from ECRB Cross Drift Core Samples 

SMF Barcode 
Identifier Borehole Name ECRB 
Station 
Interval Used 
(ft) 
Volume of 
Water 
Extracted 
(mL) 
3H Concentration 
(TU) (2s) 
SPC02013439 
SPC02013442 ECRB-SYS-CS0600 06+01 3.26.0a 120 0.79 0.58 
SPC02013547 
SPC02013543 ECRB-SYS-CS0750 07+50 3.66.2a 100.4 6.2 1.0 
SPC02013530 
SPC02013534 ECRB-SYS-CS0800 08+00 2.95.8a 80.4 1.7 0.6 
SPC02013613 
SPC02013617 ECRB-SYS-CS0900 09+01 3.56.4a 78.8 6.5 1.2 
SPC02013628 
SPC02013624 ECRB-SYS-CS0950 09+50 2.85.6a 64.4 6.1 0.8 
SPC02013695 ECRB-SYS-CS1000 10+00 17.418.2 80.8 0.5 0.6 
SPC02014326 
SPC02014330 
SPC02014334 
ECRB-SYS-CS1200 11+99 2.96.9a 109 0.41 0.46 
SPC02014285 
SPC02014289 ECRB-SYS-CS1300 13+01 3.05.5a 50 0.7 1.4 
SPC02014299 
SPC02014303 ECRB-SYS-CS1350 13+51 3.66.4a 82.6 3.80 1.00 
SPC02014349 
SPC02014353 ECRB-SYS-CS1450 14+50 4.06.5a 56 0.3 1.0 
SPC02014381 
SPC02014385 ECRB-SYS-CS1500 14+99 14.417.4a 79.4 2.5 0.8 
SPC02014361 
SPC02014365 ECRB-SYS-CS1500 14+99 4.37.1a 98 10.3 1.8 
SPC02014371 
SPC02014375 ECRB-SYS-CS1500 14+99 9.512.1a 51 1.5 0.8 
SPC02014406 ECRB-SYS-CS1600 16+00 3.44.3 54 1.7 1.8 
SPC02014436 
SPC02014440 ECRB-SYS-CS1750 17+50 3.35.9a 78.3 0.6 0.8 
SPC02014450 
SPC02014454 ECRB-SYS-CS1800 18+01 3.66.1a 51 0.1 1.6 
SPC02014486 
SPC02014490 ECRB-SYS-CS1950 19+50 4.06.5a 104 3.6 1.0 
SPC02014623 ECRB-SYS-CS2000 19+99 11.011.9 63.7 0.1 1.0 
SPC02014661 ECRB-SYS-CS2150 21+49 3.44.1 62 <0.1 
SPC02014665 ECRB-SYS-CS2150 21+49 5.56.7 67.7 9.8 1.0 
SPC02014683 ECRB-SYS-CS2250 22+50 2.93.9 65 0.8 0.8 
SPC02014774 
SPC02014778 ECRB-SYS-CS2500 25+00 16.719.8a 72.4 0.64 0.6 

DTN: GS060308312272.002 (Q) 
NOTES: ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block, SMF = Sample Management Facility, 
TU = tritium unit. 
a 

Adjacent intervals combined to obtain sufficient sample volume.