1. PURPOSE
This Scientific Analysis report describes the methods used to develop numerical grids of the 
unsaturated hydrogeologic system beneath Yucca Mountain. Numerical grid generation is an 
integral part of the development of the Unsaturated Zone Flow and Transport Model (UZ 
Model), a complex, three-dimensional (3-D) model of Yucca Mountain. This revision 
incorporates changes made to both the geologic framework model and the proposed repository 
layout. The resulting numerical grids, developed using current geologic, hydrogeologic, and 
mineralogic data, provide the necessary framework to: (1) develop calibrated hydrogeologic 
property sets and flow fields, (2) test conceptual hypotheses of flow and transport, and (3) 
predict flow and transport behavior under a variety of climatic and thermal-loading conditions. 
The technical scope, content, and management of this Scientific Analysis report was initially 
controlled by the planning document, Technical Work Plan (TWP) for: Unsaturated Zone 
Sections of License Application Chapters 8 and 12 (BSC 2002 [159051], Section 1.6.4). This 
TWP was later superseded by Technical Work Plan for: Performance Assessment Unsaturated 
Zone (BSC 2002 [160819]), which contains the Data Qualification Plan used to qualify the DTN: 
MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271] (See Attachment IV). 
Grids generated and documented in this report supersede those documented in previous versions 
of this report (BSC 2001 [159356]). The constraints, assumptions, and limitations associated 
with this report are discussed in the appropriate sections that follow. There were no deviations 
from the TWP scope of work in this report. Two software packages not listed in Table IV-2 of 
the TWP (BSC 2002 [159051]), ARCINFO V7.2.1 (CRWMS M&O 2000 [157019]; USGS 2000 
[148304]) and 2kgrid8.for V1.0 (LBNL 2002 [154787]), were utilized in the development of the 
numerical grids; the use of additional software is accounted for in the TWP (BSC 2002 [159051], 
Section 13). The use of these software packages is discussed in Sections 3 and 6.1.1. 
The steps involved in numerical grid development include: (1) defining the location of important 
calibration features, (2) determining model grid layers and fault geometry based on the Geologic 
Framework Model (GFM), the Integrated Site Model (ISM), and definition of HGUs, (3) 
analyzing and extracting GFM and ISM data pertaining to layer contacts and property 
distributions, (4) discretizing and refining the two-dimensional (2-D), plan-view numerical grid, 
(5) generating the 3-D grid, with finer resolution at the proposed repository horizon and within 
the Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) and ch1 (Uppermost Calico Hills Formation (Table 11)) 
hydrogeologic units, and (6) formulating the dual-permeability mesh. The products of grid 
development include a set of one-dimensional (1-D) vertical columns of gridblocks for 
hydrogeologic-property-set inversions, a 2-D UZ Model vertical cross-sectional grid for fault 
hydrogeologic-property calibrations, and a 3-D UZ Model grid for additional model calibrations 
and generating flow fields for Performance Assessment (PA). 
Note that the repository layout utilized in constructing the numerical grids (BSC 2002 [159527]) 
has been superseded by a revised repository design (BSC 2003 [161726]; BSC 2003 [161727]) 
that does not include the lower block area. Because the repository layout used for grid 
construction includes all of the area covered by the most recent repository design, the use of the 

older repository design for grid construction will not impact License Application (LA) model 
calculations that utilize these grids. 
Numerical grid generation is an iterative process that must achieve a proper balance between 
desired numerical accuracy in terms of gridblock size and computational time controlled by the 
total number of gridblocks. Gridblock size should reflect the scale of the process to be modeled. 
For example, to capture flow and transport phenomena along individual waste emplacement 
drifts, gridblock thickness and width should not exceed the drift diameter or the drift spacing. 
For large models, such as the site-scale UZ Model of Yucca Mountain, flow and transport 
phenomena occurring on scales of less than a few meters cannot be captured. Rather, the model 
is intended to provide an overview of key UZ characteristics and processes potentially affecting 
repository performance. 
Grids must also be adapted to the particular needs of the processes to be modeled because sharp 
gradients may occur in different domains for different flow processes. At Yucca Mountain, the 
heterogeneous, variably fractured layers are better represented by a dual-continuum (matrix and 
fracture) model, rather than a single-continuum approach. Once developed, the UZ Model 
numerical grids are evaluated for appropriate resolution, representation of important features, 
and proper gridblock connections. 
The following list of Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) was taken from the LA FEP List 
(DTN: MO0301SEPFEPS1.000 [161496]). The LA FEP List is a revision to the previous project 
FEP list (Freeze et al. 2001 [154365]) used to develop the list of included FEPs in the Technical 
Work Plan for: Performance Assessment Unsaturated Zone (BSC 2002 [160819], Table 2-6). 
The selected FEPs are those taken from the LA FEP List that are associated with the subject 
matter of this report, regardless of the anticipated status for exclusion or inclusion in Total 
System Performance Assessment for License Application (TSPA-LA) as represented in BSC 
(2002 [160819]). The results of this analysis are part of the basis for the treatment of FEPs as 
discussed in the Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach (BSC 2002 [160146], Section 3.2.2). The cross-reference for each FEP to the relevant 
sections of this report is also given below. 
 
Stratigraphy (LA FEP Number 1.2.02.02.0A). Stratigraphic information has been 
extracted from GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), modified using 
the hydrogeologic unit (HGU) definitions of Flint 1998 [100033], and explicitly 
included in this report. See Sections 5.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.6.3 for discussion of 
stratigraphy. 
 
Faults (LA FEP Number 2.2.03.01.0A). Faults, which can focus flow, are included as 
discrete features in the unsaturated zone (UZ) Flow Model and the numerical grids 
generated in this report. See Sections 5.2, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.6.1 for discussion of faults. 

2. QUALITY ASSURANCE
Development of this Scientific Analysis report and the supporting analyses have been determined 
to be subject to the Yucca Mountain Projects quality assurance program as documented in 
Technical Work Plan for: Unsaturated Zone Sections of Licence Application Chapters 8 and 12 
(BSC 2002 [159051], Attachment I, Work Package P421224UP2) and Technical Work Plan for: 
Performance Assessment Unsaturated Zone (BSC 2002 [160819], Section 8.2 Work Package 
AUZM06). Approved quality assurance (QA) procedures identified in the technical work plan 
(BSC 2002 [159051], Attachment IV; BSC 2002 [160819], Attachment II) have been used to 
conduct and document the activities described in this Scientific Analysis report. The technical 
work plan also identifies the methods used to control the electronic management of data (BSC 
2002 [159051], Attachment II, Work Package P421224UP2; BSC 2002 [160819], Section 8.4) 
during the analysis and documentation activities. 
The procedure AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified Data and the Documentation of 
Rationale for Accepted Data, was utilized to qualify an input data file (DTN: 
MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271]) used to delineate the water table. This file was derived 
from the unqualified DTN: MO0110MWDGFM26.002 [160565]. The derivative file was 
reviewed and qualified using the Data Qualification Plan found in the Technical Work Plan for: 
Unsaturated Zone Performance Assessment (BSC 2002 [160819], Attachment III). The data 
reviews for DTN: MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271] are presented in Attachment IV. 
This Scientific Analysis reports on hydrogeologic units (HGUs) that are identified as natural 
barriers that are included in the Q-List (YMP 2001 [154817]) as Quality Level  1 items 
important to waste isolation. The report contributes to the analysis and modeling data used to 
support performance assessment; the conclusions do not directly impact engineered features 
important to safety as defined in AP-2.22Q, Classification Criteria and Maintenance of the 
Monitored Geologic Repository Q-List. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
The software used in this study, listed in Table 1, was obtained from Software Configuration 
Management (SCM), was appropriate for the intended application, and was used only within the 
range of validation in accordance with applicable software procedures. The qualification and 
baseline status of each of these codes is given in the Document Input Reference System (DIRS). 
Table 1. Qualified Software Used in Numerical Grid Development 
Software Name Version Software Tracking Number 
(STN) 
DIRS Reference 
Number 
EARTHVISION 5.1 10174-5.1-00 152614 
ARCINFO 7.2.1 10033-7.2.1-00 157019 
ARCINFO 7.2.1 10033-7.2.1-01 148304 
WINGRIDDER 2.0 10024-2.0-00 154785 
2kgrid8.for 1.0 10503-1.0-00 154787 
TOUGH2 1.4 10007-1.4-01 146496 
The use of the codes identified in Table 1 is documented in Section 6 and in the supporting 
scientific notebooks identified in Section 6. EARTHVISION V5.1 (Dynamic Graphics 1998 
[152614]) is used to evaluate and extract data from the Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
and Integrated Site Model (ISM3.1) files listed in Attachment I, and to create grids utilizing the 
hydrogeologic units (HGUs) of Flint (1998 [100033], pp. 2132). ARCINFO V7.2.1 (CRWMS 
M&O 2000 [157019]; USGS 2000 [148304]) was used to convert potentiometric contours into 
ACSII format for use in qualification of water table data used in this report (see Attachment IV). 
The WINGRIDDER V2.0 (LBNL 2002 [154785]) software program is used to generate 1-, 2-, 
and 3-D gridblock element and connection information in a TOUGH2 format (the primary mesh 
is an effective-continuum model, or ECM, mesh) (Pruess 1991 [100413]). Data extracted 
from the HGU grids generated by EARTHVISION V5.1 are used as input to WINGRIDDER 
V2.0 to construct the TOUGH2 grid files. WINGRIDDER V2.0 contains new functionality that 
allows for a proposed repository with multiple subregions. The software program 2kgrid8.for 
V1.0 (LBNL 2002 [154787]) generates a dual-permeability mesh from a primary ECM mesh for 
modeling applications, using the TOUGH2 family of codes. TOUGH2 V1.4 (LBNL 2000 
[146496]) was used to perform a test simulation to check the 3-D grid, as described in 
Attachment III. EARTHVISION V5.1, WINGRIDDER V2.0, ARCINFO V7.2.1 and 2kgrid8.for 
V1.0 are qualified under AP-SI.1Q, Software Management. 
Microsoft Excel (97 SR-2) and Adobe Illustrator V8.0 were used to plot data and illustrate 
information generated in the gridding process. Several computations were performed using this 
commercial off-the-shelf software and are exempt from AP-SI.1Q. All information needed to 
reproduce the work, including the input, computation, and output, is included in this Scientific 
Analysis report and the references specified. 

A fault slope analysis was conducted in Section 6.3. The Slope Grid Calculation utility in 
EARTHVISION V5.1 was used to determine the slope (rise/run) of each fault within the UZ: 
this input is listed in the second column of Table 13. Excel97 (SR-2) was used to make the 
following conversions: (1) arctangent of slope = fault dip in radians, and (2) radians to degrees. 
The output of these conversion calculations is given in columns 35 of Table 13. The specific 
details of these calculations can be found in Wang 2002 ([159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 
7374). 
The relative proximity of all boreholes within the UZ Model grid area was examined to 
determine whether or not neighboring boreholes should be grouped as composite locations. 
Boreholes that were closer than 80 m to another borehole were paired with the neighboring 
borehole, and an average borehole location was determined for use in grid construction. All 
borehole coordinates were converted from Nevada State Plane (NSP) (feet) to NSP (meter) 
coordinates for the use in the UZ Model grid construction, as discussed in Section 6.2. 
These calculations are performed using Excel97 (SR-2) in the file borehole loc.xls (Output-
DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001). The input (NSP feet) coordinates for the boreholes are listed 
in columns A and B and rows 1 and 2 of the worksheet All Boreholes in the Excel file 
borehole loc.xls (Output-DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001). For each borehole combination, 
where x1, y1 are the coordinates of borehole 1, and x2, y2 are the coordinates of borehole 2, the 
distance between the boreholes was calculated as the square root of the sum of the squares of the 
differences in x and y coordinates, given as the equation: 
22
(x -x2 ) +(y - y ) (Eq. 1) 
1 12 
This calculated distance was then converted from feet to meters using the conversion factor 1 ft = 
0.3048 m, and the output values are listed in the worksheet All Boreholes in the Excel file 
borehole loc.xls (Output-DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001). Boreholes that are within 80 m of 
one another were then paired together in the worksheet Selected Boreholes (ft) in the Excel file 
borehole loc.xls (Output-DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001). Average x, y coordinates (NSP ft 
values from worksheet All Boreholes in the Excel file borehole loc.xls (Output-DTN: 
LB0208HYDSTRAT.001)) were calculated as (x1 + x2)/2 and (y1 + y2)/2. All of the borehole 
coordinates were then converted to meters using the conversion factor 1 ft = 0.3048 m. The 
output for this calculation is in the worksheet Selected Boreholes (m) in the Excel file 
borehole loc.xls and the file boreholes_Rick_updated.hol (Output-DTN: 
LB0208HYDSTRAT.001), and is also given in Table 10 and Figure 1b. The specific details of 
these calculations can be found in Wang 2003 ([162380], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, p. 71). 
Contact elevations from the input file contacts00el.dat (see GFM2000 files in Attachment I) 
were converted from feet to meters using the conversion factor 1 ft = 0.3048 m, and the resulting 
values are listed in Table II-1. These calculations were performed using Excel97 (SR-2). 
As mentioned in Section 6.4.1, some of the GFM2000 isochore files were combined or 
subdivided using the EARTHVISION V5.1 Formula Processor to generate the UZ Model HGU 
isochores. For validation purposes (see Attachment II), the output UZ Model HGU contact 

elevations for boreholes in the file Boreholes.mck from Output-DTN: 
LB02081DKMGRID.001 were compared to layer contact elevations in the file 
contacts00el.dat from DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]. The GFM2000 borehole 
elevations from contacts00el.dat were first converted to feet to meters using the conversion 
factor of 1 ft = 0.3048 m. The unit contact elevations were then adjusted in the same manner as 
described in Section 6.4.1 to make the GFM2000 stratigraphic units correspond to the UZ Model 
HGUs. These calculations were performed using Excel97 (SR-2). The output data for these 
calculations are recorded in Table II-1 under the columns labeled GFM2000. 
There are actually two different "foot" units. One of these, the U.S. Survey foot, used for 
geodetic survey coordinates, is defined as 1,200 m = 3,937 ft, while the standard foot is equal to 
0.3048 m (IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 [151762], pp. 18, 25). By using the standard foot-to-meter 
conversion factor (instead of the more appropriate U.S. Survey foot conversion), a small error is 
introduced into the model. For example, the NSP coordinates for the borehole G-1 (given as 
561,000 E, 770,502 N in NSP ft in "contacts00el.dat") convert to 170,993.1 E, 234,849.0 N in 
NSP m using the conversion factor of 0.3048 m/ft, and to 170,993.4 E, 234,849.5 N using the 
more appropriate U.S. Survey feet conversion factor. The model grid is not sensitive to the 
magnitude of the maximum difference (0.5 m) resulting from the use of the 0.3048 m/ft 
conversion factor. 
Models used in the development of the UZ Model numerical grids include the Geologic 
Framework Model (GFM2000) (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), and the Rock 
Properties Model of the Integrated Site Model, Version 3.1 (RPM3.1) (DTN: 
MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]). Data from the Mineralogic Model of the Integrated Site 
Model, Version 3.1 (MM3.1) (DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199]) and the Rock 
Properties Model 2000 (RPM2000) (DTN: SN0112T0501399.004 [159524]) were evaluated 
during grid development, but were not directly incorporated into the UZ Model grids (discussed 
in Section 6.6.3). 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

4. INPUTS
The initial stage of grid development begins with the definition of lateral domain and proposed 
repository boundaries, along with the location of important calibration features (e.g., boreholes). 
In order to generate a 3-D grid, WINGRIDDER V2.0 (LBNL 2002 [154785]) requires 
specification of three reference horizons: an upper and lower model boundary (usually the 
bedrock surface and water table, respectively) and a structural reference horizon that defines 
layer displacement along fault traces and sets the elevation of the remaining layer interfaces. 
These reference horizon files consist of regularly spaced x, y, and elevation data. Isochore 
(borehole unit thickness) maps, consisting of regularly spaced x, y, and thickness data for each 
model layer, are then stacked above or below the structural reference horizon to build the vertical 
component of the UZ Model. 
4.1 DATA AND PARAMETERS 
The input data used directly in numerical grid development are summarized in Table 2. The Q-
status of each of these Data Tracking Numbers (DTNs) can be determined by referring to the 
Document Input Reference System (DIRS). Uncertainty in the input data and parameters is 
discussed in Section 7.1. 
Table 2. Summary of Direct Input Data Used in Numerical Grid Development 
Description DTN Data Use3 
Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777] 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, Attachments I, II, III 
Water Table Elevations MO0106RIB00038.001 [155631] 
GS010608312332.001 [155307] 
MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271]1 
6.3, 6.4.2, Attachment IV 
Fracture Data for Hydrogeologic Units LB0205REVUZPRP.001 [159525]2 
LB0207REVUZPRP.001 [159526]2 
6.7 
NOTE: 
1 
2 
See Attachment IV for qualification of DTN MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271] 
Use of these Qualified-Verification Level 2 DTNs as direct input is permissible because this report does 
not directly support any principal factor. 
3 
Sections where the data used are described in detail. 
The primary data feed for UZ Model grids is the Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]). The GFM2000 is a representation of 
lithostratigraphic layering and major fault geometry in the Yucca Mountain area that was created 
using geologic mapping and borehole data as primary input data (BSC 2002 [159124], Section 
4.1). The model contains information about layer thickness and layer contact elevation, and 
defines major fault orientation and displacement. The data for each layer and each fault within 
GFM2000 are available on a regular horizontal grid spacing of 61  61 m over the models 
domain (methodology described in BSC 2002 [159124], Section 6.4; data files in DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]). A total of 50 geologic units and 44 faults are represented 
in GFM2000. As listed in Attachment I, 42 of these units and 19 faults (those that lie within the 
UZ Model domain) are incorporated into the 3-D UZ Model grids. Alternate geologic models 
are not available for use in the UZ Model, nor were they developed. The conceptual model used 
in the development of GFM2000 is founded on the observation that Yucca Mountain is 

composed of volcanic rocks originating from several calderas or vent sources (BSC 2002 
[159124], Section 6.4.1). The resulting geologic interpretation it represents is the ORDs 
geologic model to be used in site-scale process models. GFM2000 files used in UZ Model grid 
development are listed in Attachment I. 
As discussed in Sections 5.1 and 6.4.2, the lower UZ Model boundary is based on water table 
elevations given in DTN: MO0106RIB00038.001 [155631] and the contoured potentiometric 
surface (DTN: MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271]). Table 3 includes water-level data from 
DTN: MO0106RIB00038.001 [155631], along with the water-level elevation for USW WT-24 
as reported in DTN: GS010608312332.001 [155307]. 
Table 3. Water Levels in Selected Boreholes 
Borehole ID1 Water Level Elevation 
(masl) 
USW G-2 2 1020.2 
USW G-3 2 730.5 
USW H-1 2 730.8 
USW H-3 2 731.5 
USW H-4 2 730.4 
USW H-5 2 775.5 
USW H-6 2 776.0 
USW WT-1 2 730.4 
USW WT-2 2 730.6 
UE-25 WT#3 729.6 
UE-25 WT#4 2 730.8 
UE-25 WT#6 2 1034.6 
USW WT-7 2 775.8 
USW WT-10 776.0 
USW WT-11 730.7 

Table 3. Water Levels in Selected Boreholes (cont.) 
Borehole ID1 Water Level Elevation 
(masl) 
UE-25 WT# 12 729.5 
UE-25 WT#13 729.1 
UE-25 WT#14 729.7 
UE-25 WT#15 729.2 
UE-25 WT#16 2 738.3 
UE-25 WT#17 729.7 
UE-25 WT#18 2 730.8 
UE-25 WT-24 2 840.13 
UE-25 J#13 728.4 
UE-25 b#1 2 730.6 
UE-25 c#2 730.2 
UE-25 c#3 730.2 
Source: From DTN: MO0106RIB00038.001 [155631] (except data for WT-24). 
WT-24 datum from DTN: GS010608312332.001 [155307]. 
NOTES: 1 For simplicity, the borehole names used throughout the remainder of this 
document drop the USW and UE-25 prefixes. 
2 
These boreholes lie within or along UZ Model boundaries. 
3 
Elevation as reported in DTN: GS010608312332.001 [155307]). 
Fracture hydrogeologic properties (DTNs: LB0205REVUZPRP.001 [159525] and 
LB0207REVUZPRP.001 [159526]) describing UZ Model layers are used to formulate the dual-
permeability (dual-k) meshes for 1-D hydrogeologic-property-set inversions, for 2-D fault 
property calibration, and for 3-D UZ Model calibration and flow fields for PA. Fracture 
hydrogeologic properties used for dual-k grid generation are listed in Table 4. 

Table 4. Fracture Hydrogeologic Properties 
Model Layer Fracture Porosity 
(m3/m3) 
Fracture Aperture 
(m) 
Fracture 
Frequency 
(m-1) 
Fracture Interface 
Area 
(m2/m3) 
tcw11 2.4E-02 7.3E-04 9.2E-01 1.6E+00 
tcw12 1.7E-02 3.2E-04 1.9E+00 1.3E+01 
tcw13 1.3E-02 2.7E-04 2.8E+00 3.8E+00 
ptn21 9.2E-03 3.9E-04 6.7E-01 1.0E+00 
ptn22 1.0E-02 2.0E-04 4.6E-01 1.4E+00 
ptn23 2.1E-03 1.8E-04 5.7E-01 1.8E+00 
ptn24 1.0E-02 4.3E-04 4.6E-01 3.4E-01 
ptn25 5.5E-03 1.6E-04 5.2E-01 1.1E+00 
ptn26 3.1E-03 1.4E-04 9.7E-01 3.6E+00 
tsw31 5.0E-03 1.6E-04 2.2E+00 3.9E+00 
tsw32 8.3E-03 2.0E-04 1.1E+00 3.2E+00 
tsw33 5.8E-03 2.3E-04 8.1E-01 4.4E+00 
tsw34 8.5E-03 9.7E-05 4.3E+00 1.4E+01 
tsw35 9.6E-03 1.5E-04 3.2E+00 9.7E+00 
tsw36 1.3E-02 1.6E-04 4.0E+00 1.2E+01 
tsw37 1.3E-02 1.6E-04 4.0E+00 1.2E+01 
tsw38 1.1E-02 1.3E-04 4.4E+00 1.3E+01 
tsw39 4.3E-03 2.2E-04 9.6E-01 3.0E+00 
ch1VI 6.1E-04 3.0E-04 1.0E-01 3.0E-01 
ch2VI 7.7E-04 2.7E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
ch3VI 7.7E-04 2.7E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
ch4VI 7.7E-04 2.7E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
ch5VI 7.7E-04 2.7E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
ch6VI 7.7E-04 2.7E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
ch1Ze 1.6E-04 2.0E-04 4.0E-02 1.1E-01 
ch2Ze 3.7E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
ch3Ze 3.7E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
ch4Ze 3.7E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
ch5Ze 3.7E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
ch6Ze 1.6E-04 2.0E-04 4.0E-02 1.1E-01 
pp4 3.7E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
pp3 9.7E-03 2.4E-04 2.0E-01 6.1E-01 
pp2 9.7E-03 2.4E-04 2.0E-01 6.1E-01 
pp1 3.7E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
bf3 9.7E-04 2.4E-04 2.0E-01 6.1E-01 
bf2 3.7E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
tr3 9.7E-04 2.4E-04 2.0E-01 6.1E-01 
tr2 3.7E-04 1.3E-04 1.4E-01 4.3E-01 
tcwf1 2.9E-02 5.5E-04 1.9E+00 1.3E+01 
ptnf1 1.1E-02 4.1E-04 5.4E-01 1.3E+00 
tswf1 2.5E-02 4.6E-04 1.7E+00 8.7E+00 
chnf1 1.0E-03 3.3E-04 1.3E-01 4.6E-01 
Source: DTN: LB0205REVUZPRP.001 [159525] and LB0207REVUZPRP.001 [159526] 
NOTES: 1Values for fault fracture properties within the Tiva Canyon welded (tcwf), Paintbrush 
nonwelded (ptnf), Topopah Spring welded (tswf), and Calico Hills nonwelded (chnf) units. 
VI = Vitric Subunit, Ze = Zeolitic Subunit 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01 22 April 2003 

4.1.1 Other Inputs 
The inputs in Table 5 are associated with scientific analyses and interpretations of assumptions 
listed and discussed in Section 5. The first five rows of inputs are collectively used to assign 
hydrogeologic nomenclature to layers in the numerical grids. The last two rows of inputs in 
Table 5 are used to represent the location of the proposed repository and to interpret hydrologic 
features away from the repository area. 
Table 5. Summary of Other Inputs Used in Numerical Grid Development 
Description Reference Use 
Hydrogeologic Unit Definitions Flint 1998 [100033]1 Assumption 3 
Rock Properties Model (RPM3.1) of 
Integrated Site Model (ISM3.1) 
MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731] Assumptions 4, 5 
Mineralogic Model (MM3.1) of Integrated 
Site Model (ISM3.1) 
MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199] Assumption 5 
Rock Properties Model (RPM2000) SN0112T0501399.004 [159524] Assumptions 4, 5 
Rock Property Data (saturation, porosity, 
hydraulic conductivity) 
Boreholes SD-6, SD-7, SD-9, SD-12, 
UZ-14, UZ-16, NRG-7a, and WT-24: 
LB0207REVUZPRP.002 [159672] 
All other boreholes: 
MO0109HYMXPROP.001 [155989] 
SD-6: GS980808312242.014 
[106748], 
GS980908312242.038 [107154] 
SD-7: 
GS951108312231.009 [108984] 
SD-12: 
GS960808312231.004 [108985] 
Assumptions 4, 5 
Repository Layout Configuration2 BSC 2002 [159527] Assumption 8 
Perched-Water Elevations GS010608312332.001 [155307] 
MO0106RIB00038.001 [155631] 
Assumption 2 
NOTE: 1 Hydrogeologic unit definitions (Flint 1998 [100033]) used qualitatively; individual sample data not used. 
2 
The latest version of the repository layout (BSC 2003 [161726]; BSC 2003 [161727]) does not include 
the lower block area. 
Geologic data alone cannot adequately capture all important features that affect flow and 
transport in the UZ at Yucca Mountain. Hydrogeologic rock-property data have also been 
considered, as discussed in Section 5.2 (Assumption 3). Based on analyses of several thousand 
rock samples performed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 30 hydrogeologic units (HGUs) 
have been identified, based on limited ranges where a discrete volume of rock contains similar 
hydrogeologic properties (Flint 1998 [100033], p. 1, Table 1). Since the hydrogeologic 
property sets to be calculated with the UZ Model grid use, to a large extent, the matrix-property 
data collected and analyzed by Flint (1998 [100033]), layering within the numerical grid was 
chosen to correspond as closely as possible to HGUs to facilitate data usage. The boundaries of 
HGUs are not defined by regularly spaced data, but are more qualitative in nature. The 

qualitative descriptions (but not any sample or other data) given in Flint (1998 [100033], pp. 21 
32), when correlated with GFM2000 data (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), are 
used to develop a set of hydrogeologic layers whose thickness and elevation are described by 
regularly spaced data for the UZ Model. 
Because of the importance of mineral (especially zeolitic) alteration for flow and transport 
calculations, boundaries between vitric and zeolitic areas are defined within certain UZ Model 
grid layers below the proposed repository horizon. Alteration to zeolites has been shown to 
greatly reduce permeability (Flint 1998 [100033], p. 32; Loeven 1993 [101258], pp. 1819, 22) 
and may increase the rocks ability to adsorb some radionuclides. As discussed in Section 5.2 
(Assumptions 4 and 5), the data considered in the numerical grid development for defining low-
permeability, zeolitic volumes of rock are obtained from the Rock Properties Model of the 
Integrated Site Model, Version 3.1 (RPM3.1) (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]), 
along with supporting information from the Rock Properties Model (RPM2000) (DTN: 
SN0112T0501399.004 [159524]) and the Mineralogic Model of the Integrated Site Model, 
Version 3.1 (MM3.1) (DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199]). The specific Integrated 
Site Model (ISM3.1) files used in UZ Model grid development are listed in Attachment I. 
As discussed in Section 5.2 (Assumption 8), an assumed proposed repository layout 
configuration, based on Data Sheets 2 and 3 from Repository Design, Repository/PA IED 
Subsurface Facilities Plan Sht. 1 of 5, Sht. 2 of 5, Sht. 3 of 5, Sht. 4 of 5, and Sht. 5 of 5 (BSC 
2002 [159527]), is used during numerical grid generation to locate areas of fine spatial 
resolution. The repository layout used in the formulation of the numerical grids consists of an 
extended upper repository area (consisting of two parts) that covers much of the footprint of the 
previous repository as presented in REV 00 ICN 01 (BSC 2001 [159356], Figure 1), and an 
additional lower repository area that is situated just east of the upper repository area. The areal 
boundary coordinates for, and elevations of the proposed repository (in meters above sea level, 
[masl]) are summarized in Table 6 and the proposed repository outline is shown in Figure 1a 
(Section 6.2). As noted in Section 5.2 (Assumption 8), the proposed repository layout may be 
subject to future design modifications. The most recent version of the repository layout (BSC 
2003 [161726]; BSC 2003 [161727]), created after the formulation of the numerical grids 
described in this report, does not include the lower block area designated in Table 6. 
Table 6. Proposed Repository Boundary Coordinates Used for UZ Model Grids 
NSP Easting 
(m) 
NSP Northing 
(m) 
Elevation 
(masl) 
Upper Block, Part A 
170861.2 236062.5 1037.7 
170656.9 235911.0 1038.8 
170479.8 235768.2 1040.0 
170140.8 235061.9 1048.2 
170072.5 234017.7 1062.2 
170116.0 233520.8 1069.3 
170126.2 233438.9 1070.5 

Table 6. Proposed Repository Boundary Coordinates Used for UZ Model Grids (cont.) 
NSP Easting 
(m) 
NSP Northing 
(m) 
Elevation 
(masl) 
170158.7 233364.4 1071.6 
170217.3 233298.2 1072.8 
171227.6 233626.5 1072.8 
171259.4 234233.0 1064.6 
171742.0 234475.0 1063.4 
171858.7 235023.9 1056.4 
172309.4 235936.8 1045.9 
172230.8 236081.7 1043.5 
172140.2 236137.4 1038.8 
171577.8 236039.8 1041.2 
171619.7 236138.6 1040.0 
171665.6 236323.9 1037.7 
Upper Block, Part B 
171214.0 233366.5 1076.3 
170482.2 233128.8 1076.3 
170482.2 233128.8 1076.3 
170468.6 232357.8 1086.8 
170490.0 231513.1 1098.6 
170487.4 231341.9 1100.9 
170496.4 231089.3 1104.4 
170523.6 231013.0 1105.6 
170572.7 230943.8 1106.8 
171018.4 231088.6 1106.8 
171062.8 231188.2 1105.6 
171098.4 231284.9 1104.4 
Lower Block* 
172628.5 235345.4 1001.3 
172613.7 235425.7 1001.9 
172084.8 235253.9 1001.9 
172012.0 235145.1 1001.3 
171890.6 234850.1 999.3 
171870.2 234588.0 997.4 
171836.4 234491.8 996.7 
171339.5 234245.2 996. 1 
171225.9 232079.1 979.8 
171431.4 232060.7 979.2 

Table 6. Proposed Repository Boundary Coordinates Used for UZ Model Grids (cont.) 
NSP Easting 
(m) 
NSP Northing 
(m) 
Elevation 
(masl) 
171816.0 232100.5 978.5 
171907.2 232045.0 977.9 
172369.7 232195.2 977.9 
172437.3 233239.2 985.7 
172655.8 233906.4 990.2 
172414.2 234594.4 996.1 
172435.7 234771.7 997.4 
172444.1 235030.0 999.3 
172542.7 235232.3 1000.6 
Source: Repository layout obtained from BSC (2002 
[159527]). The coordinates in this table 
were chosen to represent the basic outline of 
the proposed repository footprint (as 
depicted in Figures 1a and 1b). The 
complete IED coordinate set was utilized to 
construct the numerical grids. 
NOTE: * The latest version of the repository layout 
(BSC 2003 [161726]; BSC 2003 [161727]) 
does not include the lower block area which 
is being used in AMRs supporting License 
Application (LA) documents. 
4.2 CRITERIA 
Technical requirements to be satisfied by performance assessment (PA) are based on 
10 CFR 63.114 [156605] (Requirements for Performance Assessment) and identified in the 
Yucca Mountain Project Requirements Document (Curry and Loros 2002 [157916]). The 
acceptance criteria that will be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to determine 
whether the technical requirements have been met are identified in the Yucca Mountain Review 
Plan, Information Only (YMRP; NRC 2003 [162418]). 
For this Scientific Analysis report, the pertinent requirement is PRD-002/T-015 from Curry and 
Loros (2002 [157916]), which is linked to 10 CFR 63.114(a-c) [156605]. The acceptance 
criterion for Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone, identified in Section 2.2.1.3.6.3 of the YMRP 
(NRC 2003 [162418]) is Criterion 1, System Description and Model Integration are Adequate. 
As applied to this Scientific Analysis report, the criterion is: The aspects of geology and 
hydrology that may affect flow paths in the unsaturated zone are adequately considered. 
Conditions and assumptions in the abstraction of flow paths in the unsaturated zone are readily 
identified and consistent with the body of data presented in the description. 

4.3 CODES AND STANDARDS 
No specific formally established codes or standards have been identified as applying to this 
Scientific Analysis activity. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

5. ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions presented below are necessary to develop the UZ Model numerical grids. This 
section presents the rationale and supporting data for the assumptions, and references the section 
of this report in which each assumption is used. The assumptions presented in this section are 
similar to those presented in REV00 ICN01 (BSC 2001 [159356], Section 5), and are based on 
interpretation and synthesis of a variety of geologic and hydrologic inputs. The enhancement in 
justification of the original assumptions (primarily associated with the inputs in Table 5 
presented in Section 4.1.1) is discussed in this section to substantiate interpretations used for the 
basis of development of numerical grids representing the Yucca Mountain site. The basis of grid 
development is presented in this section and serves as an overview of detailed scientific analyses 
presented in Section 6. 
Assumptions used in developing the numerical grids are of two kinds: assumptions made about 
the physical world, and assumptions made about the effects of certain features of the grid upon 
the results of model calculations. None of the assumptions listed below requires confirmation. 
No hydrologic and rock property values are assigned, justified, or qualified for gridblocks in this 
Scientific Analysis report. 
Certain features of the grid are simplifications known to be different from the physical prototype. 
These simplifications are necessary for calculations to be done with existing computers and 
qualified software. Assumptions about the effects of such simplifications upon the results of 
calculations can be verified through sensitivity analyses; that is, by running simulations with the 
assumptions as stated and with alternative assumptions. The effects of numerical grid resolution 
on flow and transport model simulation results are discussed through the utilization of previous 
studies. 
5.1 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS EXTERIOR TO THE 
MODELING PROCESS 
The following two assumptions pertain to the elevation of the water table, which defines the 
lower UZ Model boundary. 
1. 
The lower boundary for the UZ Model was established using the regional water table 
as represented by the potentiometric surface presented in DTN: 
MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271]. This surface is consistent with borehole water 
level measurements (DTNs: MO0106RIB0038.001 [155631] and 
GS010608312332.001 [155307]), but does not represent a unique interpretation of the 
data (see Sections 6.4.2 and 7.1.1 and Attachment IV for discussion). The water table 
rises to the west and north, with a base elevation of approximately 730 m above sea 
level (masl) in the vicinity of the North and South Ramps. The potentiometric surface 
elevations are based upon reported water table elevations for boreholes in the Yucca 
Mountain area (see Table 3). The contoured water table elevations, derived from 
EARTHVISION V5.1 (Dynamic Graphics 1998 [152614]) gridding of the borehole 
water table elevation and digitized potentiometric map contours taken from DTN: 

MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271], are presented in Section 6.2 (Figure 1b) and 
discussed in Sections 6.4.2 and 7.1.1. 
2. 
It is assumed that the observed water levels in boreholes WT#6 and G-2 (at 1,034 and 
1,020 masl, respectively) can be interpreted to be perched water (Section 6.2). 
Observed water levels in these two boreholes from northern Yucca Mountain (located east of the 
Solitario Canyon fault) are much higher than 840 masl, the elevation of the water level 
encountered in the nearby USW WT-24 borehole, which is interpreted to represent the regional 
water table. In boreholes WT#6 and USW G-2, water levels measure about 1,034 masl and 
1,020 masl, respectively (Table 3). The UZ Model simulates and calibrates to perched-water data 
under selected portions of northern Yucca Mountain. These two assumptions are supported by a 
variety of studies on the water table at Yucca Mountain (e.g., BSC 2001 [155950], Figure 
12.3.1.22; Ervin et al. 1994 [100633], p. 15; Czarnecki et al. 1994 [142594]; Czarnecki et al. 
1995 [103371]), as discussed in more detail in Section 6.2. 
5.2 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING NUMERICAL GRID CONSTRUCTION 
The geologic data provided in Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) cannot, by themselves, adequately capture all important 
features that affect flow and transport in the UZ at Yucca Mountain. Hydrogeologic rock-
property data must also be considered. 
3. It is assumed that the 30 hydrogeologic units (HGUs) identified by the USGS (Flint 
1998 [100033], p. 1, Table 1) based on similarities in rock hydrogeologic properties 
are adequate to define the layering scheme used for the UZ Model grids (Section 6.3). 
Since the hydrogeologic property sets to be utilized in UZ flow and transport modeling use, to a 
large extent, the matrix properties data collected and analyzed by Flint (1998 [100033]), layering 
within the numerical grid was chosen to correspond as closely as possible to HGUs to facilitate 
data usage. The boundaries of HGUs are defined by irregularly spaced data and thus additional 
borehole data could lead to future adjustments to HGU contact locations. The qualitative 
descriptions given in Flint (1998 [100033], pp. 2132), when correlated with GFM2000 data 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), are used to develop a set of hydrogeologic layers 
(whose thickness and elevation are described by regularly spaced data) for the UZ Model grids. 
The detailed analysis of hydrogeologic properties and definition of HGUs by Flint (1998 
[100033]) provides justification for the use of these units in development of the UZ Model grids. 
The distribution of low-permeability zeolites within the Topopah Spring welded (specifically, 
tsw39) and Calico Hills nonwelded (CHn) HGUs impacts flowpaths and groundwater travel 
times from the proposed repository horizon to the water table and is, therefore, an important 
feature to capture in the UZ Model grids. The data considered in numerical grid development for 
defining low-permeability, zeolitic volumes of rock come from the Rock Properties Model of the 
Integrated Site Model, Version 3.1 (RPM3.1) (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]), 
from measurements of borehole rock matrix hydrologic properties (DTNs: 
LB0207REVUZPRP.002 [159672], MO0109HYMXPROP.001 [155989], GS980808312242.014 

[106748], GS980908312242.038 [107154], GS951108312231.009 [108984], 
GS960808312231.004 [108985]), and from corroborative evidence using data from Rock 
Properties Model (RPM2000) (DTN: SN0112T0501399.004 [159524]) and the Mineralogic 
Model of the Integrated Site Model, Version 3.1 (MM3.1) (DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 
[119199] [see Assumptions 4 and 5]). 
The following three assumptions pertain to the definition of low-permeability, zeolitic regions 
within UZ Model layers corresponding to portions of the TSw and CHn. Within UZ Model 
layers tsw39, ch1, ch2, ch3, ch4, ch5, and ch6, the tuff has been altered from vitric to zeolitic in 
some areas and remains unaltered in other areas. For the purposes of flow and transport 
modeling, the principal differences between these two types of tuff are the adsorptive properties 
and the saturated hydraulic conductivity. Each gridblock within these UZ Model layers is 
assigned to either the vitric or zeolitic material. A combination of geologic data is used to define 
vitric-zeolitic boundaries, including saturated hydraulic conductivity values, matrix saturation 
measurements, the difference between oven-dried and relative-humidity porosities, and the 
relative structural position of these layers within the UZ Model area. The assumptions 
associated with these data are described below. 
4. It is assumed that saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) data from the RPM3.1 
(DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) can be used as a surrogate for assigning 
gridblocks either vitric or zeolitic material names (and thus, separate hydrogeologic 
properties) within certain layers of the Topopah Spring welded (TSw) and Calico Hills 
nonwelded (CHn) hydrogeologic units. Vitric rock properties are assigned for areas 
within UZ Model layers tsw39, ch1, ch2, ch3, ch4, ch5, and ch6 where Ksat is greater 
than 10-10 m/s, whereas zeolitic properties are used where Ksat is less than 10-10 m/s 
(Section 6.6.3). 
There are two main reasons why Ksat data are used as a surrogate to assign gridblocks either 
vitric or zeolitic material names. First, existing data show that the Ksat of vitric tuff is orders of 
magnitude greater than that of zeolitic tuff (Flint 1998 [100033], Table 7). Also, there are much 
more available data on Ksat values than on mineralogic alteration (e.g., percentage of zeolite). 
Results from analyses by Flint (1998 [100033], Table 7) indicate that vitric Ksat values are on 
the order of 10-7 m/s, while zeolitic Ksat values are on the order of 10-10 to 10-11 m/s. No 
definitive Ksat cutoff value exists by which to distinguish vitric from zeolitic material, because 
this transition occurs over about three orders of magnitude. The Ksat-value cutoff of 10-10 m/s is 
somewhat arbitrarily chosen; however, the sensitivity of the 10-10 m/s cutoff is not expected to be 
significant compared to using a 10-9 m/s or 10-8 m/s cutoff, since these contours are closely 
spaced in the proposed repository footprint within the RPM3.1 (DTN: 
MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) (see Figure 3). Based on these observations, no additional 
confirmation of this assumption is required. 
5. It is assumed that, in UZ Model layers tsw39, ch1, ch2, ch3, ch4, ch5, and ch6, tuff is 
vitric where matrix saturations are relatively low (< ~90%) and the difference between 
oven-dried (105C) and relative-humidity porosities are less than 5% (Section 6.6.3). 

Results from analyses by Flint (1998 [100033], p. 29) indicate that altered (i.e., zeolitic) 
nonwelded tuffs have oven-dried porosities that are typically more than 5% higher than relative-
humidity porosities. The loss of water from hydrous secondary minerals (such as zeolites and 
clays) from oven-dried altered tuffs results in higher estimates of the matrix porosity (relative to 
those obtained using the relative-humidity method) for these samples. Boreholes where oven-
dried porosities exceed relative-humidity porosities by more than 5% for each of the UZ Model 
layers in question (tsw39, ch1-ch6) generally coincide with zeolite-rich zones, as predicted by 
MM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199]). Based on these observations, no 
additional confirmation of this assumption is required. 
6. It is assumed that major faults with significant vertical displacement may serve as 
lateral boundaries for vitric (unaltered) areas within UZ Model layers tsw39, ch1, ch2, 
ch3, ch4, ch5, and ch6 (Section 6.6.3). 
Vitric portions of the CHn and Tsw may be laterally continuous within fault blocks that have a 
higher structural position above the water table compared to adjacent structural blocks. For 
example, the Solitario Canyon fault offsets the CHn by more than 300 m in the southern part of 
the UZ Model domain. CHn layers west of the Solitario Canyon fault lie near or below the water 
table in this area, and thus these tuffs likely have abundant zeolitic alteration. The correlative 
CHn layers on the east side of the fault may be over 300 m above the water table and are much 
less likely to have undergone zeolitization, owing to limited water-rock interaction. Because 
major faults (i.e., Solitario Canyon and Dune Wash faults) determine the proximity of the CHn 
layers to the water table, they are used as boundaries between vitric and zeolitic areas, where 
appropriate. The observed structural offsets provide sufficient justification for this assumption. 
The next assumption pertains to the representation of faults within the UZ Model grids. 
7. It is assumed that the simplification of (a) representing steeply dipping faults as 
vertical in the UZ Model grids and (b) representing related, near-parallel faults as a 
single feature that incorporates the cumulative offset (e.g., the Solitario Canyon and 
Solitario Canyon (west) faults) will not significantly affect model calculations 
(Sections 6.3, 6.6.1, Attachment III). 
The use of a single fault to represent the offset observed for the Solitario Canyon and the 
Solitario Canyon (west) faults is in part required by the use of wide vertical columns to model 
dipping faults. If the projection of near-parallel dipping faults overlap over the depth interval of 
the UZ Model, then separate faults are difficult to portray in the UZ Model grids without the use 
of very fine gridding. By accomodating the cumulative offset along a single structural feature, 
the overall structural and stratigraphic integrity of the UZ geology (as represented by GFM2000 
in DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) is preserved, albeit in a somewhat simplified 
manner. The representation of structural offset by the UZ Model grids is evaluated in Attachment 
III, and the results of the grid verification studies indicate that this assumption is justified. 
The configuration of the proposed repository layout constitutes the final assumption. 

8. It is assumed that the proposed repository layout configuration presented on Data 
Sheets 2 of 5 and 3 of 5 from Repository Design, Repository/PA IED Subsurface 
Facilities Plan Sht. 1 of 5, Sht. 2 of 5, Sht. 3 of 5, Sht. 4 of 5, and Sht. 5 of 5 (BSC 
2002 [159527]) is appropriate to define those areas within the numerical grid that 
require enhanced numerical resolution (Section 6.6.2). 
The proposed repository design used was the most recent representation of the repository layout 
at the time the numerical grids presented in this document were generated and was considered to 
be the best source for this information. This design consists of an upper (primary) block located 
west and north of the ESF, and a lower elevation region located east of the primary repository 
block and areally overlapping part of the ESF. It is recognized that the proposed repository 
design is still undergoing change, and that future adjustments to the grid resolution may be 
necessary, depending on final design decisions. As noted in Section 4.1.1, a revised version of 
the proposed repository layout was created after the formulation of the numerical grids described 
in this report. The new layout does not include the lower block area delineated in Table 6 and 
Figures 1a and b. As discussed in Section 3.3.4.8.1 of FY 01 Supplemental Science and 
Performance Analyses, Volume 1: Scientific Bases and Analyses (BSC 2001 [155950]), the use 
of more refined gridding in the area of the proposed repository layout (see Section 6.6.2, Figures 
III-3 and III-4) provides needed resolution for flow models. Based on these observations, no 
additional confirmation of this assumption is required. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

6. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS DISCUSSION 
6.1 NUMERICAL GRID DEVELOPMENTOVERVIEW & APPROACH 
Numerical grids of the UZ beneath Yucca Mountain are used to develop calibrated 
hydrogeologic property sets and flow fields, to test conceptual hypotheses of flow and transport, 
and to predict flow and transport behavior under a variety of climatic and thermal-loading 
conditions. This report describes the development of three different sets of grids. The purpose 
and general characteristics of each grid set are summarized in Table 7. A description of the steps 
involved in the generation of these grids is provided in the following sections and in scientific 
notebooks. Key scientific notebooks used for numerical grid generation activities described in 
this Scientific Analysis report, along with relevant page numbers and accession numbers, are 
listed in Table 8. 
Table 7. Summary of Grids Developed for FY02 UZ Modeling Activities 
Output DTN (filename) Purpose Grid Description 
LB02081DKMGRID.001 
(Boreholes.mesh)1 
(Mesh_1d.dkm)2 
(Boreholes_NF.mesh)3 
(Boreholes.mck) 
1-D hydrogeologic 
property set 
inversions and 
calibrations 
Consists of 1-D columns centered at borehole locations. Uses borehole 
contact elevation picks based on the GFM2000 file "contacts00el.dat" 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) and HGU boundaries 
defined by Flint (1998 [100033]) and Assumption 3. Hydrogeologic data 
and fault locations used to define the vitric-zeolitic boundary 
(Assumptions 4-6). Borehole locations used in the 1-D meshes include: 
b#1, G-1, G-2, G-4, H-1, H-3, H-4, H-5, H-6, SD-6, SD-7, SD-9, SD-12, 
NRG#4, NRG#5, NRG-6, NRG-7a, N-11, N-15/16, N-17, N-27, N-31/32, 
N-33, N-36, N-37, N-38, N-53-54, N-55, N-57/58, N-59/61, N-62, N#63, 
N-64, UZ#4/5, UZ-6, UZ-7a, UZ-1/14, UZ#16, WT-1, WT-2, WT#4, 
WT#6, WT-7, WT#18 and WT-24. Uses fracture hydrogeologic data in 
Table 4 to generate the dual-permeability meshes. See Attachment II 
for additional details. 
(EWUZ7a.mesh)1 
(Mesh_2d.dkm)2 
(EWUZ7a_NF.mesh) 3 
(EWUZ7a.mck) 
2-D fault 
hydrogeologic 
property calibration 
East-west, cross-sectional grid through borehole UZ-7a. Grid columns 
are generated using GFM2000 isochore and elevation data provided on 
a regular grid spacing of 61  61 m (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 
[153777]). Uses fracture hydrogeologic data in Table 4 to generate the 
dual-permeability meshes. See Section 6.5 and Attachment III for 
additional details. 
LB03023DKMGRID.001 
(Grid_LA_3D.mesh)1 
(Mesh_3dn.dkm)2 
(Grid_LA_3D_NF.mesh) 3 
(Grid2002_3D.mck) 
3-D UZ Site Scale 
Modeling 
Three-dimensional site-scale model with enhanced discretization along 
major faults and proposed repository drifts. The 3-D grids are generated 
using GFM2000 isochore and elevation data provided on a regular grid 
spacing of 61  61 m. Uses fracture hydrogeologic data in Table 4 to 
generate the dual-permeability meshes. See Sections 6.6 and 6.7 and 
Attachment III for additional details. 
NOTES: 1 The primary mesh represents matrix blocks only; also referred to as an effective-continuum model (ECM) 
grid. 
2 
Dual-permeability model (DKM) mesh generated with fracture properties from Table 4 and a 1-D fracture 
continuum (Type #1 fractures: See Section 6.7 for details). 
3 
The *_NF.mesh files were used to generate the DKM mesh files, and are not considered output files. 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01 35 April 2003 

Table 8. YMP Scientific Notebooks Used for FY02 Numerical Grid Development and Grid Verification 
Analyses 
LBNL Scientific Notebook 
ID 
M&O Scientific 
Notebook ID 
Relevant Pages Citation 
YMP-LBNL-YSW-JH-2 SN-LBNL-SCI-143-V1 137140 Hinds 2001 [155955] 
YMP-LBNL-YSW-WZ-1 SN-LBNL-SCI-115-V1 5256, 6672 Zhang 2000 [159531] 
YMP-LBNL-YSW-JH-3 SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1 734, 6399 Wang 2002 [159673] 
67, 71, 100-134 Wang 2003 [162380] 
YMP-LBNL-GSB-LP-2 SN-LBNL-SCI-103-V1 111115, 122, 134141, 145151 Wang 2002 [159673] 
139 Wang 2003 [162380] 
YMP-LBNL-YSW-3 SN-LBNL-SCI-199-V1 8292 Wang 2002 [159673] 
86, 88-89, 237238 Wang 2003 [162380] 
YMP-LBNL-GSB-LP-2.1 SN-LBNL-SCI-103-V2 1728 Wang 2003 [162380] 
Data extracted from Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) and Rock Properties Model of the Integrated Site Model, 
Version 3.1 (RPM3.1) (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) form the basis for 
numerical grid development. With these data, an initial 2-D (plan-view) grid is developed (see 
Section 6.5) defining borehole, fault, and repository column locations, where appropriate. Using 
the 2-D grid as the basis for column locations, a 3-D effective-continuum model (ECM) grid is 
constructed (see Section 6.6) using layer reference and bounding horizons, along with thickness 
data from GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]). Initial grid generation is 
followed by an iterative process of grid evaluation and modification to achieve appropriate 
spatial resolution and representation of important features, such as the proposed repository, 
faults, and calibration boreholes, and to ensure proper connections between the various elements 
of the grid. Revisions are made accordingly until these criteria are met. Next, the 3-D ECM grid 
is modified to allow for modeling dual-continuum processes (matrix and fracture flow) using a 
dual-permeability (dual-k) mesh maker, 2kgrid8.for V1.0 (LBNL 2002 [154787]). The 
2kgrid8.for V1.0 software program incorporates information (i.e., fracture porosity, spacing, 
aperture, and fracture-matrix interaction area) from fracture data analyses (see Table 4) into the 
grids. 
The computer code WINGRIDDER V2.0 (LBNL 2002 [154785]) is used to generate 1-, 2- and 
3-D integral finite difference (IFD) grids for the UZ Model domain. The type of grid generated 
by WINGRIDDER V2.0 is consistent with the computational requirements for V1.4 and later 
versions of the TOUGH2 numerical code simulator (Pruess 1991 [100413], pp. 2730, 4142). 
TOUGH2 and the inverse modeling code iTOUGH2 (Finsterle 1999 [104367]) use cells, or 
gridblocks, and connections between those gridblocks to represent the flow system without 
requiring the global location of each gridblock or connection. This approach provides great 
flexibility in describing complex flow geometry and relationships between individual objects 
within the system. 
Unlike other gridding software, WINGRIDDER V2.0 has the capability of designing complex, 
irregular grids with large numbers of cells and connections, and it can incorporate nonvertical 

faults and other embedded refinements, such as waste emplacement drifts within the proposed 
repository area at Yucca Mountain. WINGRIDDER V2.0 can generate a grid that includes a 
repository with multiple subregions and drifts. A bilinear interpolation between points of known 
elevation of a regular grid is used in WINGRIDDER V2.0 to determine the thickness or 
elevation at intermediate points, thus helping to conserve layer discontinuity resulting from 
faulting. 
The grids produced by this work are integral finite difference (IFD) grids. Alternative gridding 
methods include finite difference and finite element methods, but IFD was chosen for 
compatibility with the TOUGH2 family of codes employed by downstream users. Compatibility 
with TOUGH2 for flow and transport simulations is a requirement of this work. 
Described in this report are the methods used to develop numerical grids for hydrogeologic-
property-set inversions, for model calibration, and for calculation of 3-D UZ flow fields for PA. 
The stages of grid development include the following: 
1. 
Establish domain boundaries and location of important calibration features such as 
boreholes (Section 6.2). 
2. 
Determine UZ Model layers and fault geometries based on GFM2000 (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 
[145731]), and correlation with Flints (1998 [100033]) HGUs (Section 6.3). 
3. 
Extract and format GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) and 
RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) data for incorporation into 3-D 
grids (Section 6.4). 
4. 
Generate a 2-D grid, incorporating information from Steps 1 and 2, and refine as 
needed to capture spatial variability (Section 6.5). 
5. 
Generate a 3-D (ECM) grid, based on the column locations established in the 2-D grid 
and data from Step 3 (Section 6.6). 
6. 
Combine the results of fracture analyses with the ECM grid from Step 5 to generate a 
dual-permeability mesh (Section 6.7). 
The process of verifying that appropriate gridblock material names, gridblock volumes and 
locations, connection lengths and directions, and interface areas between gridblocks are used in 
the UZ Model numerical grids is documented in Section 6.8 and in Attachments II and III. 
Section 6.8 also summarizes results from corroborative studies that support the use of fairly 
coarse numerical grids to model flow and transport processes. 

6.1.1 Summary of Changes to the UZ Model Grids 
Some of the input data, software, and assumptions used in this revision differed from those used 
in REV00 ICN01 (BSC 2001 [159356]), thus resulting in changes to the UZ Model grids 
generated. These include the following items: 
 
Use of GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) instead of GFM3.1 
(DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [103769]) for construction of UZ Model grids 
 
Change in UZ Model areal boundaries 
 
Change in position of water table (forms base of UZ) 
 
Change in proposed repository layout 
 
Enhanced resolution in vertical gridding 
 
Change in software 
 
Test simulation to verify connections in 3-D grid 
 
Addition of vitric and zeolitic subunits to tsw39 and ch6, and modification of 
vitric/zeolitic boundaries for layers ch1-ch5 
 
Addition of Bow Ridge/Toe fault and simplification of Solitario Canyon fault system 
 
Use of additional boreholes for 1-D properties calibration 
 
ESF and ECRB not incorporated into formulation of 3-D grid 
 
Changes in fracture hydrogeologic properties. 
The primary change in the development of numerical grids for UZ flow and transport modeling 
is the change of geologic input data. Revision 00, ICN01 of this report (BSC 2001 [159356]) 
utilized GFM3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [103769]), while the grids generated in this 
report are based on GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) (see Section 4.1). 
As noted in the Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) (BSC 2002 [159124], Section 6.1), the 
changes between GFM3.1 and GFM2000 relating to elevation changes in geologic layers are 
relatively small in magnitude, rarely as large as 7.6 m (25 feet), and are primarily near the 
margins of the GFM boundaries. Thus, changes in HGU thicknesses and contact elevations 
should also be relatively minor. 
The current UZ Model area has also undergone modifications, with an extension made to the east 
to allow for an expanded proposed repository footprint (Section 6.2). The proposed repository 
layout used for numerical grid generation consists of two different layers (Section 4.1.1) and 

includes regions north and east of the repository layout used in prior versions of the UZ Model 
grids. Note that the eastern extension to the proposed repository (the lower block) has been 
removed from the most recent revision of the repository layout (BSC 2003 [161726]; BSC 2003 
[161727]), and is not used in any LA calculations presented in this report. 
The maximum thickness of any gridblock was reduced from 60 to 20 m (5 m for ch1, ptn22, 
ptn24, ptn25, and ptn26, and 2 m for ptn21 and ptn23 HGUs), and the minimum grid thickness 
was reduced from 1.5 m to 1.0 m. Another modification consists of using the contoured regional 
water table instead of using two fixed elevations to define the water table, and thus the base of 
the UZ (Section 5.1, Assumptions 1 through 3 of BSC 2001 [159356]; Section 5.1, (Assumptions 
1 and 2) and sections 6.2 and 6.4.2 of this Scientific Analysis report). This modification results 
in little change to the portion of the model near the ESF and to the SE, but it does impact the 
region to the north, where elevated water levels in boreholes were previously all interpreted as 
representing perched water. The current UZ Model grids will have a thinner UZ interval in the 
northern part of the model area as a result of this change. 
The current UZ Model was constructed using updated software versions (Sections 3 and 6.1). 
EARTHVISION V5.1 (Dynamic Graphics 1998 [152614]) was used instead of V4.0 (Dynamic 
Graphics 1997 [134134]), and the updated version of WINGRIDDER V2.0 was utilized to 
construct the UZ Model grids. The macro DKMgenerator V1.0 (LBNL 1999 [140702]) was 
replaced with the qualified software program 2kgrid8.for V1.0. The use of updated software 
provides some additional functionality, but does not result in significant modifications to the 
generated grids. 
Some additional software packages were utilized in the water table data qualification and review 
process (see Attachment IV). ARCINFO V7.2.1 (CRWMS M&O 2000 [157019]; USGS 2000 
[148304]) was utilized to convert potentiometric contours from the ARCINFO file 
pot_contours_e00 (DTN: GS010608312332.001 [155307]) into an ASCII format that could be 
used to qualify data from DTN: MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271]. To facilitate comparison 
with the USGS contour data, coordinate data from the new DTN (MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 
[161271]) were converted from Nevada State Plane coordinates (NAD27 datum) to UTM 
coordinates to using ARCINFO V7.2.1. 
This updated report also includes a test simulation using TOUGH2 V1.4 (LBNL 2000 [146496]) 
to verify the connections of the ECM 3-D grid (Attachment III). 
Several modifications were made to the delineation of vitric and zeolitic zones within the UZ 
Model grid (Section 5.2, Assumptions 4 through 6; Section 6.6.3). The primary data source used 
to delineate the vitric and zeolitic zones, RPM3.0 (DTN: MO9901MWDISMRP.000 [103771]), 
was superseded by RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]). In addition to the 
information obtained from RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]), the location 
of major faults, rock-property data from boreholes, and corroborative information from MM3.1 
(DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199]) and RPM2000 (DTN: SN0112T0501399.004 
[159524]) were used to modify the vitric/zeolitic boundaries for the layers ch1-ch5. New vitric 
and zeolitic subunits were created for the layers tsw39 and ch6. The main impact of these 

changes is the modification of rock properties for layers tsw39 and ch6, and an overall 
enlargement of the vitric subunit for layers ch2-ch5. 
Two changes were made to the faults within the UZ Model grids. One new fault (a combination 
of the Bow Ridge and Toe faults) was added to the model; this change resulted from the 
eastward extension of the UZ Model boundary. This fault is located away from the current 
proposed repository, and its addition to the UZ Model grids should not significantly impact 
subsequent users. The second change relates to the simplification of the Solitario Canyon fault 
system (Solitario Canyon, Splay N, Splay G, Splay S, and Solitario Canyon [west]) into a 
single structural feature (Section 5.2, Assumption 7). The splay faults are relatively small 
features with minor offsets, but the Solitario Canyon (west) fault has significant (up to more than 
300 m) vertical offset. However, this feature is very close to the Solitario Canyon fault, and 
given the coarsely spaced gridding used in the SW portion of the UZ Model area where the 
Solitario Canyon (west) fault is located, a single feature containing the cumulative offset of the 
two faults was used for the UZ Model. This simplification does not retain all of the structural 
details contained within GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), but it 
preserves the general stratigraphic and structural relations, and is also located away from the 
current proposed repository area. These changes in modeling the Solitario Canyon fault system 
should not impact downstream users, provided that the proposed repository area is not 
subsequently shifted into the areas where the Solitario Canyon (west) and Splay faults are 
situated. 
Over 40 boreholes were used to calibrate matrix properties (Section 6.2), more than twice the 
number used in REV00 ICN01 of this report (BSC 2001 [159356]). Because of the increased 
number of boreholes used for calibration, the ESF, ECRB, and associated niches and alcoves 
were not used in the calibration process, and therefore it was not necessary to incorporate these 
features into the 3-D grid. Updated fracture properties (Section 4.1) were utilized in the 
construction of the dual-permeability 2-D and 3-D grids. 
6.2 BOUNDARIES AND CALIBRATION FEATURES 
The areal domain of the UZ Model encompasses approximately 40 km2 of the Yucca Mountain 
area. Yucca Wash lies near the northern model boundary, while the approximate latitude of 
borehole G-3 defines the southern boundary. The eastern model boundary lies just to the east of 
the Bow Ridge fault, and the western boundary lies approximately 1 km west of the Solitario 
Canyon fault. These boundaries encompass many of the existing hydrology wells for which 
extensive moisture saturation and water potential data are used as calibration points for 
determining layer properties. One important objective of selecting these boundaries was to 
minimize potential boundary effects on numerical simulation results within the proposed 
repository footprint. Figures 1a and 1b show map views of the model domain, including the 
proposed repository boundary, the paths of the ESF and ECRB, major faults defined in 
GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), calibration boreholes, and the 
contoured regional water table. Table 9 lists the NSP coordinates for the domain boundary. 

Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling U0000 
5ALAH9=ID.=K.J 
-NE.A0E..
.=K.J 
5.. EJ=HE.
+=.O..
.=K.J 
/D.IJ,=. ?A 
9A IJ .=K.J 
/D.IJ,=.?A 
9AIJ 
.=K.J5..EJ=HE.
+=.O..
.=K.J 
9AIJ 
,K.A9=ID.=K.J 
,K.A 
9AIJ 
/D.IJ,=.?A.=K.J 
1.>HE?=JA.=K.J 
6.A 
.=K.J 
5F.=O 5 
,K.A : 
*.M4E@CA.=K.J 
2=C=.O9=ID.=K.J 
5....=J 
.=K.J 
5....=J 
.=K.J,HE..
0..A9=ID.=K.J 
5K.@=.?A 
.=K.J 
5K.@=.?A.=K.J5F.=O 
C 
5F.=O 
C 
5F.= O 
. 
5F.=O 
. 
NSP Northing (m) 
NSP Easting (m) 
.-/-., 
7. ..@A. *.K.@=HO 
4AF.IEJ.HO *.K.@=HO 
4AF.IEJ.HO ..MAH *..?. 
-5. =.@ -+4* 
/.. .=K.JI 
Source: (Proposed Repository Design) BSC 2002 [159527]; (GFM2000 Faults) 
DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777] 
NOTE: 2002 Repository Lower Block will not be used in any LA calculations. 
Figure 1a. Plan-View Schematic Showing the UZ Model Boundary, the Proposed Repository Outline, 
Major Faults from GFM2000, the ESF, and the ECRB 

860 
820 
820 
780 
780 
780 
760 
740 
740 
730 
730 
1000 
980 
940 
900 
860 
760 
96.% 
.$ 
.#'.$ . 
.#%.#&. 
0.! 
.$" 
7..$ 
5,.% 
96. 
7..%= 
0."5,.$ 
5,. 
0.$ 
. 
. % 
. #. $. 
/ 
96. " 
.!$ 
. % 
.!! 
/. 
0. 
96 $ 
0.# 
5,.' 
96. 
.! .! . 
/." 
> 
.4/.$ 
.4/ # 
. $! 
7. ".#. 
96 & 
96 " 
.!& 
.!% 
.4/.%= 
.4/ " 
.#!.#". 
.## 
7. $ 
7. . ".
NSP Northing (m) 
NSP Easting (m) 
.-/-., 
7. 
*.HAD..AI7. $ 
900 
..JA. . 
..@A. *.K.@=HO4AF.IEJ.HO *.K.@=HO4AF.IEJ.HO ..MAH *..?. 
-5. =.@ -+4* 
9=JAH 6=>.A -.AL=JE.. +..J.KHI 
,A..JAI IE.C.A ..?=JE.. KIA@ B.H 
=@.=?A.J >.HAD..AI. 
Source: (Proposed Repository Design) BSC 2002 [159527]; Output-DTNs: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001 (UZ2002 Model 
Boundary, Modified Borehole Locations); LB02092DGRDVER.001 (Water Table). 
NOTE: 2002 Repository Lower Block will not be used in any LA calculations. 
Figure 1b. Plan-View Schematic Showing Boreholes, the Contoured Water Table (Elevations in m), the 
UZ Model Boundary, the Proposed Repository Outline, the ESF, and the ECRB 

Table 9. UZ Model Areal Boundary Coordinates 
NSP Easting NSP Northing 
(m) (m) 
168100 229500 
169600 238900 
171400 238550 
173910 236320 
172820 229500 
Output-DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001 
The upper boundary of the UZ Model is the bedrock surface (topography minus alluvium), 
which is defined by the GFM2000 file s00bedrockRWC.2grd (see Attachment I, GFM2000 
files). The lower boundary is the water table, or potentiometric surface, derived from water-
level-elevation data (Assumption 1). Borehole water-level elevations beneath northern Yucca 
Mountain suggest a large hydraulic gradient, as seen in the contoured potentiometric surface 
(BSC 2001 [155950], Figure 12.3.1.22) and the water-level data contained in DTN: 
MO0106RIB00038.001 [155631], with water levels increasing northward from about 730 masl 
at the south end of the proposed repository area to 840 m (USW WT-24; see DTN: 
GS010608312332.001 [155307]) less than a kilometer north of the proposed repository area. 
Two boreholes north of WT-24, G-2 and WT#6, have significantly higher water levels (>1000 
masl). One explanation for the fairly abrupt water-level difference between WT-24 and the G-2 
and WT#6 boreholes is the occurrence of perched or semi-perched water under portions of 
northern Yucca Mountain (USGS 2001 [157611]; Ervin et al. 1994 [100633], p. 15; Czarnecki et 
al. 1994 [142594]; Czarnecki et al. 1995 [103371]). For the purpose of developing UZ Model 
grids, water table elevations beneath portions of northern Yucca Mountain are assumed to 
represent perched water, as stated in Section 5.1, Assumption 2. The contoured regional water 
table elevations (Figure 1b) are represented by the surface defined in the file 
gwl_sspac_60.96.2grd (see Attachment III, Table III-1). Details on how this surface was 
generated are presented in Section 6.4.2 and Attachment IV. 
UZ Model borehole calibration features, represented as column centers in the 1-D inversion and 
3-D calibration grids, are listed in Table 10. For simplicity, the borehole names used throughout 
the remainder of this document drop the USW and UE-25 prefixes. Where boreholes are closer 
than 80 m to one another, the boreholes (as indicated on Table 10 by an asterisk) are jointly 
represented by an intermediate location calculated by averaging the coordinates of the two 
boreholes. Because borehole UZ-7a is located adjacent to a fault, the position of the column 
center associated with the borehole was shifted slightly to accommodate the fault geometry. 

Table 10. Borehole Locations Used in the UZ Inversion and Calibration Models 
NSP Easting(m) 
NSP Northing(m) 
Feature 
170993 234849 G-1 
170842 237386 G-2 
171627 233418 G-4 
171416 234774 H-1 
170216 230594 H-3 
171880 232149 H-4 
170355 233670 H-5 
168882 232654 H-6 
172767 233806 NRG#4 
172142 234053 NRG#5 
171964 233698 NRG-6 
171598 234355 NRG-7a 
171178 232245 SD-12 
171066 231328 SD-7 
170264 232386 SD-6 
171242 234086 SD-9 
170744 235090 UZ-1/14* 
172168 231811 UZ#16 
172559 234286 UZ#4/5* 
170178 231566 UZ-6 
171363 231866 UZ-7a1 
171398 236739 WT-24 
171828 229802 WT-1 
171274 231850 WT-2 
173138 234243 WT#4 
172067 237920 WT#6 
168826 230298 WT-7 
172168 235052 WT#18 
172644 233246 b#1 
170390 237919 N11 
170563 237171 N15/16* 
170687 237203 N17 
170344 235175 N27 
171534 232951 N31/32* 
171051 234717 N33 
171780 235885 N36 
171820 233934 N37 
171707 233924 N38 
171983 231704 N53/54* 
171983 231801 N55 
170946 230186 N57/58* 
170960 230230 N59/61* 
170171 230772 N62 
172568 234342 N#63 
170516 233394 N64 
Source: Output-DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001 (file boreholes_Rick_updated.hol). 
NOTES: *Single location used for boreholes in close proximity to one another, as 
explained in text. Original northing and easting values (in feet) converted 
to meters by multiplying by 0.3048. See discussion of metric conversion in 
Section 3. 
1 
Location of UZ-7a shifted to accommodate fault grid geometry. 
Borehole locations used for 1-D column construction. See file Boreholes.mck in Output-DTN: 
LB02081DKMGRID.001. 
A subset of the listed boreholes was used for property inversion and calibration. 

For the earlier versions of this report, many fewer boreholes were used for the calibration, but 
these were supplemented by the ESF, ECRB, and associated alcoves and niches. Because more 
boreholes were used for the UZ 2002 grid model calibration, the ESF and ECRB features were 
not needed for the present model calibrations, and thus these features were not discretized in the 
UZ 2002 Model grids. The GFM2000 file contacts00el.dat (see Attachment I, GFM2000 files) 
is used to define the location of most of the boreholes that serve as column centers within the 
various UZ Model grids. Since the coordinates contained within this file are listed in feet, rather 
than meters (which is the desired unit of measure in the UZ Model), a simple unit conversion 
was performed (1 ft = 0.3048 m; see metric conversion discussion in Section 3). The locations 
of the N-series boreholes not listed in this file (N15/16, N17, N27, N36, N57/58, N59/61, N#63, 
and N64) that were used for model calibration were obtained from the Yucca Mountain Site 
Characterization Project Site Atlas 1995 (DOE 1995 [102884], vol. 1, p. 9.14). Where 
boreholes were located within 80 m of one another, the boreholes were listed as a pair, and the 
average location of the two boreholes was used for property calibration. 
The spatial relationship between boreholes and faults (determination of fault locations in the 2-D 
grid is described in Sections 6.3, and 6.5, and 6.6.1) is such that these features may intersect or 
lie within 30 m of each other (which is typically less than the desired lateral resolution of the 
grid). As a result, the location of certain features (e.g., column centers) is prioritized. In general, 
the location of column centers at boreholes was given highest priority, followed by the proposed 
repository layout, followed by faults. 
6.3 UZ MODEL LAYERS AND FAULT GEOMETRIES 
As discussed previously in Section 4, layering within the UZ Model grid is chosen to correspond 
as closely as possible to HGUs, to facilitate usage of rock-property data. Table 11 provides a 
correlation between major HGUs, GFM2000 lithostratigraphic units (BSC 2002 [159124], Table 
4), UZ Model layers, and Flints (1998 [100033]) HGUs. In many cases, HGUs correlate 1-to-1 
with, or are simple combinations of, GFM2000 layers. In a few instances, multiple HGUs can be 
present within one GFM2000 layer, such as within the Yucca Mountain Tuff (Tpy), the lower 
nonlithophysal zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff (Tptpln), or the Calico Hills Formation (Tac). 
Using Table 11 as a basis for UZ Model layering, GFM2000 layer-thickness (isochore) grid files 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) are combined or subdivided, as appropriate (see 
Section 6.4.1), to correspond to Flints (1998 [100033]) HGUs. 

Table 11. GFM2000 Lithostratigraphy, UZ Model Layer, and Hydrogeologic Unit Correlation 
Major Unit 
(Modified from Montazer and 
Wilson 1984 [100161]) 
GFM2000 Lithostratigraphic 
Nomenclature* 
FY02 UZ Model 
Layer 
Hydrogeologic Unit 
(Flint 1998 
[100033], Table 1) 
Tiva Canyon welded 
(TCw) 
Tpcr tcw11 CCR, CUC 
Tpcp tcw12 CUL, CW 
TpcLD 
Tpcpv3 tcw13 CMW 
Tpcpv2 
Paintbrush nonwelded Tpcpv1 ptn21 CNW 
(PTn) Tpbt4 ptn22 BT4 
Tpy (Yucca) 
ptn23 TPY 
ptn24 BT3 
Tpbt3 
Tpp (Pah) ptn25 TPP 
Tpbt2 ptn26 BT2 
Tptrv3 
Tptrv2 
Topopah Spring welded Tptrv1 tsw31 TC 
(TSw) Tptrn 
tsw32 TR 
Tptrl, Tptf tsw33 TUL 
Tptpul, RHHtop 
Tptpmn tsw34 TMN 
Tptpll tsw35 TLL 
Tptpln tsw36 TM2 (upper 2/3 of 
Tptpln) 
tsw37 TM1 (lower 1/3 of 
Tptpln) 
Tptpv3 tsw38 PV3 
Tptpv2 tsw39 (vit, zeo) PV2 

Table 11. GFM2000 Lithostratigraphy, UZ Model Layer, and Hydrogeologic Unit Correlation (cont.) 
Major Unit 
(Modified from Montazer and 
Wilson 1984 [100161]) 
GFM2000 Lithostratigraphic 
Nomenclature* 
FY02 UZ Model 
Layer 
Hydrogeologic Unit 
(Flint 1998 
[100033], Table 1) 
Calico Hills nonwelded Tptpv1 ch1 (vit, zeo) BT1 or 
BT1a (altered)(CHn) Tpbt1 
Tac (Calico) ch2 (vit, zeo) CHV (vitric) 
or 
CHZ (zeolitic) 
ch3 (vit, zeo) 
ch4 (vit, zeo) 
ch5 (vit, zeo) 
Tacbt (Calicobt) ch6 (vit, zeo) BT 
Tcpuv (Prowuv) pp4 PP4 (zeolitic) 
Tcpuc (Prowuc) pp3 PP3 (devitrified) 
Tcpmd (Prowmd) pp2 PP2 (devitrified) 
Tcplc (Prowlc) 
Tcplv (Prowlv) pp1 PP1 (zeolitic) 
Tcpbt (Prowbt) 
Tcbuv (Bullfroguv) 
Crater Flat undifferentiated Tcbuc (Bullfroguc) bf3 BF3 (welded) 
(CFu) Tcbmd (Bullfrogmd) 
Tcblc (Bullfroglc) 
Tcblv (Bullfroglv) bf2 BF2 (nonwelded) 
Tcbbt (Bullfrogbt) 
Tctuv (Tramuv) 
Tctuc (Tramuc) tr3 Not Available 
Tctmd (Trammd) 
Tctlc (Tramlc) 
Tctlv (Tramlv) tr2 Not Available 
Tctbt (Trambt) and below 
NOTE: * Buesch et al. (1996 [100106]) define the units in the Paintbrush Group (layers beginning with Tp). 
Moyer et al. (1995 [103777]) describe the Tac and Tacbt. Buesch and Spengler (1999 [107905]) describe 
the symbols for the Crater Flat Tuffs. GFM2000 nomenclature (BSC 2002 [159124], Table 4) uses the 
symbols that are included parenthetically below layer Tpbt1. Additional details on how the GFM2000 
units were combined or subdivided to obtain the UZ Model units are found in Wang 2002 ([159673], SN-
LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 1115). 
Faults are important features to include in the UZ Model grids, because they may provide fast 
pathways for flow or serve as barriers to flow. A fault can be a surface with arbitrary shape in the 
3-D UZ Model domain and is represented as a surface (defined by a set of x, y, z data on a 
regular grid spacing) in GFM2000 (BSC 2002 [159124], Sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.4). In UZ Model 
grids, fault surfaces are represented by a series of connected columns of gridblocks. Faults can 
be represented in the grid as either vertical or nonvertical features. Many of the faults at Yucca 
Mountain are steeply dipping, particularly within the UZ. For UZ flow and transport modeling 

studies of Yucca Mountain, it is believed that flow through faults is much more sensitive to the 
rock properties assigned to fault zones than to slight variations in fault dip. Since large numbers 
of gridblocks are needed to discretize nonvertical fault zones (which adds significantly to the 
computational time of model calibration and forward simulations), certain criteria have been 
developed under Assumption 7 (Section 5) to reduce the total number of gridblocks along faults 
in order to simplify the UZ Model grids. Faults are modeled as vertical if they meet any of the 
following criteria: (1) their average dip exceeds 85 degrees, (2) their average dip exceeds 80 
degrees and they lie sufficiently far (>1 km) from the proposed repository layout area so as not to 
significantly affect flow and transport calculations, (3) they lie west of the Solitario Canyon 
fault, (4) they are adjacent to UZ Model boundaries, or (5) they pass through or abut the 
proposed repository (see Figure 1a). Fine-resolution gridding of the repository is deemed to be 
more important than incorporating dipping faults, which require larger gridblocks (see Section 
6.6.1). Table 12 lists the GFM2000 faults that lie within or along UZ Model boundaries. 
Table 12. Faults Within the UZ Model Domain 
Fault Name GFM2000 File Name 
Solitario Canyon f00sol.2grd 
Solitario Canyon (west) f00solwest.2grd 
Unnamed joins Solitario Canyon f00soljfat.2grd 
& Fatigue Wash faults 
Splay G f00splayg.2grd 
Splay N (north) f00splayn.2grd 
Splay S (south) f00splays.2grd 
Sundance f00sundance.2grd 
Toe f00toe.2grd 
Sever Wash f00sever.2grd 
Pagany Wash f00pagany.2grd 
Drill Hole Wash f00drill.2grd 
Ghost Dance f00ghost.2grd 
Ghost Dance (west) f00ghostw.2grd 
Dune Wash f00dune.2grd 
Dune Wash X f00dunex.2grd 
Dune Wash (west 1) f00dunew1.2grd 
Imbricate f00imb.2grd 
Bow Ridge f00bow.2grd 
Exile Hill (or Bow Ridge east) f00exile.2grd 
Source: DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777] 
The average slope of each fault was evaluated to determine which faults can be reasonably 
approximated by vertical columns of gridblocks in UZ Model grids. This task involves the 
calculation of slope along each fault (as it transects the UZ) using the Slope Grid Calculation 
utility in EARTHVISION V5.1 (Dynamic Graphics 1998 [152614]). Refer to the scientific 
notebook by Wang (2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 7374) for details regarding this 
calculation. The results are summarized in Table 13. 

Table 13. Results of GFM2000 Fault-Slope Analysis 
Fault Name Slope Range 
(average) 
Minimum Dip(degrees) 
Maximum Dip(degrees) 
Average Dip 
(degrees) 
Solitario Canyon 1.06.8 (2.4) 44.7 81.7 67.5 
Solitario Canyon (west) 5.310.5 (6.4) 79.3 84.6 81.1 
Soljfat 3.24.5 (3.8) 72.9 77.4 75.1 
Splay G 1.62.9 (2.2) 58.7 70.8 65.4 
Splay N 1.34.1 (2.0) 53.0 76.4 63.2 
Splay S 1.32.7 (2.0) 52.1 69.7 63.8 
Sundance 7.112.3 (11.9) 82.0 85.4 85.2 
"Toe" 3.65.2 (4.2) 74.3 79.1 76.6 
Sever Wash 5.68.4 (7.0) 79.9 83.2 81.8 
Pagany Wash 8.813.8 (11.5) 83.5 85.8 85.1 
Drill Hole Wash 10.714.0 (11.9) 84.7 85.9 85.2 
Ghost Dance 8.414.5 (11.6) 83.2 86.1 85.1 
Ghost Dance (west) 10.013.4 (11.7) 84.3 85.7 85.1 
Dune Wash 1.43.0 (1.9) 55.0 71.3 62.5 
Dune Wash X 3.75.0 (4.5) 75.0 78.6 77.5 
Dune Wash (west1) 3.14.4 (3.7) 72.2 77.1 74.7 
"Imbricate" 9.215.8 (12.2) 83.8 86.4 85.3 
Bow Ridge 0.436.9 (3.8) 23.4 88.4 75.1 
Exile Hill 0.026.5 (4.7) 1.0 81.3 78.0 
Output-DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001 
In accordance with Assumption 7, the following faults are represented by vertical columns of 
gridblocks (i.e., are assumed to be vertical) in the UZ Model grids: Soljfat, Sundance, Toe, 
Sever Wash, Pagany Wash, Drill Hole Wash, Ghost Dance, Ghost Dance (west), and Imbricate 
faults. The Toe and Bow Ridge faults are represented by a single structural feature, which, due 
to its proximity to the eastern boundary of the UZ Model area, is considered as a vertical fault. 
The remaining faults (Solitario Canyon, Dune Wash, Dune Wash X, and Dune Wash [west1]) 
are represented by nonvertical columns of gridblocks in the 3-D grids. Splay faults N, S, 
and G lie close to the Solitario Canyon fault and intersect it at a relatively shallow depth. This 
presents complications when generating the 3-D grids because of the preferred numerical grid 
resolution and fault representation method (described in Section 6.6.1). Thus, these three splay 
faults are considered part of the Solitario Canyon fault zone and are not explicitly defined. 
However, after grid generation, fault properties can be assigned to the gridblocks closest to the 
location of these faults, as needed. As mentioned in Assumption 7, the Solitario Canyon (west) 
fault was not depicted as a distinct feature in the UZ Model grids. The relatively coarse gridding 
used in the SW portion of the UZ Model area (resulting from its location away from the 
proposed repository area) precludes the individual portrayal of these closely spaced west-dipping 
normal faults. However, the cumulative vertical offset observed in the GFM2000 (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) for the Solitario Canyon and Solitario Canyon (west) 
faults is captured by the single nonvertical fault (Solitario Canyon) and the adjacent columns 

used in the UZ Model grids, thus preserving the general stratigraphic and structural relations of 
GFM2000. 
Preparation of GFM2000 fault data (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) for 
incorporation into UZ Model grids first involves a simple unit conversion from feet to meters. 
The spatial position of the faults is then determined by intersecting each fault surface (*.2grd, 
listed in Table 12) with one or more horizontal planes, producing data files describing fault-trace 
locations at prescribed elevations. Faults represented as vertical features in the UZ grids use 
fault-trace information at an arbitrary elevation of 1,100 masl, chosen because it is just above the 
proposed repository and near the middle of the UZ. During grid generation, vertical columns of 
gridblocks are assigned along each fault trace. 
Faults represented as nonvertical features (i.e., by nonvertical columns of gridblocks) use fault-
trace information at three elevations (one near the land surface, one near the water table, and one 
located approximately midway between the other two) to capture variations in dip. The UZ 
Model gridding process interpolates the location of each nonvertical fault using data points at the 
three prescribed elevations. With this approach, the dip of a fault within a given fault column is 
uniform in the upper interval between the highest and middle elevations, and is again uniform in 
the lower interval between the middle and lowest elevations. This allows the dip in the upper 
interval to be different from the dip in the lower interval (which may occur if the fault surface is 
curved, rather than planar). Furthermore, dip angles within the same vertical interval can be 
different in different columns (i.e., laterally along a fault). Thus, even a fault with variable dip 
along its trace can be represented with this method. In some cases, the upper and lower portions 
at dipping faults have been adjusted to a vertical orientation to ensure appropriate grid resolution 
and comply with the requirement that gridblock columns adjacent to fault columns be at least as 
wide as the fault columns (see Dune Wash fault in Figure III-4). For specific details regarding 
manipulation of fault data, refer to the scientific notebook by Wang (2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-
SCI-213-V1, p. 19) and Hinds 2001 ([155955], pp. 137140). 
6.4 EXTRACTION OF GFM2000 AND ISM3.1 DATA 
6.4.1 Isochores 
Geologic layers are correlated with Flint (1998 [100033]) HGUs in Table 11, and UZ Model 
layers are determined based on this correlation (Assumption 3). Because of its large thickness 
beneath northern Yucca Mountain, layer Tac is vertically subdivided equally into four layers 
throughout the UZ Model domain. Based on the relationships provided in Table 11, certain 
GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) layers (represented by isochore grids) 
are combined, while others were subdivided, to create hydrogeologic model layers for the UZ 
grids. 
GFM2000 isochore grids (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) used in FY02 UZ grid 
development include those lying between the upper Tpcpv3 contact and the lower Trambt 
contact. Layers are combined if (1) they have similar hydraulic properties based on analyses by 
Flint (1998 [100033]), (2) they are very thin across Yucca Mountain, or (3) property data are 
very limited for the rock units. GFM2000 isochores (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 

[153777]) are subdivided if rock-property data exist that suggest two or more distinct 
hydrogeologic layers within a geologic unit. 
For specific details describing the manipulation and formatting of GFM2000 isochore files 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), refer to the scientific notebook by Wang (2002 
[159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 1115). Below is a brief summary of the steps taken. 
GFM2000 isochore files (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) that are not combined or 
subdivided include: 
 
ia00cpv1RWC.2grd 
 
ia00tppRWC.2grd 
 
ia00tpmnRWC.2grd 
 
ia00tpllRWC.2grd 
 
ia00tpv3RWC.2grd 
 
ia00tpv2RWC.2grd 
 
ia00tacbtRWC.2grd 
 
ia00prowuvRWC.2grd 
 
ia00prowucRWC.2grd 
These grids, which contain regularly spaced (61  61 m) data, require no manipulation other than 
simple formatting for incorporation into the UZ grids. EARTHVISION V5. (Dynamic Graphics 
1998 [152614]) is used to export the regularly spaced data and to convert the units (x, y, and 
thickness) from feet to meters. Since GFM2000 data coverage (BSC 2002 [159124], Figure 1) 
extends well beyond the UZ Model boundaries, each data file is reduced to the approximate UZ 
Model domain, using the EARTHVISION V5.1 Graphic Editor to remove data points lying 
south of N 228,820 m and east of E 174,860 m. 
GFM2000 isochore files (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) that are combined 
include: 
 
ia00cpv3RWC.2grd + ia00cpv2RWC.2grd 
 
ia00bt4RWC.2grd + part of ia00tpyRWC.2grd (see discussion of Tpy below) 
 
ia00bt3RWC.2grd + part of ia00tpyRWC.2grd (see discussion of Tpy below) 

 
ia00bt2RWC.2grd + ia00trv3RWC.2grd + ia00trv2RWC.2grd 
 
ia00trv1RWC.2grd + part of ia00trnRWC.2grd (see discussion of Tptrv1 and Tptrn 
below) 
 
ia00trltfRWC.2grd + ia00tpulRWC.2grd 
 
ia00tpv1RWC.2grd + ia00bt1RWC.2grd 
 
ia00prowmdRWC.2grd + ia00prowlcRWC.2grd 
 
ia00prowlvRWC.2grd + ia00prowbtRWC.2grd + ia00bulluvRWC.2grd 
 
ia00bullucRWC.2grd + ia00bullmdRWC.2grd + ia00bulllcRWC.2grd 
 
ia00bulllvRWC.2grd + ia00bullbtRWC.2grd + ia00tramuvRWC.2grd 
 
ia00tramucRWC.2grd + ia00trammdRWC.2grd + ia00tramlcRWC.2grd 
The EARTHVISION V5.1 (Dynamic Graphics 1998 [152614]) Formula Processor is used to add 
the *.2grd files as shown above. The resulting files are then formatted as previously described 
for uncombined isochores. 
Subdivided GFM2000 isochore files (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) are described 
below and include: 
 
ia00tpyRWC.2grd 
 
ia00trv1RWC.2grd + ia00trnRWC.2grd 
 
ia00tplnRWC.2grd 
 
ia00tacRWC.2grd 
GFM2000 layer Tpy (Yucca Mountain Tuff)Based on the HGUs defined by Flint (1998 
[100033]), GFM2000 layer Tpy is subdivided vertically into three layers (see Table 11). The 
upper portion is typically nonwelded and has properties similar to Tpbt4 (BT4); therefore, it is 
combined with layer Tpbt4 (GFM2000 isochore file ia00bt4RWC.2grd (see Attachment I, 
GFM 2000 files)) to make UZ02 Model layer ptn22. The middle portion can become 
moderately welded to the north (porosity <30%), where layer Tpy is generally thicker. This 
middle portion corresponds to HGU TPY and is designated ptn23 in the UZ02 grid. The 
lower portion is typically nonwelded and has properties similar to Tpbt4 and Tpbt3, and is 
therefore combined with layer Tpbt3 (GFM2000 isochore file ia00bt3RWC.2grd (see 
Attachment I, GFM2000 files)) to make UZ02 Model layer ptn24. Because the presence of the 

hydrologically distinct middle portion of layer Tpy depends on the overall thickness of the unit, 
the isochore for layer Tpy is subdivided as follows: 
 
Where Tpy is <6 m thick, the total Tpy thickness is combined with layer Tpbt4 to create 
UZ02 Model layer ptn22 (corresponding to HGU BT4). 
 
Where Tpy thickness is between 6 and 9 m, the thickness is split in half: the upper half 
is combined with Tpbt4 to make UZ Model layer ptn22, while the lower half is 
combined with Tpbt3 to make UZ02 Model layer ptn24 (corresponding to HGU 
BT3). 
 
Where Tpy thickness is between 9 and 12 m, 2 m is assigned to UZ02 Model layer 
ptn23 (corresponding to HGU TPY); the remainder is split in half, and these equal 
portions are combined with Tpbt4 to make UZ02 layer ptn22 and TPbt3 to make layer 
ptn24. 
 
Where Tpy thickness is between 12 and 15 m, 3 m is assigned to UZ02 Model layer 
ptn23 (corresponding to HGU TPY); the remainder is split in half, and these equal 
portions are combined with Tpbt4 to make UZ02 layer ptn22 and TPbt3 to make layer 
ptn24. 
 
Where Tpy thickness is greater than 15 m, the unit is divided in thirds, with one third 
assigned (in combination with Tpbt4) to ptn22, one third to ptn23, and the 
remaining third is combined with Tpbt3 to make ptn24. 
GFM2000 layers Tptrv1 and Tptrn (upper Topopah Spring Tuff)The densely welded 
Tptrv1 is relatively thin (02 m thick, typically <0.5 m) across Yucca Mountain (Flint 1998 
[100033], p. 27). Given a minimum vertical resolution of 1.0 m for the UZ Model grids, this 
layer would be missing from UZ simulations across most of Yucca Mountain. To capture this 
potentially important flow unit at the PTn/TSw interface (see Table 11), GFM2000 isochores 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) for Tptrv1 and Tptrn were combined, and then the 
upper 2 m of this combined unit were assigned a distinct model layer name corresponding to 
Flints TC HGU. The remaining thickness of the combined unit (Tptrv1 + Tptrn - 2 m) 
corresponds to Flints TR HGU. Where the combined thickness of Tptrv1 and Tptrn is less 
than 0.5 m, the isochore for the TC HGU is assigned zero thickness. 
GFM2000 layer Tptpln (Topopah Spring, lower nonlithophysal)Tptpln is characterized by 
HGUs TM2 and TM1 (see Table 11). According to the proportions given in Flint (1998 
[100033], p. 3), GFM2000 layer Tptpln is vertically subdivided into an upper portion (with 2/3 
the total thickness of Tptpln) and a lower portion (with 1/3 the total thickness of Tptpln) for 
incorporation into the UZ Model. 
GFM2000 layer Tac (Calico Hills Formation)The Tac is subdivided vertically into four 
equal layers because of its large thickness beneath northern Yucca Mountain (see Table 11). 
After the isochores have been subdivided according to the specified criteria/proportions, they are 
formatted using the same steps that were used to format the uncombined isochores. 

6.4.2 Reference Horizons, and Top and Bottom UZ Model Boundaries 
WINGRIDDER V2.0 (LBNL 2002 [154785]) generates a numerical grid based on the elevations 
of three major horizons: (1) a top boundary (e.g., the topographic or bedrock surface), (2) a 
structural reference horizon, which identifies faults and their associated offsets, and (3) a bottom 
boundary (i.e., the water table). The reference horizon is a surface from which elevations of all 
hydrogeologic-unit interfaces are calculated by stacking layer thicknesses above or below it, 
based on their stratigraphic position. All offsets resulting from faulting are described by the 
reference horizon data. Any portions of HGUs lying above the top boundary or below the 
bottom boundary after stacking are removed (clipped). 
GFM2000 horizons used (see Attachment I, GFM2000 files): 
 
s00bedrockRWC.2grd (bedrock/present-day erosional surface; UZ Model top boundary) 
 
s00TpcpEXuncut.2grd (top of Tpcp; surface used in the absence of Tpcp isochore) 
 
s00Tptpv3EXuncut.2grd (top of Tptpv3; primary structural reference horizon for UZ 
grids). 
The top of layer Tpcp (the contact between the crystal-rich and crystal-poor tuffs of the Tiva 
Canyon, defined as a surface in GFM2000) (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) is 
used to separate UZ Model layers tcw11 and tcw12 (see Table 11), since no GFM2000 
isochore grids (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) exist for these layers. 
As with the isochore grids, the horizon grids, which also contain regularly spaced (61  61 m) 
data, require no manipulation other than simple formatting for incorporation into the UZ Model. 
EARTHVISION V5.1 is used to export the regularly spaced data and to convert the units (x, y, 
and elevation) from feet to meters. The complete details for formatting these GFM2000 horizon 
grids (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) are documented in the scientific notebook by 
Wang (2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 2022). 
The lower boundary of the UZ Model (the water table) was discussed previously in Sections 5.1 
and Section 6.2. The input data set (gwl_sspac2.asc) used to define the water table at the base of 
the UZ was obtained from DTN: MO0212GWLSSPAX.000) [161271]. These input data consist 
of borehole water-level elevations (consistent with qualified data in DTNs: 
MO0106RIB00038.001 [155631] and GS010608312332.001 [155307]) along with interpreted 
potentiometric surface contour lines. This surface was constructed under the assumption that the 
water levels in G-2 and WT-6 represent perched water, and the level in WT-24 represents the 
regional groundwater surface (USGS 2001 [157611]; also see Assumptions 1 and 2 in Section 
5.1). The data were derived from the Vulcan GFM2000 layer GWL_SSPAC (DTN: 
MO0110MWDGFM26.002 [160565]). The review and qualification process for this data set is 
documented in Attachment IV. The file containing the water table data was then edited to make 
it compatible with EARTHVISION V5.1. 

The resulting data were gridded using the 2-D minimum tension gridding function in 
EARTHVISION V5.1 to produce a surface defined by a regularly spaced (182.88 by 182.88 m) 
data set. The data defining this surface were then exported using the 2-D and 3-D grid export 
function in EARTHVISION V5.1, and subsequently regridded using the 2-D minimum tension 
gridding function to produce a surface defined by a regularly spaced (60.96 by 60.96 m) data set 
(gwl_sspac_60.96.2grd in output-DTN LB02092DGRDVER.001). The 2-D and 3-D grid 
export function was then utilized again to produce a file with the 60.96 by 60.96 m regularly 
spaced data set required as input for grid generation using WINGRIDDER V2.0. The file was 
edited to ensure that a minimum elevation of 730 m was used, thus revising lower elevations that 
resulted from the minimum tension gridding process (Wang 2003 [162380], SN-LBNL- 
SCI-213-V1, p. 117). This file was then edited (by cropping the data, removing xy coordinates, 
and modifying the header) to create a reference horizon file (REF_wt_sspac.dat in output 
DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001) suitable as input for WINGRIDDER V2.0. The details of 
these steps can be found in the scientific notebook by Wang (2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-
213-V1, pp. 2122). 
The gridding procedure used to define the water table in EARTHVISION V5.1 was conducted 
using a two-step process (irregularly spaced data to a coarsely spaced grid, followed by a finely 
spaced grid) to avoid generating large deviations from the contoured potentiometric surface as 
represented by the contours from DTN: MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271]. However, this 
gridding process, which is required to produce the data input needed for numerical grid 
generation using WINGRIDDER V2.0 does result in small deviations in the water table relative 
to the surface initially defined by DTN: MO0110MWDGFM26.002 [160565]. The deviations 
in water table elevation are typically < 5 m in the area of the proposed repository footprint. 
Further minor modification to this surface occurs when the reference horizon file 
REF_wt_sspac.dat (Output-DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001) is used to constrain the lower 
bounds for each column of the numerical grids produced by WINGRIDDER V2.0. However, 
there are larger (up to 60 m) observed discrepancies in the original (USGS 2001 [157611], 
Figure 6-1) and output (Figure 1b) water table elevations that may result from errors associated 
with contour digitization prior to generation of the Vulcan water table representation (See 
Attachment IV). Further discussion of the uncertainties associated with the definition of the 
water table is presented in Section 7.1.1 and Attachment IV. 
6.5 2-D GRID GENERATION 
Used by WINGRIDDER V2.0 (LBNL 2002 [154785]) to organize grid information, the 2-D 
(map-view) grid (Figure III-3) defines the structure of columns and segments that provide the 
basis for projecting the 3-D grid. Each column is represented by a node in map-view indicating 
the column's position in the x-y plane. Additionally, the shape of each column is a polygon in 
the x-y plane whose boundaries consist of segments defined prior to 3-D grid generation. 
Grid development begins with the assignment of nodes in map view for each object (e.g., domain 
nodes, fault nodes, repository nodes) with specified orientation and density. Based on the 
location of these nodes, a primary 2-D grid is generated using Voronoi tessellation techniques 
(e.g., Aurenhammer 1991 [160333]) embedded in the WINGRIDDER V2.0 numerical code. The 
2-D grid is then improved systematically and interactively by deleting physically incorrect or 

unnecessary connections. A few iterations of these steps, including adding, moving, and deleting 
certain nodes, are necessary to create a final 2-D grid, or column scheme, that serves as the basis 
for generating the vertical component of the grid. 
Two-dimensional grid generation for the UZ Model incorporates the location of domain and 
proposed repository boundaries, borehole locations, and map-view traces of major faults. As 
mentioned in Section 6.3, the fault trace information taken from an elevation of 1,100 masl 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), from GFM 2000 was used to define the map-view 
traces for the 2-D grid. Various subsets of these features are included in the different UZ Model 
grids, depending on their intended use. Because the 1-D hydrogeologic-property-set inversions 
only consider rock-property data from vertical boreholes, only borehole locations are relevant 
when generating this particular grid. The 3-D UZ Model grid assigns nodes in 2-D to the 
location of all data sources (i.e., boreholes), as well as within domain and proposed repository 
boundaries and along faults. 
Another issue considered in 2-D grid generation is spatial resolution. Grid resolution (node 
spacing) is a compromise between computational efficiency and a need to capture spatial 
variability in rock properties and boundary conditions (such as infiltration rate). As discussed in 
Section 6.6, additional grid resolution was added to the PTn units and the repository, two 
features that previous Yucca Mountain flow model studies identified as needing enhanced 
numerical resolution to capture the effects of spatial variability on flow (BSC 2001 [155950], 
Section 3.3.4.8.1). The 3-D grid captures the needed spatial variability in the infiltration rate at 
the bedrock surface for calibration purposes, while containing sufficient numerical resolution 
within the proposed repository boundary, the area most important to PA studies. 
6.6 3-D GRID GENERATION 
Once UZ Model grid nodes are assigned in plan view and polygons are generated representing 
the lateral extent of each grid column, model layer contact elevations are determined for each 
vertical column within the UZ Model grid, using a bilinear interpolation method to determine 
values between the regularly spaced (61 x 61 m) nodes of the GFM2000 grid (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]). The estimated maximum error in layer contact elevations 
at UZ Model column centers associated with this interpolation method is about 5 m, except in 
areas affected by faulting (see Attachments II and III for grid verification), assuming that the 
hydrogeologic layers dip 10 degrees. Dips are generally less than 10 degrees (BSC 2002 
[159124], Section 6.4), and thus a value of 10 degrees was used to calculate the maximum error 
value. This amount of potential error is considered insignificant to grid development and 
subsequent site-scale UZ Model simulation activities because lateral column dimensions almost 
always exceed 61  61 m (except along faults), thus encompassing the nearest GFM2000 data 
point. 
The 3-D grid describes the location, rock material name, and connection information for each 
3-D gridblock in the UZ Model domain. All 3-D gridblocks are generated column by column 
with WINGRIDDER V2.0 (LBNL 2002 [154785]), based on the 2-D (plan-view) grid design, to 
ensure that each vertical connection occurs between adjacent gridblocks and that each gridblock 
has at least one vertical connection. Lateral connections are then generated segment by segment 

within a model layer, with each segment joining two neighboring columns. This ensures that 
only gridblocks in two adjacent columns have lateral connections and that no connections 
between two adjacent columns are missing. 
For a given column, 3-D gridblocks are built for each HGU, first above the Tptpv3 structural 
reference surface until reaching the bedrock surface, and then below this reference surface down 
to the water table. The interfaces of the generated gridblocks are located exactly at the interfaces 
of the corresponding hydrogeologic layers. Vertical connections within the column are generated 
after each gridblock is built. A dummy gridblock is added to the top and bottom of each column 
to enable assignment of model boundary conditions. 
When building lateral connections, each pair of two adjacent columns are searched top-to-
bottom. If gridblocks in the adjacent columns belong to the same layer, a lateral connection is 
built for them. The lateral interface area is determined by the length of the shared side multiplied 
by the height of the shorter of the two gridblocks that are connected. If the layer is missing in 
one of the two neighboring columns (resulting from a layer pinching out), the gridblock 
representing the last occurrence of the pinch-out layer is laterally connected to the adjacent 
gridblock, now occupied by the next hydrogeologic layer. The height of that interface at the 
pinch-out margin is reduced to 0.10 m (10% of the minimum gridblock height). This value was 
chosen assuming that the pinch-out layers are not just layer discontinuities, and that permeable 
connections are preserved. If one of the two adjacent columns is a fault, the lateral connections 
are built based on elevations only. 
The maximum thickness of any cell within the UZ grids is 20 m (Wang 2002 [159673], SN-
LBNL-SCI-103-V1, pp. 135136). If the thickness of a model layer within a column exceeds 20 
m, the layer is subdivided equally into two layers. Minimum vertical grid resolution is 1.0 m; 
thus, if the thickness of a hydrogeologic layer is less than 1.0 m within a column, the layer is 
considered absent, and no gridblock is generated for the layer at this location. To conserve the 
total thickness of the UZ, layer thicknesses below this cutoff are added to the overlying layer if 
they lie above the structural reference horizon (i.e., top of Tptpv3), or are added to the 
underlying layer if they lie below the reference horizon. Still, this may lead to a significant 
discontinuity if many thin, adjacent layers exist. Within UZ Model boundaries, however, no 
more than two adjacent hydrogeologic layers, each with a thickness less than 1.0 m, occur in any 
vertical column, except for a few locations near the land surface where erosion has removed 
most of the crystal-poor Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpcp), and the underlying Tpcpv units (model layers 
tcw13 and ptn21) are also less than 1.0 m thick. In this rare case, the small layer thicknesses are 
added to the underlying layer, ptn22. 
Further vertical grid resolution is added within the Ptn units ptn22, ptn24, ptn25, and ptn26, as 
well as the unit ch1 and the proposed repository horizon, where a maximum cell thickness of 5 m 
is used (Wang 2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-103-V1, pp. 135136). Sensitivity studies 
examining the effects of grid refinement on flow and transport models indicate that a vertically 
refined grid is needed to capture lateral flow caused by capillary barriers formed by the layers 
ptn21 and ptn23 (BSC 2001 [155950], Sections 3.3.3.4.2 and 3.3.4.8.1; Wu et al. 2002 [161058], 
pp. 78, 11, Fig. 7), and thus enhanced grid refinement (maximum cell thickness of 2 m) was 
assigned to ptn21 and ptn23. Detailed grid resolution to the repository footprint (Assumption 8) 

allows flow models to better capture spatial variability (BSC 2001 [155950], Section 3.3.4.8.1). 
The proposed repository itself is represented by five grid layers, each 5 m thick. 
Material properties are assigned to gridblocks depending on the hydrogeologic layer to which the 
gridblock corresponds. For layers with multiple properties, such as the vitric and zeolitic zones 
within the lowermost Topopah Spring and Calico Hills units, polygons defining the areal extent 
of these zones are created (see Section 6.6.3). Assignment of material properties (i.e., vitric or 
zeolitic) to model gridblocks is then confined to the appropriate polygon. 
6.6.1 Faults 
Although faults may occur as displacement surfaces only or as deformation zones of variable 
width, each fault within the current UZ Model domain is represented by columns of gridblocks 
having an arbitrary width of 30 m. Nevertheless, adjustments can be made within a grid to 
assign appropriate rock properties to each fault zone to handle various fault configurations. 
Conceptually, there are three important features of a fault that are conserved in the numerical 
grid. First, a fault is a separator that causes discontinuity of geological layers and may serve as a 
structural barrier to lateral flow. Second, a fault zone is continuous and may serve as a fast path 
for vertical flow depending on its hydraulic properties. Third, a fault may or may not be vertical, 
and its angle of inclination may vary spatially. To implement these features in the UZ grids, 
three parallel rows of fault-related columns are built for each fault. Each section of a fault in 
map view consists of three connected columns, with the fault column located in the middle 
(Figure 2). Each fault column is connected to two side columns and two neighboring fault 
columns only. Columns on opposite sides of a fault are always separated by a fault column. 
Figure 2. Schematic Illustration of Fault-Related Gridblocks in Map View and in Cross Section 
The three fault-related columns (the fault column and its two side columns) are processed 
together to generate 3-D gridblocks representing the fault and layer offset. From the bedrock 
surface to the water table, the x, y location of fault gridblocks may shift according to the 
elevation and dip of the fault. Similarly, the volumes and the center (nodal point) location of the 
corresponding side cells are adjusted accordingly. As a result, the inclination of the fault is 

described by a series of connected gridblocks whose x, y locations vary with elevation. The 
fault-related gridblocks are connected vertically, if they belong to the same column, regardless of 
the fault angle. Columns of side cells are connected in a similar fashion regardless of the 
horizontal shifting of position and change in volume. To look at it from another perspective, 
each set of three fault-related columns (i.e., the fault column plus its two side columns) can be 
viewed collectively as one vertical column that is subdivided into three nonvertical columns to 
capture the angle of inclination along a fault. One limitation of this method is that intersecting 
faults cannot be represented. 
This method of representing the three-dimensionality of faults requires that all fault gridblocks 
have the same elevation and thickness as the laterally adjacent gridblock to facilitate vertical 
displacement of geologic layers. Because Yucca Mountain is comprised of hydrogeologic layers 
with variable thickness, simply reassigning material properties from one row of gridblocks to 
another to establish offset along faults is insufficient for representing the true layer 
configurations. This approach removes certain layers from columns adjacent to fault columns 
and often misrepresents layer thicknesses. To avoid such error, additional vertical resolution is 
added to fault-related gridblocks based on the elevation of hydrogeologic layer contacts on both 
sides of the fault. Therefore, vertical grid discretization in each set of three fault-related columns 
is identical, and all interfaces between hydrogeologic units in both side columns correspond to 
the interfaces between gridblocks. The layer and rock properties of fault gridblocks are then 
assigned according to the stratigraphy of the fault column. 
The assignment of lateral connections that involve fault-related gridblocks is different from the 
way lateral connections are assigned to normal (non-fault-related) gridblocks. Fault-related 
lateral connections are of two types, fault-fault gridblock connections and fault-side cell 
connections. In these two cases, lateral connections occur between gridblocks that share the 
same interface. The interface area is precisely determined by the contact area between the two 
gridblocks. 
As mentioned in Section 6.3, some simplification of the GFM2000 faults was made in creating 
the UZ Model grids, including the representation of the Solitario Canyon and Solitario Canyon 
(west) faults as a single fault. During the evaluation of the 3-D grid described in Attachment III, 
it was discovered that some matrix columns adjacent to fault columns exhibited fault-related 
stratigraphic offset with their neighboring columns. To ensure proper flow behavior in the grid, 
these columns were classified as "faults while building the 3-D grid so that lateral connections 
between gridblocks in these columns and those in the adjacent columns were made with the 
closest lateral neighbor, and not with the same stratigraphic interval. A total of 18 columns, all 
adjacent to faults, were treated in this manner. 
6.6.2 Repository 
For numerical gridding purposes, the proposed repository is defined as a 3-D object that is 
subdivided into a regular mesh of gridblocks. The repository design used in the constuction of 
the numerical grids (BSC 2002 [159527]) calls for two sets of waste emplacement drifts to be 
constructed, with the primary proposed repository area located west and/or north of the ESF 
Main Drift, and the lower elevation block located east of the primary block (Assumption 8). Note 

that the lower elevation block has been removed from the most recent revision of the proposed 
repository layout (BSC 2003 [161726]; BSC 2003 [161727]). All repository columns are aligned 
along the direction of the emplacement drifts, as currently designed, and each column of 
gridblocks (except those corresponding to borehole locations) has four sides to facilitate the 
representation of a drift with a series of connected 3-D gridblocks. 
Local refinement is added vertically at the proposed repository horizon in the UZ Model grids 
for PA. For each repository column, a repository thickness of 25 m is assigned at the appropriate 
elevation. This thickness is then divided vertically into five layers, each 5 m thick. For the 
interfaces between repository gridblocks, lateral connections are established if two adjacent 
gridblocks belong to the same layer within the five-layer grid structure of the proposed 
repository horizon. For interfaces between a repository gridblock and a nonrepository gridblock, 
the connection is built based on their hydrogeologic-layer similarity. The assignment of rock 
properties to repository gridblocks is determined by the elevation of the gridblock and the 
corresponding hydrogeologic layer present at that elevation. 
6.6.3 Vitric/Zeolitic Boundaries 
The ISM3.1 Rock Properties Model (Assumptions 4 and 5) is used together with measured rock-
property measurements from boreholes and corroborative data from the RPM2000 and 
Mineralogical Model 3.1 (MM3.1) to add resolution to UZ Model grids within the lowermost 
Topopah Spring tuffs (TSw) and Calico Hills nonwelded unit (CHn). Of great importance to UZ 
flow and transport modeling is the distribution of low-permeability zeolites, because of their 
potential to significantly alter flowpaths and travel times and to retard radionuclides migrating 
from the proposed repository horizon to the water table. 
At high matrix saturations, groundwater flow within the TSw and CHn should be diverted 
around zeolitic volumes of rock and preferentially flow through the less-altered, higher-
permeability vitric matrix. Consequently, only a low percentage of the total percolation flux is 
expected to travel through significantly zeolitized tuffs. This suggests that sorption within the 
slightly altered (mostly vitric) tuffs is of far greater importance. As such, high- and low-
permeability regions are defined within certain UZ Model layers corresponding to the tuffs of the 
lowermost TSw and upper CHn (above lithostratigraphic unit Tcpuv). 
Lateral boundaries between high- and low-permeability tuffs within the lowermost TSw and 
upper CHn were determined using results from the geostatistical RPM3.1 (DTN: 
MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]), as well as information found in RPM2000 (DTN: 
SN0112T0501399.004 [159524]) and MM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199]). 
The details and results of this exercise and a comparison between RPM3.1, RPM2000, and 
MM3.1 are provided below. The net result is the subdivision of the lithostratigraphic unit Tac 
(see Table 11) vertically into four grid layers (ch2, ch3, ch4, ch5), and laterally into vitric and 
zeolitic regions for which separate hydrogeologic and sorptive properties are assigned. The UZ 
Model layers tsw 39 (corresponding to the Tptpv2), ch1 (corresponding to the combined 
lithostratigraphic units Tptpv1 and Tpbt1), and ch6 (corresponding to the Tacbt) are also laterally 
subdivided into vitric and zeolitic regions. Note that the horizontal and vertical resolution of the 
UZ Model grids is too coarse to capture meter-scale heterogeneity within the CHn. Small-scale 

heterogeneity is, however, observed within the CHn and may have an impact on flow and 
transport calculations. 
Data from the Rock Properties Models 3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) and 
2000 (DTN: SN0112T0501399.004 [159524]) and Mineralogic Models 3.1 (DTN: 
MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199]) are analyzed in EARTHVISION V5.1 (Dynamic 
Graphics 1998 [152614]) by generating map-view figures of percent-zeolite distribution (from 
MM3.1), interpreted saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) data (from RPM3.1), and a 
contoured region with <0.5 hydrous-phase alteration (from RPM2000). Results from the RPM3.1 
(DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) were used as the primary means to define vitric 
and zeolitic boundaries. Because RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) does 
not include more recent rock-property data from SD-6, saturation, porosity, and hydraulic 
conductivity data from this borehole (DTNs: GS980908312242.038 [107154] and 
GS980808312242.014 [106748]) are used to modify zeolitic and vitric boundaries where 
appropriate. In general, vitric material is characterized by relatively low saturation (<~90%), 
relatively high Ksat (>~10-10 m/s), and oven-dried porosity that is less than 5% higher than 
relative-humidity porosity. The MM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199]) and 
RPM2000 (DTN: SN0112T0501399.004 [159524]) data are used as corroborative evidence for 
the presence of vitric and zeolitic tuffs. 
Major faults are assumed to represent appropriate lateral boundaries for unaltered areas 
(Assumption 6). It is reasonable to assume that vitric portions of the CHn may be laterally 
continuous within fault blocks that have a higher structural position above the water table 
compared to adjacent structural blocks. For example, the Solitario Canyon fault system offsets 
the CHn by more than 300 m in the southern part of the UZ Model domain. CHn layers west of 
the Solitario Canyon fault lie near or below the water table in this area; consequently they are 
most likely altered to zeolites. In contrast, CHn layers east of the Solitario Canyon fault may be 
up to 300 m above the water table and are less likely to have undergone alteration because of 
limited rock/water interaction. The vertical offset along the Dune Wash fault suggests that this is 
another possible boundary for vitric and zeolitic subunits within the CHn. As a result, major 
faults are considered as potential boundaries between vitric and zeolitic areas when interpreting 
data from RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) and corroborative evidence 
from RPM2000 (DTN: SN0112T0501399.004 [159524]) and MM3.1 (DTN: 
MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199]). 
RPM3.1 uses porosity (data that are relatively abundant at Yucca Mountain) as a surrogate to 
predict Ksat values. The limitations of this correlation are discussed in Rautman and McKenna 
(1997 [100643], pp. 1314). In the RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145371]), the 
CHn consists of the volume of rock lying between the upper Tptpv1 contact and the lower Tacbt 
contact (in other words, geologic layers Tptpv1, Tpbt1, Tac, and Tacbt, shown in Table 11, 
equivalent to the UZ Model HGUs ch1ch6). Ksat distributions within the CHn (represented by 
24 grid layers in the Rock Properties Model) are plotted in EARTHVISION V5.1 by contouring 
(2-D minimum tension gridding) the regularly spaced (200  200 m) Ksat data for each of the 24 
rock-property grid layers. The 24 rock-property grid layers are not stratabound; rather, they are 
equally thick at any given x, y coordinate. An equivalent GFM2000 isochore file was created by 
combining the thicknesses of the layers mentioned above. Using the midpoint surface positions 

for each of the UZ Model layers, Ksat isosurfaces were then back-interpolated from the RPM3.1 
file ChnZksStrat.3grd (see Attachment I, ISM 3.1 files). The plots show Ksat data that range 
from approximately 10-5 to 10-12 m/s; note that Ksat values >10-10 m/s are assumed to represent 
vitric tuffs (Assumption 4). Figure 3 shows an example of one of these Ksat plots for the upper 
Tac (UZ Model layer ch2) lithostratigraphic unit. Details explaining the extraction of relevant 
ISM3.1 rock-property data used to define vitric boundaries within UZ Model grid layers are 
documented in the scientific notebook by Wang (2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, p. 24). 
A similar approach was used to evaluate vitric and altered tuffs using data from RPM2000 
(DTN: SN0112T0501399.004 [159524]). This version of the RPM contains data from 
boreholes not included in RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]), but is not 
qualified, and thus can be used only for corroborative purposes. The RPM2000 file 
CHn_hmap_etype.out (see Attachment I, RPM2000 files) is an E-type model of hydrous-
phase mineral alteration in the form of a probability distribution, with values close to 1 indicating 
a strong probability of mineral alteration to phases such as zeolites and clays. For more 
discussion on E-type models, see Rock Properties Model Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002 
[159530], Sections 6.1 and 6.4.8.3). Using the mid-point elevation of UZ Model layers ch1, ch2, 
ch3, ch4, ch5, and ch6, faces files were created for each unit, where the 0.5 probability contour is 
interpreted to represent the vitric-zeolitic boundary, and where altered (zeolitic) tuffs lie on the 
>0.5 probability side of the contour line. Figure 4 shows an example of one of these alteration-
probability contour plots for the upper Tac (UZ Model layer ch2) lithostratigraphic unit. Details 
explaining the extraction of RPM2000 rock-property data used to define vitric boundaries within 
UZ Model grid layers are documented in the scientific notebook by Wang (2002 [159673], SN-
LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 2425). 
Percent-zeolite plots were also made from MM3.1 data (DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 
[119199]) in EARTHVISION V5.1 by contouring (2-D minimum tension gridding) the regularly 
spaced (61  61 m) percent-zeolite data for the CHn contained in the ISM3.1 file 
mineralsM.pdat (see Attachment I, ISM 3.1 files). The plots essentially represent the exact 
results of the Mineralogic Model. The plots show a general trend of increased zeolitic alteration 
to the north and east across the model area. Figure 5 is an example of one of these plots for the 
upper one-fourth of the Tac lithostratigraphic unit. This representation of zeolite distribution is 
not appropriate as the primary means of defining vitric-zeolitic boundaries in the numerical grids 
discussed in this Scientific Analysis report because of the lack of mineralogic sample data and 
the interpolation technique used in the development of the Mineralogic Model. However, these 
data can be used for corroborative purposes. 
The interpreted extent of the vitric-zeolitic boundaries from the above analysis are shown in 
Figures 6a and 6b. These boundaries are used in WINGRIDDER V2.0 to assign material names 
to gridblocks (i.e., vitric or zeolitic, for which associated rock properties will be assigned) 
within UZ Model layers tsw39, ch1, ch2, ch3, ch4, ch5, and ch6. These boundaries were 
selected using the results of the RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) Ksat plots 
(Assumption 4), measured rock-property data for boreholes within the UZ Model area 
(Assumption 5), and the location of faults with significant vertical offset (Assumption 6). A 
summary of how vitric/zeolitic boundaries were defined for each UZ Model layer is presented 

Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling U0000 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01 63 April 2003 
below; additional details can be found in the scientific notebook by Wang (2002 [159673], SN-
LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 2534, 6366; 2003 [162380], SN-LBNL-SCI-V1, p. 67). 
101010101010-5-6-7-8-9-10Property Color KeyDisplay: Tac4-mid.facesUnits: Ksat (m/s)
NSP Easting (m)
NSP Northing (m) 
DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 (Rock Properties Model 3.1) [145731] 
NOTE: Values less than 10-10 m/s given by white. 
Figure 3. Distribution of Ksat from ISM3.1 Rock Properties Model, Upper 1/4 of Layer Tac (UZ Model 
layer ch2). Ksat Contour Units are m/s. 

Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling U0000 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01 64 April 2003 
NSP Easting (m)
NSP Northing (m) 
DTN: SN0112T0501399.004 (Rock Properties Model 2000 (Non-Q)) [159524] 
NOTE: Hachured area within UZ Model boundary indicates vitric tuff 
Figure 4. Alteration Probability Contour (0.5) Plot from RPM2000, Upper 1/4 of Layer Tac 
(UZ Model layer ch2) 

239000 
238000 
Property Color Key 
Display: Tac431.pdat 
NSP Northing (m)
Units: % zeolites
237000 
72 
68 
64 
60 
56 
52 
48 
44 
236000 
235000 
40 
36 
32 
28 
24
234000 
20 
16 
12 
8.0 
233000 
4.0 
0.0 
232000 
231000 
230000 
229000 
168000 169000 170000 171000 172000 173000 174000 
G-2 
WT-24 
UZ#4 
H-6 
SD-6 
SD-12 
UZ#13 
SD-7 
H-3 
G-3 
H-1 
G-4 
NRG#5a#4 
NRG-7A 
SD-9 
H-4 
UZ-14 
G-1 
H-5 
NRG-6 NRG#4 
NSP Easting (m) 
DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 (Mineralogic Model 3.1) [119199] 
NOTE: Vitric region denoted by purple 
Figure 5. Percent Zeolite Distribution from ISM3.1 Mineralogic Model, Upper 1/4 of Layer Tac 
(UZ Model layer ch2) 

Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling U0000 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01 66 April 2003 
ch1ch2 
NSP Northing (m)
NSP Northing (m)
NSP Easting (m)NSP Easting (m)
tsw39NSP Easting (m)
NSP Northing (m)
LEGEND 
Boreholes 
Vitric Region 
UZ Model Boundary 
FaultUZ#16NOTE:Non-hachured areas withinUZ Model boundary indicate 
"zeolitic" material 
Output-DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001 
Figure 6a. Extent of Vitric Region in FY02 UZ Model Layers tsw39, ch1 and ch2 

Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling U0000 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01 67 April 2003 
ch5ch6ch4ch3NSP Easting (m)
NSP Northing (m)
NSP Easting (m)
NSP Northing (m)
NSP Easting (m)
NSP Northing (m)
NSP Easting (m)
NSP Northing (m) 
Output-DTN: LB0208HYDSTRAT.001 
Figure 6b. Extent of Vitric Region in FY02 UZ Model Layers ch3, ch4, ch5 and ch6 

Tsw39 (Tptpv2) 
Because RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) cannot be easily used to evaluate 
Ksat values for the unit Tptpv2, rock-property data from boreholes SD-6, SD-7, SD-9, SD-12, 
UZ-14, UZ-16, NRG-7a, and WT-24 (DTN: LB0207REVUZPRP.002 [159672]; see Wang 2002 
[159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 6366, 93 for details) were the primary input used to 
define the vitric and zeolitic regions for layer tsw39. Tuffs were characterized as vitric when the 
following properties were observed: relatively low saturation (<~90%), relatively high Ksat 
(>~10-10 m/s), and a difference between oven-dried and relative-humidity porosities of less than 
5% (Assumptions 4 and 5). An evaluation of these rock properties within this unit for the 
boreholes listed above suggests that the boreholes SD-6, SD-7, SD-9 and SD-12 contain vitric 
tuffs, UZ-14, UZ-16, and WT-24 contain zeolitic tuffs, and that NRG-7a has samples with both 
vitric and zeolitic properties. However, to reconcile the presence of perched water above this unit 
in boreholes SD-9 and NRG-7a (Rousseau et al. 1999 [102097], pp. 170171), these boreholes 
were assigned to lie near the boundary, but within the zeolitic region. In general, the vitriczeolitic 
boundary for this unit is similar in shape to that determined for the underlying ch1 unit. 
The Dune Wash fault system was used to bound a portion of the eastern margin of the vitric 
zone. 
Ch1 (Tptpv1 + Tpbt1) 
The vitric region is initially defined by RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) 
Ksat data and data from boreholes SD-6, SD-7, SD-12, G-3, H-3, H-5, H-6, and WT-2. Rock-
property data for SD-6 (DTN: GS980808312242.014 [106748]) within this unit (corresponding 
to a depth interval of 463.3475.8 m) report low saturations (2951%), and differences in oven-
dried and relative-humidity porosities less than 5%, indicating that the ch1 interval in this 
borehole is vitric. Two of the three hydraulic conductivity values reported for this borehole 
(DTN: GS98090831224.038 [107154]) are greater than 10-10 m/s, consistent with the vitric 
interpretation. The Dune Wash fault system was used to bound a portion of the eastern margin 
of the vitric zone. 
Ch2 (upper  of Tac) 
The vitric region is initially defined by RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) 
Ksat data and data from boreholes SD-6, SD-7, SD-12, G-3, H-3, H-5, H-6, and WT-2. Rock-
property data for SD-6 (DTN: GS980808312242.014 [106748]) within this unit (corresponding 
to a depth interval of 475.8483.6 m) report low saturations (<70%, avg. 35%), and differences 
in oven-dried and relative-humidity porosities less than 5%, indicating that the ch2 interval in 
this borehole is vitric. The three hydraulic conductivity values reported for this borehole (DTN: 
GS98090831224.038 [107154]) are greater than 10-10 m/s, consistent with the vitric 
interpretation. The Dune Wash fault system was used to bound a portion of the eastern margin 
of the vitric zone, and the Solitario Canyon fault, which downdrops the region to the west by 
over 200 m (Figure III-4), was assumed to form the western boundary of the vitric zone for this 
unit, thus resulting in assigning the H-6 borehole as zeolitic (consistent with the results of 
RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731])). 

Ch3 (mid-upper  of Tac) 
The vitric region is initially defined by RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) 
Ksat data and data from boreholes SD-6, SD-7, SD-12, G-3, H-3, H-5, H-6, and WT-2. Rock-
property data for SD-6 (DTN: GS980808312242.014 [106748]) within this unit (corresponding 
to a depth interval of 483.6491.5 m) report low saturations (2530%), and differences in oven-
dried and relative-humidity porosities of less than 5%, indicating that the ch3 interval in this 
borehole is vitric. The Dune Wash fault system was used to bound a portion of the eastern 
margin of the vitric zone, and the Solitario Canyon fault, which downdrops the region to the west 
by over 200 m (Figure III-4), was assumed to form the western boundary of the vitric zone for 
this unit, thus resulting in assigning the H-6 borehole as zeolitic (consistent with the results of 
RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731])). 
Ch4 (mid-lower  of Tac) 
The vitric region is initially defined by RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) 
Ksat data and data from boreholes SD-6, SD-7, G-3, H-3, H-5, H-6, and WT-2. Rock-property 
data for SD-6 (DTN: GS980808312242.014 [106748]) within this unit (corresponding to a depth 
interval of 491.5499.3 m) report low saturations (2543%), and differences in oven-dried and 
relative-humidity porosities less than 5%, indicating that the ch4 interval in this borehole is 
vitric. The hydraulic conductivity value (2.31  10-5 m/s) reported for this borehole (DTN: 
GS98090831224.038 [107154]) is greater than 10-10 m/s, consistent with the vitric interpretation. 
While SD-12 lies within the vitric region as defined by RPM3.1 (DTN: 
MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]), rock-property data (DTN: GS960808312231.004 
[108985]) for samples from this borehole within the ch4 interval (depths of 458.9473.2 m) 
indicate elevated saturation values (92100%), suggesting that this borehole lies within the 
zeolitic zone. The Dune Wash fault system was used to bound a portion of the eastern margin of 
the vitric zone, and the Solitario Canyon fault, which downdrops the region to the west by over 
200 m (Figure III-4), was assumed to form the western boundary of the vitric zone for this unit, 
thus resulting in assigning the H-6 borehole as zeolitic (consistent with the results of RPM3.1 
(DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731])). 
Ch5 (lower  of Tac) 
The vitric region is initially defined by RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) 
Ksat data and data from boreholes SD-6, SD-12, G-3, H-3, and H-5. No rock-property data are 
available for SD-6 (DTN: GS980808312242.014 [106748]) within this unit (corresponding to a 
depth interval of 499.3507.2 m). While SD-7 lies within the vitric region as defined by 
RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]), rock-property data (DTN: 
GS951108312231.009 [108984]) for samples from this borehole within the ch5 interval (depths 
of 465.4477.7 m) indicate elevated saturation values (87100%, avg. 97%) and differences in 
oven-dried and relative-humidity porosities typically greater than 5%, suggesting that this 
borehole lies within the zeolitic zone. The Dune Wash fault system was used to bound a portion 
of the eastern margin of the vitric zone, and the Solitario Canyon fault was assumed to form the 
western boundary of the vitric zone for this unit. 

Ch6 (Tacbt) 
The vitric region is defined by data from boreholes SD-6 and G-3 (no vitric region is indicated 
by RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]). Rock-property data for SD-6 (DTN: 
GS980808312242.014 [106748]) within this unit show low saturations (5467%), and 
differences in oven-dried and relative-humidity porosities less than 5% in one of two samples, 
indicating that the ch6 interval in this borehole is vitric. The hydraulic conductivity value (1.2  
10-9 m/s) reported for this borehole (DTN: GS98090831224.038 [107154]) is greater than 10-10 
m/s, consistent with the vitric interpretation. The Solitario Canyon fault was assumed to form the 
western boundary of the vitric zone for this unit. 
6.7 DUAL-PERMEABILITY GRID GENERATION 
The software program 2kgrid8.for V1.0 (LBNL 2002 [154787]) generates dual-k numerical grids 
for heterogeneous, fractured rocks. The 2kgrid8.for V1.0 generates a dual-k grid using (a) a 
primary single-continuum mesh (ECM grid) with 8-character element names, and (b) fracture 
properties for multiple hydrogeological units. The program is adapted from the software macro 
DKMgenerator V1.0 (LBNL 1999 [140702]). The 2kgrid8.for V1.0 software is designed to 
handle three types of fractured media: 
1. 
A set of parallel, infinite fractures (Type #1, 1-D fracture continuum) with uniform 
spacing within each hydrogeological unit 
2. 
Two sets of parallel, infinite, orthogonal fractures (Type #2, 2-D fracture continuum) 
with the same spacing within each hydrogeological unit 
3. 
Three sets of parallel, infinite, orthogonal fractures (Type #3, 3-D fracture continuum) 
with the same spacing within each hydrogeological unit. 
Volumes of fracture and matrix elements are computed with 2kgrid8.for V1.0 using the 
following formulas: 
Vf =F f V (Eq. 2) 
n 
and 
V =(1-F )V (Eq. 3) 
m fn 
where Vf and Vm are volumes of fracture and matrix elements, respectively, for the dual-k grid, 
Vn is the volume of element n of the primary mesh from which a dual-k grid is being generated, 
and f f is the fracture porosity or fractional volume of fractures within the bulk rock. 
The connection information in the dual-permeability grid is determined as follows: 
 
Global fracture-fracture and matrix-matrix connection data are kept the same as the 
connections in the primary mesh for the corresponding gridblocks. This implies that 

permeabilities used for both fracture and matrix systems are the continuum values for 
both, relative to the bulk-connecting areas. 
 
Inner-connection distances between fractures and matrix within a primary gridblock are 
calculated as: 
Df = 0 (Eq. 4) 
D
D= for Type #1 fractures (Eq. 5)
m 
6 
D
D= for Type #2 fractures (Eq. 6)
m 
8 
D
D= for Type #3 fractures (Eq. 7)
m 
10 
and 
1
D = (Eq. 8) 
F 
where Df is the distance from the fracture center to the surface of a matrix block; Dm is the 
calculated distance for flow crossing fracture/matrix interfaces, based on the quasi-steady 
state assumption (Warren and Root 1963 [100611], p. 247; Pruess 1983 [100605], Table 1); 
D is the fracture spacing; and F is the fracture frequency within the unit. 
The interface area (A) between fractures and matrix blocks is estimated by: 
A =AfmVn (Eq. 9) 
where Afm is a volume-area factor, which represents the total fracture-matrix interface area per 
unit volume of rock, determined from site fracture characterization studies. Fracture properties 
incorporated in the UZ Model are listed in Table 4. Only Type #1 fractures were used in the 
generation of dual-k numerical grids. 
The program 2kgrid8.for V1.0 must first be compiled using a FORTRAN compiler to create the 
executable file for the operating platform. Three input files are required to run 2kgrid8.for V1.0. 
These files are called 2kgrid.dat, connec.dat, and framtr.dat, and contain the following 
information: 

1. 
The 2kgrid.dat file contains the two parts of ELEME and CONNE data blocks from 
the primary single-continuum mesh using the same formats. 
2. 
The connec.dat file contains connection indexes from the primary single-continuum 
mesh using the same formats. 
3. 
The framtr.dat file contains fracture properties (DTN: LB0205REVUZPRP.001 
[159525] and DTN: LB0207REVUZPRP.001 [159526]) with the following format 
and data: 
Format (A5,5X,4(E10.3)) 
urock(i), volf(i), xxx, dspac(i), afm_v(i) 
urock(i) rock type name as rock(n) 
volf(i) porosity or volume fraction of fractures within bulk rock 
xxx aperture, not used 
dspac(i) fracture frequency 
afm_v(i) a volume-area factor, representing the total fracture-matrix area per unit 
volume rock, as determined from site fracture characterization studies. 
Execution of 2kgridv1 creates three output files: 
1. 
The 2kgrid.out file contains information from the primary mesh and new dual-k 
meshes for grid verification purposes. 
2. 
The eleme.dat file contains ELEME data blocks for the new dual-k grid. 
3. 
The conne.dat contains CONNE data blocks for the new dual-k grid. 
6.8 GRID VERIFICATION 
The Scientific Analysis report presents the grids to represent the geological framework model, 
refined from borehole data for the unique representation of Yucca Mountain. Since there are no 
alternative geologic models developed (Section 4.1), no alternative grids are presented in this 
report. The grids are intended for use by the UZ Model for site-scale flow and transport 
processes. Numerical grids are fixed objects, or frameworks, that alone do not capture physical 
processes or phenomena occurring at Yucca Mountain. As such, the process of model 
validation, in the usual sense, does not apply. However, the process of grid verificationan 
evaluation of how accurately the numerical grid represents the geologic and hydrogeologic 
inputdoes apply, and is discussed in this section. 

The parameters generated for each numerical grid include gridblock material names, gridblock 
volumes and locations, connection lengths and interface areas between gridblocks, and direction 
of absolute permeability for each connection. Because of the number and size of the numerical 
grids developed for UZ Model activities, it is not practical to verify each parameter for each 
gridblock generated. Consequently, a subset of gridblocks from each mesh is taken, and the 
associated parameters are verified to ensure the accuracy and representativeness of the mesh. The 
criteria by which the numerical grids are evaluated are not as rigorous as, for example, those 
specified for engineering design. This is because of the simplified approximation and large 
uncertainty inherent in modeling studies, where variations in modeling results up to an order of 
magnitude may be considered acceptable. 
For the 1-D numerical grids (Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001), which consist of 
columns of gridblocks at borehole locations only, gridblock material names and elevations are 
verified through comparison with stratigraphic information from GFM2000 (see Attachment II 
for details). For the 2-D cross-sectional grids through borehole UZ-7a (Output-DTN: 
LB02081DKMGRID.001), gridblock material names and elevations are verified through visual 
comparison with stratigraphic and structural information from GFM2000 exported surface 
horizons (see Attachment III for details). For the 3-D UZ Model grids (Output-DTN: 
LB03023DKMGRID.001) for calibration and calculation of flow fields, gridblock material 
names and elevations are verified through comparisons at borehole locations with the GFM2000 
file contacts00el.dat (see Attachment I, GFM2000 files) and through visual comparison with 
stratigraphic and structural information from GFM2000 exported surface horizons (see 
Attachment III for details). 
A spot check involving hand calculation of gridblock volumes, connection lengths, and interface 
areas between gridblocks showed consistency with calculated results for all UZ Model grids 
generated. A spot check of the direction of connectivity confirmed vertical connections for all 
connections within gridblock columns (except for columns associated with nonvertical faults, 
where the x-y locations of grid nodes can vary with depth). These spot checks are documented 
in the scientific notebook by Wang (2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, p. 93). 
An additional test of the 3-D grid was performed through the use of a TOUGH2 V1.4 (LBNL 
2000 [146496]) simulation. For this fully saturated isothermal (25C) simulation, all gridblocks 
were assigned the same rock properties and an initial fluid pressure of 500 bars. Several large 
volume gridblocks at the base of the grid were assigned constant pressures, and the remainder of 
the grid was allowed to attain equilibrium pressure conditions over time. Thus, for an ideally 
configured grid, there should be a linear relation between gridblock elevations and steady-state 
pressures. Small deviations from this relation were observed for the gridblocks in inclined fault 
columns, where vertical connections between gridblocks deviate from 90 degrees. The shift in 
pressure for a given elevation for these gridblocks is a function of the relative deviation from 
vertical for the fault columns, with more inclined faults exhibiting a greater deviation from the 
predicted pressure. A more detailed discussion of this simulation is presented in Attachment III. 

Corroborative Studies 
Sensitivity studies that examine the effect of grid resolution (i.e., gridblock size) on flow and 
transport simulation results were documented in FY97 (Haukwa and Wu 1997 [107934]; 
Haukwa et al. 1997 [101243]) and FY98 (Zhang 2000 [159531], pp. 5256, 6672) UZ Models, 
and are summarized below as corroborative material for this Scientific Analysis report. 
FY97 UZ Model Sensitivity StudyBoth coarse and refined 2-D, cross-sectional grids of the 
UZ at Yucca Mountain were developed by Haukwa and Wu (1997 [107934], pp. 4-124-13) to 
address concerns over the use of appropriate numerical grid resolution in UZ moisture flow 
modeling. The cross sections were developed along a north-south (N-S) transect through the 
proposed repository area, extending from borehole G-2 in the north to borehole G-3 in the south. 
The coarse grid used an average horizontal spacing of 50 m within the proposed repository area 
and 100 m outside the proposed repository area. The fine grid used a horizontal spacing as small 
as 6 m within the proposed repository area and as high as 50 m outside the proposed repository 
area. The coarse grid was comprised of 23 vertical layers; the refined grid had 61 layers 
(Haukwa et al. 1997 [101243], pp. 12-212-3). Identical layer-averaged rock properties were 
used in both grids. From comparison of flow simulation results using the coarse and refined 
grids, it was concluded by Haukwa et al. (1997 [101243], p. 12-16) that the 100 m lateral grid 
resolution within the proposed repository area, used in the 3-D UZ Model, was sufficient for 
ambient site-scale flow modeling purposes. 
Results indicated that moisture flow is predominantly vertical (Haukwa et al. 1997 [101243], 
p. 12-4), except where zeolites are present, suggesting that modeling results are less sensitive to 
lateral gridblock dimensions than to vertical changes in grid resolution, unless a sudden change 
in rock hydrogeologic properties occurs at a layer contact, resulting in significant lateral 
diversion. Below the proposed repository horizon, lateral diversion is most likely to occur above 
zeolites in the CHn. Calculated saturation and percolation flux distribution could be adequately 
resolved by adding a few grid layers at the PTn-TSw interface and at the vitric-zeolitic interfaces 
within the CHn, since these are transitional areas where rock properties change rapidly over short 
distances. 
The current (FY02) 3-D UZ Model is vertically resolved with about 57 layers in the proposed 
repository footprint; about 26 of these layers are above the proposed repository horizon, 5 layers 
are within the proposed repository horizon, and about 26 layers lie between the proposed 
repository horizon and the water table). The transitional areas at the PTn-TSw and vitric-zeolitic 
interfaces are generally captured by several thin layers. 
FY98 UZ Model Sensitivity StudyIn this study, the influence of gridblock size on flow and 
transport simulation results was examined along an east-west (E-W) cross section through 
borehole SD-9. Four meshes, each with a different nominal gridblock size, were developed along 
the E-W transect (for details, refer to Zhang 2000 ([159531], pp. 5256, 6672)). Three 
simulation scenarios were considered in this study. In the first simulation scenario (Scenario #1), 
no modifications are made to the calibrated FY98 hydrogeologic property sets to represent 
perched water. In the second simulation scenario (Scenario #2), FY98 calibrated perched-water 
hydrogeologic properties are used. In the third simulation scenario (Scenario #3), perched-water 

properties are used, but fracture flow is ignored in zeolitic units (except in fault zones). Both 
conservative and reactive tracers are considered in the transport simulations for each of the three 
scenarios. 
Under the conditions prescribed in Scenario #1 (no perched water), the effect of gridblock size is 
minimal. Results from the coarsest of the four cross-sectional grids (which has a nominal 
horizontal spacing of 112 m and a maximum layer thickness of 60 m) compared with the results 
from the finest of the four cross-sectional grids (which has a nominal horizontal spacing of 28 m 
and a maximum layer thickness of 15 m) show an approximate 20% difference in the time at 
which half of the tracer mass (both conservative and reactive) reaches the water table. 
Under the conditions prescribed in Scenario #2 (perched water), model results for the coarsest 
mesh and finest mesh show differences of about 10% in the time at which half of the tracer mass 
reaches the water table for conservative tracers. For reactive tracers, results for the coarsest 
mesh differ from those for the finest mesh by a factor of two. 
Under the conditions prescribed in Scenario #3 (perched water, no fractures in zeolitic units), the 
effect of gridblock size is once again minimal. Results from the coarsest of the four cross-
sectional grids compared with the results from the finest of the four cross-sectional grids show an 
approximate 20% difference in the time at which half of the conservative tracer mass reaches the 
water table, as well as an approximate 15% difference in the time at which half of the reactive 
tracer mass reaches the water table. 
The results of this FY98 modeling study suggest that the numerical grid resolution used in the 
FY02 site-scale UZ Model grids, at least within the proposed repository area, is appropriate for 
capturing important flow and transport phenomena. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

7. CONCLUSIONS
Data from the GFM2000 geological model (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) were 
integrated with hydrogeologic units defined by Flint (1998 [100033]) and adjusted using rock-
property data contained in ISM3.1 to create integral finite-difference numerical grids for the UZ 
at Yucca Mountain. The layer subdivision and assignment of material properties resulted in 
numerical grids that are appropriate for UZ flow and transport modeling. 
These grids were verified for accuracy by inspection of gridblock material names, volumes, 
location, interface areas, and connection length and direction. The grids were also verified 
against known stratigraphy in reference boreholes and the GFM2000 (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]). The results show that the resulting 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D 
grids accurately reflect the stratigraphy and structural features of GFM2000, with contact 
elevations and unit thicknesses usually within 5 m of those of GFM2000. Larger deviations may 
occur in the vicinity of faults with large vertical offsets or with nonvertical fault slopes. 
Corroborative sensitivity studies show that the grids developed are valid and appropriate for UZ 
flow and transport modeling. The FY02 UZ Model grids incorporate closer spacing of layers 
(maximum of 5 m) for the PTn units (where lateral flow may occur), the proposed repository, 
and the unit ch1, thus allowing for adequate resolution of flow and transport phenomena within 
the UZ. 
Results from the development of numerical grids to simulate the UZ at Yucca Mountain include: 
 
One primary mesh and one dual-k mesh consisting of 1-D columns at borehole locations 
(Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001) used for developing calibrated hydrogeologic 
property sets for the UZ at Yucca Mountain. 
 
One primary mesh and one dual-k mesh comprising a 2-D cross section through 
borehole UZ-7a (Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001) used to calibrate fault 
hydrogeologic properties in the UZ at Yucca Mountain. 
 
One primary mesh and one dual-k mesh (Output-DTN: LB03023DKMGRID.001) used 
for 3-D UZ Model calibration and to generate 3-D UZ flow fields for Performance 
Assessment. 
7.1 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 
The numerical grids developed in this report are intended for use in mountain-scale flow and 
transport modeling of the Yucca Mountain UZ system. A model of a complex system such as 
Yucca Mountain must be used with recognition of its limitations. For the site-scale UZ Model, a 
key limitation is imposed by numerical grid resolution. Since computational time rapidly 
increases with grid size (i.e., number of gridblocks and connections), the use of large refined 
grids is currently limited by both simulation time and CPU requirements. Refining an entire 3-D 
model with gridblocks having dimensions roughly equivalent to the expected drift spacing in the 

proposed repository and using comparably refined vertical resolution would increase current grid 
sizes by more than an order of magnitude. Thus, it is not feasible at the mountain scale to 
characterize flow behavior on horizontal scales less than a few tens of meters. Current lateral 
resolution (up to 300 m in areas outside the proposed repository boundary) can sometimes lead 
to high aspect ratios within very thin layers. This may lead to inaccuracies when trying to 
calculate lateral flow components; however, fracture spacing and orientation data suggest that 
groundwater flow is primarily downward, except within the altered tuffs. 
Previous modeling studies at Yucca Mountain have established that sufficient vertical grid 
resolution is critical to capturing important flow and transport processes, such as lateral flow 
(Wu et al. 2002 [161058]; BSC 2001 [155950], Sections 3.3.3.4.2 and 3.3.4.8.1). Wu et al. 
(2002 [161058]) evaluated the effect of grid refinement on percolation fluxes and noted that 
simulations using a vertical grid spacing of 10 m within the PTn were unable to resolve the 
effects of lateral flow. In contrast, the use of a more refined grid with a maximum vertical 
spacing of 2 m within the PTn could capture the capillary barrier effects of ptn21 and ptn23, 
resulting in significant lateral flow. The results of this sensitivity study were used to design the 
current numerical grids by employing a variable maximum vertical grid spacing with enhanced 
grid resolution within the PTn (See Section 6.6 for details). 
The impact of utilizing nonorthogonal grids on TH modeling at Yucca Mountain was evaluated 
by Haukwa et al. (2003 [161647]). With a nonorthogonal grid, cross-term contributions in the 
numerical discretization are neglected because of vertical separation of laterally connected 
nodes. A comparison of simulations conducted using orthogonal and nonorthogonal grids for the 
Yucca Mountain UZ system (where represented layers typically have dips less than 10 degrees; 
see Section 6.6) indicated little impact on both steady-state and transient solutions, because the 
cross-term connections contribute less than 6% to the total flux. As mentioned in Section 6.8 and 
Attachment III, the use of non-vertical columns for inclined faults does lead to some deviations 
in the flow behavior for the affected grid blocks. 
The accuracy of UZ Model grids depends largely on the accuracy of the GFM2000 (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) and RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 
[145731]) input data. Both of these models, which are assumed to provide a representative 
picture of subsurface geology and rock properties, are constructed with limited data resources. 
GFM2000 includes assumptions about the lateral continuity and thickness trends of layers at 
Yucca Mountain based on limited borehole data. The UZ Model numerical grids attempt to 
match this layered approach as closely as possible to constrain UZ flow and transport processes. 
While the degree of lateral continuity of layers represented in GFM2000 is a valid interpretation, 
the impact of more lateral discontinuity resulting from the inclusion of small faults on flow could 
be significant, especially in areas where little or no information has been collected. However, 
these areas typically lie too far from the proposed repository area to have any significant impact 
on repository performance. 
The GFM2000 bedrock surface ("s00bedrockRWC.2grd"; listed in GFM2000 files in 
Attachment I) was used to define the upper boundary of the UZ Model grids (see Section 6.4.2). 
The use of the bedrock surface thus results in the exclusion of alluvial cover from the model. In 
the area of the proposed repository, bedrock is typically exposed at the surface, with alluvium 

confined to washes and other topographic lows (BSC 2002 [159124]), Figure 13). Because 
alluvial cover is mostly absent above the proposed repository, any insulating effects of this 
material are likely to be minimal. Sensitivity studies to test the effect of alluvial cover on 
thermal modeling are not within the scope of this Scientific Analysis report. 
Within RPM3.1 (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]), the interpretation of saturated 
hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) distribution and mineral alteration at Yucca Mountain is also based 
on limited data and assumed correlations (e.g., using porosity as a surrogate for predicting Ksat). 
The spatial heterogeneity of low-permeability alteration products such as zeolites has a profound 
impact on UZ flow and transport modeling, yet the nature of their distribution is not fully 
understood. Though currently represented per hydrogeologic layer (i.e., UZ Model layers tsw39, 
ch1, ch2, ch3, ch4, ch5, and ch6), true mineral alteration and rock-property variation may not 
strictly follow a layered model. While a variety of geologic and rock property data were used to 
define vitric-zeolitic boundaries (see Sections 5.2 and 6.6.3), the location of vitric to zeolitic 
transitions are not consisely resolved. 
Grid verification exercises show that UZ Model layer thicknesses and elevations are reasonable 
representations of the hydrogeologic input data. Using visual cross-sectional comparisons with 
GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]), UZ Model layer contact elevations are 
shown to have some large (up to 50 m) differences in areas immediately adjacent to inclined 
fault zones, reflecting the coarse lateral grid resolution used as well as certain limitations of the 
gridding software. Given the large uncertainties associated with fault zone hydrogeologic 
characteristics, the effect of these differences along faults on modeling results has yet to be 
determined, but is likely limited in extent to the area immediately surrounding the fault zones. 
Additional hydrogeologic property data and analyses within fault zones would reduce 
uncertainty in this area. 
There are some limitations relating to the modeling of faults in the UZ Model grids. As noted 
earlier (Section 6.6.1), faults cannot be modeled as intersecting features. To simplify the model, 
subsidiary faults related to the Solitario Canyon fault (Splay N, Splay G, Splay S, and the 
Solitario [west] faults) were omitted from the UZ Model grids because of their proximity to the 
dipping Solitario Canyon fault (making them difficult to incorporate as separate features to the 
model). Faults observed within the ESF and ECRB that are not part of the GFM2000 (owing to 
either insufficient length or offset) are also not incorporated in the UZ Model grid. 
As mentioned in Section 5.2, the proposed repository design used for the UZ Model numerical 
grid generation (BSC 2002 [159527]) was the most recent representation of the repository layout 
at the time the grids were generated. It is recognized that the proposed repository layout may be 
subject to future design modifications, and that the most recent revision of the proposed 
repository layout (BSC 2003 [161726]; BSC 2003 [161727]) does not include the lower block 
area (See Section 4.1.1). If additional design changes are made, the numerical grids should be 
evaluated to ensure that sufficient grid resolution in the area of the proposed repository exists, 
and if this is no longer the case, new numerical grids should be generated utilizing the revised 
repository design. 

7.1.1 Water Table Uncertainty 
The water table by definition forms the base of the UZ (Assumption 1). The potentiometric-
surface map as defined by USGS (2001 [157611], Figure 6-1) was constrained by borehole water 
levels in the Yucca Mountain area (USGS 2001 [157611], Table I-2). Contours for this map 
were hand-drawn to conform to the borehole water levels, assuming that the measured water 
level in WT-24 represents the regional water table, whereas the water levels in boreholes G-2 
and WT-6 represent perched conditions. The water table is well constrained in the area near the 
ESF where abundant borehole data exist, but is poorly constrained to the north and west, where 
there are very few control points and the potentiometric surface has a higher gradient. Thus, any 
definition of the water table elevations will inevitably include some uncertainty, especially in the 
areas where few borehole constraints are available. 
The water table is defined in the qualified DTN: GS010608312332.001 [155307] through the use 
of borehole locations and their associated water table elevations and potentiometric map 
contours. The DTN: GS010608312332.001 [155307] from USGS 2001 [157611] contains the 
ARCINFO files (pot_contours.e00 and wells.e00). The layer GWL_SSPAC in the Vulcan 
GFM2000 Representation database (DTN: MO0110MWDGFM26.002 [160565]) was derived 
by digitizing the contours depicted on the potentiometric surface map included in FY 01 
Supplemental Science and Performance Analyses, Volume 1: Scientific Bases and Analyses (BSC 
2001 [155950], Figure 12.3.1.2-2), which appears to be identical to that presented in USGS 
(2001 [157611], Figure 6-1). The data defining this layer (contours and borehole coordinates) 
were then extracted and the resulting data set (gwl_sspac2.asc) was submitted to the TDMS as 
DTN: MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271] (see Attachment IV for details). This representation 
of the water table was qualified using the procedure AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified 
Data and the Documentation of Rationale for Accepted Data and the Data Qualification Plan 
found in the Technical Work Plan for: Performance Assessment Unsaturated Zone (BSC 2002 
[160819], Attachment III). The data qualification reviews for DTN: MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 
[161271] are presented in Attachment IV. 
The file gwl_sspac2.asc was used as input for the generation of the UZ water table reference 
horizon (see Section 6.4.2 for details). Data files in DTNs: GS010608312332.001 [155307] and 
MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271] both contain water table contours, but these contours do not 
uniquely define a surface from which regularly spaced water table data could be obtained. Thus, 
the digitized potentiometric contour data and borehole water-level data must be used to create a 
numerical surface to facilitate production of a regularly spaced set of water table elevations. 
The x, y data contained in the ARCINFO files (DTN: GS010608312332.001 [155307]) are given 
in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates, whereas those from the gwl_sspac2.asc 
file (DTN: MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271]) are in Nevada State Plane (NSP) meters. The 
ARCINFO file pot_contours.e00 was modified using a text editor so that it could be read as a 
.dat file in EARTHVISION V5.1 (Dynamic Graphics 1998 [152614]). The coordinate 
transformation utility of EARTHVISION V5.1 was used to convert the UTM coordinates to NSP 
coordinates. Elevation values were then assigned to each point on the basis of visual comparison 
to the potentiometric map in the report, Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-
Scale Flow and Transport Model (USGS 2001 [157611], Figure 6-1). The contour line locations 

Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling U0000 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01 81 April 2003 
were then compared with those extracted from the Vulcan data base, and significant deviations in 
water table elevations between the data sets were observed in areas north (up to 60 m) and 
northwest (up to 30 m) of the ESF within the UZ Model grid area. These variations may result 
from errors associated with the digitization of the contour lines. 
The data from these two sources were imported into EARTHVISION V5.1 to construct gridded 
surfaces to permit more rigorous comparison of the data (Wang 2003 [162380], SN-LBNL-SCI-
213-V1, pp. 110115). Borehole water table data included in the input file converted from 
Vulcan were appended to the modified ARCINFO file (which contained only water table contour 
data), with the only modification being that SD-7 was removed from the input data set, as it was 
considered to be unreliable in the report, Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-
Scale Flow and Transport Model (USGS 2001 ([157611], Table I-2). Using the 2-D minimum 
tension gridding utility in EARTHVISION V5.1, the data were coarsely gridded and then finely 
gridded, using the same steps as outlined in Section 6.4.2 that were employed to create the water 
table utilized for numerical grid generation. The contoured water table surfaces created in 
EARTHVISION V5.1 using the two data sets are displayed in Figure 7. 
NSP Easting (m)
NSP Northing (m)
NSP Easting (m)
LEGEND 
UZ2002 Model Boundary 
2002 Repository Boundary 
2002 Repository Lower Block 
Water Table Elevation Contours (m) 
Boreholes with Water Table 
Elevations (m)
727.6900(a)(b) 
DTNs: (a) GS010608312332.001 [155307] 
(b) MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271] 
NOTE: 2002 Repository Lower Block will not be used in any LA calculations. 
Figure 7. Comparison of EARTHVISION V5.1 Gridded Potentiometric Surfaces 

Because neither data set uniquely defines a water table that could be used to extract a set of 
regularly spaced data needed for creating the numerical grids, it was necessary to create a 
numerically defined surface in EARTHVISION V5.1 through gridding of the borehole water 
table elevations and potentiometric surface contour lines. The two-step process used to create 
the fine-spaced grid (see Section 6.4.2) does result in small changes in the appearance of the 
contoured surface, such as the creation of a small ridge in the potentiometric surface where the 
water table is around 730 m elevation. Such features are artifacts of the irregularly spaced input 
data and the use of 2-D minimum tension gridding, and result in minor shifts in the water table. 
As mentioned in Section 6.4.2, the resulting regularly spaced data set was edited to have a 
minimum water table elevation of 730 m, and thus the final numerical grids generated by 
WINGRIDDER V2.0 (LBNL 2002 [154785]) have a lower boundary no lower than 730 m. Both 
contoured surfaces are consistent with the measured borehole water table elevations; however, 
significant differences exist between the locations of the contour lines used to define the 
potentiometric surface. These differences translate into significant deviations (up to 60 m) in the 
water table elevations in the areas to the north and west, where there is a pronounced gradient to 
the water table and few borehole constraints. In general, the water table elevations as indicated 
by DTN: MO0212GWLSSPAX.000 [161271] are higher than the corresponding elevations from 
DTN: GS010608312332.001 [155307], resulting in a shorter distance for radionuclide transport 
through the UZ. It is recommended that for future revisions of this document, a single water 
table be generated using the best available data and conceptual models. Such a surface could be 
applied to the full range (e.g., UZ modeling, SZ modeling, and repository design) of Yucca 
Mountain studies, and would reduce potential inconsistencies and differences between these 
products. 
7.2 RESTRICTIONS FOR SUBSEQUENT USE 
The UZ Model numerical grids developed herein shall be used only for development of UZ 
hydrogeologic property sets, for UZ Model calibration, and for development of UZ flow fields 
for Performance Assessment. These activities will involve the use of software from the 
TOUGH2 family of codes. 
7.3 TECHNICAL PRODUCT OUTPUT 
The technical product output files for this Scientific Analysis report have been submitted to the 
TDMS and are included in the following Output-DTNs: 
LB02081DKMGRID.001 
LB0208HYDSTRAT.001 
LB02092DGRDVER.001 
LB03023DKMGRID.001 

8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
The following is a list of the references cited in this document. Column 1 represents the unique 
six digit numerical identifier (the Document Input Reference System [DIRS] number), which is 
placed in the text following the reference callout (e.g., BSC 2002 [155950]). The purpose of 
these numbers is to assist the reader in locating a specific reference. Within the reference list, 
multiple sources by the same author (e.g., BSC 2002) are sorted alphabetically by title. 
8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
160333 Aurenhammer, F. 1991. Voronoi DiagramsA Survey of a Fundamental Geometric 
Data Structure. ACM Computing Surveys, 23, (3), 345-405. [New York, New 
York]: Association for Computing Machinery. TIC: 240932. 
159356 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow 
and Transport Modeling. ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020211.0002. 
155950 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. FY 01 Supplemental Science and Performance 
Analyses, Volume 1: Scientific Bases and Analyses. TDR-MGR-MD-000007 REV 
00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20010801.0404; MOL.20010712.0062; MOL.20010815.0001. 
159124 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020530.0078. 
159527 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Repository Design, Repository/PA IED 
Subsurface Facilities Plan Sht. 1 of 5, Sht. 2 of 5, Sht. 3 of 5, Sht. 4 of 5, and Sht. 5 of 
5. DWG-MGR-MD-000003 REV A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020601.0194. 
159530 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Rock Properties Model Analysis Model Report. 
MDL-NBS-GS-000004 REV 00 ICN 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20020429.0086. 
160819 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. 
159051 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Technical Work Plan for: Unsaturated Zone 
Sections of License Application Chapters 8 and 12. TWP-NBS-HS-000003 REV 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020613.0192. 

160146 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Total System Performance Assessment-License 
Application Methods and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020923.0175. 
161726 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Repository Design, Repository/PA IED 
Subsurface Facilities. 800-IED-EBS0-00401-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20030109.0145. 
161727 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Repository Design, Repository/PA IED 
Subsurface Facilities. 800-IED-EBS0-00402-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20030109.0146. 
161731 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Repository Design, Repository/PA IED 
Subsurface Facilities. 800-IED-EBS0-00403-000-00B. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20030109.0147. 
107905 Buesch, D.C. and Spengler, R.W. 1999. Correlations of Lithostratigraphic Features 
with Hydrogeologic Properties, a Facies-Based Approach to Model Development in 
Volcanic Rocks at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Proceedings of Conference on Status 
of Geologic Research and Mapping in Death Valley National Park, Las Vegas, 
Nevada, April 9-11, 1999. Slate, J.L., ed. Open-File Report 99-153. Pages 62-64. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 245245. 
100106 Buesch, D.C.; Spengler, R.W.; Moyer, T.C.; and Geslin, J.K. 1996. Proposed 
Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic 
Units of the Paintbrush Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File 
Report 94-469. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: 
MOL.19970205.0061. 
157916 Curry, P.M. and Loros, E.F. 2002. Project Requirements Document. TER-MGR-
MD-000001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20020806.0027. 
103371 Czarnecki, J.B.; Nelson, P.H.; OBrien, G.M.; Sass, J.H.; Thapa, B.; Matsumoto, Y.; 
and Murakami, O. 1995. Testing in Borehole USW G-2 at Yucca Mountain: The 
Saga Continues. Eos, 76, (46), 191-192. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 240933. 
142594 Czarnecki, J.B.; OBrien, G.M.; Nelson, P.H.; Sass, J.H.; Bullard, J.W.; and Flint, 
A.L. 1994. Is There Perched Water Under Yucca Mountain in Borehole USW G2? 
Eos (Supplement), 75, (44), 249-250. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 226992. 
102884 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization 
Project Site Atlas 1995. Two volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy. ACC: MOL.19960311.0262. 

100633 Ervin, E.M.; Luckey, R.R.; and Burkhardt, D.J. 1994. Revised Potentiometric-
Surface Map, Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations 
Report 93-4000. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: 
NNA.19930212.0018. 
104367 Finsterle, S. 1999. ITOUGH2 Users Guide. LBNL-40040. Berkeley, California: 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. TIC: 243018. 
100033 Flint, L.E. 1998. Characterization of Hydrogeologic Units Using Matrix Properties, 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4243. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980429.0512. 
154365 Freeze, G.A.; Brodsky, N.S.; and Swift, P.N. 2001. The Development of Information 
Catalogued in REV00 of the YMP FEP Database. TDR-WIS-MD-000003 REV 00 
ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20010301.0237. 
107934 Haukwa, C. and Wu, Y.S. 1997. Grid Generation and Analysis. Chapter 4 of The 
Site-Scale Unsaturated-Zone Model of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the Viability 
Assessment. Bodvarsson, G.S., Bandurraga, T.M., and Wu, Y.S., eds. LBNL-40376. 
Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: 
MOL.19971014.0232. 
101243 Haukwa, C.; Wu, Y.; and Bodvarsson, G.S. 1997. Modeling Study of Moisture 
Flow Using a Refined Grid Model. Chapter 12 of The Site-Scale Unsaturated Zone 
Model of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the Viability Assessment. Bodvarsson, G.S.; 
Bandurraga, T.M.; and Wu, Y.S., eds. LBNL-40376. Berkeley, California: 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19971014.0232. 
161647 Haukwa, C.B.; Wu, Y-S.; and Bodvarsson, G.S. 2003. Modeling Thermal-
Hydrological Response of the Unsaturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to 
Thermal Load at a Potential Repository, (In Press), Journal of Contaminant 
Hydrology, Vols. 62-63, April-May 2003. Memorandum from C.B. Haukwa 
(LBNL), Y-S. Wu (LBNL), and G.S. Bodvarsson (LBNL), to Records Processing 
Center (RPC), February 5, 2003, with attachments. ACC: MOL.20030210.0259. 
155955 Hinds, J. 2001. Unsaturated Zone Modeling & Synthesis. Scientific Notebook 
YMP-LBNL-YSW-JH-2. ACC: MOL.20010725.0216. 
151762 IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997. Standard for Use of the International System of Units (SI): 
The Modern Metric System. New York, New York: Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers. TIC: 240989. 
101258 Loeven, C. 1993. A Summary and Discussion of Hydrologic Data from the Calico 
Hills Nonwelded Hydrogeologic Unit at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-12376-MS. 

Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: 
NNA.19921116.0001. 
100161 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. 
103777 Moyer, T.C.; Geslin, J.K.; and Buesch, D.C. 1995. Summary of Lithologic Logging 
of New and Existing Boreholes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, July 1994 to November 
1994. Open-File Report 95-102. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 
224224. 
162418 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 
Information Only. NUREG-1804, Draft Final Revision 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 
TIC: 254002. 
100605 Pruess, K. 1983. GMINC - A Mesh Generator for Flow Simulations in Fractured 
Reservoirs. LBL-15227. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. 
ACC: NNA.19910307.0134. 
100413 Pruess, K. 1991. TOUGH2A General-Purpose Numerical Simulator for 
Multiphase Fluid and Heat Flow. LBL-29400. Berkeley, California: Lawrence 
Berkeley Laboratory. ACC: NNA.19940202.0088. 
100643 Rautman, C.A. and McKenna, S.A. 1997. Three-Dimensional Hydrological and 
Thermal Property Models of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. SAND97-1730. 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: 
MOL.19980311.0317. 
102097 Rousseau, J.P.; Kwicklis, E.M.; and Gillies, D.C., eds. 1999. Hydrogeology of the 
Unsaturated Zone, North Ramp Area of the Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4050. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19990419.0335. 
154625 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2001. Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated 
Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model. ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 00 ICN 01. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20010405.0211. 
157611 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2001. Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated 
Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model. ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 01. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020209.0058. 
159673 Wang, J.S. 2002. Scientific Notebooks Referenced in AMR U0000, Development 
of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling, ANL-NBS-HS-000015 

REV01. Memorandum from J.S. Wang (BSC) to File, September 13, 2002, with 
attachments. ACC: MOL.20020917.0174. 
162380 Wang, J.S. 2003. Scientific Notebooks Referenced in Scientific Analysis Report 
U0000, Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Modeling, 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01. Memorandum from J.S. Wang (BSC) to File, 
March 04, 2003, with attachments. ACC: MOL.20030306.0526. 
100611 Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J. 1963. The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. 
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 3, (3), 245-255. Dallas, Texas: Society of 
Petroleum Engineers. TIC: 233671. 
161058 Wu, Y-S.; Zhang, W.; Pan, L.; Hinds, J.; and Bodvarsson, G.S. 2002. Modeling 
Capillary Barriers in Unsaturated Fractured Rock. Water Resources Research, 38, 
(11), 35-1 through 35-12. [Washington, D.C.]: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 
253854. 
154817 YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 2001. Q-List. YMP/90-55Q, 
Rev. 7. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: 
MOL.20010409.0366. 
159531 Zhang, W. 2000. UZ Modeling and Synthesis. Scientific Notebook YMP-LBNL-
YSW-WZ-1 (SN-LBNL-SCI-115-V1). ACC: MOL.20001025.0166. 
SOFTWARE CITED 
155383 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Software Code: VULCAN. V3.5NT. PC. 
10044-3.5NT-00. 
157019 CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management and 
Operating Contractor) 2000. Software Code: ARCINFO. V7.2.1. SGI Irix. 10033-
7.2.1-00. 
134134 Dynamic Graphics. 1997. Software Code: Earthvision. V4.0. Silicon Graphics 
Indigo R4000. 30035-1 V4.0. 
152614 Dynamic Graphics. 1998. Software Code: EARTHVISION. 5.1. Silicon Graphics 
Indigo R4000. 10174-5.1-00. 
140702 LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) 1999. DKMGenerator. V1.0. 
Unix. MOL.19990909.0315. 
146496 LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) 2000. Software Code: TOUGH2. 
V1.4. Sun Workstation and DEC/ALPHA. 10007-1.4-01. 
154785 LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) 2002. Software Code: 
WINGRIDDER. V2.0. PC. 10024-2.0-00. 

154787 LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) 2002. Software Routine: 
2kgrid8.for. V1.0. DEC-Alpha, PC. 10503-1.0-00. 
148304 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2000. Software Code: ARCINFO. V7.2.1. 10033-
7.2.1-01. 
8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
156605 10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
AP-2.21Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0, BSCN 001. Quality Determinations and Planning for Scientific, 
Engineering, and Regulatory Compliance Activities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20010212.0018. 
AP-2.22Q, Rev. 0, ICN 0. Classification Criteria and Maintenance of the Monitored Geologic 
Repository Q-List. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20020314.0046. 
AP-2.27Q, Rev. 0, ICN 0. Planning for Science Activities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20020701.0184. 
AP-SI.1Q, Rev. 4, ICN 0. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20030113.0149. 
AP-SIII.2Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0. Qualification of Unqualified Data and the Documentation of 
Rationale for Accepted Data. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20021105.0164. 
AP-SIII.9Q, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Scientific Analyses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20020404.0083. 
AP-SV.1Q, Rev. 0, ICN 3. Control of the Electronic Management of Information. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
MOL.20020917.0133. 
YMP-LBNL-QIP-SV.0 Rev. 2, Mod. 1. Management of YMP-LBNL Electronic Data. Berkeley, 
California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.20020717.0323. 
8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
149947 GS000508312332.001. Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale 
Flow and Transport Model. Submittal date: 06/01/2000. 

155307 GS010608312332.001. Potentiometric-Surface Map, Assuming Perched Conditions 
North of Yucca Mountain, in the Saturated Site-Scale Model. Submittal date: 
06/19/2001. 
108984 GS951108312231.009. Physical Properties, Water Content, and Water Potential for 
Borehole USW SD-7. Submittal date: 09/26/1995. 
108985 GS960808312231.004. Physical Properties, Water Content and Water Potential for 
Samples from Lower Depths in Boreholes USW SD- 7 and USW SD-12. Submittal 
date: 08/30/1996. 
106748 GS980808312242.014. Physical Properties of Borehole Core Samples and Water 
Potential Measurements Using the Filter Paper Technique for Borehole Samples from 
USW SD-6. Submittal date: 08/11/1998. 
107154 GS980908312242.038. Physical Properties and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity 
Measurements of Lexan-Sealed Samples from USW SD-6. Submittal date: 
09/22/1998. 
159525 LB0205REVUZPRP.001. Fracture Properties for UZ Model Layers Developed from 
Field Data. Submittal date: 05/14/2002. 
159526 LB0207REVUZPRP.001. Revised UZ Fault Zone Fracture Properties. Submittal 
date: 07/03/2002. 
159672 LB0207REVUZPRP.002. Matrix Properties for UZ Model Layers Developed from 
Field and Laboratory Data. Submittal date: 07/15/2002. 
153777 MO0012MWDGFM02.002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). Submittal 
date: 12/18/2000. 
155631 MO0106RIB00038.001. Water-Level Data and the Potentiometric Surface. 
Submittal date: 06/22/2001. 
155989 MO0109HYMXPROP.001. Matrix Hydrologic Properties Data. Submittal date: 
09/17/2001. 
160565 MO0110MWDGFM26.002. Vulcan GFM2000 Representation. Submittal date: 
10/18/2001. 
161271 MO0212GWLSSPAX.000. ASCII File, Extracted from DTN: 
MO0110MWDGFM26.002, Which Includes 1) Contours Digitized from DTN: 
GS010608312332.001 and 2) Water Levels from DTNS: MO0106RIB00038.001 and 
GS010608312332.001. Submittal date: 12/23/2002. 
161496 MO0301SEPFEPS1.000. LA FEP List. Submittal date: 01/21/2003. 

103769 MO9901MWDGFM31.000. Geologic Framework Model. Submittal date: 
01/06/1999. 
103771 MO9901MWDISMRP.000. ISM3.0 Rock Properties Models. Submittal date: 
01/22/1999. 
119199 MO9910MWDISMMM.003. ISM3.1 Mineralogic Models. Submittal date: 
10/01/1999. 
145731 MO9910MWDISMRP.002. ISM3.1 Rock Properties Models. Submittal date: 
10/06/1999. 
159524 SN0112T0501399.004. Three-Dimensional Rock Property Models (RPM2000). 
Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
8.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
LB02081DKMGRID.001. 2002 UZ 1-D and 2-D Calibration Grids. Submittal date: 
08/26/2002. 
LB03023DKMGRID.001. UZ 3-D Site Scale Model Grids. Submittal date: 02/26/2003. 
LB0208HYDSTRAT.001. 2002 UZ Model Grid Components. Submittal date: 08/26/2002. 
LB02092DGRDVER.001. Files for 2D Grid Verification. Submittal date: 09/30/2002. 

9. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment IElectronic GFM2000, ISM3.1, RPM2000, and Rock- and Fracture-Property Data 
Files Used to Develop UZ Model Numerical Grids 
Attachment IIDevelopment of Numerical Grids for 1-D Hydrogeologic-Property-Set 
Inversions 
Attachment IIIGrid Verification 
Attachment IVQualification of Water Table Contour Data 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

ATTACHMENT I 
ELECTRONIC GFM2000, ISM3.1, RPM2000, AND ROCK- AND FRACTUREPROPERTY 
DATA FILES USED TO DEVELOP UZ MODEL NUMERICAL 
GRIDS 
GFM2000 Files: (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) 
Isochores: Faults: 
ia00cLDRWC.2grd f00bowex.dat 
ia00cpv3RWC.2grd f00solEX.dat 
ia00cpv2RWC.2grd f00solwestEX.dat 
ia00cpv1RWC.2grd f00soljfatEX.dat 
ia00bt4RWC.2grd f00splaygEX.dat 
ia00tpyRWC.2grd f00splaynEX.dat 
ia00bt3RWC.2grd f00splaysEX.dat 
ia00tppRWC.2grd f00sundanceEX.dat 
ia00bt2RWC.2grd f00toeex.dat 
ia00trv3RWC.2grd f00severEX.dat 
ia00trv2RWC.2grd f00paganyEX.dat 
ia00trv1RWC.2grd f00drillEX.dat 
ia00trnRWC.2grd f00ghostEX.dat 
ia00trltfRWC.2grd f00ghostwEX.dat 
ia00tpulRWC.2grd f00duneEX.dat 
ia00tpmnRWC.2grd f00dunexEX.dat 
ia00tpllRWC.2grd f00dunew1EX.dat 
ia00tplnRWC.2grd f00imbex.dat 
ia00tpv3RWC.2grd f00exileEX.dat 
ia00tpv2RWC.2grd 
ia00tpv1RWC.2grd 
ia00bt1RWC.2grd 
ia00tacRWC.2grd 
ia00tacbtRWC.2grd 
ia00prowuvRWC.2grd 
ia00prowucRWC.2grd 
ia00prowmdRWC.2grd 
ia00prowlcRWC.2grd 
ia00prowlvRWC.2grd 
ia00prowbtRWC.2grd 
ia00bulluvRWC.2grd 
ia00bullucRWC.2grd 
ia00bullmdRWC.2grd 
ia00bulllcRWC.2grd 
ia00bulllvRWC.2grd Surface Horizons: 
ia00bullbtRWC.2grd s00bedrockRWC.2grd 
ia00tramuvRWC.2grd s00TpcpEXuncut.2grd 
ia00tramucRWC.2grd s00Tptpv3EXuncut.2grd 
ia00trammdRWC.2grd 
ia00tramlcRWC.2grd 
ia00tramlvRWC.2grd Other: 
ia00trambtRWC.2grd boreholepaths.dat contacts00el.dat 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01 Attachment I-1 April 2003 

ISM3.1 Files: mineralsM.pdat* (DTN: MO9910MWDISMMM.003 [119199]) 
CHnKsatEtype.out (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) 
CHnZksStrat.3grd (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) 
ISM31.seq (DTN: MO9910MWDISMRP.002 [145731]) 
*Data considered for corroborative purposes. 
RPM2000 Files: CHn-hmap_etype.out* (DTN: SN0112T0501399.004 [159524]) 
Rock and Fracture Property Data 
General borehole rock property data (DTN: LB0207REVUZPRP.002 
[159672]) 
Rock fracture property data (DTN: LB0205REVUZPRP.001 [159525]) 
Fault fracture property data (DTN: LB0207REVUZPRP.001 [159526]) 
Specific Borehole Rock Property Data 
Borehole DTN and Q-status Description 
SD-6 GS980808312242.014 [106748] qualified saturation, porosity 
SD-6 GS980908312242.038 [107154] qualified hydraulic conductivity 
SD-7 GS951108312231.009 [108984] qualified saturation, porosity 
SD-12 GS960808312231.004 [108985] qualified saturation, porosity 

ATTACHMENT II 
DEVELOPMENT OF NUMERICAL GRIDS FOR 1-D HYDROGEOLOGIC-
PROPERTY-SET INVERSIONS 
UZ Model numerical grids developed for the FY02 1-D hydrogeologic-property-set inversions 
are comprised of numerous 1-D columns centered at borehole coordinates, or in the case of 
boreholes closer than 80 m to each other, the midpoint location between the two boreholes 
(Wang 2003 [162380], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, p. 71). Layer subdivision within these 1-D 
columns is based on a combination of borehole stratigraphic picks identified in the GFM2000 
file contacts00el.dat (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) and HGU boundaries 
defined by Flint (1998 [100033]). 
The mesh files identified by Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 and created for use in 1-D 
hydrogeologic property set inversions and calibration for the UZ Model include: 
 
The primary effective-continuum model (ECM) mesh, Boreholes.mesh 
 
The ECM mesh Boreholes_NF.mesh with rock (rather than fault) matrix properties 
used for fault grid nodes, in turn used for generation of the dual-k mesh 
 
The dual-k mesh mesh_1d.dkm for transient (pneumatic) and steady-state simulations 
based on the Boreholes_NF.mesh file and the fracture values given in Table 4. 
The detailed steps describing the generation of these files are documented in scientific notebooks 
(Wang 2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-103-V1, pp. 134140, 145151; SN-LBNL-SCI-199-V1, 
pp. 8591; Wang 2003 [162380], SN-LBNL-SCI-103-V1, p. 139; SN-LBNL-SCI-199-V1, 
pp. 86, 8889). 
Table II-1 summarizes the layer contact elevation input to the 1-D inversion grids based on the 
GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) file contacts00el.dat. Note that the 
GFM2000 borehole elevations, which have been converted from feet to meters, are also adjusted 
in the same manner as described in Section 6.4.1 of this Scientific Analysis report to correspond 
with Flints (1998 [100033]) HGUs. The corresponding elevations for each of these HGU 
contacts as determined from the UZ Model grid file Boreholes.mck, is also given to provide a 
means of verifying the accuracy of the UZ Model results (Wang 2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-
213-V1, pp. 6769; Wang 2003 [162380], SN-LBNL-SCI-103-V1, p. 67). 
A total of 45 borehole locations were cross-checked. Note that in most cases, the differences in 
contact elevations are less than 5 m. There are several cases where deviations exceed this 
amount. A number of boreholes (e.g., UZ-7a, H-6, NRG#7, UZ#4/5) had greater than 5 m 
discrepancies for the elevation of the uppermost unit present. These differences (primarily at the 
bedrock surface) arise from channel erosion that produces surfaces with large local variations in 
slope and elevation. Although the nearest GFM2000 data point may be only meters to a few tens 
ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV01 Attachment II-1 April 2003 

of meters away, the highly variable surface elevations may result in the observed mismatches in 
the upper contact surfaces. These differences are restricted to the upper unit only, and thus 
should not have a significant impact on UZ Model flow and transport modeling results. 
Two boreholes (b#1 and N11) exhibit poor matches for most of the contact elevations, with an 
abrupt shift in elevations occurring below a given unit contact. Both of these boreholes are near 
faults, and differences in how faults were modeled in GFM2000 and the UZ Model grids may 
explain these discrepancies. In the case of N11, where there is a difference of over 50 m in most 
of the contact elevations, the borehole lies on the west side of the Solitario Canyon fault in the 
GFM2000 representation, but is situated on the east side of this fault in the UZ Model grid. The 
difference in contact elevations is similar to the observed vertical offset on the fault. The N11 
borehole is located ~2 km north of the proposed repository footprint (Figure 1b), and thus this 
discrepancy should have little impact on UZ flow and transport models for the proposed 
repository area. Because of the observed differences between GFM2000 (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) and UZ Model grid contact elevations, the b#1 and N11 
boreholes were not used for 1-D rock property calibration calculations. 

Table II-1. Comparison of Borehole Layer Contact Elevations from GFM2000 and UZ Model Grid 
UZ Model 
GFM2000 
HGU 
UE25#b1/a#1 
USW G-1 
USW G-2 
USW G-4 
USW H-1 
Unit 
Unit 
GFM20001 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
tcw11 
Tpcr 
CCR, CUC 
1553.87 
1553.712 
tcw12 
Tpcp 
CUL, CW 
1,153.4 
1,156.1 
1512.6 
1512.659 
1260.958 
1262.655 
1293.632 
1293.934 
tcw13 
Tpcpv3,2 
CMW 
1,146.0 
absent 
1485.29 
absent 
1234.135 
1234.133 
1284.732 
1284.968 
ptn21 
Tpcpv1 
CNW 
1,145.4 
1134.212 
1484.376 
1483.961 
1230.478 
1230.418 
1281.989 
1282.185 
ptn22 
Tpbt4+upper Tpy 
BT4 
1,143.3 
absent 
1309.2 
1309.45 
1482.242 
1481.804 
1227.125 
1227.101 
1275.893 
1276.083 
ptn23 
mid Tpy 
TPY 
absent 
absent 
1304.299 
1303.468 
1469.39 
1468.958 
absent 
absent 
1267.663 
1267.865 
ptn24 
lower Tpy+Tpbt3 
BT3 
1,142.4 
1131.843 
1301.299 
1300.468 
1459.586 
1459.17 
1224.747 
1224.72 
1260.958 
1261.173 
ptn25 
Tpp 
TPP 
1,138.7 
1127.739 
1286.34 
1285.567 
1403.238 
1402.876 
1218.834 
1218.847 
1245.413 
1245.609 
ptn26 
Tpbt2+Tptrv3,2 
BT2 
1,126.8 
1114.494 
1255.86 
1255.032 
1331.123 
1330.732 
1209.477 
1209.484 
1218.286 
1218.412 
tsw31 
Tptrv1 
TC 
1,117.1 
absent 
1245.192 
1244.388 
1320.15 
1319.759 
1197.254 
1197.259 
1202.741 
1202.952 
tsw32 
Tptrn 
TR 
1,115.1 
1102.955 
1243.192 
1242.388 
1318.15 
1317.759 
1195.254 
1195.259 
1200.741 
1200.952 
tsw33 
Tptrl+Tpul 
TUL 
1,075.0 
1061.772 
1193.986 
1193.215 
1276.777 
1276.417 
1148.06 
1148.069 
1149.401 
1149.597 
tsw34 
Tptpmn 
TMN 
993.5 
981.825 
1110.044 
1109.192 
1174.09 
1174.063 
1064.666 
1064.668 
1063.142 
1065.354 
tsw35 
Tptpll 
TLL 
967.7 
955.920 
1079.137 
1078.217 
1163.726 
1163.586 
1034.186 
1034.197 
1029.919 
1030.21 
tsw36 
upper Tptpln 
TM2 
856.5 
844.713 
961.9718 
961.1646 
1064.971 
1064.956 
926.3177 
926.425 
899.7696 
900.3949 
tsw37 
lower Tptpln 
TM1 
825.4 
816.428 
944.1309 
943.1175 
1058.916 
1058.846 
887.9942 
888.0687 
882.2944 
882.9135 
tsw38 
Tptpv3 
PV3 
809.9 
802.286 
935.2104 
934.094 
1055.888 
1055.791 
868.8324 
868.8906 
873.5568 
874.1729 
tsw39 
Tptpv2 
PV2 
793.7 
785.864 
918.3245 
917.0564 
1044.854 
1044.759 
860.0237 
860.0588 
855.4212 
856.0834 
ch1 
Tptpv1+Tpbt1 
BT1, BT1a 
788.8 
780.979 
912.8076 
911.5274 
1040.435 
1040.345 
857.5243 
857.5441 
850.331 
850.9791 
ch2 
upper 1/4 Tac 
CH 
778.8 
771.669 
892.9956 
892.0233 
1018.337 
1018.324 
840.5165 
840.5243 
844.6008 
845.1284 
ch3 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
743.7 
735.789 
869.305 
868.4537 
955.8757 
955.8505 
817.9613 
817.9547 
821.9694 
822.432 
ch4 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
845.6144 
844.8841 
795.4061 
795.3852 
799.338 
799.7356 
ch5 
lower 1/4 Tac 
CH 
821.9239 
821.3145 
772.8509 
772.8157 
776.7066 
777.0392 
ch6 
Tacbt 
BT 
798.2333 
797.7448 
750.2957 
750.2462 
754.0752 
754.3427 
pp4 
Prowuv 
PP4 
779.1528 
778.724 
732.8306 
732.8007 
736.092 
736.3386 
pp3 
Prowuc 
PP3 
759.798 
759.4007 
pp2 
Prowmd+Prow 
PP2 
pp1 
Prowlv+Prowbt+Bulluv 
PP1 
bf3 
Bulluc+Bullmd+Bulllc 
BF3 
bf2 
Bulllv+Bullbt+Tramuv 
BF2 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777]; Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: 1 GFM2000 data for b#1. A subset of these boreholes was used in 1-D Property Set Inversions. Depths given in meters. 

Table II-1. Comparison of Borehole Layer Contact Elevations from GFM2000 and UZ Model Grid (cont.) 
UZ Model 
GFM2000 
HGU 
USW H-3 
USW H-4 
USW H-5 
USW H-6 
UE#25 NRG#4 
Unit 
Unit 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
tcw11 
Tpcr 
CCR, CUC 
1483.467 
1482.424 
1478.89 
1477.951 
1292.962 
1303.709 
1249.988 
1249.887 
tcw12 
Tpcp 
CUL, CW 
1466.207 
1465.925 
1248.766 
1248.831 
1445.3 
1444.681 
1244.194 
1244.537 
1246.108 
1245.239 
tcw13 
Tpcpv3,2 
CMW 
1370.747 
1371.286 
1195.761 
1196.322 
1355.75 
1355.991 
1241.146 
1241.459 
1153.058 
1152.775 
ptn21 
Tpcpv1 
CNW 
1365.199 
1365.668 
1192.378 
1192.874 
1350.874 
1351.079 
1222.858 
1223.221 
1151.534 
1151.223 
ptn22 
Tpbt4+upper Tpy 
BT4 
1361.542 
1361.983 
1189.939 
1190.416 
1345.54 
1345.763 
absent 
absent 
1146.962 
1146.662 
ptn23 
mid Tpy 
TPY 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
1218.286 
absent 
absent 
absent 
ptn24 
lower Tpy+Tpbt3 
BT3 
1360.353 
1360.77 
1188.415 
1188.841 
1342.492 
1340.3 
1217.371 
1217.639 
1142.086 
1141.823 
ptn25 
Tpp 
TPP 
1356.36 
absent 
1182.929 
1183.442 
1335.329 
1335.52 
1213.714 
1214.006 
1135.685 
1135.431 
ptn26 
Tpbt2+Tptrv3,2 
BT2 
1356.36 
1356.737 
1180.49 
1181.028 
1323.442 
1323.615 
1201.522 
1201.762 
1110.386 
1110.143 
tsw31 
Tptrv1 
TC 
1347.826 
1348.126 
1172.261 
1172.831 
1307.592 
1307.783 
1199.522 
1199.762 
1102.157 
1101.87 
tsw32 
Tptrn 
TR 
1345.826 
1346.126 
1170.261 
1170.831 
1305.592 
1305.783 
1177.442 
1177.645 
1100.157 
1099.87 
tsw33 
Tptrl+Tpul 
TUL 
1322.862 
1323.116 
1134.161 
1134.673 
1265.53 
1265.736 
1103.071 
1103.359 
1048.664 
1048.393 
tsw34 
Tptpmn 
TMN 
1276.167 
1276.471 
1073.201 
1073.696 
1177.747 
1178.021 
1059.79 
1060.018 
tsw35 
Tptpll 
TLL 
1224.961 
1225.293 
1034.491 
1035.049 
1147.267 
1147.494 
967.74 
968.0029 
tsw36 
upper Tptpln 
TM2 
1163.452 
1163.756 
947.928 
948.4726 
1036.93 
1037.192 
944.1688 
944.4087 
tsw37 
lower Tptpln 
TM1 
1134.171 
1134.473 
907.6944 
908.251 
1010.107 
1010.321 
932.3832 
932.6117 
tsw38 
Tptpv3 
PV3 
1119.53 
1119.832 
887.5776 
888.1402 
996.696 
996.8859 
902.8176 
903.0982 
tsw39 
Tptpv2 
PV2 
1084.783 
1085.145 
880.2624 
880.734 
973.2264 
973.4256 
899.16 
899.4235 
ch1 
Tptpv1+Tpbt1 
BT1, BT1a 
1074.725 
1075.087 
868.68 
869.2362 
969.264 
969.4739 
888.7968 
889.0499 
ch2 
upper 1/4 Tac 
CH 
1056.742 
1057.069 
847.344 
848.0614 
959.2056 
959.3875 
881.0244 
881.2959 
ch3 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
1053.922 
1054.238 
827.913 
828.6188 
945.8782 
946.072 
873.252 
873.542 
ch4 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
1051.103 
1051.407 
808.482 
809.1762 
932.5508 
932.7565 
865.4796 
865.788 
ch5 
lower 1/4 Tac 
CH 
1048.283 
1048.575 
789.051 
789.7336 
919.2235 
919.441 
857.7072 
858.0341 
ch6 
Tacbt 
BT 
1045.464 
1045.744 
769.62 
770.2909 
905.8961 
906.1255 
842.4672 
842.7937 
pp4 
Prowuv 
PP4 
1027.786 
1028.084 
752.8865 
753.6395 
886.0841 
886.3395 
828.1416 
828.495 
pp3 
Prowuc 
PP3 
1020.775 
1021.054 
742.188 
743.0525 
879.348 
879.5576 
813.816 
814.126 
pp2 
Prowmd+Prow 
PP2 
983.5896 
983.8958 
843.3816 
843.6558 
788.5176 
788.8992 
pp1 
Prowlv+Prowbt+Bulluv 
PP1 
964.692 
964.9361 
829.6656 
829.9347 
bf3 
Bulluc+Bullmd+Bulllc 
BF3 
897.636 
897.8414 
bf2 
Bulllv+Bullbt+Tramuv 
BF2 
752.856 
753.1556 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777]; Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: A subset of these boreholes was used in 1-D Property Set Inversions. Depths given in meters. 

Table II-1. Comparison of Borehole Layer Contact Elevations from GFM2000 and UZ Model Grid (cont.) 
UZ Model 
GFM2000 
HGU 
UE#25 NRG#5 
UE#25 NRG-6 
UE#25 NRG-7a 
USW SD-6 
USW SD-7 
Unit 
Unit 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
tcw11 
Tpcr 
CCR, CUC 
1495.349 
1495.412 
tcw12 
Tpcp 
CUL, CW 
1241.007 
1239.184 
1277.722 
1283.19 
1277.569 
1291.754 
1472.299 
1472.224 
1363.98 
1362.601 
tcw13 
Tpcpv3,2 
CMW 
1206.307 
1206.628 
1261.659 
1261.554 
1239.347 
1234.845 
1368.979 
1369.086 
1271.016 
1271.179 
ptn21 
Tpcpv1 
CNW 
1201.278 
1201.715 
1258.763 
1258.603 
1233.221 
1229.901 
1364.59 
1364.668 
1267.663 
1267.791 
ptn22 
Tpbt4+upper Tpy 
BT4 
1199.205 
1199.598 
1251.814 
1251.722 
1229.045 
1225.738 
1360.505 
1360.602 
1264.676 
1264.795 
ptn23 
mid Tpy 
TPY 
absent 
absent 
1245.433 
1244.768 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
ptn24 
lower Tpy+Tpbt3 
BT3 
1197.925 
1198.265 
1240.394 
1240.869 
1227.247 
1224.024 
1356.451 
1356.551 
1263.213 
1263.303 
ptn25 
Tpp 
TPP 
1194.237 
1194.494 
1230.478 
1230.335 
1223.802 
absent 
1349.045 
1349.14 
1259.434 
1259.514 
ptn26 
Tpbt2+Tptrv3,2 
BT2 
1180.247 
1180.591 
1204.021 
1203.916 
1222.675 
1220.493 
1346.363 
1346.453 
1255.471 
1255.592 
tsw31 
Tptrv1 
TC 
1168.359 
1168.713 
1192.621 
1192.461 
1213.531 
absent 
1335.115 
1335.18 
1246.236 
1246.327 
tsw32 
Tptrn 
TR 
1166.359 
1166.713 
1190.621 
1190.461 
1211.531 
1209.552 
1333.115 
1333.18 
1244.236 
1244.327 
tsw33 
Tptrl+Tpul 
TUL 
1116.787 
1117.237 
1137.148 
1136.969 
1174.151 
1172.198 
1302.715 
1302.787 
1217.676 
1217.75 
tsw34 
Tptpmn 
TMN 
1030.224 
1030.781 
1057.351 
1057.121 
1235.354 
1235.444 
1155.954 
1156.091 
tsw35 
Tptpll 
TLL 
1000.658 
1002.85 
1015.411 
1015.292 
1192.073 
1192.177 
1119.134 
1119.219 
tsw36 
upper Tptpln 
TM2 
904.0368 
903.9169 
1097.585 
1097.692 
1053.084 
1053.035 
tsw37 
lower Tptpln 
TM1 
869.127 
869.2099 
1066.902 
1067.005 
1020.166 
1020.158 
tsw38 
Tptpv3 
PV3 
851.6722 
851.8564 
1051.56 
1051.661 
1003.706 
1003.719 
tsw39 
Tptpv2 
PV2 
838.8096 
838.919 
1037.234 
1037.334 
972.312 
972.4217 
ch1 
Tptpv1+Tpbt1 
BT1, BT1a 
833.4451 
833.5818 
1032.053 
1032.144 
965.3016 
965.3709 
ch2 
upper 1/4 Tac 
CH 
826.3128 
826.387 
1019.556 
1019.646 
935.5531 
935.7576 
ch3 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
1011.707 
1011.792 
923.2392 
923.4592 
ch4 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
1003.859 
1003.938 
910.9253 
911.1608 
ch5 
lower 1/4 Tac 
CH 
996.0102 
996.0834 
898.6114 
898.8624 
ch6 
Tacbt 
BT 
988.1616 
988.2292 
886.2974 
886.564 
pp4 
Prowuv 
PP4 
972.6168 
972.6871 
869.7468 
869.9841 
pp3 
Prowuc 
PP3 
965.0273 
965.0948 
862.1268 
862.45 
pp2 
Prowmd+Prow 
PP2 
924.7632 
924.841 
826.008 
826.324 
pp1 
Prowlv+Prowbt+Bulluv 
PP1 
913.7904 
913.8426 
793.3944 
793.756 
bf3 
Bulluc+Bullmd+Bulllc 
BF3 
848.4413 
848.5061 
bf2 
Bulllv+Bullbt+Tramuv 
BF2 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777]; Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: A subset of these boreholes was used in 1-D Property Set Inversions. Depths given in meters. 

Table II-1. Comparison of Borehole Layer Contact Elevations from GFM2000 and UZ Model Grid (cont.) 
UZ Model 
GFM2000 
HGU 
USW SD-9 
USW SD-12 
UE#25 UZ#4/5 
UE#25 UZ-6 
USW UZ-1/14 
Unit 
Unit 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM20002 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM20003 
UZGrid 
tcw11 
Tpcr 
CCR, CUC 
1501.446 
1500.024 
tcw12 
Tpcp 
CUL, CW 
1303.02 
1301.601 
1323.746 
1319.003 
1189.33 
1194.513 
1480.806 
1480.864 
tcw13 
Tpcpv3,2 
CMW 
1285.585 
1285.393 
1250.747 
1250.691 
1179.454 
1178.984 
1384.706 
1382.479 
ptn21 
Tpcpv1 
CNW 
1279.703 
1279.489 
1245.718 
1245.633 
1177.442 
1176.162 
1372.819 
1372.966 
ptn22 
Tpbt4+upper Tpy 
BT4 
1275.131 
1274.913 
1243.371 
absent 
1171.042 
1170.298 
1369.619 
1369.766 
1339.6 
1338.763 
ptn23 
mid Tpy 
TPY 
1268.447 
1268.24 
absent 
absent 
1163.474 
1163.726 
absent 
absent 
1334.733 
1332.634 
ptn24 
lower Tpy+Tpbt3 
BT3 
1265.447 
1265.24 
1242.67 
1242.548 
1160.474 
1160.726 
1368.186 
1368.322 
1332.733 
1330.592 
ptn25 
Tpp 
TPP 
1255.624 
1255.428 
1238.921 
1238.791 
1148.212 
1148.619 
1364.254 
1364.416 
1320.58 
1317.966 
ptn26 
Tpbt2+Tptrv3,2 
BT2 
1233.952 
1233.767 
1234.989 
1234.878 
1108.253 
1108.838 
1362.608 
1362.807 
1278.427 
1276.032 
tsw31 
Tptrv1 
TC 
1221.181 
1221 
1224.839 
1224.731 
1096.061 
1096.891 
1352.398 
1352.604 
1265.595 
1263.237 
tsw32 
Tptrn 
TR 
1219.181 
1219 
1222.839 
1222.731 
1094.061 
1094.891 
1350.398 
1350.604 
1263.595 
1261.237 
tsw33 
Tptrl+Tpul 
TUL 
1165.86 
1165.689 
1190.732 
1190.622 
1326.185 
1326.38 
1220.637 
1217.538 
tsw34 
Tptpmn 
TMN 
1080.516 
1080.378 
1121.451 
1121.398 
1264.31 
1264.554 
1133.769 
1131.36 
tsw35 
Tptpll 
TLL 
1045.22 
1045.081 
1083.899 
1083.817 
1221.943 
1222.135 
1099.326 
1096.919 
tsw36 
upper Tptpln 
TM2 
942.7464 
942.5479 
998.982 
998.8207 
1138.733 
1139.025 
1004.838 
1001.555 
tsw37 
lower Tptpln 
TM1 
906.9832 
906.7829 
955.7817 
955.6774 
1109.675 
1109.94 
976.1666 
973.3775 
tsw38 
Tptpv3 
PV3 
889.1016 
888.9004 
934.1815 
934.1058 
1095.146 
1095.398 
961.8309 
959.2885 
tsw39 
Tptpv2 
PV2 
870.6917 
870.5053 
925.068 
925.0046 
1081.126 
1081.264 
937.7822 
935.5172 
ch1 
Tptpv1+Tpbt1 
BT1, BT1a 
868.4666 
868.2757 
916.0764 
915.9899 
1068.019 
1068.212 
930.1622 
927.9533 
ch2 
upper 1/4 Tac 
CH 
851.9465 
851.7716 
893.5212 
893.4719 
1056.437 
1056.566 
918.8236 
916.2651 
ch3 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
830.2676 
830.1 
879.1956 
879.1375 
1049.792 
1049.948 
897.96 
895.2167 
ch4 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
808.5887 
808.4284 
864.87 
864.8032 
1043.148 
1043.329 
877.0965 
874.1683 
ch5 
lower 1/4 Tac 
CH 
786.9098 
786.7568 
850.5444 
850.4688 
1036.503 
1036.711 
856.2329 
853.1199 
ch6 
Tacbt 
BT 
765.2309 
765.0852 
836.2188 
836.1344 
1029.858 
1030.093 
835.3694 
832.0715 
pp4 
Prowuv 
PP4 
748.0706 
747.9223 
821.3141 
821.1733 
1016.203 
1016.409 
818.2396 
814.8519 
pp3 
Prowuc 
PP3 
733.4402 
733.2986 
812.5968 
812.5241 
1009.498 
1009.693 
798.4581 
795.0506 
pp2 
Prowmd+Prow 
PP2 
779.0688 
778.9805 
968.0448 
968.2735 
787.8206 
784.2032 
pp1 
Prowlv+Prowbt+Bulluv 
PP1 
755.2944 
755.2224 
943.9656 
944.2452 
bf3 
Bulluc+Bullmd+Bulllc 
BF3 
bf2 
Bulllv+Bullbt+Tramuv 
BF2 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777]; Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: A subset of these boreholes was used in 1-D Property Set Inversions. Depths given in meters 
2 GFM2000 data for UZ#4 
3 GFM2000 data for UZ-14 

Table II-1. Comparison of Borehole Layer Contact Elevations from GFM2000 and UZ Model Grid (cont.) 
UZ Model 
GFM2000 
HGU 
UE-25 UZ#16 
USW UZ-N11 
USW UZ-N31/32 
USW UZ-N33 
USW UZ-N37 
Unit 
Unit 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM20004 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
tcw11 
Tpcr 
CCR, CUC 
1591.754 
1590.4 
tcw12 
Tpcp 
CUL, CW 
1207.709 
1206.519 
1589.294 
1590.4 
1267.358 
1268.672 
1316.096 
1317.546 
1245.931 
1249.623 
tcw13 
Tpcpv3,2 
CMW 
1176.894 
1176.393 
1584.594 
1527.931 
1238.098 
1238.968 
1316.096 
1315.646 
1223.65 
1224.214 
ptn21 
Tpcpv1 
CNW 
1173.175 
1172.661 
1583.223 
1526.528 
1234.592 
1234.821 
1313.2 
1312.708 
1220.084 
1220.49 
ptn22 
Tpbt4+upper Tpy 
BT4 
1170.828 
1170.255 
1578.132 
1524.853 
1232.886 
1233.371 
1306.617 
1306.123 
1218.072 
1218.335 
ptn23 
mid Tpy 
TPY 
absent 
absent 
1573.804 
1510.692 
absent 
absent 
1305.672 
1299.612 
ptn24 
lower Tpy+Tpbt3 
BT3 
1166.957 
1166.424 
1231.392 
1231.866 
ptn25 
Tpp 
TPP 
absent 
absent 
1227.734 
1228.838 
ptn26 
Tpbt2+Tptrv3,2 
BT2 
1162.263 
1161.761 
1219.048 
1220.769 
tsw31 
Tptrv1 
TC 
1149.888 
1149.557 
1206.581 
1209.008 
tsw32 
Tptrn 
TR 
1147.888 
1147.557 
1205.667 
1207.008 
tsw33 
Tptrl+Tpul 
TUL 
1110.752 
1110.504 
tsw34 
Tptpmn 
TMN 
1053.694 
1053.462 
tsw35 
Tptpll 
TLL 
1015.898 
1015.648 
tsw36 
upper Tptpln 
TM2 
934.8216 
934.4863 
tsw37 
lower Tptpln 
TM1 
899.7696 
899.3915 
tsw38 
Tptpv3 
PV3 
882.2436 
881.8441 
tsw39 
Tptpv2 
PV2 
864.6566 
864.3239 
ch1 
Tptpv1+Tpbt1 
BT1, BT1a 
860.7552 
860.3443 
ch2 
upper 1/4 Tac 
CH 
854.964 
854.3603 
ch3 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
835.2739 
834.6529 
ch4 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
815.5838 
814.9455 
ch5 
lower 1/4 Tac 
CH 
795.8938 
795.2381 
ch6 
Tacbt 
BT 
776.2037 
775.5308 
pp4 
Prowuv 
PP4 
767.1816 
766.3932 
pp3 
Prowuc 
PP3 
763.3106 
762.4906 
pp2 
Prowmd+Prow 
PP2 
740.9688 
740.0902 
pp1 
Prowlv+Prowbt+Bulluv 
PP1 
bf3 
Bulluc+Bullmd+Bulllc 
BF3 
bf2 
Bulllv+Bullbt+Tramuv 
BF2 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777]; Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: A subset of these boreholes was used in 1-D Property Set Inversions. Depths given in meters 
4 GFM2000 data for N32 

Table II-1. Comparison of Borehole Layer Contact Elevations from GFM2000 and UZ Model Grid (cont.) 
UZ Model 
GFM2000 
HGU 
USW UZ-N53/54 
USW UZ-N55 
USW WT-1 
USW WT-2 
USW WT-7 
Unit 
Unit 
GFM20005 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
tcw11 
Tpcr 
CCR, CUC 
tcw12 
Tpcp 
CUL, CW 
1227.43 
1229.417 
1241.45 
1240.629 
1192.073 
1181.052 
1282.903 
1297.756 
1184.758 
1195.65 
tcw13 
Tpcpv3,2 
CMW 
1188.872 
1189.809 
1187.501 
1188.169 
1080.821 
1081.838 
1242.365 
1242.33 
1092.098 
1096.113 
ptn21 
Tpcpv1 
CNW 
1184.819 
1186.203 
1183.538 
1184.155 
1074.115 
1075.147 
1235.659 
1235.841 
1088.746 
1092.733 
ptn22 
Tpbt4+upper Tpy 
BT4 
1182.106 
1183.028 
1179.302 
1180.216 
1069.848 
1070.891 
1232.002 
1232.137 
1084.326 
1088.3 
ptn23 
mid Tpy 
TPY 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
ptn24 
lower Tpy+Tpbt3 
BT3 
1179.728 
1180.797 
1176.254 
1177.255 
1068.629 
1069.64 
1231.087 
1231.072 
1082.802 
1086.783 
ptn25 
Tpp 
TPP 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
absent 
ptn26 
Tpbt2+Tptrv3,2 
BT2 
1174.882 
1175.823 
1173.907 
1174.418 
1065.276 
1066.249 
1225.906 
1226.111 
1077.773 
1081.723 
tsw31 
Tptrv1 
TC 
1162.324 
1163.564 
1167.079 
1166.659 
1053.694 
1054.672 
1215.847 
1216.156 
1065.276 
1069.231 
tsw32 
Tptrn 
TR 
1166.287 
1164.659 
1051.694 
1052.672 
1213.847 
1214.156 
1063.276 
1067.231 
tsw33 
Tptrl+Tpul 
TUL 
1025.957 
1026.927 
1185.367 
1184.726 
1039.978 
1043.926 
tsw34 
Tptpmn 
TMN 
977.7984 
978.7964 
1121.359 
1120.757 
981.7608 
985.726 
tsw35 
Tptpll 
TLL 
930.5544 
931.6222 
1079.602 
1079.452 
904.6464 
908.6525 
tsw36 
upper Tptpln 
TM2 
839.4192 
840.6009 
992.124 
992.2496 
864.4128 
868.3616 
tsw37 
lower Tptpln 
TM1 
816.6608 
817.8055 
958.596 
958.5879 
824.5856 
828.5462 
tsw38 
Tptpv3 
PV3 
805.2816 
806.4078 
941.832 
941.7571 
804.672 
808.6385 
tsw39 
Tptpv2 
PV2 
793.6992 
794.7491 
928.4208 
928.2658 
785.1648 
789.0901 
ch1 
Tptpv1+Tpbt1 
BT1, BT1a 
784.2504 
785.3049 
915.924 
915.8546 
782.4216 
786.3244 
ch2 
upper 1/4 Tac 
CH 
779.3736 
780.3893 
899.16 
898.901 
ch3 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
765.6576 
766.6763 
883.7676 
883.5388 
ch4 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
751.9416 
752.9632 
868.3752 
868.1765 
ch5 
lower 1/4 Tac 
CH 
738.2256 
739.2502 
852.9828 
852.8143 
ch6 
Tacbt 
BT 
837.5904 
837.452 
pp4 
Prowuv 
PP4 
absent 
absent 
pp3 
Prowuc 
PP3 
815.34 
815.3688 
pp2 
Prowmd+Prow 
PP2 
781.2024 
781.2358 
pp1 
Prowlv+Prowbt+Bulluv 
PP1 
754.38 
754.3675 
bf3 
Bulluc+Bullmd+Bulllc 
BF3 
bf2 
Bulllv+Bullbt+Tramuv 
BF2 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777]; Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: A subset of these boreholes was used in 1-D Property Set Inversions. Depths given in meters 
5 GFM2000 data for N54 

Table II-1. Comparison of Borehole Layer Contact Elevations from GFM2000 and UZ Model Grid (cont.) 
UZ Model 
GFM2000 
HGU 
UE-25 WT#18 
USW WT-24 
Unit 
Unit 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
GFM2000 
UZGrid 
tcw11 
Tpcr 
CCR, CUC 
1336.246 
1335.836 
1493.518 
1492.268 
tcw12 
Tpcp 
CUL, CW 
1310.106 
1309.962 
1469.098 
1468.345 
tcw13 
Tpcpv3,2 
CMW 
1240.536 
1240.952 
1427.988 
1428.093 
ptn21 
Tpcpv1 
CNW 
1235.05 
1235.45 
1415.796 
1415.992 
ptn22 
Tpbt4+upper Tpy 
BT4 
1232.611 
1232.983 
1408.603 
1408.822 
ptn23 
mid Tpy 
TPY 
1221.537 
1221.926 
1399.184 
1399.395 
ptn24 
lower Tpy+Tpbt3 
BT3 
1214.425 
1214.821 
1390.802 
1391.022 
ptn25 
Tpp 
TPP 
1184.758 
1185.218 
1349.045 
1349.198 
ptn26 
Tpbt2+Tptrv3,2 
BT2 
1137.818 
1138.332 
1292.565 
1292.599 
tsw31 
Tptrv1 
TC 
1122.578 
1123.119 
1281.074 
1281.107 
tsw32 
Tptrn 
TR 
1120.578 
1121.119 
1279.074 
1279.107 
tsw33 
Tptrl+Tpul 
TUL 
1068.324 
1068.839 
1231.087 
1231.096 
tsw34 
Tptpmn 
TMN 
1007.669 
1007.687 
1142.482 
1142.494 
tsw35 
Tptpll 
TLL 
979.6272 
980.1595 
1108.954 
1109.128 
tsw36 
upper Tptpln 
TM2 
absent 
absent 
998.22 
998.5361 
tsw37 
lower Tptpln 
TM1 
absent 
absent 
987.044 
987.4208 
tsw38 
Tptpv3 
PV3 
878.7384 
879.184 
981.456 
981.8631 
tsw39 
Tptpv2 
PV2 
859.536 
859.9577 
969.0202 
969.4164 
ch1 
Tptpv1+Tpbt1 
BT1, BT1a 
851.0016 
851.4074 
966.155 
966.5284 
ch2 
upper 1/4 Tac 
CH 
842.4672 
842.8865 
954.3898 
954.7154 
ch3 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
ch4 
mid 1/4 Tac 
CH 
ch5 
lower 1/4 Tac 
CH 
ch6 
Tacbt 
BT 
pp4 
Prowuv 
PP4 
pp3 
Prowuc 
PP3 
pp2 
Prowmd+Prow 
PP2 
pp1 
Prowlv+Prowbt+Bulluv 
PP1 
bf3 
Bulluc+Bullmd+Bulllc 
BF3 
bf2 
Bulllv+Bullbt+Tramuv 
BF2 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777]; Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: A subset of these boreholes was used in 1-D Property Set Inversions. Depths given in meters 

ATTACHMENT III  GRID VERIFICATION 
This attachment describes the verification activities associated with the 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D UZ 
Model Grids. 
III.1 GRIDBLOCK ATTRIBUTE VERIFICATION 
Because the total number of gridblocks within the 3-D UZ Model grids is quite large, a subset of 
gridblocks from the model is evaluated to ensure the accuracy of the calculated gridblock 
volumes, connection lengths, and interface areas. These verification activities are described in 
scientific notebooks by Wang (2002 [159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, p. 93). 
Spot checks of the 1-D and 2-D mesh files were conducted to verify that the proper gridblock 
connections were created in mesh generation. For all 1-D and 2-D grid columns examined, 
gridblocks had the correct gridblock volumes and vertical connections with the adjoining 
gridblocks within the column (BETAX = -1). The lateral connections between gridblocks in 
adjoining columns for the 2-D mesh file were also spot-checked. These checks revealed that the 
examined gridblocks were laterally connected to neighboring blocks (in adjoining columns) and 
had the same assigned rock properties, with two exceptions. These exceptions were: (1) the 
neighboring column, or the column under investigation, was a fault block (fault blocks have 
different properties assigned to them), and (2) the rock type might be absent in the adjacent 
column, in which case the lateral connection was made with the stratigraphically closest rock 
type. Note that connections between gridblocks within columns associated with nonvertical 
(inclined) faults may be nonvertical, because the x, y locations of grid nodes within these 
columns can vary with depth. 
III.2 CONTACT ELEVATION VERIFICATION 
Model layer contact elevations for 45 grid columns were compared against the observed 
stratigraphic contact elevations contained in the GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 
[153777]) file contacts00el.dat. Given an estimated maximum error in layer contact elevations 
at column centers of about 5 m (see first paragraph of Section 6.6), a grid validation criterion of 
plus-or-minus 5 m for layer contact elevations in grid columns corresponding to borehole 
locations was established. Differences in layer contact elevations (values from UZ Model 
calibration grid subtracted from values from contacts00el.dat) are plotted in Figures III-1 and 
III-2. Line discontinuities indicate missing, or pinched out, layers for that particular location. 

Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777] 
NOTE: A negative value means the UZ Model layer contact elevation is higher than the stratigraphic pick. 
Figure III-1. Upper Contact Elevation Differences at Select Borehole Locations (GFM2000 file 
contacts00el.dat Minus UZ Model Grid) 

Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777] 
NOTE: A negative value means the UZ Model layer contact elevation is higher than the stratigraphic pick. 
Figure III-2. Upper Contact Elevation Differences at All Borehole Locations (GFM2000 file 
contacts00el.dat Minus UZ Model Grid) 

Note that in most cases, the differences in contact elevations are less than 5 m. There are several 
cases where deviations exceed this amount. A number of boreholes (e.g., UZ-7a, H-6, NRG#7, 
UZ#4/5) had greater than 5 m discrepancies for the elevation of the uppermost unit present. 
These differences (primarily at the bedrock surface) arise from channel erosion that produces 
surfaces with large local variations in slope and elevation. Although the nearest GFM2000 data 
point may be only meters to a few tens of meters away, the highly variable surface elevations 
may result in the observed mismatches in the upper contact surfaces. These differences are 
restricted to the upper unit only, and thus should not have a significant impact on UZ Model flow 
and transport modeling results. 
Two boreholes (b#1 and N11) exhibit poor matches for most of the contact elevations, with an 
abrupt shift in elevations occurring below a given unit contact. Both of these boreholes are near 
faults, and differences in how faults were modeled in GFM2000 and the UZ Model grids may 
explain these discrepancies. In the case of N11, where there is a difference of over 50 m in most 
of the contact elevations, the borehole lies on the west side of the Solitario Canyon fault in the 
GFM2000 representation, but is situated on the east side of this fault in the UZ Model grid. The 
difference in contact elevations is similar to the observed vertical offset on the fault. The N11 
borehole is located ~2 km north of the proposed repository footprint (Figure 1b), and thus this 
discrepancy should have little impact on UZ flow and transport models for the proposed 
repository area. Because of the observed differences between GFM2000 (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]) and UZ Model grid contact elevations, the b#1 and N11 
boreholes were not used for 1-D rock property calibration calculations. 
III.3 2-D CROSS SECTION VERIFICATION 
To verify the accuracy of the 2-D E-W cross section (Figures III-3 and III-4), ten selected 
adjacent pairs of grid columns were compared to a series of GFM2000 cross sections constructed 
using the location of each pair of grid column nodes as ends of the cross sections (Wang 2002 
[159673], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 9499). The apparent vertical offset between adjacent 
columns as seen in Figure III-3 is an artifact of the visualization generated by WINGRIDDER 
V2.0 (LBNL 2002 [154785]), and does not reflect how the layers are connected in the numerical 
grids (see Section 6.6 for more details). Cross sections constructed using EARTHVISION V5.1 
(Dynamic Graphics 1998 [152614]) and the following GFM surfaces (see Table III-1) were 
compared with the correlative UZ Model grid columns (Figures III-5 to III-7). 
Table III-1. UZ Model Layers and GFM2000 Surfaces 
File Name 
Corresponding UZ Model Layers 
REF00bedrock.m.2grd 
tcw11 
REF00tpcp.m.2grd 
tcw12, tcw13 
s00Tpcpv1EX.m.2grd 
ptn21, ptn22, ptn23, ptn24 
s00PahEX.m.2grd 
ptn25, ptn26 
s00Tptrv1EX.m.2grd 
tsw31, tsw32 
s00TptrlEX.m.2grd 
tsw33 
s00TptpmnEX.m.2grd 
tsw34 

Table III-1. UZ Model Layers and GFM2000 Surfaces (continued) 
File Name 
Corresponding UZ Model Layers 
s00TptpllEX.m.2grd 
tsw35 
s00TptplnEX.m.2grd 
tsw36, tsw37 
s00Tptpv3EX.m.2grd 
tsw38 
s00Tptpv2EX.m.2grd 
tsw39, ch1 
s00CalicoEX.m.2grd 
ch2, ch3, ch4, ch5, ch6 
s00ProwuvEX.m.2grd 
pp4, pp3, pp2 
s00ProwlvEX.m.2grd 
pp1 
s00BullfrogucEX.m.2grd 
bf3 
s00BullfroglvEX.m.2grd 
bf2 
s00TramucEX.m.2grd 
tr3 
gwl_sspac_60.96.2grd 
base of UZ 
The corresponding pairs of column coordinates used for each of the traverses are listed in Table 
III-2. 
Table III-2. Cross Section Traverse Columns 
Traverse 
# 
ID of W 
Column 
W Column 
Easting 
W Column 
Northing 
ID of E 
Column 
E Column 
Easting 
E Column 
Northing 
1 
q40 
168882.0938 
232653.5 
a63 
169150 
232650 
2 
e64 
170094.6094 
232454.7344 
q44 
170263.7031 
232385.9062 
3 
i24 
170539.8438 
232295.8125 
i29 
170564.875 
232218.7812 
4 
i40 
170614.9375 
232064.7031 
i41 
170769.0156 
232114.7656 
5 
i47 
170948.1094 
232087.7812 
i52 
170973.1406 
232010.75 
6 
i60 
171023.2031 
231856.6875 
i61 
171177.2812 
231906.7344 
71 
p 3 
171338.0469 
231868.3125 
p 2 
171388.5781 
231860.8594 
8 
q62 
171982.7969 
231801.2969 
q51 
172168.4062 
231811.0938 
92 
o 2 
172299.2812 
231776.0312 
o 1 
172358.8906 
231769.2031 
103 
a48 
172750 
231750 
q19 
173079.3906 
231774.7656 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777]; Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: 1- Columns separated by Ghost Dance Fault 
2- Columns separated by Imbricate Fault 
3- Column q19 adjacent to Toe Fault 
Using these traverse endpoints and the stacked GFM2000 surfaces listed in Table III-2, ten 2-D 
cross sections were created. The results of this comparison are shown below. Figures III-3 and 
III-4 depict the 2-D plan-view grid design and an East-West cross section from the UZ Model 
grid (file EWUZ7a_profile.eps from Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001) and illustrate the 
location of each of the column pairs used to construct the 10 traverses. Figures III-5 to III-7 
depict each of the GFM2000 traverse cross sections, sandwiched between the corresponding UZ 
Model columns. 

Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: Line A-A indicates location of cross section shown in Figure III-4. 
Figure III-3. 2-D (plan-view) UZ Model Grid Design 

Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
NOTE: UZ Model layer ptn23 does not occur within this traverse. Numbered column pairs were used to construct 
the comparison plots between the UZ Model grid and GFM2000. 
Figure III-4. Two-dimensional Cross Section from the UZ Model Grid 

Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777] 
Figure III-5. Traverses 14 of 2-D Cross Section, Comparing Results of UZ Model and GFM2000 Grids 

Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777] 
Figure III-6. Traverses 57 of 2-D Cross Section, Comparing Results of UZ Model and GFM2000 Grids 

Output-DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 (GFM2000) [153777] 
Figure III-7. Traverses 810 of 2-D Cross Section, Comparing Results of UZ Model and GFM2000 Grids 
For Traverses 16 and 8, the matches between the unit contacts for the GFM2000 cross sections 
and the UZ Model columns are extremely good, with minimal offset of units observed. These 
intervals are not intersected by faults, and thus a good match is expected. 
Discrepancies between unit contacts are observed for traverses (7, 9, 10) that cross or are 
immediately adjacent to faults. Most of the GFM2000 unit thicknesses in Traverse 7 (where the 
Ghost Dance fault passes) correlate with their counterparts for the two UZ Model columns; 
however, there are some differences in the location of the contact elevations. More significant 
differences are observed in Traverses 9 and 10. Substantial (~50 m) vertical offset is observed 
along the Imbricate fault, which cuts through Traverse 9, and discrepancies of up to 1020 m are 
observed between the UZ model column and GFM2000 contacts. Even larger discrepancies are 
observed between the GFM2000 cross section in Traverse 10 and the eastern UZ Model column. 

This difference may result from the nearby presence of the Toe fault, which is modeled as a 
vertical feature by the UZ model, but as a dipping fault in GFM2000 (DTN: 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [153777]). 
The comparisons made using column centers around faults in the UZ Model are affected by the 
closely spaced nature of the column nodes (5060 m), similar to the data resolution (61  61 m) 
of the GFM2000 grid (BSC 2002 [159124], Section 6.4.2). The localization of contact elevation 
discrepancies between the GFM2000 and UZ Model grids near faults results in part from the 
differences in the way that faults are represented in the two systems. The simplification of faults 
as required by the use of vertical columns in the UZ Model grids (Assumption 7) results in 
localized discrepancies between the two grids. However, as demonstrated by good matches 
observed in Traverses 16 and 8, the UZ Model grids accurately portray the stratigraphic 
representation of geologic units within structural blocks. 
III.4 3-D MESH VERIFICATION 
To verify the accuracy of the 3-D mesh and its connections, test simulations using isothermal, 
saturated conditions were conducted on the ECM mesh using TOUGH2 V1.4 (LBNL 2000 
[146496]). The goal of these simulations was to look for improperly connected gridblocks that 
would be identified by anomalous points on a pressure-elevation plot. Under steady-state 
conditions, the observed fluid pressures should vary linearly as a function of gridblock elevation. 
A description of the simulations and their results are given in Wang 2003 ([162380], SN-LBNLSCI-
213-V1, pp. 125131; SN-LBNL-SCI-103-V2, pp. 1728; SN-LBNL-SCI-199-V1, pp. 237 
238). 
Initial conditions of 25C, 500 bars water pressure, and a single suite of rock properties were 
assigned to all of the gridblocks. Large volume gridblocks located at the base of the grid served 
as a constant pressure boundary and the remaining gridblocks in the mesh were allowed to come 
to pressure equilibrium with this boundary condition. The simulations were run for 0.316  1018 
s to ensure that a steady-state solution would be obtained (Wang 2003 ([162380], SN-LBNLSCI-
199-V1, p. 238). 
Several modifications to some of the lateral connections in the 3-D mesh were made as a result 
of the simulation results. First, improper lateral connections between adjoining fault and 
repository columns were corrected (Wang 2003 [162380], SN-LBNL-SCI-103-V2, pp. 1723). 
During further evaluation of the 3-D grid, it was discovered that anomalous pressures were 
associated with some matrix columns adjacent to fault columns (Wang 2003 [162380], 
SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 125131; SN-LBNL-SCI-103-V2, pp. 2326). As mentioned in 
Section 6.3, some simplification of the GFM2000 faults was made in creating the UZ Model 
grids, including the representation of the Solitario Canyon and Solitario Canyon (west) faults as 
a single fault. The gridblocks with the anomalous pressure-elevation relations exhibited faultrelated 
stratigraphic offset with their neighboring columns. To ensure proper flow behavior in 
the grid, the columns with apparent fault-related offset were classified as "faults while 
reconstructing the 3-D grid so that lateral connections between gridblocks in these columns and 
those in the adjacent columns were made with the closest lateral neighbor, and not with the same 
stratigraphic interval. A total of 18 columns, all adjacent to faults, were adjusted in this manner. 

The pressure-elevation relation results from the test simulation conducted using the final 3-D 
mesh exhibited very little deviation from linearity (Figure III-8). 
A few small deviations were observed in this simulation were attributed to the presence of nonvertical 
connections associated with inclined fault columns. Larger pressure shifts were 
observed for gridblocks associated with faults with dips that had the largest deviation from 
vertical. This feature is a result of the non-orthogonal configuration of the 3-D grid (Wang 2003 
[162380], SN-LBNL-SCI-213-V1, pp. 130131). The changes in the 3-D mesh resulting from 
these test simulations were captured in the output DTN: LB03023DKMGRID.001. This DTN 
supersedes DTN: LB02083DKMGRID.001. These changes do not impact the 1-and 2-D grids of 
DTN: LB02081DKMGRID.001. 

Output-DTN: LB03023DKMGRID.001 
Figure III-8. Pressure-Evaluation Relations of 3-D Mesh (124,795 elements) after TOUGH2 Test 
Simulation